Enhanced ADF

The NZDF thread can be found here and, I've always thought that there could be greater integration with the two militaries on procurement matters.

There is another country that I will add to my trifecta of Enhanced militaries in due course and, this may or may not be for a TL :).

One thing I will add about our Kiwi brethren is that manning is a perennial issue for them, particularly their Navy.

The option of purchasing a third ANZAC frigate was extensively discussed, but was discounted in favour of a multi role vessel by the then Labor government (circa late 90s / early 2000s).
As the Enhanced NZDF thread is too old for me to post on it, how about this?

IIRC the RNZAF in the 1960s had 2 squadrons of Canberras. One was based in New Zealand and the other was part of the RAF's Far East Air Force and equipped with Canberras supplied by the British Government.

ITTL the British Government does not cancel the TSR2 and delays the "East of Suez" withdrawal until the middle of the 1980s. Therefore it supplies the RNZAF with enough TSR2s to re-equip the FEAF squadron and the NZ Government buys TSR2s to replace the Canberras in the home based squadron instead of the Skyhawks it bought IOTL. Meanwhile the RAAF buys 50 TSR2s built in Australia for a one-to-one replacement of its Canberras instead of the OTL F-111 purchase.

I know that's near an ASB level of plausibility but I couldn't resist it.
 
Last edited:
Keep the 24 x F-4E once the F-111C come on line in 73/74. Re-role them as interceptors, with at least one sqn flying out of Darwin. So 2 x F-111 sqn, 2 x F-4E and 3 x Mirage IIIO making up the aircombat fleet. Mirages to be replaced early 80's with either F/A-18, F-16, Harrier, Jaguar. Harriers give potential for Tarawa LPA that replaces the Melbourne. F-4E replaced by F-15C in mid 90's and F-111 by F-15E in early 2000's
Follow through on planned helo purchase, 11 AH1G, 42 UH1H, 72 OH58A and the 12 CH-47C. Upgraded/replaced AH-1W, UH-60, OH-58D and CH-47D
Invest in 4-6 tankers, KC-135's, and the pigs can fly anywhere. Possibly get into the strategic airlift business early, either C-141 or C-5. Upgrade the Caribou to turbo-prop in late 80's
Melbourne replaced by Tarawa in mid 80's, possible second LPA in 90's. Another Round table LST and Durance AOR, built locally. Replace Perth DDG with 4 x Kidd DDG early 90's. Don't buy Manoora or Kanimbla!!!! OPV in mid 90's with light helo capability.
No linked Inf Bn. One Bn re-roled to amphib in 80's, 250 Marder IFV purchased with Leo 1, SP Arty 24 x M109, Comando Regt mid 80's,

This is just for starters ........
 
Keep the 24 x F-4E once the F-111C come on line in 73/74. Re-role them as interceptors, with at least one sqn flying out of Darwin. So 2 x F-111 sqn, 2 x F-4E and 3 x Mirage IIIO making up the aircombat fleet. Mirages to be replaced early 80's with either F/A-18, F-16, Harrier, Jaguar. Harriers give potential for Tarawa LPA that replaces the Melbourne. F-4E replaced by F-15C in mid 90's and F-111 by F-15E in early 2000's
Follow through on planned helo purchase, 11 AH1G, 42 UH1H, 72 OH58A and the 12 CH-47C. Upgraded/replaced AH-1W, UH-60, OH-58D and CH-47D
Invest in 4-6 tankers, KC-135's, and the pigs can fly anywhere. Possibly get into the strategic airlift business early, either C-141 or C-5. Upgrade the Caribou to turbo-prop in late 80's
Melbourne replaced by Tarawa in mid 80's, possible second LPA in 90's. Another Round table LST and Durance AOR, built locally. Replace Perth DDG with 4 x Kidd DDG early 90's. Don't buy Manoora or Kanimbla!!!! OPV in mid 90's with light helo capability.
No linked Inf Bn. One Bn re-roled to amphib in 80's, 250 Marder IFV purchased with Leo 1, SP Arty 24 x M109, Comando Regt mid 80's,

This is just for starters ........

Most of us commenting here would likely agree with much of that, which you would know by reading back through the thread.

Going through though, I'd make a few points:

- It's only a small fleet of F-4Es. Better to keep them at Amberley and operate alongside the F-111s as strike escort. They could even gain a SEAD capability. One operational squadron of each, plus a conversion unit each. This would allow for hypothetical deployments of a mixed squadron with, say, six F-4s, four or five F-111s and one or two RF-111s. Together with getting tankers, which you also mentioned, that would give the RAAF a very potent strike capability.

- When replacing the Mirage, the Harrier and Jaguar are not good choices. The Hornet was chosen historically because it has two engines. The F-16 may be chosen if you push the decision back a little.

- When replacing both the F-111s and F-4s, you could opt for a single type - being the F-15E. No need for F-15Cs too.

- The Iwo Jima was preferred to replace Melbourne, and should have been bought. That might have seen a small buy of Sea Harriers.

- The Kidd Class makes no sense. It was only offered because Australia had failed to make timely provision to replace the Perths. With more funding through the '70s and '80s, then you could see that they would be replaced earlier with an appropriate design.

- I agree there are enough butterflies here that Manoora and Kanimbla would not have been bought - but there could still be some expensive bungles.

- The Army may not have had to retract as much as it did post-Vietnam, but nine battalions is too many even now. Seven plus a regular commando battalion makes sense.
 
- When replacing the Mirage, the Harrier and Jaguar are not good choices. The Hornet was chosen historically because it has two engines. The F-16 may be chosen if you push the decision back a little.
.
Considering the F-4E are being kept
as a pure interceptor role, I was looking more towards a mud-mover, and with Melb to be replaced, Harrier fits the bill. And all the free advertising from the Falklands kind of helps.

- When replacing both the F-111s and F-4s, you could opt for a single type - being the F-15E. No need for F-15Cs too.
.
F-15C is maintaining the interceptor role and us Aussies have a strong love affair with Pig, so it will stay a bit longer and be gradually replaced by the "E" Eagle

The Iwo Jima was preferred to replace Melbourne, and should have been bought. That might have seen a small buy of Sea Harriers.
.
Never quite understood why you would replace the Melbourne with Iwo Jima, an already 20year old design. I think it better to go with Tarawa, more modern design, has a well deck and can better cope with VTOL/STOVL operations.

- The Kidd Class makes no sense. It was only offered because Australia had failed to make timely provision to replace the Perths. With more funding through the '70s and '80s, then you could see that they would be replaced earlier with an appropriate design.
.
Given the OTL time gap b/t the Perth's and new Hobart DDG, operating Kidds for 5-10 years keeps the RAN in the AAW game.
- The Army may not have had to retract as much as it did post-Vietnam, but nine battalions is too many even now. Seven plus a regular commando battalion makes sense.
.
9 Bn initially, can retract over time, especially if you build up the Cav Regts. Would also avoid APIN in the 90's and instead re-locate 1st Mech Bde in Adelaide and Perth, and make better use of the rail network. It was handy having 1 Bde in Darwin during the East Timor saga, but a lot of training time is wasted with the weather/climate. Stay south and travel north.
 
Considering the F-4E are being kept
as a pure interceptor role, I was looking more towards a mud-mover, and with Melb to be replaced, Harrier fits the bill. And all the free advertising from the Falklands kind of helps.

There were only 24 F-4Es, sufficient only for a singe squadron. Not enough. And why would you assign a multirole bird like that to a "pure interceptor role"?

There would be no likely "bill" for the RAAF in the time period we're discussing that would require the Harrier. We need a longer-range, multirole fighter. Hornet or Falcon.

F-15C is maintaining the interceptor role and us Aussies have a strong love affair with Pig, so it will stay a bit longer and be gradually replaced by the "E" Eagle

Nonsensical, sorry, but again you don't have an interceptor force of one squadron. And "Aussies have a strong love affair with Pig" is not quite true. It became a fan favourite but it had a tremendously difficult introduction to service and became very expensive to maintain. It's also not a good reason to keep it in service longer.

Never quite understood why you would replace the Melbourne with Iwo Jima, an already 20year old design. I think it better to go with Tarawa, more modern design, has a well deck and can better cope with VTOL/STOVL operations.

I would say it was for several reasons. The Iwo Jima was in service in the early '70s when the design was selected, whereas the first Tarawa did not start building until late 1971. She had a ship's crew of about 660 compared to the Tarawa's 900-odd. She was more similar to the Melbourne she was intended to replace, whereas the Tarawa is much larger. The intention was primarily to gain a replacement for the Melbourne in terms of ASW capabilities with an associated buy of 20 Sea Kings (historically cut in half), not to gain a great big amphibious ship.

Given the OTL time gap b/t the Perth's and new Hobart DDG, operating Kidds for 5-10 years keeps the RAN in the AAW game.

But if defence funding had been maintained at a much higher level throughout the '70s, '80s and '90s, then the butterflies mean the Perths would almost certainly have been replaced.

I have to ask, have you read the thread?

9 Bn initially, can retract over time, especially if you build up the Cav Regts. Would also avoid APIN in the 90's and instead re-locate 1st Mech Bde in Adelaide and Perth, and make better use of the rail network. It was handy having 1 Bde in Darwin during the East Timor saga, but a lot of training time is wasted with the weather/climate. Stay south and travel north.

The Army would have had to reduce the number of infantry battalions almost immediately when national service came to an end. There's no good argument for continuing national service.
 
On the F4Es being kept; the main reason why the RAAF didn't want to keep them was because they believed it would interfere with the Mirage replacement that was supposed to happen from 1980, pushing it back to 1990. It was this looming replacement that was the cause of the Matra Magic being chosen as the replacement for the AIM9B, as the AIM9L would require engineering work to strengthen the wings.

So if the F4E is kept, for whatever the role, the Mirage will not be replaced until 1990. Further, the F4E and F111C would likely be replaced in the same programme by the same aircraft.
 
Would the ADF be able to meet recruiting targets to provide manpower for the additional capability? IIRC there were continual shortfalls in recruiting and retention rates for the RAN in particular.
 
They struggle when the numbers get up to 70,000, particularly in times of high employment. Putting units in the north increases separation rates, hence stationing half of 1st Brigade in adelaide once the railway was completed. Indeed for various reasons, including bulk fuel transport to Tindal, completing the Darwin railway would do more for the ADF than any sexy toy.
 
As the Enhanced NZDF thread is too old for me to post on it, how about this?

IIRC the RNZAF in the 1960s had 2 squadrons of Canberras. One was based in New Zealand and the other was part of the RAF's Far East Air Force and equipped with Canberras supplied by the British Government.

Sort of. 75 Sqn RNZAF was loaned RAF Canberras between 1958 and 1962, and operated from Tengah during the Malayan emergency, before returning to NZ and re-equipping with Vampires. 14 Sqn equipped with different RNZAF owned Canberras in 1959, before basing at Tengah between 1964 and 1966.

ITTL the British Government does not cancel the TSR2 and delays the "East of Suez" withdrawal until the middle of the 1980s. Therefore it supplies the RNZAF with enough TSR2s to re-equip the FEAF squadron and the NZ Government buys TSR2s to replace the Canberras in the home based squadron instead of the Skyhawks it bought IOTL.

I know that's near an ASB level of plausibility but I couldn't resist it.

Fun, but agreed, almost ASB. The TSR.2 would almost be too much aircraft for the RNZAF. As it was the requested buy of 18 A-4's (which had been chosen over the RNZAF's preference for the F-4) was arbitrarily cut to 14 by treasury.
 
In the above (near ASB) TL the RAF got it's TSR.2s on time and at cost, which IIRC in 1959 was intended to be: CA release in 1965; R&D cost £90 million; and production cost £1.7 million per aircraft (by the spring of 1965 IOTL the estimates were CA release 1968, R&D cost £270 million and production cost £3.4 million per aircraft).

Although its before the POD of this thread the RAAF bought 24 TSR.2s in 1963 and because they were delivered on time and at cost it bought another 24 in 1967 which were delivered in the early 1970s. The 48 aircraft cost less than the 24 F-111Cs bought IOTL and the RAAF had enough aircraft to re-equip all 3 of it's Canberra squadrons with TSR.2s.

One of the 3 RAAF TSR.2 squadrons would be assigned to the bomber wing of the Far East Air Force, which also had 2 RAF and one RNZAF TSR.2 squadrons.
 
And while I'm out demanding national infrastructure, I want a nuclear power reactor and an enrichment capability. Either a small BWR in the early 60s instead of the tiny Moata or the Jervis Bay reactor that was axed in 1971.
 
And while I'm out demanding national infrastructure, I want a nuclear power reactor and an enrichment capability. Either a small BWR in the early 60s instead of the tiny Moata or the Jervis Bay reactor that was axed in 1971.

I'm not sure of the logic of this - pouring money into infrastructure so that we might be able to develop nuclear weapons? You either do it or you don't, and if you do, you need a second strike capability. All of this is extremely expensive.
 
I'm not sure of the logic of this - pouring money into infrastructure so that we might be able to develop nuclear weapons? You either do it or you don't, and if you do, you need a second strike capability. All of this is extremely expensive.

Not weapons, submarines. Most likely not instead of Collins but rather its replacement. Also for national demonstration purposes, the lack of a power reactor is retarding the nuclear industry in Australia
 
On the F4Es being kept; the main reason why the RAAF didn't want to keep them was because they believed it would interfere with the Mirage replacement that was supposed to happen from 1980, pushing it back to 1990. It was this looming replacement that was the cause of the Matra Magic being chosen as the replacement for the AIM9B, as the AIM9L would require engineering work to strengthen the wings.

So if the F4E is kept, for whatever the role, the Mirage will not be replaced until 1990. Further, the F4E and F111C would likely be replaced in the same programme by the same aircraft.

Go back to the OP though Riain. You're right that keeping the F-4E would have threatened to delay or reduce the order for a Mirage replacement, and this was a justified fear. But it's justified because it was still in an era of low defence spending and plans routinely being cut or cancelled altogether.

This thread posits more defence spending, and we've taken that through the discussion to basically mean from before Whitlam started taking a knife to the ADF. With more funding, and no such institutional memory of canned defence plans, we could see the American offer to sell us the F-4E taken up, and then still see the Mirage replacement go ahead at around the same time as historical. It might not be the same. It could be a different aircraft chosen, and/or it could be reduced buy, maybe 50 or so for two operational fighter squadrons rather than three, but it would be very likely to still go ahead.

I agree with your last comment that the F-4E and the F-111C would almost certainly then be replaced by the same aircraft.

In order, it might look something like this:

1973 - Australia takes delivery of first F-111; decides to purchase F-4Es.

1980 - Australia orders 15 Sea Harriers for its new carrier.

1981 - Australia orders 55 F/A-18s (40 As and 15 Bs) for two operational fighter squadrons and an OCU.

Mid-'90s - Australia orders 40 F-15Es for two operational strike squadrons and a small OCU.

Mid-'00s - Australia purchases several ex-Royal Navy Sea Harriers to sustain its small fleet.

2008-09 - Australia orders 60-75 F-35s - two-thirds being the A model to replace the Hornet and the remainder the B model to replace the Sea Harrier.

Mid-2020s - Australia orders a replacement for its F-15Es.
 
Not weapons, submarines. Most likely not instead of Collins but rather its replacement. Also for national demonstration purposes, the lack of a power reactor is retarding the nuclear industry in Australia

Ah ok, yeah that might be doable. Or at least a joint program with Britain or France for nuclear-powered submarines.
 
Go back to the OP though Riain.

Yep, I forget the 2.5-3%. That said, I still wouldn't be ditching the Mirages early just because of the Phantoms, wasting money just because you have it isn't good policy. Once the Phantoms were bought I'd be doing a large mid life update on the Mirages, with structure and weapons/sensor upgrades.

I'd also have another look to see if the HMS Hermes was still available, and if not build a decent 2 shaft STOVL carrier with command facilities, none of this SCS/LPH shit. I'd buy into the Sea Harrier programme, but when the F/A2 programme came along I'd do the 23,500lb thrust engine at the same time.

I'd build an ocean going amphibious capability with the LSM MkII that was cancelled in 1971.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
M109's were fairly common in that time frame. I believe Canada, the UK and of course the U.S. had them so perhaps an intial cadre of troops could have gotten some practical experience via an exchange program with one of those nations. As the Canadians also had M113's and leopard tanks there might have been some further potential for collaboration.

M109 were common in USA units at least until 1992. There are plenty of opportunities for cross training. And about 1995, some USA units are going to MLRS, so you can probably get some used pieces on the cheap. The M109 is a good, solid gun. Battle proven.

The Aussie can live on USA national guard units selling equipment at 10-20 cents on the dollar to free up funds for upgrades. When we use the equipment 40 days a year or less, it last 50 years plus. Well, if you have good mechanics.
 
M109 were common in USA units at least until 1992. There are plenty of opportunities for cross training. And about 1995, some USA units are going to MLRS, so you can probably get some used pieces on the cheap. The M109 is a good, solid gun. Battle proven.

The Aussie can live on USA national guard units selling equipment at 10-20 cents on the dollar to free up funds for upgrades. When we use the equipment 40 days a year or less, it last 50 years plus. Well, if you have good mechanics.

Initial costs aren't the problem for us, its ongoing fleet management and sustainment costs particularly the personnel costs regarding qualifications and the like as Australian wage structure is vastly different from the US. If we bought used M109s we'd end up with a cheap machine that we'd have to spend a fortune on wages to upgrade then maintain a whole separate stream of qualifications, spares and other people heavy requirements costing a bomb.

A much better bet would be to put the AUF II 155mm turret on a further batch of leopards from brand new. The fleet would leverage off the existing leopard fleet and drastically reduce the cost of ownership, which is the real killer in the ADF.
 
Top