* F-8 Crusader (with French radar for Magic SARH missiles) - either from USN reserves, or license-produced by CAC
* Mirage G1M (with variable swept wing) - was OTL proposed to Australian Navy in 1968-1970
* Jaguar M (naval version) - a possible cooperation project with French, replacing the Etendard IV in French Navy
* F-8 Crusader (with French radar for Magic SARH missiles) - either from USN reserves, or license-produced by CAC
* Mirage G1M (with variable swept wing) - was OTL proposed to Australian Navy in 1968-1970
* Jaguar M (naval version) - a possible cooperation project with French, replacing the Etendard IV in French Navy
All interesting ideas and CAC had an idea too (or maybe more!) Please see attached for the CAC A-4G alternative. Reasonably they could develop something further
Attachments
Scannable Document 3 on 1 Mar 2025 at 16_53_48.png
All interesting ideas and CAC had an idea too (or maybe more!) Please see attached for the CAC A-4G alternative. Reasonably they could develop something further
Part of CA-31 phase II from memory. I’d long suspected CA-31 was part of a broader indigenous light fighter/attack program and that’s sorta what phase II was. It explored single and twin engine supersonic designs as well as CAS, interceptor, and supersonic trainer designs. Makes me suspect phase III would’ve been more like a Mirage replacement but that is purely speculation
This is the M53 smaller variant (8500 kg of thrust), and M53 wasn't ready until 1973 at the earliest.
A much better deal for Australia would be the G3M: bigger, with a 11300 kg thrust TF306F that is an engine from the TF30 family, hence F-111 -compatible.
Note that unlike the AdA, the french Aéronavale doesn't care about french engines: M53 or TF306F, they take both. Meanwhile the USN might be interested in a F-111B / Tomcat sidekick, also known as VFAX : first one, 1965-1968 - second one, 1973-75.
A Mirage G3M could score trice: USN, RAAN, Aéronavale.
Oh great, CA-31 has entered the chat. Lovely little project, we have a thread somewhere. AA-107 ain't bad too but Dassault and british (Vickers) research showed that VG is overkill for anything smaller than a Mirage F1. Not worth it.
I checked: Super Etendard MTOW was 12 tons, a F-8E Crusader was 15.5 tons MTOW. The Mirage G1M and G3M weights varied between 15 and 18 tons.
Oh great, CA-31 has entered the chat. Lovely little project, we have a thread somewhere. AA-107 ain't bad too but Dassault and british (Vickers) research showed that VG is overkill for anything smaller than a Mirage F1. Not worth it.
I checked: Super Etendard MTOW was 12 tons, a F-8E Crusader was 15.5 tons MTOW. The Mirage G1M and G3M weights varied between 15 and 18 tons.
I have some drawings from Vellas book that I don’t think have been shared. If you point me to the thread I’d be happy to add them. I also have some schematics of the CAC Kiowas
In late 1970s, Indonesian Navy started to inquire about the replacement of their ocean-capable surface fleet. The missile-armed Project 30BKM destroyers were over 30 years old, and their age started to limit their usefulness. The air defense Project 56BE destroyers were in better shape, but their capabilities were not considered adequate anymore. It was obvious, that a new large surface combatant was required.
The relative economic stability of 1970s allowed Indonesian admirals to draw an aquisition plan for 4-6 large destroyer-size warships, that would replace firstly the Project 30BKM ships, and then the Project 56BE. Those ships were supposed to be multi-purpose units, equipped with both SAM's and long-range SSM's missiles. With that concept in mind, they approached USSR and PRC for proposals.
* The Soviet proposed a Project 956E - a derivative of Project 956 destroyer with export-grade weaponry and electronics. The eight launchers for supersonic 3M80 "Moskit" missiles were replaced with four launchers for much less capable P-15M "Termit" (the P-22 export version); the M-22 "Uragan" SAM replaced with M-1 "Volna" SAM (albeit of latest model) and two dual 130-mm AK-130 turrets were replaced with four single-barrel 100-mm AK-100 ones. The radar and electronic equipment was similarly downgraded to export standards.
The Indonesian Navy wasn't exactly impressed with the Soviet proposal. They noted, that new destroyers add almost nothing new to Indonesian Navy existing capabilities - merely a new hulls with the same weapon systems (just moderatedly upgraded). It wasn't exactly what Indonesian Navy wanted; they already operated both "Termit" SSM and "Volna" SAM, knew their capabilities and limitations, and they wanted new ships to augment them, not merely bolster the numbers.
The main point of criticism from Indonesian side was insufficient range of P-22 "Termit" missiles. The modest 80 km range wasn't very impressive in compairson with new Western anti-ship missiles that Australian might have. While in 1960s and 1970s the Indonesian Navy enjoyed rather clear range advantage over its (potential) adversary, by 1980s this advantage could very well be lost.
* The Chinese proposal was a heavily modified version of the Type 051 (Luda-class) destroyer, already in production. While the project was rather old (developed from the old Soviet Project 41 destroyer of 1950s), the ships themselves would be a new construction. Their armament was planned to consist of dual 100-mm Type 79 guns (replacing the legacy 130-mm SM-2-1 mounts) and six launchers for HY-2 anti-ship missiles. A "stretched" version of Soviet "Termit", those missiles have over 100+ km range, and thus were more adequate to the Indonesians demand.
On paper, Chinese proposal wasn't much better than the Soviet one. But PLAN have an ace under their sleeve; a French cooperation. French military industry was quite interested in the Indonesian market, but was reluctant to enter it openly, being concerned about the likely Australian outrage (and potential loss of Australian market). But operating through China, they could always claim to be only a "supplier of some parts", and therefore avoid the potential problems.
The proposed Type 051 C-F (China-France) destroyer was supposed to carry a French R440 "Crotale" SAM as main air defense armament; she was also planned to be equipped with French-desgined fire control and sensor systems, including modern radars and sonars. In terms of modern electronics, the China-French idea was much more impressive than Soviet one. And French representatives made it clear, that they hope for greater cooperation in future...
This course of events worried Soviet leadership quite a lot. A possibility of Indonesia "slipping" either toward China or France (or both!) was pretty concenrning. Especially worrysome the situation became after in 1980 Chinese destroyer undertook a "friendship visit" to Jakarta, and participated in "conveniently planned exercises" with Indonesian Navy - including live firing a HY-2 missile over 110 km range against a target ship. Later, French frigate with "Crotale" SAM system also visited Jakarta. It was prertty plain advertisement, and it made Moscow nervous.
The only way to secure Indonesian contract - and thus Indonesian place in USSR outer orbit - was to raise the stakes. Indonesians wanted a warships with longer-range missiles... and USSR have something in mind.
The Soviet trump card was a P-35 "Progress" missile - a supersonic, 350+ km range, man-in-the-loop capable flying beast from early 1960s. In Soviet service this missile was considered already partially obsolete, slated to be replaced with newer weapons. Its coastal version (P-35B) was already proposed for export to Vietnam and Syria. While Indonesia wasn't as close Soviet ally, it was important enough to make some relaxation of the rules.
The updated Soviet proposal - a Project 956RE destroyer - replaced the legacy P-15M missiles with the same number (four) of P-35 "Progress" missiles. A helipad and hangar for Ka-25Ts (Hormone-B) helicopter was installed in place of rear gun mount. The SAM system were still the M-1 Volna, but it was a brand-new Volna-N model; with 30 km max range, improved performance against low-flying targets and jam-resistant auxilary optical tracker. Finally, the self-defense equipment was also improved, with new AK-630 CIWS guns and RBU-6000 anti-sub/anti-torpedo bomb throwers.
This new proposal immediately changed Indonesian attitude; a supersonic 300+ km range missile was clearly far more impressive weapon than anything China or France could provide. Feeling a breakthrough, the USSR made additional proposal; a big warship to replace the aging "Irian". A Project 1134 missile cruiser "Sevastopol" (Kresta-class) was slated to be decomissioned by late 1980s. The Soviet Navy offered it to Indonesia past 1986, at the cost of refit and repair. Since the ship was armed with the same systems as Indonesians already have or were planned to have (the Volna SAM and P-35 SSM), the only thing truly required to change was to remove all classified Soviet equipment and conduct a major overhaul.
This idea finally won over. In 1981, Indonesian Navy agreed to Soviet terms, of ordering four Project 956RE destroyers (two more remained as option) and buying a reiftted Project 1134 cruiser as backbone of its surface fleet...
I have some drawings from Vellas book that I don’t think have been shared. If you point me to the thread I’d be happy to add them. I also have some schematics of the CAC Kiowas
I have some drawings from Vellas book that I don’t think have been shared. If you point me to the thread I’d be happy to add them. I also have some schematics of the CAC Kiowas
When exactly was the CAC-31 concept finalised? I struggle to believe Australia would make a supersonic interceptor for a single ASW carrier, although it's easy to find all sorts of concepts and line drawings.
When exactly was the CAC-31 concept finalised? I struggle to believe Australia would make a supersonic interceptor for a single ASW carrier, although it's easy to find all sorts of concepts and line drawings.
Well, such plane could have export potential - both as light carrier fighter (India and Argentina, for example, may be very interested) and as land-based advanced trainer and light fighter.
That could be a significant problem; fighter without head-on attack capacity isn't exactly useful against Tu-16K or Tu-22K.
P.S. A potential - crazy - solution, is to install not the radar but infrared seacrh & track unit, paired with laser designator. And modify the AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles by replacing infrared sensor with laser photocell. In theory, it could provide SOME head-on attack capacity for a less energy & space requirement than radar would need.
Well, it was stated to be designed for six 225-kg bombs on hardponits. So THEORETICALLY, it could haul a Cyrano radar (about 250 kg) and two R.530 SARH missiles (195 kg each) without hitting the upper weight limit. It would probably be pretty short legged, but oh well, better than Harrier likely.
P.S. To free space for radar it's likely that single-seat carrier version would have pilot at the rear place of two-seated version. Not the ideal visibility, of course...
Well that was an interesting little rabbit hole, you learn something every day.
The CAC-31 was not an interceptor, but an advanced trainer specifically designed to be cheap, it's supersonic capability was limited to about 10 minutes in a training flight. The plan was for the Macchi to do all-though training, from the ab-initio washout to advanced stage, but it was thought going from Macchi to Mirage (which only had 10 Operational Conversion aircraft.) was too much of a leap. In the event the Macchi only lasted 2 courses as an ab-initio trainer before the Winjeel was bought back, and the RAAF decided to buy more Mirage 2 seaters. So the CAC-31 died by 1970 and the concept wasn't taken up by anybody else, ever, which says a bit about it's viability in the first place.
The CA-31 naval interceptor is different to what you are describing. If you refer to the flight path diagram, I reckon it would’ve sat on a cat until radars picked something up and it would’ve been scrambled to intercept. A second aircraft would’ve then been put onto the cat and launched behind it. It’s refined entirely for the anti snooper role because Melbourne was just an ASW carrier with fighters only for the anti snooper role essentially at the end of her life.
P.S. To free space for radar it's likely that single-seat carrier version would have pilot at the rear place of two-seated version. Not the ideal visibility, of course...
The CA-31 naval interceptor is different to what you are describing. If you refer to the flight path diagram, I reckon it would’ve sat on a cat until radars picked something up and it would’ve been scrambled to intercept. A second aircraft would’ve then been put onto the cat and launched behind it. It’s refined entirely for the anti snooper role because Melbourne was just an ASW carrier with fighters only for the anti snooper role essentially at the end of her life.
Single seat versions were proposed of CA-31, please refer to the attached image for the layout
The most advanced the CAC-31 got was a plywood mock-up of the trainer in about 1967, any naval fighter idea would be so different to this mock-up as to be an entirely different machine.
The biggest impediment to the CAC-31 and its claims are the laws of physics. If a tiny, Adour powered, aircraft could do what the CAC-31 claimed a version of it would have been built by every great power and be the most successful aircraft in history. Maybe the CAC-31 could have been developed into an advanced trainer, but a supersonic naval fighter stretches credulity.
The most advanced the CAC-31 got was a plywood mock-up of the trainer in about 1967, any naval fighter idea would be so different to this mock-up as to be an entirely different machine.
The biggest impediment to the CAC-31 and its claims are the laws of physics. If a tiny, Adour powered, aircraft could do what the CAC-31 claimed a version of it would have been built by every great power and be the most successful aircraft in history. Maybe the CAC-31 could have been developed into an advanced trainer, but a supersonic naval fighter stretches credulity.
CAC was ambitious but hamstrung by a lack of governmental support. I suspect, but cannot prove as of yet that there are more significant plans. I believe my uncle was a metallurgist for them (even though they weren’t really producing anything new) so they were still trying things out behind the scenes.
CAC was ambitious but hamstrung by a lack of governmental support. I suspect, but cannot prove as of yet that there are more significant plans. I believe my uncle was a metallurgist for them (even though they weren’t really producing anything new) so they were still trying things out behind the scenes.
It alludes to an important point, Australia didn't assemble Mirages from kits or knocked down parts, it did things like cast turbine blades and other fundamental stuff and could if needed build a reasonably sophisticated combat aircraft if left in the lurch by foreign suppliers.
The CA-31 naval interceptor is different to what you are describing. If you refer to the flight path diagram, I reckon it would’ve sat on a cat until radars picked something up and it would’ve been scrambled to intercept. A second aircraft would’ve then been put onto the cat and launched behind it. It’s refined entirely for the anti snooper role because Melbourne was just an ASW carrier with fighters only for the anti snooper role essentially at the end of her life.
The CAC-31 was not an interceptor, but an advanced trainer specifically designed to be cheap, it's supersonic capability was limited to about 10 minutes in a training flight. The plan was for the Macchi to do all-though training, from the ab-initio washout to advanced stage, but it was thought going from Macchi to Mirage (which only had 10 Operational Conversion aircraft.) was too much of a leap. In the event the Macchi only lasted 2 courses as an ab-initio trainer before the Winjeel was bought back, and the RAAF decided to buy more Mirage 2 seaters. So the CAC-31 died by 1970 and the concept wasn't taken up by anybody else, ever, which says a bit about it's viability in the first place.
Virtually no carriers outside the USN, RN to 1978 and MN to 1987 have had that capability, yet navies keep building them. The Melbourne had a SEATO role and participated in FESR exercises regularly so the RAN, RN and USN saw a use for it.
I also think the Indonesian bomber threat is vastly overstated. The supersonic Kh22 and Kh26 were not exported, only the subsonic KSR-2 was, and it didn't cripple Israel when Egypt used it in 1973. I think in the early days of a shooting war there would be a bomber vs bomber campaign, RAAF F111s would try to destroy the Indonesian Tu16s and Tu22s and vice versa and personally I think the F111s would get the better of this campaign.
The Melbourne would primarily be conducting sea control missions, performing valuable work blockading Indonesia and ensuring any ships that ventured any distance out to sea would be attacked. I'm sure that once the Indonesian bomber force was atrittioned a bit the Melbourne would sneak in for a strike but slugging it out with bombers USN style is not its role.
In any case the RAN had the Melbourne in service and the ADF had no alternative to its capability so it's not as if they're going to scrap it in 1968 or anything.
Virtually no carriers outside the USN, RN to 1978 and MN to 1987 have had that capability, yet navies keep building them. The Melbourne had a SEATO role and participated in FESR exercises regularly so the RAN, RN and USN saw a use for it.
Yes, but there is a difference between "having carrier for the convoy protection in the middle of Atlantic" and "having carrier to protect a fleet from supersonic salvoes".
I also think the Indonesian bomber threat is vastly overstated. The supersonic Kh22 and Kh26 were not exported, only the subsonic KSR-2 was, and it didn't cripple Israel when Egypt used it in 1973. I think in the early days of a shooting war there would be a bomber vs bomber campaign, RAAF F111s would try to destroy the Indonesian Tu16s and Tu22s and vice versa and personally I think the F111s would get the better of this campaign.
Both KSR-2 and KSR-11 (the anti-radar version) are supersonic, actually. While their use in 1973 wasn't exactly efficient, they were used against land-based target in the situation of rather tight air defense - far from their intended anti-shipping role.
The Melbourne would primarily be conducting sea control missions, performing valuable work blockading Indonesia and ensuring any ships that ventured any distance out to sea would be attacked. I'm sure that once the Indonesian bomber force was atrittioned a bit the Melbourne would sneak in for a strike but slugging it out with bombers USN style is not its role.
The Tu-16 3000 km combat radius would require Melbourne to stay rather far away from Indonesian airfield to avoid being attacked. And it would be next thing to impossible to blockade Indonesia. Indonesia is HUGE. The cargo ships could just move through Chinese or Philippines or Malaysian waters to avoid any kind of interference. And if Australians would start to harass merchant ships - the majority of which would already be under neutral flags - in Indian ocean, of the Philippine sea, the rest of the world would be very-very unhappy with them.
Basically that's the problem with HMAS Melbourne in such scenario. Most of the conflict she would be forced to sit away in Perth or Sydney, doing nothing besides, maybe, anti-submarine patrols along the South coast. All this time consuming resources and manpower, that RAN would desperatedly need.
I think in the early days of a shooting war there would be a bomber vs bomber campaign, RAAF F111s would try to destroy the Indonesian Tu16s and Tu22s and vice versa and personally I think the F111s would get the better of this campaign.
The ability to wear out Indonesian bomber force would depend significantly on what role USSR would play in the conflict. If USSR is neutral and merely Indonesia-friendly, it's one thing ("weapons only for money"). If USSR actively support Indonesia, it's a different thing entirely. Tu-16K bombers were rather plentful in Soviet reserve, and considering that they were already being replaced with Tu-22/Tu-22M, they could easily be delivered to reinforce Indonesia bomber fleet.
The BS-4 catapult on HMAS Melbourne is credited with the ability to launch 30.000 pdr aircraft at 105 knot speed. The F-8 Crusader is about 30.000 pdr (not fully loaded). Granted, the 105 knot speed is significantly below what loaded F-8 required; but we could - theoretically - install JATO boosters to provide additional takeoff kick.
Yes, I know that JATO on carriers did not allow for high-intensity operations, but when you have a light carrier and at most a half-dozen fighters on it... beggars can't be choosers.
The main question is, could HMAS Melbourne arresting gear be improved enough to catch F-8? I didn't manage to find exact specifics, but it seems that the same gear was used on HMS Hermes (I may be mistaken here!) and was capable of catching the relatively heavy Bucaneer on roughly similar approach speed (120-130 knots).
So MAYBE HMAS Melbourne could operate Crusaders - a French F-8FN, with Cyrano radar and R.330 missiles - after all?
Frankly I doubt Melbourne value at all, but there is a strong position that RAN carrier capability should be retained. Since Harriers aren't of much use against Tu-16K, the VTOL carrier (like Invincible) is out of question.
So its either trying to modify Melbourne, or buying a new carrier. New carriers in 1970s aren't exactly easy to find.
Both KSR-2 and KSR-11 (the anti-radar version) are supersonic, actually. While their use in 1973 wasn't exactly efficient, they were used against land-based target in the situation of rather tight air defense - far from their intended anti-shipping role.
Yes, but there is a difference between "having carrier for the convoy protection in the middle of Atlantic" and "having carrier to protect a fleet from supersonic salvoes".
I suspect the reality would be something in between. Indonesia likely would have only Be12 seaplanes as MPA until the 2nd half of the 70s when l38s were exported. These would have a very limited capacity to find the Melbourne much beyond maybe 200km from shore, and would have virtually zero capability to shadow the Melbourne for any length of time, in order to arrange a strike.
The Tu-16 3000 km combat radius would require Melbourne to stay rather far away from Indonesian airfield to avoid being attacked. And it would be next thing to impossible to blockade Indonesia. Indonesia is HUGE. The cargo ships could just move through Chinese or Philippines or Malaysian waters to avoid any kind of interference. And if Australians would start to harass merchant ships - the majority of which would already be under neutral flags - in Indian ocean, of the Philippine sea, the rest of the world would be very-very unhappy with them.
IIUC the combat radius of Tu16 with a pair of AShMs is 1,800km, not 3,000km. An attack at even half that range would be difficult, given the lack of maritime surveillance capability. Of course the RAN can't blockade Indonesia from the north, but the mere threat of the RAN would force merchant shipping to take alternative routes.
Basically that's the problem with HMAS Melbourne in such scenario. Most of the conflict she would be forced to sit away in Perth or Sydney, doing nothing besides, maybe, anti-submarine patrols along the South coast. All this time consuming resources and manpower, that RAN would desperatedly need.
The ability to wear out Indonesian bomber force would depend significantly on what role USSR would play in the conflict. If USSR is neutral and merely Indonesia-friendly, it's one thing ("weapons only for money"). If USSR actively support Indonesia, it's a different thing entirely. Tu-16K bombers were rather plentful in Soviet reserve, and considering that they were already being replaced with Tu-22/Tu-22M, they could easily be delivered to reinforce Indonesia bomber fleet.
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
Sorry Felocie, how rude of me.....I got so excited about you revelation about the 'CAC naval supersonic interceptor A-4G alternative', that I forgot to reply in kind....
Thank you for replying to me about the CAC 'study of enlarging the C-130 and potential for it's production in Australia....'
Very intriguing and a big gamble all the same.
Much depends on where and how Indonesia and Australia clash in the late sixties into the the 1980s.
Are we assuming Indonesia attacks Australia itself (Novel and film The Day the War began) or as in real life over Timor or threats to Papua New Guinea?
Oberon Class -Acirc; The First Australian Submarine Squadron The ldquo;Oberonrdquo; class was one of the most advanced type of conventional submarines in any navy, combining high speed with great underwater endurance.Acirc; They were attack submarines, with both anti-surface and anti-submarine...
Well, such plane could have export potential - both as light carrier fighter (India and Argentina, for example, may be very interested) and as land-based advanced trainer and light fighter.
Indeed! One could imagine India, who's Air Force, unlike most other Air Forces of the era sincerely appreciated and utilised the small lightweight fighter not just in it's ORBAT, but in actual combat. Perhaps the CA-31 could have been opened up as a joint venture between Australia (CAC) and India (HAL), which would make a lot of sense. Perhaps India would produce it in place of the HAL Ajeet subsonic lightweight fighter?
But then again, the truth be known, I could only imagine the Australian government stuffing such a program up.
Was it Italy or India that showed interest in purchasing CAC CA-27 Avon Sabre's????
Much depends on where and how Indonesia and Australia clash in the late sixties into the the 1980s.
Are we assuming Indonesia attacks Australia itself (Novel and film The Day the War began) or as in real life over Timor or threats to Papua New Guinea?
These would have a very limited capacity to find the Melbourne much beyond maybe 200km from shore, and would have virtually zero capability to shadow the Melbourne for any length of time, in order to arrange a strike.
IIUC the combat radius of Tu16 with a pair of AShMs is 1,800km, not 3,000km. An attack at even half that range would be difficult, given the lack of maritime surveillance capability. Of course the RAN can't blockade Indonesia from the north, but the mere threat of the RAN would force merchant shipping to take alternative routes.
I do not doubt the carrier usefulness in general, but without fighters it would be pretty hard to specify what exactly Melbourne could do without subjecting herself to excessive risk. The A-4G have a combat radius about 500 km. Which means that the carrier must go within not only Tu-16, but also shore-based fighters and fighter-bombers.
All interesting ideas and CAC had an idea too (or maybe more!) Please see attached for the CAC A-4G alternative. Reasonably they could develop something further
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
