Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

[Dilandu]

Before people get too far down the carrier rabbit hole the C11 equipped Essex class couldn't launch the Phantom and the Eagle could only operate the Spey Phantoms which cost 3 times as much as an F4J. The F8 left production in 1964 and the F14 started production in 1973 and F15 in 1974 so the F4 isn't a long-term solution by the early 70s even if it was suitable. All of this assumes the RAN could man and afford an Essex, Eagle or other big carrier, which they couldn't.

So it's Hermes, most likely, with a bunch of F-8E(FN) on it. Or - a new, presumably Tarawa-based carrier, which could be designed to minimize crew requirements (COSAG powerplant with steam boilers for cruising & gas turbines for max speed would require, if I recall correctly, only half as much personnel as all-steam plant of same power).

 

[uk 75]

A couple of snags.
Hermes was the one carrier certain to be saved as she could be used as a Commando ship and ASW helicopter carrier. She remained in fixed wing service getting a lot in till she retired for conversion.

Litton industries made a poor job of the Tarawas. There were problems with the system used to build them and with quality on the finished ships.

As far as I know there were no plans to offer carrier versions as the US Navy later received the Sea Control Ship and CVV designs.

Litton did propose a carrier design

Post in thread 'Zumwalt "borrows" (and adapts) European carrier designs...' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ts-european-carrier-designs.36286/post-628263

but it did not get support from the US for reasons explored in that thread.

Like the UK Australia either had to scale up to operate F4s or get out of the fixed wing carrier business. In fact she kept Melbourne going for a long time and tried to get Invincible and Harriers to replace her.

Also like UK buying F111s and a fixed wing carrier was not an option.

 

[Dilandu]

Hermes was the one carrier certain to be saved as she could be used as a Commando ship and ASW helicopter carrier. She remained in fixed wing service getting a lot in till she retired for conversion.

Well, she was suggested to RAN in 1968 OTL, and I suppose in this timeline RAN would likely struck a deal.

Litton industries made a poor job of the Tarawas. There were problems with the system used to build them and with quality on the finished ships.

As far as I know there were no plans to offer carrier versions as the US Navy later received the Sea Control Ship and CVV designs.

True. But in early 1970s, the Tarawa's were basically the largest design in production, that could be relatively easily adapted into medium-size carriers. I doubt that Australian would be interested in SCS - if they wanted a VTOL carrier, they could just order the modified Invincible. And CVV would be too late to fit the 1970s niche.

The problem with SCS is that it is not designed as "small strike carrier"; not supposed to dealt with a possible Tu-16 or Tu-22 missile salvoes. Its self-defense capability rely on the availability of supersonic VTOL fighter (that eventually didn't materialize). USN was willing to go with it, since SCS weren't their fleet backbone program. RAN could hardly afford it. So they likely would go for more conservative, but more reliable catapul carrier.

 

[uk 75]

The missing piece of the jigsaw is France.

After the UK's decision to cancel CVA01 France was the only country outside US with fixed wing modern carriers.

France briefly looked at the AFVG swing wing strike fighter but this was stillborn. I am one of the few fans of AFVG. It gave the French and British navies a competitor to F4 able to operate from Clemenceau and Hermes. But it was a paper plane and might well have become too heavy.

France took many years to get to the Rafale as a one plane replacement for the F8 and Super Etendard. It focussed instead on a replacement for Arromanches and evolved this into the De Gaulle.

I am not sure why France messed around with Jaguar and Super Etendard when Dassault had a Mirage family which could have provided France with a suitable aircraft.

Such a plane, a Mirage M could not only have met Australia's needs but encouraged others to look at fixed wing carriers.

 

[Archibald]

The missing piece of the jigsaw is France.

After the UK's decision to cancel CVA01 France was the only country outside US with fixed wing modern carriers.

France briefly looked at the AFVG swing wing strike fighter but this was stillborn. I am one of the few fans of AFVG. It gave the French and British navies a competitor to F4 able to operate from Clemenceau and Hermes. But it was a paper plane and might well have become too heavy.

France took many years to get to the Rafale as a one plane replacement for the F8 and Super Etendard. It focussed instead on a replacement for Arromanches and evolved this into the De Gaulle.

I am not sure why France messed around with Jaguar and Super Etendard when Dassault had a Mirage family which could have provided France with a suitable aircraft.

Such a plane, a Mirage M could not only have met Australia's needs but encouraged others to look at fixed wing carriers.

Nah, we have discussed Clemenceaus, PA58 and PH75 at length. A return of PA58 via Australia, now that would be something.

 

[uk 75]

A French carrier built in Australia would solve the problem.
Though it would help if France built two of their own and developed planes to go with them. French carriers are much needed then and now.

 

[Dilandu]

A French carrier built in Australia would solve the problem.

Australian shipyard in 1970s likely would not be able to handle such big project. And the necessity of American cooperation (like delivering catapults and arresting gears) would likely drive the prices up even more.

 

[Archibald]

The catapults were british, BS-5. Not sure new ones would be available, thinking about it. CdG on the contrary has cut-down Nimitz' C13, 75 m long instead of 90.

 

[Dilandu]

The catapults were british, BS-5. Not sure new ones would be available, thinking about it. CdG on the contrary has cut-down Nimitz' C13, 75 m long instead of 90.

That's my concern, too. And fitting old catapult on brand-new carrier doesn't looks exactly like best idea.

 

[Archibald]

Maybe we could strip a BS-5A out of Eagle when it goes to the breakers ? Probably a bad idea. We should probably buy American instead: C7, C11, C13 and my favorite - C14. Well if that Australian carrier is a reborn PA58, then it is a proto- CdG, all 45 000 tons of it, so time for a US shift.

Before the economy got devasted by the first oil shock, France had big plans for its navy : the Blue Plan, by Admiral De Joybert. It was bold and ambitious, alas it never got a chance. Check those links.

Google Search

(On line webpage translator, just cut and paste the link and check the languages).

Online Web Page Translator in all the languages • Lexilogos

web page translation: English French German Spanish Italian Dutch Portuguese Russian Greek Japanese Chinese Korean...

www.lexilogos.com

 

[Dilandu]

Maybe we could strip a BS-5A out of Eagle when it goes to the breakers ? Probably a bad idea.

Again, fitting old catapult to a new ship? Ordering the American would likely be simpler, I think.

 

[Rule of cool]

There is a very extensive document online from National Archives Australia about the 1963-65 carrier replacement deliberations, in particular it has the high level discussions on rebuilding an Essex and operating F4s from it. I'm doing a quick search but it's not jumping out at me, and I don't appear to have downloaded it.

It sheds a lot of light on questions about RAN carriers in the mid 60s, problems that only got worse 5 or more years later. The handwritten notes in the margins are particularly enlightening.

 

[Rule of cool]

I found it.

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

It's gold, all scanned from hand typed documents, many of British origin, classified Secret and above with hand annotated notes and remarks. The 1963 report into how the British should discharge EoS duties starts at page 158.

HMAS Melbourne retention starts at page 168.

 

[Pioneer]

The "supersonic plane for small carriers" concept was popular, but largerly killed by RIM-24 Tartar. The SAM-capabe frigates were viewed as much cheaper alternative.

Granted. But the Tartar was realistically a one trick pony, which allowed the likes of a Tu-16/Tu-22 to get within the immediate vicinity of your fleet/convoy. The USN - the daddy of naval warfare of the era fully appreciated that it was much more productive to intercept and destroy the bomber before it could launch its cruise missile(s) - aka Fleet Air Defence (FAD) program (Douglas F6D Missileer), which culminated into the TFX (GD/Grumman F-111B) and eventually the VFX (Grumman F-14).
So although Indonesia might only have a dozen or so Tu-16 and Tu-22's, those few bombers, concentrating their cruise missile from various points of the compass would greatly ware down the likes of HMAS Melbourne's escorts Tartar SAM's. By utilising the combination of E-1T Turbo Tracer's and fighter's, be it Vought V.384, CA-4E International Skyhawk, equipped with Aim-7 Sparrow AAM's, on CAP to intercept the Indoneasian bombers before they launch their cruise missiles, would greatly reduce both their element of their suprise and reduce the more elusive carrier-killer missiles inbound, giving the said Tartar SAM's a better chance.
Then, unlike the Tartar, the said fighter could be used in strike/interdiction role.

There is a very extensive document online from National Archives Australia about the 1963-65 carrier replacement deliberations, in particular it has the high level discussions on rebuilding an Essex and operating F4s from it. I'm doing a quick search but it's not jumping out at me, and I don't appear to have downloaded it.

It sheds a lot of light on questions about RAN carriers in the mid 60s, problems that only got worse 5 or more years later. The handwritten notes in the margins are particularly enlightening.

Any chance of a link to the said document?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Any chance of a link to the said document?

It's in my previous post, the View Digital Image.

It's all photographed documents.

 

[Pioneer]

It's in my previous post, the View Digital Image.

It's all photographed documents.

Thank you!

 

[Rule of cool]

Shame I didn't think of it days ago, it's a great insight into the Confrontation era.

 

[Scott Kenny]

CAC could do the turbo conversion fairly easily. Another idea would be updated the Tracers with a modern radar system, akin to an E-2 (although, obviously, not the exact same system).

Yes, upgrading the radar would be another very good thing to do, but IMO the turbo conversion takes priority to simplify fuel supply on the carrier. Then we can spend money on new radars (or ASW gear in the Trackers)

 

[Scott Kenny]

A French carrier built in Australia would solve the problem.
Though it would help if France built two of their own and developed planes to go with them. French carriers are much needed then and now.

France really cannot afford to develop a carrier based fighter unless they made it their entire fighter fleet, F-4 style. And even then it was so expensive that development was grossly prolonged.

I found it.

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

It's gold, all scanned from hand typed documents, many of British origin, classified Secret and above with hand annotated notes and remarks. The 1963 report into how the British should discharge EoS duties starts at page 158.

HMAS Melbourne retention starts at page 168.

Score!!!!

 

[Rule of cool]

France really cannot afford to develop a carrier based fighter unless they made it their entire fighter fleet, F-4 style. And even then it was so expensive that development was grossly prolonged.

By the 60s is wasn't even worth Britain a state of the art carrier fighter, and they needed 140. Countries like France which need about 40 have no hope, let alone Australia which bought 20 A4s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

My question : could one of these Essex been rebuild to drastically diminish its manpower requirements, helping its RAAN case ?

Somewhat.

Ditch all the 20mm and 40mm AA guns. Each quad Bofors mount needed 21 men, IIRC. Not sure what the 20mm guns need, at least 1 dude each and probably 2-3 to keep them fed with ammo.

With hydraulic catapults, you could get away with removing some boilers for GTs for a COSAG plant. Steam for cruise, GTs for sprint.

But if you're running steam cats, you're stuck needing even more boiler capacity than the Essex had.

I've been pondering the " Ultimate Crusader"" picture if you will the Tuasder two seater using a Spey powerplant. Equipped with APQ 64 for air intercept .
Armed with AIM-9 and AIM 7's and to further my delusions I thought I'd see if I could cram two 30 mm ADEN's .

I believe it'd work, assuming you mean F8U2 variant and not F8U3.

It'd take a slightly different version of the plane than the F8U-2T/TF-8A, as I don't think the elevators would allow for the stretched forward fuselage. You'd have to cut into the fuel tank volume instead. I think ADEN guns are close to the same volume as the Colt Mk12s/HS404s, so you could take a pair of ADENs instead of 4x Mk12.

 

[Dilandu]

Ditch all the 20mm and 40mm AA guns. Each quad Bofors mount needed 21 men, IIRC. Not sure what the 20mm guns need, at least 1 dude each and probably 2-3 to keep them fed with ammo.

Those were already removed from all refitted carriers, but it didn't exactly led to the lesser complement. The unmodified Essex with all her armament required 2700+ men. The SCB-125 with only four 5-inch guns left required 3050. The reduction of weapon crews was largerly nullified by increasing ammount of maintenance-heavy electric and electronic.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Those were already removed from all refitted carriers, but it didn't exactly led to the lesser complement. The unmodified Essex with all her armament required 2700+ men. The SCB-125 with only four 5-inch guns left required 3050. The reduction of weapon crews was largerly nullified by increasing ammount of maintenance-heavy electric and electronic.

Crud. And one of the things I wanted to do was swap the 5" turrets for either Mk11 or Mk13 missile launchers. (Yes, I have a thing for trading 5" guns for missile launchers!) Doubt that would save a whole lot of crew, if any.

 

[Dilandu]

Crud. And one of the things I wanted to do was swap the 5" turrets for either Mk11 or Mk13 missile launchers. (Yes, I have a thing for trading 5" guns for missile launchers!) Doubt that would save a whole lot of crew, if any

Well, this is perfectly possible tecnhically, but the crew requirements are unclear. The Mk-13 launcher is not maintenance-heavy (it was designed after USN realized, that Tartar missiles actually fare better NOT bein regulary checked in sea but as sealed rounds), but the required Tartar FCS would be more complex matter. Especially earlier versions.

P.S. The Mk-11 GMLS is an oudtaded design by late 1960s, its slower to reload and more maintenance-heavy than Mk-13.

 

[Felocie]

Before people get too far down the carrier rabbit hole the C11 equipped Essex class couldn't launch the Phantom and the Eagle could only operate the Spey Phantoms which cost 3 times as much as an F4J. The F8 left production in 1964 and the F14 started production in 1973 and F15 in 1974 so the F4 isn't a long-term solution by the early 70s even if it was suitable. All of this assumes the RAN could man and afford an Essex, Eagle or other big carrier, which they couldn't.

The defence budget was minuscule when compared to other countries, I’m certain with such an imminent threat this would be increased and thus more options would be available. Still, COSAG Tarawa is, in my opinion, the best bet for capability and operability even if the initial cost would be higher

 

[Dilandu]

The defence budget was minuscule when compared to other countries, I’m certain with such an imminent threat this would be increased and thus more options would be available

True, but Rule of Cool have a perfect point about A - limited Australian demand for carrier fighters, and B - limited availability of carrier fighters in 1970s time period. Sans Etendard IV (which is not actually a fighter) and F-14 Tomcat (which is just plainly too big and costly to buy in limited numbers), the only available ones are either F-8 from USN reserves, or F-4.

Still, COSAG Tarawa is, in my opinion, the best bet for capability and operability even if the initial cost would be higher

Agree completely, it would be the best compromise between availability & capabilities.

 

[Archibald]

France really cannot afford to develop a carrier based fighter unless they made it their entire fighter fleet, F-4 style. And even then it was so expensive that development was grossly prolonged.

Best hope would be the Mirage F1M53, but stock F1 had the Atar and, whatever the engine a naval F1 would need a larger wing. And everything else I mentionned, TBH is unaffordable.

 

[Dilandu]

Best hope would be the Mirage F1M53, but stock F1 had the Atar and, whatever the engine a naval F1 would need a larger wing. And everything else I mentionned, TBH is unaffordable.

Yep, it would require such a major redesign, that a new fighter would likely be easier to develope.

 

[Dilandu]

Speaking about possible Hermes deal (as most potentially realistic scenario): how do you suppose she would be renamed? Australian Navy generally tended to name any of its large units - missile destroyers, cruisers, carriers - after major cities, or the continent itself.

By 1968, both the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Australia named are free. As far as I know, Australians planned to use "HMAS Australia" to rename the HMS Invincible, when her sale was considered in 1980. So it seemingly stand to reason, that a new carrier - a flaship of the RAN - would be named HMAS Australia. She would likely be also the first Australian carrier to have official CV-04 hull designation (RAN switched from British pennant numbers to American hull numbers since 1969).

What kind of planes she would be able to operate? Her OTL air wing by 1970 consisted of:



My suggestion:

* F-8E(FN) Crusader - 8-10 planes - as main air defense and patrol interceptor. With French Cyrano radar and R.330 SARH missiles, it would actually be a viable counter to Tu-16K missile-carrying bombers with K-11 missiles. Since Hermes isn't exactly well-suited for Crusaders, I suppose, they would be forced to launch with lighter fuel load, and refuel in air for combat air patrol missions (and scramble against enemy attack could be performed with smaller fuel load anway)

* A-4G Skyhawk - 10-12 planes - as main attack plane and supplemental interceptor. While Skyhawk is subsonic, it's agility and Sidewinders should not be underestimated in fleet defense too.

* A-4G Skyhawk tankers - 2-4 planes - as in-air refuel for fighter and strike planes, equipped with D-704 "Buddy pod". Since range is quite essential, when dealing with land-based bombers, it stand to reason to have the onboard air refueling capabiliy

* E-1 Tracer AEW planes, perhaps? They are based on S-2 Tracker (which could operate even from smaller Melbourne), and their takeoff weight is roughly the same. While this plane is obsolete by 1960s, it's still better than nothing, and likely could be brought from USN supplies relatively easily due to being outdated.

* S-2 Tracker - 2-4 planes - as anti-submarine patrol units. Albeit I'm not sure that carrier, not intended as part of hunter-killer group, should carry the ASW planes. A larger number of helicopters might be more efficient in terms of group self-defense against submarines.

 

[uk 75]

Seems to work Though I am not sure how effective F8s would be.
I can imagine the RAAF urging the use of F111s to strike at Indonesian bases much like the RAF.
Melbourne is cheaper and as useful for working with Allies.

 

[Archibald]

The E-1B Tracer was retired from USN service late 1977.

Fichier:Grumman E-1B retirement Nov 1977.jpg — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dilandu]

Seems to work Though I am not sure how effective F8s would be.

Well, it's able to 1,6 Mach speed on altitude, and at least 750 km combat radius - i.e. it would be able to engage Tu-16K and probably Tu-22 also before they could reach the missile launch range. The F-8E(FN) version, equipped with Cyrano radar and R.530 missiles have at least some head-on engagement potential. So at very least, it could disupt the attacking bombers, and would not be easily swatted away by accompanying fighters.

I can imagine the RAAF urging the use of F111s to strike at Indonesian bases much like the RAF.

Problem with "F-111 would do everything" approach is A - that it would question the Navy usefulness, B - there are a lot of areas that F-111 cannot reach, and C - it's not guaranteed that the strikes would be sucsessfull. What if, for example, F-111 strikes would fail - for example, they would hit the decoy airbase? Or would be ambushed by Mig-25? Or Indonesians just stike first and wipe out F-111 force on ground?

The main idea of RAN operating a carrier in this timeline is that it would provide RAN with operational capability independent of RAAF. Its main goal would probably be operating further into the Indian Ocean, creating a credible threat to Java and Sumatra.

 

[Dilandu]

The E-1B Tracer was retired from USN service late 1977.

Which gave ample time for Australians to obtain a pair of them. The introduction of E-2 Hawkeye started in 1964; by 1968-1970s, there were at least one wing (VAW-121) that operated E-1 Tracers, so the planes and spare parts could be obtained.

 

[Archibald]

And by 1964 the E-2A was on the brink of disaster, cost overruns and teething troubles. The E-2B was being designed to try and correct the problems. All this probably extended the E-1B service life. Seems the Hawkeye really matured with the E-2C.

By the way, if the RAAN procures E-1Bs this may shake the Aéronavale into doing the same.

Well, it's able to 1,6 Mach speed on altitude, and at least 750 km combat radius - i.e. it would be able to engage Tu-16K and probably Tu-22 also before they could reach the missile launch range. The F-8E(FN) version, equipped with Cyrano radar and R.530 missiles have at least some head-on engagement potential. So at very least, it could disupt the attacking bombers, and would not be easily swatted away by accompanying fighters.

Hopefully this will not turn into Red Storm Rising Dance of vampires (sorry, couldn't resist).

* F-8E(FN) Crusader - 8-10 planes - as main air defense and patrol interceptor. With French Cyrano radar and R.330 SARH missiles, it would actually be a viable counter to Tu-16K missile-carrying bombers with K-11 missiles. Since Hermes isn't exactly well-suited for Crusaders, I suppose, they would be forced to launch with lighter fuel load, and refuel in air for combat air patrol missions (and scramble against enemy attack could be performed with smaller fuel load anway)

The Douglas D-701 buddy-buddy refueling nacelle is your friend (ha ha ha). Did wonder on the Etendard IVP, right off the 1960's. Yeah, I can really see your A4G refueling the Crusaders, makes ton of sense.

Please note that Crusader attrition may be atrocious, it already was in USN service on much larger carriers, and it was equally atrocious for the French, can't find the exact number. But the 18 modernized in 1990 (out of 42) were probably the atrition survivors, hence at least 24 crashed.

French Fleet Air Arm, THE web site about French Naval Aviation

Site Internet sur l'Aeronautique Navale - Web Site about French Naval Aviation.

www.ffaa.net

Vought (Chance) F-8E/ P (FN) Crusader [in english]

 

[Dilandu]

And by 1964 the E-2A was on the brink of disaster, cost overruns and teething troubles. The E-2B was being designed to try and correct the problems. All this probably extended the E-1B service life. Seems the Hawkeye really matured with the E-2C.

The E-2 is out of question for Hermes anyway; this plane empty is heavier than E-1 fully loaded.

By the way, if the RAAN procures E-1Bs this may shake the Aéronavale into doing the same.

French Navy was actually interested in AEW planes, but apparently thought it would be cheaper to obtain them from French industry. French aircraft industry made several proposals (Breguet one was based on Alize, the Dassault was based on Spirale) but they went nowhere, since Navy could not obtain funds for development.

Breguet Alize-bazed:



Dassault Spirale III-based:

 

[Dilandu]

Hopefully this will not turn into Red Storm Rising Dance of vampires (sorry, couldn't resist).

Heheh, I appreciate good homage)

The Douglas D-701 buddy-buddy refueling nacelle is your friend (ha ha ha). Did wonder on the Etendard IVP, right off the 1960's. Yeah, I can really see your A4G refueling the Crusaders, makes ton of sense.

Yep, I specifically mentioned the desire to have a few dedicated tanker Skyhawks - so they could not only ensure Crusader's full patrol time, but also augment the strike capability.

Please note that Crusader attrition may be atrocious, it already was in USN service on much larger carriers, and it was equally atrocious for the French, can't find the exact number. But the 18 modernized in 1990 (out of 42) were probably the atrition survivors, hence at least 24 crashed.

True, but it's more or less unavoidable; Crusader is the only efficient interceptor that could fly from those small carriers. So... Australians better have a plan to continuously buy replacements for the planes they crashed)

 

[uk 75]

I am wondering about the wider implications of an Indonesia getting Soviet backing and confronting Australia.
The US had taken over from Britain and until Nixon took over in 1969 was ramping up its war in Vietnam with an Australia/New Zealand involvement.
Meanwhile Wilson/Healey had kept Britain out of Vietnam but were still willing to support Australia.
RAF Vulcans and USAF B52s might have been available to deploy to Australia if Indonesia has started throwing its weight around.
The arrival of a US Seventh Fleet carrier would also have been an option. The UK might even have reconsidered Eagle's future.

 

[Dilandu]

I am wondering about the wider implications of an Indonesia getting Soviet backing and confronting Australia.

Well, they were more or less on this trail since early 1960s; usual post-colonial arguing about satellites and spheres of influence. Just this particular time, the opposing sides were more or less equival. Greater industrial power of Australia was compensated by Indonesia massively bigger population, and both sides relied heavily on imported/licensed weaponry.

The US had taken over from Britain and until Nixon took over in 1969 was ramping up its war in Vietnam with an Australia/New Zealand involvement.

It would kinda be harder for US to fight Vietnam War, if they would be constantly forced to watch their back around Indonesia also, true.

RAF Vulcans and USAF B52s might have been available to deploy to Australia if Indonesia has started throwing its weight around.
The arrival of a US Seventh Fleet carrier would also have been an option. The UK might even have reconsidered Eagle's future.

Well, USA would likely welcome the course of events that would force Australia to spend more on defense. Forcing its remote allies (like Australia and Canada) to spend more than bare minimum on defense was USA constant headache even during the Cold War.

Britain... well, Britain likely would not be able - or willing to - do much than in OTL. The general lack of desire to get involved anywhere outside the Europe and North Atlantic was pretty obvious by 1970s.

 

[Rule of cool]

I am wondering about the wider implications of an Indonesia getting Soviet backing and confronting Australia.
The US had taken over from Britain and until Nixon took over in 1969 was ramping up its war in Vietnam with an Australia/New Zealand involvement.
Meanwhile Wilson/Healey had kept Britain out of Vietnam but were still willing to support Australia.
RAF Vulcans and USAF B52s might have been available to deploy to Australia if Indonesia has started throwing its weight around.
The arrival of a US Seventh Fleet carrier would also have been an option. The UK might even have reconsidered Eagle's future.

There was some talk about the British moving their S.E.A. forces to Australia in the mid 60s. The problem was that this equated to about a division and if co-located at Australian bases would overshadow the Australian forces. Added to this, and probably more important, was Australia was fighting in Vietnam and Britain wasn't, so there would be a situation where the bigger, guest force was idle while the smaller host force was in a shooting war.

In this scenario perhaps Australia wouldn't have a problem with Britain withdrawing to Australia and remaining engaged in the region, maybe until the 1975 deadline that was planned in 1966 before devaluation. Its one thing to leave Malaysia and Singapore with a non-Confrontational Indonesia, it's another to leave Australia to face a Confrontational Indonesia, I suspect there would be public support in Britain for remaining in Australia as there are so many family ties. If this happened, I wouldn't be surprised if Eagle gets its Phantoms, which would be very cool.

 

[Felocie]

The E-1B Tracer was retired from USN service late 1977.

Fichier:Grumman E-1B retirement Nov 1977.jpg — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

RAN was able to procure USN surplus, the documents say that it would be done.