Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

Dilandu said:
It's within the horizon only. P-15 Termit is over-the-horizon.
Click to expand...
How well do P-15s do when there's lots of islands in the area?

Because once into the archipelago, I suspect that pretty much all missile engagements would be within the horizon. FACs hiding behind an island and then popping around to take their shots.

Which of course makes the best use of all those FAC-Ms with the range advantage to be keeping the Aussies out of the archipelago in the first place.
 
Dilandu said:
Not sure about radar homing versions, but infrared-homing versions should feel just fine)
Click to expand...
As long as they don't lock on a rocky island scorched by the Sun, hence a massive IR hotspot. Early infrared seekers were notoriously stupid like that, for example AIM-9B homing on desert sand dunes scorched by the Sun, somewhere in the Middle East...
 
Archibald said:
As long as they don't lock on a rocky island scorched by the Sun, hence a massive IR hotspot. Early infrared seekers were notoriously stupid like that, for example AIM-9B homing on desert sand dunes scorched by the Sun, somewhere in the Middle East...
Click to expand...
Well, it's possible - after all, Indians sucsessfully used IR-guided Termit's to hit Pakistan fuel tanks, heated by sun. But not exactly very likely. It required the IR source, comparable to ship signature, to be within seeker search arc. If there is no ranging data about target (i.e. missile fired its seeker immediately after launch), yes, it may happens. If there is ranging data and missile activate its seeker only near the target predicted position - the probability of unconvenient hot island popping out is pretty low.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250329_215559_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20250329_215559_Chrome.jpg
    167.6 KB · Views: 20
Dilandu said:
Whoa! Is it based on real project, or pure fiction?
Click to expand...
Fiction, unfortunately!
I found the 'factual' Chance-Vought drawing of the V-383/F-8 Crusader, with the four-winged hardpoints and Sparrow I's I was thinking of in my copy of Vought F-8 Crusader: Development & Operational use of the Navy's first supersonic jet fighter, by Bill Spidle.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Dilandu said:
Depend on type. The Project 159, for example, have 2000 nm range (3800 km), i.e. they could operate in Arafura and Timor seas pretty well.
Click to expand...

True, but then they'd be within range of the RAAFs largest combat aircraft fleet - the 4 sqns of Mirages. I think such ships would operate strictly under air cover, which limits their radius of action considerably.

This leaves the Irian (and a sister ship?) and 10 destroyers as the 'blue water' force, although these would be supported by larger frigates, likely beefing up any Task Groups and forming their own Task Group guarding their line of withdrawal closer to home. Such Task Groups would be much less reliant on air support but form a pretty even match for the RAN's blue water fleet of Melbourne, 3 DDGs, 3 Ikara Darings and 6 Rivers.
 
Rule of cool said:
This leaves the Irian (and a sister ship?) and 10 destroyers as the 'blue water' force, although these would be supported by larger frigates, likely beefing up any Task Groups and forming their own Task Group guarding their line of withdrawal closer to home. Such Task Groups would be much less reliant on air support but form a pretty even match for the RAN's blue water fleet of Melbourne, 3 DDGs, 3 Ikara Darings and 6 Rivers.
Click to expand...
True, quite true! Your calculations are very accurate and reasonable!
 
Pioneer said:
Fiction, unfortunately!
I found the 'factual' Chance-Vought drawing of the V-383/F-8 Crusader, with the four-winged hardpoints and Sparrow I's I was thinking of in my copy of Vought F-8 Crusader: Development & Operational use of the Navy's first supersonic jet fighter, by Bill Spidle.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Okay, so it was actually planned at some point.

And just the USN's fault that it wasn't deployed.

So I stand behind the idea of 2x Sparrows on each outboard wing pylon and fuel tanks on the inboard pylons, plus Sidewinders on the cheeks.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Shouldn't. Again, plane was designed/intended to have 2 pylons each carrying ~3000lbs. At worst it'd need a larger diameter hydraulic cylinder to push the wing up.
Click to expand...
Sorry Dilandu, I have a tendency to agree with the Scott Kenny analogy. I was looking for a photo I just saw the other day of a F-8 on a carriers catapult, armed with what I think was 2,000-pound Mk82 iron bombs. On top of this, I've seen pictures of Crusader's armed with 6 x 500-pound bombs under each wing - granted, this might have been a ground-based USMC Crusader.....

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Sorry Dilandu
Click to expand...
Nothing to be sorry about, its a discussion, after all)

Pioneer said:
have a tendency to agree with the Scott Kenny analogy. I was looking for a photo I just saw the other day of a F-8 on a carriers catapult, armed with what I think was 2,000-pound Mk82 iron bombs. On top of this, I've seen pictures of Crusader's armed with 6 x 500-pound bombs under each wing - granted, this might have been a ground-based USMC Crusader.....
Click to expand...
A point!
 
Rule of cool said:
The RAAF had both in the 60s, but didn't upgrade the Bloodhounds to Mk2s.
Click to expand...
By high performance, I was thinking more Lightning, Draken or Delta Dart. A really hot type able to gain altitude quickly and intercept transonic bombers inbound to Darwin.
 
Volkodav said:
By high performance, I was thinking more Lightning, Draken or Delta Dart. A really hot type able to gain altitude quickly and intercept transonic bombers inbound to Darwin.
Click to expand...

The issue would be timing. The Mirage was selected in 1960, before the Tu16s were delivered. Perhaps if they had the more powerful and fuel efficient Avon they'd be a bit more suitable for the Tu16, but I'd think they'd do the job.

Iraq and Libya got their Tu22s in 1974 or so. Assuming that the RAAF kept the Phantoms in this scenario I think they'd handle the Tu22s, but would be a bit thin on the ground. I think the Tu22 would really drive the Mirage replacement, pushing the RAAF towards an F14 or F15.
 
Dilandu said:
Problem is, Indonesian bombers are missile-carrying type. So they could strike from standoff distance (especially with KSR-2/KSR-11 missiles, with 200+ km range)
Click to expand...
Which completely negates the Bloodhound as well
 
Volkodav said:
Which completely negates the Bloodhound as well
Click to expand...

On the contrary, Bloodhound make the stand off missiles necessary, without them the Tu16 would be able to saunter in and carpet bomb Darwin.

FWIW Egypt fired a mere 25 KSR2s in the high-intensity Yom Kippur war and Iraq used them without much effect on Iranian oil terminals in the 80s. It's far from a panacea.
 
Rule of cool said:
The issue would be timing. The Mirage was selected in 1960, before the Tu16s were delivered. Perhaps if they had the more powerful and fuel efficient Avon they'd be a bit more suitable for the Tu16, but I'd think they'd do the job.

Iraq and Libya got their Tu22s in 1974 or so. Assuming that the RAAF kept the Phantoms in this scenario I think they'd handle the Tu22s, but would be a bit thin on the ground. I think the Tu22 would really drive the Mirage replacement, pushing the RAAF towards an F14 or F15.
Click to expand...
My thinking, in fact the germ of an idea I had when I ordered my multiple Airfix Lightning kits a decade ago, was that the Mirage and Bloodhound had been selected then the TU16 appeared and there was an oh crap moment.

Please be aware, I'm not trying to devalue what any of you are saying, I am just relating the AH I started developing because I wanted RAAF Lightnings and Drakens ;)

There were flashbacks to Singapore and the Bombing of Darwin, the shortage of modern everything, including combat aircraft, memories of the Meteor in Korea when the MIG 15 appeared. In response an urgent operational requirement was launched for a very high-performance interceptor, a high-performance interceptor capable of being deployed to austere bases and a longer term requirement for the formation of an air defence command (ADC) including a reestablished flying reserve.

A realisation that more needed to be spent on defence, that a point defence interceptor was needed for vital assets, i.e. Darwin and its infrastructure, this would be the Lightning, specifically whichever surplus aircraft the RAF could spare for the RAAF. The Mirage would be skewed to the attack role and an evolved Lightning developed and introduced into service to replace the loaned examples, Australia, potentially takes the lead on the VG Lightning.

At the same time the flying reserve is reintroduced as an integrated force of fulltime, conscript and reserve personnel flying a type capable of being dispersed to austere bases in Australia's north, i.e. Draken.

It goes further, with the ADC eventually having F-14 and E-3, Mirage is optimised for strike and assigned primarily as a tactical support type, and eventually supplemented with either Jaguar or Corsair II, before being replaced with Mirage F1 then 2000.

Yes I have all the kits in my stash and am waiting for my garage redevelopment program for a cat free hobby area.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which suggests flying E2 or E3 AWACS and buying F-14s.
Click to expand...
Basically yes, albeit it would be... expensive.


Volkodav said:
Which completely negates the Bloodhound as well
Click to expand...
No. As Scott Kenny already explained, Bloodhounds are required to keep Indonesian bombers at distance. The SAMs have much shorter reaction time than fighters, and also could be used to knock the missiles, not only planes.
 
Volkodav said:
It goes further, with the ADC eventually having F-14 and E-3,
Click to expand...
The E-3 may be too costly aquisition. Some kind of "light AEW", like E-2, would be much kore affordable. Or, as variant - E-2 hardware fitted on civilian twin-jet plane, to reduce operational costs.
 
Dilandu said:
The E-3 may be too costly aquisition. Some kind of "light AEW", like E-2, would be much kore affordable. Or, as variant - E-2 hardware fitted on civilian twin-jet plane, to reduce operational costs.
Click to expand...
A serious contender for AEW in the RAAF was an Orion AEW with E-2 systems. A prototype was even flown in the US using an ex RAAF P-3B
www.airhistory.net

Aircraft Photo of N91LC | Lockheed P-3 AEW&C | Lockheed | AirHistory.net #750342

Aircraft photo of N91LC / 355 - Lockheed P-3 AEW&C - Lockheed, taken by Paul Seymour at Paris - Le Bourget (LFPB / LBG) in France on 5 June 1985 during the Paris Air Show 1985. Being towed through the crowd. Allocated US Navy serial 155299 before delivery to the RAAF as P-3B A9-299 in 1968. To...
www.airhistory.net www.airhistory.net
 
Volkodav said:
A serious contender for AEW in the RAAF was an Orion AEW with E-2 systems. A prototype was even flown in the US using an ex RAAF P-3B
www.airhistory.net

Aircraft Photo of N91LC | Lockheed P-3 AEW&C | Lockheed | AirHistory.net #750342

Aircraft photo of N91LC / 355 - Lockheed P-3 AEW&C - Lockheed, taken by Paul Seymour at Paris - Le Bourget (LFPB / LBG) in France on 5 June 1985 during the Paris Air Show 1985. Being towed through the crowd. Allocated US Navy serial 155299 before delivery to the RAAF as P-3B A9-299 in 1968. To...
www.airhistory.net www.airhistory.net
Click to expand...
Didn't realize that existed!

That'd work, especially since Oz was already operating Orions in the MPA role. Shut down two engines in flight for fuel economy and you'd have a pretty impressive endurance.
 
Volkodav said:
A serious contender for AEW in the RAAF was an Orion AEW with E-2 systems. A prototype was even flown in the US using an ex RAAF P-3B
www.airhistory.net

Aircraft Photo of N91LC | Lockheed P-3 AEW&C | Lockheed | AirHistory.net #750342

Aircraft photo of N91LC / 355 - Lockheed P-3 AEW&C - Lockheed, taken by Paul Seymour at Paris - Le Bourget (LFPB / LBG) in France on 5 June 1985 during the Paris Air Show 1985. Being towed through the crowd. Allocated US Navy serial 155299 before delivery to the RAAF as P-3B A9-299 in 1968. To...
www.airhistory.net www.airhistory.net
Click to expand...
This is what I was alluding to in Post#48
With such a powerful sized and modern military threat, I think Australia would be stupid not to purchase and organise it's defence around a small fleet of long-range, long endurance AEW platforms. Yes, I appreciate that such assets as AEW are prohibitively expensive and labour entensive for the era. But as rightly indicated by other forum members, Australia vastness means it would be prohibitively expensive to protect Australia's coastline/aerospace with an effective integrated ground-based radars and SAM's/AAA system. Hence they might be expensive to both purchase and operate, but a handful of AEW platform, equipped with aerial refuelling capability would be a true force multiplier, which can see way over the horizon, as well as conduct key battle management. So what would this RAAF AEW platform be? Here's a hint, definitely not the antiquated Avro Shackleton AEW 2!!
Click to expand...

The fact that the P-3AEW, as you depict, was decades away from the scenarios time-frame, making me think you'd need the Grumman E-1B Tracer's AN/APS-82 radar system incorporated onto a Lockheed P-3A/B Orion.
I would think the principle problem with the P-3 Orion/L-188 Electra inherently being it's altitude performance, thanks to it's short wingspan.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Didn't realize that existed!

That'd work, especially since Oz was already operating Orions in the MPA role. Shut down two engines in flight for fuel economy and you'd have a pretty impressive endurance.
Click to expand...

IIUC they shut down 1 engine, it was the one that didn't drive any hydraulics or electrical gear.
 
Pioneer said:
The fact that the P-3AEW, as you depict,was decades away from the scenarios time-frame, makes me think you'd need the Grumman E-1B Tracer's AN/APS-82 incorporated onto a Lockheed P-3A/B Orion.
I would think the principle problem with the P-3 Orion/L-188 Electra inherently being it's altitude performance, thanks to it's short wingspan.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

The 'medium' AEW was out there in the mid-late 70s in the firm of the tragic Nimrod AEW3.

By the early 70s the E2s gear had most of the kinks worked out so could have been installed in any suitable aircraft. The big difference between the E2 and a medium aircraft using its gear is the E2 had 2 operator consoles whereas the medium aircraft could have 6 operator consoles, like the Nimrod AEW and the current Wedgetail.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That'd work, especially since Oz was already operating Orions in the MPA role. Shut down two engines in flight for fuel economy and you'd have a pretty impressive endurance.
Click to expand...
Agreed, for the theater & money available it's likely the best possible solution. Operational costs would be much lower than having a "proper" E-3, while the efficiency of AEW "Hawkorion" would be perfectly sufficient for Australian needs.
 
Rule of cool said:
The 'medium' AEW was out there in the mid-late 70s in the firm of the tragic Nimrod AEW3.

By the early 70s the E2s gear had most of the kinks worked out so could have been installed in any suitable aircraft. The big difference between the E2 and a medium aircraft using its gear is the E2 had 2 operator consoles whereas the medium aircraft could have 6 operator consoles, like the Nimrod AEW and the current Wedgetail.
Click to expand...
Granted Rule of cool.
As much as the Nimrod AEW3 was designed to be superior to E-3A Sentry, I'm under the impression that the Nimrod AEW3 was far from mature in operational status, to say nothing of it being more expensive.
The Nimrod AEW3 would have also added not just another aircraft type to the RAAF's ORBAT, but a highly specialised one at that.
Also, keep in mind that the early/original E-2 Hawkeye radar/processing system had a lot of technical issues. Technical issues which the USN had to contribute a lot of $$ resources $$ to fix.

The E-2A Hawkeye entered service with the US Navy in January 1964.
By 1965, the project had accumulated so many development issues that it was cancelled after 59 aircraft had already been built. In particular, difficulties were being experienced due to inadequate cooling in the closely packed avionics compartment. Early computers and complex avionics systems generated considerable heat and could fail without proper ventilation. These issues continued long after the aircraft entered service. At one point, reliability was so bad that the entire fleet of aircraft was grounded.
(Source: Taylor, John W. R. Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1976–77)

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
The E-2A Hawkeye entered service with the US Navy in January 1964.
By 1965, the project had accumulated so many development issues that it was cancelled after 59 aircraft had already been built. In particular, difficulties were being experienced due to inadequate cooling in the closely packed avionics compartment. Early computers and complex avionics systems generated considerable heat and could fail without proper ventilation. These issues continued long after the aircraft entered service. At one point, reliability was so bad that the entire fleet of aircraft was grounded.
(Source: Taylor, John W. R. Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1976–77)
Click to expand...
True, but I doubt that Australians could get their hands on Hawkeye before late 1970s at best. What they may get us some surplus E-1 Tracers (I suggested before to buy some for the carrier - they are light enough to fly from Hermes or even Melbourne); far less advanced, of course, but would probably work sufficient enough for 1970-1980 timeframe. And by mid-1980, get replaced by Orion AEW.
 
So my concept for Australian AEW planes:

After RAN decided to buy HMS Hermes in 1968-1970, it also decided to improve its air defense capabilities by ordering four of USN surplus E-1 Tracers. Those old AEW are light enough to operate from Hermes (they are basically of same weight as Tracker anti-submarine plane).

Observing RAN demonstration of E-1 Tracer augmented intercepts, the RAAF become interested also. As a cheapest solution & to ensure commonality, they buy surplus Tracers, too. And likely experiment with fitting the Tracer's hardware to heavier planes, in attempt to achieve greater range.

In late 1970s - after Indonesia got Mig-25 and Tu-22, and RAAF sucsessfully push for buying F-14 - they decide to improve the AEW fleet, too. The Nimrod AEW and Orion AEW are therefore considered. I suppose, Orion AEW would be eventual RAAF choice; it got a commonality with already-used Orion's, and also its E-2 based hardware and software would not require much efforts to integrate with F-14.
 
Pioneer said:
Also, keep in mind that the early/original E-2 Hawkeye radar/processing system had a lot of technical issues. Technical issues which the USN had to contribute a lot of $$ resources $$ to fix.

The E-2A Hawkeye entered service with the US Navy in January 1964.
By 1965, the project had accumulated so many development issues that it was cancelled after 59 aircraft had already been built. In particular, difficulties were being experienced due to inadequate cooling in the closely packed avionics compartment. Early computers and complex avionics systems generated considerable heat and could fail without proper ventilation. These issues continued long after the aircraft entered service. At one point, reliability was so bad that the entire fleet of aircraft was grounded.
(Source: Taylor, John W. R. Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1976–77)
Click to expand...
But sticking the E2 hardware into a larger airframe, like Orion, would fix the overheating problem immediately just due to having a (much) larger avionics bay. Plus, I'm sure Orion has a lot more cooling available than Hawkeye does, even the E-2Cs.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom