Commonwealth Solidarity, RAAF deployments to NATO

[Volkodav]

Saw a photo in a book years ago (pre-internet) captioned something along the lines of "RAAF Vampires stationed in Malta".  Recently all this wiff talk made it come to mind again and I did some research and found that 78 Wing RAAF garrisoned Malta in support of RAF operations in the Middle East, a "a symbolic gesture to demonstrate the Commonwealth's solidarity in the midst of the Cold War", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._78_Wing_RAAF.

The deployment was from 1952 to 1954 using leased Vampire FB 9s for 75 and 76 Squadrons which only flew 8 aircraft each.  This was more a token of support than a genuine contribution.

Now, what if this was a genuine, long term, meaningful contribution to NATO on behalf of they British Commonwealth?  What if the RAAF continued to deploy tactical fighter wings using leased equipment forming integral components of RAF groups assigned to NATO?  What if this was expanded to include a V- bomber squadron and a MPA squadron?

Just a thought.

[Litvyak]

I've had similar thoughts to varying extremes... on the one hand, occasional extended deployments (say 405 Sqn RCAF deploying to Australia with their Argus ASW aircraft for a year, or an RAAF Mirage squadron deploying to Comox for NORAD ops and suchlike)... to the most extreme, a basically unified Commonwealth defence policy...

...this would see the RAF, RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF (and, until some point in time, assuming everything is the same as in the RW timeline, the SAAF and RRAF) each having their own specialisations. Naturally, each would have some units for 'local use' for defending one's airspace, army co-operation and whatnot, but the rest would all be part of the specialisations, such as:

RCAF's specialties would be ASW and heavy interceptors (assuming the Arrow is built!), so you'd have RCAF units of Arguses and Arrows more or less permanently based in Canada, Australia, the UK, NZ, South Africa, Aden, Malta etc...

RAF's would be nuclear and heavy conventional strike, so squadrons of V-bombers based in the UK, Canada, Australia, Rhodesia/South Africa, etc...

I suppose the RAAF would share the ASW load with the RCAF (how does an Argus with Roo roundels strike you? I know it tickles me!), perhaps along with Canberra/F-111-level conventional strike... and RAAF and RNZAF could split the anti-shipping load... maybe with, say, an RNZN squadron based on RAN carrier(s)?

But playing more with your idea, I like it, and we could maybe see an RAAF fighter squadron based in Canada contributing to NORAD efforts - say, for supply-simplicity's sake, with CF-100s first, later Voodoos (Roo roundel F-101s... yum!), and based in the UK, an ASW/MP squadron operating Shackletons and later Nimrods?

[GTX_Admin]

Sounds like you're heading towards a combined Commonwealth Force.

Lots of interesting options there if one tries to get some commonality happening across the platforms used.  Also might provide some useful impetus to help ensure some of those British designs made it into proper production...although, let's also not rule out Canadian, Australian and others supplying to the mother country.

Looking at the roles/platforms what de we have?

Fighter/Interceptor
Strike/Interdiction (including both Strategic and tactical)
Recon - Tactical and Strategic
Transport
Tanker
Helicopter - transport/recon/attack/ASW
ASW
Carrier platforms
AEW
Other?

Maybe also look at it from multiple periods:

Say starting in 1950s (maybe the Korean War becomes the impetus for this).
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000+

[Litvyak]

I think the only other major role you've missed is trainers. Naturally, if starting at the 1950s, the Chipmunk as the standard basic trainer.

As for time period, I think two of those would be most plausible - 1950s or 2000+ (or, perhaps even mid-90s on). The 1950s of course being the most interesting point to start, IMO.

We could figure out a number of really interesting things here, I think!

[GTX_Admin]

Good pick up re the trainers.

Of course, adding in naval and land platforms adds more complications and fun.

[Litvyak]

I think helicopters would be the most whiff-ful areas, since just about everything else (well, perhaps heavy transports being the other) in which there didn't seem to be much around... but definitely developments of the Belvedere and the Sycamore could be options, perhaps also the Rotodyne, and, of course, VTOL capability with the Canadair Dynavert!

[GTX_Admin]

The idea of countries taking on particular specialisations is an interesting one or does one simply have combined Commonwealth units?

[Litvyak]

Well, depends on how close you're wanting the relationship to be.

If it's an all-out unified force, then I'd say, yeah, you've got combined Commonwealth units, and probably just called Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and perhaps Commonwealth Army (with the various under-things like Royal Corps of Artillery or whatever using the UK names)... with perhaps the "territorial defence" units using the localised variants... and in this case, none of this discussion is really relevant.

But, if it's more a unified policy of independent Crown Realms, then I'd say the specialisation avenue would be the one to take, if for no other reason than to avoid wasteful duplication of efforts.

I'd think who gets what specialisation could be pretty random, really, though I'd also think that strategic strike would fall under the UK's purview, whereas the "heavy interceptor" role (I'm thinking of the role the Arrow filled, specifically) would probably fall to Canada because of the NORAD responsibilities (and also because the Arrow was ours ).

Though that brings to mind a subsidiary question: if defence of the Commonwealth is shaped through (very) close cooperation between the UK and the Dominions, would NORAD still happen? My assumption would be yes, so long as the USSR is still the primary threat.

[GTX_Admin]

Would India be included?

If one looks at the Commonwealth nations (see below map) it could make for a very influential power if operating independently in a coordinated way.



You then end up with power blocks of the USA, USSR, Commonwealth, Europe, China...

[Litvyak]

That'd bring us very close to the Imperial Federation idea I've been toying with for quite a while, though with that my assumed starting point is after the Great War but a good bit before WW2 - the USA is very obviously starting to think of itself as a significant power, Japan has ambitions too, the USSR is still young but worthy of being wary of. Post-WW2 of course this would make things really interesting, with what could even end up as a three-way Cold War (though probably with a decent amount of US-Commonwealth cooperation against the Soviets). Starting that early, too, you'd also have a more significant presence in the Middle East, too... but now I think we're really digressing here into what could become a very wide-ranging thing...

So might I suggest we work, for now at least, with the idea of the Korean War becoming the catalyst for this more-unified policy? I mostly suggest this because I really am curious as to what we could come up with for a true-Superpower armed force using only Commonwealth-sourced equipment (because I'm sure the US would be a little more hesitant of sharing technology than it was even in the Real World, /especially/ if this policy is already being implemented when the first British bomb is tested...

[GTX_Admin]

Hmmm...what could be a trigger for the Commonwealth 'going it alone'?

[Volkodav]

Wow, some great ideas there and going much further than I had considered.

The model I was contemplating was more along the lines of the RAAF contribution to Fighter, Bomber and Coastal Commands as well as the Desert Air force, being re kindled for the cold war. I.e  common equipment and unified command.  These ideas are more along the lines of an expansion of the Empire Air Training Scheme, or perhaps the United Arab concept from the 60s.

My idea was basically RAF aircraft with RAF schemes and seriels wearing RAAF roos, squadron and/or group/ wing markings. I.e 10 sqn RAAF Nimrod in a slightly different real world, vs an independent, united Commonwealth with some real but also wiff equipment, new markings and schemes.

I like both!

One gives you a huge number of easy, simple out of the box options of roos, kiwis, maple leaf and springbok on RAF aircraft, while the other the sky is the limit, potentially giving you TSR2, Arrow, CAC CA-31 among many other options.

[Volkodav]

Wow, some great ideas there and going much further than I had considered.

The model I was contemplating was more along the lines of the RAAF contribution to Fighter, Bomber and Coastal Commands as well as the Desert Air force, being re kindled for the cold war. I.e  common equipment and unified command.  The ideas being put forward are more along the lines of an expansion of the Empire Air Training Scheme, or perhaps the United Arab Republic concept from the late 50s early 60s.

My idea was basically RAF aircraft with RAF schemes and seriels wearing RAAF roos, squadron and/or group/ wing markings. I.e 10 sqn RAAF Nimrod in a slightly different real world, vs an independent, united Commonwealth with some real but also wiff equipment, new markings and schemes.

I like both!

One gives you a huge number of easy, simple out of the box options of roos, kiwis, maple leaf and springbok on RAF aircraft, while the other the sky is the limit, potentially giving you TSR2, Arrow, CAC CA-31 among many other options.

[Rickshaw]

Late 1940s-early 1950s Imperial Defence Planning (when there was still a British Empire) had Australian forces being deployed (again) to the Middle-East and to Malaya.  It resolved around the belief that if the UK was wiped out by Atomic bombing, then the Empire would "fight on" from the "periphery".

This was tied into the idea that the Dominions would be producing their own defence equipment, including Atomic weapons.  Serious plans were put in hand for Uranium mining, enrichment and production of Atomic weapons.   They looked at Southern Africa (Rhodesia in particular) and Australia.  Downunder, these plans were the catalyst for the creation of the Snow Mountains Scheme (to provide electrical power for Uranium enrichment), the Australian National University (to provide the Physicists to staff the laboratories) and the production line for the Canberra bomber (to carry the bombs).    Australian forces were to be deployed to the Middle East to fight the marauding Red Hordes and once Mao won in China, to Malaya to fight the marauding Chinese Red Hordes as well.

Of course, this all fell apart when first Canada and then Australia and New Zealand moved closer to the US and aligned themselves with US defence planning and the UK was forced to withdraw from Empire and then "East of Suez".

Interestingly, I heard a paper given about ten years ago by an Australian Army Officer who proposed much greater defence co-operation with Canada, pointing out the similarities in outlook, size and equipment between the Canadian and Australian Armies.   I made use of his proposals in my "Remember Eureka" counter-factual, where a joint Australian-Canadian Brigade ends up being deployed to the first Iraq War. 

[raafif]

I think helicopters would be the most whiff-ful areas, ... but definitely developments of the Belvedere and ...... also the Rotodyne, ....

:) :)

There is also room for a few Oz Army Mil-8s in a Cold War scenario as two Army pilots were seconded to Finland for a while & flew Mil-8s .... zapping roos on them if you look

[Old Wombat]

Could, also, have a significant impact on the navies, esp. RCN & RAN, with both getting more ships & more (& bigger) carriers - flying off things like Bucc's, Sea Vixens, early Harriers, etc., rather than Skyhawks replacing the Venoms. ASW might have been interesting, as the Brit's converted to helicopters as their primary naval ASW assets at the beginning of the 1960's (at approximately the same time the RAN & RCN turned to the US & acquired Trackers). So, the potential for WhIf fixed-wing Commonwealth ASW assets is wide open. Also, the expanded functionality required for the multi-national role of the carrier fleets may have seen a wider range & improved development of the basic British carrier & FAA aircraft designs.

As for a trigger for this: I have no real idea. Perhaps resentment of the US for demanding faster payment of the WW2 Lend-Lease debts but that's a little flimsy, at best.

:)

Guy

[Volkodav]

Could, also, have a significant impact on the navies, esp. RCN & RAN, with both getting more ships & more (& bigger) carriers - flying off things like Bucc's, Sea Vixens, early Harriers, etc., rather than Skyhawks replacing the Venoms. ASW might have been interesting, as the Brit's converted to helicopters as their primary naval ASW assets at the beginning of the 1960's (at approximately the same time the RAN & RCN turned to the US & acquired Trackers). So, the potential for WhIf fixed-wing Commonwealth ASW assets is wide open. Also, the expanded functionality required for the multi-national role of the carrier fleets may have seen a wider range & improved development of the basic British carrier & FAA aircraft designs.

As for a trigger for this: I have no real idea. Perhaps resentment of the US for demanding faster payment of the WW2 Lend-Lease debts but that's a little flimsy, at best.

:)

Guy

Or alternatively with Australia and Canada operation small carriers and Britain's greater sense of obligation to their close Commonwealth allies, it was deemed cheaper and less risky to continue the development of the P.1154 than to design and build new carriers or to use US sourced aircraft.  fixed wing ASW was surrendered but a supersonic STOVL fighter bomber was won.

[Litvyak]

fixed wing ASW was surrendered

Why not an ASW version of the Dynavert then?

[Volkodav]

fixed wing ASW was surrendered

Why not an ASW version of the Dynavert then?

Why not indeed, with a rotodyne COD

[Rickshaw]

Could, also, have a significant impact on the navies, esp. RCN & RAN, with both getting more ships & more (& bigger) carriers - flying off things like Bucc's, Sea Vixens, early Harriers, etc., rather than Skyhawks replacing the Venoms. ASW might have been interesting, as the Brit's converted to helicopters as their primary naval ASW assets at the beginning of the 1960's (at approximately the same time the RAN & RCN turned to the US & acquired Trackers). So, the potential for WhIf fixed-wing Commonwealth ASW assets is wide open. Also, the expanded functionality required for the multi-national role of the carrier fleets may have seen a wider range & improved development of the basic British carrier & FAA aircraft designs.

As for a trigger for this: I have no real idea. Perhaps resentment of the US for demanding faster payment of the WW2 Lend-Lease debts but that's a little flimsy, at best.

:)

Guy

Australia was one of the few countries to have a positive account under Lend-Lease at the end of WWII.  We were one of the Allies' main sources for agricultural products, apart from the USA and so ended up with a balance in the black.

[Rickshaw]

fixed wing ASW was surrendered

Why not an ASW version of the Dynavert then?

Why not indeed, with a rotodyne COD

Like this one with beaver tail doors, folding rotor blades and collapsing rotormast in service with the RAN?



Westland Rotodyne Mk.20 - RAN FAA COD aircraft, 1969

[elmayerle]

Bell Helicopter-Canada in conjunction with another Canadian firm doing a "Commonwealth-ized" version of the V-22 for ASW and other roles as the Osprey ASW.1 and C.2? With SAR and other versions to follow?

[Litvyak]

Bell Helicopter-Canada in conjunction with another Canadian firm doing a "Commonwealth-ized" version of the V-22 for ASW and other roles as the Osprey ASW.1 and C.2? With SAR and other versions to follow?

Well, that /is/ an idea... but why? Canadair already had the Dynavert in the late 60s, way before the Osprey! Surely Canadair in conjunction with Westland or whomever could further develop the Dynavert concept into something bigger/more modern/whatever...?

[elmayerle]

Actually, I could see both as they suit different missions.  The tilt-wing is good for vstol ops but not very efficient for long-term hovering while the tilt-rotor is better suited for ops where a lot of hovering is required but doesn't reach the same speed as the tilt-wing with turboprops.  I could see a tilt-rotor and a Dynavert development being developed from a common fuselage and as much common systems as possible.

[Litvyak]

Mm, never thought of it like that! Very good points!

[raafif]

take a Rotodyne, uprate engines & replace rotor with an AWACs saucer ? (instead of a Tracer for 1950/60s)

[Volkodav]

Like this one with beaver tail doors, folding rotor blades and collapsing rotormast in service with the RAN?



Westland Rotodyne Mk.20 - RAN FAA COD aircraft, 1969
[/quote]

That is truly impressive, a fleet of them definitely would require a carrier

[Volkodav]

Here's a thought how about following Suez political and public anger with the US, in particular with Eisenhower, resulted in the UK withdrawing from NATO and reinforcing ties with the Commonwealth.  At the same time the UK defaulted on their debts to the US based on the US dishonouring a number of agreements, including sharing nuclear weapons technology while the US benefited from UK jet engine, radar and carrier technology.  The relationship was seen as very one sided where Britain and the dominions had been left to fight the Axis powers on their own, suffering significant (almost catastrophic) damage while the US economy boomed.  Right or wrong this created a lot of resentment, as well as a significant amount of distrust, within the UK and the Dominions, and was the key to stronger, mutually beneficial relationships between members of a stronger Commonwealth.

Possible consequences could include, apart from the obvious of buying more existing British gear, the completion of a number of cancelled projects, the refinement of other "bodged designs" and as the UK completes things like a new class of fleet carrier in the early 60s, the transfer of the Centaurs, Victorious, Eagle and / or Ark Royal to the dominions.

[GTX_Admin]

Hmmm…interesting.  Maybe one could spin this into a resurgent Commonwealth scenario.  Would be particularly interesting in the context of the existing Cold War.  One could end up with the following power blocks:

• USA - assuming Australia & Canada go the Commonwealth route, who would be with the US?  Japan and Sth Korea probably.  Maybe West Germany and some of the other European countries?
• USSR & Warsaw Pact
• British Commonwealth - UK, Australia, Canada, India + the rest.  What about France?  Would they also decide to join in here following the Suez crisis of would they go the USA side? Maybe they and Europe form their own alliance or maybe they just stay non-aligned
• China and the rest

This could provide a very interesting power play and many modelling options.

[Silver Fox]

Where's the tilt-Rotodyne? :)

Merge Dynavert and Rotodyne and you get one interesting beast!

[Volkodav]

Hmmm…interesting.  Maybe one could spin this into a resurgent Commonwealth scenario.  Would be particularly interesting in the context of the existing Cold War.  One could end up with the following power blocks:

• USA - assuming Australia & Canada go the Commonwealth route, who would be with the US?  Japan and Sth Korea probably.  Maybe West Germany and some of the other European countries?
• USSR & Warsaw Pact
• British Commonwealth - UK, Australia, Canada, India + the rest.  What about France?  Would they also decide to join in here following the Suez crisis of would they go the USA side? Maybe they and Europe form their own alliance or maybe they just stay non-aligned
• China and the rest

This could provide a very interesting power play and many modelling options.

Well France actually withdrew from NATO during the 60s and developed their stand alone deterrent.

[GTX_Admin]

Well France actually withdrew from NATO during the 60s and developed their stand alone deterrent.

To be technically correct, France did not withdraw from NATO.  Rather, they simply withdrew from the NATO military integrated command structure.

Back to the topic at hand:  my comments about France in this context were that if one were to use the Suez Crisis as the defining trigger, then one might also see France either break fully with both the US and UK or potentially link up with the UK/Commonwealth given similar dissatisfaction with US policy etc.

[Rickshaw]

With participation of the Commonwealth in NATO, how would you overcome Commonwealth dissatisfaction with EU agricultural policies?  When the UK entered the Common Market, Commonwealth agricultural exports suddenly got hit with massive tariffs.  This hurt most Commonwealth nations quite hard, particularly Australia and New Zealand.  Effectively wiped out the Tasmanian Apple industry IIRC.   Dominions might be less willing to contribute to the defence of nations which treated them in this way.

[Volkodav]

Well the main treaties around the EEC weren't signed until the late 60s and the UK didn't join until 1973 so the scenario still stands until that time.  Continued integration of the commonwealth, especially if the UK maintained their presence east of Suez, may have delayed there membership into the EEC.

  So basically an Australian presence in Europe as part of NATO could have continued through until the late 60s before the economic effect of the EEC really began to bight.  This gives us fifteen years of interesting wiffs before Australia pulls the plug, although another option is Australia could be offered defacto membership of the EEC based on the long, military and economic association.

[GTX_Admin]

Or potentially the development of the Commonwealth as a more significant power block could have one of many possible consequences here:

• The European Common Market does not include the UK or its Commonwealth linkages - basically, they say "thanks but no thanks…we've already got our club"
• The greater influence of the UK allows it to bend the Common market more to its favour and by default to that of its Commonwealth
• The mainland Europeans get caught up in the different power plays and deliberately not involve the UK since they are part of the Commonwealth power block...

[Volkodav]

Yes I like that.  Maybe the UK could become the interface between the Commonwealth while the individual Commonwealth nations became the primary gateway to their regions. i.e. most global trade ended up being conducted through the British Commonwealth rather than directly as it was easier and cheaper to use the existing networks than develop new ones.  For example Canada for US trade and Australia for China, only Japan would be exclusively US although they may choose to use Australia or Canada to get into Europe.

The secret would be not getting greedy and making it more beneficial to cut out the middle man, make sure the arrangements were always mutually beneficent enough that no one could see the point of changing the status quo.

[Old Wombat]

Ah, now we enter the realm of the "Commonwealth Parliament"!