oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Nov 8, 2021 14:45:26 GMT
If that Soviet fleet meets up with three Carriers in 1959 it will have a very exciting and short lived existence. The Soviet ships lacked "effective" Anti Ship and AA Missiles. In 1959 jet attack aircraft were far more effective than ship based AAW systems. USN F8Us would have massacred those Mig-19s. A-4s would be the attack birds. Very tough, very small targets able to carry a lot of munitions.
If the ROE's allowed the USN to hit the Soviets with full "Siera" strikes, no contest.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033 
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2021 14:50:47 GMT
If that Soviet fleet meets up with three Carriers in 1959 it will have a very exciting and short lived existence. The Soviet ships lacked "effective" Anti Ship and AA Missiles. In 1959 jet attack aircraft were far more effective than ship based AAW systems. USN F8Us would have massacred those Mig-19s. A-4s would be the attack birds. Very tough, very small targets able to carry a lot of munitions.
If the ROE's allowed the USN to hit the Soviets with full "Siera" strikes, no contest. If they meet and ships get sunk, we do not have to worry about the Soviet ships lacking "effective" Anti Ship and AA Missiles, it will be World War III. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2021 15:04:06 GMT
February 14, 1959
SingaporeSteam had been raised in the boilers, the last of the hastily arranged provisions had been hoisted aboard and now the lines were being cast off. HMS Albion was heading to sea. She would sail first past the Riau Islands and then into the Philippine Sea where she would meet up with the USS Ticonderoga before conducting a joint exercise near the Solomons. In the Solomons, they would be joined by the USS Yorktown after she completed her port visit to Sydney. The intent was to send a very clear message to Indonesia about their actions with regard to West New Guinea. Hopefully, that message would be received and understood. And if not? Well, the United States had another carrier near Japan and Admiral Sir Gerald Gladstone, CINC Far East Fleet, had just been informed that both Audacious and Victorious were being issued orders to deploy to Singapore much earlier than had been planned. If Indonesia was serious about prosecuting this war, they would soon find themselves heavily outgunned. As it has been notice on the Secret Projects board and sufficient Velocity i give you a triple by pointing out Audacious should be Ark Royal. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Nov 8, 2021 15:17:47 GMT
It is trying to introduce 1.) The tactical concept 2.) The radar 3.) The Eagle missile 4.) New AEWC which was too much for the mid 1950s, particularly when we take into account that it is just a missile truck. The subsonic speed also constrains it’s flexibility. It isn’t just the aircraft, but the system it is part of. They really needed another 10 years of development to get into a useful position. The “missile only” paradigm didn’t last for very long. Adding a squadron of that to a CV deck gets a one shot anti-raid capacity in any engagement, whereas putting the missiles on an airframe that is capable of air combat makes more sense. I'm not sure what awac your talking about but the anti raid thing was 24/7 with 2 aircraft up. And the "missile only" paragrame only stoped because of issues with the sparrow and very restricted ROE in vetnam (we don't even know if vetnam is happening in this TL) besides if the duch or Australians lose a carrier to Soviet missile bombers then the USN is going to scramble to find a way to protect there carriers (sense they made a study they found that the f-4 for as good a plane as it was, is actually pretty bad at anti bomber raid defense, like the study suggested that f-4 would only destroy 2 bombers of a 24 bomber raid before the force got to strike distance) also the whole missile truck thing is what the us is doing now. 1.) W2F/ E2 Hawkeye 2.) It stopped because it ran into reality. Missile only warfare in the 1960s and early 70s was pants. It takes late 80s/early 90s era missiles to kill off the gun as an AAW anachronism. Overreaching. 3.) Naturally, but that is really beside the point here. Even if they do, they will go for a plug and play solution rather than a reordering of tech, tactics and approach. 4.) Would be good to get a reference on that. Even if it is correct, the main AAW fighter at this time was the Crusader, not the Phantom. 5.) If we are talking now as in 2021, then I’m afraid that actually doesn’t work in favour of your argument, as it is. That there has been change over 60+ years shows that the concept took time to iron out and sort out. |
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Nov 8, 2021 15:35:45 GMT
If that Soviet fleet meets up with three Carriers in 1959 it will have a very exciting and short lived existence. The Soviet ships lacked "effective" Anti Ship and AA Missiles. In 1959 jet attack aircraft were far more effective than ship based AAW systems. USN F8Us would have massacred those Mig-19s. A-4s would be the attack birds. Very tough, very small targets able to carry a lot of munitions.
If the ROE's allowed the USN to hit the Soviets with full "Siera" strikes, no contest. They're not being deployed to actually fight the AUKUS forces. They're being deployed to distract them and keep them from interfering in Indonesia. And given what the American carries have on their decks, it would not be nearly as one sided as you think. Yorktown only has 4 F2H-3 Banshees on board. Ticonderoga has one squadron of Banshees, two of Demons, one of AD-6 Skyraiders and a detachment of Skywarriors. Albion only has SeaHawks and Sea Venoms embarked. Bon Homme Richard, which I failed to mention and was in Subic Bay at this time, is better equipped. But still not with the most modern aircraft. She has one squadron of F11F-1 Tigers embarked, one squadron of Demons, one of FJ-4B Furys, one of AD-6 Skyraiders and a detachment of Skywarriors. So better than the Dutch and British, but still only about even with what the Indonesians can put in the air |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2021 15:43:06 GMT
If that Soviet fleet meets up with three Carriers in 1959 it will have a very exciting and short lived existence. The Soviet ships lacked "effective" Anti Ship and AA Missiles. In 1959 jet attack aircraft were far more effective than ship based AAW systems. USN F8Us would have massacred those Mig-19s. A-4s would be the attack birds. Very tough, very small targets able to carry a lot of munitions.
If the ROE's allowed the USN to hit the Soviets with full "Siera" strikes, no contest. They're not being deployed to actually fight the AUKUS forces. They're being deployed to distract them and keep them from interfering in Indonesia. And given what the American carries have on their decks, it would not be nearly as one sided as you think. Yorktown only has 4 F2H-3 Banshees on board. Ticonderoga has one squadron of Banshees, two of Demons, one of AD-6 Skyraiders and a detachment of Skywarriors. Albion only has SeaHawks and Sea Venoms embarked. Bon Homme Richard, which I failed to mention and was in Subic Bay at this time, is better equipped. But still not with the most modern aircraft. She has one squadron of F11F-1 Tigers embarked, one squadron of Demons, one of FJ-4B Furys, one of AD-6 Skyraiders and a detachment of Skywarriors. So better than the Dutch and British, but still only about even with what the Indonesians can put in the air I know that HMS Albion in the 1959–60 has onboard: 806 sqn. 8 Sea Hawk FGA6 Fighter-Attack. 894 sqn. 12 Sea Venom FAW21 Night/All Weather Fighter. 849 sqn. D flt. 4 Skyraider AEW1 Airborne Early Warning. 815 sqn. 8 Whirlwind HAS7 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Warfare. Ships Flight 1 Dragonfly HR5 Helicopter Search and Rescue. But what would USS Ticonderoga and USS Yorktown load-out be, i assume 3 times what HMS Albion has. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Nov 8, 2021 16:00:53 GMT
If they meet and ships get sunk, we do not have to worry about the Soviet ships lacking "effective" Anti Ship and AA Missiles, it will be World War III. Only problem for the Soviets is that the first Soviet ICBM actually went operational in January 1960 according to Pavel Podvig, ed., Russian Strategic Forces (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), p. 182.
And
they only had two more operational by the end of 1960. According to Robert S. Norris and Thomas B. Cochran, “Nuclear Weapons Databook: U.S.-USSR/Russian Strategic Offensive Nuclear Forces 1945-1996,” January 1997, p. 18.
The US had a decisive nuclear bomber force able to hit anywhere in the USSR. The soviet's ability to reach the US by bomber and deliver it's nukes was very questionable.
I have no idea what would have happened across the German plain but I'd bet it would include nukes on the Nato side. What we know about the Soviet leadership now leads me to believe they were purely opportunists and would not risk those US Nukes on the Motherland.
Furthermore, this is an ATL so we can be as reckless as we want.  Isn't the point here to explore "what ifs"?
Last point. I spent 26 years of my life preparing to take on the Soviet fleet. At first they looked 10 feet tall. The more I learned about my profession and them the more I realized they were a one trick pony(close the Atlantic SLOCs ) and I don't think they had a chance of doing that. The Soviet Pacific Fleet could come out and be destroyed or stay pierside and be destroyed.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2021 16:06:24 GMT
If they meet and ships get sunk, we do not have to worry about the Soviet ships lacking "effective" Anti Ship and AA Missiles, it will be World War III. Only problem for the Soviets is that the first Soviet ICBM actually went operational in January 1960 according to Pavel Podvig, ed., Russian Strategic Forces (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), p. 182.
And
they only had two more operational by the end of 1960. According to Robert S. Norris and Thomas B. Cochran, “Nuclear Weapons Databook: U.S.-USSR/Russian Strategic Offensive Nuclear Forces 1945-1996,” January 1997, p. 18.
The US had a decisive nuclear bomber force able to hit anywhere in the USSR. The soviet's ability to reach the US by bomber and deliver it's nukes was very questionable.
I have no idea what would have happened across the German plain but I'd bet it would include nukes on the Nato side. What we know about the Soviet leadership now leads me to believe they were purely opportunists and would not risk those US Nukes on the Motherland.
Furthermore, this is an ATL so we can be as reckless as we want. Isn't the point here to explore "what ifs"?
Last point. I spent 26 years of my life preparing to take on the Soviet fleet. At first they looked 10 feet tall. The more I learned about my profession and them the more I realized they were a one trick pony(close the Atlantic SLOCs ) and I don't think they had a chance of doing that. The Soviet Pacific Fleet could come out and be destroyed or stay pierside and be destroyed.
Well they can still make a mess in West Berlin and West Germany. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Nov 8, 2021 18:43:49 GMT
I agree with you. Of course when it comes to land warfare I really don't know what I am talking about so Lordroel my friend, I'll take your word for it.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Nov 8, 2021 19:21:34 GMT
I know that HMS Albion in the 1959–60 has onboard: 806 sqn. 8 Sea Hawk FGA6 Fighter-Attack. 894 sqn. 12 Sea Venom FAW21 Night/All Weather Fighter. 849 sqn. D flt. 4 Skyraider AEW1 Airborne Early Warning. 815 sqn. 8 Whirlwind HAS7 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Warfare. Ships Flight 1 Dragonfly HR5 Helicopter Search and Rescue. But what would USS Ticonderoga and USS Yorktown load-out be, i assume 3 times what HMS Albion has. Now that is a tough one for an old Tin Can and Brown water sailor but I'll do my best to answer. 1959 was a bit before my time but here goes.
Carrier Air Groups for a SCB-125 modified/angled deck Essex would typically have about 70 aircraft.
2 jet fighter/fighter bomber squadrons flying F8 Corsairs
1 piston fighter squadrons flying Douglas AD/A1 Skyraiders
2 attack squadron flying A4 Skyhawks Plus Specialized Detachments (3-4 aircraft) for heavy attack/nuclear strike (VAH) probably Douglas A-3 Skywarriors, photographic reconnaissance (VAP/VFP, RVAH) probably RF-8 Crusaders
Airborne early warning (VAW), probably Grumman E-1 Tracer Throw in a couple of helos and that is about it.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2021 19:29:41 GMT
I agree with you. Of course when it comes to land warfare I really don't know what I am talking about so Lordroel my friend, I'll take your word for it. Well according to this document by RAND: Assessing the Conventional Balance in Europe, 1945-1975The Soviet Armed forces where estimated to have some 5,5 million men under their arms in the mid 1950s, ground forces somewhere between 2,5 to 2,8 million troops. A total of 26 divisions totaling 500,000 soldiers where forward deployed in Eastern Europe, 20 in East Germany (10 tank and 10 motorized), two in Poland and after 1956 four in Hungary. In addition a approximately 75 more divisions, including nine airborne divisions totaling 100,000 troops where based in Europe Russia and available to reinforce Soviet Forces in Eastern Europe. 40 to 125 reserve divisions its was to believe could be mobilized and send westward in 30 days. Soviet ground forces could field 35,000 tanks of which 20,000 where front line tanks (mainly (T-54s and T-10s) and 15,000 second-line tanks (mainly T-34s and IS-3s). in East Germany alone some 6,000 tanks where deployed. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2021 19:30:30 GMT
I know that HMS Albion in the 1959–60 has onboard: 806 sqn. 8 Sea Hawk FGA6 Fighter-Attack. 894 sqn. 12 Sea Venom FAW21 Night/All Weather Fighter. 849 sqn. D flt. 4 Skyraider AEW1 Airborne Early Warning. 815 sqn. 8 Whirlwind HAS7 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Warfare. Ships Flight 1 Dragonfly HR5 Helicopter Search and Rescue. But what would USS Ticonderoga and USS Yorktown load-out be, i assume 3 times what HMS Albion has. Now that is a tough one for an old Tin Can and Brown water sailor but I'll do my best to answer. 1959 was a bit before my time but here goes.
Carrier Air Groups for a SCB-125 modified/angled deck Essex would typically have about 70 aircraft.
2 jet fighter/fighter bomber squadrons flying F8 Corsairs
1 piston fighter squadrons flying Douglas AD/A1 Skyraiders
2 attack squadron flying A4 Skyhawks Plus Specialized Detachments (3-4 aircraft) for heavy attack/nuclear strike (VAH) probably Douglas A-3 Skywarriors, photographic reconnaissance (VAP/VFP, RVAH) probably RF-8 Crusaders
Airborne early warning (VAW), probably Grumman E-1 Tracer Throw in a couple of helos and that is about it. Thanks oscssw, seems a US carrier has a lot more firepower then its Royal Navy counterpart. |
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Nov 8, 2021 19:43:59 GMT
Now that is a tough one for an old Tin Can and Brown water sailor but I'll do my best to answer. 1959 was a bit before my time but here goes.
Carrier Air Groups for a SCB-125 modified/angled deck Essex would typically have about 70 aircraft.
2 jet fighter/fighter bomber squadrons flying F8 Corsairs
1 piston fighter squadrons flying Douglas AD/A1 Skyraiders
2 attack squadron flying A4 Skyhawks Plus Specialized Detachments (3-4 aircraft) for heavy attack/nuclear strike (VAH) probably Douglas A-3 Skywarriors, photographic reconnaissance (VAP/VFP, RVAH) probably RF-8 Crusaders
Airborne early warning (VAW), probably Grumman E-1 Tracer Throw in a couple of helos and that is about it. Thanks oscssw , seems a US carrier has a lot more firepower then its Royal Navy counterpart. Beginning in three 60s, yes. The 50s were a period of transition for Naval Aviation. Types would be introduced and withdrawn from service in very short order. For example, the F11F Tiger. The Navy was already withdrawing it from service even as the last ones were delivered from Grumman. |
|
cj
Seaman
Posts: 11
Likes: 2
|
Post by cj on Nov 9, 2021 6:10:45 GMT
I'm not sure what awac your talking about but the anti raid thing was 24/7 with 2 aircraft up. And the "missile only" paragrame only stoped because of issues with the sparrow and very restricted ROE in vetnam (we don't even know if vetnam is happening in this TL) besides if the duch or Australians lose a carrier to Soviet missile bombers then the USN is going to scramble to find a way to protect there carriers (sense they made a study they found that the f-4 for as good a plane as it was, is actually pretty bad at anti bomber raid defense, like the study suggested that f-4 would only destroy 2 bombers of a 24 bomber raid before the force got to strike distance) also the whole missile truck thing is what the us is doing now. 1.) W2F/ E2 Hawkeye 2.) It stopped because it ran into reality. Missile only warfare in the 1960s and early 70s was pants. It takes late 80s/early 90s era missiles to kill off the gun as an AAW anachronism. Overreaching. 3.) Naturally, but that is really beside the point here. Even if they do, they will go for a plug and play solution rather than a reordering of tech, tactics and approach. 4.) Would be good to get a reference on that. Even if it is correct, the main AAW fighter at this time was the Crusader, not the Phantom. 5.) If we are talking now as in 2021, then I’m afraid that actually doesn’t work in favour of your argument, as it is. That there has been change over 60+ years shows that the concept took time to iron out and sort out. What dose the hawkeye have to do with this? The sparrow was pants (and even then only the early versions) plus the us wasn't even allowed to do bvr combat in vetnam. Considering the navy even befor this was perfectly willing do reorder like this (and this is the late 50's there already was a lot of reordering going on) then I don't see why the Missileer is a step to far? Especially sense they ended up doing it anyway not a decade later with the f14. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Nov 9, 2021 8:43:36 GMT
1.) The Hawkeye was explicitly involved in the overall system of fleet defence that the F6D was based upon.
2.) The Sparrow had issues until the AIM-7E2 and arguably the AIM-7F in the mid 1970s. The shorter ranged IR Sidewinder/Shafrir-2/AA-2s proved to be more operationally effective to that point. However, the concept of missile only warfare was not based on IR missiles, but on SARH. The latter, including but not limited to the Sparrow, showed in their performance that complete dependence on them was, at best, dramatically premature.
The tactical limitations in place in Vietnam are perhaps not salient to the broader issue that VLR AAMs were a bridge too far in the late 1950s.
3.) The F-14 entered operational service in 1974, some 15 years on from the 1959 era. The F6D package (F6D + Eagle + AN/APQ-81 + W2F) was simply too much for that era, with everything being new. In 1974, the F-14 package (a much more capable fighter in the F-14 + AIM-54 + AN/AWG-9 + E-2) was utilising mature technologies developed, troubleshooted and tested over more than a decade. This lead to different results.
|
|
Isn't the point here to explore "what ifs"?