Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

[Blue Weasel]

in 1970 there was no TNI-N lmao

ALRI (The Navy of the Republic of Indonesia)

 

[Blue Weasel]

A bit about Indonesian ORBAT

Btw as far as I'm concerned ALRI was going to purchase 2nd Sverdlov class cruiser had there was no coup in 1965. I couldn't find the source, but there's one surfacing on Twitter years ago.

A fleet of Yak-25 interceptor is being considered to escort the Tu-16KS, so maybe Yak-25 instead of MiG-25

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642098139653115905

View: https://x.com/yudisupri_454/status/1642098139653115905



Also by 1970, I expect the Indonesian navy to be equipped with proper attack jets (Su-17?) Because by 1962, the navy had already borrowed 6-8 MiG-17 from the air force, nucleus for the eventual navy strike squadron

 

[Dilandu]

A bit about Indonesian ORBAT

Btw as far as I'm concerned ALRI was going to purchase 2nd Sverdlov class cruiser had there was no coup in 1965. I couldn't find the source, but there's one surfacing on Twitter years ago.

A fleet of Yak-25 interceptor is being considered to escort the Tu-16KS, so maybe Yak-25 instead of MiG-25

Very interesting data! Thank you!

 

[kocovgoce]

1975

 

[kocovgoce]

English Electric Thunderbird​

 

[Dilandu]

English Electric Thunderbird

As far as I know, Australia never operated Thunderbirds, so the deal clearly fell through.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As far as I know, Australia never operated Thunderbirds, so the deal clearly fell through.

Deal would be more likely if Indonesia was a larger threat.

 

[Rule of cool]

The article says Australia was buying them because the British were retiring them, in the same year Australia ordered the Rapier. I doubt the article is correct.

 

[Dilandu]

The article says Australia was buying them because the British were retiring them, in the same year Australia ordered the Rapier. I doubt the article is correct.

Likely that retired Thunderbirds were proposed as one of possible SAM options, in case Australians would not like the Rapier.

Deal would be more likely if Indonesia was a larger threat.

Frankly, Bloodhound Mk-2 looks like much better choice. It have longer range, better performance, stay powered all flight (i.e. more useful against maneuvering targets) and most importantly, it's still in service and in production. So Australians would not face risk of being left without spare parts or technical support.

 

[Dilandu]

Speaking of air defense, IMHO, Australia would need about 3 Bloodhound Mk-2 squadrons (each of four sections, each section composed of 1 radar and 6-8 launchers)

* One to cover Darwin and Tindall area (2 sections per each - i.e. 2 radars and 12-16 launchers per site)
* One to cover Perth area, including HMAS Stirling naval base (2 sections) and Curtin and Learmonth AFBs (1 section per each)
* One to protect Townsville (2 sections) and Sherger AFBs (1 sections per each) and offer additional protection to Brisbane (1 section)

I.e. it would require 12 radars and 72-96 launchers (likely about 144-192 missiles)


If additional resources are available, it may be reasonable to provide area defense to Sydney and Canberra - at least to be able to avoid assignig interceptors here.

 

[ArtosStark]

So, I could definitely be wrong on this, but I understand that the beginning of Sukarno’s fall was the 1965 30 September Movement. If that had not happened, and Sukarno stays in power, the way things were going with the Fifth Force, it seemed like there was a possible confrontation coming between the Communists and the Military (indeed, some see the Sept 30 movement as either this or an Army attempt to preempt such a confrontation).

In this context, there could be either a full communist state in Indonesia by 1970 or a civil war with one side attempting to create one. Which may reduce the maximal navy and air forces available to the traditional military arms.

Additionally, didn’t Indonesia turn a bit towards China in the later years of Sukarno’s rule? If so, would the USSR have been willing to provide them with all the arms listed earlier in the thread?

 

[kocovgoce]

The article says Australia was buying them because the British were retiring them, in the same year Australia ordered the Rapier. I doubt the article is correct.

It's not true, I'm making them up to make a fiction out of the whole situation in the 70s.
They were made in Photoshop by me, for example, what Australia or Indonesia would do in the event of a crisis in that part of the world.

 

[Dilandu]

It's not true, I'm making them up to make a fiction out of the whole situation in the 70s.
They were made in Photoshop by me, for example, what Australia or Indonesia would do in the event of a crisis in that part of the world.

Erm... with all respect, but... FICTIONAL MATERIALS MUST BE LABELED AS FICTIONAL. Too often the alternate history works got mistaken as real, and becane a presistent myth.

 

[kocovgoce]

Erm... with all respect, but... FICTIONAL MATERIALS MUST BE LABELED AS FICTIONAL. Too often the alternate history works got mistaken as real, and becane a presistent myth.

Okay, I won't post posts like this anymore.

 

[Dilandu]

Okay, I won't post posts like this anymore.

Just clarify under picture that it's AH, and the problem would be solved.

 

[kocovgoce]

AH indicates an alternative history

 

[Dilandu]

AH indicates an alternative history

Exactly.

 

[uk 75]

An interesting thread.
I assume that the Vietnam War in this timeline looks as it does in ours.
The confrontation with Britain over Malaysia and Singapore did not go well for Indonesia in ours and ended in time for the UK to decide to withdraw.
Unless the UK is different in the new timeline I dont see this changing. The focus on NATO was unavoidable.
Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand would have to deal with a Sukharno Indonesia after 1966 until some point in the 70s (after that ?).
The Soviet Union supplied Kashin class destroyers to India. A pair of these seem more likely than a cruiser, as they are less manpower intensive.
The usual conbinations of light fleet assets and submarines (Poti, Osa, W ) seems likely Nanuchkas too?
Tu22 were supplied to Iraq and Libya so Indonesia might also have received them in the 70s to replace or join Tu16s.
Mig23/27 and Su20s are also likely to arrive in small numbers to join Mig21 and Su7. Again, India and the Arab countries are a guide.
Missile forces by the early 70s would be Sam2, 3 and 6 as well as SCUD B and FROG7.

Australia is likely to keep the F4Es that stood in for its F111s while they were being fixed. The Phantom might also replace the Mirage in the late 60s as it did in Israel. F111 numbers depend on what the US does but it will remain Australias key strike weapon.

HAWK rather than Bloodhound or Thunderbird seems likely in the late 60s as Israel Iran and NATO get I Hawk.

Melbourne A4s will get Maverick and Walleyes. Transfer of either Hermes or an Essex class as CTOL carriers with ex USN F8 and A4 might be on the cards if the Indonesian Navy gets Krestas or more than two Kashins. Harpoon is not yet available but an SSM mod to the widely used IKARA would make more sense than Exocet/Otomat which would hard to fit on RAN ships.

Malaysia and Singapore get Lightnings and Bloodhound 2 as tge UK hands over.
Vosper frigates and Oberons too.

 

[Dilandu]

The Soviet Union supplied Kashin class destroyers to India. A pair of these seem more likely than a cruiser, as they are less manpower intensive.

Well, the cruiser - the Irian - was supplied OTL in 1960s.

 

[Felocie]

Transfer of either Hermes or an Essex class as CTOL carriers with ex USN F8 and A4 might be on the cards

What about a CVV derived design? This is purely down to either domestic capacity or US export capacity but the Essex class was really getting on (I believe this is gone over in the replacement documents although it’s been a while since I read them). Now Australia had the capacity to new build a carrier in an estimated 12 years with US parts imports (which was seen as unacceptably long) but given the threat on our doorstep could production have been ramped up? Would America have the production capacity to build the ship for export?

 

[Dilandu]

What about a CVV derived design?

The CVV concept, if I recall correctly, was considered not sucsessfull, because while losing about a 1/3 of "John F. Kennedy" supercarrier capabilities, it costs only about 100 millions less. Not enough economy to justify.

Would America have the production capacity to build the ship for export?

Certainly, the question is mainly - would the industry be interested?

 

[Felocie]

The CVV concept, if I recall correctly, was considered not sucsessfull, because while losing about a 1/3 of "John F. Kennedy" supercarrier capabilities, it costs only about 100 millions less. Not enough economy to justify.

Depends which version of CVV you go with, there were a lot of plans and concepts drawn up. There were also a lot of political considerations, from my understanding, that stifled the project regarding capability and role as well as cost (something congress got stuck on). That being said, a derivative design, similar to the Perths derived from the Adams (and presumably paid for the same way) would’ve been a proper lethal platform for a decent cost and crewing would’ve been acceptable for the RAN

 

[Dilandu]

That being said, a derivative design, similar to the Perths derived from the Adams (and presumably paid for the same way) would’ve been a proper lethal platform for a decent cost and crewing would’ve been acceptable for the RAN

A possibility, true. Still, if I recall CVV was always quite large ship - more than 45.000 tons displacement. Something Clemenceau-sized may be a better choice.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think that in this scenario if, and it's a big if, the RAN got new carriers they would be Harrier carriers.

I think in this scenario the RAN would keep the Sydney as a helicopter carrier, as an amphibious asset and for ASW helicopters when the Melbourne was unavailable for ling periods. So both of these ships would need to be replaced.

 

[Dilandu]

I think that in this scenario if, and it's a big if, the RAN got new carriers they would be Harrier carriers.

Problem is, Harriers aren't exactly very efficient if you went against long-range supersonic bombers with standoff missiles. It's subsonic and relatively short-legged. It may work against Tu-16K with KS-1 missiles, but hardly against Tu-22K with K-10/K-11.

For Harrier carriers to be efficient in that scenario, they would need to have at least some supersonic interceptor. P.1154 would be optimal, but Britain cancelled it in 1965. Would the RAN interest in project help to keep it in development?

 

[Pioneer]

A possibility, true. Still, if I recall CVV was always quite large ship - more than 45.000 tons displacement. Something Clemenceau-sized may be a better choice.

Agree wholeheartedly my dear Dilandu!
I personally advocate an improved Clemenceau. Such an improved Clemenceau might be of interest to both France itself!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

Agree wholeheartedly my dear Dilandu!
I personally advocate an improved Clemenceau. Such an improved Clemenceau might be of interest to both France itself!

A quite possible idea! French shipbuilding was much more interested in foreign money than American, and Australia was a client which would NOT cause any political problems.

 

[Pioneer]

I think that in this scenario if, and it's a big if, the RAN got new carriers they would be Harrier carriers.

I think in this scenario the RAN would keep the Sydney as a helicopter carrier, as an amphibious asset and for ASW helicopters when the Melbourne was unavailable for ling periods. So both of these ships would need to be replaced.

Until the advent of the Sea Harrier, with it's radar, Aim-9 capability, the Harrier was considered a lame duck by most air force and navies alike.

Real-World wise, the Harrier was actively promoted to Australia/RAN:
"Harrier T.52 "G-VTOL" during trials on the Australian Navy carrier HMAS Melbourne, probably circa 1978."
(Source: Post#1,476 https://www.militaryimages.net/threads/aircraft-carriers.9829/page-74)

I think it's safe to say that the factual capabilities of the Harrier/Sea Harrier only occurred during the Falklands War and their incredible exploitations against both subsonic (A-4 Skyhawk) and supersonic (Mirage III) fighters alike.


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Felocie]

I think that in this scenario if, and it's a big if, the RAN got new carriers they would be Harrier carriers.

A major factor against replacing the carriers was the fall of Indonesia as a threat. A carrier is, in my opinion, indispensable for the forward deployment of air power against Indonesia targets. The Harrier carrier was never what the RAN needed, hence the loss of the Invincible as a replacement wasn’t such a big hit in my opinion.

Agree wholeheartedly my dear Dilandu!
I personally advocate an improved Clemenceau. Such an improved Clemenceau might be of interest to both France itself!

As I understand it, a French offering was available as a new build but the papers and proposal is lost to time and the tyranny of the Canberra archives.

If a Harrier carrier was to be procured I would think the best bet would be a smaller ship, more like Garibaldi ( I believe from what I’ve read that there could be an Aussie Garibaldi proposal). The smaller carrier would allow for procurement of ideally two to three ships. Still, it isn’t an optimal solution

 

[Archibald]

Well the French navy wouldn't spit on a third Clemenceau, a.k.a PA59: like the last year it was pushed, 1959 : but the Force de Frappe was already sucking all the budget like a black hole. PA58 plans are still out there, too. Now if Australia wants to help paying for that third carrier: why not ? Arromanches needs a successor, albeit no hurry, it lasted to 1974 OTL.

 

[Felocie]

Well the French navy wouldn't spit on a third Clemenceau, a.k.a PA59: like the last year it was pushed, 1959 : but the Force de Frappe was already sucking all the budget like a black hole. PA58 plans are still out there, too. Now if Australia wants to help paying for that third carrier: why not ? Arromanches needs a successor, albeit no hurry, it lasted to 1974 OTL.

Plans for procurement or plans of the ship?Because I believe there were definitely Australian plans to acquire a French carrier (likely PA 58 derived). If there are plans of the ship I would very much like to see them because I’ve found nothing in depth other than a line drawing of the ships above the waterline and a very rough deck plan

 

[Dilandu]

If a Harrier carrier was to be procured I would think the best bet would be a smaller ship, more like Garibaldi ( I believe from what I’ve read that there could be an Aussie Garibaldi proposal). The smaller carrier would allow for procurement of ideally two to three ships. Still, it isn’t an optimal solution

Could the Australian interest keep the P.1154 alive? It was cancelled mainly due to budgetary restriction demands; if Australian are willing to participate, it may stay alive. And supersonic Harrier might be quite a different situation.

 

[Felocie]

Could the Australian interest keep the P.1154 alive? It was cancelled mainly due to budgetary restriction demands; if Australian are willing to participate, it may stay alive. And supersonic Harrier might be quite a different situation.

I wish, I’m a huge P.1154 fan but through a combination of reasons, mainly a political aversion to experimentation, I doubt Australia would even look at it. Plus the glaring issue is this: RAN air power was for anti snooper duties but the RAN wanted to be able to intercept and counter Indonesian bomber formations which would require proper interceptors. P.1154 lacks the missiles required for this mission.
Acquiring Invincible and Harriers shifted the role of the Fleet Air Arm away from these roles, firmly towards strike and counter snooper roles. Without the IRL loss of the bomber threat, we would still need proper air dominance and intercept platforms I think.

 

[uk 75]

A quite possible idea! French shipbuilding was much more interested in foreign money than American, and Australia was a client which would NOT cause any political problems.

Both French and Italian shipbuilders offered carrier designs for exports. Like the UK designs post 1966 these were helicopter/vstol designs. But I think France did offer Brazil a simpler version of Clemenceau before the real one.
Spain built the US Sea Control Ship design later

 

[Dilandu]

Well the French navy wouldn't spit on a third Clemenceau, a.k.a PA59: like the last year it was pushed, 1959 : but the Force de Frappe was already sucking all the budget like a black hole. PA58 plans are still out there, too. Now if Australia wants to help paying for that third carrier: why not ? Arromanches needs a successor, albeit no hurry, it lasted to 1974 OTL.

There is a bit of problem - what exactly a Clemenceau-like carrier, build in 1970s, would operate in terms of fighter aircraft? The F-8 Crusader production ended by 1965; the F-4 and F-14 are likely too heavy for medium-size carrier.

So the option for Australia seems to be either second-hand F-8G from US naval reserves, or pushing for Jaguar M (a prototype was build, and Australian interest might actually help it to won over Super Étendard)

 

[uk 75]

The Soviet Navy could have transfered Moskva and/or Leningrad once Kiev entered service. Maybe even with a few Yak 36 to counter Melbourne and A4.

 

[uk 75]

Super Etendard would be adequate if it had a decent missile fit. Maybe better than Jaguar.

 

[Dilandu]

The Soviet Navy could have transfered Moskva and/or Leningrad once Kiev entered service. Maybe even with a few Yak 36 to counter Melbourne and A4.

Initially I assumed that Australian Navy would buy a Soviet carrier (which actually would be quite good idea... but not very realistic)

I rather doubt that. Moskva and Leningrad were both brand-new, and Soviet Navy considered them very valuable accets. An export variation - something like the original "Kiev" (she was laid up as modified Project 1123 helicopter cruiser, but her construction was suspended soon after, and then she was re-ordered as Project 1143 VTOL carrier) - is possible, though:

 

[Dilandu]

Super Etendard would be adequate if it had a decent missile fit. Maybe better than Jaguar.

Hard to say; Super Entendard was a subsonic fighter-bomber, after all. Not the best choice if you are going to face missile-armed Tu-22 supersonic bombers. Jaguar M, while not exactly too impressive also, at least would be capable of Mach 1.6 at altitude.

 

[Felocie]

There is a bit of problem - what exactly a Clemenceau-like carrier, build in 1970s, would operate in terms of fighter aircraft? The F-8 Crusader production ended by 1965; the F-4 and F-14 are likely too heavy for medium-size carrier.

So the option for Australia seems to be either second-hand F-8G from US naval reserves, or pushing for Jaguar M (a prototype was build, and Australian interest might actually help it to won over Super Étendard)

We aren’t 100% sure on what the French proposal actually contained (or indeed how in depth it was). I personally believe Phantom is the minimum capability that would’ve been offered.