Author Topic: M.A.D's 'Alternative Australian Defence Force Order of Battle' Questions please  (Read 67161 times)

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
G'day fellow forum members ;)
Late last year I requested a fellow forum member to do me a profile of a 'modified' Breguet Br.1050 Alizé AEW derivative in RAN colours and markings (and it wasn't tankmodeler's Reply #96 profile).

I'm embarrassed to say that not have I've just lost the fantastic profiles that they were kind enough to do for me, but for the life of me I can't remember the member who did them  :-\

If it was you that worked with me to create this profiles, could you please PM me the profiles again please  :-\

M.A.D  :-[
« Last Edit: April 04, 2019, 03:15:06 PM by M.A.D »

Offline Jonesthetank

  • Almost as dumb as I look
Evening all,

M.A.D and I have been in contact about his ADF ORBAT and the Alize ideas.  Through the magic of the interweb I've got hold of a copy of Les Avions Breguet (1940-1971) by Jean Cuny and Pierre Leyvastre.  There are a couple of AEW Alize outlines in the book, but my French is not up to working out what most of the text is about.

Here are the two concept outlines.

https://flic.kr/p/2eqQANz

I've mocked up an Aeronavale scheme profile for each one, which I'll post in my profiles thread (if I can work out how to post a picture from Flickr!).  I'm aiming on doing the later low viz scheme for each one, and looks like a RAN version is in the offing too.

Cheers

Mark

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
I like the "above the fuselage" version simply because it makes ditching a bit safer if you have to.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
These look cool, but I think you need to retain internal space for at least two radar operators in addition to the pilot. AWACS is no good without operators to vector fighters to the threat.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
I think you will find that it would be an Airborne Early Warning (AEW) platform as opposed to a Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).  That is, there would not necessarily be a "Control" element (or maybe a limited one) which often necessitates the extra crew.  Much the same as the Sea King AEW birds.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Yes, absolutely, but even the Sea Kings had a couple operators as the warning part. Proper control would require a much bigger aircraft, radar and crew. But to run the radar plots it's going to need at least two operators I'd say.

If it's simply an airborne radar with all processing going on at the carrier, it would be terribly susceptible to jamming and to being found by enemy EW assets.

The thing is that there is room in the airframe for two operators plus the radar and power system. The Alize already has an operator plus a radar plus a bomb bay. Why not use the space there already?

Paul

Offline Jonesthetank

  • Almost as dumb as I look
The pictures are taken from this book


Any Francophones care to give us a translation?


Here are the pictures (now I've worked out how to post them!). Love the twin engine variant too


I agree with GTX, the variant is an AEW one, like the Skyraider AD-4W or the Gannet AEW, rather than a "proper" AWACS job. 

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
I think you will find that it would be an Airborne Early Warning (AEW) platform as opposed to a Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).  That is, there would not necessarily be a "Control" element (or maybe a limited one) which often necessitates the extra crew.  Much the same as the Sea King AEW birds.
More like a really large band data link to shipborne CIC, much as many helicopter AEW systems do now (and as the proposed Sea Harrier "Sidekick" system would have had).

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
I think you will find that it would be an Airborne Early Warning (AEW) platform as opposed to a Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).  That is, there would not necessarily be a "Control" element (or maybe a limited one) which often necessitates the extra crew.  Much the same as the Sea King AEW birds.
More like a really large band data link to shipborne CIC, much as many helicopter AEW systems do now (and as the proposed Sea Harrier "Sidekick" system would have had).

My understanding is that the earlier AEW naval aircraft all featured a datalink to the carrier for the processing of the radar information for use in controlling aircraft.  The AEW aircraft usually carried at least one or two operators simply to detect enemy aircraft on the radar.   The Skyraider and Gannet definitely had a datalink system.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
I really like that twin engined variant. :smiley:
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
I really like that twin engined variant. :smiley:

Moi aussi! And twin turboprop T58s, I notice  :smiley:
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Sorry gents, I've been out of action for a while :(

Enjoying the conversation and input re the Alize AEW  :P

Jonesthetank, love the profiles you've been so kind in doing mate 👍👌
Excited about the RAN profiles!!
Will speak to you very soon re some minimal mods to the the Alize AEW profile if I could impose? ;)

P.S. Jonesthetank has done some other very interesting profiles in support of my Alternative ADF ORBAT, which I'm very anxious to share  :P

M.A.D



Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Looking at the ratings on the T58 engines of the twin-engine version, I could see them being replaced by Astazous without difficulty.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Any Francophones care to give us a translation?


Désolé, je ne suis pas francophone mais ...

"In 1957, the Marine Nationale envisioned the adaptation of the Alizé to a remote detection of enemy ships and aircraft mission. Financing difficulties put this project on hold but it received a renewed 'impetus' in 1959.

Breguet offered 2 possible variants, both equipped with the American equipment recommended by Aéronavale (the APS 20 radar and AN/ASA 13 navigation set [Navigational Group Computer]):

 - One Alizé AEW variant was to have a ventral radome, clearly inspired by the 'Skyraiders' of the US Navy. This solution would have led to significant changes to the landing gear, wing-folding (now 'out-sized' with the taller landing gear) and catapult hardware;

- Another Alizé AEW variant was to have a dorsal radome, which avoided the modifications above, but entailed the necessity of replacing the empennage with a set of twin tails to clear the radome's wake. We do not know the exact design.

A contemporary plan shows the assembly on a 'stack', as shown on the sketch page 228. But we might have had to replace it with a set of finer supports, in order to create a smaller radome wake.

It should be noted that the two solutions would also have led to differences in tactical use, with the second [variant] allowing lower flying on aircraft-detection missions. [This variant] seems to have been the preference of the design office, but it did not progress beyond a sketch and estimates of approximate weight. There was no scale model of this layout. At the time, it was possible to consider a conversion for the development of this variant, either of one the prototype Br 965s or of a 'pre-series' Br 1050, the Navy being unwilling to sacrifice any of its series [Alizé] aircraft.

This project must have been definitively abandoned in the early 'sixties as a result of budget restrictions. However, Aéronavale continued to be interested in the problem since an AEW variant of the Dassault [MD 410] 'Spirale' was proposed in 1962. Subsequently,  Breguet was asked to study specialized two-engined aircraft, which would have given rise to Br 123 projects, which will be discussed in another chapter.

Little is known about the characteristics of the Br 1050 AEW. The maximum weight announced, 8.2 tons, was a limit presumably imposed by the Marine. This weight corresponded to a two-seat aircraft, carrying 2800 liters of fuel, regardless of the location chosen for the radome, high or low."

BTW: The Br 695 mentioned was the second prototype Br.960 Vultur modified into the Épaulard as an ASW demonstrator for the Br 1050 Alizé.

The unbuilt Br 123 was part of Marine's DAFNE programme to replace the Alizé (along with Sud's SA-X-137). There were a bunch of variations- twin-boomed Br 123A (with radome between booms) or single-fuselage Br 123B (with a dorsal roto-dome). Both versions could be powered by two turboprops (Darts or GE T64s) or two turbofans (Rolls-Royce, GE, or Lycoming).

The other caption reads something like this ...

"The Alizé twin-turbine project:

In late 1956 Breguet proposed, probably on its own initiative, a twin-turbine variant of the Alizé.

The wing of this project would have differed very little from that of the single engine Br 1050. But the Dart turboprop engine at the front of the fuselage, was replaced with a nose cap. Two General-Electric T-58 of 1050 hp each, were placed at the front of each wing nacelle.

The American turboprops offered the advantage of very small dimensions and, mounted flat in the nacelles, still allow sonobuoys to be carried.

The passive radar detection antennae would have been transferred to the aircraft's new nose. Crew accommodation and search radar installation would not modified in any way.

Aircraft characteristics and performance were expected to be slightly different from those of the standard Br 1050. However, they were never published. The main advantages of the twin-engine formula would have been, undeniably, increase safety on take-off and decreased operational vulnerability.

The reliability of the Dart was such that its replacement by two separate turbines seemed to be a useless luxury. This [twin-engined] version was studied primarily for its export potential."

Thanks for posting these scans  :smiley:
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Thanks for the translation apophenia😯👍

Quote
It should be noted that the two solutions would also have led to differences in tactical use, with the second [variant] allowing lower flying on aircraft-detection missions. [This variant] seems to have been the preference of the design office

Very interesting!!


M.A.D

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
G'day all

I'm still chipping away at my Alternative ADF ORBAT....
In doing so, I'm after the forums knowledge and expertise in terms of one and two man turret/weapon stations fitted to the AMX-10P, Marder 1 and YPR-765 Infantry Fighting Vehicles please.
I know that the AMX-10P is fitted with the Toucan II two-man turret, but I can't for the life of me find any information that indicates the name/designation of the turret/weapon stations fitted to either the Marder 1 and YPR-765.....

As a second note, I'm after a mid-1970's era 20-25mm cannon and co-axial 7.62mm turret/weapon station that the forum thinks could be incorporated into the FMC LVTP-7, in place of its existing 12.7mm MG turret.

Ironically, the original Chrysler LVTPX-12 pilot vehicles of the LVT programe were designed and equipped with a turret-mounted 20mm Hispano-Suiza M39 cannon and co-axial 7.62mm machine-gun mounted forward on the hull in a small 360ş rotating turret. (I don't know if the originalal FMC LVT design had the samee 20mm turret fitted and tested?)

Unfortunately I don't know and can't find out why the M39 20mm cannon was eventually dropped from the production LVTP-7 [I would appreciate knowing though!]
I'm very conscious of the limitations of one-man turrets, but just as conscious that to facilitate a two-man turret will undoubtedly require costly modification, including a larger turret ring, which itself has to be afforded space and perhaps a shift in weight/ bouyancy...[Please note, I'm willing to give up some troop compartment space, as I appriciate the Australian Army ORBAT of its Infantry Section (10-11 x men) units are smaller in numbers than that of the USMC Squad (13 x men). So I'm thinking there's room for a reduction of the LVTP-7's designed 25 x troop capacity for the gain of support/suppressive firepower in an amphibious assault.
(Ideally, I'd like to be able to incorporate the turret/weapon station of either AMX-10P, Marder 1 or YPR-765 into the LVTP-7 for commonality purposes......)

(P.S. does anyone know of any publications and or website which gives technical data/specifications for vehicle turrets/weapons stations??)

Any help will be much appreciated.

M.A.D
« Last Edit: May 04, 2020, 07:19:13 PM by M.A.D »

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
G'day all
A new question in relation to my Alternative ADF ORBAT if I could please....

I've just read:
Quote
Two designs were considered for Tobruk (L50), with a modified Round Table-class landing ship logistics, in use with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary at the time, selected for construction. Tobruk's design was based on RFA Sir Bedivere, the second of the class, which had been modified following the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's experience with operating the class' lead ship, RFA Sir Lancelot.

Does anyone know of the other amphibious assault ship design that was studied/considered by the RAN?

Also, I'm wondering if anyone has any information/drawing in regards to the RAN studying/considering a RIM-24 Tartar-armed derivative of their Daring class destroyers, before settling for the purchase of the modified Charles F. Adams class DDG's?

Thank in advance

MAD
« Last Edit: October 31, 2020, 10:11:48 PM by M.A.D »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Does anyone know of the other amphibious assault ship design that was studied/considered by the RAN?

Possibly the Landing Ship Medium Mark II - based upon comments here:  https://theforge.defence.gov.au/publications/moving-tanks-water-short-history-australias-tank-capable-amphibious-capability



BTW, if you want some good info on HMAS Tobruk, see the following:

https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-tobruk-ii
https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-tobruk-ii-part-2
https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-tobruk-ii-part-3
https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-tobruk-ii-part-4

I particularly like this photo  ;)

« Last Edit: November 01, 2020, 02:56:21 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Also, I'm wondering if anyone has any information/drawing in regards to the RAN studying/considering a RIM-24 Tartar-armed derivative of their Daring class destroyers, before settling for the purchase of the modified Charles F. Adams class DDG's?

Some possible information here:  https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/q-band-tartar-for-the-rn.28637/#post-327298  but no images I'm afraid.

Also information here:  https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/sea_power_series_impact_of_charles_f_adams_class_on_ran.pdf
« Last Edit: November 01, 2020, 03:29:48 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Admirals Shackleton's Doctoral Thesis on the Effects of acquiring the Perth Class DDGs had on the RAN is also worth a read.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Also, I'm wondering if anyone has any information/drawing in regards to the RAN studying/considering a RIM-24 Tartar-armed derivative of their Daring class destroyers, before settling for the purchase of the modified Charles F. Adams class DDG's?

Some possible information here:  https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/q-band-tartar-for-the-rn.28637/#post-327298  but no images I'm afraid.

Also information here:  https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/sea_power_series_impact_of_charles_f_adams_class_on_ran.pdf

Thanks Greg, your a bloody legend, you're always coming good with the goods!!👍

MAD

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Admirals Shackleton's Doctoral Thesis on the Effects of acquiring the Perth Class DDGs had on the RAN is also worth a read.

Thanks Paul!
Any chance you can send me link, if this is available online?

MAD

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it


Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
G'day all

Hope everyone is doing well during these crazy time!

I have another question I'd like to ask the forum please.

What was the better of the two designs in terms of performance/capability - the Lockheed P-3C Orion or the Lockheed CP-140 Aurora in terms of performing ASW and MP??

The obvious difference between the two "being the CP-140 incorporating the electronics suite of the Lockheed S-3 Viking into the P-3 Orion airframe...

"At the heart of the Aurora sensor suite is the digital processor. Essentially it is an airborne computer able to simultaneously process and display inputs from the sea-search radar, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imager, electronic support measures (ESM) emitter location system, and the tail-mounted magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), and other mission equipment. By comparison, each system on board the P-3 Orion is individually operated and its data separately displayed."

Now I fully appreciate the commonality of the RAAF P-3C Orion with USN P-3C Orion fleet, but does the forum think a performance leap by one or the other would warrant the RAAF participating in the development, purchase and operating the CP-140 over that of the P-3C?

Does anyone know the difference in price between the CP-140 and P-3C?

Thanks in advance.

MAD
« Last Edit: February 21, 2021, 08:40:30 AM by M.A.D »