Yep. Must admit, I assumed that the choice would be much more limited.So if Australia needs brute T56 power to replace E-1B, they have three AEW options : Hawkeye, Orion and Hercules !
An argument, true. Albeit I suppose that any heavy AEW would operate from rearward bases anyway, leaving the forward bases for light AEW (like Tracers).I must admit, I do like the notion of the Lockheed C-130 AEW being able to operate from austere airfields, affording them to be deployed more unpredictable to Indonesian intelligence and targeting. I particularly like the thought of C-130 AEW's operating in PNG.
I agree here; it make more sence to operate them from secure rear airbases & use tankers to compensate for additional flight time from them.A P3 for example would have a flight endurance of 10+ hours and continent spanning range, indeed that's why the RAAF P3 were based at Adelaide, it was a central location that could cover both coasts. This means they could cover vast areas or stay on station for long periods operating from main RAAF bases. Even as electronics became more reliable I'd suggest 70s AEW aircraft would be maintenance hogs that would require large teams of techos to keep them fully operational, and such teams wouldn't be available at austere bases.
No thoughts required, props alone will tell you.I must admit, I do like the notion of the Lockheed C-130 AEW being able to operate from austere airfields, affording them to be deployed more unpredictable to Indonesian intelligence and targeting. I particularly like the thought of C-130 AEW's operating in PNG.
Now to work out the 'rough' specification differences between the flight performances of the C-130E/H and P-3B/C to ascertain which has the best altitude performance.....
Regards
Pioneer
Agreed, though I'd have two bases for the AEW planes. Just to save a couple hours of flight time each mission getting to the patrol area.I wouldn't have thought austere airfield operations were a requirements for AEW, indeed apart from maybe emergency or administrative use it would be a detriment. A P3 for example would have a flight endurance of 10+ hours and continent spanning range, indeed that's why the RAAF P3 were based at Adelaide, it was a central location that could cover both coasts. This means they could cover vast areas or stay on station for long periods operating from main RAAF bases. Even as electronics became more reliable I'd suggest 70s AEW aircraft would be maintenance hogs that would require large teams of techos to keep them fully operational, and such teams wouldn't be available at austere bases.
Agreed, though I'd have two bases for the AEW planes. Just to save a couple hours of flight time each mission getting to the patrol area.
Hm. Just thought - what would be New Zealand position in Australian-Indonesian tensions? While they aren't directly involved, they are still too close to felt secure.
P-3s and C-130s use the same engines, and almost the same wing. The difference is props. P-3s have rounded tips on their props, gives them better performance at low altitude, while C-130s have squared-off props for better performance up high.
There's even a few "No Step" markings on the engines that end up on the bottom for one of the planes. I forget which one.Didn't knew that. Pretty interesting, and typical 1950's Lockheed smartness.
I saw somewhere that the RNZAF wanted Phantoms and wasn't that far off getting them. They made a very good argument that anything less than the best, with such a small air combat force, was pointless.The RNZAF A4 purchase is right in this window. The RNZAF wanted 12 A4s and 6 TA4s, but the Government funded 10 and 4 for 1969 delivery, additionally the dorsal hump was fitted but the electronics were not installed. i'd suggest in this scenario the NZ government would find the money for those extra four A4s and fit them with the hump electronics. Its not much, but every bit helps.
Perhaps NZs Canberras would be kept, like Australia did with 2 sqn until 1980. Indeed they might run a joint pool of Canberras in secondary dutires until about 1980.
I saw somewhere that the RNZAF wanted Phantoms and wasn't that far off getting them. They made a very good argument that anything less than the best, with such a small air combat force, was pointless.
I suspect the only reason Australia got F-111 was replacing the Canberra became an election issue with the opposition pointing to an air force still waiting for its first supersonic fighter and having no supersonic strike aircraft in sight, while our northern neighbour was flying shiny new soviet types. Nothing triggers action more than the thought of losing government.The RNAZAF received 13 x 3rd generation Canberras in 1958, that's what needed replacing.
IIUC the RNZAF looked at the F111, F5, F4 as well as the A4 and liked the F4 (surprise surprise) but the Government liked the F5 due to the cost. I'd lump it in the same basket as the RAN wanting CVA01 in 1964; who wouldn't want it but who's going to pay for it!
New Zealand wanted to have something that would be relevant in their alliance arrangements, not something that would fight off the Soviet Union's direct attacks on Aukland.
I suspect the only reason Australia got F-111 was replacing the Canberra became an election issue with the opposition pointing to an air force still waiting for its first supersonic fighter and having no supersonic strike aircraft in sight, while our northern neighbour was flying shiny new soviet types. Nothing triggers action more than the thought of losing government.
Interesting question! The presence of socialist Indonesia nearby clearly would be a major argument for Singapore/Malaysia to want more British presence in region. On the other hand... they have more powerful Australia as closer ally.Interesting thread - and forgive the cliche ‘long time listener, first time caller’ any thoughts on how the UK would deal with East of Suez in this scenario? Assume the UK would still follow this policy, but would the UK stay in Singapore/Malaysia a little longer for an orderly handover of defence responsibilities to those countries?
Interesting thread - and forgive the cliche ‘long time listener, first time caller’ any thoughts on how the UK would deal with East of Suez in this scenario? Assume the UK would still follow this policy, but would the UK stay in Singapore/Malaysia a little longer for an orderly handover of defence responsibilities to those countries?
Thank you)Smart idea !
After discussion on other forums, concluded that Tu-22K could not be exported. There were only a limited number of those missile-carrying bombers produced at all, and all of them served till the collapse of USSR. They were considered too valuable assets to be sold.Currently we are discussin, would it be possible to launch KSR-2/KSR-11 missiles from modified Tu-22K bomber? The missile theoretically fits the available space (after all, the KSR-2/11 is smaller than X-22 that Tu-22K was supposed to carry). What concerns me is the launch of transsonic missile at supersonic speed. Granted, the difference in max speed is not very great - loaded Tu-22K was able of Mach 1.5, and KSR-2/11 could reach Mach 1.2 in altitude flight. Still the difference exists.
Probably the pods the US was using in Vietnam.What about ECM?
Front line Western militaries tend to put a lot more effort into the electronic sphere than those a but further back. The US put a lot of effort into ECM and electronic surveillance in Vietnam, Israel became a master of it and often their older fighters would devote a pylon to an ECM pod rather than a weapon and the British quickly scrambled to get the Blue Eric onto Harriers and ALQ119s onto Vulcans in the Falklands.
When facing this Indonesian threat what ECM might Australia adopt?
Local Australian development also possible. Especially for shipborne ECM's.Probably the pods the US was using in Vietnam.
Oh, definitely for shipboard ECM.Local Australian development also possible. Especially for shipborne ECM's.
By the way, it seems that Australian Perth-class ships did not carry the usual USN ECM suite? I can't find the AN/ULQ-6 range-decieving jammer on them.Oh, definitely for shipboard ECM.
Outside my area of knowledge.By the way, it seems that Australian Perth-class ships did not carry the usual USN ECM suite? I can't find the AN/ULQ-6 range-decieving jammer on them.
Maybe? Oz is still like 1/15 the US population. There's only so much industrial variety you can support off a population that size.I'd think Australia would get into the electronics modification and upgrade business as it is one area where Australia could get an edge over Indonesia. I think they'd buy US ECM pods but they'd also upgrade and modify them using a domestic industry that would arise due to demand. I think that would also extend to upgrading other electronics such as radars and missiles, such as running the AIM9Bs through the FGW.2 upgrade programme.
Maybe? Oz is still like 1/15 the US population. There's only so much industrial variety you can support off a population that size.
Australia did have world class cutting-edge electronic know-how and industries in the 1950-1970's, like for example, the CSIRO, AWA, Philips, STC, Ducon, Fairchild Semiconductor, ....Local Australian development also possible. Especially for shipborne ECM's.
Well, Australia actually have quite good electronic industry - not big, but reasonably well developed. During WW2 they designed and produced several original models of radars (after war the availability of surplus US and British radars caused the end of Australian military radar development - but civilian & scientific continued).Maybe? Oz is still like 1/15 the US population. There's only so much industrial variety you can support off a population that size.