The ANZACs in T2k

[Jason Weiser]

The target list I cooked up a while ago, use as appropriate.

[Legbreaker]

Thanks. Just had a quick look so far but already saw some questionable targeting such as Richmond - it's C-130's and not much else. I lived and worked in and around it for a few years, it's just not worth nuking.
Meanwhile Williamtown at Newcastle where the majority of the F/A-18s were actually based (along with HQ and training) isn't on the list.
That said, by the time nukes were used, I'm fairly certain all Australia's combat air assets would have already been deployed.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Thanks. Just had a quick look so far but already saw some questionable targeting such as Richmond - it's C-130's and not much else. I lived and worked in and around it for a few years, it's just not worth nuking.
Meanwhile Williamtown at Newcastle where the majority of the F/A-18s were actually based (along with HQ and training) isn't on the list.
That said, by the time nukes were used, I'm fairly certain all Australia's combat air assets would have already been deployed.

Definitely, those Hercs probably wouldn't all be at Richmond either, they would have been deployed northwards to assist with the operations in Papua New Guinea. Not all of them, but probably at least half of them would be away from base making Richmond even less attractive as a nuke target.

As for Williamtown, the majority of the Hornets would have been deployed to the various dispersal bases around the top end of Australia probably well in advance of any attack against Williamtown.

But as mentioned by Leg, the majority of Australian airpower would have already been damaged or destroyed beforehand. I'm inclined to believe that use of nuclear weapons against Australia would be more to deny base facilities (e.g. ports) to UK/US forces in the Indo-Pacific region. With that in mind, use against Australian military facilties would be limited to those bases that directly supported UK/US military operations.

As a potential (and very small) boost to the remaining military aircraft, it's possible the RAN (or even the RAAF) might take control of the half-dozen or so Grumman S-2 Trackers that were still in Australia. They had been retired in the mid 1980s and a small number were still in storage and awaiting disposal by the early 1990s. At that time there were still people in Australia with experience flying and servicing these aircraft (either still in RAN service, retired from the RAN or transferred to the RAAF).
But we are talking about three maybe four at most and they would probably be used as light bombers simply because there would be no ASW stores left for them to use (and more importantly, very few/no RAN vessels capable of supporting them in the ASW role).

A side note on those A-4 Skyhawks mentioned as being leased from New Zealand. They were used as OpFor for air force training as well as for land based air defence training.
Some of them were actually A-4G models that had been in service with the RAN fleet air arm and then sold to New Zealand (who upgraded them to A-4K standard).
In the early 2000s, the majority of the New Zealand Skyhawks were sold to a US company who also used them as aggressor aircraft.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Thanks. Just had a quick look so far but already saw some questionable targeting such as Richmond - it's C-130's and not much else. I lived and worked in and around it for a few years, it's just not worth nuking.
Meanwhile Williamtown at Newcastle where the majority of the F/A-18s were actually based (along with HQ and training) isn't on the list.
That said, by the time nukes were used, I'm fairly certain all Australia's combat air assets would have already been deployed.

I would take the military targeting with a grain of salt, as for the political and economic base, I think it's pretty dead on. I had to pick weapons with the RANGE to reach Australia from the Soviet Union, or just grab random sub based weapons and assume they got past the RAN to launch a missile or two. I am assuming no Soviet aircraft launched on Australia due again, to the distances involved, that and they were probably being used to flatten targets in Japan and China.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, the economics aren't too bad. I'll be looking at likely missiles and number of warheads and adding subtracting from there I think. My guess is ABMs rather than sub launched missiles - it's a long way to send a sub which might be better utilised elsewhere.
Australian strikes though are most likely an afterthought. Australia wasn't directly involved in any of the major fronts (besides a presence in Korea which is arguably a UN conflict), and the country is on the other side of the globe to just about everywhere too. Not exactly convenient for your warships to drop in for repairs, and very unlikely for there to be any exports of significance due to lack of fuel, limited production capacity, and Australia's own internal needs.

[dylan]

Russians at Cam Ranh Bay? (including bombers) Would northern Australia be a target for them?

In our real timeline, Russian bombers (Bears) operated out of Biak airport in Indonesian Papua last year.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by dylan

Russians at Cam Ranh Bay? (including bombers) Would northern Australia be a target for them?

In our real timeline, Russian bombers (Bears) operated out of Biak airport in Indonesian Papua last year.

I think they would be more involved with the Soviet effort against China. If any air or naval assets survived that conflict, they might be a potential problem for Australia but they would still have to survive the journey from Vietnam to any target in Australia. For example, it's about 3600km (2237 miles) from Cam Ranh Bay to Darwin (in the Northern Territory).

[Legbreaker]

And that's 3,600km through potentially hostile airspace, just to hit a target in a country which isn't even technically at war with the USSR.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by dylan

Russians at Cam Ranh Bay? (including bombers) Would northern Australia be a target for them?

In our real timeline, Russian bombers (Bears) operated out of Biak airport in Indonesian Papua last year.

The Tu-22M Backfire has the range to hit Northern Australia from Vietnam, but the RAAF could also hit them back with a F-111G strike in this period.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

The Tu-22M Backfire has the range to hit Northern Australia from Vietnam, but the RAAF could also hit them back with a F-111G strike in this period.

And this is also the same time period where the RAAF was finally in possession of inflight refuelling tankers.

At the time, the B707 aircraft we had were not fitted with the tail boom refuelling probe that would be required by the F-111's because it was felt that the FA-18's needed the range increase allowed by inflight refuelling more than the F-111's did.
By way of comparison, the RAAF FA-18A with a 4000lb weapons load and 6000lbs of external fuel had a strike range of approximately 1020km while the RAAF F-111A/C with the same 4000lb load and no external fuel had a strike range of 2040km.
Info taken from here: - http://ausairpower.net/raaf-707.html

While the tail boom probe was not part of the modification, it was studied as part of the options for inflight refuelling. It's always possible that we could get technical/engineering help from the UK & USA if an urgent requirement for inflight refuelling of the F-111's was found and the modification to the B707's could be carried out in Australia.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

The target list I cooked up a while ago, use as appropriate.

Curious what the justification for Australia being nuked? Is this a case of it twilight so everything was was nuked?

Australia during twilight dose not have the capability to operate beyond his island independently, it dose not have troops in Europe. While is it might supporting China with material it dose not have large numbers of troops outside of the country.

Guessing the oil refineries where added cause? The US might use them?

that dose not make sense to me, maybe its just me

[Legbreaker]

The oil refineries Australia does have aren't actually suited to processing the oil we have, and are located far from the oil fields anyway. The bulk of the crude processed in Australia is shipped in from elsewhere, while the oil produced mostly ends up in Asia.
https://www.aip.com.au/resources/aus...n-and-refining

The refineries really can't be the reason for any nukes.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The oil refineries Australia does have aren't actually suited to processing the oil we have, and are located far from the oil fields anyway. The bulk of the crude processed in Australia is shipped in from elsewhere, while the oil produced mostly ends up in Asia.
https://www.aip.com.au/resources/aus...n-and-refining

The refineries really can't be the reason for any nukes.

That what I thought too, I found this tool that shows Australia Crude Oil Consumption by Year. (https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?c...on&product=oil) in 1998 Australia consumed 852,000 Barrels of oil, while producing 862,0000 Barrels. Which in theory is just enough to cover consumption is a very small surplus.

I also don't think that the Soviets have enough missiles left in Asia with the range to hit Australian targets. Best option is a Ballistic Sub Launched Missiles and then I would only have one sub attacking ports that the US could use.

[Olefin]

I would think that the only nuke targets that the Soviets might - and this is a big might - go after would be their intelligence gathering and satellite tracking stations - other than that I really dont see them nuking Australia - on the other hand the Indonesian oil fields or refineries might be a real target

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I would think that the only nuke targets that the Soviets might - and this is a big might - go after would be their intelligence gathering and satellite tracking stations - other than that I really don't see them nuking Australia - on the other hand the Indonesian oil fields or refineries might be a real target

Even those targets are problematic really with facilities WIDELY dispersed and only staffed with perhaps a few hundred people. Conventional warheads or covert action may be more suitable.

Not sure about Indonesian targets. Doubtful they could be considered neutral and given the ANZUS treaty (yes, even without New Zealand) the US would technically be at war with Indonesia, even if they weren't able to actually send any soldiers or equipment. It's possible the US or even the UK nuked Indonesia, but I really can't see the advantage in doing that - Nato don't have any significant opponents anywhere near the area to potentially use the oil.

The whole region is proving somewhat difficult to depopulate and destroy. Fairly sure though that I'll send something like the Spanish Flu through and add in a few natural disasters to damage infrastructure. Most of Australia is prone to bushfires and/or flooding, both of which are difficult enough to handle in peace time, while parts of Indonesia are volcanically active.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Curious what the justification for Australia being nuked? Is this a case of it twilight so everything was was nuked?

The old, easy excuse -- denial of use to the enemy.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The old, easy excuse -- denial of use to the enemy.

That's about the only reason really that would apply, and even that's problematic given the vast distances involved. I'll likely nuke a couple of locations, but they'll be more of an afterthought than primary, or even secondary target in the greater, global scheme.
Darwin, Perth and Townsville might get attacked mostly due to their ability to support operations against Indonesia (which I'm thinking would be an "ally" of the USSR more by a case of "enemy of my enemy" than anything else).