Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

[Archibald]

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)

Plus the Crusader was very hot, if not an outright killer. Out of 42 F-8E(FN) procured in 1964, the Aéronavale lost at least 16 in crashes. When they modernized 18 of them in the early 1990's, it was the bulk of the remaining fleet !

The Jaguar M, as flown, was a dog. Then again, it had Mk.102 Adours without the modulated reheat - it pioneered it actually, and passed it to the AdA Jaguars. From the Aéronavale testing on Foch, 1970-72 the Jaguar M would, first and firemost need a larger wing and the british Adour 104 with far more thrust - or the 106 eventually.

Well ok, let's start from there: bigger wing, modulated reheats, Adour Mk.104. Next: a radar in the nose, I think the indian Jaguars got the Super Etendard radar. Which was a derivate of the Mirage F1 Cyrano IV. Which in turn, would allow Matra Super 530F missiles on top of the Magic 2. There was a lot of room in the Jaguar nose, no reason it couldn't get a compact Cyrano radar, if the contemporary F1 and S.E got it.

Of course you could do the same from the british side of the fence: unlike the french they adopted the Mk.104 Adour, and there were Big Wing Jaguars projects like Big Wing Harriers. For the radars: Blue Fox, Blue Vixen. For the missile: AIM-9L and perhaps the Tornado ADV Skyflash. If the SHAR Blue Vixen handled AMRAAMs, it can certainly handle Skyflash.

 

[Dilandu]

Plus the Crusader was very hot, if not an outright killer. Out of 42 F-8E(FN) procured in 1964, the Aéronavale lost at least 16 in crashes. When they modernized 18 of them in the early 1990's, it was the bulk of the remaining fleet !

True. And it's limited to Sidewinders, so no real forward-attack capability outside AIM-9C model - at least till all-aspect Sidewinders would became available.

Well ok, let's start from there: bigger wing, Adour Mk.104. Next: a radar in the nose, I think the indian Jaguars got the Super Etendard radar. Which was a derivate of the Mirage F1 Cyrano IV. Which in turn, would allow Matra Super 530F missiles on top of the Magic 2. There was a lot of room in the Jaguar nose, no reason it couldn't get a compact Cyrano radar, if the contemporary F1 and S.E got it.

That's quite a good idea! Matra Super might be a bit too late, of course, but better late than never.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. Just recalled, that OTL Jaguars were suggested to Australia in 1969. So Australia could quite reasonably join the Jaguar project - both as land-based strike aircraft, and carrier-based fighter/strike one.

 

[Archibald]

True. And it's limited to Sidewinders, so no real forward-attack capability outside AIM-9C model - at least till all-aspect Sidewinders would became available.

The upgraded Crusaders - F-8P - got Magic 2, all aspect. As for SARH, medium range: they could fire the old and clunky R-530, in IR and radar guided variants.
Getting the F1 Super 530F would be much more complicated as - once again - some kind of Cyrano radar would need to fit inside the Crouze bullet nose.
Well, by 1989 when Hornets were rejected thanks to Dassault Rafale lobbying (sigh) the initial F-8P plan was to graft the Mirage F1 radar and missiles on the old airframe. But it was too complicated and expensive, so the upgrade stopped at IR Magic 2.

 

[Dilandu]

The upgraded Crusaders - F-8P - got Magic 2, all aspect.

Magic-2 appeared only in 1986, i.e. for 1960-1970s timefraime it's not exactly a promising idea.

As for SARH, medium range: they could fire the old and clunky R-530, in IR and radar guided variants.

Hm, as far as I know, the French F-8 could not use SARH R-530; they lacked Cyrano radar, which they were designed to operate with. They used only IR R-530 version.

 

[Archibald]

Main problem for the Jaguar M was, it was kinda an orphan on both sides of the Channel.
On the british side: no more carriers, so no Jaguar M order.
On the french side: Jaguar was initially Breguet, not Dassault (who got AFVG, bad deal !). Yet despite having won the Jaguar Breguet was sinking, so the french government ordered Dassault to buy and merge them. It took four years (1967-71) and Dassault inherited the Jaguar... which they hated. They scorned it as the proverbial camel, horse designed by a committee. Plus, it competed with the last Mirage III, turned ground attack (the Mirage V and 50) and also the similar, radarless F1A designed for South Africa. So Dassault essentially dumped the Jaguar to the british with no regrets whatsoever.

 

[Dilandu]

Main problem for the Jaguar M was, it was kinda an orphan on both sides of the Channel.

True, but as export plane it was quite a sucsess - and provided a hefty profit)

 

[Archibald]

Considering Dassault influence on the french side of the channel, I'd suggest to take the British option. Cherry on the cake, they use Adour Mk.104 - and the Jaguar certainly needed more power.

 

[uk 75]

I had Moskva in mind for Indonesia as an appropriate prestige replacement for Irian.
India got a nuclear submarine from Russia much later than your period but might be a possible one.

 

[Dilandu]

So let's summarize the basic idea; to replace HMAS Melbourne by the late 1970s with a French-build Clemenceau-class derivative, with the aim to have an air group of large-wing Jaguar-M fighters (capable of using the SARH missiles) and likely the venerable A-4 as strike aircraft.

UPD: Just learned from Archibald, that French F-8 were actually refitted to use SARH version of R530, so the situation with deck fighters could be greatly simplified.

 

[Archibald]

@Dilandu You picked my curiosity so I've checked what kind of R530 did the Crusaders carried - and they carried both, literally: one per side ! (unlike the Sidewinders, only two R530 could be carried below the cockpit)
Infrared of course, but also the SARH variant: the APQ-104 radar was adapted to it. Seems it was an upgraded APQ-94 found on the F-8E, which makes sense as the french planes were F-8E with a few goodies, and F-8E were the last "fresh" Crusaders in 1965.

Vought F8U/F-8 Crusader

Now back to the Jaguar M : you could easily fit R530s on it with a basic radar, but the price to pay is, they were as bad and unreliable as, say, an AIM-7A-E Sparrow of Vietnam fame. Super 530F is like AIM-7F : the first valuable variant.

 

[Dilandu]

I had Moskva in mind for Indonesia as an appropriate prestige replacement for Irian.

Yes, but Moskva was... too useful for Soviet Navy to sell her. At least not well into 1990s, when the first of 1143.5 carriers would become available.

 

[Dilandu]

@Dilandu You picked my curiosity so I've checked what kind of R530 did the Crusaders carried - and they carried both, literally: one per side ! (unlike the Sidewinders, only two R530 could be carried below the cockpit)
Infrared of course, but also the SARH variant: the APQ-104 radar was adapted to it. Seems it was an upgraded APQ-94 found on the F-8E, which makes sense as the french planes were F-8E with a few goodies, and F-8E were the last "fresh" Crusaders in 1965.

Hm! I really did not know that! Thanks for the data!

In that case, the situation likely would be much simplified; the RAN could order surplus F-8E from USN reserves, and let the French repair and refit them to use SARH missiles.

 

[Archibald]

Some additional info about second generation french carriers.
-After PA58 and PA59 not funded in 1960, that decade is mostly toast, after all Clemenceau and Foch are brand new.
-France return to carriers (which kickstarted the CdG is September 1980, then in February 1986) starts with PH75, in 1970.
-PH75 is a 18 000 tons Invincible / Garibaldi / Asturias lookalike, early on with the F67 frigates propulsion, then going nuclear from 1972.
-Clem and Foch are still young, the one that needs a successor in plain old Arromanches (a half-brother of Sidney and Melbourne !)
-Arromanches (gone early 1974) however is a swiss knife, multipurpose carrier, and so is PH75: hospital, asw, training, assault..
-a full blown Clemenceau / Foch successor (PA75) don't start before September 1980 and inherit PH75 nuclear propulsion. The legacy of two oil shocks that ruined French economic growth (les 30 glorieuses)
-PH75 / PA75 pivot.

So, if you play smart...

-Australia asking for a Clemenceau or PA58 / CdG size carrier (30 000 - 45 000 tons) sometimes in the 1960's could work as some kind of return of (d'uh) PA58 or PA59, lost in 1960.

-Australia asking for a Clemenceau or PA58 / CdG size carrier (30 000 - 45 000 tons) sometimes in the 1970's could accelerate the shift from PH75 to PA75 or simply nix the PH75 entirely. Which may butterfly the shift to nuclear, happened somewhere in 1972-73.

And I swear (@Jemiba ?) that France offered a Clemenceau design carrier to Spain in the 1960's, before they went for Independance-class Dedalo & AV-8A Harriers, in 1967. And SCS Asturias later.

 

[Dilandu]

-Australia asking for a Clemenceau or PA58 / CdG size carrier (30 000 - 45 000 tons) sometimes in the 1970's could accelerate the shift from PH75 to PA75 or simply nix the PH75 entirely. Which may butterfly the shift to nuclear, happened somewhere in 1972-73.

The second scenario is more likely, IMHO. In 1960s Melbourne still have enough life in her, and replacement would start to be seriously considered later.

 

[Archibald]

And Melbourne, like Sydney, is Arromanches sistership. So the needs are somewhat converging, with Arromanches retirement early 1974. How about that.

 

[Archibald]

Thinking about it, we need an alternative history where somebody is smart enough circa 1962 to tackle the Colossus / Majestic replacement problem - also the Independance class for Spain. France, Great Britain or the United States: whatever it takes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_Design_Light_Fleet_Carrier#Foreign_service

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

India

Netherlands

Add Spain and Italy to the tally, and you have a market...

 

[Pioneer]

Thinking about it, we need an alternative history where somebody is smart enough circa 1962 to tackle the Colossus / Majestic replacement problem - also the Independance class for Spain. France, Great Britain or the United States: whatever it takes.
...

I think at the end of the day, specifically in the case of Australia at least, the rusted on notion of her cheapness of the Majestic-class, which gives impetuous to her continually extended life well beyond useability could/would have only been broken if she'd been used in combat during the VietNam War. Such combat would have irrufutably shown her limitations (lets face it, this was always appreciated by the RAN) in a serious manner that would have embarrassed or at least highlighted to the purse string bearers - the politicians/government, that HMAS Melbourne indeed needed replacement. Add to this appreciated shortfalls of HMAS Melbourne, the increasing threat and capabilities of Indonesia in this scenario.

In essence, from a political aspect, if it's props are turning and planes can just barely take off and land, that constitutes a degree of geopolitical prestige.....which has annoys the shit out of me, especially when one thinks today it's the utter reverse, where politicians are more than willing to spend stupendous amounts of money on massive Destroyer, sub and Frigate program that are literally off the board, risky and eveytime over budget, late IOC and problematic in service....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

I think everyone is getting a bit carried away with the bombers and how the RAN needs a big carrier to combat them.

We're not talking the AVMF here, Indonesia received 26 Tu16s and Iraq and Libya received 14 Tu 22s so I imagein that's how many Indonesia will receive. Kh-22 that the Tu22 could carry were not exported, and IIUC the Tu22 did not carry the KSR-2 or KSR-5. These bombers will not be focused on the Melbourne alone, they will be the only means with which Indonesia cas strike Australia, so will likely be heavily engaged in that task, while also trying to avoid being targeted by the F111s and SAS.

By the time the Melbourne needs o be replaced in the mid 80s the RAAF will have also acquired a Mirage replacement, which even if it is still the F/A18A the RAAF will be able to put much greater pressure on these bombers at home. Further, the RAN will have acquired more Standard SAM ships to defend the fleet.

Perhaps most importantly, this scenario occurs after the Australian Government has already decided to keep the Melbourne for another 15+ years. During the process they looked at other options, including a CVA01 and an Essex class and rejected them, so for better or worse the RAN is stuck with the Melbourne during the 70s.

 

[Pioneer]

I think everyone is getting a bit carried away with the bombers and how the RAN needs a big carrier to combat them.

We're not talking the AVMF here, Indonesia received 26 Tu16s and Iraq and Libya received 14 Tu 22s so I imagein that's how many Indonesia will receive. Kh-22 that the Tu22 could carry were not exported, and IIUC the Tu22 did not carry the KSR-2 or KSR-5. These bombers will not be focused on the Melbourne alone, they will be the only means with which Indonesia cas strike Australia, so will likely be heavily engaged in that task, while also trying to avoid being targeted by the F111s and SAS.
By the time the Melbourne needs o be replaced in the mid 80s the RAAF will have also acquired a Mirage replacement, which even if it is still the F/A18A the RAAF will be able to put much greater pressure on these bombers at home. Further, the RAN will have acquired more Standard SAM ships to defend the fleet.

Perhaps most importantly, this scenario occurs after the Australian Government has already decided to keep the Melbourne for another 15+ years. During the process they looked at other options, including a CVA01 and an Essex class and rejected them, so for better or worse the RAN is stuck with the Melbourne during the 70s.

Fair call Rule of cool, I concur with your analogy. Especially when one considers that Australia wouldn't have the balls to do a 1967-Israeli like pre-emptive strike against Indonesian bomber bases.

Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that for the cost and lack of political support of replacing HMAS Melbourne with a CTOL carrier design, that the ADF would be far better off putting its money into replacing its A-5C+ Vigilante's with maturely developed F-111E's/P-3C Orion's/P-3 AEW fleet supported by a substantially sized air refuelling tanker fleet, which would be a very powerful and flexible defensive and or strike force....
For a carrier battle group is a massive cost in terms of purchase, maintance cost. While at the same time very vulnerable militaraly and politically. Let's face it, it's much easier for a nation to loose 10-20 aircraft and perhaps a hundred airman than say an aircraft carrier with 1,500 crew, which has to sail into harmsway to conduct its operations.....


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Felocie]

I wonder if overseas basing could be an alternative? Establishing an airbase in Singapore could certainly help extend control

 

[Rule of cool]

Especially when one considers that Australia wouldn't have the balls to do a 1967-Israeli like pre-emptive strike against Indonesian bomber bases.

This raises an interesting point. certainly in our history that is the case, particularly given the very low threat Australia faced. We really only faced one low level conflict at a time; Malayan Emergency, Thailand insurrection, Indonesian Confrontation and Vietnam.None of these made much of a threat against Australia, even the Indonesian Confrontation was aimed at Malaysia and not PNG or Australia. What's more in those situations Australia was a minor player alongside a great power ally.

In this situation the risk is much greater and the great power ally much less, particularly post-Vietnam. I think by maybe 1975 there would be political support for a 1967 (or more like Pakistan 1971) pre-emptive strike in certain circumstances, particularly on the bomber bases.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

Agreed, Harrier is basically a fancy Skyhawk that trades some bomb capacity for the ability to take off vertically.

A-4s were used by the Essex CVS as their anti-snooper CAP or DLI, but Oz needs a much more capable aircraft in terms of avionics.

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?

I dunno, UKRN was pushing for a twin engine design which is fundamentally incompatible with VTOL. Lose either engine in the hover, lose plane and pilot.

Assuming that someone beats that through the heads of UKRN admirals and gets a single-engine design more or less like the P1154RAF, then we can talk about developing a single engine P1154RN with Phantom level avionics.

 

[Volkodav]

Still the range avdvantage of Bloodhound is pretty important for Australia.

Bloodhound was in RAAF service, Hawk was to have been for the army, they were to have been separate capabilities. Hawk was intended to defence deployed forces, Bloodhound was to defence fixed bases.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

There was a change of government that year. New government, new priorities.

 

[Dilandu]

I think everyone is getting a bit carried away with the bombers and how the RAN needs a big carrier to combat them.

Well, to be exact, I noted that the cost of having a proper carrier attack group (capable of surviving against Tu-16K/Tu-22 attacks) would likely be too much for Australia, and it may be more logical to consider navy without carriers, centered around large helicopter-capable destroyers.

 

[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!

Quoting myself)

 

[Pioneer]

Well, to be exact, I noted that the cost of having a proper carrier attack group (capable of surviving against Tu-16K/Tu-22 attacks) would likely be too much for Australia, and it may be more logical to consider navy without carriers, centered around large helicopter-capable destroyers.

Ok, in which case, how about something like a derivative of the excellent and very capable Italian Vittorio Veneto cruiser replacing the carrier HMAS Melbourne? This gives the principle offensive strike mission within the ADF to the RAAF (A-5C+ Vigilante) and RAN (Oberon-class diesel-electric subs).
Not does the Vittorio Veneto carry a very large complement of helicopters, but it has its own very capable offensive/defensive sensor and armament, including:

• 1 × Mk 10 twin-arm launcher for 40 RIM-2 Terrier and 20 ASROC missiles;
• 8 × Oto Melara 76/62mm DP guns;
• 2 × 324 mm triple Torpedo tubes;
• a three-dimensional AN/SPS-52 B radar
• a SPS-768 (RAN 3L) air search radar.
• a AN/SSQS-23sonar for ASW
•  and check this out - 9 x Augusta AB 204's or AB 212's or 6 x Sea King's!!!

With a complement of 557, Australia could technically operate three of these excellent cruiser's (not that politicians/government would endorse such an acquisition.)

Swap out the ASROC capability for two Ikara launchers and magazine in place of at least two of the Oto Melara 76/62mm DP guns.
Replace the 20 x ASROC rockets with 20 x additional RIM-2 Terrier.
Replace the Augusta AB 204's or AB 212's with 6 x Wessex helicopters (and later Sea King's).
Perhaps four of the Oto Melara 76/62mm DP guns could be replaced by two single barreled 127mm DP mounts?
Rb.08 or Turana derived anti-ship missile.

[P.S. Does anyone do Shipbucket profiles like to have a go at the above mentioned modifications?]

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

Ok, in which case, how about something like a derivative of the excellent and very capable Italian Vittorio Veneto cruiser replacing the carrier HMAS Melbourne? This gives the principle offensive strike mission within the ADF to the RAAF (A-5C+ Vigilante) and RAN (Oberon-class diesel-electric subs).
Not does the Vittorio Veneto carry a very large complement of helicopters, but it has its own very capable offensive/defensive sensor and armament, including:

Actually she looks like a perfect solution. Big, seaworthy, capable of both area air defense & anti-submarine hunting, and more than capable of self-defense against both air & surface targets (her eight 76-mm guns could probably tear a destroyer apart). Great idea, Pioneer!

 

[Pioneer]

Then when it comes time to replace the Vittorio Veneto-based cruiser, perhaps consider something like the design proposed by Commander Ronald J Ghiradella, itself based on a modified Spruance-class hull and machinery, which incorporated the following:

"basic Spruance hull lengthened to 606ft overall; the gas turbine uptakes are trunked to starboard where an island superstructure is located, making room for a 470ft flight deck angling to port. Forward, there are conventional weapons: a 5in gun and Harpoon anti-ship missile canisters, with 30mm guns sited on each quarter to provide close-in AA defence, and a Basic Point Defense Missile System is located aft of the island. There is a long, narrow lift (62ft by 26ft) aft of the island. Ghiradella foresees two hangar decks, the main one on the original main deck, with a lower hangar deck extending from the lift aft to the stern. In spite of the fact that the lift is too narrow to handle Harriers, Ghiradella gives the aircraft complement as twelve 'medium-sized' helicopters and four 'Harrier-type' aircraft.'"

Minus the Mk71 203mm DP gun (swapped for a Mk45 127mm).


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

Swap out the ASROC capability for two Ikara launchers and magazine in place of at least two of the Oto Melara 76/62mm DP guns.
Replace the 20 x ASROC rockets with 20 x additional RIM-2 Terrier.
Replace the Augusta AB 204's or AB 212's with 6 x Wessex helicopters (and later Sea King's).
Perhaps four of the Oto Melara 76/62mm DP guns could be replaced by two single barreled 127mm DP mounts?

I wonder, would Australians keep Mk-10 Terrier GMLS or prefer to switch for the Mk-26 Standard GMLS? To summarize the choice:

* RIM-2 Terrier/SM-1ER with Mk-10 launcher have better range, but less fire rate; also its much heavier and bulky system
* RIM-66 SM-1MR with Mk-26 launcher have better fire rate, but less range. On the other hand, its much lighter, more compact, and compatible in terms of ammo & components with the Tartar systems already in service on Perth-class.

 

[Pioneer]

I wonder, would Australians keep Mk-10 Terrier GMLS or prefer to switch for the Mk-26 Standard GMLS? To summarize the choice:

* RIM-2 Terrier/SM-1ER with Mk-10 launcher have better range, but less fire rate; also its much heavier and bulky system
* RIM-66 SM-1MR with Mk-26 launcher have better fire rate, but less range. On the other hand, its much lighter, more compact, and compatible in terms of ammo & components with the Tartar systems already in service on Perth-class.

Yes, good and valid point Dilandu, in which case do you want a flagship with a true commanding area defence missiles capability to defend a fleet/convoy? Or if you adopted the Mk26 launcher and shorter-ranged capability, but as you said, lighter, more compact, and compatible in terms of ammo & components with the Tartar systems already in service on Perth-class....
But I'm guessing that your Perth-class DDG's probably going to be accompanying your Vittorio Veneto-based cruiser's anyway, so the mix of SAM capabilities would in essence create a more formidable comprehensive defence as a consequence, would it not?
What with the Vittorio Veneto exceptional helicopter carrying capability perhaps thought could be given to embarking a simple AEW/Picket-type helicopter to give an extensive area of air and sea surveillance over the horizon, which would really give advantage to detecting and intercepting Indonesian anti-ship missile armed bombers and surface combatants.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

Most efficient Tu-22M killer interceptor that could fit on Clemenceau class carriers would be the Mirage G : kinda half a Tomcat, same VG, same TF30, actually a TF306E with 10300 kg of thrust. Alternatively you could get a slightly more compact variant with a M53-P2 (9700 kg), or a scaled-down variant with a M53-5, 8500 kg of thrust. These designs are detailed in Liébert & Buyck stupendous Mirage F1 book.

See attached - Mirage G1M, with M53-5 and 8400 kg of thrust; and Mirage G3M, with a TF306F, 11000 kg of thrust.

 

[Dilandu]

But I'm guessing that your Perth-class DDG's probably going to be accompanying your Vittorio Veneto-based cruiser's anyway, so the mix of SAM capabilities would in essence creat a more formidable and comprehensive defence as a consequence, is it not?

A quite valid point, true!

 

[Dilandu]

Yes, good and valid point Dilandu, in which case do you want a flagship with a true commanding area defence missiles capability to defend a fleet/convoy? Or if you adopted the Mk26 launcher and shorter-ranged capability, but as you said, lighter, more compact, and compatible in terms of ammo & components with the Tartar systems already in service on Perth-class....

Hm, I checked the sources. Until the RIM-67C became avaliable in 1980s, the range of SM-1ER would be about 65 km.

The RIM-66 SM-1MR, on the other hand, would be available since 1971. It have a circa 46 km range.

I.e. using RIM-67 in 1970s would give only about 30% range advantage over RIM-66, at the cost of three times slower reload (30 seconds for Mk-10, 10 seconds for Mk-26), greater weight and complexity, and lack of commonality with already-used systems. I'd say, I would prefer RIM-66 with Mk-26. Or a pair of Mk-13, if US would not release Mk-26 for export yet.

 

[Pioneer]

Hm, I checked the sources. Until the RIM-67C became avaliable in 1980s, the range of SM-1ER would be about 65 km.

The RIM-66 SM-1MR, on the other hand, would be available since 1971. It have a circa 46 km range.

I.e. using RIM-67 in 1970s would give only about 30% range advantage over RIM-66, at the cost of three times slower reload (30 seconds for Mk-10, 10 seconds for Mk-26), greater weight and complexity, and lack of commonality with already-used systems. I'd say, I would prefer RIM-66 with Mk-26.

Good research, although, realistically, one wouldn't have the advantage of such hindsight at the time. Add to this, 30% range advantage is a big factor when you're out in the middle of shit creek in an ocean/sea with big-arse anti-ship missiles trying to kill you.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

Good research, although, realistically, one wouldn't have the advantage of such hindsight at the time. Add to this, 30% range advantage is a big factor when you're out in the middle of shit creek in an ocean/sea with big-arse anti-ship missiles trying to kill you.

True. Hm, I need to calculate the timing of potential engagement against Tu-16K carrying KSR-2 (active homing) and KSR-11 (passive homing) missiles. They have a range about 75-200 km, depending on launch altitude, and speed about Mach 1.2 max.

 

[Felocie]

Then when it comes time to replace the Vittorio Veneto-based cruiser, perhaps consider something like the design proposed by Commander Ronald J Ghiradella, itself based on a modified Spruance-class hull and machinery, which incorporated the following:

"basic Spruance hull lengthened to 606ft overall; the gas turbine uptakes are trunked to starboard where an island superstructure is located, making room for a 470ft flight deck angling to port. Forward, there are conventional weapons: a 5in gun and Harpoon anti-ship missile canisters, with 30mm guns sited on each quarter to provide close-in AA defence, and a Basic Point Defense Missile System is located aft of the island. There is a long, narrow lift (62ft by 26ft) aft of the island. Ghiradella foresees two hangar decks, the main one on the original main deck, with a lower hangar deck extending from the lift aft to the stern. In spite of the fact that the lift is too narrow to handle Harriers, Ghiradella gives the aircraft complement as twelve 'medium-sized' helicopters and four 'Harrier-type' aircraft.'"

Minus the Mk71 203mm DP gun (swapped for a Mk45 127mm).


Regards
Pioneer

An interesting proposition but even Cmdr Ghiradella acknowledged it was a ship unfit for purpose. At that point buy Giuseppe Garibaldi class (or its 70s precursors)

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks for that insight Felocie. Where can I find Cmdr Ghiradella acknowledgement that his design was a ship unfit for purpose please?
Well, in truth, if Australia was serious about its defence, one would really think by 1980/1990, if it could build a ship to its specific requirements, Australia really isn't worth a dam.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Felocie]

Thanks for thst insight Felocie.
Well, in truth, if Australia was serious about its defence, one would really think by 1980/1990, if it could build a ship to its specific requirements, Australia really isn't worth a dam.

Regards
Pioneer

You would be surprised as to why we struggled so much with naval procurement. In any case the RAN was more capable than many give credit. We were the ASW cog in a western pacific campaign and most of the pushback was because the government didn’t want to be any more than that. I suppose we were always the navy that could’ve but wouldn’t be.