lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 12, 2020 15:22:19 GMT
Then a Independence class is a better choice for Argentina then. It might depend on circumstances. An Independence would be cheaper to operate and probably to purchase. However a Essex would probably have longer term capability. Especially over time as a/c get larger and heavier as the Independence might be limited to how many a/c and of what times it can handle. It all depends on what the leadership in Argentina is thinking. However prestige and having a full fleet carrier is very likely to be an issue as well.
Also i assume a Essex-class needs more crew to man here than a Independence class.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Oct 12, 2020 15:26:49 GMT
It might depend on circumstances. An Independence would be cheaper to operate and probably to purchase. However a Essex would probably have longer term capability. Especially over time as a/c get larger and heavier as the Independence might be limited to how many a/c and of what times it can handle. It all depends on what the leadership in Argentina is thinking. However prestige and having a full fleet carrier is very likely to be an issue as well.
Also i assume a Essex-class needs more crew to man here than a Independence class.
Definitely will as its a lot larger. Plus more demands in terms of things like docking space and facilities. All around its going to be a fair bit more expensive to operate but might last longer as an effective carrier than an Independence. Would agree that overall I think an Independence would be better value for money but the government in Argentina may think otherwise.
|
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Oct 12, 2020 16:47:02 GMT
All good points. Argentina has a lot to consider with regard to buying a carrier. There are pros and cons to all the options they are considering. Manpower and maintenence are the biggest ones. An Essex will demand a crew of about 3,000 and excellent port facilities. But it also gives them the best possible platform going forward and the most versatile option. A modernised Essex can carry up to 70-75 of the most modern aircraft. An Independence or Collosus can only handle 20-30 aircraft. And it's doubtful that you could equip one with the more powerful cats needed to launch bigger, heavier aircraft. But the small carrier only needs between 1200 and 1600 crew and is just fine with smaller ports. It's a question of what you're willing to trade, like all such decisions are. And as Steve mentioned, national prestige and pride come into play as well.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 12, 2020 17:09:24 GMT
December 15, 1957 Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, AustraliaFollowing a month of informal discussions within the Defense Ministry and exploratory discussions with the military attaches of the United States, France and the United Kingdom two formal Requests for Proposals are issued by the Royal Australian Air Force. The first proposal is for a new general purpose fighter to replace their existing CAC Sabres. The minimum requirements are Mach 2 speed, infrared and/or radar guided missiles and a combat radius of at least three hundred nautical miles on internal fuel, with the ability to extend their range to at least five hundred nautical miles with drop tanks and/or midair refueling. The second proposal issued is for a long range bomber to supplement and eventually replace the existing Canberra force. The proposal contained the requirement that any aircraft offered be capable of Mach 1 at low level and Mach 2 at high altitude, have an unrefueled combat radius of two thousand miles, be capable of carrying a bomb load of at least ten thousand pounds and be able to operate from existing air bases. To be considered, all proposals must be tendered by February 1, 1958. As mentioned in a other forum, the RAAF having English Electric Lightning might look good. The French might offer the Dassault Mirage III, it flew in 1956 and is a good choice for the RAAF like OTL. The United States can offer the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, but i prefer a plane that does not kill more pilots than it kills enemy planes, so my choice of the 3 would be like OTL be the Dassault Mirage III.
|
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Oct 12, 2020 17:55:54 GMT
December 15, 1957 Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, AustraliaFollowing a month of informal discussions within the Defense Ministry and exploratory discussions with the military attaches of the United States, France and the United Kingdom two formal Requests for Proposals are issued by the Royal Australian Air Force. The first proposal is for a new general purpose fighter to replace their existing CAC Sabres. The minimum requirements are Mach 2 speed, infrared and/or radar guided missiles and a combat radius of at least three hundred nautical miles on internal fuel, with the ability to extend their range to at least five hundred nautical miles with drop tanks and/or midair refueling. The second proposal issued is for a long range bomber to supplement and eventually replace the existing Canberra force. The proposal contained the requirement that any aircraft offered be capable of Mach 1 at low level and Mach 2 at high altitude, have an unrefueled combat radius of two thousand miles, be capable of carrying a bomb load of at least ten thousand pounds and be able to operate from existing air bases. To be considered, all proposals must be tendered by February 1, 1958. As mentioned in a other forum, the RAAF having English Electric Lightning might look good. The French might offer the Dassault Mirage III, it flew in 1956 and is a good choice for the RAAF like OTL. The United States can offer the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, but i prefer a plane that does not kill more pilots than it kills enemy planes, so my choice of the 3 would be like OTL be the Dassault Mirage III. There are a few other options as well. Several designs are on the cusp of making their first flight at the time the specification is issued
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 12, 2020 18:02:09 GMT
As mentioned in a other forum, the RAAF having English Electric Lightning might look good. The French might offer the Dassault Mirage III, it flew in 1956 and is a good choice for the RAAF like OTL. The United States can offer the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, but i prefer a plane that does not kill more pilots than it kills enemy planes, so my choice of the 3 would be like OTL be the Dassault Mirage III. There are a few other options as well. Several designs are on the cusp of making their first flight at the time the specification is issued From all three countries.
|
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Oct 12, 2020 18:06:13 GMT
There are a few other options as well. Several designs are on the cusp of making their first flight at the time the specification is issued From all three countries. There will be an update with the entries for the new RAAF fighter and bomber.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 12, 2020 18:07:54 GMT
From all three countries. There will be an update with the entries for the new RAAF fighter and bomber. Well they have to be good as their main opponent will be of course Indonesia.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Oct 13, 2020 10:25:23 GMT
December 15, 1957 Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, AustraliaFollowing a month of informal discussions within the Defense Ministry and exploratory discussions with the military attaches of the United States, France and the United Kingdom two formal Requests for Proposals are issued by the Royal Australian Air Force. The first proposal is for a new general purpose fighter to replace their existing CAC Sabres. The minimum requirements are Mach 2 speed, infrared and/or radar guided missiles and a combat radius of at least three hundred nautical miles on internal fuel, with the ability to extend their range to at least five hundred nautical miles with drop tanks and/or midair refueling. The second proposal issued is for a long range bomber to supplement and eventually replace the existing Canberra force. The proposal contained the requirement that any aircraft offered be capable of Mach 1 at low level and Mach 2 at high altitude, have an unrefueled combat radius of two thousand miles, be capable of carrying a bomb load of at least ten thousand pounds and be able to operate from existing air bases. To be considered, all proposals must be tendered by February 1, 1958. As mentioned in a other forum, the RAAF having English Electric Lightning might look good. The French might offer the Dassault Mirage III, it flew in 1956 and is a good choice for the RAAF like OTL. The United States can offer the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, but i prefer a plane that does not kill more pilots than it kills enemy planes, so my choice of the 3 would be like OTL be the Dassault Mirage III.
The big problem with the Lightning was that it was basically designed for Britain. As such while its very high performance it has a pretty short range and that could be a problem for a country the size of Australia. Hopefully Britain has something longer ranged under development that could meet the Aussie specs.
|
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Oct 13, 2020 12:29:44 GMT
As mentioned in a other forum, the RAAF having English Electric Lightning might look good. The French might offer the Dassault Mirage III, it flew in 1956 and is a good choice for the RAAF like OTL. The United States can offer the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, but i prefer a plane that does not kill more pilots than it kills enemy planes, so my choice of the 3 would be like OTL be the Dassault Mirage III.
The big problem with the Lightning was that it was basically designed for Britain. As such while its very high performance it has a pretty short range and that could be a problem for a country the size of Australia. Hopefully Britain has something longer ranged under development that could meet the Aussie specs.
There are a few options out there surprisingly. This is close enough to Sandystorm that aircraft that were canceled by the Defense White Paper can still be considered as long as Australia is willing to pay to develop them. On the flip side of that though, it's going that route guarantees local production and a boost to the economy.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Oct 13, 2020 14:23:21 GMT
The big problem with the Lightning was that it was basically designed for Britain. As such while its very high performance it has a pretty short range and that could be a problem for a country the size of Australia. Hopefully Britain has something longer ranged under development that could meet the Aussie specs.
There are a few options out there surprisingly. This is close enough to Sandystorm that aircraft that were canceled by the Defense White Paper can still be considered as long as Australia is willing to pay to develop them. On the flip side of that though, it's going that route guarantees local production and a boost to the economy.
True I had forgotten about that, although not heard of it that way before. For anyone not aware of the event see 1957_Defence_White_Paper, also known as the Sandys Report, after Duncan Sandys, the recently appointed Minister of Defence who published the paper. Basically the belief that any new war with the Soviets would very quickly become nuclear and the development of ballistic missiles by the Soviets made the government assume that air defence was basically pointless. As such a lot of air defence facilities were to be scrapped and new interceptors cancelled. Also a lot of aeronautic firms were pressurised into a number of larger firms. More attention was to be paid to missiles rather than manned a/c and this is the point that generally gets mentioned.
Not sure that Australia would be able and willing to pay for the full cost of developing for a new longer ranged interceptor. Even if they will its likely to make the option a lot more expensive than buying from a 3rd party where they wouldn't pay for such costs but just production and for spares and support. If it meant that a lot of local production in Australia was guaranteed then that could be a factor but that might basically mean transferring all production down under. However there might be the hope, especially with the clear need for consideration of conventional warfare, even if only outside Europe, it could persuade the British government not to cancel so much of the industry and possibly go 50/50 with the Australians which might be an option.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Oct 13, 2020 15:20:46 GMT
June 21, 1957 Langley, VA, USA The Deputy Director of Plans and head of the Special Activities Division, Frank Wisner, was in a closed door meeting with Alan Dulles, the Director of Central Intelligence. All of the proposed operations were laid out before Director Dulles with a particular emphasis on destabilizing the economy of Indonesia and supporting a coup by the Army. The Indonesian officers to be supported had no love of the government in Jakarta and wished to break away. However it was thought that with the proper amount of support, they could be persuaded to instead topple the government of President Sukarno and seize power for themselves while bringing Indonesia back into the Western Camp. After spending the day briefing the DCI, the decision was made, pending approval from Robert Cutler the National Security Advisor and from President Eisenhower, to begin providing support to Colonels Ahmad Hussein and Ventje Sumual to coup President Sukarno. Not only would they provide intelligence and training, the CIA would also offer military equipment to aide in the struggle. Approval for the operation from the White House arrived just before midnight.
Why do I have an itch in the back of my mind that this is going to fail spectacularly. Because trying to fight a war on the cheap almost always does.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Oct 13, 2020 15:27:56 GMT
Well, the answer is, it depends. In a vacuum, Indonesia has the better fighters. The Sea Hawk tops out at 600MPH. The MiG-15UTIs can do 688, while the MiG-17s can do 711. It's really probably going to come down to training As the RED Baron remarked. "It's not the crate. It's the MAN in the crate."
IMNSHO, that goes for the supporting techs as in Logistics always is the deciding factor in the long run.
Great story. I'm way back at 4 and enjoying it immensely.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Oct 13, 2020 15:42:13 GMT
June 22, 1957 Iswahyudi Air Force Base, East Java, Indonesia
The first Soviet Air Force advisors and trainers arrive at Iswahyudi Air Force Base to begin preparing the Indonesians to receive their new equipment. The Soviet mission is led by Colonel Nikolai Vasilyevich Sutyagin, the top scoring ace from either side of the Korean War with twenty-two kills.
I don't buy that claim and here is why. Many Soviet medium and high-ranking officers wanted to gain favour with the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin (well known for killing or deporting Soviet generals who failed in accomplish his wishes), and one way to do so was to inflate the score of the MiG regiments in Korea.
The Soviet pilots earn 1,500 additional rubles for every air victory they were credited with. It is quite likely that there were many false claims, just for the money.
The gun camera images of the MiG-15 were of such poor quality, that the Russian gun camera analysts decided that if a US plane appeared in a pic, then they would credit a "kill," even when they did not notice shell strikes, smoke, or an ejection.
If you add to such factors the usual over-claiming -in good faith, but over-claiming in the end- of any war, then we can understand why the Soviet 64th IAK claimed the unbelievable figure of 1,106 UN aircraft destroyed in the Korean War. (532 of them in the so called "Honcho Period," when only 142 Allied aircraft were actually downed by the Soviet MiG-15 pilots). So, I see most of those scores with a lot of skepticism, e.g: Mikhail Ponomaryev was credited with 11 kills, but when we analyze the dates of his claims, only 2 matched with admitted US losses! And he is not the only one.
|
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Oct 13, 2020 17:19:43 GMT
June 22, 1957 Iswahyudi Air Force Base, East Java, Indonesia
The first Soviet Air Force advisors and trainers arrive at Iswahyudi Air Force Base to begin preparing the Indonesians to receive their new equipment. The Soviet mission is led by Colonel Nikolai Vasilyevich Sutyagin, the top scoring ace from either side of the Korean War with twenty-two kills.
I don't buy that claim and here is why. Many Soviet medium and high-ranking officers wanted to gain favour with the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin (well known for killing or deporting Soviet generals who failed in accomplish his wishes), and one way to do so was to inflate the score of the MiG regiments in Korea.
The Soviet pilots earn 1,500 additional rubles for every air victory they were credited with. It is quite likely that there were many false claims, just for the money.
The gun camera images of the MiG-15 were of such poor quality, that the Russian gun camera analysts decided that if a US plane appeared in a pic, then they would credit a "kill," even when they did not notice shell strikes, smoke, or an ejection.
If you add to such factors the usual over-claiming -in good faith, but over-claiming in the end- of any war, then we can understand why the Soviet 64th IAK claimed the unbelievable figure of 1,106 UN aircraft destroyed in the Korean War. (532 of them in the so called "Honcho Period," when only 142 Allied aircraft were actually downed by the Soviet MiG-15 pilots). So, I see most of those scores with a lot of skepticism, e.g: Mikhail Ponomaryev was credited with 11 kills, but when we analyze the dates of his claims, only 2 matched with admitted US losses! And he is not the only one.
Actually, the United States credits him with more kills than the Soviets did. The Soviets gave him credit for 22 kills while the USAF believes he scored 25 kills.
|
|