The J79 RAAF

[Riain]

In 1961 the RAAF had selected the F104 to replace the Avon-Sabre, until Sir Lawrence Wackett decided to have this decision overturned which he did in favour of the Avon-Mirage III (subsequently changed to the Atar 9C).

In 1963 the RAAF recommended that the Government buy 36 RA5C Vigilante to replace the Canberra by 1966, but the Government decided instead to buy 24 F111C to enter service in 1969.

WI these initial decisions were retained and the RAAF bought 116 F104C or G and 36 A5C instead?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Wouldn't Australia do better putting in an order for 140 Phantoms?

 

[SsgtC]

Wouldn't Australia do better putting in an order for 140 Phantoms?

From a standardisation standpoint, certainly. But the Phantom could only conduct certain missions that the RAAF needed with extensive tanker support. Which means they need to buy tankers as well now

 

[Gunnarnz]

In Australian service the F-104 might do okay. Although it has a bad reputation for accidents, most of that seems to be related to use in the fighter-bomber role. As an air-superiority fighter, it was fine (albeit with a smallish payload and somewhat-unexciting range). And Australia won't have any trouble finding large sunny areas to do training in! I suppose the real question is their role. As long as it's mainly air-superiority, it should do okay. As soon as some enterprising type starts trying to move mud with them, the accident rate will probably rise quickly. But with upgrades like the Italians gave theirs, there's no reason the RAAF shouldn't be flying Starfighters until the mid-80s at least.

 

[Riain]

Wouldn't Australia do better putting in an order for 140 Phantoms?

I don't think it would be desirable.

The Phantom was evaluated in 1959-61 against the Mirage III, EE Lightning, SAAB Draken, F104 and F5. However the F104G cost 1.4 million against the F4C 1.9 million and the RAAF ordered 110 Mirage III for 4 sqns and an OCU so with the same money we could only afford 80-85 Phantoms which isn't enough for 5 squadrons with spares for DLM and attrition.

The Phantom was evaluated against the Mirage IV and RA5C Vigilante and found to have 627 mile range against the requirement for 1000 miles, which the Vigilante met. I imagine the Phantom would be a bit cheaper than the Vigilante, but with such a shortfall in range any spare money would be needed for tankers.

So in both cases the Phantom doesn't fit the requirement.

 

[Riain]

The Vigilante had a fully developed buddy tanking system in 1963 and the F104C had an inflight refueling probe system.

I wonder if the RAAF would use the tanker option, and if it would generate a requirement for a proper tanker?

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Now that's an interesting WI with the tanking, any chance of earlier AEWC?

Also I wonder if the RAAF deploy Starfighters to Rolling Thunder?

 

[Gunnarnz]

I would expect them to pursue the tanker option, yes. The F-104 didn't have a fantastic range, and Australia is a fair-ish size - if they're thinking of using it in the maritime strike role, that area gets even bigger.

 

[Riain]

Now that's an interesting WI with the tanking....

I would expect them to pursue the tanker option, yes. The F-104 didn't have a fantastic range, and Australia is a fair-ish size - ......

It depends on how they do it. The RN had a pair if Buccaneer more or less permanently configured as 'maxi' tankers on each carrier, with bulged bomb bay tank and slipper tank on the wing. If the RAAF does something similar and each squadron had a couple or the wing has a small flight of permanently configured buddy tankers then I think they'd get plenty of work and the planners would be asking for a more robust capability.

any chance of earlier AEWC?

Air Forces were strangely averse to AEW in the 50s and 60s, unlike Navies. The RAF undertook trials in the 50s with Neptunes but didn't pursue it and the USAF only got about 42 of the 232 EC121s built. I doubt the RAAF will forge its own path.

Also I wonder if the RAAF deploy Starfighters to Rolling Thunder?

I doubt it, it's probably not very well suited and would likely follow a similar in-service trajectory to the Mirage although the US wouldn't put pressure on the supply chain like the French did.

The Vigilante is another thing entirely, it was to enter service from 1966 and given the maturity of the platform i'd suggest that's realistic. When the Government goes looking for a RAAF combat commitment to Vietnam in 1967 there would be 2 Vigilante squadrons in service and most of the Canberras would be gone and their crews converted. This means the historical situation where an excess Canberra sqn was shunted to Vietnam would not occur, so a red hot Vigilante sqn would be sent instead. I don't know if it would be used in Rolling Thunder, its a bit capable to be wasted on CAS in South Vietnam and one reason the Canberra was relegated to that role was because it wasn't capable enough to deal with the AAA and SAMs up north.

...if they're thinking of using it in the maritime strike role, that area gets even bigger.

Maritime strike was a very low priority for the RAAF until the 80s, the Melbourne's Skyhawks took care of that. The Mirages and presumably the F104s would be half in a Fighter configuration and the other half in Attack configuration, with each type having a different flying programme as a result.

 

[alspug]

The Mirage was better in most aspects to the F-104 and was the correct choice as history shows. The F-4 Phantom purchase would have been awesome as the RAAF would have been wedded to the 2 seat fighter and no doubt the modification of several into SEAD variants etc. I am not sure if an F-4C can be modernised to the extent needed and would have been replaced gradually from mid 80's to early 90's with most likely an F-15C or E . The Vigilante was awesome but suffered from being the early entry before technology matured. Would also need replacement by mid 80,s..

 

[Riain]

The Mirage was better in most aspects to the F-104 and was the correct choice as history shows.

I agree, but wonder why the RAAF chose the F104.

 

[KokkenKunten]

The RN had a pair if Buccaneer more or less permanently configured as 'maxi' tankers on each carrier, with bulged bomb bay tank and slipper tank on the wing.

No bulged bomb door on FAA operated Buccaneers.

The RAF S.2A & S.2B fleet received MOD.1600 (airframe provision for fitment of bomb door tank) & MOD.5300 (bomb door tank) in 1973 whilst at the same time, the FAA S.2C & S.2D fleet, although receiving MOD.1600, received MOD.5301 (blanking kit for fitment of standard bomb door). This preserved the Max AUW for carrier operations, whilst allowing for implementation of MOD.5300 as aircraft transferred to the RAF at a later stage. The only Buccs you'll see with the bomb door tanks & FAA colours, are those painted in historic schemes immediately prior to, or after, retirement from RAF service in 1994.

 

[alspug]

The F-104 had phenomenal performance and was literally the first of it's generation. The EE Lightning and the Mirage III offered better sensors and similar performance with a more forgiving airframe. We are in hindsight very lucky the Indonesian confrontation never turned ugly as the Tu-16 and it's AS-1 missiles would have been a handful for the RAAF to intercept as both the Mirage and F-104 had poor searxh radar capability. Mirage was better then F-104 . (30km range search for F-104 and Similar but with a radar guided long range missile for the Mirage) The F-4 on the other hand had up to 4 radar guided missiles and a 200 km search range for the radar.

 

[Riain]

No bulged bomb door on FAA operated Buccaneers.

Ok, so the maxi tanker was permanently fitted with the bomb bay tank and the mini tanker was not and only used internal fuel and a drop tank. Apparently fitting the bomb bay tank could be done by the squadron while at sea but it was a big job not to be undertaken lightly.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

From a standardisation standpoint, certainly. But the Phantom could only conduct certain missions that the RAAF needed with extensive tanker support. Which means they need to buy tankers as well now

Couldn't the now surplus Canberras be used as buddy tankers?

 

[SsgtC]

Couldn't the now surplus Canberras be used as buddy tankers?

Depends on how clapped out the Canberras are, how much they need to use them, and if they're willing to keep them in service. The whole point of buying new aircraft was too retire the Canberra. I'm not sure how enthused the RAAF would be at now having to keep them in service along with their replacement

 

[Riain]

The F-104 had phenomenal performance and was literally the first of it's generation. The EE Lightning and the Mirage III offered better sensors and similar performance with a more forgiving airframe. We are in hindsight very lucky the Indonesian confrontation never turned ugly as the Tu-16 and it's AS-1 missiles would have been a handful for the RAAF to intercept as both the Mirage and F-104 had poor searxh radar capability. Mirage was better then F-104 . (30km range search for F-104 and Similar but with a radar guided long range missile for the Mirage) The F-4 on the other hand had up to 4 radar guided missiles and a 200 km search range for the radar.

The F104 was the most mature type in 1961, with both fighter and attack versions available. I think it would also be the cheapest type available.

The F5A was likely cheaper, but in comparison with the others had feeble performance and avionics.

The EE Lightning had awesome performance and advanced avionics, but in 1961 likely only the F2 was available with no developed ground attack capability. As a big twin engine plane with an advanced radar it likely would have been expensive to buy and run.

The F4B was the only variant in the air in 1961, the USAF F4C didn't fly until mid 1963 and the ground attack capability wasn't developed until then. The phantom was awesome, but 30% more expensive which counts when the requirement is for 5 squadrons.

This leaves the Mirage IIIE, a good all rounder but likely a touch more expensive than the F104 and supplied by a non Ally unlike the others.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Depends on how clapped out the Canberras are, how much they need to use them, and if they're willing to keep them in service. The whole point of buying new aircraft was too retire the Canberra. I'm not sure how enthused the RAAF would be at now having to keep them in service along with their replacement

I don't know whether they were replacing them because they were clapped out or just obsolete as bombers. The RAF only retired its last Canberras in 2006 so the RAAF's Canberras should still be good for quite a few years in the mid 60's.

 

[Riain]

Couldn't the now surplus Canberras be used as buddy tankers?

Depends on how clapped out the Canberras are, how much they need to use them, and if they're willing to keep them in service. The whole point of buying new aircraft was too retire the Canberra. I'm not sure how enthused the RAAF would be at now having to keep them in service along with their replacement

The RAAF kept 2 sqn Canberras in service until 1982 with up to 10 flying as late as 1981, in the aerial survey role. I can imagine a handful being kept as buddy tankers if it was pushed. However if the Vigilante had and used a buddy system I doubt the RAAF would introduce the complications of a 2nd buddy type.

 

[Riain]

Australia chose unpressurised refuelling for the Mirage fleet, because it was thought that pressure refuelling facilities wouldn't be available at remote airfields. This meant that in-flight refuelling couldn't be fitted because there was no single fuelling point to plumb the probe to.

One mark against the F104 was the lack of runways of sufficient quality in Australia and the region.