Modelling > Scenarios
M.A.D's 'Alternative Australian Defence Force Order of Battle' Questions please
Weaver:
Aircraft-wise, the obvious What If is to have the Aus government follow the UK example and cancel the F-111. The RAAF then keeps the leased F-4s and buys more to go with them. They might also buy the Buccaneer and/or join in the Tornado program.
The next big What If if the Mirage replacement. Given the strategic situation, if they've gone for the Tornado IDS, them they might well be persuaded to go for the ADV as well, at least for part of the force.
The other possible alternatives to the F/A-18 would be the F-14 (too expensive?), F-15, F-16 or Mirage 2000. Given that the F-4s would be relatively young and capable of air defence as well as strike, that might well push them to a lighter, cheaper option such as the F-16 or Mirage 2000. In the early 1980s, the military trade-off between the F-16 and the Mirage 2000 was that the F-16 was more multi-role and had longer range, while the Mirage had better speed and climb rate and BVR missiles as standard. Of course, there are other political, financial and industrial factors to consider.
Weaver:
Going back further to the decision to buy the Mirage IIIs, the alternatives there would have been:
F-104 Starfighter
Lightning
F-8 Crusader
F-11F Super Tiger (J-79 or Avon engine)
The F-11F was developmental, but it had done a lot of successful test flying on company money and was being actively marketed.
RAAF interest could well have stimulated earlier development of a longer-ranged, more multi-role Lightning.
The Crusader is an interesting and often overlooked option. It had less speed than the rest, but considerably more range, and as subsequent developments showed, considerable weapons potential. The gun installation needed fixing, but the A-7D showed how to do that. I do know that in Phillippines service, the Metallite skinning (plywood bonded between thin aluminium layers) had problems with humidity, so I don't know if that would apply in some parts of Aus too. Having said that, Vought engineers worked out a solution for the PAF (local veneers that were better adapted to the environment) on a shoestring budget, so I'm sure something could have been done for the RAAF.
On the whole, I think they made the right call going with the Mirage III, but it would have been nice if they'd gone for the Avon-engined version: much better performance (if significantly dearer) from an RAAF point of view, plus some nice engine sales for RR and quite possibly more export sales for Dassault.
Rickshaw:
As the Mosquito experience showed, the RAAF had real problems with timber skinned/structured aircraft in the tropics, which was where it expected to do most of its operations under the strategic thinking of the day ("Forward Defence"). The Crusader had a short life in the US Navy. It entered service in 1957 and left service in 1976. I somehow doubt there were many F-8As still around in 1976.
Both the Lightning and the Starfighter suffered from too short a range, compared to the other aircraft. The Lightning and Starfighter were still in their early iterations. As you note, the F11F wasn't in production. Both the Crusader and the Super Tiger were naval aircraft and the RAAF was not interested in the weight penalties that naval aircraft suffered compared to land based ones.
So, out of the five the Mirage was really the only suitable Mach 2 aircraft to choose IMHO.
M.A.D:
Wow gents, I appreciate your reply, interest and input! ;)
Rickshaw your
--- Quote ---US M8 or Staghound armoured cars
--- End quote ---
suggestion, I too seriously thought about these designs, but I was a little concerned with obsolescence, with the prospects of them having to serve up until the 1960's-70's.
Weaver, I like the idea of the Panhard EBR!! :P Its time frame is right on the money for what I want!!
But yes reading into its design/history, the location of its engine is unusual, and seemingly a nightmare to service, let alone replace (the entire turret needing to be removed first, before the engine can be replaced, is insane! :o)
But I just watched a youtube clip of the Panhard EBR, and noticed it has what seems a drivers position at both front and rear! So I'm wondering if it would not be to unfeasible to eliminate the rear drivers compartment and replace it with the "diesel" engine? I'm thinking of replacing its two retractable 'steel' wheels with rubber, so as to save overall weight. As a side note, when watching the youtube clips of the EBR, I noticed that the retracted 'steel' wheels seem to be constantly engaged. Does anyone know if they could be disengaged? They're constant running appears to induce unwarranted wear and tear on the running gear ???
Oh and the French 75mm FL-10 gun is an impressive weapon, I would like included in my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT'!! :-*
As for the diesel engine issue gents, thanks very much (I'm ignorant to the history of Western diesel engines and they're employment post-WWII).
GTX, I hear and like your suggestion of
--- Quote ---a developed version of the Sd.Kfz. 234 series
--- End quote ---
, as I both like and greatly respect the German design philosophy! In truth, it appears that the West in many respects has done just what you've suggested. Let me ponder it a little more :P
Regardless, I like apophenia notion of
--- Quote ---the Daimler-Benz MB507 of 720-850 hp? Captured Schnellboote engines reverse-engineered in postwar Australia..
--- End quote ---
doesn't seem too far stretched, when one considers everything else the allies used/copied from German technology! There can be no denying my 'Buckethead' mates in armoured utmost respect for the MTU MB 838!! Its funny apophenia, the Detroit Diesel 6046 is the only Western WWII diesel I really know anything about, due to the then unusual fact that the USMC used it in they're M4A2 Sherman's and yet the U.S. army showed no real interest in adapting it :o
Using the 6046 in the manner of
--- Quote ---Not enough power for the Centurion but would suit your SPH. Then you could use single 7.0L Detroit Diesel 6-71 engines in your APCs, etc. (and possibly 4.7L 4-71s in support vehicles).
--- End quote ---
makes a lot of sense, but how do you think it would coup up until the 1960's?
Gent's if you don't take me for being rude, I'll take up your aircraft input and suggestions tomorrow, if that's ok? I'm knackered, after installing half of my (well the wife's ;)) new kitchen, and am starting to see double :-\
Thanks again for your interest and input, and until tomorrow, good night!
M.A.D
Weaver:
--- Quote from: Rickshaw on May 01, 2016, 01:39:06 PM ---As the Mosquito experience showed, the RAAF had real problems with timber skinned/structured aircraft in the tropics, which was where it expected to do most of its operations under the strategic thinking of the day ("Forward Defence"). The Crusader had a short life in the US Navy. It entered service in 1957 and left service in 1976. I somehow doubt there were many F-8As still around in 1976.
--- End quote ---
The RAAF's use of the Mirage was from 1964 to 1988, while Crusader production ended in 1964, so an RAAF buy would have followed on nicely from USN production. The high attrition rate of the Crusader in USN service was mostly down to it's difficult deck landing characteristics, something which wouldn't really apply to the RAAF. French Navy F-8E(FN)s served from 1964 to 2000, so there's nothing inherently short-lived about the design.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version