Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

[kocovgoce]

Australia had the Bloodhound 1 from 1961 to 1969, deployed to Darwin in 1965 for the Indonesian Confrontation and the Army had mobile 40mm bofors in the 60s. The Bloodhounds were retired and the Army got Redeye MANPADS and Rapiers in the 70s.

Australia isn't the best place for SAMs, the targets are too far apart to create any sort of interlocking SDAM system, so even Bloodhound 2s would be a point defence system, a big point to be sure and I think valuable, but only a few batteries in a handful of sites would make any sense. I suspect the Army would do something about it's air defence somewhat earlier, even if it was more portable AA guns.

Yes, that's right Australia is a large territory for SAM system coverage, however, my idea was to protect the air bases in the northern territory, or to transfer missile systems like the mim-23 hawk with helicopters or trucks where they need to be, or where the Indonesian Tupolev-22 might fly over to the big cities in the south

 

[kocovgoce]

In relation to the army, the centarion tanks would have to be kept in reserve ,
also the purchase of Mowag Piranha from Switzerland or LAV1 from Canada for better and faster transport of the troops where they will be needed along the coast

 

[Rule of cool]

Yes, that's right Australia is a large territory for SAM system coverage, however, my idea was to protect the air bases in the northern territory, or to transfer missile systems like the mim-23 hawk with helicopters or trucks where they need to be, or where the Indonesian Tupolev-22 might fly over to the big cities in the south

The big southern cities are pretty safe. The Tu 16 had a combat radius of about 1,800km and the Tu 22 was worse than that. Perth is the closest city to Indonesia, it's about 2,600km from the nearest islands.

In the early 70s there would have been a handful of airbases worth attacking. Darwin would be covered by the Bloodhound 2s which would also make attacking Tindal a bit tougher too, Christmas and the Cocos Islands would need to be heavily fortified and even Learmonth would need protecting as it was a staging base for F111s. I suspect the Hawk to be a good SAM, it's semi mobile yet as decent performance against targets that might be flying high or be armed with missiles.

 

[Rule of cool]

In relation to the army, the centarion tanks would have to be kept in reserve ,
also the purchase of Mowag Piranha from Switzerland or LAV1 from Canada for better and faster transport of the troops where they will be needed along the coast

Funnily enough Australia had a good number of Ferret Scout cars and enough Saracens and Saladins to stand up a small recon unit. But this was never done and these vehicles were replaced by M113s from 1965, despite them not being very old.

 

[Dilandu]

What will they acquire in terms of air defense, initially American Hawk systems and later in the mid-80s and Patriot

Likely they would stuck with Bloodhound Mk-II (refitting it several times) for the defense of most vital areas + brought Rapier for forward air defense. HAWK didn't seems like optimal solution.

 

[Dilandu]

Some naval consideration: Royal Australian Navy would likely need a more surface combat-oriented than OTL. Not that they could neglect escort & anti-submarine operations, of course, but the priority would likely be "massive clash with Indonesians along the northern coastline".

So the possibilities:

* Light destroyer proiect is pushed forward, and likely re-oriented more toward surface warfare. The number of helicopters likely would be reduced to one in exchange for point-defense systems (Sea Sparrow & Phalanx, when available)

* Some kind of missile-armed fast attack craft likely would be obtained. A squadron or two of Pegasus hydrofoils might make perfect sence; they are fast, they have relatively long range, and Australia have a big coastline to cover

* More Oberon-class submarines likely be ordered, and there might be an interest of aquiring a nuclear submarine - likely "on lease" from Royal Navy, funded & crewed by Australian

* Dunno about carriers. They didn't seems particularly useful in such scenario, while representing a big strain on personnel and resources. A possibility - a pair of large helicopter-carrying destroyers, like Japanese Haruna-class; capable of operating three helos & with heavy anti-surface armament.

* A weird idea - a version of Haruna-class, but redesigned for American-delivered Mk-71 8-inch guns. A destroyer with two automatic 8-inch might actually be a worthy opponent for Irian!

 

[Rule of cool]

The state of play in 1966-69 was the RAN had 1 carrier, 1 fast troop transport, 3 Darings, 4 River DEs and 3 DDGs, was building 2 more River DEs, 4 Oberon submarines, some 20 Attack class patrol boats and 14 S2E and 10 A4Gs. At this point the DDL project was growing from a gun armed Corvette into a Frigate and hadn't yet grown into a multi-role DDG.

In this scenario I'd think the first thing that would happen is the 2nd batch of 4 subs, that would turn the RAN sub arm from a training service into an offensive arm wouldn't be reduced to 2 to buy another 10 A4s, I think both would be acquired. In the short term, in the absence of a Western AShM, these would the the primary counter to TNI-N surface ship, and perhaps the aircraft might get some guided weapons; AS-12 for the S2s and Maverick(?) for the A4s.

I think the Darings would be given more extensive refits, perhaps with Sea Cat and Ikara, the threat level would justify it.

Further along, I imagine that the DDL would continue along it's development path and be built in greater numbers than was planned. I also think the RAN might get another class of (imported) warships, perhaps along the lines of the Vosper Thorneycroft Corvettes sold to Libya, Iran etc. This would back-fill the space that was to be filled by the initial plan to have 10 DDLs.

Also Fleet Base West studies began in 1969, but work didn't start for 5 years and the first ship didn't permanently get based there until 1984. However there were some facilities in WA and I believe a River DE was refitted there in 1983. In this scenario I think some units would be based in WA from 1970 using the extant facilities and construction of Fleet Base West would be much accelerated.

 

[Pioneer]

Re: Post#1
That's one large and heavy ORBAT Dilandu.

Given the size and capabilities of this Indonesian ORBAT and undoubtedly coupled with their aspirations West Papua and Timor, I would think Australia would have to seriously make a concerted decision to not commit itself as it did so utterly blindly and faithful in Viet Nam, and instead focus on this percieved and actual threat possed by "communist" Indonesia?
Or going by the rampant ideological driven Australian politics hedging its bets both ways to appease the U.S. in the Australian psyche that 'we need to assist America in wars, just in case we get invaded and as a consequence, the U.S. would surely have to come to our defence!'

Ok, given that the greatest percieved and actual threat would be from the Soviet supplied Tu-16KS bombers, Project 68bis light cruiser, Project 613 diesel-electric submarines and Polish-build medium amphibious landing ship (I assume you are referring to the Polnocny-class LST?).

As others have correctly alluded, the Tu-16KS has both the range and missile carrying capability the faster but shorter ranged Tu-22K lacks.
I did not see you mention any aerial refuelling assets to support extended range operations of either Tu-16KS or Tu-22K's, so their radius of action should be reasonably calculable.
As for the Indoneasian fighters/fighter-bombers, they are going to be very limited to range and pose no threat to Australia immediately - but a threat to Australian strike aircraft which attempt to neutralise strategic Indonesian targets, such as the Tu-16KS and Tu-22K air bases, as well as Indonesian docks/ports.
Hence Australia will need a credible and effective offensive strike capability to act as both a deterrent and to ensure penatration of Indonesian aerospace so as to neutralise these key Indonesian military assets/targets.
Hence, I think in such a scenario, with so much offensive force threatening Australia's physical and technological edge, I don't think the issue of aerial refuelling of Australia's strike aircraft is going to be as touchy-feely as it was in real life with the F-111.
So, the million-dollar question, does Australia go something with strategic range and physical punch? Something like a Squadron of Avro Vulcan B2's, which give both a psychological and physical deterrence or does Australia remain punchdrunk with following trends like supersonic speed?
If the choice is supersonic speed, then I'd support 'tweaked' North American A-5C/RA-5C Vigilante's, purchased with a minimum of eight - ten Boeing KC-135's.
With such a powerful sized and modern military threat, I think Australia would be stupid not to purchase and organise it's defence around a small fleet of long-range, long endurance AEW platforms. Yes, I appreciate that such assets as AEW are prohibitively expensive and labour entensive for the era. But as rightly indicated by other forum members, Australia vastness means it would be prohibitively expensive to protect Australia's coastline/aerospace with an effective integrated ground-based radars and SAM's/AAA system. Hence they might be expensive to both purchase and operate, but a handful of AEW platform, equipped with aerial refuelling capability would be a true force multiplier, which can see way over the horizon, as well as conduct key battle management. So what would this RAAF AEW platform be? Here's a hint, definitely not the antiquated Avro Shackleton AEW 2!!
Talking about Tu-16KS's and tgmhe wind they put up Australia's politicians, Admirals, Air Marshall and General's alike, I've always favoured the idea of RAAF interceptors going out to proactively hunt them, instead of waiting for them to attack Australia/Australian shipping. Hence I give you the GAF Canberra A(I)8 long-range heavy interceptor. To expedite the service entry of this desperately needed interceptor, GAF, who was building the English Electric Canberra light bomber under license, proposed a heavy, long-range derivative of the Canberra, equipped with the radar/fire control systems and weapons system of the Canadian Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck. GAF incorporating a CW system, slaved to Aim-7 Sparrow III AAM's (four missiles per aircraft), it's bomb bay incorporating an internal long-range fuel tank and a gun pack consisting of two ADEN 30mm cannons. An incorporated data link allowed the Interceptor Canberra to utilise the long search and tracking range of the RAAF's AEW to interceptor Indonesian Tu-16KS's hundreds of kilometres away.

Now with such a modern and capable Indonesian force, I have the dilemma of whether Australia could afford to have both an 'effective' aircraft carrier(s), serving in the role of both strike/interdiction and ASW or simply specialising in ASW, given Indonesia's sizable diesel-electric force? To conduct strike/interdiction missions against Indonesia from the likes of the Majestic-class carrier(s), the carrier would have to get fairly close to Indonesia to initiate such a strike, making it very susceptible to attack by Tu-16KS and Tu-22K's, to say nothing of their Project 613 diesel-electric subs (the number of A-4G Skyhawk's aboard HMAS Melbourne (R21), for example, being extremely limited at any one time, let alone needing to split this limited number even further between offensive strike-interdiction mission and air defence of the carrier...... Yes, ideally, the likes of the limited capable HMAS Melbourne (R21) should be replaced by the likes of the more capable HMS Hermes (R12), which was offered to Australia by Britian in 1966. But if the real world issue for Australia was Hermes "cost and crew size", given the expansion of both budget and manpower size in this scenario, would this factor still be viewed in the negative? Saying this, I would love to see tge RAN adopting Hermes (R12) equipped with Vought/Short F-8H (Aus) Twosader's, Grumman E-1T Turbo Tracer's, Grumman S-2F-4 (Design 215) Turbo Trackers and Westland Wessex 31B's

Or does one forgo it's carrier(s) for a stronger force of Oberon-class diesel-electric submarines, which can not just stealthily act in either a defensive or offensive manner. One thing the Oberon's were very effective in doing, which is not often denoted, is laying sea mines, as well as inserting and extracting special forces. Imagine the effect of damaging/sinking Indonesia's flag ship Project 68bis light cruiser or Project 613 diesel-electric submarines and or their LST's in their own territorial waters with submarine deployed sea mines or Limpet mines attached to Indonesian ships by SASR divers launched by submarine.....

More to follow.......

(Profile artwork by Clavework Graphics, Coops213 and Jonesthetank)

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Elan Vital]

If I recall, the late 50's and 60's discussions in Australia surrounding rearmament of part or all Centurions to the 105mm L7 per common practice were related to the Indonesian situation.

 

[Dilandu]

That's one large and heavy ORBAT Dilandu.

Well, in OTL they got cruiser, eight destroyers, twelve submarines, twelve missile boats, twenty-five Tu-16K missile-carrying bombers, several dozens of Mig-19 fighters... So its projected evolution in 1970s doesn't seems to be too out of possibility.

 

[Dilandu]

More to follow.......

A very good analysis!

 

[Dilandu]

Or does one forgo it's carrier(s) for a stronger force of Oberon-class diesel-electric submarines, which can not just stealthily act in either a defensive or offensive manner. One thing the Oberon's were very effective in doing, which is not often denoted, is laying sea mines, as well as inserting and extracting special forces. Imagine the effect of damaging/sinking Indonesia's flag ship Project 68bis light cruiser or Project 613 diesel-electric submarines and or their LST's in their own territorial waters with submarine deployed sea mines or Limpet mines attached to Indonesian ships by SASR divers launched by submarine.....

Agreed, it seems like a better solution, than trying to maintain a de-facto full-scale carrier strike group with inadequate resources and opponent having rather strong strike aviation.

 

[Grey Havoc]

This would mean at least that the 4th Perth class gets built, Harpoon missiles would be bought for them

The RAN would have likely been unable to take delivery of any significant quantities of Harpoon rounds before the early 1980s though, given the mess the US was in for much of the 1970s. Speaking of Harpoons though, Australia might have ended up joining the US/NATO PHM program in this timeline, and saved the program from ultimate cancellation.

 

[SSgtC]

The RAN would have likely been unable to take delivery of any significant quantities of Harpoon rounds before the early 1980s though, given the mess the US was in for much of the 1970s. Speaking of Harpoons though, Australia might have ended up joining the US/NATO PHM program in this timeline, and saved the program from ultimate cancellation.

I did consider that, and there is an alternative. IOTL, a dedicated anti-ship version of the Tartar was being developed for the West German Navy (canceled when they bought Bullpup missiles instead). Is possible that program continues and arms the Australian ships until Harpoon can be delivered and/or the RIM-66 replaces the Tartars on the Perth class

 

[Dilandu]

Speaking of Harpoons though, Australia might have ended up joining the US/NATO PHM program in this timeline, and saved the program from ultimate cancellation.

That's what I also cinsider quite possible.

I did consider that, and there is an alternative. IOTL, a dedicated anti-ship version of the Tartar was being developed for the West German Navy (canceled when they bought Bullpup missiles instead). Is possible that program continues and arms the Australian ships until Harpoon can be delivered and/or the RIM-66 replaces the Tartars on the Perth class

Well, USN actually have anti-ship Standard missiles, the RGM-66 series.

The RGM-66D was a passive radar homing missile (essentially a RIM-66, equipped with RGM-78 ARM passive seeker). It was designed to seek enemy ship radars for over-the-horizon shots, and could be launched from any Standard-compatible launcher, including Mk-32 box launcher.

The RMG-66E was a version for launch from Mk-112 ASROC launcher.

The RGM-66F was an active-homing version, designed as backup for Harpoon development. While sucsessfully tested, it was deemed to be inferior to Harpoon - smaller warhead, no sea-skimming capability - so it was not deployed.

In theory, Australians could order RGM-66F as more readily available weapon than Harpoon; since missile was not adopted by USN, it would not conflict with USN own procurement.

 

[SSgtC]

Well, USN actually have anti-ship Standard missiles, the RGM-66 series.

The RGM-66D was a passive radar homing missile (essentially a RIM-66, equipped with RGM-78 ARM passive seeker). It was designed to seek enemy ship radars for over-the-horizon shots, and could be launched from any Standard-compatible launcher, including Mk-32 box launcher.

The RMG-66E was a version for launch from Mk-112 ASROC launcher.

The RGM-66F was an active-homing version, designed as backup for Harpoon development. While sucsessfully tested, it was deemed to be inferior to Harpoon - smaller warhead, no sea-skimming capability - so it was not deployed.

In theory, Australians could order RGM-66F as more readily available weapon than Harpoon; since missile was not adopted by USN, it would not conflict with USN own procurement.

Yes, and if you notice, I included the Standard in my response. However, it hadn't entered service yet at the time the Perth class were built. So at the time, if Australia wanted an anti-ship missile capable of being fired by the Mk13 GMLS, their options were to either develop the anti-ship Tartar or wait for Harpoons to enter service in 1977. Given the proposed threat level, they'll probably continue with the development of the Tartar to give them a viable SSM until the Harpoon can replace it

 

[Dilandu]

Given the proposed threat level, they'll probably continue with the development of the Tartar to give them a viable SSM

Tartar have too little range to be a viable SSM. 30 km max, it's basically within the horizon. And against targets within the horizon, you don't need a specialized SSM; you could just use your SAM.

The whole idea of anti-surface Standard missile was to give USN at least some over-the-horizon missile capability. For striking targets within the horizon, the SAM missiles were good enough; lock fire control radar on enemy vessel (even if only the tops of the masts are actually above horizon - it would suffice, ships are much more reflective than planes) and hit it with Tartar, or Terrier, or Talos, or Standard, or anything you have. You need dedicated SSM's if you want to hit targets beyond the horizon, where you can't illuminate them.

 

[Dilandu]

Given the proposed threat level, they'll probably continue with the development of the Tartar to give them a viable SSM until the Harpoon can replace it

Well, Australians already working on Ikara by late 1960s. The simplest solution would likely to work from it's hardware. Look at GAF Turana target drone (first flight in 1971):



It was basically an Ikara with small turbojet engine (Microturbo Cougar 022) replacing solid-fuel rocket. During testing, it proven capable of flying as low as 11 meters, as fast as 750 km/h and as far as 500 km.

Basically all you need to turn Turana into anti-ship missile, is to reduce the range (100-150 km would be more than enough) install a warhead (just a simple HE bomb hanged below the hull under the blister would work) and install some kind of terminal homing guidance.

 

[Rule of cool]

Given the size and capabilities of this Indonesian ORBAT and undoubtedly coupled with their aspirations West Papua and Timor, I would think Australia would have to seriously make a concerted decision to not commit itself as it did so utterly blindly and faithful in Viet Nam, and instead focus on this percieved and actual threat possed by "communist" Indonesia?
Or going by the rampant ideological driven Australian politics hedging its bets both ways to appease the U.S. in the Australian psyche that 'we need to assist America in wars, just in case we get invaded and as a consequence, the U.S. would surely have to come to our defence!'

The decisions 4 or so decisions to expand our contribution to Vietnam were made in 1964 (1 btn), 65 (2 btns), 66 (DDG & Bombers) and 67 (3 btns & tanks). The first 3 were made during the Indonesian Confrontation so wouldn't change in this scenario, and the 4th was so early in the changed scenario that it likely wouldn't change either.

What likely would change would be the draw down. Our leaders argued that it wouldn't make military sense to go from 3 to 2 btns in line with the US drawdown and kept 1ATF at full strength all through 1970. In this scenario I'd think Australian leaders would be happy enough to draw down to 2 btns in 1969 in line with US withdrawals and be gone from Vietnam by 1971 at the latest.

A good solution, although one that falls outside the scope of this scenario, is for the CMF to raise volunteer battalions for service in Vietnam. Without the sour taste of the unusual conscription for overseas service and Vietnam Australia might be able to introduce conscription into the reserves in the 70s to meet the Indonesian threat.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well, in OTL they got cruiser, eight destroyers, twelve submarines, twelve missile boats, twenty-five Tu-16K missile-carrying bombers, several dozens of Mig-19 fighters... So its projected evolution in 1970s doesn't seems to be too out of possibility.

IIUC only 6 of those subs were operational ad the others were for training and spares. They also got a sqn of Mig 21s.

If you equal more or less that early 60s set of deliveries every five years by 1975 you've got a hefty force, although I don't know if it matches your ORBAT from post #1.

 

[Rule of cool]

Or does one forgo it's carrier(s) for a stronger force of Oberon-class diesel-electric submarines, which can not just stealthily act in either a defensive or offensive manner. One thing the Oberon's were very effective in doing, which is not often denoted, is laying sea mines, as well as inserting and extracting special forces. Imagine the effect of damaging/sinking Indonesia's flag ship Project 68bis light cruiser or Project 613 diesel-electric submarines and or their LST's in their own territorial waters with submarine deployed sea mines or Limpet mines attached to Indonesian ships by SASR divers launched by submarine.....

Australia had both a carrier and 4-6 subs throughout the 70s, so it's not an either/or proposition. In any case until the west develops a robust AShM capability that Australia can tap into from the late 70s the carrier and subs are really the only serious anti-ship assets in the ADF.

That brings up a vulnerability of Indonesia, as an archipelago its reliance on shipping to make it into a country is something the ADF cuold exploit in wartime. Inter-island shipping via small and medium ships would grind to a halt and each island would be more or less isolated from the others.

 

[kocovgoce]

my illustration Indonesian Tu-22A

 

[Pioneer]

Australia had both a carrier and 4-6 subs throughout the 70s, so it's not an either/or proposition. In any case until the west develops a robust AShM capability that Australia can tap into from the late 70s the carrier and subs are really the only serious anti-ship assets in the ADF.

That brings up a vulnerability of Indonesia, as an archipelago its reliance on shipping to make it into a country is something the ADF cuold exploit in wartime. Inter-island shipping via small and medium ships would grind to a halt and each island would be more or less isolated from the others.

Thanks for you feedback Rule of cool.
I appreciate your analogy of:
Australia had both a carrier and 4-6 subs throughout the 70s, so it's not an either/or proposition.
The reality is, going by Dilandu Indonesian ORBAT (re Post#1) size, composition and capabilities, I can't imagime Australian politicians refraining from creating hysteria within Australian society.
The reality is, unless Indonesia matches its military capability grown with education, I'm confident that as much as Indonesia's military capability on paper wouldn't match its true capabilities to employ it effectively in an offensive sense.
Australia would undoubtedly have to expand its military across the board (especially when Labor and Liberal/Coalition parties, as clearly demonstrated in real-world examples try playing the 'who can piss higher' game, for the pathetic sake of wedge politics - as clearly demonstrated by Menzies and the Canberra bomber replacement, based on the highly exaggerated notion that the 'Communist Indonesian and Chinese were preparing to swim to Australia at any moment to eat our babies....'
So I'm assuming, as much as Australia might increase its military budget and expand its military size, there will still have to be a finite measure of order in which this can be done, let alone delivered.
As such, I'm thinking that Australia would be best establishing a political and military policy of containment against Indonesia. For to match Indonesia like for like, even Australia would be hard pressed socially and economically.
Australia, in terms of its government(s) and military leaders would have to be very serious in deriving a long term strategy of containment, which doesn't send the country broke or embroil us in a conflict which could be detrimental to the ADF. Australia would have to seriously decide whether it wants to stop Indonesian expansion into the likes of either West Papua, Timor and New Guinea.
Realistically, Australia should make it explicitly clear to Indonesia that New Guinea is an irrefutable Red Line, with Australia building up New Guinea with ADF forces (barracks, ports, airfields, logistics, C3, etc...)
One should always appreciate in real-world terms, that Australia got away with what it got away with, not so much because it was feared by its regional neighbours, but because up until the 1990's and the economic growth of the global south, not were their economies tiny, but their militaries were more geared to internal security against insurgencies or propping up and protecting their regimes from internal strife.... I remember reading, somewhere, that the RAAF's notion of unquestionable superiority came to an abrupt realisation when they flew against either Malaysian or it could have been Singaporean Northrop F-5E Tiger II's, rudely discovering that their much vaunted Mirage IIIO's were bested. Keeping in mind that the F-5E was classed as a simple and affordable fighter, often supplied by the U.S. under their geopolitically charitable MAP program.

So what am I trying to say?
I guess what I'm trying to emphasise is that with an expansion of the Australian military, it doesn't automatically mean that Australian can automatically have more or sustain everything it has or deems it wants, because everything is going to need to share the finite funding and manpower of such an expansion.


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Well, Australians already working on Ikara by late 1960s. The simplest solution would likely to work from it's hardware. Look at GAF Turana target drone (first flight in 1971):

View attachment 762001

It was basically an Ikara with small turbojet engine (Microturbo Cougar 022) replacing solid-fuel rocket. During testing, it proven capable of flying as low as 11 meters, as fast as 750 km/h and as far as 500 km.

Basically all you need to turn Turana into anti-ship missile, is to reduce the range (100-150 km would be more than enough) install a warhead (just a simple HE bomb hanged below the hull under the blister would work) and install some kind of terminal homing guidance.

I like the way you think Dilandu!
I was just about to suggest that Australia look at acquiring Swedish Saab Rb 08 anti-ship missiles to counter the powerful growth and threat of Indonesian surface combatants, but your suggested adoption of the Turana into anti-ship missile makes a hell of a lot of sense - especially when one considers the political implications and inherent restraints of terms and conditions associated with Swedish weapons - Australia could use Rb 08 in a defensive manner, but not in an offensive manner!
Add to this the rudimentary capabilities of anti-missile weapons and sensors of both Western and Eastern warships.
I'd like to take your Turana anti-ship missile idea further, if I may, and develope both a land attack and reconnaissance derivative!

So we can potentially have the following derivativs of the Turana:
-Ship-based anti-ship missile;
-Ship-based land attack missile;
-Shore-based anti-ship missile;
-Ground-based surface to surface missile;
-Ground-based remote piloted reconnaissance drone;
-Ship-based Ikara anti-submarine missile, from which its design is based;
-and of course, in it's orginal form and purpose as a target drone.

Makes for a very practical indigenous weapons program, does it not.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

I guess what I'm trying to emphasise is that with an expansion of the Australian military, it doesn't automatically mean that Australian can automatically have more or sustain everything it has or deems it wants, because everything is going to need to share the finite funding and manpower of such an expansion.

I agree,I still recall a newspaper article in the 80s comparing the huge TNI to the tiny ADF. I took until I got to Uni to realise that they weren't a real threat.

There will be a lot of inertia with Australia's reaction to the threat in this scenario. We had a carrier in the 60s and despite it perhaps being not the most suitable capability to deal with an armed up Indonesia we won't get rid of it before the end of it's useful life.

I think manpower would be more of a problem than finance, so I'd expect Australia to be well equipped with advanced kit rather than match the TNI plane for plane for example. This would be aided by the fact that the ADF can pretty readily fight in and around Java whereas Indonesia doesn't have a chance to operating south of the WW2 'Brisbane line' where all our good stuff is. Perth would be in a bit more danger, but I'd think it would be harassed at best.

One fleet that might see a major change is the Patrol Boats. The little Attack class were replaced by the only slightly larger Fremantle class, but in this scenario I'd think the Fremantle class would be almost a Corvette, like the Arafura class that's being built now.

 

[Dilandu]

I like the way you think Dilandu!

Thank you)

I was just about to suggest that Australia look at acquiring Swedish Saab Rb 08 anti-ship missiles to counter the powerful growth and threat of Indonesian surface combatants,

It's also a possibility, yes.

So we can potentially have the following derivativs of the Turana:
-Ship-based anti-ship missile;
-Ship-based land attack missile;
-Shore-based anti-ship missile;
-Ground-based surface to surface missile;
-Ground-based remote piloted reconnaissance drone;

Yep. The initial system is robust enough. But I should mention that it's payload would likely be limited, so anti-ground versions wouldn't exacly be most efficient. And they would require a separate guidance. A version of electro-optical guidance, like on USN Walleye bomb, might be implemented.

P.S. Actually, a simplest solution would be to strap AGM-62 Walleye under GAF Turana (like the torpedo was strapped under Ikara) and install additional datalink to transmit the image from bomb camera to operator, and control the bomb camera before drop. Could work both as anti-surface and anti-ship weapon; Walleye was initially designed as anti-ship standoff weapon, after all.

 

[Pioneer]

I agree,I still recall a newspaper article in the 80s comparing the huge TNI to the tiny ADF. I took until I got to Uni to realise that they weren't a real threat.

There will be a lot of inertia with Australia's reaction to the threat in this scenario. We had a carrier in the 60s and despite it perhaps being not the most suitable capability to deal with an armed up Indonesia we won't get rid of it before the end of it's useful life.

I think manpower would be more of a problem than finance, so I'd expect Australia to be well equipped with advanced kit rather than match the TNI plane for plane for example. This would be aided by the fact that the ADF can pretty readily fight in and around Java whereas Indonesia doesn't have a chance to operating south of the WW2 'Brisbane line' where all our good stuff is. Perth would be in a bit more danger, but I'd think it would be harassed at best.

One fleet that might see a major change is the Patrol Boats. The little Attack class were replaced by the only slightly larger Fremantle class, but in this scenario I'd think the Fremantle class would be almost a Corvette, like the Arafura class that's being built now.

Thanks Rule of cool.
You beat me to the mark about the versatility of Patrol Boat's like the Attack and Fremantle (let alone the bloody ridiculous Armadale) classes, which lack both range/endurance and true sea keeping attributes, to say nothing of their rudimentary firepower.....
There's no reason as to why Australian ship building couldn't build a versatile corvette, especially after the success and numbers of the Bathurst-class built during the Second World War. But then again, I can't help think this probably has a lot to do with the RAN Brass seeing such a versatile and cost effective class being a threat to their bigger/flashier Frigate/Destroyer aspirations.
Just as the Bathurst-class was able to be successfully utilised in various roles, including mine warfare, in Dilandu's scenario, I would have the RAN and RAAF (P-2 Neptune's, C-130 Hercules and P-3 Orion's) far more active and equipped for both offensive and defensive mine warfare - something, sadly, the ADF has delibratly lack - no neglected tine and time again. For if Indonesia was to have such a large and powerful surface and sub surface fleet, my priority would be mining their principle naval facilities and other strategic choke points. As well as ensuring that we could effectively clear and neutralise any mines that Indonesia would/should lay in Australian waters, around Christmas Island and New Guinea.

Does anyone have a notion of class for a affordable and effective Corvette/Patrol Frigate class for the 1960/1970's period?

P.S. talking about Bathurst-class corvettes, I stumbled across the following video, talking about the notion of Australia building a modern incarnation of a Bathurst-like corvette. As much as I don't necessarily agree with all of it, it's an interesting analogy just the same.

View: https://youtu.be/xHxYEBCx3Bk?si=lD7hW_wRem6CeUNK


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Just a word on a carrier in this scenario.

I suspect that something like Dibb's plan to defend the air-sea gap to the north is ultimately the best way to deal with this Indonesia, and there's not much room in such a strategy for a carrier.

However, as this situation emerges from the late 60s Australia's ability to operate at long range in the north is severely restricted. The Mirages were equipped with multi-point, gravity refueling, rather than single-point, pressure refueling like the Israelis, which means they can't be fitted with in-flight refueling probes. This limits them to purely defensive duties, flying from Darwin, Tindal and from 1973 or maybe a touch earlier, Learmonth. Maybe Cocos and Christmas islands could see Mirages but they'd be pretty vulnerable to all sorts of TNI attack, including naval blockade. Assuming the RAAF extended the F4E lease or buys them from 1973 that means only the 24 F111s and 23 F4Es have the range to fly over Indonesia and have the ability to be refueled in flight.

This makes the Melbourne's ability to bring her sqn of A4s into range of central Indonesia a significant asset. I don't for a second think the Melbourne would do what Sydney did in Korea and take up station and conduct strikes every day for a week. Rather I'd think more WW2 style it would conduct hit and run attacks; sneaking into range to launch a strike like Taranto and then pulling back to avoid the counter attack.

Therefore the carrier wouldn't be on the chopping block until the Mirages and maybe Phantoms, get replaced with ~100 multi-role fighters with long-ish range and IFR capability. RAAF AEW would also be nice, as the Melbourne and her TF would provide a valuable intelligence bubble.

 

[Dilandu]

This makes the Melbourne's ability to bring her sqn of A4s into range of central Indonesia a significant asset. I don't for a second think the Melbourne would do what Sydney did in Korea and take up station and conduct strikes every day for a week. Rather I'd think more WW2 style it would conduct hit and run attacks; sneaking into range to launch a strike like Taranto and then pulling back to avoid the counter attack.

Problem is, it would still put her into range of missile-carrying bombers... And Australian air defense, frankly, doesn't seems to be comparable with what USN have. Even against Tu-16K, with KS-1 missiles, the air patrol of A4 wouldn't be of much use.

 

[Rule of cool]

Problem is, it would still put her into range of missile-carrying bombers... And Australian air defense, frankly, doesn't seems to be comparable with what USN have. Even against Tu-16K, with KS-1 missiles, the air patrol of A4 wouldn't be of much use.

A strike by Melbourne would be coordinated with other ADF assets, perhaps an F111 or SAS attack on the Badger base and a Phantom CAP on the egress. The idea would be for the Melbourne to be well out to sea the day before the raid, do an overnight 200 mile run to the launch point before dawn, launch at 150 miles out, recover 2 hours later 200 miles out and then to a speed run to meet a Phantom CAP closer to the mainland by midday. Melbourne would not be hanging around within Skyhawk range of Indonesia for any longer than strictly necessary and certainly wouldn't be duking it out with TNI Badgers, at best they could chase off a MPA that was getting close.

 

[Dilandu]

A strike by Melbourne would be coordinated with other ADF assets, perhaps an F111 or SAS attack on the Badger base and a Phantom CAP on the egress. The idea would be for the Melbourne to be well out to sea the day before the raid, do an overnight 200 mile run to the launch point before dawn, launch at 150 miles out, recover 2 hours later 200 miles out and then to a speed run to meet a Phantom CAP closer to the mainland by midday. Melbourne would not be hanging around within Skyhawk range of Indonesia for any longer than strictly necessary and certainly wouldn't be duking it out with TNI Badgers, at best they could chase off a MPA that was getting close.

Looks... overcomplicated a bit. Not impossible, but required a lot of cooperation. And what about Indonesian fighters? The CAP would operate at least in range of Mig-25, likely Mig-23 too. Combat air patrol that could NOT be reinforced quickly could be easily neutralized if the opponent have fighters in range.

 

[Pioneer]

I suspect that something like Dibb's plan to defend the air-sea gap to the north is ultimately the best way to deal with this Indonesia, and there's not much room in such a strategy for a carrier.

Agree, combined with the strategy of containment.

However, as this situation emerges from the late 60s Australia's ability to operate at long range in the north is severely restricted. The Mirages were equipped with multi-point, gravity refueling, rather than single-point, pressure refueling like the Israelis, which means they can't be fitted with in-flight refueling probes. This limits them to purely defensive duties, flying from Darwin, Tindal and from 1973 or maybe a touch earlier, Learmonth. Maybe Cocos and Christmas islands could see Mirages but they'd be pretty vulnerable to all sorts of TNI attack, including naval blockade. Assuming the RAAF extended the F4E lease or buys them from 1973 that means only the 24 F111s and 23 F4Es have the range to fly over Indonesia and have the ability to be refueled in flight.

As I favour the purchase of modified North American A-5C/RA-5C Vigilante's, the consideration of McDonnell F-4 Phantom II's would mean an important engine compatibility in the form of the General Electric J79 turbojet. But sadly, the reality is the F-4 Phantom II is a prohibitively expensive fighter to both purchase and operate - period. To replace or complement the Mirage IIIO fleet would be a huge investment.
Obviously a retrofit of the Mirage IIIO's to incorporate single-point, pressure refueling to facilitate IFR into the existing built Mirage IIIO's would be timely and costly. In which case could the two following proposals be considered:
- An externally fitted and run single-point, pressure refueling and IFR probe be fitted? Sure it won't be pleasing to the eye or aerodynamic, but possibly cheaper the stripping and refitting the entire aircraft;
- a proper single-point, pressure refueling and IFR probe is fitted in a mid-life upgrade.
- Australia license-built the Mirage IIIO in batches. What if the RAAF realising its fundamental mistake of equipping the first batch [Mirage IIIO(F)]with multi-point, gravity refueling system, remedies this inherent problem by stipulating it's second batch [Mirage IIIO(A)] with single-point, pressure refueling and IFR probe.
Then it's only half the fleet the RAAF either has to retrofit with single-point, pressure refueling and IFR probe. After all, Australia has an advantage that it has the facilities to do such an extensive retrofit, given it built it's Mirage IIIO's.

Or given the real-world fact that Australia actually began looking for a replacement for it's Mirage IIIO's as they were literally building them, appreciating their stuff up with their inability to be aerial refuelled, the Australian government/RAAF solidly pursues this process by taking up Dassault's offer for Australia to become a strategic partner in it's Mirage F1 development and build (see attachment). After all, the Mirage F1 is a substantial leap in capabilities over that of the Mirage IIIO, including:
-16-percent more thrust with the Atar9K engine;
-23-percent shorter take off length at maximum weight;
-20-percent lower landing speed;
-40-percent greater internal fuel capacity;
-three times the supersonic endurance;
-twice the tactical radius at low-level;
-superior all-round manoeuvrability;
-superior rough-field performance.

Equipped with the Cyrano IV radar and two Super 530 and two Magic AAM's, makes for superior all-weather fighter/interceptor for a reasonable price [although, I'd probably favour the incorporation of Aim-7 Sparrow or Skyflash AAM in place of Super 530 for commonality purposes of RAAF].
Ideally, Australia/RAAF would pursue Dassault's unique Mirage F1 offer by going one step further and pursue the even superior and more versatile multi-role Mirage F1 M53.

Therefore the carrier wouldn't be on the chopping block until the Mirages and maybe Phantoms, get replaced with ~100 multi-role fighters with long-ish range and IFR capability. RAAF AEW would also be nice, as the Melbourne and her TF would provide a valuable intelligence bubble.

Ok, so come this time of requiring ~100 multi-role fighters with long-ish range and IFR, I would seriously be looking at a Hi-Low mix for both cost and capabilities purposes. In which case, I'd be favouring the license-build of Northrop F-18L Cobra (Hi) and F-20C ['Big Wing'] Tigershark (Low) mix.

[Northrop F-20 Tigershark profile by GLanini & Dassault Mirage F1 profile by ysi_maniac]

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

Ideally, Australia/RAAF would pursue Dassault's unique Mirage F1 offer by going one step further and pursue the even superior and more versatile multi-role Mirage F1 M53.

Actually... what about Mirage IV? It was proposed for export in 1960s, and Australia took interest in such proposal (the F-111 eventually won, but there was a serious arguing for Mirage IV). By the 1968, the type was still in production.

 

[Volkodav]

Oh have I got something for all of you:

https://seapower.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/Nuclear-Powered%20Submarines%20for%20Australia%20%281%29.pdf

Australian plans for nuclear submarines from the late 1950s.

Former Australian PM Paul Keating, love him or (as is much more likely) hate him, he did know his history, was a very strong believer that the fall of Sukarno allowed Australia to dramatically reduce spending on defence through the 1970s and 80s.

The selection of Tartar over other systems was based in large part on its anti-surface capability, and a major factor in not modifying the CFA DDG to operate a helicopter was because the aft 5" was seen as more important considering the existence of Irian. This is also why it was decided to keep Melbourne as a CTOL carrier, retain, then replace the Seavenoms with Skyhawks.

The various plans for additional surface combatants that preceded the final DDL iteration, were all about Indonesia and the efforts involved in the Confrontation. Even as the DDL grew, gained a helicopter capability and Tartar, becoming a replacement for, instead of a supplement to the Darings, the RAN still desired to expand its surface combatant force and fleet as a whole and was considering a modified VT Type 21 derivative with a stronger hull and higher speed, with US weapon systems.

When the F-111 was delayed, then defence minister (and future PM) Malcom Frazer travelled to the US to negotiate the cancellation and replacement with an order for 36 F-4E, 12 RF-4C and 8 KC-135.

Australia's involvement in Vietnam was very much seen as a down payment in keeping the US engaged in the region.

This all changed after Indonesia's coup.

When Indonesia invaded Timor in 1975 things changed again, but then settled down by the early 80s. During this period the replacement patrol boats were chosen in part because of the possibility of converting them to missile boats. The Brook Marine design chosen for the Fremantles had space and weight for a 3" gun and missiles, with a final batch of five or six intended to be built in this configuration.

The FFG-07, selected instead of the DDL was meant to be a class of ten.

Australia was looking at acquiring additional carriers in the late 60s and early 70s to support the two-ocean navy (again when Malcom Frazer was defmin). Henderson in WA is named for the RN admiral who recommended a two-ocean navy and WA naval base, before WWI.

 

[Dilandu]

The selection of Tartar over other systems was based in large part on its anti-surface capability, and a major factor in not modifying the CFA DDG to operate a helicopter was because the aft 5" was seen as more important considering the existence of Irian. This is also why it was decided to keep Melbourne as a CTOL carrier, retain, then replace the Seavenoms with Skyhawks.

Quite interesting!

 

[Volkodav]

Quite interesting!

Oh I also have an idea in regard to the RAAF SAM situation. Basically, in my opinion, Bloodhound made no sense to me and in my own twisted alt history, the RAAF acquires a point defence interceptor capability to counter the Beagle, then TU16 threat.

An initial loan of EE lightning's is followed by the production of an Australian version, specifically to be based in northern regions requiring defence from potential Indonesian attack.

 

[Dilandu]

Oh I also have an idea in regard to the RAAF SAM situation. Basically, in my opinion, Bloodhound made no sense to me and in my own twisted alt history, the RAAF acquires a point defence interceptor capability to counter the Beagle, then TU16 threat.

Hm? Why Bloodhound make no sence?

 

[Volkodav]

Hm? Why Bloodhound make no sence?

Too short a range, at the time a point defence interceptor was a better option. The UK used them to defend their V Bomber bases, which they were suited to, but in Australia greater areas needed to be covered.

 

[Dilandu]

Too short a range,

Erm. Bloodhound Mk-2 was of 190 km range. Much better than anything else Western industry could provide.

 

[Pioneer]

Actually... what about Mirage IV? It was proposed for export in 1960s, and Australia took interest in such proposal (the F-111 eventually won, but there was a serious arguing for Mirage IV). By the 1968, the type was still in production.

The Mirage IV didn't have the range, especially when you factored in the induced drag of external conventional bombs the RAAF deemed as its principle weapons load.
I'm sure the orginal - hence the proposed Mirage IV offered to Australia, lacked terrain avoidance radar.

Dassault did propose a version of the Mirage IVA with Rolls-Royce Avon engines, which I would encourage (given that I would have stipulated Avon-powered Mirage IIIO's, from the getgo!).

[Pictures of Mirage IV armed with 1,000-pound GP bombs from https://combatace.com/forums/topic/35771-mirage-iva-wip-update/?page=3]

Regards
Pioneer