Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

So if Australia needs brute T56 power to replace E-1B's radials, they have three AEW options : Hawkeye, Orion and Hercules !
 
Last edited:
I must admit, I do like the notion of the Lockheed C-130 AEW being able to operate from austere airfields, affording them to be deployed more unpredictable to Indonesian intelligence and targeting. I particularly like the thought of C-130 AEW's operating in PNG.

Now to work out the 'rough' specification differences between the flight performances of the C-130E/H and P-3B/C to ascertain which has the best altitude performance.....

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
I must admit, I do like the notion of the Lockheed C-130 AEW being able to operate from austere airfields, affording them to be deployed more unpredictable to Indonesian intelligence and targeting. I particularly like the thought of C-130 AEW's operating in PNG.
Click to expand...
An argument, true. Albeit I suppose that any heavy AEW would operate from rearward bases anyway, leaving the forward bases for light AEW (like Tracers).
 
I wouldn't have thought austere airfield operations were a requirements for AEW, indeed apart from maybe emergency or administrative use it would be a detriment. A P3 for example would have a flight endurance of 10+ hours and continent spanning range, indeed that's why the RAAF P3 were based at Adelaide, it was a central location that could cover both coasts. This means they could cover vast areas or stay on station for long periods operating from main RAAF bases. Even as electronics became more reliable I'd suggest 70s AEW aircraft would be maintenance hogs that would require large teams of techos to keep them fully operational, and such teams wouldn't be available at austere bases.
 
Rule of cool said:
A P3 for example would have a flight endurance of 10+ hours and continent spanning range, indeed that's why the RAAF P3 were based at Adelaide, it was a central location that could cover both coasts. This means they could cover vast areas or stay on station for long periods operating from main RAAF bases. Even as electronics became more reliable I'd suggest 70s AEW aircraft would be maintenance hogs that would require large teams of techos to keep them fully operational, and such teams wouldn't be available at austere bases.
Click to expand...
I agree here; it make more sence to operate them from secure rear airbases & use tankers to compensate for additional flight time from them.
 
Pioneer said:
I must admit, I do like the notion of the Lockheed C-130 AEW being able to operate from austere airfields, affording them to be deployed more unpredictable to Indonesian intelligence and targeting. I particularly like the thought of C-130 AEW's operating in PNG.

Now to work out the 'rough' specification differences between the flight performances of the C-130E/H and P-3B/C to ascertain which has the best altitude performance.....

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
No thoughts required, props alone will tell you.

P-3s and C-130s use the same engines, and almost the same wing. The difference is props. P-3s have rounded tips on their props, gives them better performance at low altitude, while C-130s have squared-off props for better performance up high.




Rule of cool said:
I wouldn't have thought austere airfield operations were a requirements for AEW, indeed apart from maybe emergency or administrative use it would be a detriment. A P3 for example would have a flight endurance of 10+ hours and continent spanning range, indeed that's why the RAAF P3 were based at Adelaide, it was a central location that could cover both coasts. This means they could cover vast areas or stay on station for long periods operating from main RAAF bases. Even as electronics became more reliable I'd suggest 70s AEW aircraft would be maintenance hogs that would require large teams of techos to keep them fully operational, and such teams wouldn't be available at austere bases.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though I'd have two bases for the AEW planes. Just to save a couple hours of flight time each mission getting to the patrol area.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Agreed, though I'd have two bases for the AEW planes. Just to save a couple hours of flight time each mission getting to the patrol area.
Click to expand...

I think Tindal would be a good base, some 300km inland makes them less vulnerable than the coastal bases. I think that AEW could do 'shuttle' missions: take off from the main base, do the mission, land at the nearest base to maximise mission time, transit back to main base for proper turnaround.
 
Hm. Just thought - what would be New Zealand position in Australian-Indonesian tensions? While they aren't directly involved, they are still too close to felt secure.
 
Dilandu said:
Hm. Just thought - what would be New Zealand position in Australian-Indonesian tensions? While they aren't directly involved, they are still too close to felt secure.
Click to expand...

The RNZAF A4 purchase is right in this window. The RNZAF wanted 12 A4s and 6 TA4s, but the Government funded 10 and 4 for 1969 delivery, additionally the dorsal hump was fitted but the electronics were not installed. i'd suggest in this scenario the NZ government would find the money for those extra four A4s and fit them with the hump electronics. Its not much, but every bit helps.

Perhaps NZs Canberras would be kept, like Australia did with 2 sqn until 1980. Indeed they might run a joint pool of Canberras in secondary dutires until about 1980.
 
P-3s and C-130s use the same engines, and almost the same wing. The difference is props. P-3s have rounded tips on their props, gives them better performance at low altitude, while C-130s have squared-off props for better performance up high.
Click to expand...

Didn't knew that. Pretty interesting, and typical 1950's Lockheed smartness.
 
The RAN bought Skyhawks in 1965 and 1969 for delivery in 1967 and 1971 and RNZAF bought theirs in 1968 for delivery in 1970. Certainly, the first batch for the RAN can't be harmonised but perhaps the RAN's 2nd batch and the RNZAFs order might be harmonised, which might help both to get more aircraft than they actually did by buying a big batch.
 
Rule of cool said:
The RNZAF A4 purchase is right in this window. The RNZAF wanted 12 A4s and 6 TA4s, but the Government funded 10 and 4 for 1969 delivery, additionally the dorsal hump was fitted but the electronics were not installed. i'd suggest in this scenario the NZ government would find the money for those extra four A4s and fit them with the hump electronics. Its not much, but every bit helps.

Perhaps NZs Canberras would be kept, like Australia did with 2 sqn until 1980. Indeed they might run a joint pool of Canberras in secondary dutires until about 1980.
Click to expand...
I saw somewhere that the RNZAF wanted Phantoms and wasn't that far off getting them. They made a very good argument that anything less than the best, with such a small air combat force, was pointless.
 
Volkodav said:
I saw somewhere that the RNZAF wanted Phantoms and wasn't that far off getting them. They made a very good argument that anything less than the best, with such a small air combat force, was pointless.
Click to expand...

The RNAZAF received 13 x 3rd generation Canberras in 1958, that's what needed replacing.

IIUC the RNZAF looked at the F111, F5, F4 as well as the A4 and liked the F4 (surprise surprise) but the Government liked the F5 due to the cost. I'd lump it in the same basket as the RAN wanting CVA01 in 1964; who wouldn't want it but who's going to pay for it!

New Zealand wanted to have something that would be relevant in their alliance arrangements, not something that would fight off the Soviet Union's direct attacks on Aukland.
 
Rule of cool said:
The RNAZAF received 13 x 3rd generation Canberras in 1958, that's what needed replacing.

IIUC the RNZAF looked at the F111, F5, F4 as well as the A4 and liked the F4 (surprise surprise) but the Government liked the F5 due to the cost. I'd lump it in the same basket as the RAN wanting CVA01 in 1964; who wouldn't want it but who's going to pay for it!

New Zealand wanted to have something that would be relevant in their alliance arrangements, not something that would fight off the Soviet Union's direct attacks on Aukland.
Click to expand...
I suspect the only reason Australia got F-111 was replacing the Canberra became an election issue with the opposition pointing to an air force still waiting for its first supersonic fighter and having no supersonic strike aircraft in sight, while our northern neighbour was flying shiny new soviet types. Nothing triggers action more than the thought of losing government.
 
Volkodav said:
I suspect the only reason Australia got F-111 was replacing the Canberra became an election issue with the opposition pointing to an air force still waiting for its first supersonic fighter and having no supersonic strike aircraft in sight, while our northern neighbour was flying shiny new soviet types. Nothing triggers action more than the thought of losing government.
Click to expand...

Certainly, the Government was very active in Defence in 1963; M113s and DDGs were also ordered about then. However, an election wouldn't have been the 'only' reason for these purchases, their genesis occurred many years before they were ordered.
 
Interesting thread - and forgive the cliche ‘long time listener, first time caller’ any thoughts on how the UK would deal with East of Suez in this scenario? Assume the UK would still follow this policy, but would the UK stay in Singapore/Malaysia a little longer for an orderly handover of defence responsibilities to those countries?
 
Harryj22 said:
Interesting thread - and forgive the cliche ‘long time listener, first time caller’ any thoughts on how the UK would deal with East of Suez in this scenario? Assume the UK would still follow this policy, but would the UK stay in Singapore/Malaysia a little longer for an orderly handover of defence responsibilities to those countries?
Click to expand...
Interesting question! The presence of socialist Indonesia nearby clearly would be a major argument for Singapore/Malaysia to want more British presence in region. On the other hand... they have more powerful Australia as closer ally.
 
Harryj22 said:
Interesting thread - and forgive the cliche ‘long time listener, first time caller’ any thoughts on how the UK would deal with East of Suez in this scenario? Assume the UK would still follow this policy, but would the UK stay in Singapore/Malaysia a little longer for an orderly handover of defence responsibilities to those countries?
Click to expand...

The UK would be in the same position as Australia, no real changes until 1966 or so, when instead of Sukarno being replaced and the Confrontation winding down and Soviet support being abandoned he'll remain in power and keep acquiring Soviet kit and support. This means that decisions like cancelling the TSR2 and P1154 in 1965, withdrawing from EoS by 1975 and cancelling CVA01 in 1966 will likely still occur. However the precipitous withdrawal from EoS after the Nov 67 devaluation might be different, the British might not to withdraw quite so dramatically, they might still stick to much of the 1966 EoS withdrawal schedule, perhaps transferring much of their [presence to Australia for a few years.

I think at minimum even if they do cut and run by 71 they'll leave a bunch of kit behind for Australia as consolation for abandoning us yet again.
 
Just some idea from discussions with Russian friends about this AH:

1744911135795.png

USSR, for some unclear reason, did not export anti-submarine missiles (I suspect it may be caused by all those systems being nuclear-capable - Soviet military generally was wary of the idea of exporting hardware, that have nuclear version in Soviet service). So Indonesian Navy, after several unsucsessfull attempts to persuade Moscow, decided to took matters into its own hands.

By late 1970s, the P-20 missiles (export version of P-15 "Termit") were gradually replaced by longer range P-21/P-22 missiles (export version of P-15M and P-15MT) in Indonesian service. Therefore a surplus supply of older P-20 missiles became available. The majority of those weapons were relegated to the reserves, but then Indonesian naval engineers suggested something unorthodox; to create an anti-submarine missile by mating P-20 airframe and AT-1E air-dropped anti-submarine torpedo.

The project was conducted with technical assistance from Soviet engineers. From the standard P-20 missile, both the warhead and radar seeker was removed. Instead, the under-body carriage (connected to the missile structural frames) for a AT-1E torpedo was installed. The weight of removed warhead (480 kg) and seeker (circa 120 kg) together was roughly comparable with the weight of torpedo (580 kg). So by sacrificing some range - which was reduced to about 30 km - the missile could carry torpedo to the target.

The guidance system was reduced to programmable autopilot, that was set for azimuth and range before launch. Targeting data was provided by shipborne (or airborne) sonar, and manually input into "Klen" fire control system. After launch, the missile followed the pre-set azimuth at 200 meters altitude, till the pre-set range was reached; at this moment, the autopilot tried to activate the (nonexistent) seeker, but the command actually fired the explosive bolts, that released the torpedo.

The whole system was named "Naga Penyelam" ("Diving Dragon"). It could be launched from the minimally-modified P-15 missile launcher, with the hatch of different shape to accomodate the longer weapon:

1744912607366.png

The "Naga Penyelam" anti-submarine missile was adopted for Indonesian Navy service in early 1980s. It was installed mainly on Project 1159 light frigates, replacing about half of their standard missile armament. Some Project 59 frigates also got a containers of "Naga Penyelam" replacing their forward autocannon.
 
Archibald said:
Smart idea !
Click to expand...
Thank you)

Currently we are discussin, would it be possible to launch KSR-2/KSR-11 missiles from modified Tu-22K bomber? The missile theoretically fits the available space (after all, the KSR-2/11 is smaller than X-22 that Tu-22K was supposed to carry). What concerns me is the launch of transsonic missile at supersonic speed. Granted, the difference in max speed is not very great - loaded Tu-22K was able of Mach 1.5, and KSR-2/11 could reach Mach 1.2 in altitude flight. Still the difference exists.

My opinion is, that such launch is possible, but it would require A - switching off the high-thrust "boost" mode on missile engine (so the engine would start to work as "sustain" mode), and B - some kind of trapeze launcher, capable of moving missile away from bomber (so it would not get dragged to the plane)
 
Dilandu said:
Currently we are discussin, would it be possible to launch KSR-2/KSR-11 missiles from modified Tu-22K bomber? The missile theoretically fits the available space (after all, the KSR-2/11 is smaller than X-22 that Tu-22K was supposed to carry). What concerns me is the launch of transsonic missile at supersonic speed. Granted, the difference in max speed is not very great - loaded Tu-22K was able of Mach 1.5, and KSR-2/11 could reach Mach 1.2 in altitude flight. Still the difference exists.
Click to expand...
After discussion on other forums, concluded that Tu-22K could not be exported. There were only a limited number of those missile-carrying bombers produced at all, and all of them served till the collapse of USSR. They were considered too valuable assets to be sold.

But - it seems to be possible to modify the export Tu-22B (the decommissioned Tu-22R recon bomber with photo equipment removed - all Tu-22B were remade from Tu-22R) to carry KSR-2/KSR-11 missiles. The Tu-22R recon plane retained all bomber capabilities; its weapon bay could handle payload up to 9-ton FAB-9000 bombs. Its only difference from badic Tu-22 was photo eqipment installed.

So to turn Tu-22R into export-version missile carrier (Tu-22BK-2-11) all we need is to install a hardpoint trapeze for missile carrying in bomb bay and two-folded bomb bay doors from Tu-22K version. The Tu-22R have a standard search&acquisition radar already, and KSR-2/11 missiles use their own seekers to track target; they did not require mid-course guidance from plane. The launch trapeze required to push the missile from bomber hull at speed.
 
Last edited:
What about ECM?

Front line Western militaries tend to put a lot more effort into the electronic sphere than those a but further back. The US put a lot of effort into ECM and electronic surveillance in Vietnam, Israel became a master of it and often their older fighters would devote a pylon to an ECM pod rather than a weapon and the British quickly scrambled to get the Blue Eric onto Harriers and ALQ119s onto Vulcans in the Falklands.

When facing this Indonesian threat what ECM might Australia adopt?
 
Rule of cool said:
What about ECM?

Front line Western militaries tend to put a lot more effort into the electronic sphere than those a but further back. The US put a lot of effort into ECM and electronic surveillance in Vietnam, Israel became a master of it and often their older fighters would devote a pylon to an ECM pod rather than a weapon and the British quickly scrambled to get the Blue Eric onto Harriers and ALQ119s onto Vulcans in the Falklands.

When facing this Indonesian threat what ECM might Australia adopt?
Click to expand...
Probably the pods the US was using in Vietnam.
 
I'd think Australia would get into the electronics modification and upgrade business as it is one area where Australia could get an edge over Indonesia. I think they'd buy US ECM pods but they'd also upgrade and modify them using a domestic industry that would arise due to demand. I think that would also extend to upgrading other electronics such as radars and missiles, such as running the AIM9Bs through the FGW.2 upgrade programme.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom