StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Yes, F4's were leased in the late 1960's until the F-111C's could be brought up to operational status.
I don't think that B-47's were ever purchased or leased.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I don't think that B-47's were ever purchased or leased.
Just checked Wiki:
The U.S. offered two squadrons of Boeing B-47 Stratojets for free lease pending the delivery of the F-111; Australia declined the offer in June 1964
General Dynamics F-111C - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MB
The Super Tiger lost to the Mirage III for Switzerland and to the F-104 for Japan only because of local politics. Both air forces preferred the Super Tiger. But this aircraft is just an F11F Tiger with the J79 engine. The un-super Tiger with the original engine (Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire) remained in USN service until the late 1960s.
Besides being a sole operator is not so much of a problem if you build the aircraft yourself. As would have been the case here and quite different to the problems the RAAF had the F-111C. All the supplies of spare parts would be local companies with ongoing contracts to keep supporting the aircraft after the build program. Plus before highly complex digital avionics, like this aircraft, local industry was sufficient for quite significant upgrades. As they were for the Mirage IIIO. Finally Grumman remained intact throughout the potential life of type and would have kept supporting the aircraft as long as they were paid to do so.
There was a concern in the early 1960s that the RAAF’s Canberras were about to fall out of the sky (off by about 20 years). Which is why both the UK and USA offered interim bomber capability if their aircraft (TSR.2 or F-111) were selected to replace the Canberra. The RAF offered the Vulcan bomber complete with aircrews which sounded great until we read the fine print and discovered while they would be based in Australia they would remain strictly under RAF operational control. USAF offered as many B-47s as the RAAF wanted which was precisely zero because it was a very demanding aircraft to fly and maintain. Of course the RAAF said let’s just buy the off the shelf A3J-2 for which we can get two for the price of one TSR.2 or F-111, it will do the job and be in service within a few years.
While the F-111 was a great plane for mid 1970s to the mid 1990s. It was a terrible choice for the 1960s. When the RAAF needed theatre strike for the Confrontation with Indonesia, the VietNam War, the Bangladeshi War, Chinese Cultural Revolution, etc we had the Canberra designed in 1946 with WWII technology (except the engines).
correct, never went beyond thought bubble consideration
Three squadrons worth, 36 aircraft, of Vigilantes were recommended as a suitable interim type to get Australia through the danger period during the late 60s. Either the TSR2 or more likely the F-111 were seen as the long term options but would not be available in the required time frame where as the A-5 was already in production.
The F-4C Phantom was also considered but the issue was insufficient range which would have required the RAAF to acquire a IFR tanker capability.
Interestingly when the F-111 program started having issues and price increases, then Defence Minister Malcolm Frazer, renegotiated the deal but apparently came close to cancelling it and ordering F-4E Phantoms instead. It was reported at the time that for the Phantom to adequately replace the capability offered by the two squadrons worth of F-111 (24 aircraft 6 of which were to be recon roled) the RAAF would have required three squadrons with 36 F-4E, a squadron of 6-12 RF-4C (or E) and 6-12 KC-135 tankers (I can't remember if it was 6 RF-4 and 12 KC-135 or 12 RF-4 and 6 KC-135).
So basically the F-111, although expensive and suffering from delays and cost blowouts was actually the cheaper option. That however does not take into account the multi-role capability of the Phantom and the dramatic improvement it would / could have had in regional air superiority (longer range and improved BVR compared to the Mirage), or the force multiplier effect the tankers would have had for the RAAF as a whole.
Agree totally with Abe on the Super Tiger, it would have been the ideal choice for the RAAF and for Australian industry. Interestingly CAC initially proposed the Grumman Panther, the predecessor to the Tiger, for the RAAF before the Sabre was considered. Had the Panther been selected it would likely have been in service in time for Korea meaning the Meteor would not have needed to have been acquired. Once the Mig-15 came on the scene it would have been comparatively easy to switch production to the swept wing Cougar (derived from the Panther) for the mid 50s and then to the Tiger (possibly with an Avon as the un-super Tiger used a US version of the Sapphire, which was pretty much interchangeable with the Avon in UK aircraft and ADEN cannon) for the late 50s, early 60s and then finally the Super Tiger for the mid to late 60s. The un-super Tiger, due to its small size and low weight, may even have been able to operate from our carrier but I am not sure on that.
Going Grumman could have seen continuous production of then world class fighters from the late 40s through to the early 70s allowing the RAAF to always stay ahead of the curve and never be forced into interim buys, urgent updates and expensive upgrades usually only delivering marginal improvement in capability at great cost and often leaving Australia at a tactical, if not strategic disadvantage. i.e. Flying Mustangs and then Meteors against Mig-15s, relying on subsonic day fighter only Sabres when Indonesia was fielding Mig-17s, 19s, and mach 2 Mig-21s as well as Tu-16 bombers. The fact Indonesia had a more modern and capable airforce than Australia during the early 60s was an election issue at the time with the F-111 order defusing one of the biggest policy differences between the two parties. Labor had promised to replace the Canberra if elected where Liberals had continually deferred the decision since the mid 50s but announced the F-111 order during the election campaign. Ironically it didn't enter service until after Indonesia's left leaning, confrontationist government had been deposed, removing one of the key drivers for desiring a long range, state of the art strike bomber. The perfectly good enough Vigilante could have been in service several years earlier and actually been able to serve its desired role as a deterrent.
The F-4C Phantom was also considered but the issue was insufficient range which would have required the RAAF to acquire a IFR tanker capability.
Interestingly when the F-111 program started having issues and price increases, then Defence Minister Malcolm Frazer, renegotiated the deal but apparently came close to cancelling it and ordering F-4E Phantoms instead. It was reported at the time that for the Phantom to adequately replace the capability offered by the two squadrons worth of F-111 (24 aircraft 6 of which were to be recon roled) the RAAF would have required three squadrons with 36 F-4E, a squadron of 6-12 RF-4C (or E) and 6-12 KC-135 tankers (I can't remember if it was 6 RF-4 and 12 KC-135 or 12 RF-4 and 6 KC-135).
So basically the F-111, although expensive and suffering from delays and cost blowouts was actually the cheaper option. That however does not take into account the multi-role capability of the Phantom and the dramatic improvement it would / could have had in regional air superiority (longer range and improved BVR compared to the Mirage), or the force multiplier effect the tankers would have had for the RAAF as a whole.
Agree totally with Abe on the Super Tiger, it would have been the ideal choice for the RAAF and for Australian industry. Interestingly CAC initially proposed the Grumman Panther, the predecessor to the Tiger, for the RAAF before the Sabre was considered. Had the Panther been selected it would likely have been in service in time for Korea meaning the Meteor would not have needed to have been acquired. Once the Mig-15 came on the scene it would have been comparatively easy to switch production to the swept wing Cougar (derived from the Panther) for the mid 50s and then to the Tiger (possibly with an Avon as the un-super Tiger used a US version of the Sapphire, which was pretty much interchangeable with the Avon in UK aircraft and ADEN cannon) for the late 50s, early 60s and then finally the Super Tiger for the mid to late 60s. The un-super Tiger, due to its small size and low weight, may even have been able to operate from our carrier but I am not sure on that.
Going Grumman could have seen continuous production of then world class fighters from the late 40s through to the early 70s allowing the RAAF to always stay ahead of the curve and never be forced into interim buys, urgent updates and expensive upgrades usually only delivering marginal improvement in capability at great cost and often leaving Australia at a tactical, if not strategic disadvantage. i.e. Flying Mustangs and then Meteors against Mig-15s, relying on subsonic day fighter only Sabres when Indonesia was fielding Mig-17s, 19s, and mach 2 Mig-21s as well as Tu-16 bombers. The fact Indonesia had a more modern and capable airforce than Australia during the early 60s was an election issue at the time with the F-111 order defusing one of the biggest policy differences between the two parties. Labor had promised to replace the Canberra if elected where Liberals had continually deferred the decision since the mid 50s but announced the F-111 order during the election campaign. Ironically it didn't enter service until after Indonesia's left leaning, confrontationist government had been deposed, removing one of the key drivers for desiring a long range, state of the art strike bomber. The perfectly good enough Vigilante could have been in service several years earlier and actually been able to serve its desired role as a deterrent.
That’s right. The Government (Federal Cabinet) in 1963 considered options for 36 A-5Bs, renamed from A3J-2 in 1962 and basically a RA-5C without the recce gear fitted but fully able to be fitted as so, versus 24 F-111s. The 36 A-5Bs costed A£88 million and the 24 F-111s were expected to cost A£56 million. The F-111 was selected over the A-5B and against the advice of the RAAF because it was expected to have a much longer life and because it was cheaper! Of course it was only cheaper because it was 24 vs 36 airframes and the real cost by 1968 ended up being A£106 million. For which the RAAF could have brought 48 A-5Bs/RA-5Cs and had all of them in service before 1968. That’s twice as many aircraft and in service before the first F-111 was even promised to be in service (and it wasn’t).
The CAC Panther was not proposed as a tactical fighter to replace the Mustang but as the basis of some CAC designed all weather fighters (night fighter). At this time, late 1940s, the RAAF and CAC were planning on building the Hawker P.1081 “Australian Fighter” to replace the Mustang and be the new fighter. It was only when this aircraft was delayed (1950-51) that the RAAF and CAC turned to the Sabre.
The Grumman Panther was selected as the basis for the RAAF’s new night fighter back in the mid to late 1940s because it was nice and big and used the Rolls-Royce Tay as an engine. The Tay had been selected at this time by the RAAF and CAC as being the basis of the next generation of RAAF aircraft. At this time the R-R Avon was still on the British Top Secret list and the RAAF didn’t know about it. The R-R Tay, built by CAC, was to power the CAC built Hawker P.1081, CAC’s new night fighter and the GAF built Canberra bomber. CAC was already building the R-R Nene for the DHA built Vampire and the Tay was just a bigger Nene so it all made a lot of good sense.
CAC designed two sequential versions of a Panther night fighter. One with the radar operator in the nose forward and below the pilot’s cockpit (the infamous “coal hole” position). The second version put the pilot and radar operator side by side in the cockpit and added a partially swept wing and a bigger fin (CAC P.186). This was early 1948 and the RAAF liked it but the Government was unable to come up with the 40,000 American dollars to buy a pattern aircraft and the detailed design from Grumman. Foreign exchange was rare in these days! So CAC had to design from scratch their own all weather fighter leading to the CA-23 and the whole capability was put on the back burner.
The F11F Tiger or Super Tiger was light enough and slow enough to fly from a Majestic class light fleet carrier like HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne brought up to the standard needed to fly Skyhawks.
It’s a nice idea but wasn’t going to happen from the 1947 night fighter selection of the Panther. Also that kind of strategic partnership was not something that was likely in this time frame. CAC had a much closer relationship with North American based on coming from the same corporate ownership (General Motors) and three generations of licensed programs (Wirrway, Mustang, Sabre). They had plenty of good planes to offer the RAAF after the Sabre but none were taken up. In the late 1950s the Government had decided that rationalsition of the aircraft industry was needed and wanted to only order aircraft from their own GAF. CAC was supposed to just focus on building engines and DHA got the short end of the stick and was supposed to just fade away. Ironically it was last man standing of the big three as Hawker De Havilland. So goes Government long term industry planning in Australia!
Even more than the disaster of Dibb’s “Defence of Australia” the Menzies defence planning of the late 1950s early 1960s was Australia’s most significant defence planning failure of all time. They had decided after the Korean War hadn’t turned into WWIII to cut back on defence. Just at the time that our region was turning into a powder keg fuelled by local military growth. Significant modernisation like the air force’s new fighter and medium bomber and the navy’s carrier recapitalisation were all cancelled. And the Army after having the ineffective national service scheme fostered onto it had its long standing and still effective reserve forces dismembered. By 1962 when it was obvious that things weren’t so rosy in the region they tried to turn it around and we needed conscription for active service to bring the Army back up to speed and the Air Force and Navy spent much of the 1960s with a weaponry deficit. Fortunately a range of possible local wars didn’t get out of hand and we still had British and American forces on hand to take care of things. But it was a close run thing.
Very interesting, I had read that CAC proposed the Panther and that it hadn't proceeded due to lack of US exchange but had no idea it was a different development path to the day fighters all together. I had just assumed there was one linear program for fighters but it does make sense that there were multiple streams prior to the advent of high performance multi -role fighters in the 60s.
True on Menzies, many force structure issues that plagued the ADF for years can be traced to decisions made by him. He had form as well, just look at the almost total lack of preparation to defend Australia in WWII while expending so much effort to support the UK war effort.
True on Menzies, many force structure issues that plagued the ADF for years can be traced to decisions made by him. He had form as well, just look at the almost total lack of preparation to defend Australia in WWII while expending so much effort to support the UK war effort.
I was just thinking how much air safety has improved over the years. We bought 100 Mirages and lost 40 for them to accidents in 25 years. With the hornets we have lost 4 out of 75 over 30 years. The last crash was back in 1992.
Looking back further I could only find 11 crashes involving the Sabres. That is out of the 112 we originally bought.
Looking back further I could only find 11 crashes involving the Sabres. That is out of the 112 we originally bought.
I would argue that Australia was better prepared for the Japanese onslaught in 1941 than we have ever been prepared for any strategic emergency. Except in the Air Force which was Menzies fault big time from the mid to late 1930s and on the verge of criminal, if undermining domestic Australian capability to further British interests can be considered criminal in the Australia of the 1930s. But the Army and the Navy were as built up and ready as could be reasonably expected. With of course the slight problem that much of their best assets were on the wrong side of the Indian Ocean but there was a global war going on.
The Sabres were never flown for as long as the Mirages so their attrition rate is much lower. Most Sabres rarely flew for more than eight years.
8 Super Hornets, Wedgetail and KC-30 (no number specified) are heading to Iraq with 400 to support the air mission and a separate 200 strong contingent containing Aus officers for training and SF missions.
Chief of the Defence Force statement on Iraq : Department of Defence
I'll replicate this in the Iraq thread as I'm gunna try keep all coalition involvement there. But it's a sensible list, the Wedgetail acting as a fighter controller presumably.
Chief of the Defence Force statement on Iraq : Department of Defence
I'll replicate this in the Iraq thread as I'm gunna try keep all coalition involvement there. But it's a sensible list, the Wedgetail acting as a fighter controller presumably.
Nick underscore
Member
Thanks RobW. I was expecting this announcement.
I believe there is still an RAAF C-17 and a C-130J in theatre too.
King Wally
Active Member
Super Hornets were the only ones I heard. The PM's announcement repeated that a couple times etc.
I think its a positive move, after all if you don't use your assets in times of need the public and politicians alike can start to question why you own them at all, and being the price tag they are that is a dangerous zone to find yourself in during tight budget times.
Trackmaster
Member
Sadly, not much knowledge in some of the reporting.
The Australian this morning said Super Hornets...but had an image of a single seat classic.
Also had the tankers based at Williamstown, along with the Wedgetails.
I guess the timing of Ex Pitch Black and Ex Tri-Sling couldn't have been better. All the best to the pilots and crews.
Absolutely typical of the media. The ABC also kept focussing on a single seat classic in its 'action' shots. They really have not a blind clue! The official announcement ifrom the Chief of Defence said:
"This deployment will include up to eight F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft which will be available to assist in Iraq.
In addition, we plan to deploy E-7A Wedgetail Early Warning and Control aircraft, KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft and the associated support personnel required to operate and sustain these aircraft."
Chief of the Defence Force statement on Iraq : Department of Defence
Tas
Australia commits combat aircraft to fight IS - 9/15/2014 - Flight Global
Super Hornets, will be based at Al Minhad AB near Dubai.
Super Hornets, will be based at Al Minhad AB near Dubai.
As in the income accruing to local politicians in Japan if they chose the F-104? I understand that was also a factor in Germany & the Netherlands. Lockheed was very generous in those days.