Superpower Australia- stronger Australian Military

[MacCaulay]

I remember there was a thread awhile ago about Alternate Strategic Bombers, and I actually opened a word file and spent like 5 pages writing a fake history of the joint ANZAC strategic bomber force in a world where Japan fought a smaller Pacific War in the 1950s (instead of the 40s) and was still a hostile force in the Pacific.

Basically, they operated a force of Vulcans and the whole thing was about their testing at the Woomera range and whatnot.

 

[Linkwerk]

I remember there was a thread awhile ago about Alternate Strategic Bombers, and I actually opened a word file and spent like 5 pages writing a fake history of the joint ANZAC strategic bomber force in a world where Japan fought a smaller Pacific War in the 1950s (instead of the 40s) and was still a hostile force in the Pacific.

Basically, they operated a force of Vulcans and the whole thing was about their testing at the Woomera range and whatnot.

Well, uh, you gonna post that or what?

 

[abc123]

Some observations. abc123 you're relying on Britain developing planes that weren't built IOTL, the very same OTL where Britain cancelled everything it could lay its hands on.

The reason the Hornet was selected over the F16 was because in the early 80s the Hornet came with BVR AAMs and Harpoons, and the sensors to handle them, as standard whereas at the time the F16 had neither, it was a lightweight day fighter. The reason the F15 was rejected was not price, it was the belief in 1982 that it would soon go out of production and would be difficult to support out to 2015. The F15E was only a whisper at the time.

Yes, I said allready that this is some sort of development of that thread about more succesful Britain after WW2.

 

[abc123]

Finally someone agrees that the RAN has a clear requiremennt to have their own organic infantry.

A question for all: Does Australia needs its own aircraft carrier? Or, are organic infantry and organic aviation connected?

However, I would disagree with your contention that Australia does not need an aircraft carrier. Roughly 80 - 85% of all trade to Australia is via the sea, and irrespective of the RAAF's medium and heavy lift capability 70% of the logistical support provided to INTERFET was done via the heavy lift capabilities of the RAN and co.

Well, RAN ITTL would have a pretty good amphibious capabilities. Something like 3 LPD, 2 big logistical ships ( like Bay class ), and 8 smaller ships ( like OTL Balikpapan class ).

Therefore a fundamentally maritime nation from a trade perspective has a need to be able to independently protect its trade and their peculiar interests will require a stronger anti air capability.

Well, fundamental strategic descision will be a strong alliance with UK ( that ITTL has 3 CVA-01 carriers, and hasn't abandoned East of Suez presence, with strong bases like Singapore and Diego Garcia, Oman....
and with USA ( and they have more than enough carriers ).

Although those chaps in the sky blue uniforms will tell anyone that they have the ability to provide air cover for the fleet, it is almost impossible for them to maintain a standing CAP or to respond in an adequate time - when the Fleet deploys away from the coastline. Consequently the Fleet will require organic fixed air defence, particularly if we maintain an expeditionary doctrine (i.e. Marines). CMDR 'Sharky' Ward, RN wrote an excellent dissertation on the reasoning behind this...

Why not?
With bases in Cocos and Chrismas islands and in northern West New Guinea, and british bases in Singapore/Diego Garcia/Oman I don't see any problem with RAAF ( with enough tanker aircrafts ) to project it's power allmost anywhere east od Suez.

So my proposal for your TL is in the 1960's the CNO of the USN and the First Sea Lord Admiral Mountbatten proposed to subsidise the acquisition of another carrier to replace HMAS MELBOURNE. In the OTL the government refused due to concerns regarding both manning and maintenance costs. So if the desire is to keep costs down, whilst maintaining adequate power projection capabilities I would suggest the Audacious class carriers as a complement of 2200 and a good power projection capability.

Well, maybe when Britain gets its CVA-01 carriers, RAN could get HMS Eagle/Ark Royal for free, so that HMAS Melbourne could serve as a commando carrier.
But manpower requierments for RAN would be pretty hard.

 

[abc123]

Define much higher?
Australia would have no difficulty with at least population doubled.

In 1969 Australia did preliminary studies and site work to build a 500 MW nuclear power plant at Jervis Bay ostensibly to generate electricity but with a Plutonium breeder design. This was consistent with Australia’s ambition long term ambition to acquire its’ own nuclear weapons.
Had Prime Minister John Gorton, who was a strong supporter of the project, not been the victim of a palace coup engineered by Malcolm Fraser and replaced by Billy McMahan the project would have proceeded to completion and Australia would currently be denying its’ possession of some 30 tactical nuclear weapons.

The Australian plan to purchase HMS Invincible from the U.K. was interrupted by the Falklands War, perhaps if it had been finalised earlier Australia would not have lost its’ carrier capability.

Finally if Paul Dibb’s defence report of 1986 had not recommended abandoning forward defence in favour of Fortress Australia a more robust defence position may have been maintained. Had the previous decisions been made then the Dibb report, which was a rationalisation of Australia’s requirements to suit defence expenditure, would have presented a different proposal.

Well, Australia ITTL HAS nuclear weapons, produced in UK definitly, but that's even better for Australia- nuclear weapons, and without nuclear power plants and nuclear industry.
OK, they currently have only 10 bombs, but with UK-French Agreement in 1958. we could pretty soon expect smaller nuclear bombs/ALCMs.... For UK, France and Australia too...

 

[abc123]

So, we go on:

After deployment of australian forces in West New Guines, Australia-Indonesia relations were severed. USA also wanted to play along with Indonesia, because they feared of communist takeover in that country, so they exerted a strong presuure on Australia to abandon Netherland and Western New Guinea.

But, in the same time, UK ( after sucessful defeating communist insurgents in Malaya ) decided that is time to finaly settle things in SE Asia.
So, they decided:
- to retain Singapore as associated state in British Commonwealth
- to retain Labuan Island as a overseas teritorry
- to give island of Penang ( because of Chinese majority there ) a opportunity to vote will they get the same status as Singapore or will they join Malaya
- to give independence to Federation of Malaya ( as a group of islamic sultanates )
- to join Sultanate of Brunei, State of Sarawak and State of Sabah into Federation of West Borneo

That decision enraged Suharto and Indonesia. They have claimed rights on whole Malaya and Borneo, so they decided to try conquer western Borneo, and later, maybe even Malaya.

UK responded that they will not allow that, and so Konfrontasi-period began. That strenghtned Australia/Netherlands position in Western New Guinea, so Australia decided to deploy another infantry battalion in Western New Guinea and make another airbase there in Biak Island, and offered help to UK if UK helps them about Western New Guines.

Se, a detachment of ASAS went into Borneo, to help against incursions from Indonesia.
Also, Netherland and Australia decided that a plebiscite between population of Western New Guinea will be held in next 3 years with 3 options:

a) stay under administration of Netherland ( with autonomy ) for next 20 years
b) become independent country in 5 years ( in personal union with Netherlands )
c) become independent Republic of West New Guinea in 5 years
d) become authonomous part of Indonesia

A plebiscite will be supervised by a commission named by Assembley General of UN.

That enraged Sukarno, but as he was occupied with Konfrontasi, so he just sent several groups of guerrila fighters, that Australian and Netherland forces quickly destroyed.

 

[chris N]

No to be honest I do not thing that Australia should do away with carrier based aviation. It is important that Australia have the ability to project its military power and to protect the sea lanes to it.

The Australians would be better off with a twin engine fighter for the simple fact that it is much more likely to make it back to base. Considering the fact that Australia is surrounded by ocean the F/A-18 would make a better choice. Besides it could also be used aboard an aircraft carrier whereas the F-16 can not be.

 

[abc123]

With possible conflict against Indonesia about Western New Guinea in mind, Australia again decided to augment its RAAF.
So they ordered 15 Transall C-160 ( like UK has done previous year ), and also ordered 8 Shorts Belfast aircrafts from UK.

That aircrafts will significantly agument australian military capabilities in possible conflict.
Fleet of Douglas C-47 and Blackburn Beverley will stay in service until greater numbers of new aircrafts are bought.

In the same time, australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne has become to show its age, he was too small for modern fighters like US Phantom or british Hawker 1121 N.
In the same time, UK initiated a program of building of 3 new carriers to replace 5 older carriers. Program was known as CVA-01. So, when building of the first CVA began in 1964., australian government approached government of the UK to find out will they sell one of their old carriers HMS Ark Royal or HMS Eagle to Australia, after CVA class is brought into service in middle of 70s.
UK government had no objections about that.
After thorough analysis af both ships, Australians decided that HMS Eagle was in better condition and that he will be handed over to RAN for a token sum of money in 1970., and after that he will undergo a major refit in UK, where his life will be extended for another 10- 20 years. After his commissioning into RAN HMAS Melbourne will be converted into commando carrier.
So, australian government in the meanwhile decided to augment his fleet of amphibious assault ships, so they joined british program by ordering 2 ships of the Fearless class LPD.



And another version of this update could be like this:

Australian government decided that they can't afford carrier aviation, so they decided to concentrate on two things:

1) strong RAAF

2) strong naval amphibious forces

1) that meant that another 6 Vickers V-1001 tanker aircrafts were bought, and Australia also oreered 36 Vickers 589 stratehic bombers, that will replace Victors in strategic bomber role. Victors will remain in service, but as tanker aircrafts and ELINT/EW aircrafts, also, another 15 Transall C-160 were tio be ordered, after first 15 were delivered

2) Australia decided to enlarge his order for Fearless class LPDs, so they ordered 4 of them, and another class of 10 smaller ships ( something like oTL Balikpapan class )

Aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne was to be scrapped by 1970. and australian fixed-wing naval aviation with him too...

 

[abc123]

The problem of replacement of old WW2 destroyers and frigates has become ono of most pressing issues for RAN.
So 6 frigates of Leander class were ordered from UK for escort duties. The Navy has planned overall 12 modern frigates, so later order of another 6 frigates was a nescessity. But RAN decided not to rush with that, so that they can get the most modern ships and that some weapons systems can be completed.

About air defence destroyers, british County class was deemed as a too focused on Sea Slug missile, but a newly designed british ships Type 82 were deemed also not satisfactory. Eventually even the Royal navy accepted that a enentirely new class is nescessary, so only one Type 82 ship was completed- HMS Belfast, that would later serve as a command ship for RN.
That new class was Type 85 ( smaller than Type 82, with hangar for one Sea King helicopter, and with launcher for Sea Dart missiles ). She also carried 4 launchers for Exocet missiles. They were also mch cheaper than Type 82.
So RAN ordered 4 Type 85 destroyers, while RN ordered 12 of them.

 

[othyrsyde]

Well Australia could go empire building in the South Pacific. I had a friend who really wanted to see a TL about an Australian Empire. However I don't think the rest of the planet would stand by and watch this, plus I doubt this would turn the land down under into a superpower anyways.

 

[Russell]

Well, if Austrlia is perhaps left more isolated post war then there could be a prescident for a larger armed forces.

Carriers would be a good must have for the navy, although Mebourne is too small to be anything than an aviation based gunboat while as some have suggested that the Ark Royal would be better. Ark was a good ship but with a crew of 2500 and an aircraft capacity of 36-44 there are better options. I would suggest maybe a French Clemenceau Class vessel would be a better choice - around the same capacity as Ark Royal (40 aircraft) but with only a crew of 1960 and not quite as big a step up from Melbourne as Ark would be, not to metion in better shape and could last until 2000 of beyond, at first operating Skyhawks and Cursaders and later F-18's.

As for Marines, Austrlia with it surrounding Island neighbours would be a good candiate, although it will all come down to numbers - their may just not be enough. A pair of small Fearless Class LPD's would be a good shout.

The major issue is though, can Austrlia afford these? You will still need to pay for the escorts and ADF destroyers as OTL, if not aquire even more of them. I'm just not sure and Austrlia in the 1960's could cover that quite so well.

As for the airforce and army, well there is only so much you can do. FYI much of what they bought in OTL was more than adequate for the countries needs - The Mirages and F-111's were superb, although the latter was a debacle at first.

Russell

 

[abc123]

Well, if Austrlia is perhaps left more isolated post war then there could be a prescident for a larger armed forces.

Carriers would be a good must have for the navy, although Mebourne is too small to be anything than an aviation based gunboat while as some have suggested that the Ark Royal would be better. Ark was a good ship but with a crew of 2500 and an aircraft capacity of 36-44 there are better options. I would suggest maybe a French Clemenceau Class vessel would be a better choice - around the same capacity as Ark Royal (40 aircraft) but with only a crew of 1960 and not quite as big a step up from Melbourne as Ark would be, not to metion in better shape and could last until 2000 of beyond, at first operating Skyhawks and Cursaders and later F-18's.

As for Marines, Austrlia with it surrounding Island neighbours would be a good candiate, although it will all come down to numbers - their may just not be enough. A pair of small Fearless Class LPD's would be a good shout.

The major issue is though, can Austrlia afford these? You will still need to pay for the escorts and ADF destroyers as OTL, if not aquire even more of them. I'm just not sure and Austrlia in the 1960's could cover that quite so well.

As for the airforce and army, well there is only so much you can do. FYI much of what they bought in OTL was more than adequate for the countries needs - The Mirages and F-111's were superb, although the latter was a debacle at first.

Russell

Hy Russel, long time no see...
I'm dear that you joined discussion...

I'm also confused about australian naval aviation, I'm not sure yet will it survive 1970. I'm aware that Australia has no money to waste, and i'm convinced that escort navy ( like british OTL ) would be just fine for Australia.

This is spin-off of that thread of more sucessful Britaina after WW2. So primary Australia ally is ITTL UK, not USA. USA is a ally, there is a ANZUS Treaty, but connection with UK ( not withdrawn from East of Suez at all ) is stronger.
Also, there are also UK-French special relations.
So, if UK has in use Hawker 1121 ( and we agreed there that it does ), and that Vickers 589 is the TSR-2 ( variable geometry wings ), we could see Hawker 1121 and TSR-2 in RAAF service in the middle of 60s, where we are right now.

 

[Russell]

Hy Russel, long time no see...
I'm dear that you joined discussion...

I'm also confused about australian naval aviation, I'm not sure yet will it survive 1970. I'm aware that Australia has no money to waste, and i'm convinced that escort navy ( like british OTL ) would be just fine for Australia.

This is spin-off of that thread of more sucessful Britaina after WW2. So primary Australia ally is ITTL UK, not USA. USA is a ally, there is a ANZUS Treaty, but connection with UK ( not withdrawn from East of Suez at all ) is stronger.
Also, there are also UK-French special relations.
So, if UK has in use Hawker 1121 ( and we agreed there that it does ), and that Vickers 589 is the TSR-2 ( variable geometry wings ), we could see Hawker 1121 and TSR-2 in RAAF service in the middle of 60s, where we are right now.

Well, while it is interesting to take the old thread from an Austrlian perspective it is maybe right to look at this thread more objectively and consider all possabilities.

Australian Naval Aviation could survive and ver nearly did survive part 1982. I believe if there was a more pressing need (say a communist of more radical Indonesia) then it is more than possible. However, a POD would most likley have to be under the Hawk government in the 1960's. After that defence spending tapers off.

Russell

 

[abc123]

Well, while it is interesting to take the old thread from an Austrlian perspective it is maybe right to look at this thread more objectively and consider all possabilities.

Australian Naval Aviation could survive and ver nearly did survive part 1982. I believe if there was a more pressing need (say a communist of more radical Indonesia) then it is more than possible. However, a POD would most likley have to be under the Hawk government in the 1960's. After that defence spending tapers off.

Russell

Well, more hostile Indonesia is a sure thing ITTL, after all that australian support for independence of West New Guinea and Konfrontasi.

I agree that Clemenceau class carrier is the most viable option for RAN, but Clemenceau is not from UK.
Maybe, if UK has built several Clemenceau class ships for RN, then RAN could also buy one?

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

For Australia to be a superpower, it needs (a) far more people and (b) enough water to sustain those people. You could have a 19th century POD that is a firm policy decision to invite immigrants from all over Europe--and the maintenance of that policy throughout the 20th century, with expansion to include people from the Indian subcontinent, China, etc. (It would be hard to come up with a reason for all this short of ASB intervention, however.) As to where the water is to come from? Towing icebergs from Antarctica? Piping it down from the mountains of New Guinea and then some kind of pipe across the straits? Vigorous afforestation with drought resistant trees? Drip agriculture? Some invention that allows for cheap desalinization? A giant aquifer exploitation project like in Libya? Saltwater agriculture and the genetic engineering of plants that can grow in a saline environment? Cultivation of a cuisine that emphasizes natural saltwater plants such as seaweed? A culture tht encourages water conservation (e.g., Zen-type rock gardens in front and back yards rather than grass, recycling of household and office water via various inventions, tax incentives for water conservation). And one thing is for sure: To conserve water and make possible a population of say 150 million people, Australia would have to bypass (or quickly put an end to) the stage in which it was primarily sheep and cattle country with all the attendant environmental devastation. Problem: No one prior to about 1960 had the environmental understanding to see the importance of this.

 

[abc123]

For Australia to be a superpower, it needs (a) far more people and (b) enough water to sustain those people. You could have a 19th century POD that is a firm policy decision to invite immigrants from all over Europe--and the maintenance of that policy throughout the 20th century, with expansion to include people from the Indian subcontinent, China, etc. (It would be hard to come up with a reason for all this short of ASB intervention, however.) As to where the water is to come from? Towing icebergs from Antarctica? Piping it down from the mountains of New Guinea and then some kind of pipe across the straits? Vigorous afforestation with drought resistant trees? Drip agriculture? Some invention that allows for cheap desalinization? A giant aquifer exploitation project like in Libya? Saltwater agriculture and the genetic engineering of plants that can grow in a saline environment? Cultivation of a cuisine that emphasizes natural saltwater plants such as seaweed? A culture tht encourages water conservation (e.g., Zen-type rock gardens in front and back yards rather than grass, recycling of household and office water via various inventions, tax incentives for water conservation). And one thing is for sure: To conserve water and make possible a population of say 150 million people, Australia would have to bypass (or quickly put an end to) the stage in which it was primarily sheep and cattle country with all the attendant environmental devastation. Problem: No one prior to about 1960 had the environmental understanding to see the importance of this.

Again, despite of first part of the name of this thread- it isn't my intention to really make Australia a superpower, because that would be impossible.

 

[abc123]

OK gentlemen, your opinions please, should/could Australia retain airplane carriers after 1970.? And if yes- how?

 

[Cook]

Australian Naval Aviation could survive and ver nearly did survive part 1982. I believe if there was a more pressing need (say a communist of more radical Indonesia) then it is more than possible. However, a POD would most likley have to be under the Hawk government in the 1960's. After that defence spending tapers off.

Russell

See my post #38 re: The Dibb Report.

Ps. It was Hawke, not Hawk.

 

[chris N]

Well there is only two possibilities that might allow Australia to retain an aircraft carrier after 1970. First if the Conservative do not fall from power in 1962 there is the possibility that a CVA-01 class carrier could be built. But if Labor wins the only other option would be to buy a carrier from the US either an overhauled older carrier or a new one built to suit Australian needs and capacity. The Illustrious class that was built for the Royal navy would be less capable than the Melbourne.

As for nuclear weapons you would have to get around the nuclear non proliferation Treaty> Britain in OTL did not help France make nuclear weapons. The Foche class carrier is French built and is not capable of handling modern fighter planes.

 

[Cook]

As for nuclear weapons you would have to get around the nuclear non proliferation Treaty...

Hence the reason that had the Jervis Bay Nuclear Reactor proceeded Australia would now be denying the possession of some 30 to 50 nuclear weapons. That just required John Gorton remaining Prime Minister for a couple more years.

Gorton placed little faith in the reliability of Allies, based on his experiences in World War Two.

OK gentlemen, your opinions please, should/could Australia retain airplane carriers after 1970.? And if yes- how?

Have the purchase of HMS Invincible proceed.