The J79 RAAF

[matlef]

Wow 2,000 Km combat radius for the Viggen ? I'd be curious to see the source for that.

I agree, the source is probably "Combat aircraft from 1945" but it's the only number with a source i had found when i wrote my comment.

The most reasonable would probably be "more than 1000km" which is still good for a fighter, but not the kind of strike aircraft Australia would need.

The US embargoed exports of the Viggen because of the US engine, but we did evaluate it 1971-73.

I didn't know that Australia evaluated it. The engine would be an issue unless the Australian government wants to try to use another engine and license build parts. Ah the old days where us Swedes cared about who got our fancy weapons.

 

[Blue cat]

Assuming that only 30 F104A are bought to supplement 80 or so Sabres, and the long range strike role is undertaken by another type, what is around in 1970 to replace the Sabre in the CAS role that can also replace the F104 in the fighter role by 1975?

Other than aircraft already mentioned:

Maybe the Mirage F1 ?

Maybe F104G's or CF104's to replace eariler F104's ?

Maybe the radar equipped F5E ?

 

[Riain]

didn't know that Australia evaluated it. The engine would be an issue unless the Australian government wants to try to use another engine and license build parts.

Easier said than done given that fighters are basically designed around their engines. The Avon engine wasn't selected partly because the engine-airframe match wasn't as good as the Atar the Mirage III was designed around.

 

[Blue cat]

Easier said than done given that fighters are basically designed around their engines. The Avon engine wasn't selected partly because the engine-airframe match wasn't as good as the Atar the Mirage III was designed around.

Was the U.S. actually preventing Sweeden from selling certain combat air craft to Australia ?

 

[Riain]

Was the U.S. actually preventing Sweeden from selling certain combat air craft to Australia ?

Not exactly. The Viggen used a JT8D airliner engine modified for supersonic speeds and fitted with a Swedish afterburner. The US said that the engine, which was on hundreds of airliners worldwide, was sensitive American technology and refused to allow Sweden to export it. Given that the Viggen was designed around the engine that basically stopped exports.

 

[Blue cat]

Not exactly. The Viggen used a JT8D airliner engine modified for supersonic speeds and fitted with a Swedish afterburner. The US said that the engine, which was on hundreds of airliners worldwide, was sensitive American technology and refused to allow Sweden to export it. Given that the Viggen was designed around the engine that basically stopped exports.

Hmmm... Yet Australia could buy the F111.

Perhaps the Americans could have been persuaded to grant an exception for exports to Australia ? (Especially vis a vis the Australian involvement in Vietnam ?)

 

[SsgtC]

Hmmm... Yet Australia could buy the F111.

Perhaps the Americans could have been persuaded to grant an exception for exports to Australia ? (Especially vis a vis the Australian involvement in Vietnam ?)

Not likely. The whole point of restricting exports from foreign countries using American tech was too force those countries to buy American. I can imagine the conversation going something like this:

AUS: Any chance of getting an exemption to allow Sweden to sell us Viggens?
US: Ohhhhhhh, sorry. No can do. Despite the fact that there are already dozens of JT8D engines in Australia on Qantas 707s, but we really can't risk it. By the way, have you seen our new stock of fighters we have for sale?

 

[Riain]

Hmmm... Yet Australia could buy the F111.

Perhaps the Americans could have been persuaded to grant an exception for exports to Australia ? (Especially vis a vis the Australian involvement in Vietnam ?)

The US allowed Sweden to use the afterburner JT8D, not everyone else. Similarly we were trusted to use the F111 but couldn't sell them without permission, that's a condition of sale for US kit.

Not likely. The whole point of restricting exports from foreign countries using American tech was too force those countries to buy American. I can imagine the conversation going something like this:

AUS: Any chance of getting an exemption to allow Sweden to sell us Viggens?
US: Ohhhhhhh, sorry. No can do. Despite the fact that there are already dozens of JT8D engines in Australia on Qantas 707s, but we really can't risk it. By the way, have you seen our new stock of fighters we have for sale?

Pretty much.

Interesting enough in my reading about the RAAF Mirage the team in France recommended the Atar over the Avon, but when they told people in Australia they got a LOT of pushback. RR was applying pressure at every level in Australia to get the Avon selected. This happens in defence procurement, well run projects take account of this and even use it to their advantage.

 

[Blue cat]

Not likely. The whole point of restricting exports from foreign countries using American tech was too force those countries to buy American. I can imagine the conversation going something like this:

AUS: Any chance of getting an exemption to allow Sweden to sell us Viggens?
US: Ohhhhhhh, sorry. No can do. Despite the fact that there are already dozens of JT8D engines in Australia on Qantas 707s, but we really can't risk it. By the way, have you seen our new stock of fighters we have for sale?

In that case..

Why not just call it what it is (ie. We want you to buy American..)

 

[Riain]

In that case..

Why not just call it what it is (ie. We want you to buy American..)

Gasp! Are you implying that a country isn't 100% nice all the time? I'm shocked, shocked and appalled at the suggestion!

 

[Blue cat]

The US allowed Sweden to use the afterburner JT8D, not everyone else. Similarly we were trusted to use the F111 but couldn't sell them without permission, that's a condition of sale for US kit.

I'd be curious to know the whole story here... I seem to recall the Canadians for example got US permission to sell certain US radar technology to Belgium along with their CF100 aircraft.

I suspect there are other examples of the U.S. allowing technology transfers by third parties when the recipient is a close U.S. Ally. I would have thought western democracies that were fighting along side the U.S. in Vietnam would have gotten some extra consideration.

On the other hand perhaps the situation is different when both the third party supplier and the recipient are formal US allies ?

I'd also be curious in knowing what prompted the Australians to evaluate the Viggen. (Ie I wonder if the Australians knew they would be unable to purchase the air craft prior to commencing their evaluation ?)

 

[Blue cat]

Gasp! Are you implying that a country isn't 100% nice all the time? I'm shocked, shocked and appalled at the suggestion!

Well I would have thought having the Australians buy a product with some U.S. technology might have been preferable to them buying a product with no U.S. Technology.

 

[SsgtC]

Well I would have thought having the Australians buy a product with some U.S. technology might have been preferable to them buying a product with no U.S. Technology.

Of course. But why settle for a hamburger when you can have the whole cow?

I'd be curious to know the whole story here... I seem to recall the Canadians for example got US permission to sell certain US radar technology to Belgium along with their CF100 aircraft.

I suspect there are other examples of the U.S. allowing technology transfers by third parties when the recipient is a close U.S. Ally. I would have thought western democracies that were fighting along side the U.S. in Vietnam would have gotten some extra consideration.

On the other hand perhaps the situation is different when both the third party supplier and the recipient are formal US allies ?

I'd also be curious in knowing what prompted the Australians to evaluate the Viggen. (Ie I wonder if the Australians knew they would be unable to purchase the air craft prior to commencing their evaluation ?)

A lot of the time when this happens, it's usually because the country the equipment is being sold to already operates the hardware. Or the equipment is about to hilariously outclassed by whatever the US is about to release

 

[Riain]

I'd be curious to know the whole story here... I seem to recall the Canadians for example got US permission to sell certain US radar technology to Belgium along with their CF100 aircraft.

I suspect there are other examples of the U.S. allowing technology transfers by third parties when the recipient is a close U.S. Ally. I would have thought western democracies that were fighting along side the U.S. in Vietnam would have gotten some extra consideration.

On the other hand perhaps the situation is different when both the third party supplier and the recipient are formal US allies ?

I'd also be curious in knowing what prompted the Australians to evaluate the Viggen. (Ie I wonder if the Australians knew they would be unable to purchase the air craft prior to commencing their evaluation ?)

I don't know much about the RAAF evaluating the Viggen, other than the RAAF was looking to replace the Mirage in the mid 70s but this was deferred by the government. A decade later the Viggen wasn't considered against the Hornet etc. The Viggen was up against the F16 for about 400 planes for Norway Denmark, Belgium and Holland, a big stakes order. It was also proposed for India but the US rejected the export applications for US tech.

As for us, it is a condition of sale that the US approve any change of end use, whether that be on sale, scrapping or parking at an air base gate. In the particular case of the F111 because of the commonality of the tf30 engine with Irans tomcats the engines main shaft had to be bent in a hydraulic press, blowtorched AND cut with a grinder. This was typical of the destruction requirement.

 

[Rickshaw]

The Swedes embargoed Carl Gustav anti tank weapons because of Vietnam .

Actually, the problem was the ammunition. The Swedes didn't like us adventuring in Phuc Tuy Province in South Vietnam, so placed an embargo on the newly purchased L35a1 Carl Gustav RCL's ammunition which Australia that stage did not produce for itself. It was replaced largely with more useful Tracker Dogs and the US 90mm RCL.

 

[Riain]

I'm starting to think the J79 RAAF might be better than OTL. Most certainly not because the F104G is better than the Mirage III and the RA5C is better than the F111C, they most certainly are not. It's their in-service dates of 1959 and 1966 that make them better for the RAAF, given we faced the Confrontation without an in-service supersonic fighter and Vietnam without an in-service supersonic (as a key marker) strike aircraft. While I doubt the RAAF Vigilante would have much impact on Vietnam I'd guess a squadron or two of F104s might have an impact on the continuous cries Australia faced with Indonesia since 1962, long before the Mirage reached squadron and wing service.

The lateness of the Mirage decision can be shown by the fact that when the first Mirage sqn deployed to Butterworth Indonesia allowed it to land and refuel in Indonesia!

 

[Blue cat]

I'm starting to think the J79 RAAF might be better than OTL. Most certainly not because the F104G is better than the Mirage III and the RA5C is better than the F111C, they most certainly are not. It's their in-service dates of 1959 and 1966 that make them better for the RAAF, given we faced the Confrontation without an in-service supersonic fighter and Vietnam without an in-service supersonic (as a key marker) strike aircraft. While I doubt the RAAF Vigilante would have much impact on Vietnam I'd guess a squadron or two of F104s might have an impact on the continuous cries Australia faced with Indonesia since 1962, long before the Mirage reached squadron and wing service.

The lateness of the Mirage decision can be shown by the fact that when the first Mirage sqn deployed to Butterworth Indonesia allowed it to land and refuel in Indonesia!

I'm just curious what did Australia have in the way of radar sites in this time frame (ie. Did they have anything along the lines of the types of systems the UK, Canada, the U.S. etc.. had in this time period ?)

Sometimes I think these details are a bit over looked at times.

 

[Riain]

I'm just curious what did Australia have in the way of radar sites in this time frame (ie. Did they have anything along the lines of the types of systems the UK, Canada, the U.S. etc.. had in this time period ?)

Sometimes I think these details are a bit over looked at times.

Nothing as comprehensive , but a continent wide system isn't really a requirement. During the 60s and 70s the RAAF had 3 fixed fighter control radar units, 1 in Darwin, plus a mobile unit in Butterworth.

The RAAF also had 30sqn with Bloodhound SAMs, including a detachment in Darwin.

 

[Blue cat]

Nothing as comprehensive , but a continent wide system isn't really a requirement. During the 60s and 70s the RAAF had 3 fixed fighter control radar units, 1 in Darwin, plus a mobile unit in Butterworth.

The RAAF also had 30sqn with Bloodhound SAMs, including a detachment in Darwin.

Interesting thanks.

 

[Rickshaw]

In 1965, the RAAF spent 14 million dollars on two Marconi "Mobile radar" systems. What type I have no idea. We had radar around the airbases but that was about it. We had civilian radar around the capitals and some of the regional cities. We did not have a DEW line or anything resembling that.

What we required was AEW. We finally got it in WEDGETAIL, a modified 737. In the 1960s, we could have had EC-121s based on ex QANTAS Constellations. However, they would have been expensive to purchase and expensive to run.