Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

[uk 75]

Purely for fun and in no way wanting to hijack this excellent thread here is an off the wall version.

Noone expected Sir Alec Douglas Home to win the 1964 General Election. Nor did anyone expect his government to unravel the Welfare State and rebuild Britain's Armed Forces.
Grasping the nettle of the RAF's three new aircraft he sat down with the Chief of the Air Staff and the Chairnen of BAC and Hawker Siddeley. Three hours later modified versions of TSR2, HS1154 and HS681 were to be delivered before the end of the Parliament in 1969.
Six months later he chaired a similar meeting with the First Sea Lord and the Chairman of John Brown. The Navy would get its new carrier but again in a simpler more affordable version.
In 1966 Sir Alec received the Australian Prime Minister to discuss changes to Britain's presence in the Far East.
He proposed that the RN would relinquish its Singapore base in favour of closer co-operation with Australia in the face of Indonesia's increased purchase of Soviet weapons. A British carrier would rotate to Australia while RAF aircraft would do the same.
By 1969 the Australians were fed up with delays to the F111C while baseline TSR2s had joined RAF Strike Command and visited Australia. Sir Alec offered the RAAF delivery of a TSR2 squadron from RAF orders with the RAF getting a new order.
Sir Alec resisted calls from President Johnson for British forces to go to South Vietnam but agreed to send a British Brigade to Australia to cover for Australian units sent to Vietnam.
By 1970 the Australians and New Zealanders had withdrawn their forces to deal with Indonesian incursions into Papua New Guinea. They were joined by Gurkha units of the British Army supported by RAF 1154s and TSR2s.

Enough of daydreams and back to the topic

 

[Rule of cool]

Noone expected Sir Alec Douglas Home to win the 1964 General Election.

There was only something like 900 votes in it.

 

[Felocie]

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.

I’ve been thinking about this. The RAN ASW Hunter Killer structure demanded ASW planes to prevent long range incursion from Soviet submarines: they also predicted that these submarines would take part in a war between Indonesia and Australia as “volunteers” from the USSR (so as to avoid global conflict I suppose). So yeah, I do think Trackers would be a priority, if not Vikings down the track

 

[Rule of cool]

I’ve been thinking about this. The RAN ASW Hunter Killer structure demanded ASW planes to prevent long range incursion from Soviet submarines: they also predicted that these submarines would take part in a war between Indonesia and Australia as “volunteers” from the USSR (so as to avoid global conflict I suppose). So yeah, I do think Trackers would be a priority, if not Vikings down the track

There's a graphic in those NAA documents showing that land or carrier based ASW aircraft are needed to patrol an arc 80 miles out from the direction of travel for a convoy. The convoy they mentioned the most are military support ships sustaining the troops in S.E.A. rather than trade convoys keeping the general economy going. It reminded me of how the Melbourne escorted the Sydney on her 1st, 3rd and 4th trooping voyages to Vietnam.

 

[GK Dundas]

Thank you!

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 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.

Definitely the F8U2 variant.
When it comes to armament the other plus is that ADEN's usually work when you pull the trigger. As I recall the Mk 12's were a trifle problematic.
Trying to figure out how to increase the fuel capacity, still.

 

[Dilandu]

they also predicted that these submarines would take part in a war between Indonesia and Australia as “volunteers” from the USSR (so as to avoid global conflict I suppose).

Some rather weird assumption. USSR was pretty reluctant to participate directly in local wars around. At most, USSR was willing to send air defense forces to aid some friendly nation - SAM crews and interceptor pilots - but under strict instructions to operate only as territorial defense, never crossing the receiver nations borders (or flying over sea) so if pilot get shot down, he could not be captured and used as proof of Soviet involvement.

It's utterly unconceivable to think that USSR would "volunteer" a submarine crew (not merely a few technical specialists) to participate in local conflict, where USSR officially wasn't involved.

 

[Rule of cool]

Some rather weird assumption. USSR was pretty reluctant to participate directly in local wars around. At most, USSR was willing to send air defense forces to aid some friendly nation - SAM crews and interceptor pilots - but under strict instructions to operate only as territorial defense, never crossing the receiver nations borders (or flying over sea) so if pilot get shot down, he could not be captured and used as proof of Soviet involvement.

It's utterly unconceivable to think that USSR would "volunteer" a submarine crew (not merely a few technical specialists) to participate in local conflict, where USSR officially wasn't involved.

We know that now, but those NAA docs mention it, so it might not have been so clear in 1964. That said I doubt the Soviets would send majority Soviet crews on offensive combat missions. A few technical staff is a different matter.

 

[Felocie]

Some rather weird assumption. USSR was pretty reluctant to participate directly in local wars around. At most, USSR was willing to send air defense forces to aid some friendly nation - SAM crews and interceptor pilots - but under strict instructions to operate only as territorial defense, never crossing the receiver nations borders (or flying over sea) so if pilot get shot down, he could not be captured and used as proof of Soviet involvement.

It's utterly unconceivable to think that USSR would "volunteer" a submarine crew (not merely a few technical specialists) to participate in local conflict, where USSR officially wasn't involved.

Yeah but defence forces build for what they assume they will have to fight not what hindsight tells us they would fight.

 

[Dilandu]

We know that now, but those NAA docs mention it, so it might not have been so clear in 1964. That said I doubt the Soviets would send majority Soviet crews on offensive combat missions. A few technical staff is a different matter.

I seriously suspect - no offense - that it was partially because of ideological cliches, rather than realistic assumption. The long-standing "White Australia" policy was just started to get dismantled in mid-1960s, and the military likely still thought "those Indonesians just could not learn how to operate cutting edge military equipment that fast... it must be Soviets who pretended to be Indonesians".

 

[Felocie]

I seriously suspect - no offense - that it was partially because of ideological cliches, rather than realistic assumption. The long-standing "White Australia" policy was just started to get dismantled in mid-1960s, and the military likely still thought "those Indonesians just could not learn how to operate cutting edge military equipment that fast... it must be Soviets who pretended to be Indonesians".

Doesn’t a quite make sense. Australians were the first to predict Chinese expansion into the SCS in the 70s and prompted the US to take action regarding Taiwan. I don’t think they were entirely unaware of Wyatt was going on at a defence level. At a governmental level, yes definitely but naval intelligence knew what was up for most part.

 

[Dilandu]

Doesn’t a quite make sense. Australians were the first to predict Chinese expansion into the SCS in the 70s and prompted the US to take action regarding Taiwan. I don’t think they were entirely unaware of Wyatt was going on at a defence level. At a governmental level, yes definitely but naval intelligence knew what was up for most part.

Naval intelligence is subjected to bias as much as everyone else. And I do not insist on my theory; merely suggest that it's possible explanation, why such strange assumption about "Soviet volunteer submarines" was made.

P.S. It actually might be the opposite - that naval intelligence fabricated this idea to persuade government to took the threat of Indonesian subs seriously.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now that I'm back from getting my butt kicked at a couple of tabletop games...

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.

Overall agree with the proposed wing in terms of types.

I'd expect a couple more Skyhawks with buddy pods so that one can be flying whenever refuelable planes are up. So not 24/7 unless you're flying a 24/7 CAP with the Crusaders. Call it 5-7 with tanks, out of a total of 12-16 birds. Whether that's in one squadron or two we can argue separately.

Tracers are just short of required, even if their radar isn't the amazingness that is installed on E-2Cs. USN was running 3 per wing, IIRC.

If there's physically space for them, I'd want more S-2s.

And of course 5-7 Sea Kings.

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

The Crusaders at least did pretty well.

But it's been too long since I've read my copy, did Foch survive?

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)

There's going to be many of them in the Boneyard to buy. Might all need upgrading to -E(FN) standards, but there's a lot of them built to choose from.

When it comes to armament the other plus is that ADEN's usually work when you pull the trigger. As I recall the Mk 12's were a trifle problematic.

Ammo feed issues, it'd jam in the high g maneuvers. Just like every other HS404 20mm cannon. Not sure what the cure there would be.

Trying to figure out how to increase the fuel capacity, still.

The trick would probably be to make a dual-Sparrow rack to hang on the outer wing pylons and put drop tanks on the inboard pylons. A little custom fabrication work for some bored welders onboard ship, I suspect. And of course rigging the right electronic bits to talk to Sparrows on the wings.

Which would give you the same load as the Phantom, 4x Sparrows and 4x Sidewinders.

 

[Dilandu]

I'd expect a couple more Skyhawks with buddy pods so that one can be flying whenever refuelable planes are up. So not 24/7 unless you're flying a 24/7 CAP with the Crusaders. Call it 5-7 with tanks, out of a total of 12-16 birds. Whether that's in one squadron or two we can argue separately.

Tracers are just short of required, even if their radar isn't the amazingness that is installed on E-2Cs. USN was running 3 per wing, IIRC.

If there's physically space for them, I'd want more S-2s.

And of course 5-7 Sea Kings.

Hm, very reasonable, I agree!

There's going to be many of them in the Boneyard to buy. Might all need upgrading to -E(FN) standards, but there's a lot of them built to choose from.

Yep, exactly my opinion.

The trick would probably be to make a dual-Sparrow rack to hang on the outer wing pylons and put drop tanks on the inboard pylons. A little custom fabrication work for some bored welders onboard ship, I suspect. And of course rigging the right electronic bits to talk to Sparrows on the wings.

Hm. Would she still be able to fly from Hermes with such load?

 

[Dilandu]

So about RAN-1980 in this scenario:

Carriers:
HMAS Australia (former HMS Hermes) - obtained in 1969, fully commissioned 1972, get her Crusaders circa 1974-1975.
HMAS Melbourne - reduced to active reserve since 1973, maintained as anti-submarine carrier for the case of "big war" and reserve carrier in case HMAS Australia would be damaged/undergoing repairs.

Destroyers:
Perth-class missile destroyers (HMAS Perth, HMAS Hobart, HMAS Brisbane) - in service as OTL, modified from Tartar to Standard in mid-1970s. Ikara GMLS modified to fire Ikara-based SSM (Dropbear SSM)
Daring-class destroyers (HMAS Vampire, HMAS Vendetta, HMAS Duchess) - reduced to training roles & reserve since 1980. Fitted with container-based SSM in mid-1970s
Darwin-class light destroyers (HMAS Darwin, HMAS Adelaide, HMAS Brisbane, HMAS Tobruk (in construction), HMAS Voyager (in construction), HMAS Arunta (in construction)) - modified DDL project, with heavier emphasis on surface warfare. Only one helicopter, but four box launchers for Dropbear SSM and self-defense system (American Sea Sparrow or French Crotale) installed. In service since late 1970s, gradually replacing River-class and Daring-class units.

Frigates:
Leander-class frigates (HMAS Swan and HMAS Torres) - in service, equipped with self-defense SAM. Ikara GMLS modified to fire Ikara-based SSM (Dropbear SSM)
River-class frigates (four units) - gradually replaced by light destroyers

Corvettes:
Townsville-class missile corvettes (eight units) - build instead of OTL Fremantle-class patrol boats. Much larger, missile-capable units (four container launchers for Ikara/Dropbear), closevto initial plans for DDL ships. Armed with a 76-mm OTO Melara gun and self-defense SAM (Sea Sparrow or Crotale)

Submarines:
Oberon-class patrol submarines (eight units) - as OTL, but two nore units ordered in first half of 1970s.

Planned procurement for 1980-1990s:

* An American-build medium carrier (modified Tarawa hull, COSAG powerplant) to replace HMAS Australia by late 1980s.
* 2-3 air defense Spruance-class destroyers (Kidd-class) to replace Perth-class in 1990s
* NTU refit for Perth-class in 1980s, to use SM-2MR
* Two more light destroyers, to replace Leander-class frigates
* Four Upholder-class submarines to gradually replace Oberon-class

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hm. Would she still be able to fly from Hermes with such load?

The rack and a pair of Sparrows is about 2000lbs per side, and I'm assuming that MTOW would not increase. I thought there was a version of the F-8 that had 2 wing pylons per side...

So they'd be launching at 34,000lbs.

 

[Archibald]

The French Crusaders were F-8E, and the US ones were rebuild as F-8J - with some french goodies.

Ling-Temco-Vought F-8J Crusader

And Foch didn't survived.

 

[Felocie]

So about RAN-1980 in this scenario:

Carriers:
HMAS Australia (former HMS Hermes) - obtained in 1969, fully commissioned 1972, get her Crusaders circa 1974-1975.
HMAS Melbourne - reduced to active reserve since 1973, maintained as anti-submarine carrier for the case of "big war" and reserve carrier in case HMAS Australia would be damaged/undergoing repairs.

Destroyers:
Perth-class missile destroyers (HMAS Perth, HMAS Hobart, HMAS Brisbane) - in service as OTL, modified from Tartar to Standard in mid-1970s. Ikara GMLS modified to fire Ikara-based SSM (Dropbear SSM)
Daring-class destroyers (HMAS Vampire, HMAS Vendetta, HMAS Duchess) - reduced to training roles & reserve since 1980. Fitted with container-based SSM in mid-1970s
Darwin-class light destroyers (HMAS Darwin, HMAS Adelaide, HMAS Brisbane, HMAS Tobruk (in construction), HMAS Voyager (in construction), HMAS Arunta (in construction)) - modified DDL project, with heavier emphasis on surface warfare. Only one helicopter, but four box launchers for Dropbear SSM and self-defense system (American Sea Sparrow or French Crotale) installed. In service since late 1970s, gradually replacing River-class and Daring-class units.

Frigates:
Leander-class frigates (HMAS Swan and HMAS Torres) - in service, equipped with self-defense SAM. Ikara GMLS modified to fire Ikara-based SSM (Dropbear SSM)
River-class frigates (four units) - gradually replaced by light destroyers

Corvettes:
Townsville-class missile corvettes (eight units) - build instead of OTL Fremantle-class patrol boats. Much larger, missile-capable units (four container launchers for Ikara/Dropbear), closevto initial plans for DDL ships. Armed with a 76-mm OTO Melara gun and self-defense SAM (Sea Sparrow or Crotale)

Submarines:
Oberon-class patrol submarines (eight units) - as OTL, but two nore units ordered in first half of 1970s.

Planned procurement for 1980-1990s:

* An American-build medium carrier (modified Tarawa hull, COSAG powerplant) to replace HMAS Australia by late 1980s.
* 2-3 air defense Spruance-class destroyers (Kidd-class) to replace Perth-class in 1990s
* NTU refit for Perth-class in 1980s, to use SM-2MR
* Two more light destroyers, to replace Leander-class frigates
* Four Upholder-class submarines to gradually replace Oberon-class

I would say exercise the option to buy a 4th Perth and Dropbear should be separately developed from Ikara. Ikara is too slow. Otherwise a good plan I think

 

[Felocie]

Reading through this, will let you know if I find anything interesting

 

[Pioneer]

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.

Hence, ideally, a consortium approach, so as to share and cover R&D and set up manufacturing costs - an earlier Panavia, if you like....

Or

Perhaps Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, ....., as a joint program agree to design a carrier-centric fighter, which from the start was designed to incorporate the riggers of carrier stress for their navies, but in such a design, the ability to build a de-carrierised (land-based) derivative of the same aircraft with minimum production impact and maximum commonality. After all, this worked exceptionally well for the McDonnell with their F-4 Phantom II, where more F-4’s would be purchase by air forces than carrier-based variants.
Another couple of sample of such thinking by aviation companies was the F/A-18 Hornet, this is probably an excellent example of what I'm trying to convey - with it's ground-based F-18L Cobra proposal by Northrop:
- The Northrop F-18L being 3,493 kg (7,700-pounds) (approximately 30%) lighter than the carrier-centric McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A, due to a lighter landing gear, removal of the wing folding mechanism, and reduced part thickness in areas.
- It was to retained 71% commonality with the F/A-18 by parts weight, and 90% of the high-value systems, including the avionics, radar, and ECM suite, though alternatives were offered.
- Compared with 400 $ per kg of airplane to figured costs for F/A-18A the weight savings achieved in F-18L and with it the cost savings would have been impressive.

Then there was the Vought F-8 Crusader we’ve all focussed and discussed on this thread. Vought studying and proposing a land-based derivative - the V-1000, with the following attributes:
-1,762kg (3,884 pound) weight reduction.
- An increase in leading edge droop angle for improved maneuvering and cruise.
-Changing to the General Electric J79 engine in place of the larger, heavier and thirstier J57 turbojet
-Two M39A3 20mm cannons replace four Mk 12 (20mm) cannons for an installed weight saving of 61 pounds [The M39 cannon being a superior and more reliable cannon than the Mk 12].

Naturally, this supposed fighter would have to buck the then trends of size, weight and speed obsession, to achieve it’s priority design goal of being operate from small/medium carriers. The likes of the Northrop F-5A/B Freedom Fighter and the MiG-21 utterly emphasising that there was a clear want and need by air force of the world for a simple, lightweight fighter/fighter-bomber, to say nothing of commercial success.
Naturally, to emphasise the faith in capabilities of this proposed design, it’s sales would bloom if the likes of the RAF, RAAF, RCAF were to purchase the land-based derivative in numbers, which technically shouldn’t be an issue....
So maybe, just maybe a new tailor-made carrier-based fighter could have been developed.

Saying all this, I can't help reflecting on the Vought V-384. For the land derivative, swap-out the J65/Sapphire for a Avon for more commonality with the said air forces and growth potential.
Add two ADEN 30mm cannons.
Add two Aim-7 Sparrow III
Add a Douglas A-4E-like dorsal hump for avionics growth,.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Definitely the F8U2 variant.
When it comes to armament the other plus is that ADEN's usually work when you pull the trigger. As I recall the Mk 12's were a trifle problematic.
Trying to figure out how to increase the fuel capacity, still.

As per the Vought V-1000 proposal:
-Mk39 20mm cannons in place of Mk12's at minimum.

As for your want to increase fuel capacity, I'm assuming you're meaning internally? If so, possibly consider adopting Douglas method with their CA-4E/F, utilising a dorsal hump as a saddle-like tank.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

I would say exercise the option to buy a 4th Perth

I thought about that, but IMHO it would interfer with Hermes procurement.

Dropbear should be separately developed from Ikara. Ikara is too slow.

Would took too much time, I'm afraid. Developing the anti-ship missile from scratch, considering that Australia have no experience there.

Otherwise a good plan I think

Thanks!)

Perhaps Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, ....., as a joint program agree to design a carrier-centric fighter, which from the start was designed to incorporate the riggers of carrier stress for their navies, but in such a design, the ability to build a de-carrierised (land-based) derivative of the same aircraft with minimum production impact and maximum commonality.

Hm. Potentially possible, but it must be done in late 1950s - early 1960s. Otherwise everyone would just prefer Tartar-equipped frigates for budgetary reasons.

 

[Pioneer]

The rack and a pair of Sparrows is about 2000lbs per side, and I'm assuming that MTOW would not increase. I thought there was a version of the F-8 that had 2 wing pylons per side...

So they'd be launching at 34,000lbs.

The original V.384 design proposed four underwing hardpoints for four Sparrow I (beam-riding) missiles. But this was not pursued by the USN.

The later V-1000B was proposed with four underwing hardpoints, whether that what you were think of Scott Kenny? But this was a land-based derivative of the F-8 Crusader...

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Felocie]

I thought about that, but IMHO it would interfer with Hermes procurement.

My problem is that the carrier always needs an AWD. Have 3 and, per the rule of 3, you will always have an AWD for carrier work or for general purposes, never both. I would envision 1 destroyer always tasked to the carrier and the other 3 doing the same processes as with the Perths in OTL.

Would took too much time, I'm afraid. Developing the anti-ship missile from scratch, considering that Australia have no experience there.

Buy from the US then. Ikara is not suitable for conversion work. It’s just too slow

 

[Dilandu]

My problem is that the carrier always needs an AWD. Have 3 and, per the rule of 3, you will always have an AWD for carrier work or for general purposes, never both. I would envision 1 destroyer always tasked to the carrier and the other 3 doing the same processes as with the Perths in OTL.

Well, Australians planned to go for light destroyer concept anyway, and it's got Tartar/Standard as well.

Buy from the US then. Ikara is not suitable for conversion work. It’s just too slow

Buy what exactly? The only ASM USN have before 1977 is anti-surface RGM-66 Standard, and it's not exactly a great weapon. Merely a modified SAM with anti-radiation seeker, homing on enemy radars.

 

[Felocie]

Buy what exactly? The only ASM USN have before 1977 is anti-surface RGM-66 Standard, and it's not exactly a great weapon. Merely a modified SAM with anti-radiation seeker, homing on enemy radars.

Probably hold out until Harpoon in 77. SM was shown to be the superior close-mid range AShM anyway and Ikara would be too vulnerable to getting shot down while taking up a lot of space

 

[Dilandu]

Probably hold out until Harpoon in 77

Too great gap, from 1966 to 1978 at best (likely early 1980s). Australians can't afford their surface combatants being essentially nullified as fighting force for more than decade. RN is not a USN have nor powerful enough carrier aviation to ensure Indonesian surface fleet being out of game, nor numbers to overcame Indonesian missile salvoes by attrition.

SM was shown to be the superior close-mid range AShM anyway

Which is NOT what you would want, when the enemy have over-the-horizon P-15 Termit - and would have P-15M, with doubled range - and could blast your ships from standoff range. Or could switch off radars on its units, making them invulnerable for RGM-66. The RGM-66 was a very clear "better than nothing" solution, nothing more.

and Ikara would be too vulnerable to getting shot down while taking up a lot of space

The Ikara is already installed on destroyers and modern frigates, so Ikara-compatible missile would not took additional space. Australians also considered box-launched fold-wings Ikara to be pretty good idea in 1970s (even tested it)

 

[Dilandu]

Probably hold out until Harpoon in 77. SM was shown to be the superior close-mid range AShM anyway and Ikara would be too vulnerable to getting shot down while taking up a lot of space

Also the problem with RGM-66D for Australia is that only Perth-class destroyers with their Mk-13 launchers would be able to operate it as is. Other ships would require Mk-32 coffin-type launcher installation to do it.

 

[uk 75]

If Indonesia had received Soviet weapons on the scale of Egypt or India from 1966 to 1980 the United States would have responded as it did with Israel and Pakistan.
The Breshnev years were marked by a mixture of caution and opportunism so I am not sure how far the Soviets would have backed Sukharno. We also don't know whether he would have focussed on internal or external policy.
US policy under Johnson, Nixon and Carter would have been to offer Australia a full range of military equipment.
More F111s and F4s seem likely perhaps also A7s and A10s.
Additional Adams class DDGs could have been built or transferred. Perry FFGs might have arrived sooner than in OTL.
A Tarawa CVS or a Sea Control Ship (like Spain) and Harriers/Sea Harriers would come too. The Tarawa might be able to operate F8 then F18.

 

[Archibald]

Indeed a good case could be made that USSR fate was sealed with Brezhnev getting the leadership in 1964. Nuance: by 1964 USSR can largely survive if reforms are made, same story in the mid to late 1970's.
Problem with Brezhnev are two fold: corruption and power consolidation to absurd levels, past 1976. The third major issue is that the ailing Brezhnev lasted waaaaaay too long: almost into 1983. And since Chernenko was a duplicate: into March 1985, so more than 20 years of Brezhnev-ism.
Brezhnev methodically eliminated any possible rivals and successors in the Politburo until, circa 1981 only Suslov and Chernenko had a remote chance. Soviet leaders were ossified and ailing : heart attacks, cancer, dementia... as geriatric and senile as the French Army HQ in 1939 !
As from the outside (regional bosses going to Moscow thanks to a patron in the Politburo) he froze that process: after 1970 only 8 men made the ascent, among them Gorbachev.

 

[Dilandu]

If Indonesia had received Soviet weapons on the scale of Egypt or India from 1966 to 1980 the United States would have responded as it did with Israel and Pakistan.

Well, in 1960s they actually received more, but they paid for that. For USSR, Indonesia was a valuable client state, but not exactly in the area of major interest - pretty far from Middle East. Still, they have good strategic position and were pretty inconvenient for West, so they got a lot of rather cutting edge toys, like missile-carrying Tu-16K.

The Breshnev years were marked by a mixture of caution and opportunism so I am not sure how far the Soviets would have backed Sukharno. We also don't know whether he would have focussed on internal or external policy.

USSR would sold the weapons, that's for sure. Sukharno regime was a rather good buyer, eo at very least they would got all export-grade hardware and training.

Additional Adams class DDGs could have been built or transferred. Perry FFGs might have arrived sooner than in OTL.

Australians actually didn't like Perry. RAN argued, that it's merely an escort ship, and not suited for preceived high-intencity conflict. They chose Perry mostly because they have no other choice after "light destroyer" project failure; their 1960s Leander-class and Type 12-class frigates became obsolete and some replacement was required.

Sea Control Ship (like Spain) and Harriers/Sea Harriers would come too

Why would Australian want this? Against Tu-16K-11 (and lets not even start about Tu-22K), the Sea Harrier is of absolutely no use whatsoever.

 

[Dilandu]

Indeed a good case could be made that USSR fate was sealed with Brezhnev getting the leadership in 1964. Nuance: by 1964 USSR can largely survive if reforms are made, same story in the mid to late 1970's.

I agree completely, but let's not deviate too far away from thread, shall we?

 

[uk 75]

I agree with the points Dilandu makes above.
My only real objection is that if Indonesia becomes sufficient of a nuisance for Australia to form its own carrier task group then the easier option is to get either US or even UK assets involved.
I am reluctant to go too far from real world options

 

[Archibald]

How about a Moskva helocruiser for Indonesia, in the 1970's ?

 

[uk 75]

Moskva and Leningrad were still pretty useful ASW ships until Kiev and Minsk arrived and probably even then.
Various Swerdlows were decommissioned in this period. My money would be on Kashin class destroyers like India and submarines.

 

[Dilandu]

How about a Moskva helocruiser for Indonesia, in the 1970's ?

AS UK 75 said above - not likely. Those ships were valuable; Soviet Navy considered them very capable accets, and have no plans to decommission them until the end of their service life. Also, most of their missile weaponry - the M-11 "Shtorm" SAM and "Vikhr" anti-submarine missiles - were top secret, and not allowed for export ("Vikhr" also was a nuclear-only weapon, it didn't have conventional version like ASROC does).

An export version of Project 1123 - with export-cleared weaponry, like M-1 "Volna" SAM - was possible. I'm just not sure that Indonesians might want such a big and costly specialized unit. Project 1123 main purpose was to hunt enemy submarines - and with all respect to Australian submariners, they just didn't have the numbers to require a specialized helicopter cruiser to hunt them.

P.S. It's theoretically possible, that Indonesians might got interested in 1123M (modified) project. It was a direct predecessor of Project 1143 Kiev-class; an 1123 with angled flight deck, offset superstructure and the capability to operate Yak-38 VTOL. One such ship was actually laid up - the "Kiev" - but its construction was cancelled soon, after it becane apparent that it would basically be a weaker version of Project 1143 carrier-cruisers, but would cost almost the same. So she got scrapped.

I'm not sure, could Yak-38 be cleared for export, though. Probably yes, it was not exactly very impressive, and Soviet Navy from the very beginning considered it only an intermediate machine, to gain operational experience while the "true" supersonic VTOL fighter, the Yak-41/141 would be developed.

 

[Dilandu]

Various Swerdlows were decommissioned in this period. My money would be on Kashin class destroyers like India and submarines.

The export version of Project 956 (with export-grade equilment) is also possible; it was actually proposed for Poland.

 

[uk 75]

By the way apologies for using the old NATO tags. I really must sit down and get the right names. But the nicks were designed to be earworms.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The original V.383 design proposed four underwing hardpoints for four Sparrow I (beam-riding) missiles. But this was not pursued by the USN.

The later V-1000B was proposed with four underwing hardpoints, whether that what you were think of Scott Kenny? But this was a land-based derivative of the F-8 Crusader...

Regards
Pioneer

I don't remember now. Too many options. Might have been the F8U-3 design, might have even been the A-7 or YA-7F. I swear I read a thing about F-8s flying missions in Vietnam with 4x 2000lb bombs...

Anyways, I guess that would be an extra modification then, adding the extra wing pylons rated for ~3000lbs and getting the inner wing pylon plumbed.

Buy what exactly? The only ASM USN have before 1977 is anti-surface RGM-66 Standard, and it's not exactly a great weapon. Merely a modified SAM with anti-radiation seeker, homing on enemy radars.

Or using a regular RIM-66 in antiship mode, for anything within radar line-of-sight. Ask the Iranian Navy how well a Standard works as an AShM.

 

[Rule of cool]

Despite its size most of this Indonesian navy wouldn't be a significant threat to Australia. The missile boats and Corvettes would be used internally within the archipelago simply to keep control of the country. Such vessels would be a threat to RAN ships entering Indonesian waters, but such incursions would be rare and likely done as part of a large operation in a limited area. The RAN really only needs to worry about the Irian and the destroyers with long range venturing out into the ocean. I'd think these would be easier to deal with using the Melbourne and subs.

 

[Dilandu]

Or using a regular RIM-66 in antiship mode, for anything within radar line-of-sight. Ask the Iranian Navy how well a Standard works as an AShM.

It's within the horizon only. P-15 Termit is over-the-horizon.