What if Australia selected the Dauglas SBD Dauntless for local production?

[Volkodav]

The Wirraway served Australia well but at the time of its selection there was some dissent in some quarters believing a more combat capable design should have been adopted instead. 

No specific aircraft was mentioned but looking at RAAF requirements for a long range scout, their subsequent order of Vultee Vengeance dive bombers (and their surprisingly effective service), and the Wirraways use as an interim Army Cooperation and even CAS type, a dive bomber seemed to the way to go.  Initially I was thinking Hawker Henley but then reading how the RAAF did Army Cooperation in the Pacific and the mention of working with RNZAF SBDs and later Corsairs it struck me that the Dauntless could have been a good choice for a more warrie type for CAC to build.

Reading up on the design and service history of the Dauntless I became quite impressed at its achievements, including the surprising fact it gave as good as it got air to air and destroyed pretty much as many Japanese aircraft as the Japanese were able to shoot down SBDs.  Considering the RAAF used the Wirraway as a desperation air defence type this also boded well.

Timing would be tight and the Dauntless was a more complex aircraft to build, i.e. maybe too big a bite for CAC to chew, but the concept intreges me.

RAAF bringing a modified Dauntless into service in 1941 as a long range scout, dive bomber and army cooperation aircraft.

An interceptor version is probably too great a stretch (though it would have been interesting to see what Fred David could do) but how about a more powerful heavy fighter bomber version with a bigger engine, wing mounted cannon and maybe rockets?

With CAC developing a relationship with Douglas instead of NA there are no obvious replacementd for the Mustang, which could have resulted in whatever the CA 15 turned out to be entering production. Alternatively Australia could have imported fighters and CAC could have build A-20s, A-26s, DC-4/6, or even A-1s.

What could have been interesting is if the Douglas relationship saw CAC able to access Skyknight design data and use it as the basis of its briefly proposed night fighter instead of the Gruman Panther.  This could have seen the RAAF having an all weather fighter from the early 50s to suplement the Vampie dat fighter and use it effectively in Korea instead of adopting the Meteor.
    *Note: why didnt the RAAF deploy Vampires to Korea?

CAC could then develop the Skyray as a Vampire replacement in the fighter role.

[apophenia]

The timing of the Dauntless was critical for the USN. But, the era of the land-based divebomber was coming to an end ... hence, the Army's A-24 never amounting to much. In any case, there may have been a simpler solution to building a more 'warlike' attack aircraft in Australia. What about a developed 'Super Wirraway'?

The aircraft I have in mind as a model is the North American A-27 (NA-69) attack type. With an increase of just 185 hp over the Wirraway, an NA-69 could hit 250 mph. Contrast with the predecessor of the Dauntless - the Northrop BT-1 - with similar power (825 hp P&W R-1535-94). The BT-1 could only manage 222 mph - the same as the 600 hp Wirraway. (Of course, the comparison of a land-based attack aircraft and a shipboard divebomber is a little unfair ... but then, the RAAF didn't require aircraft that could land on.)

Now imagine an Aussie NA-69 analogue powered by a 1,000 hp R-1820-52 in place of the A-27's 785 hp Cyclone. Even with the inevitably heavier operational equipment, a 'Super Wirraway' should be able to manage a better top speed than the SBD-3 Dauntless' 250 mph. Range is another matter.

Whereas the SBD-3 had a range of 1,345 miles, Wirraway range was only 720 miles and the A-27 800 miles. Obviously, a considerable increase in internal tankage would be needed for any 'Super Wirraway' (along with attendant increases in take-off weight). Still, such an aircraft could have been brought into RAAF service more quickly than tooling up for the Dauntless in Oz. Obviously, transition from the Wirraway (trainers or Army Co-op) would also be simpler.

With structural strengthening, the 'Super Wirraway' could have further development legs as well. Off the cuff, how about a Mk.II with the SBD-5's 1,200 hp R-1820-60 engine and a wing armament of the Boomerang's 20 mm Hispanos? (And, of course, we already know what Fred David had in mind for Wirraway fighter developments  )

Your Douglas connection leading to Australian-built A-20s and A-26s is intriguing. Then again, staying with the CAC with NAA, maybe Australia could have pursued a licence for B-25 attack variants instead of developing the Woomera?

Vampires in Korea: I guess No 77 Mustangs were the fighter type available to RAAF Component in 1949. By the end of the year, No 77 was under the US 35th Fighter Group which was switching from F-80s to F-51Ds for use in Korea. In all cases, the Mustangs were adequate for flying escort for USAF B-29s but superior to the jets for ground-attack missions.

So, I guess the question is: Why later re-equip No 77 with Meteor Mk 8s instead of DHA Vampires? It wasn't about earlier orders - the first DHA Vampire F.30s had already been delivered before the F.8 order was placed in 1950 (although the F.3 had been evaluated in 1946). But it seems that RAAF Vampire strength took time to build up.

According to The History of the De Havilland Vampire by David Watkins, the "late 1949 work-up training was hampered by the lack of available aircraft". By the time No 78 (F) Wing was operational, it was transferred - sans aircraft - to Malta (where the Wing took on loaned RAF FB Mk.9s). Availability would have been further complicated by DHA-built Vampires being issued to five Citizen's Air Force squadrons by 1951 to replace Mustangs.

An OT question is: Since No 77 was trained as and experienced in ground-attack, why the switch to the bomber escort jet fighter role with the Meteor F.8s?

[Volkodav]

Post WWII the reserve squadrons were to have been a fully integrated part of the RAAF filling the interceptor role and having a mix of regular and reserve personnel.  The regular fighter squadrons were intended as long range fighters, filling the fighter bomber and escort roles, with another squadron dedicated to tactical reconnaissance. Then there were the bomber and General Reconnaissance squadrons, and the finally the transport squadrons, rounding out the post war RAAF.

The reserve interceptor squadrons were not primarily intended to be a reserve as such (though they did fill this function providing personnel to support the deployment to Korea), but rather a permanent air defence organisation with one third of its personnel being permanent RAAF members. The idea was to cover more area, operating more aircraft, than a 100% permanent organisation could have supported, the regular component helping to raise train and sustain standards within the reserve component.  The regular squadrons on the other hand would be fully available for expeditionary operations. 

The demise of the flying reserve was the effective end of Australian continental, or even local air defence. It could be argued that if the reserve component was not good value for money, then the regular 33% could have been consolidated into a smaller number of full time squadrons, thereby retaining some of the capability, instead the units were cut alltogether and the air defence / interceptor role was rolled into the duties of the regular tactical fighter and tactical reconnaissance squadrons. 

The end of the flying squadrons was nothing more than a defence capability cut for cost reasons, and occurred at the same time as the government of the day decided to end RAN FAA fixed wing operations.  These cuts, as planned, were five fighter / interceptor squadrons, two FAA fighter squadrons and two fixed wing ASW squadrons, or half of Australia's air combat capability.  In the end the FAA received a stay of execution, meaning the full extent of the cuts took another twenty years to play out.


Boy have I gone a long way off the very topic I started. 

[Volkodav]

My original concept was Australia locally produces the Hawker Demon instead of importing them, this production facility then goes onto build an Australian Hector for Army cooperation, the Fury and a float plane version of the Nimrod instead of (or supplementing) the Seagull.

It is then a no brainer to locally build the Hurricane and Henley.

This would be a different organisation to CAC as it would have had to be earlier, leaving the possibility of CAC coming online to build another type as war approached, but having more options as Hawker Australia (or whatever it was called) had done the ground work in developing a supply chain and support system for local manufacture that CAC could hook into.

Now modifying it with my Dauntless idea, I'm thinking no Henley, CAC contracted to build the Dauntless instead and a modified Hurricane adapted for tropical service.

To fill the long range fighter / scout role a twin row radial is specified for the modified Dauntless, which CAC obtains a licence to manufacture in addition to the single row for the initial dive bomber / scout model.  With war approaching the decision is made to also begin licence producing the RR Merlin but delays in the project sees the Air Board request Hawker Australia and CAC to see if it is viable to fit the twin row radial intended for the Dauntless long range fighter to the Hurricane, Fred David taking the lead on this development.

The other thought is Australia was licence producing the RR Kestrel for its Hawker biplanes and while the Merlin was imported for the Hurricanes (with licence production planned), the availability of the Kestrel led to the Air Board requesting an assessment be made as to the possibility of fitting the Kestrel to the Dauntless.  In the pre war panic Hawker Australia could also have tooled up to build Gloster Gauntlets and then Gladiators, pending the new facility required for the more advance Hurricane. By the start of the war the Gloster biplanes would still be built but for army cooperation and as naval fighters for the RANs Hermes Class carrier HMAS Albatross.

This accelerated Australian aircraft manufacturing capability also provides the possibility of Blenheim being selected instead of the Beaufort as production could have been kicked off before the Beaufort design was ready.  There would be bomber, reconnaissance and heavy fighter versions of the Blenheim build and possibly the Kestrel could have been used as well.

Finally (for now at least) Australia proceeds with the Seagull V / Walrus, but instead of importing them, they are built locally, along side the RAAFs new Vickers Wellesley long range patrol bombers at a new purpose built Vickers Supermarine Aircraft factory.  This facility continues to build Seagulls but is expanded to build Vickers Wellingtons (ordered by the RAAF as a heavy bomber) as well as beginning to licence build various Bristol radial engines. Of course this facility would eventually produce Spitfires for the RAAF. 

Where was this facility? It was built on reclaimed land, joining Cockatoo Island Shipyard, through Spectacle Island to Drummoyne on the harbour side (a major infrastructure and employment program begun in the great depression). This greater Cockatoo Island was a mega defence facility initiated following a royal commission into the future of Cockatoo Island shipyard in 1921.  The long delay in the competition of the cruiser HMAS Adelaide due to the loss of her machinery in transit during WWI, illustrated the need for full local manufacturing capabilities to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. The solution, expand the shipyard to be capable of producing everything needed to build a battle cruiser of the type recommended by Lord Jellicoe in his report on the defences of the Dominions. This included ships machinery (including turbines), armour plate, ships guns, ammunition, pipes, radios and even the aircraft intended to fly from the cruisers / battle cruisers.  The project, initiated prior to the Great Depression was actually expanded and accelerated during it to keep people in work and most importantly to train a generation of still young returned servicemen in trades.  There was not money for imported machines and tools, but the land reclamation work could be done without increasing foreign debt.

[Old Wombat]

That almost fits into my RAM time-line, although I had extra ship building occurring in/near Adelaide, as it was well placed for coal & iron ore to make steel.

[Geoff]

If it is not a daft question - It would be quite possible for a number of SBDs to be shipped to Oz prior to licensed production for training and familiarisation wouldn't it?

[Volkodav]

If it is not a daft question - It would be quite possible for a number of SBDs to be shipped to Oz prior to licensed production for training and familiarisation wouldn't it?

Definitely, it was actually the preferred method.

[jcf]

Maybe if A-24s originally ordered by the US Army, or ex-USMC SBD-1s positing
an early replacement with SBD-2s, purpose built aircraft for Australia is doubtful
as the US military had priority. Locally built SBDs going into service in 1941 is
highly unlikely.

[Volkodav]

Maybe if A-24s originally ordered by the US Army, or ex-USMC SBD-1s positing
an early replacement with SBD-2s, purpose built aircraft for Australia is doubtful
as the US military had priority. Locally built SBDs going into service in 1941 is
highly unlikely.

Thought as much, the time line was tight and it was a more complex aircraft than the Wirraway.  The only way it could have happened was if Australia already had a mature aviation industry and it was ordered off the drawing board, or even co-developed with Douglas.

On that thought something that may have done the trick would have been if Stanley Goble got his way and an independent RAN FAA was formed in the 1920s or early 30s.  This would/could have resulted in HMAS Albatross being constructed as an aircraft carrier (possibly a modified Hermes class) instead of a seaplane tender, which would have actually been useful and usable by the RAN and RAAF/FAA.  Such a ship would had to be supplemented by another larger ship in the late 30s, which would have needed suitable aircraft for operations in the Pacific and SEA.  Cue Dauntless 

[GTX_Admin]

In the real world, the selection of the North American NA-16 as the basis for the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) Wirraways was part of a 'Crawl-Walk-Run' strategy (though not called as such at the time) by those involved.  A good read on this is in Lawrence Wackett's autobiography: "Aircraft Pioneer: an Autobiography".  In essence, they knew they were creating an entire aerospace industry - not just the aircraft manufacturing but the engine manufacturing, the toolmakers, the material suppliers etc!  In light of this, what they managed to achieve in the timeframe (lobbying of the Australian Govt by Essington Lewis, Chief General Manager of Broken Hill Proprietary (BHP) commenced in 1935; during early 1936, the overseas evaluation mission, led by then Wing Commander Lawrence Wackett, inspected aircraft production in Europe, Britain, and the United States; CAC was established in mid October 1936; by September 1937 a factory had been completed at Port Melbourne and by March 1939, the first Australian built CA-1 Wirraway - RAAF serial A20-3 - performed its maiden flight), is nothing short of remarkable.  Try creating an entire military aerospace manufacturing industry almost from scratch today in less than 5yrs!

In his autobiography Lawrence Wackett explains very clearly that the reasons behind the selection of the NA-16 as the basis for their first real aircraft was a combination of:

• What was practical at the time given the state of the existing industrial base they had to work wth - i.e. no point trying to go for something even more advanced as it would be a leap too far;
• The willingness of the companies involved to share intellectual Property and production licenses - in this regard it appears North American were very willing to work with australia; and
• The usefulness of the aircraft in question as a multirole type - again, the NA-16 had the benefit of providing bth a trainer and a light combat type.

Whilst some argued at the time that something more warlike should have been selected, to try to do so may not have been practical.  I would contend that something such as the Douglas SBD Dauntless would not have been suitable/practical given the above points nor even possible (given the SBD first flew in May 1940).

[GTX_Admin]

I will continue my analysis of alternatives here

[GTX_Admin]

Looking at this scenario slightly differently:  What fi the RAAF used the Douglas SBD Dauntless in WWII?  This rules out the local production option but still brings the aircraft into service.

I could see this happening three main ways:

• Australia orders the type instead of the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver/A-25 Shrike in 1942/43. I still see this as paralleling the Curtiss A-25 experience though.  In the real world, 150 Curtiss Shrikes were ordered under Lend Lease to satisfy a RAAF requirement for dive bombers.  The first 10 (A69-1 to A69-10) were delivered to Australia in late 1943 however due to changing requirements the RAAF no longer had a requirement for the type and the order for the outstanding 140 aircraft was cancelled.  Only one, A69-4 was ever flown in service and by mid January 1944 all other than A69-4 had been handed back to the USAAF. A69-4 was also eventually handed back to the USAAF in December 1944.  Under this scenario, one could imagine the presumed RAAF A-24 Banshee in a scheme similar to this:
  
  
  
  
• Australia acquires some of the type on loan from the USAAF in a similar fashion to how it acquired the P-39.  This would presumably occur in mid 1942 and involve the USAAF 5th Air Force loaning/transferring the RAAF some A-24s from the 8th Bombardment Squadron in mid-late 1942.
  
• The RAAF use the type instead of the Vultee Vengeance.  This is essentially a variation on the first option and sees the RAAF getting the type in early to mid 1942.  The only problem with this scenario is that it really requires a double whiff intuit in the real world the RAAF received the Vultee Vengeance by essentially taking over a British order.  Therefore, one requires the RAF or RN FAA (two more whiffs for you there ) to be planning on getting the A-24/SBD and then getting them instead sent to Australia.  Not altogether impossible.  This does offer some of the most attractive schemes too:
  
  
  
  
  and indeed, one could repurpose decals from this kit:
  
  
  

Just a few thoughts...

[Volkodav]

Wackett and others lobbied to get local production up and running well before it finally happened.  Jellico's report into the defences of the Dominions in 1919/20 even explicitly recommended that Australia manufacture their own combat aircraft, something he saw as critical to the evolution of Australian navy power.

Logically then local production should have started with something that was adopted for service, i.e. the Fairey IIIF for the late 20s and Hawker Hart derivatives in the 30s. Local production of aero engines ideally would have occurred as well (the flow on here being it gives the Sentinel tank an engine option as well).

Another thought comes to mind.  The Westland Wapiti replaced the DH-9A in RAAF service in 1929 and its replacement in RAF service was the Vickers Wellesley, what if Australia cut its teeth assembling Fairey IIIF and Wapiti, progressively increasing the amount of local content then used the Wellesley to kick off full local production, including engines.  Wellesley serving initially as a light bomber, then as a long-range General Reconnaissance aircraft, being replaced in production by the Wellington.

The industry, including supply chain, trades schools, university and Institute of Technology programs supporting an aviation industry kicked off over a decade earlier and were ready when the prewar expansion started in earnest.

[jcf]

Another advantage of using the NA-16 airframe as a basis is that the from the start it was designed to
use just about any radial engine available at the time up to 850hp. The engine mount was a self-contained
assembly that not only carried the engine but also engine auxiliaries and ancillary equipment, electrical
connections used quick-release plugs. NAA claimed that a full engine swap could be made in 40 minutes.

[kitnut617]

Greg, did Australia run a BCATP type program ?

[apophenia]

Wackett and others lobbied to get local production up and running well before it finally happened...

So did Major Alan Murray Jones, GM at de Havilland. The RAAF received - and rejected - DHA's R-1830-powered ADH-1 fighter project which was draughted some time before the Boomerang.

Greg, did Australia run a BCATP type program ?

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/raaf/eats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_the_Empire_Air_Training_Scheme

[Volkodav]

Wackett and others lobbied to get local production up and running well before it finally happened...

So did Major Alan Murray Jones, GM at de Havilland. The RAAF received - and rejected - DHA's R-1830-powered ADH-1 fighter project which was draughted some time before the Boomerang.

Never heard of it, please tell more....

[GTX_Admin]

Some useful reading on the Wirraway:  http://www.buckmasterfamily.id.au/cac_files_ca-1.htm

[apophenia]

Never heard of it, please tell more....

There's not much to tell, Volk'.  I put out a cry for help on Secret Project, but no further info yet.

I'll paraphrase from SP: Major Alan Murray Jones (General Manager of de Havilland Aircraft Pty. Ltd.) formed a special design group in 1941 to produce a simple fighter for the RAAF. That group, headed by Chief Engineer John Mills (with assistance from academe and the head of the ARL at Fisherman's Bend) "produced a proposal for a simple single engine fighter, wooden wings and steel tubular fuselage, powered by the twin Wasp engine...".

The R-1830 Twin Wasp engine was chosen because it was to be locally-produced by CAC (for the DAP Beaufort programme) ... and would be the highest-powered aero-engine available in Australia. The concept was submitted to the RAAF which largely ignored it. To quote John Mills' reminiscences, "The only response we at de Havilland received from the RAAF was a question 'why don’t you use a more powerful engine?'". Ironic in light of the later Boomerang's chosen powerplant!

Anyway, I'd love to know what the ADH-1 was meant to look like. I'm imagining a cross between an updated DH.77 and a single-engined  DH.88 Comet with a Beaufort's cowling on its nose ... but who knows? 

[jcf]

Anyway, I'd love to know what the ADH-1 was meant to look like. I'm imagining a cross between an updated DH.77 and a single-engined  DH.88 Comet with a Beaufort's cowling on its nose ... but who knows? 

I'd expect something rather more agricultural in appearance. 

Or perhaps Moth Minor like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Moth_Minor

Coupe version based? With a new steel-tube fuselage replacing the wooden DH "box".


https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1939/1939%20-%201992.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1939/1939%20-%201993.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1939/1939%20-%201994.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1939/1939%20-%201995.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1939/1939%20-%202000.html

[apophenia]

... Or perhaps Moth Minor like...

That makes sense since DH.94 production was completed at Bankstown.

[Volkodav]

Here's a thought, how about Australia is offered the Martin Baker MB2 for local production in 1938/9?

Good performance as well as being designed for easy production and maintenance, as well as for hot climates.

It could keep the Napier Dagger, or perhaps be redesigned for the Twin Wasp, or if we assume Australia had locally manufactured Demons and their Kestrels, the RR engine.

[apophenia]

Tempting ... using the later, enlarged tailplane and the planned retractable undercarriage for an Aussie MB.2?

But I'd go with a radial engine (was the Twin Wasp in the running yet for the RAAF in 1938-39?). On the Dagger, Wackett's experience with Napier's much simpler Javelin would have underwhelmed him ... and the opinions of 'LJ' counted in a big way with RAAF brass by 1938 (maybe thanks in part to his 'little brother'?).

Besides, the Dagger would probably be less than ideal for Australia. It had a reputation for overheating on the ground (in UK environmental conditions!). Even flying, the Dagger's rear cylinders were usually overheated while the front of the engine was chilled.

[jcf]

The MB 2 would be a good starting point with its simple structure and design for
subassembly manufacture, definitely dump the Dagger, evidently Baker originally
wanted to use a Merlin. As to retracts, perhaps the easy way would be to use the
Boeing patent landing gear as used on the P-40 and others, or a straightforward
copy of the retract gear on the NA-16 series. Either would require redesign of the
the wing inner plane.

[apophenia]

Great stuff as always, Jon 

... As to retracts, perhaps the easy way would be to use the Boeing patent landing gear as used on the P-40 and others, or a straightforward
copy of the retract gear on the NA-16 series. Either would require redesign of the the wing inner plane.

I like the reward-retract concept. A Wirraway-based main gear was my first thought but Martin's front spar design could make that trickier. I'm guessing that something akin to the P-36/P-40 would be simpler on that wing.