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: And now for something completely different...RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage.
Volkodav    5/24/2009 4:55:42 AM
The Lightning was a contender for RAAF how serious a contender I don't know. The main choice always seemed to be between the Mirage and the Lockheed Starfighter with the Phantom and Lightning being only bit players. The Lightning was apparently ruled out due to it's lack of ground attack capability, not that the Mirage was a wiz in the air to ground department either. The RR Avon and Ferranti Airpass radar of the Lightning were actually considered for the baseline Mirage III EO as they would have offered significantly improved performance. Imagine now that the RAAF had selected an evolved derivative of the Lightning. Would we have used it in Vietnam? What modifications and improvements would it have incorporated? What upgrades would it received during its life? What weapons would it have been certified for,i.e. Sidewinder, Paveway? What would the sale to Australia have meant for the program as a whole and then for the British and Austrlaian aviation industries?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain       6/12/2009 9:40:26 PM
 RTL RAN would have done better than you think.
 
I doubt it. We couldn't operate a carrier bigger than the Melbourne without unacceptable manning and financial costs, therefore making operating an interceptor (most likely Sea Vixen or F-8) out of the question for us. We also couldn't have afforded to operate a TALOS equipped cruiser. Therefore in practical terms Terrier SAM defences would have been our first line of defence and Tartar the second, and they would have only been able to hit a couple of missiles before being overwhelmed.
 
The EW approach might work but it really would depend upon the data that the RAN had about the frequencies that the Badgers operated on and on the reliability of the equipment to be effective. In the early to mid-60's the Badger K was reletively new so that couldn't be relied on. Don't forget that even 20 years later in the Falklands EW wasn't 100% effective and when you are talking about defending against an anti-shipping strike it has to be because the cost of failure is very high. EW is also pretty useless when you are defending merchant ships because the EW only protects the warships carrying it, if anything it is likely to draw a missile away from the warships towards the merchant vessel they are supposed to be protecting (like with the Atlantic Conveyer).
 
I used to be a fan of the idea that Australia could, can and should operate a comprehensive naval air defence system, but I've come to the conclusion that this was beyond us then and remains so now. The Melbourne and our other skimmers were useful convoy escort asset for Australia to contribute to the allied effort against Soviet submarines and surface raiders, but they couldn't have operated independently against more than an air threat constituting the odd TU-16 or TU-95 lobbing one or two ASM's.



 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   6/12/2009 9:41:50 PM

don't forget that during Konfrontassi we also had Bloodhounds in place.  Badgers had to go continental if they intended to do a Pearl, and the only valuable property within their range was also within Bloodhound range.

If they wanted to do a Pearl they would have done it at low level, below the Bloodhound's operational altitude.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Herald - Some Feedback   6/12/2009 9:48:10 PM
I'm enjoying the contribution that you are making to this conversation but would you mind not posting such large chunks of background material? It clutters up the thread and detracts from its readability, and it comes across like you are trying to overwhelm the reader with your argument. Sticking to a succinct summary of your main points and essential information with links to the material would add a lot.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Badger K is the EW version.   6/13/2009 12:05:13 AM

 RTL RAN would have done better than you think.
 

I doubt it. We couldn't operate a carrier bigger than the Melbourne without unacceptable manning and financial costs, therefore making operating an interceptor (most likely Sea Vixen or F-8) out of the question for us. We also couldn't have afforded to operate a TALOS equipped cruiser. Therefore in practical terms Terrier SAM defences would have been our first line of defence and Tartar the second, and they would have only been able to hit a couple of missiles before being overwhelmed.

The problems the Russians had with their Badger was that while the bomber was okay the Kennel was a horrible missile with an equally horrible Kobalt N datalink. That cold operator who froze his arse off un the Badger missikew operators station, trying to steer the missile midcourse with a manual RGC correction,  wasn't helping accuracy matters much. The Argon blob detector radar wasn't that good as a SARH support radar either. A CEP of 160+ meters before jamming and spoof was not too good goung in. The Kennel is probable the only Russian cruise missile we can say, that was actually more dangerous to the ship next to you than an Exocet o Styx!  

The EW approach might work but it really would depend upon the data that the RAN had about the frequencies that the Badgers operated on and on the reliability of the equipment to be effective. In the early to mid-60's the Badger K was relatively new so that couldn't be relied on. Don't forget that even 20 years later in the Falklands EW wasn't 100% effective and when you are talking about defending against an anti-shipping strike it has to be because the cost of failure is very high. EW is also pretty useless when you are defending merchant ships because the EW only protects the warships carrying it, if anything it is likely to draw a missile away from the warships towards the merchant vessel they are supposed to be protecting (like with the Atlantic Conveyer).

Like everything you have to PRACTICE EW and look at what you need to do. Can't guarantee 100% eoither, but the Russian stuff at the time wasn't that good and we knew it. We kept a lot of that unformation away from the allies because we were finding that some of them, leaked knowledge like sieves. What was the use of ferreting out an enemy EW order of battleand develop CMs,  if theCMs wound up as a headlune in der Spiegel? How do you think the Russians discovered how we cracked their missile telemetry in the 1950s before we had satellites to sniff it?
 
Well......... 
 
After Eilat sank the Israelis wised up to EW in a hurry. INS Hanit for them, was like Sheffield, Glammorgan, Atlantic Conveyer for the British, and the Stark for the US,  failures to use the present EW means at hand properly (for the US especially so) . Flares chaff, and radio decoys there were, just not used.  Do I need to point out that the RAN was and is still a world leader in countermeasures, having pioneered many of the chaff,  flare, radio jamming, and noise decoys used by the various western navies in the late 1950s and 1960s? That wasn't just Ikara that your research establishments worked to perfect.
 
 
I used to be a fan of the idea that Australia could, can and should operate a comprehensive naval air defence system, but I've come to the conclusion that this was beyond us then and remains so now. The Melbourne and our other skimmers were useful convoy escort asset for Australia to contribute to the allied effort against Soviet submarines and surface raiders, but they couldn't have operated independently against more than an air threat constituting the odd TU-16 or TU-95 lobbing one or two ASM's.

You need to think clearly about how you would  fight Mister Badger (and Konfrontassi) in your AO, AGG. GF gave you some of it when he mentioned Bloodhound though I prefer Thunderbird for its mobility. Make him fight on your terms and commit himserlf to the wrong actions.
 
You have to lure Mister Badger into combat beyond his fighter cover and into your fighter/SAM defense.
 
Let's face something else, you don't put to see without some figbter defense as long as Mister Badger is around. Part of
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/13/2009 2:59:02 AM



don't forget that during Konfrontassi we also had Bloodhounds in place.  Badgers had to go continental if they intended to do a Pearl, and the only valuable property within their range was also within Bloodhound range.
If they wanted to do a Pearl they would have done it at low level, below the Bloodhound's operational altitude.

maybe not.  they were gunshy and not too keen about travelling around without escorts - none of their fixed wing pointy jets could have gone the distance - and they had even less effective ground control of those aircraft.  Even in the 60's we had a signal reach advantage over the Indons. they'd never done low level strike - Plus, even that silly claim that an ex indon aviation general made about flying over Alice Springs  was caveated with them going high to avoid the Bloodhounds (even though there were none at Alice, and even though Alice served no strategic benefit so WTF would they even try to fly to it in the first place. :)
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    Vulcan????   6/13/2009 9:35:32 AM
No not Vulcans.............!
 
Now Victors on the other hand.......My ideal alternate RAAF would have used Victors and derivatives there of as strike bombers, maritime patrol and strike, ELINT, defence supression and stand off jamming, as well as tankers. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    Vulcan????   6/13/2009 9:35:37 AM
No not Vulcans.............!
 
Now Victors on the other hand.......My ideal alternate RAAF would have used Victors and derivatives there of as strike bombers, maritime patrol and strike, ELINT, defence supression and stand off jamming, as well as tankers. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Pretty plane.   6/13/2009 2:32:57 PM

No not Vulcans.............!

 

Now Victors on the other hand.......My ideal alternate RAAF would have used Victors and derivatives there of as strike bombers, maritime patrol and strike, ELINT, defence supression and stand off jamming, as well as tankers. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />


All flash and no cash as my pop used to say. The RAF was right to use them as tankers and recon birds. The Vulcan was the better bomber. Only thing that would have saved Victor as a bomber is something like Skybolt-which didn't work.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You may find this a facinating sidebar.   6/13/2009 4:03:58 PM
 
Aside from Skybolt not working properly (Douglas was just this close to fixing the climb-out yaw problem with a better vernier tail control system; the missile was prematurely canceled before Test Six), the root cause for that entire debacle, were those two prime idiots: Dean Acheson, and Robert McNamara. The failed PT boat commander didn't help matters, much, either. He was plainly outwitted by both DeGaulle and MacMillan.
 
Sometimes you have to shake your head at some of the idiots we, of the US, put behind that desk in the oval office.
 
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emembarrassed.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       6/13/2009 11:20:35 PM
Herald to be truthful the RAAF would probably have been better off replacing the Canberras with the conventional strike derivative of the A5 Vigilante the was originaly selected prior to the government commiting to the F-111 instead.
 
It would have been available to enter service in the mid 60's, would have been substantially cheaper than the F-111 and could have been manufactured / assembled locally. While not as capable as the F-111 and likely not as long lived the Vigilante would have done the job required of it while freeing up funds for other capabilities that were ignored with the F-111 purchase. i.e. Tartar County DLG's and a new CVL capable of operating off the shelf fighters....F-8 anyone?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics