Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What if Australia had struck oil in the '70s?
Lawman    10/1/2008 1:21:48 PM
Well, Dropbear said I should bring some What Ifs here, which is sensible, since people are a lot friendlier here! Anyway, the thesis is that Australia finds major deposits of oil and gas offshore, during the early 1970s, as happened in Britain. The resources are found along the Queensland coast, running offshore from near Cooktown in the North, down to near Bundaberg at the Southern end. The resources are significant, and are rapidly exploited, boosting government revenues, and bringing significant financial investment into the civil sector. However, with the sudden find of resources, there are concerns about potential instability in the 'neighbouring region'... As such, a lot more money goes into funding the ADF, especially the RAAF and RAN, but also the Army. So, what options are on the table?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
hairy man       10/1/2008 7:45:28 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time the RAAF had pretty new F111's,  Mirages, C130H, and either Neptune or new Orions.
The RAN still had a Carrier, HMAS Melbourne, the second Carrier Sydney was being used mainly as a troopship. CFAdam destroyers were in service.  Our Oberon submarines were pretty new.  I am not sure whether it was the tribal or River class frigates then.  Had HMAS Voyager been struck by Melbourne then?
The army still had Centurian tanks, and a lot of the equipment it still has.
We did not have that many helicopters overall.
And dont forget we were still involved in Vietnam.
One thing we could have done was to buy those Phantoms we leased from the USA.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       10/2/2008 3:20:23 AM
 
I wouldn't want to operate F-4 alongside F-111 and Miracle.
 
I would  operate F-111 with significant stocks of Harpoon to handle any maritime nasties that might like to interfere with our oil rigs/platforms.
 
I would probably dump the Miracle and opt for an expanded fleet of F-4 for the A2A and close support role.
 
I would look at more patrol boats or perhaps bigger corvettes to support the offshore oil work.
 
I would look at an expanded army unit for specific CT rig ops. More than one SASR type Sabre sqn.
 
This scenario is actually similar to the existing massive coal deposits across central Queensland and would assume a similar type of security climate, with obviously additional use of offshore centric assets.
 
The only real difference I'd make is having some of the maritime patrol assets based at Amberley. Perhaps Use the Grey Grumblies in some form of surveillance/ELINT role post-Melbourne in the coming years.
 
Will think more on this...
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       10/2/2008 12:52:13 PM
I would hope to see more F-111s, for deterrent and maritime strike roles; perhaps also, given the serious money available, F-14A Tomcats, since the two were basically the tops of their respective fields at the time. Replace the Miracles with F-4s off the shelf, to carry out both fighter and strike missions. Add in a squadron or so of recce RF-4s, perhaps even the high performance ones the Israelis operated. Alternatively, perhaps a squadron of U-2s, fitted for LOROP surveillance.
Major bases at Amberley or Williamtown (F-111s and F-14s), Townsville (F-4s), Tindal (F-4s), Learmonth (F-4s) and Pearce (F-4s). Each of the F-4 bases would host a single squadron, though a somewhat large one, plus air defences for the base. There would be P-3s based at, say, Learmonth and Williamtown, rather than Edinburgh, i.e. a squadron or small wing based on each coast. Some tanker modified 707s or even 747s would then support the fighter and strike fleets. A P-3 based AEW would make sense, probably using the Hawkeye's radar, with some ELINT versions thrown in for good measure; these could be based at Edinburgh, for use on both coasts as needed, but capable of forward deployment to the main P-3 bases.
 
 
The Navy would probably want replacements for as much of the fleet as they can get away with. Certainly a new carrier would be high on their list of priorities; a CTOL type is probably a no-go, partly due to lack of available types (only the USN was buying them at that point, and a Nimitz type would be a complete non-starter). More likely would be STOVL, either an Aussie Tarawa derivative, or possibly an Invincible class, enlarged a bit. The Tarawa would have a lot going for it, especially its size (bigger airwing), and also the benefit of having amphib capability; this would allow it to replace both the carrier roles of Melbourne, and the supply/transport roles of Sydney. The Invincible, possibly fitted with SM-1 instead of Sea Dart, or no SAM system, might be an option; manpower would be in its favour. As long as you can modify the Tarawa to be a bit leaner manpower-wise, it would be an excellent pick. So, two Aussie Tarawa derivatives would form the centre of the surface fleet.
 
The Perth class destroyers might be prematurely retired, in favour perhaps of something like the American Kidd class. These would form the major AAW escorts for the carriers; they would be supplemented by a larger number of Perry/Adelaide class frigates. Perhaps four to six Kidd class destroyers, and eight or so Adelaide class frigates; add to this some coastal patrol ships, basically corvettes, with modest armament, for rig protection duties.
 
The Oberons were reasonably new, but perhaps could be supplemented by either new conventional subs, or even an Aussie Swiftsure class. This would be good for keeping an eye on what is going on much further out; alternatively, perhaps a few Aussie-owned bases in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, e.g. Cocos islands for coverage in the Indian Ocean.
 
The Army would probably not gain a massive amount, perhaps instead just turning one of the RAR battalions into an amphibious unit. One amphibious unit, one airborne unit, and a modest commando force would be a pretty good start for the light units; add the usual motorised/mechanized units, and you've pretty much got the whole force. Each of the Tarawas would aim to be able to carry a complete composite battalion, with a company of de facto marines, a company of paras, and a couple of companies of infantry in APCs, plus a tank or cavalry squadron. A very USMC MEU-style force in effect; they would be able to call upon transport helos, attack helos, and utility/medevac helos. Perhaps an acquisition of Sikorsky CH-3s, for commonality with the Westland-built Sea Kings; they would be capable of carrying half a platoon each. Hueys then perform the utility and medevac roles, with Cobras providing gunship support; the Chinooks wouldn't be disposed of. Target of always being able to provide a mixed unit, with, say, 16 x Sea King, 8 x Huey, 8 x Cobra, and 4 x Chinook.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       10/2/2008 8:33:43 PM
I would hope to see more F-111s, for deterrent and maritime strike roles; perhaps also, given the serious money available, F-14A Tomcats, since the two were basically the tops of their respective fields at the time. Replace the Miracles with F-4s off the shelf, to carry out both fighter and strike missions. Add in a squadron or so of recce RF-4s, perhaps even the high performance ones the Israelis operated. Alternatively, perhaps a squadron of U-2s, fitted for LOROP surveillance.

Not a fan of operating the F-14. The most notable thing it ever did was star in a movie. It was the single biggest overpriced technology demonstrator to ever see frontline service. It achieved very little until the last few years of its service life. Flying TARPS and lobbing LGB's was the pinnacle of its ordinary career. The famous encounters off Sirte/Sidra could have had the same outcome were they A-7 Corsair armed with AIM-9 Winders. They would have been a match for a couple of Libyan Fitters IMHO. The F-14 is gone. Goodriddance.
 
The U-2 has merit. Had we just a small flight it would have been a useful tool and may have been still in service today in an upgraded form to ultimately replace the R/F-111C.

Major bases at Amberley or Williamtown (F-111s and F-14s), Townsville (F-4s), Tindal (F-4s), Learmonth (F-4s) and Pearce (F-4s). Each of the F-4 bases would host a single squadron, though a somewhat large one, plus air defences for the base. There would be P-3s based at, say, Learmonth and Williamtown, rather than Edinburgh, i.e. a squadron or small wing based on each coast. Some tanker modified 707s or even 747s would then support the fighter and strike fleets. A P-3 based AEW would make sense, probably using the Hawkeye's radar, with some ELINT versions thrown in for good measure; these could be based at Edinburgh, for use on both coasts as needed, but capable of forward deployment to the main P-3 bases.
 
Not sure there is too much value in basing only a single sqn at several bases. Especially considering the logistics required for such a small number of folk when considering the isolated hell holes that make up places like Learmonth. I would close Willy down (too congested even today and probably better suited as the second Sydney basin civil hub) and keep the Pigs at Amberley with F-4 at Amberley and Tindal (Darwin was the base in the 1970's). Not sure about Pearce. I would only station F-4 there if they had a suitable anti-shipping capability and off the top of my head I can't think of a munition hanging off the F-4 in this timeframe that would be suitable (could we modify a Walleye or Bullpup for the littorals???).
 
B707's in handy numbers are a must if you are going to play with Phantoms. I would like to see a minimum of at least one full sqn based at Amberley with regular detachments to the northern based Phantom homes. An B747-SP has merit, but would probably be a tad pricey to operate. 
 
The Perth class destroyers might be prematurely retired, in favour perhaps of something like the American Kidd class. These would form the major AAW escorts for the carriers; they would be supplemented by a larger number of Perry/Adelaide class frigates. Perhaps four to six Kidd class destroyers, and eight or so Adelaide class frigates; add to this some coastal patrol ships, basically corvettes, with modest armament, for rig protection duties.

Sounds fair.  
 
The Army would probably not gain a massive amount, perhaps instead just turning one of the RAR battalions into an amphibious unit. One amphibious unit, one airborne unit, and a modest commando force would be a pretty good start for the light units; add the usual motorised/mechanized units, and you've pretty much got the whole force. Each of the Tarawas would aim to be able to carry a complete composite battalion, with a company of de facto marines, a company of paras, and a couple of companies of infantry in APCs, plus a tank or cavalry squadron. A very USMC MEU-style force in effect; they would be able to call upon transport helos, attack helos, and utility/medevac helos. Perhaps an acquisition of Sikorsky CH-3s, for commonality with the Westland-built Sea Kings; th
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       10/3/2008 7:35:39 AM
Okay, we can easily drop the F-14s, it was mainly out of concern for long range Pig escort, for which Phantoms might not cope; plus the desire to have what would be perceived of as the hottest fighter of the time. On the other hand, Phantoms would make more sense in many ways.
 
Basing-wise I was really just aiming for bases around the periphery, but even just Amberley, Darwin/Tindal and Pearce would be sufficient, as long as the bare bases are well developed. This should allow a couple of squadrons to be based at each, which should be fine.
 
For the tankers, the 707 would be the obvious choice, especially as it was still in production at that point, so no need to get old ones; they still need modified, but at least it's a new 'green' airframe you're modifying. There are few real alternatives at the time, other than paying from scratch for a new tanker certification for a different aircraft. Using 707s, some C-135-based types become a possibility, since migrating systems from the 367-80 airframe to the 707 airframe shouldn't be too difficult. For example, if you don't want P-3 Orion based AEW, but instead go for the more expensive, but more capable, E-3, then 707s are a plus. Equally, RC-135 equipment could be transferred easily enough, to yield an ELINT/COMINT/SIGINT aircraft for the RAAF. So, a mixed fleet of tankers, transports (personnel and VIP), airborne early warning, command post and intelligence versions of the same 707 version could be built.
 
I'm not sure about the F-4's anti-ship capability, especially as the USN had A-6s and A-7s for that, particularly as the anti-ship missile only came into vogue in the mid '70s; hence Phantoms were no longer the main target for upgrades and new weapons. However, it should have been possible, with something like the Martel being an early choice, since Exocet or Harpoon don't become available really until the early '80s. Another possibility might be to opt for an anti-ship modification of the AGM-78 Standard ARM! The USN had proposed the RGM-66F, which was basically a normal RIM-66 SM-1, but with an active monopulse radar in the nose. However, since the normal SMs had inherent anti-shipping capability, this development was cancelled. If Australia had taken up the gauntlet, however, and adopted the RGM-66F for use on the RAN's surface ships, then it could also be deployed on the Phantoms and Pigs, and probably also the Orions. This would give the RAAF/RAN supersonic anti-shipping missiles at a time when everyone else was only beginning to adopt subsonic ones. For the littorals, the obvious option would be a modified Maverick - okay, limited range, but it has a lot of other uses, and was very readily available.
 
For the helicopters, an Aussie production line for Sea Kings might have been an option, effectively sub-licensed from Westland. Normal vanilla S-61 type bodies for some, and the ramp-equipped S-61R type body for transport helos. Since the RAN are getting quite large ships to replace their old ones, the Sea King could, as it did in Canada, become the Navy's primary helo type. At the same time, a license deal with Bell could have seen UH-1s and AH-1s being assembled in the same plant as the Sea Kings. The Huey then gets the Agusta-style marinisation, to allow them to be used as Navy utility helos, civil rig service helos, and be in Army service, but ready for use from the Navy's new CVH/LHD (CVHD??).
 
 
 
One question would be whether the RAN might push for the 'two fleet' approach we've discussed on SP before, with one fleet based in the Pacific, and one in the Indian Ocean. Frankly, I don't think it makes much sense, but some would argue it does. I would instead argue for a major fleet base in the East, with smaller bases in the West (and North potentially); much like with the RAAF in this scenario, having this big stuff focussed in one easy to support base, and then having outpost bases elsewhere makes sense.
 
Perhaps have a larger number of small ships, somewhere in the 500-1000 ton range, with versions for minesweeping/hunting, and patrol. These would be pretty lean-manned, hence not cause much of a nightmare manpower-wise, yet still allow the RAN to boast about having more ships. These would be much like the British Ton class, but more capable, and capable of embarking more capable equipment (anti-ship and anti-air weapons for fast attack duties, MCM sweeping gear for minesweeping). They could be supported by small tankers, much like the German Navy did during the Cold War, having a flotilla of fast attack boats supported by an armed support vessel. This would be something like the Elbe class, i.e. a 3,500 ton replenishment ship; in RAN service, these would then operate as flotilla leaders for the minesweepe
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/3/2008 9:31:27 AM
I imagine the extra money would be used to bring the planned but never realised force structure of the late 60's, early 70's to reality.
 
The RAN would get its two ocean Navy with 3 carriers, 23 destroyers, 6 submarines, 3 AOE's, 6(?)LST's and a large Army support logistics ship.  The carriers postulated were HMS Eagle and Hermes with a new build ship to replace Melbourne in the 80's.  The destroyers would have been 4 Adam's (yes were did look at buying a 4th), 3 modernised Darings, 4 modernised and 2 new build Rivers and 10 Australian designed DDL's, the sub's unchanged (Oberon).  The AOE's would be the cancelled Australian Protector design and the amphibs would also be the axed Australian designs of that era.
 
The Airforce would have gotten F-111D's or F's to replace the C's before they were delivered (an option that was considered), 6 additional airframes would have been acquired specifically for the rec role, again as originally planned.  The Phantoms would have been returned because the extra cash available would have been used to buy the 50 F-15's we looked at getting in the mid 70's which would have been supplemented by the 100 Jaguars we were looking at to replace the Sabres used in the LIFT role, some of the Macchi fleet and also to beef up the the RAAF's CAS capability.  Australian involvement may have been enough to get the naval Jaguar over the line as a supplement for the Skyhawks in our FAA and a replacement for the Etendard in France.  The Galaxy would have been bought in small numbers to supplement the Hercs and the Caribou's would have been replaced with Buffalo's.  24 P-3C's would have been ordered to replace the Neptunes one for one instead of only 20.  We would have bought into the KC-10 program as well as the E-3C.  Hawks would replace the remaining Macchi's
 
The Army would be armoured with Leopards being supported by Marder AIFV's and Luch's or CVRT's for rec.  SPG's, probably M-109's but maybe AUF1 turrets on Leopard hulls, Gepards would have been good and I remember seeing a proposed Marder variant equipped with a retractable quad missile Rapier system in an early 70's edition of Janes Armour and Artillery.  The Cobra's proposed for the RAAF would have been a nice addition to Army Aviation.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       10/3/2008 6:07:35 PM
Volkodav:
 
Not sure about buying more Perth class destroyers or River class destroyer-escorts. By the mid to late '70s, when the money starts coming in, they would be pretty elderly designs; even with upgrades, they would still be pretty limited. Smaller numbers of newer designs would be more use, and be more popular. The crew size of the Kidd class is actually pretty close to that of the Perth class, and the leap in capability would be very impressive.
 
The problem with trying for three carriers is that they would basically have to be new build types. HMS Eagle was a rusting heap by the '70s, and Hermes wasn't on offer at that point. It would need to be an order for three new carriers, and for CTOL ops, you realistically need it to be a bare minimum of 40,000 tons in that period, since there were no fighters around that could operate off anything smaller. Hornets weren't yet designed, Tomcats are way too big, Crusaders way too old, and there was nothing coming out of Britain or France that was viable; the Jaguar was not a capable design, and wasn't a fighter, it lacked the thrust, range and radar to do the job. Only the Phantom was a viable fighter in this era, and it needs a pretty big carrier, hence the 40k ton figure; somewhere around that figure would be fine for Hornets in the '80s. However, the sheer cost of such huge carriers would be ridiculous, and even with a lot more money, the RAN would struggle to afford either the acquisition costs, or the running costs (and struggle to man it).
 
A better bet would be a somewhat cheaper STOVL type carrier, embarking Sea Harriers initially, then probably switching to a newer AV-8B+ type Harrier. I know there are limitations, but to be honest, an Aussie Tarawa would have been a pretty good option. It offers a relatively cheap way to kill two birds with one stone, it replaces the Melbourne's abilities (without overstepping it, since the RAN getting top end jets would upset the RAAF!), but also gives a major boost to amphibious capabilities. Sea Harriers still bring the ability to use the latest AIM-9s, anti-ship missiles, and all the usual bombs and rockets. By the late '80s, you can have replace them with AV-8B-based Sea Harriers, probably sharing a common radar with the Hornets.
 
Three Tarawas would be a pretty good option - it might be possible to have them use the same powerplant as the Kidd class, i.e. four LM2500 gas turbines, rather than the Tarawa's normal steam plant. The four LM2500s in the Kidds develop a total of ~80,000hp, and the steam plant in the normal Tarawas develop ~70,000hp, so it should hopefully be feasible. This would obviously be a big redesign, but would save manpower, and end up costing a lot less over time. You could also move around some of the internal spaces, for instance, you could enlarge the hangar, moving other accomodations around a bit (since you aren't needing to carry as many troops).
 
 
As for the Army getting Marders, it's not a bad idea, though to be honest, I think the AIFV would stand a better chance, due to its commonality with the existing M113s, which could be upgraded with its components. A combination of Leopards and AIFVs would be pretty useful, and still allow all the existing M-113 support vehicles. For the SAM system, it might be possible to just upgrade MIM-72 Chaparral with newer AIM-9 technology, perhaps even just using off the shelf AIM-9s, for total commonality with the RAAF and RAN's fighter fleets. Perhaps even add in the M163 Vulcan, since it is an extremely potent ground weapon, which would be quite useful. The howitzer chosen could be either the M109, which would make a lot of sense, but the AuF-1 mounted on a Leopard would be good too, and also allow commonality with the towed TRF-1 towed 155mm howitzer (which would serve the light forces).
 
 
For the F-111s, it might be possible to just use the -C airframe, with the better inlets, engines and avionics of the F-111F, but keeping the -C's long wings and heavy duty landing gear. The F-15 might be an option, but to be honest, F-4s would probably be sufficient. I wouldn't go for Jaguars, though, even if they are cheap - limited capability for anything beyond the basic strike and CAS roles, and not much training capability. I would rather stick with a larger force of F-4s than some F-15s and Jaguars. If you genuinely want a suitable, rugged aircraft that is capable of the training role, to replace the old Sabres in the lead-in role, then go for the A-4 Skyhawk, with TA-4Js to supplement the MB-326s.
 
Not sure about the KC-10s - the 707 would be sufficient for supporting most RAAF types (and RAN Harriers potentially). The C-5 Galaxy would be overkill, I suspect, since the ADF really don't have much ne
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       10/3/2008 9:24:02 PM
 
Galaxies plus 100 Jags?
 
Dead set?
 
Astounded, not just curious.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/4/2008 4:11:09 AM

 

Galaxies plus 100 Jags?

 

Dead set?

 

Astounded, not just curious.

 

 


The Galaxy came into the frame after the Starlifter went out of production, Australia had been umming and urring about the Starlifters to support our op's in Vietnam, in particular for casulty evac back to Australia, as the Herc's were seen to be stretched in the strategic transport role.  Remember there weren't any commercial Antonovs available for charter back then.
It was pretty much the same train of thought that led to the acquisition of the C-17.  One of the arguments against the Galaxy was the catastophic cost if one went down with a full load of troops on board, the idea was finally canned, I believe, with the election of the Whitlam Government.
 
The Jaguars were seen as a MOTS alternative to the CAC101 supersonic trainer.  The idea was that we needed an advanced high performance trainer to slot in between the the Macchi and the Mirage (due to the high accident rate?) as well as the yet to be delivered F-111.  The RAAF was using Sabres in the LIFT role but their days were numbered so a supersonic trainer was seen as a suitable replacement for the Sabre in the LIFT role (I believe about 30 aircraft) and the Macchi in the advanced trainer role (87 total). 
 
Another gem was the consideration given to buying HAWK to replace our 40mm Bofors in the AD role, in the end we got Redeye as a supplement and Rapier as a replacement with RBS70 eventually replacing the Redeye.
 
And where does all this antient history come from?  Well the Uni I attended has an absolutely brilliant libary with bound Flight Magazine editions going back to the late 50's, Janes year books back to the 60's and an assortment of other publications full of wierd and wonderful information. 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/4/2008 4:35:27 AM
Apologies for the appalling spelling and typo's, it be hay fever season and I am yet to obtain a workable concentration of antihistamines in my blood stream, which as you can see leads to errors and the lack of enough concentration to spell check before posting.
 
It is now time to take my pet bear for a walk and terrorise the local canines.
 
I shall return.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics