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    Doggtag   6/24/2009 10:40:35 AM

Jaguar?

Yeah, I liked that one, too.

Always amazed me that few aircraft ever adopted overwing pylons for their short range AAMs.


I'd be curious to see how well an all-rounder the Jaguar could've become also, in direct competition with early F/A-18s.

The proposed navalised Jaguar for Aeronavale was a much better strike aircraft than the Super Etenard that they eventually got thanks to Marcel Dassault's poltical influence. It had the same radar but could carry a much bigger payload (including 2 Exocets instead of 1 (in practical terms) for the Super Etenard) over a much longer range. It wouldn't have been even close to being match for the Hornets though, irrespective of what upgrades it got. It just didn't have the TWR or the low wing loading needed for a multi-role. It's still one of my all time fav's for the role it did though.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Okay, but you would be stuck with expensive ships that obsolete rapidly..    6/24/2009 2:47:02 PM

Herald what I was suggesting was, as the Majestics become less capable as strike carriers, that they should instead be employed in traditional cruiser roles.

The cruiser role is a  patrol and presence (show the flag)  peacetime role and a reconnaissance role prior to WW II.  Recon became an aircraft function during the war. Presence is best handled by a gun destroyer or helo equipped frigate post war I think. The recon is an aircraft function best left to maritime patrolers, so I want land based air (Canberras) helos on the frigates and AAW cruisers and I want the carriers to do their ASW and strike thing.

Assuming Australia accepted the RN offer for a pair of Colossus CVL's, two new cruisers and six destroyers for no cost during the war, this would have provided, not just a ready made fleet, but what would have been the most powerful fleet in the region into the 50's. This move would have allowed the RAN to retire the last of their pre-war ships in 1945 and delay buying / building new ships until the mid fifties.
Ten years and block obsolescence,  I want a cruiser to modify down the road.
 
The Swiftsures with those huge barbettes make at least space for the Terrier's future missile magazines.  The Bumblebee project was on track in 1945. Ten years later TERRIER.   


 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       6/25/2009 9:25:59 AM
Okay, but you would be stuck with expensive ships that obsolete rapidly..
 
The carriers and cruisers were as good as anything outside the USN/RN until the mid to late 50's. With the destroyers, there was less difference in capability between the C class or Battle class and the Daring class than there was between the Darings and the Adams.
 
Basically the FREE WWII gear, as well as giving Australia one of the most powerful navies in the world through the forties and fifties, would have saved $millions that would otherwise have been needed to buy, build and modernise the ships we needed instead. This saved money could have been used to build a submarine flotilla a decade earlier, or to build / buy and modernise additional ships to take over from some of the 'gift ships' in the late 50's early 60's. End result Australia ends up with a much more powerful navy for far less money.
 
As an aside there were a series of concept designs to convert surplus Colossus and Majectic class carriers into missile cruisers. this involved cutting down the flight deck to hanger deck level at one or both ends and fitting a missile launchers with the missils stored in the some of the remaining hanger space. The remaining flight deck and hanger space would be used to operate a squadron of ASW helicopters. A simpler conversion of Australia's 'gift' carriers into CVHG's could have involved fitting a Mk10 Terrier launcher either end of the flight deck, of even a simpler setup with Tartar while retaining the hanger and flight deck space between the elevators for ASW helo's.
 
A simple modernisation for the 'gift' cruisers would be the replacement of B turret with a Mk13 Tartar while keeping A and X for NGS.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/25/2009 10:14:17 AM

Okay, but you would be stuck with expensive ships that obsolete rapidly..
 

The carriers and cruisers were as good as anything outside the USN/RN until the mid to late 50's. With the destroyers, there was less difference in capability between the C class or Battle class and the Daring class than there was between the Darings and the Adams.

 

Basically the FREE WWII gear, as well as giving Australia one of the most powerful navies in the world through the forties and fifties, would have saved $millions that would otherwise have been needed to buy, build and modernise the ships we needed instead. This saved money could have been used to build a submarine flotilla a decade earlier, or to build / buy and modernise additional ships to take over from some of the 'gift ships' in the late 50's early 60's. End result Australia ends up with a much more powerful navy for far less money.

 

As an aside there were a series of concept designs to convert surplus Colossus and Majectic class carriers into missile cruisers. this involved cutting down the flight deck to hanger deck level at one or both ends and fitting a missile launchers with the missils stored in the some of the remaining hanger space. The remaining flight deck and hanger space would be used to operate a squadron of ASW helicopters. A simpler conversion of Australia's 'gift' carriers into CVHG's could have involved fitting a Mk10 Terrier launcher either end of the flight deck, of even a simpler setup with Tartar while retaining the hanger and flight deck space between the elevators for ASW helo's.

 

A simple modernisation for the 'gift' cruisers would be the replacement of B turret with a Mk13 Tartar while keeping A and X for NGS.


Didn't some of the designs have fore and aft Sea Slug? lol
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/25/2009 12:06:54 PM

Okay, but you would be stuck with expensive ships that obsolete rapidly..
 

The carriers and cruisers were as good as anything outside the USN/RN until the mid to late 50's. With the destroyers, there was less difference in capability between the C class or Battle class and the Daring class than there was between the Darings and the Adams.

I believe you are incorrect on the destroyers. The radars, missiles, and electroncis conversion fit for one would be an obvious MAJOR difference  The Charles Adams class was unbelievably different to the Gearing she was based upon.  I don't see you doing to a Battle or C Class what we did to the Gearing to get to a Charles Adams. 

Basically the FREE WWII gear, as well as giving Australia one of the most powerful navies in the world through the forties and fifties, would have saved $millions that would otherwise have been needed to buy, build and modernise the ships we needed instead. This saved money could have been used to build a submarine flotilla a decade earlier, or to build / buy and modernise additional ships to take over from some of the 'gift ships' in the late 50's early 60's. End result Australia ends up with a much more powerful navy for far less money.

Maybe, if you could convert some of the WW II ships. Let's see what you propose.
 
As an aside there were a series of concept designs to convert surplus Colossus and Majectic class carriers into missile cruisers. this involved cutting down the flight deck to hanger deck level at one or both ends and fitting a missile launchers with the missils stored in the some of the remaining hanger space. The remaining flight deck and hanger space would be used to operate a squadron of ASW helicopters. A simpler conversion of Australia's 'gift' carriers into CVHG's could have involved fitting a Mk10 Terrier launcher either end of the flight deck, of even a simpler setup with Tartar while retaining the hanger and flight deck space between the elevators for ASW helo's.

Ygh! That is a huge waste of hull and EXPENSIVE. You saw what the Swiftsure conversions did to obsolescing ships?. You received four ASW helos and then what? Not even a fighter director!

A simple modernisation for the 'gift' cruisers would be the replacement of B turret with a Mk13 Tartar while keeping A and X for NGS.

Where do you stick the radars again? An air director center goes with such a set up.. If you are goung to gut that much superstructure and rebuild it to fit one into a "gun" cruiser, double end the ships, and go whole hog AAW. Save your gunfire line in your destroyers since they shpuld do well enough for shore fire gun support, and don't do a DDX "battleship" debacle forty years too early. Let Uncle make that mistake all by himself.. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    Tubs and Buccs in RAAF   6/28/2009 3:54:44 AM
 
http://www.modelblokez.org.au/bthpix/whatif/raaflightning.jpg" width="800" border="0" />
 
http://www.modelblokez.org.au/bthpix/whatif/raafbucc.jpg" width="800" border="0" />
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       6/28/2009 8:09:53 AM
Okay, but you would be stuck with expensive ships that obsolete rapidly..
 

The carriers and cruisers were as good as anything outside the USN/RN until the mid to late 50's. With the destroyers, there was less difference in capability between the C class or Battle class and the Daring class than there was between the Darings and the Adams.

I believe you are incorrect on the destroyers. The radars, missiles, and electroncis conversion fit for one would be an obvious MAJOR difference  The Charles Adams class was unbelievably different to the Gearing she was based upon.  I don't see you doing to a Battle or C Class what we did to the Gearing to get to a Charles Adams.
 
The Adams were decended from the Forrest Sherman / Hull Class DD's of the 1950's which in turn decended from the Gearing / Sumner Class DD's of WWII and these from the Fletchers whicher were developed from the Bensons.
The Darings were stretched Battles and fell somewhere inbetween the Gearings and Forrest Shermans while the Battles corresponded to the Gearings, the C's to the Fletchers and the J's to the Bensons. There was a still born Super Daring that would have corresponded to the Forrest Sherman but been closer to the Mitscher Class DL in size and armament. It was through the Super Daring that the Daring evolved into the County.
 
You may have miss understood what I was saying so I will rephase it; the Daring had MORE in common, interms of capability, with the C class and Battle Class than it did with the Adams Class. My proposition being that the RAN could have done without the Darings (which didn't enter service until the late 50's anyway) and gone straight from the FREE C's or Battles to a more capable DDG or DLG type in the early 60's.
 
Further on this line Australia completed 8 River class frigates late in the war and another 4 to a modified design (Bay class) shortly after the war. Some of these ships saw extensive service into the 60's and in one case the 80's in a variety of roles including hydrogrphic survey and Oceanographic research. These ships could have been upgraded to serve into the 60's as second line ASW escorts and first rate offshore patrol ships that would have done the RAN very well in the Malayan Emergency, the Confrontation and Borneo. While not as capable as a Type 12 or the River class DE of the RAN they would have been good enough for ASW in the 50's and good enough for patrol dutties into the 60's.

Basically the FREE WWII gear, as well as giving Australia one of the most powerful navies in the world through the forties and fifties, would have saved $millions that would otherwise have been needed to buy, build and modernise the ships we needed instead. This saved money could have been used to build a submarine flotilla a decade earlier, or to build / buy and modernise additional ships to take over from some of the 'gift ships' in the late 50's early 60's. End result Australia ends up with a much more powerful navy for far less money.

Maybe, if you could convert some of the WW II ships. Let's see what you propose.
 
Two Battles could be converted to Air Direction Destroyers, two to ASW destroyers with a pair of Limbos and better sonar, final two with helo deck and hanger and one Limbo. The C's would be a bigger issue as their small size would prevent extensive upgrades but they could receive similar upgrades to those that kept Cavalier in service with the RN into the 70's.
 
The main benefit of the gift fleet is it would have permitted the RAN to skip ordering new ships of similar technology to replace the shaged pre war hulls that made up most of our fleet. i.e. it would have allowed us to skip building the Battles, the Darings, the early Rivers, buying Terrible, leasing Vengence, buying and paying to upgrade Majestic, modifying the Q's and Tribals
 
As an aside there were a series of concept designs to convert surplus Colossus and Majectic class carriers into missile cruisers. this involved cutting down the flight deck to hanger deck level at one or both ends and fitting a missile launchers with the missils stored in the some of the remaining hanger spac
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/28/2009 6:43:56 PM

Okay, but you would be stuck with expensive ships that obsolete rapidly..

 

The carriers and cruisers were as good as anything outside the USN/RN until the mid to late 50's. With the destroyers, there was less difference in capability between the C class or Battle class and the Daring class than there was between the Darings and the Adams.


I believe you are incorrect on the destroyers. The radars, missiles, and electronics conversion fit for one would be an obvious MAJOR difference  The Charles Adams class was unbelievably different to the Gearing she was based upon.  I don't see you doing to a Battle or C Class what we did to the Gearing to get to a Charles Adams.

 

The Adams were descended from the Forrest Sherman / Hull Class DD's of the 1950's which in turn descended from the Gearing / Sumner Class DD's of WWII and these from the Fletchers which were developed from the Bensons.


The Darings were stretched Battles and fell somewhere in between the Gearings and Forrest Shermans while the Battles corresponded to the Gearings, the C's to the Fletchers and the J's to the Bensons. There was a still born Super Daring that would have corresponded to the Forrest Sherman but been closer to the Mitscher Class DL in size and armament. It was through the Super Daring that the Daring evolved into the County.


That is hull and propulsion plant. As far as I can tell, the electronics fits paths are not similar tech trees at all. At that time British 3 D radars were quite superior and HUGE

 

You may have misunderstood what I was saying so I will rephrase it; the Daring had MORE in common, in terms of capability, with the C class and Battle Class than it did with the Adams Class. My proposition being that the RAN could have done without the Darings (which didn't enter service until the late 50's anyway) and gone straight from the FREE C's or Battles to a more capable DDG or DLG type in the early 60's.


Maybe. But now that I look at the Tigers, I see a different path where Australia could have picked up three of those as freebies instead of buying Adams/Perths and double ended those Tiger hulls in the early 1960s. How expensive a refit on a free hull? Don't know till I run some numbers. I'll have an answer Monday. Out of Australian manpower limit though. Where do you get 600 more men than you did with the Perths?? .

 

Further on this line Australia completed 8 River class frigates late in the war and another 4 to a modified design (Bay class) shortly after the war. Some of these ships saw extensive service into the 60's and in one case the 80's in a variety of roles including hydrogrphic survey and Oceanographic research. These ships could have been upgraded to serve into the 60's as second line ASW escorts and first rate offshore patrol ships that would have done the RAN very well in the Malayan Emergency, the Confrontation and Borneo. While not as capable as a Type 12 or the River class DE of the RAN they would have been good enough for ASW in the 50's and good enough for patrol duties into the 60's.


I have to agree with this. The D/E subs that the third tier talent used was not that good in the hands of tyro crews in your AO..


Basically the FREE WWII gear, as well as giving Australia one of the most powerful navies in the world through the forties and fifties, would have saved $millions that would otherwise have been needed to buy, build and modernise the ships we needed instead. This saved money could have been used to build a submarine flotilla a decade earlier, or to build / buy and modernise additional ships to take over from some of the 'gift ships' in the late 50's early 60's. End result Australia ends up with a much more powerful navy for far less money.


Point conceded. on the logic. Just want a BETTER selection of hulls than some of the junk toy specified that Britain offered. CREF this comment in bliie.


Maybe, if you could convert s
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/29/2009 12:09:38 AM


Okay, but you would be stuck with expensive ships that obsolete rapidly..


 


The carriers and cruisers were as good as anything outside the USN/RN until the mid to late 50's. With the destroyers, there was less difference in capability between the C class or Battle class and the Daring class than there was between the Darings and the Adams.





I believe you are incorrect on the destroyers. The radars, missiles, and electronics conversion fit for one would be an obvious MAJOR difference  The Charles Adams class was unbelievably different to the Gearing she was based upon.  I don't see you doing to a Battle or C Class what we did to the Gearing to get to a Charles Adams.


 


The Adams were descended from the Forrest Sherman / Hull Class DD's of the 1950's which in turn descended from the Gearing / Sumner Class DD's of WWII and these from the Fletchers which were developed from the Bensons.




The Darings were stretched Battles and fell somewhere in between the Gearings and Forrest Shermans while the Battles corresponded to the Gearings, the C's to the Fletchers and the J's to the Bensons. There was a still born Super Daring that would have corresponded to the Forrest Sherman but been closer to the Mitscher Class DL in size and armament. It was through the Super Daring that the Daring evolved into the County.





That is hull and propulsion plant. As far as I can tell, the electronics fits paths are not similar tech trees at all. At that time British 3 D radars were quite superior and HUGE


 


You may have misunderstood what I was saying so I will rephrase it; the Daring had MORE in common, in terms of capability, with the C class and Battle Class than it did with the Adams Class. My proposition being that the RAN could have done without the Darings (which didn't enter service until the late 50's anyway) and gone straight from the FREE C's or Battles to a more capable DDG or DLG type in the early 60's.





Maybe. But now that I look at the Tigers, I see a different path where Australia could have picked up three of those as freebies instead of buying Adams/Perths and double ended those Tiger hulls in the early 1960s. How expensive a refit on a free hull? Don't know till I run some numbers. I'll have an answer Monday. Out of Australian manpower limit though. Where do you get 600 more men than you did with the Perths?? .


 


Further on this line Australia completed 8 River class frigates late in the war and another 4 to a modified design (Bay class) shortly after the war. Some of these ships saw extensive service into the 60's and in one case the 80's in a variety of roles including hydrogrphic survey and Oceanographic research. These ships could have been upgraded to serve into the 60's as second line ASW escorts and first rate offshore patrol ships that would have done the RAN very well in the Malayan Emergency, the Confrontation and Borneo. While not as capable as a Type 12 or the River class DE of the RAN they would have been good enough for ASW in the 50's and good enough for patrol duties into the 60's.





I have to agree with this. The D/E subs that the third tier talent used was not that good in the hands of tyro crews in your AO..





Basically the FREE WWII gear, as well as giving Australia one of the most powerful navies in the world through the forties and fifties, would have saved $millions that would otherwise have been needed to buy, build and modernise the ships we needed instead. This saved money could have been used to build a submarine flotilla a decade earlier, or to build / buy and modernise additional ships to take over from some of the 'gift ships' in the late 50's early 60's. End result Australia ends up with a much more powerful navy for far less money.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/29/2009 12:45:21 AM

Okay, but you would be stuck with expensive ships that obsolete rapidly..

The carriers and cruisers were as good as anything outside the USN/RN until the mid to late 50's. With the destroyers, there was less difference in capability between the C class or Battle class and the Daring class than there was between the Darings and the Adams.

I believe you are incorrect on the destroyers. The radars, missiles, and electronics conversion fit for one would be an obvious MAJOR difference  The Charles Adams class was unbelievably different to the Gearing she was based upon.  I don't see you doing to a Battle or C Class what we did to the Gearing to get to a Charles Adams.

The Adams were descended from the Forrest Sherman / Hull Class DD's of the 1950's which in turn descended from the Gearing / Sumner Class DD's of WWII and these from the Fletchers which were developed from the Bensons.
 

The Darings were stretched Battles and fell somewhere in between the Gearings and Forrest Shermans while the Battles corresponded to the Gearings, the C's to the Fletchers and the J's to the Bensons. There was a still born Super Daring that would have corresponded to the Forrest Sherman but been closer to the Mitscher Class DL in size and armament. It was through the Super Daring that the Daring evolved into the County.

That is hull and propulsion plant. As far as I can tell, the electronics fits paths are not similar tech trees at all. At that time British 3 D radars were quite superior and HUGE

You may have misunderstood what I was saying so I will rephrase it; the Daring had MORE in common, in terms of capability, with the C class and Battle Class than it did with the Adams Class. My proposition being that the RAN could have done without the Darings (which didn't enter service until the late 50's anyway) and gone straight from the FREE C's or Battles to a more capable DDG or DLG type in the early 60's.

Maybe. But now that I look at the Tigers, I see a different path where Australia could have picked up three of those as freebies instead of buying Adams/Perths and double ended those Tiger hulls in the early 1960s. How expensive a refit on a free hull? Don't know till I run some numbers. I'll have an answer Monday. Out of Australian manpower limit though. Where do you get 600 more men than you did with the Perths?? .

Further on this line Australia completed 8 River class frigates late in the war and another 4 to a modified design (Bay class) shortly after the war. Some of these ships saw extensive service into the 60's and in one case the 80's in a variety of roles including hydro-graphic survey and Oceanographic research. These ships could have been upgraded to serve into the 60's as second line ASW escorts and first rate offshore patrol ships that would have done the RAN very well in the Malayan Emergency, the Confrontation and Borneo. While not as capable as a Type 12 or the River class DE of the RAN they would have been good enough for ASW in the 50's and good enough for patrol duties into the 60's.

I have to agree with this. The D/E subs, that the third tier talent used, was not that good in the hands of tyro crews in your AO..

Basically the FREE WWII gear, as well as giving Australia one of the most powerful navies in the world through the forties and fifties, would have saved $millions that would otherwise have been needed to buy, build and modernise the ships we needed instead. This saved money could have been used to build a submarine flotilla a decade earlier, or to build / buy and modernise additional ships to take over from some of the 'gift ships' in the late 50's early 60's. End result Australia ends up with a much more powerful navy for far less money.

Point conceded. on the logic. Just want a BETTER selection of hulls than some of the junk you specified that Britain offered. CREF the comments in underline.

The British ships weren't all that thought out but neither were the US ones at the time. Destroyers without helicopters, whereas the British ships had helicopters, they just had weird missile systems.

I will say different missile systems as opp
 
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