Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

[Felocie]

747 military freighter version is my go to for these scenarios but probably unattainable given the US didn’t go forward with the project. The main advantages are the relative simplicity to run of the civil design and commonality with civil aircraft.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm normally not one for advanced militaries to buy used kit, or Jeep old kit beyond its basic useful life, but I think this is one of the exceptions. A lot of militaries buy ex airliners, including the RAAF, for the non operation transport task and even the mighty USAF bought hundreds of B707s to fit their engines at tails to kc135s. I'd think the RAAF would get 707s in the 70s and not get 746s until they become more available on the used market. There's no real need for anything fancier, the RAAF certainly didn't bother during the mid 60s when Australia was involved in 3 active operations.

 

[Scott Kenny]

C-5 would be interesting but I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to enlarge the Caribou and C-130 fleets? Most of the combat would be happening at shorter ranges than a C-5 is necessary for and C-5s are ridiculously expensive to operate from memory

Buy all stretched C-130s.

IIRC Herks tend to run out of cargo volume before they run out of cargo weight.

 

[Pioneer]

The C130 has the range to operate from Australia to South Vietnam so could handle the transport tasks requiring a more 'military' aspect: short runways, austere cargo handling facilities etc. I'd think a cargo variant of an airliner would do the long range, administrative cargo missions of the RAAF well enough; East coast to USA, West coast to Europe. They'd be much cheaper to buy and run than a C5 of C141, unless of course the RAAF buys ex RAF Belfasts in 1976.

I totally acknowledge the cost of purchasing and maintaining such a specialised large transport-cargo aircraft like the C-5 Galaxy, but alas, it was studied and considered in real-world terms by the Australian government/RAAF.

Good call on the Short Belfast Rule of cool. I to am partial to this unsung workhorse. Especially when operating out of austere airfield.
Up until the advent of the C-141B (which is outside our timeline) with it's stretched fuselage and aerial refuelling capability, apart from speed, realistically the C-141A didn't really bring much added benefits to the game, it's cargo area being the same as the C-130, bar length. It's rough field capability was minimal, if any.
The reason I suggest such a purposeful strategic, heavy life transport, is because although the C-130 is unquestionably an outstanding STOL transport, the fact remains that it's fuselage still has restrictions in terms of usable dimensions. The C-130's load will still be restricted to a degree when operating from such airfield - hence it will take more C-130's to deliver given equipment and stores to a given area than a large specialised military cargo-transport aircraft such as the C-5 or Belfast.
I'd also think that the C-130 fleet would be working overtime supporting outpost areas like New Guinea and forward deployed troop deployment, or actual operations. Hence something like the C-5 or Belfast could concentrate on bulk/outsize load distribution.
As for the use of civilian-type aircraft to complement the logistical and transport burden, unless the Australian government was going to be organised in an unprecedented scale legislative and financially, supporting the purchase and running of aircraft like Armstrong Whitworth Argosy, Lockheed C-130's or Short Belfasts within their fleets, adhoc transport aircraft like Lockheed L-188 Electra's, Fokker F.27 Friendships don't really have the size/weight capacities that is economical IMO.

I have a WhatIf profile somewhere of a Short Belfast in RAAF camo and markings......... somewhere

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Buy all stretched C-130s.

IIRC Herks tend to run out of cargo volume before they run out of cargo weight.

Totally agree Scott Kenny - especially when working from astute runways.

But when did the "stretched C-130s" begin being marketed/built, in terms of our timeline?
Also keep in mind that the stretched C-130 losses some of its take off and landing performance.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

There's no real need for anything fancier, the RAAF certainly didn't bother during the mid 60s when Australia was involved in 3 active operations.

It should probably be appreciated that our 'allies' - especially Uncle Sam provided a lot of logistics and material for our usage in VietNam. Would such a luxury be afforded to Australia if Uncle Sam wasn't actively involved in such a stand off/conflict with Indonesia? There's only a couple of countries that have this guarantee from the U.S.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

But when did the "stretched C-130s" begin being marketed/built, in terms of our timeline?
Also keep in mind that the stretched C-130 losses some of its take off and landing performance.

The stretched L-100-30 civilian Herk was certified in 1970. So the stretch was "in process" about this time.

Plus the UK actually converted 30 of their Herk C.1s into the stretched version in 1978. Which means that CAC could believably stretch any Herks bought before the stretched birds were chosen as standard.

It should probably be appreciated that our 'allies' - especially Uncle Sam provided a lot of logistics and material for our usage in VietNam. Would such a luxury be afforded to Australia if Uncle Sam wasn't actively involved in such a stand off/conflict with Indonesia? There's only a couple of countries that have this guarantee from the U.S.

If we're talking about "preventing the spread of Communism", the US would give lots of support.

 

[Pioneer]

The stretched L-100-30 civilian Herk was certified in 1970. So the stretch was "in process" about this time.

Plus the UK actually converted 30 of their Herk C.1s into the stretched version in 1978. Which means that CAC could believably stretch any Herks bought before the stretched birds were chosen as standard.





If we're talking about "preventing the spread of Communism", the US would give lots of support.

I think, even for CAC or GAF, a go it alone fuselage stretch might be a far stretch.

"Preventing the spread of Communism", I don't know why my brain so easily overlooked that U S. ideological/psychosis....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[uk 75]

In the real world Asia from 1965 to 1975 the Soviet Union was as much concerned with its rift with "Red" China as with the Cold War with the West.

For its part China was actively exporting its own version of Communism. Indonesia would have been a prime target as a former colonial possession. Sukharno like India's Nehru and Mrs Gandhi saw himself as non-aligned. Unlike India which continued to buy UK military equipment, Indonesia might not have bought Dutch equipment under Sukharno (in otl it bought Dutch and British frigates) but might have swung between Moscow and Beijing.

Indonesia does not seem to have very effective air and naval forces, focussing more on internal security than external defence.

The Soviet Union exported Tu16s and Il38s as well as Tu22s to Syria and Libya while India received Tu142s.

An Oriskany carrier with a mixture of F8 Crusaders and A7s/A4s transferred to the RAN (instead of the RN as offered in 1966) in the late 60s seems the most likely off the shelf option. A second ship might also be available.

The RN can only offer Sea Vixen FAW2s if it transferred Victorious or Hermes post 1966.

In practice the Soviets were quite cautious in transfering modern warships. India did not get Kashins until they were supplanted in the Soviet Navy by later designs. A further gun armed Swerdlow might have joined Irian but Grisha and Koni frigates were the usual export vessels.

 

[Dilandu]

Indonesia does not seem to have very effective air and naval forces, focussing more on internal security than external defence.

Well, as far as I know, Soviet specialists considered Indonesians more competent and eager to train with modern equipment than Arabs. Cultural differences, perhaps.

 

[Felocie]

I think, even for CAC or GAF, a go it alone fuselage stretch might be a far stretch.

"Preventing the spread of Communism", I don't know why my brain so easily overlooked that U S. ideological/psychosis....

Regards
Pioneer

I believe CAC could’ve done it. They had other plans of similar magnitude.

 

[Dilandu]

In practice the Soviets were quite cautious in transfering modern warships. India did not get Kashins until they were supplanted in the Soviet Navy by later designs. A further gun armed Swerdlow might have joined Irian but Grisha and Koni frigates were the usual export vessels.

An argument. What about Project 56A destroyers? It was a refit of Project 56 with the M-1 "Volna" SAM installation:


There was an export version, Project 56AE (a single ship sold to Poland, with export-version electronics).

 

[Dilandu]

A bit of change of original data; Uk-75 reasonably noted that Project 61 large anti-submarine ships (Kashin-class) would likely not be cleared for export till 1980s.

So I decided to replace them with the ships, that could be exported: a Project 56A missile destroyers. Those SAM-equipped refits of basic Project 56 destroyers were made in late 1960-early 1970s, and they have an export version (a Project 56AM destroyer, with export-grade electronic equipment, was sold to Poland)



I took a bit of liberty to modify the basic Project 56AM here:

* The rear SM-2-1 DP turret and SM-203ZIF autocannon are replaced with M-1 "Volna" SAM (16 missiles), as in OTL
* The bow SM-2-1 DP turret and SM-203ZIF autocannon are replaced with two AK-627 autocannons
* Both PTA-53-56 torpedo mounts are replaced with four launch cannisters for P-15 "Termit" anti-ship missiles
* Two AK-230 30-mm autocannons are added at the sides of rear superstructure (as additional precaution against low-altitude air attacks)
* Four single-shot 400-mm fixed tubes for SET-40 anti-submarine torpedoes installed.

Four units are modernized in 1969-1973 for Indonesian Navy.

The remaining Project 30-bis destroyers are also modernized:


* Bot sets of torpedo tubes replaced with two dual P-15 launchers on trainable mounts (or with four fixed launchers; I hasn't decide yet what's better)
* A single ZIF-75 four-barrel 57-mm gun is added on the top of rear superstructure
* Three AK-230 30-mm autocannons are added (one in front of the bridge, two at sides of middle superstructure)
* Four single-shot 400-mm fixed tubes for SET-40 anti-submarine torpedoes installed.

Six units are modernized in 1966-1970 for Indonesian Navy.

 

[Dilandu]

So I decided to re-think the Indonesian Navy a bit, to make it more realistic and close to the actual Soviet export by the late 1970s:

* Project 68bis cruiser (the "Irian", single units) - refitted replacement of X turret with one Osa-M self-defense SAM and four dual 57-mm AK- 725 autocannons
* Project 56BE missile destroyers (Kotlin-class, four units) - Project 56 destroyers, refitted with the replacement of rear turret with Volna-M SAM and forward turret with two 76-mm dual AK-726 autocannons. Torpedo banks replaced with four P-15/P-15M launchers
* Project 30BKM missile destroyers (six units) - Project 30-bis destroyers, refitted with the replacement of torpedo bunks with P-15/P-15M launchers and installation of a single ZIF-75 four-barrel 57-mm gun and three AK-230 30-mm autocannons
* Project 30K destroyers (two units) - non-modified Project 30-bis, used as training ships
* Project 159AE anti-submarine frigates (Petya-class, eight units) - increased anti-aircraft armament by replacement of rear 76-mm gun with Osa-M SAM & installation of additional AK-230 autocannons
* Project 50 anti-submarine frigates (Riga-class, six units in service) - increased anti-aircraft armament by installation of additional AK-230 autocannons
* Project 1234E missile corvettes (Nanuchka-class, eight units)
* Project 205 missile boats (Osa-class, eight units)
* Project 185R missile boats (Komar-class, eight units in service)

* Project 633 submarines (Romeo-class, six units)
* Project 613 submarines (Whiskey-class, six units in service, additional two used as training ships)

* Project 266 and Project 266M minsweepers (Yurka and Natya class, twelve units in total)
* Project 770 and Project 770M and Project 771 medium amphibious ships (Polnocny-class, Polish-build, twelve units)

* Naval patrol aviation have two squadrons, one of ten Il-38 patrol planes, the other of twelve Be-12 flying boats
* Naval strike aviations have two squadrons, one of Su-7UMK, the other of Su-20 fighter-bombers
* Naval fighter aviation have two squadrons of Mig-23MS fighters, modified for extended range (required over sea)

Procurement plans for 1980s include:

* Four Project 61ME OR four Project 956ME destroyers (the proposed, but never build export version of Project 956 destroyer, with 100-mm cannons, Volna-M SAM and P-15M missiles) - to replace the existing destoryer fleet
* Six Project 1159 light frigates (Koni-III class) - to replace the Project 159AE and Project 50 anti-submarine frigates
* Two-to-four Project 877E submarines, to replace the Project 613 and later Project 633 boats
* Negotiations are conducted with USSR and China about modernizing a pair of existing Project 633 submarines to surface-launch P-15M anti-ship missiles from deck-mounted containers

 

[uk 75]

The sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat in 1967 by a Styx missile supplied to Egypt happened after Indonesia ceased to be a Soviet ally.
Western navies took prompt action to both develop their own SSMs and also to arm helicopters with anti fpb missiles.
Australia was already fitting Ikara to its ships and might well have developed an anti ship version to counter Indonesia. In theory Seacats or 40mm could shoot down a Styx.

 

[Dilandu]

The sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat in 1967 by a Styx missile supplied to Egypt happened after Indonesia ceased to be a Soviet ally.

Indonesians brought a large number of Komar-class missile boats before 1966; USSR quite valued Indonesia as ally, and was willing to equip them with the modern armament. The first launches were conducted as early as in 1963, and by 1965 they were fully capable of using P-15 missiles without the help of Soviet advisers.

Australia was already fitting Ikara to its ships and might well have developed an anti ship version to counter Indonesia.

That's exactly what I suggested earlier)

In theory Seacats or 40mm could shoot down a Styx.

In theory... but on practice, it's not that simple. Old manual-controlled 40-mm guns would not work; something like DARDO with automatic fire control and fast reaction time would be required.

 

[Rule of cool]

So I decided to re-think the Indonesian Navy a bit, to make it more realistic and close to the actual Soviet export by the late 1970s:

Nice, and still a huge problem for the RAN that in the mid late 60s had a carrier and 11 escorts. I'd add maybe 20 Be 12s into that mix as INdian didn't get the Il38 until 1977, so Indonesia likely wouldn't get them until about then either.

Countering that from that RAN's ~1966-69 base would be a huge job for Australia. I think the RN might be a source of used warships from 1968 to get the numbers up in the short term, perhaps get a 4th Daring class during the UKs withdrawal EoS while the DDLs get built. Perhaos a submarine or two while our Oberons are getting built as well. However I think quality and background capability is where the RAN can make big strides; getting a 2nd oiler and using the extant facilities in WA would give big gains against Indonesia even without getting more combatants. I think the big opportunity lies in the Fremantle class, making them much more lethal than a fisheries protection and presence provider.

 

[Dilandu]

Nice, and still a huge problem for the RAN that in the mid late 60s had a carrier and 11 escorts. I'd add maybe 20 Be 12s into that mix as INdian didn't get the Il38 until 1977, so Indonesia likely wouldn't get them until about then either.

Thank you) Hm, a valid argument. I should check the sources about Il-38, aviation isn't exactly my area.

I think the RN might be a source of used warships from 1968 to get the numbers up in the short term, perhaps get a 4th Daring class during the UKs withdrawal EoS while the DDLs get built.

A probability, yes. At very least, the ships could be loaned from RN to RAN, until RAN's own units would be available.

Fremantle class, making them much more lethal than a fisheries protection and presence provider.

Hm! They are comparable in displacement with American "Asheville"-class, and, presumably, could carry at least some anti-ship missiles.

 

[Rule of cool]

A probability, yes. At very least, the ships could be loaned from RN to RAN, until RAN's own units would be available.

The RAN would take a different approach than Indonesia. Indonesia would not have a cadre of experienced naval crews and would have to create these from scratch, with the result that they don't have any officers with 20 years experience to command the cruiser Irian, let alone all the destroyers, frigates etc.

The RAN will want crews at the RN/USN/NATO standard so would not just scrounge up a bunch of warships and fill them full of diluted, barely trained crews. They ill grow the fleet at more or less the speed at whch they can crew it to top notch standard.

Hm! They are comparable in displacement with American "Asheville"-class, and, presumably, could carry at least some anti-ship missiles.

The history of RAN patrol boats from 1968 is:

• 20 Attack class - 146t, 1 x 40mm gun
• 15 Fremantle class - 220t, 1 x 40mm gun, 1 x 81mm mortar
• 12 Armidale class - 300t, 1 x 25mm gun
• 12(6) Arafura class - 1640t, 1 x 25mm gun (in lieu of cancelled 40mm gun), helipad. note this class can do patrol, mine warfare, hyrdo survey.

I'd think that in this scenario the Fremantle class could be a 500-1000t ship carrying a 76mm gun like the USN OHP frigates and maybe a helipad and maybe other stuff. Such ships would be no pushover in secondary roles and could add some weight to the fleet units when operating in a Task Group.

 

[Dilandu]

The RAN will want crews at the RN/USN/NATO standard so would not just scrounge up a bunch of warships and fill them full of diluted, barely trained crews. They ill grow the fleet at more or less the speed at whch they can crew it to top notch standard.

True.

I'd think that in this scenario the Fremantle class could be a 500-1000t ship carrying a 76mm gun like the USN OHP frigates and maybe a helipad and maybe other stuff. Such ships would be no pushover in secondary roles and could add some weight to the fleet units when operating in a Task Group.

Erm, I rather doubt that - it would be quite big jump, and the result would be essentially a corvette-class unit.

 

[Rule of cool]

Erm, I rather doubt that - it would be quite big jump, and the result would be essentially a corvette-class unit.

There have been several posts outlining plans for very large surface fleets, none of which came close to fruition, so the need was recognised. While building 20+ fleet units is off the table, but even in the meagre 70s the RAN got 15 patrol boats. I see the patrol boat as the base around which to get towards the large number of surface combatants by scaling up from little patrol boats to small Corvettes.

 

[Dilandu]

There have been several posts outlining plans for very large surface fleets, none of which came close to fruition, so the need was recognised. While building 20+ fleet units is off the table, but even in the meagre 70s the RAN got 15 patrol boats. I see the patrol boat as the base around which to get towards the large number of surface combatants by scaling up from little patrol boats to small Corvettes.

A point, but wouldn't the fleet of missile-armed patrol boats - essentially, fast attack crafts - be useful as is, without the need to increase their size?

 

[Pioneer]

There have been several posts outlining plans for very large surface fleets, none of which came close to fruition, so the need was recognised. While building 20+ fleet units is off the table, but even in the meagre 70s the RAN got 15 patrol boats. I see the patrol boat as the base around which to get towards the large number of surface combatants by scaling up from little patrol boats to small Corvettes.

Agree on the requirement for a small corvettes!

As our own resident member Volkodav points out:

I know Wikipedia is not a preferred source but it does relate what was my understanding that the original contract was for 15 plus 5 patrol boats to be followed by six or more missile armed FAC versions with plans for a total of up to 30 all together. My cousin was on the build at NQEA and confirmed to me, as did a retired RAN CPO Greenie (Weapons Electrical Technician), that all Fremantles had provision for the 76mm.

Source: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-building-in-trouble.37735/page-2#post-479671

So, although the Fremantle-class were originally designed to be armed with up to 76mm DP gun and SSM's, Australia/RAN never utilised them. The reality is the Fremantle boats (and the bloody Armadale boats which replaced them) were coastal boats, and as such, restricted in the sea states they could operate in.
The truth is, the RAN constantly frigged around - aka neglected both patrol boats and MCM's at the expense of 'bling' which could participate in exciting far flung adventures with their big and envious ally, which became all too clear and apparent in 1999......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[GK Dundas]

Thank you) Hm, a valid argument. I should check the sources about Il-38, aviation isn't exactly my area.


A probability, yes. At very least, the ships could be loaned from RN to RAN, until RAN's own units would be available.


Hm! They are comparable in displacement with American "Asheville"-class, and, presumably, could carry at least some anti-ship missiles.

As I recall weren't the Fremantle class based based on a Brooke Marine design ?
Wasn't there a design just a metre or two longer that was much more heavily armed including Exocet and a Oto Melera 76/ 62.mm gun ?

 

[Dilandu]

The reality is the Fremantle boats (and the bloody Armadale boats which replaced them) were coastal boats, and as such, restricted in the sea states they could operate in.

Well, its more or less inevitable for fast attack crafts. USSR attempted to circumvent such limitations by its "small missile-carrying ships" (like Project 1234, Nanuchka-class); the idea was basically to build a sea-capable missile-boat. This required a significant increase of displacement & installation of much more formidable defense weaponry, up to SAM's.

 

[Pioneer]

A point, but wouldn't the fleet of missile-armed patrol boats - essentially, fast attack crafts - be useful as is, without the need to increase their size?

I think their operational flexibility and restrictions would become burdensome, necessitating the hard pressed frigates to do what otherwise a corvette could and would do, as clearly demonstrated by the indigenous Bathurst-class corvettes of WWII, if I can use that analogy to emphasise size and displacement of practical useability....
Again, the Fremantle-class was restricted in what sea states it could safely and effectively operate.

Given the Indonesians appreciation of Australia's superiority in AWACS/AEW and Martime Patrol aircraft like, number and capabilities of the P-2 Neptune (and later P-3 Orion), I don't envisage Indonesian frigates/destroyers/cruiser to venture to close to Australian inner coastal waters.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

As I recall weren't the Fremantle class based based on a Brooke Marine design ?
Wasn't there a design just a metre or two longer that was much more heavily armed including Exocet and a Oto Melera 76/ 62.mm gun ?

I'm really not sure here; but it looks reasonable.

 

[Dilandu]

Given the Indonesians appreciation of Australia's superiority in AWACS/AEW and Martime Patrol aircraft like, number and capabilities of the P-2 Neptune (and later P-3 Orion), I don't envisage Indonesian frigates/destroyers/cruiser to venture to close to Australian inner coastal waters.

A point. On the other hand, missile-carrying Fremantle would likely cost only a fraction of "proper" corvette cost.

 

[Pioneer]

Well, its more or less inevitable for fast attack crafts. USSR attempted to circumvent such limitations by its "small missile-carrying ships" (like Project 1234, Nanuchka-class); the idea was basically to build a sea-capable missile-boat. This required a significant increase of displacement & installation of much more formidable defense weaponry, up to SAM's.

Agree, so in essence, Project 1234 is more a corvette then in size and displacement?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

A point. On the other hand, missile-carrying Fremantle would likely cost only a fraction of "proper" corvette cost.

Agree, but a Corvette would be far more useful, flexible and cheaper than a Frigate.

A Corvette could quite easily self-deploy and operate around the likes of Christmas Island and Papua New Guinea, any time of the year, compared to a Fremantle-class boat.


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

I believe CAC could’ve done it. They had other plans of similar magnitude.

I'm intrigued Felocie, what "other plans of similar magnitude" might you be alluding to?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

In such a scenario, I would imagine Australia government/RAAF pursuing their 'real-world' interest in acquiring a handful of Lockheed C-141 Starlifter (and later C-5 Galaxy) in 1960's due to the short comings of its C-130 Hercules fleet, in supporting it's commitment in South Vietnam......
Such heavy, strategic airlift would be invaluable.

(Profile by Chris Cooper - aka  Coops213)



Regards
Pioneer

Ok, just an update that I found on my hard-drive - The RAAF deemed three C-5A's would be sufficient for it's VietNam needs!
I'll attempt to find more and the source of this info.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

A bit of change of original data; Uk-75 reasonably noted that Project 61 large anti-submarine ships (Kashin-class) would likely not be cleared for export till 1980s.

So I decided to replace them with the ships, that could be exported: a Project 56A missile destroyers. Those SAM-equipped refits of basic Project 56 destroyers were made in late 1960-early 1970s, and they have an export version (a Project 56AM destroyer, with export-grade electronic equipment, was sold to Poland)

View attachment 763842

I took a bit of liberty to modify the basic Project 56AM here:

* The rear SM-2-1 DP turret and SM-203ZIF autocannon are replaced with M-1 "Volna" SAM (16 missiles), as in OTL
* The bow SM-2-1 DP turret and SM-203ZIF autocannon are replaced with two AK-627 autocannons
* Both PTA-53-56 torpedo mounts are replaced with four launch cannisters for P-15 "Termit" anti-ship missiles
* Two AK-230 30-mm autocannons are added at the sides of rear superstructure (as additional precaution against low-altitude air attacks)
* Four single-shot 400-mm fixed tubes for SET-40 anti-submarine torpedoes installed.

Four units are modernized in 1969-1973 for Indonesian Navy.

That sounds like a very effective unit.

The remaining Project 30-bis destroyers are also modernized:
View attachment 763845

* Bot sets of torpedo tubes replaced with two dual P-15 launchers on trainable mounts (or with four fixed launchers; I hasn't decide yet what's better)
* A single ZIF-75 four-barrel 57-mm gun is added on the top of rear superstructure
* Three AK-230 30-mm autocannons are added (one in front of the bridge, two at sides of middle superstructure)
* Four single-shot 400-mm fixed tubes for SET-40 anti-submarine torpedoes installed.

Six units are modernized in 1966-1970 for Indonesian Navy.

Bolting dual P-15 launchers onto the pivot for the heavy torpedoes would be my suggestion, assuming that loaded weights are similar.

 

[Felocie]

I'm intrigued Felocie, what "other plans of similar magnitude" might you be alluding to?

Regards
Pioneer

I think there were CAC C-130 plans or something similar? I don’t have my copy of Joe Velas book on me but I’ll see what I can find

 

[Pioneer]

I think there were CAC C-130 plans or something similar? I don’t have my copy of Joe Velas book on me but I’ll see what I can find

Thanks for your reply to my enquiry Felocie, I never knew Australia/CAC potentially considered such an undertaking. If you do come across more on this topic, I'd greatly appreciate hearing more about it.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Well, its more or less inevitable for fast attack crafts.

A FAC is virtually useless in the Australian context. They are suited for narrow seas and the only candidate for that would be the Torres straight which isn't really somewhere Indonesia would transit.

Corvettes would be slow, long-endurance vessels capable of open ocean operations, like the now building Arafua OPVs. In peacetime they would undertake patrol missions but wouldn't be totally worthless in a shooting war.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think their operational flexibility and restrictions would become burdensome, necessitating the hard pressed frigates to do what otherwise a corvette could and would do, as clearly demonstrated by the indigenous Bathurst-class corvettes of WWII, if I can use that analogy to emphasise size and displacement of practical useability....
Again, the Fremantle-class was restricted in what sea states it could safely and effectively operate.

Given the Indonesians appreciation of Australia's superiority in AWACS/AEW and Martime Patrol aircraft like, number and capabilities of the P-2 Neptune (and later P-3 Orion), I don't envisage Indonesian frigates/destroyers/cruiser to venture to close to Australian inner coastal waters.

Regards
Pioneer

I think the Attack and Fremantle classes would be virtually useless in a shooting war with Indonesia, they are so toothless and restricted in when they can operate. They'd likely be used in SAR and patrol operations offshore from RAAF bases, and would be hideously vulnerable to any sort of attack.

 

[Dilandu]

That sounds like a very effective unit.

Essentially yes. The real Project 56A were modernized to lesser extent - they retained their 130-mm bow turret & did not get anti-ship missiles - but such replacement is perfectly possible from weight & space consideration. Basically, my suggested refit is a mix between real Project 56-A, Project 57-A and Project 56-U refits.

Bolting dual P-15 launchers onto the pivot for the heavy torpedoes would be my suggestion, assuming that loaded weights are similar.

True! Like Chinese did on their destroyers. I'm a bit unsure about USSR willingness to do that - our industry did not produce such launchers, so it would cost more - but a typical fixed cannisters could be bolted on for sure.

A FAC is virtually useless in the Australian context. They are suited for narrow seas and the only candidate for that would be the Torres straight which isn't really somewhere Indonesia would transit.

Corvettes would be slow, long-endurance vessels capable of open ocean operations, like the now building Arafua OPVs. In peacetime they would undertake patrol missions but wouldn't be totally worthless in a shooting war.

Hm. A point.

 

[Caryina2642]

What about instead of the fremantle class PB's, the RAN builds something like the Vickers Vedette Type 633, with some modifactions the proposed boxed launched anti-ship missile based on the IKara & Sea Sparrow BPDMS

Shipbucket

 

[Felocie]

I

Thanks for your reply to my enquiry Felocie, I never knew Australia/CAC potentially considered such an undertaking. If you do come across more on this topic, I'd greatly appreciate hearing more about it.

Regards
Pioneer

I’ll try to summarise what I think I remember. The sought to enlarge a C-130 (potentially for production in Australia) and got plans and testing done. It was a sanctioned project and everything but I think it was more of a planning exercise. I could be off here, I spent most of the time looking at the CAC naval supersonic interceptor A-4G alternatives