Alternative RAAF fleets.

[Rule of cool]

A comment in another thread abut how Australia should have transferred RAN A4s to the RAAF instead of selling them to New Zealand reminded me of a bunch of other Australian decisions.

• Meteor for Korean War service when we were building Nene-Vampires.
• Authorising 30 F104s in early 57, cancelling it to buy 40 Avon-Sabres.
• Mirage III vs F104G in 1960-61 is pretty straight forward.
• RA5C for 1966 vs F111C for 1969.
• Buy or return leased F4Es in 1973.
• Replace Mirages in 70s or keep until the 80s.
• Keep RAN A4s in 1981 or sell to NZ.
• F/A18A Hornet selection in 1981 is pretty straight forward.

Each has a story behind it and impacts other decisions in turn.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

To that I add.

• Goblin-Vampires or Venoms vs Nene-Vampires.
• Sabres with J47s or Orendas vs Avon-Sabres.
• Avon-Mirage III vs Atar-Mirage III.

That's because of what Bill Gunston wrote in "Plane Speaking: A Personal View of Aviation History".

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Goblin-Vampires or Venoms vs Nene-Vampires

According to him the first 5,000lbst Nene powered Vampire (TG276) that first flew on 06.03.46 was fractionally slower than the Vampire F.3 with a 3,000lbst Goblin. The next prototype (TG280) which first flew on 04.07.46 with "elephant ear" inlets could do 565mph instead of 548mph but it and the next prototype (TX807) were still unsatisfactory.

Finally, in November 1949 Boulton Paul was given a contract to design new wing-root air inlets that increased the total airflow from 31lb/s each side (total 62lb/s) to 40lb/s (80lb/s each side). This was too late to incorporate into the 189 DHA-built Vampires with Nene engines which had the "elephant ears". However, the first 67 Vampires built under-licence by Sud-Est had Goblins which allowed the next 183 (which had the Nene) to be built with the BP inlets, which increased the maximum speed at sea level from 548mph to 576mph and the initial climb from 4,800ft/min to 7,900ft/min.

Therefore, I think the alternatives are:

• Have Boulton Paul to design the new air intakes sooner;
• Built them with Goblin engines;
  • Or;
• Build them as Venoms with Ghost engines,

The latter won't work as the first flight of the Venom prototype was 02.09.49. Therefore, some of the 189 Nene-Vampires built by De Havilland Australia IOTL would be built as Goblin-Vampires ITTL before switching to Venoms with Ghost engines. However, that would create some synergy with the Vampires and Venoms operated by the RAF & RNZAF in FEAF.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Sabres with J47s or Orendas vs Avon-Sabres

According to Gunston the RAAF got an aircraft that was about as good as the F-86F, but 3 years late and costing about twice as much.

It looks like the RAAF should have had Commonwealth build the North American Sabre with GE J47 engines or the Canadair Sabre with Orenda engines.

Or (and you won't like this) as the CA-26 prototype didn't fly until 03.08.53 and the firs production CA-27 Sabre Mk 30 didn't fly until 13.07.54, production continued until 1961 and the aircraft was in service until 1971 - build the Hunter instead.

That's to keep the synergy in production and operation with the RAAF's Canberras (which also had CAC-built Avon engines) and the RAF Hunters that they'll be operating alongside in FEAF.

It looks like:

• 23 Hunter F.1s could be built instead of the CA-26 prototype & 22 Sabre Mk 30;
• 20 Hunter F.4s could be built instead of the 22 Sabre Mk 31s.
  • And.
• 69 Hunter F.6s could be built instead of the 69 Sabre Mk 32s.

Except, that last aircraft may be built to FGA.9/FR.10 standard and others may be rebuilt to this standard.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Avon-Mirage III vs Atar-Mirage III

This was the opposite of the Nene-Vampire and Avon-Sabre in that it was a good aircraft that nobody bought instead of an indifferent aircraft that somebody (the RAAF) did buy.

I'm not going into the details about why the RAAF didn't buy it, but the key seems to be an earlier first flight date. That is well ahead of 13.02.61 the OTL first flight date. Preferably it would be fitted to some of the 10 Mirage IIIA pre-production aircraft, with the objective of the exercise for the AdA to place an order for 100 Mirage IIICs with licence-built Avons instead of the Atar so that all the export customers buy the Mirage III/5s with Avon engines instead of Atars.

There are some precedents for France building the Avon under licence. Hispano-Suiza built Nene & Tay under licence and Dassault had a licence on the Viper.

I wanted the Etendard IV and Super Mystere to have Avons too, but some of the prototypes did have Avon engines IOTL and their performance was worse than the prototypes with Atar engines. ITTL the 100 Mirage IIIOs built by GAF may have had Avons built by Commonwealth but the trainers (which would still be built by Dassault) would have French-built Avons.

Correction dated 17.02.25.

I though that the 100 Mirage IIIOs had SNECMA-built Atar engines and that the 16 Mirage IIIDs were built in France when I wrote the above.

However (due to this thread) I've learned that the Mirage 16 IIIDs were built by Commonwealth and that nearly all of the 116 Mirage IIID/Os had Atar engines built by Commonwealth.

 

[Pioneer]

Good on ya Role for cool for starting this thread.

Personally, I'd go further than the notion of transferring RAN A4s to the RAAF. In fact I would have opted for the RAAF purchasing Douglas A-4E Skyhawk's from the getgo in place of their purchase of Dassault Mirage IIIO(A)'s.
Naturally, I would still have the RAAF's premiere fighter-interceptor being the Mirage IIIO(F), but powered by the Rolls-Royce afterburning Avon 67 turbojet, in place of the Atar 9C engine.

More to follow....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[BlackBat242]

Goblin-Vampires or Venoms vs Nene-Vampires

According to him the first 5,000lbst Nene powered Vampire (TG276) that first flew on 06.03.46 was fractionally slower than the Vampire F.3 with a 3,000lbst Gnome. The next prototype (TG280) which first flew on 04.07.46 with "elephant ear" inlets could do 565mph instead of 548mph but it and the next prototype (TX807) were still unsatisfactory.

Finally, in November 1949 Boulton Paul was given to new wing-root air inlets that increased the total airflow from 31lb/s each side (total 62lb/s) to 40lb/s (80lb/s each side). This was too late to incorporate into the 189 DHA-built Vampires with Nene engines which had the "elephant ears". However, the first 67 Vampires built under-licence by Sud-Est had Goblins which allowed the next 183 (which had the Nene) to be built with the BP inlets, which increased the maximum speed at sea level from 548mph to 576mph and the initial climb from 4,800ft/min to 7,900ft/min.

Therefore, I think the alternatives are:

• Have Boulton Paul to design the new air intakes sooner;
• Built them with Goblin engines;
  • Or;
• Build them as Venoms with Ghost engines,

The latter won't work as the first flight of the Venom prototype was 02.09.49. Therefore, some of the 189 Nene-Vampires built by De Havilland Australia IOTL would be built as Goblin-Vampires ITTL before switching to Venoms with Goblin engines. However, that would create some synergy with the Vampires and Venoms operated by the RAF & RNZAF in FEAF.

Note the engine names in italics... you put Goblin in one place where it should have been Ghost, and the Gnome is a late-1950s turboshaft that went in the Sea King.

Venoms (and Vampire FB.1) had Ghosts (4,400 lb.s.t. to 5,300 lb.s.t) - Goblins only produced 2,700 lb.s.t to 3,350 lb.s.t..

Nenes produced from 4,600 lb.s.t.* to 5,400 lb.s.t..


* This was the version in the Vampire F.2.

 

[BlackBat242]

Sabres with J47s or Orendas vs Avon-Sabres

According to Gunston the RAAF got an aircraft that was about as good as the F-86F, but 3 years late and costing about twice as much.

It looks like the RAAF should have had Commonwealth build the North American Sabre with GE J47 engines or the Canadair Sabre with Orenda engines.

Or (and you won't like this) as the CA-26 prototype didn't fly until 03.08.53 and the firs production CA-27 Sabre Mk 30 didn't fly until 13.07.54, production continued until 1961 and the aircraft was in service until 1971 - build the Hunter instead.

That's to keep the synergy in production and operation with the RAAF's Canberras (which also had CAC-built Avon engines) and the RAF Hunters that they'll be operating alongside in FEAF.

It looks like:

• 23 Hunter F.1s could be built instead of the CA-26 prototype & 22 Sabre Mk 30;
• 20 Hunter F.4s could be built instead of the 22 Sabre Mk 31s.
  • And.
• 69 Hunter F.6s could be built instead of the 69 Sabre Mk 32s.

Except, that last aircraft may be built to FGA.9/FR.10 standard and others may be rebuilt to this standard.

Personally, the F-86Hs (with the 8,920 lb.s.t. J73) would have been a good choice for the RAAF (4x20mm cannons on this version).

Or go "joint" and just buy the FJ-4 Fury for both the RAAF and RAN - it had J65 (BS Sapphire) engines that were a match in performance for the 100-series Avons of the CA.27 (and RAAF Canberras) - (7,700 lb.s.t. vs 7,500 lb.s.t. for the Avon) - and Wright had, by 1959, developed a 8,300 lb.s.t. J65 (a possibility for an upgrade program in 1960). There was a 8,000 lb.s.t. Avon 100 developed in the late 1950s as well.

The Avon , J65, & J73 required 120 lb/sec intake air-mass flow, and the J47 only needed 103 lb/sec.


I suspect the RAAF would insist on Avons for commonality with the Canberra, and it would be likely easier to modify the FJ-4 for Avons than it had been to do the CA-27 - since the intakes & exhaust were already sized for the J65's needs, which were the same as the Avon's. Just the engine bay and mounts, and engine connections (all of which were in the aft fuselage) would need altering - not the whole fuselage like in the CA-27.

The FJ-4's wings, tail surfaces, etc were all designed for transsonic flight, and it easily broke Mach 1 in a shallow dive (or level if "clean") - when fitted with an auxiliary rocket motor the two FJ-4Fs (which were otherwise unmodified in fuselage*, wing, or tail surfaces) hit Mach 1.41!

The Fury would likely have been easy to fit with an air-intercept radar (like that in the F-86K, which was designed for export, and was designed for 2x20mm cannon, which was the FJ-4's armament), and this would provide an improved capability for air-air combat for both the RAAF and the RAN (the FJ-4 could operate from ant carrier that the A-4C could).


* They were sometimes fitted with a small instrument package that fit in the upper intake lip, and this may have helped - see the FJ-4F thread. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rocket-boosted-fj-4-fury.7852/post-754305

 

[Rule of cool]

Everybody loves the Avon Mirage, but trials showed that it did not come with any significant performance benefit over the Atar 9C, was more expensive, heavier and didn't fit the Mirage as well the Atar which the Mirage was designed around. What's more the cost was initially calculated incorrectly as British pounds with 20 shillings instead of Australian pound with 16 shillings, wen this was corrected the Avon 'became' 20% more expensive.

What the RAAF was interested in was the Atar 9K(-10) which was to be fitted to the Mirage IV bomber, which had the performance offered by the Avon without the risk. However this engine wasn't available in time for the RAAF decision so Mirage IIIO were fitted with Atar 9C.

Rolls Royce Australia lobbied the Government, which was felt by the RAAF assessment team in France, but to no avail.

 

[Rule of cool]

In general Australian defence procurement was agonisingly slow, much to the detriment of the services. As has been mentioned the Avon Sabre was good but years too late, as was the Vampire. The RAAF could have had F104s by 1960 but that was knocked on the head in favour of more Avon Sabres, with the blessing of the US I might add. The RAAF started trialing Mirage replacements in 1971 but the Hornet didn't enter service until 1985 and the Mirage didn't leave until 1988. The Army bought a batch of 61 Centurion tanks in the early 50s, another batch of 50 in the late 50s and then seemed to collapse with the effort of it all.

 

[Rule of cool]

Good on ya Role for cool for starting this thread.

Personally, I'd go further than the notion of transferring RAN A4s to the RAAF. In fact I would have opted for the RAAF purchasing Douglas A-4E Skyhawk's from the getgo in place of their purchase of Dassault Mirage IIIO(A)'s.
Naturally, I would still have the RAAF's premiere fighter-interceptor being the Mirage IIIO(F), but powered by the Rolls-Royce afterburning Avon 67 turbojet, in place of the Atar 9C engine.

More to follow....

Regards
Pioneer

The problem is that it introduces another fleet of aircraft, with all the overheads that implies which drives up cost and stretches thin RAAF resources even thinner. And for what, carrying a couple more bombs a few miles more with greater vulnerability. The RAAF already had a bomb truck; the 3 sqns of Canberra B2 and if a tactical attack capability was really needed the Mirage IIIs could be developed to meet this need. One suggestion was fitting a MER on the centreline pylon for 6 x 500lb bombs, instead of the feeble 4 x 500lb it carried scabbed to the sides of the supersonic drop tanks.

 

[H_K]

Everybody loves the Avon Mirage, but trials showed that it did not come with any significant performance benefit over the Atar 9C, was more expensive, heavier and didn't fit the Mirage as well the Atar which the Mirage was designed around. What's more the cost was initially calculated incorrectly as British pounds with 20 shillings instead of Australian pound with 16 shillings, wen this was corrected the Avon 'became' 20% more expensive.

Also the Avon Mirage wasn’t better than the standard Atar in the climb or for its primary interceptor mission (as the weight gain and extra fuel consumption negated the extra thrust).

So you’re looking at extra expense mainly for the benefit of extra range in the secondary air to ground mission (from the Avon’s lower specific fuel consumption), and shorter take off runs.

Honestly there was no better all round fighter/interceptor with good tactical capabilities available in that timeframe. The Mirage III’s price was right, it was easy to maintain, and it could do pretty much anything other types could do.

Shame the Australians didn’t invest in modernizing their Mirages, like the Israelis/Swiss did (canards, air refueling probes etc). Also they could have upgraded to better air to air missiles in the mid/late 70s (Aim-9L and possibly Super 530F missiles as on Mirage F1s, or an upgrade to F-104S equivalent standard with a new radar and Aspide or Sky Flash).

 

[Pioneer]

The problem is that it introduces another fleet of aircraft, with all the overheads that implies which drives up cost and stretches thin RAAF resources even thinner. And for what, carrying a couple more bombs a few miles more with greater vulnerability. The RAAF already had a bomb truck; the 3 sqns of Canberra B2 and if a tactical attack capability was really needed the Mirage IIIs could be developed to meet this need. One suggestion was fitting a MER on the centreline pylon for 6 x 500lb bombs, instead of the feeble 4 x 500lb it carried scabbed to the sides of the supersonic drop tanks.

Thanks Rule for cool, I see where you are coming from, but the reality is, the supersonic aspect/hype of the Mirage IIIO(A) is cooked as soon as you start hanging bombs on her.
That 'carrying a couple more bombs a few miles more' or offering a greater loiter time/time on station is an important thing in a big place like Australia/South Pacific.
Your analogy of 'The RAAF already had a bomb truck; the 3 sqns of Canberra B2 and if a tactical attack capability was really needed the Mirage IIIs could be developed to meet this need.' is precisely where Im coming from - the Canberra B2 (replaced by the A-5B Vigilante in my opinion) is the long-range strike component of the ADF, while the Skyhawk being the tactical ground attack/Battlfield Interdiction component.

'The problem is that it introduces another fleet of aircraft, with all the overheads that implies which drives up cost and stretches thin RAAF resources even thinner.'
Im thinking the opposite, as the cost of purchasing Skyhawk vs Mirage IIIO(A) would be cheaper. Add importantly the operating cost over the operational life of either aircraft would undoubtedly favour the Skyhawk.
The fact that both the RAN and RAAF purchasing and operating the Skyhawk would also give commonality. I'd also push for an integrated training system between RAN and RAAF, when it came to the Skyhawk.


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Also the Avon Mirage wasn’t better than the standard Atar in the climb or for its primary interceptor mission (as the weight gain and extra fuel consumption negated the extra thrust).

So you’re looking at extra expense mainly for the benefit of extra range in the secondary air to ground mission (from the Avon’s lower specific fuel consumption), and shorter take off runs.

Apparently the idea was the Avon would be able to ferry to Singapore far more easily than the Atar, I believe using Christmas Island. The original plan to get Mirages to Butterworth in 1968 involved a long island hopping route up through the South West Pacific islands to the Philippines.

Honestly there was no better all round fighter/interceptor with good tactical capabilities available in that timeframe. The Mirage III’s price was right, it was easy to maintain, and it could do pretty much anything other types could do.

Shame the Australians didn’t invest in modernizing their Mirages, like the Israelis/Swiss did (canards, air refueling probes etc). Also they could have upgraded to better air to air missiles in the mid/late 70s (Aim-9L and possibly Super 530F missiles as on Mirage F1s, or an upgrade to F-104S equivalent standard with a new radar and Aspide or Sky Flash).

Apparently the IFR thing was because RAAF Mirages lacked single-point, pressure refueling and used multi-point, gravity refueling because so many airstrips in our region lacked the facilities for pressurised refueling and used everything from dedicated fuel trucks to hand pumping from 44 gallon drums on the back of land Rovers. Apparently IFR was eaily integrated into the single-point refueling but isn't compatible with gravity refueling.

The RAAF was also very careful not to jeopardise the Mirages replacement by having too good capability. It was the reason why the leased F4Es were sent back, and I suspect it was why the Mirages only got a limited update and the RAN A4s were sold.

 

[Pioneer]

I've read that the RAAF's Atar vs Avon engine studies/calculations were flawed in that they were done on the basis of a European enviroment and not the true perspective/reality of the hot and humid conditions of Australia. This was only made clear (and too late) when the Atar-powered Mirage III's where deployed in Northern Australia and Malaysia, where the Atar's performance were greatly effected. Something the greater thrust of the Avon could of somewhat offset.
I've always found it stupid that the Australian government/RAAF never utilised the Dassault Avon-powered prototype in actual Australian conditions - after all, the prototype was available and Dassault appeared keen to promote and develop the Avon-powered Mirage III derivative.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Thanks Rule for cool, I see where you are coming from, but the reality is, the supersonic aspect/hype of the Mirage IIIO(A) is cooked as soon as you start hanging bombs on her.
That 'carrying a couple more bombs a few miles more' or offering a greater loiter time/time on station is an important thing in a big place like Australia/South Pacific.
Your analogy of 'The RAAF already had a bomb truck; the 3 sqns of Canberra B2 and if a tactical attack capability was really needed the Mirage IIIs could be developed to meet this need.' is precisely where Im coming from - the Canberra B2 (replaced by the A-5B Vigilante in my opinion) is the long-range strike component of the ADF, while the Skyhawk being the tactical ground attack/Battlfield Interdiction component.

'The problem is that it introduces another fleet of aircraft, with all the overheads that implies which drives up cost and stretches thin RAAF resources even thinner.'
Im thinking the opposite, as the cost of purchasing Skyhawk vs Mirage IIIO(A) would be cheaper. Add importantly the operating cost over tge operational life of either aircraft would undoubtedly favour the Skyhawk.
The fact that both the RAN and RAAF purchasing and operating the Skyhawk would also give commonality. I'd also push for an integrated training system between RAN and RAAF, when it came to the Skyhawk.


Regards
Pioneer

About half of the RAAFs combat fleet was based at Butterworth in Malaysia, 2 Sabre sqns and a Canberra sqn with another small Sabre sqn deployed to Thailand 1962-68. These units were fully integrated into the British Commonwealth command arrangements, alongside RAF Hunter FGAs, Javelins, Canberras and V Bombers on rotation. In that scenario the likes of the A4 isn't really needed, so the requirement to stand up another training and support stream to support a 3rd combat jet type becomes more important than perhaps cheaper operating costs.

 

[Siberia]

Everybody loves the Avon Mirage…

I like it, but in the main as a stepping stone to a developed RB.106 powered version.

 

[zen]

As an aside but relevant.
Which diameter of reheat chamber did the Avon powered Mirage IIIO have?

 

[H_K]

Which diameter of reheat chamber did the Avon powered Mirage IIIO have?

According to the “Mirage Story” the Avon Mirage had the “standard” 28.8 inch reheat chamber, not the 36 inch chamber which required further development to get a real step up in performance.

Without the bigger reheat, the Avon Mirage was not significantly superior to the Atar.

See my old post in the 'Avon engines' thread:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/avon-engines.8567/post-537394

https://fsb.raafansw.org.au/docPDF/the_raaf_mirage_story_opt_1.pdf

'Thus by early May, it was apparent that the expected advantages in take-off performance, rate of climb and range for the Mirage III with the Avon Mk67 engine were not a significant improvement over the Mirage IIIE, whereas overall performance at altitudes above 40,000ft was somewhat inferior, although the Avon version was able to achieve higher speeds without afterburner at altitudes below 45,000ft. On the other hand, the development potential of the Avon Mk67 engine was limited to the fitment of a larger tail pipe (36" diameter as opposed to 28.8" in the standard engine) and the expected benefits to thrust and fuel consumption were not comparable with those available from the Atar 9K. The Atar engine offered additional important benefits, being lighter and cheaper than the Avon and was perceived to have benefits due to ease of manufacture and servicing together with simplicity of operationassociated with design for military operation exclusively.

(…) When the Avon/Mirage trials were complete and the data studied by Darling and members of the staff, it was clear that the only advantage, and this was marginal, that the Avon enjoyed over the Atar was in dry power at low altitude. It was also thought that the Atar was a more rugged engine and therefore more suitable for fighter operations. At altitude, and with afterburner at any height, the Atar was superior and when this was considered against the background of the risks inherent in going non standard with the Mirage as developed by the French, the decision to recommended the fitment of the Atar in the Australian aircraft was made.

 

[Rule of cool]

Here's a story.

In 1967 Butterworth was being upgraded for the impending arrival of the Mirages, so 2 sqn Canberras had to go. However their home base of Amberley was about to undergo upgrades for the F111, so there was no room there for a 3td Canberra sqn.

The solution: send them to war in Vietnam!

 

[Scott Kenny]

A comment in another thread abut how Australia should have transferred RAN A4s to the RAAF instead of selling them to New Zealand reminded me of a bunch of other Australian decisions.

• Meteor for Korean War service when we were building Nene-Vampires.
• Authorising 30 F104s in early 57, cancelling it to buy 40 Avon-Sabres.
• Mirage III vs F104G in 1960-61 is pretty straight forward.
• RA5C for 1966 vs F111C for 1969.
• Buy or return leased F4Es in 1973.
• Replace Mirages in 70s or keep until the 80s.
• Keep RAN A4s in 1981 or sell to NZ.
• F/A18A Hornet selection in 1981 is pretty straight forward.

Each has a story behind it and impacts other decisions in turn.

Weren't the F-4s leased due to delays in F-111C arrival?

So buying A-5s would mean no Aussie Phantoms at all.

 

[Pioneer]

Weren't the F-4s leased due to delays in F-111C arrival?

So buying A-5s would mean no Aussie Phantoms at all.

Yes, you're correct, and as much as I'm a fan of the F-4, the reality is, the F-4E's leased by Australia due to delays in the F-111C, weren't sufficient strike platform in terms of range - especially with the Australian governments neglect of airborne refuelling aircraft to support them.
In truth, given the political rhetoric and narrative [over the top fear mongering of Chinese and Indonesian communism] in which the F-111 was acquired by the Australian government, the A-5B Vigilante would have done just fine.

Regards
Pooneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Weren't the F-4s leased due to delays in F-111C arrival?

So buying A-5s would mean no Aussie Phantoms at all.

The points aren't really linked, those 2 certainly aren't.

 

[Rule of cool]

Yes, you're correct, and as much as I'm a fan of the F-4, the reality is, the F-4E's leased by Australia due to delays in the F-111C, weren't sufficient strike platform in terms of range - especially with the Australian governments neglect of airborne refuelling aircraft to support them.
In truth, given the political rhetoric and narrative [over the top fear mongering of Chinese and Indonesian communism] in which the F-111 was acquired by the Australian government, the A-5B Vigilante would have done just fine.

Regards
Pooneer

The Hancock team evaluated the RA5C not the A5B, the difference being the humped back in the C compared to the B. No doubt if the A5 had been ordered the C would have been equipped with the Bs attack avionics suite and likely a few other RAAF only bits.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The points aren't really linked, those 2 certainly aren't.

Beg pardon?

If the Aussies bought A-5Cs instead of F-111Cs, Vigilantes could be delivered more or less immediately, in 1966-67. No waiting for avionics to get sorted out.

No delay in service entry, no leasing F-4s.

 

[Rule of cool]

Beg pardon?

If the Aussies bought A-5Cs instead of F-111Cs, Vigilantes could be delivered more or less immediately, in 1966-67. No waiting for avionics to get sorted out.

No delay in service entry, no leasing F-4s.

That's correct.

The point about the lease Phantoms is that after choosing the F111 and needing to lease them we faced a decision about buying them or returning them to the USAF.

Interestingly enough the RAAF crashed a Phantom and there was no mechanism to pay for it. However the USN had burnt one of our P3Bs prior to delivery, which there was also no mechanism for them to pay for. In the end we wrote off the P3B against the F4E and nobody had to pay for anything.

 

[Pioneer]

The Hancock team evaluated the RA5C not the A5B, the difference being the humped back in the C compared to the B. No doubt if the A5 had been ordered the C would have been equipped with the Bs attack avionics suite and likely a few other RAAF only bits.

Yes, you are correct regarding the RA-5C and not the A-5B.
In which case, even better, in terms of better range and hopefully they would have incorporated the more powerful General Electric J79-10 engines with afterburning thrust of 17,900 lbf (80 kN).

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

The point about the lease Phantoms is that after choosing the F111 and needing to lease them we faced a decision about buying them or returning them to the USAF.

Gotcha.

 

[Kanga]

Everybody loves the Avon Mirage, but trials showed that it did not come with any significant performance benefit over the Atar 9C, was more expensive, heavier and didn't fit the Mirage as well the Atar which the Mirage was designed around. What's more the cost was initially calculated incorrectly as British pounds with 20 shillings instead of Australian pound with 16 shillings, wen this was corrected the Avon 'became' 20% more expensive.

What the RAAF was interested in was the Atar 9K(-10) which was to be fitted to the Mirage IV bomber, which had the performance offered by the Avon without the risk. However this engine wasn't available in time for the RAAF decision so Mirage IIIO were fitted with Atar 9C.

Rolls Royce Australia lobbied the Government, which was felt by the RAAF assessment team in France, but to no avail.

Pardon? The Australian pound had twenty shillings just like the British pound. The dollar was based on 10 shillings (unlike the British when they went decimal). One shilling became 10 cents. Perhaps a conversion story has become garbled along the way.

 

[zen]

RR had a 33.8" diameter Chamber development for the prototype SAAB Draken providing 40% thrust increase.

 

[Arjen]

The Hancock team evaluated the RA5C not the A5B, the difference being the humped back in the C compared to the B. No doubt if the A5 had been ordered the C would have been equipped with the Bs attack avionics suite and likely a few other RAAF only bits.

The humped back came with the A3J-2/A-5B.
Text from North American Aircraft 1934-1999 Volume 2 by Kevin Thompson. Narkiewicz//Thompson 1999.

As the A3J-1s went into service, the engineers at Columbus made studies for a revised Vigilante. The availability of the more powerful J79-GE-8 engine along with other improvements, allowed a 60-percent increase in overloaded gross weight (80,000 pounds). Changes to the configuration of the wing included the introduction of "blowing" to the leading-edge droop-section, deleting the blown flaps and increasing flap chord and span. With the additional weight, the fuselage was deepened from the cockpit aft to increase the capacity pf the two center fuel tanks and allow for a new fuel tank to be fitted over the wing center section. These changes increased the capacity by 500 gallons.
Other changes included the addition of two more wing pylons, improvements in braking capacity and an increase in inlet-duct capture area to improve high-altitude performance. These revised NA-269 aircraft were designated A3J-2, and the last eighteen A3J-1s were also converted to this specification. The prototype A3J-2 first flew on April 29, 1962.
During 1962 the U.S. government standardized military aircraft designations by implementing a tri-service system that did away with the traditional U.S. Navy manufacturer's codes. With the new system, Vigilantes would all become A-5s. The A3J-1 was changed to A-5A, and the A3J-2 became the A-5B.

The A3J-3P became the RA-5C.
Production numbers from the same book:
- two YA3J-1 prototypes
- 33 A3J-1 (A-5A)
- 36 A3J-2 (A-5B) - including 18 rebuilt from earlier Vigilantes
- 6 YA-5C (conversions?)
- 79 new built RA-5C, 43 rebuilt from earlier Vigilantes

Image of A3J-2 prototype found here:

1280px-A3J-2_Vigilante_prototype_on_the_ground_c1960 | This Day in Aviation

Note absence of reconnaissance fairing under the aircraft's belly.
<edit> found better (?) production numbers

 

[Pioneer]

A comment in another thread abut how Australia should have transferred RAN A4s to the RAAF instead of selling them to New Zealand reminded me of a bunch of other Australian decisions.

• Meteor for Korean War service when we were building Nene-Vampires.
• Authorising 30 F104s in early 57, cancelling it to buy 40 Avon-Sabres.
• Mirage III vs F104G in 1960-61 is pretty straight forward.
• RA5C for 1966 vs F111C for 1969.
• Buy or return leased F4Es in 1973.
• Replace Mirages in 70s or keep until the 80s.
• Keep RAN A4s in 1981 or sell to NZ.
• F/A18A Hornet selection in 1981 is pretty straight forward.

Each has a story behind it and impacts other decisions in turn.

The Australian government, wanting to keep the Australian aviation manufacturing sector vibrant and up to date in modern aviation technology, takes up Dassault offer to licence-build the Mirage F1E in Australia in the 1970's to replace the RAAF's Avon Mirage IIIO(F). But, the Australian government and RAAF specify a Spey-powered Mirage F1E, so as to bring Australian aviation engine industry into the modern turbofan era.
At the same time the Australian government pursues the proposal by CAC/GAF to license-build a derivative of Douglas' proposed Spey-powered CA-4E Skyhawk for both the RAAF and RAN to replace their earlier Avon-powered Skyhawk's. The Spey-powered derivative of the Skyhawk offering superior performance, range and payload capabilities, while also incorporating the ability to employ modern precision guided weapons......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[H_K]

The Australian government, wanting to keep the Australian aviation manufacturing sector vibrant and up to date in modern aviation technology, takes up Dassault offer to licence-build the Mirage F1E in Australia in the 1970's to replace the RAAF's Avon Mirage IIIO(F). But, the Australian government and RAAF specify a Spey-powered Mirage F1E, so as to bring Australian aviation engine industry into the modern turbofan era.
At the same time the Australian government pursues the proposal by CAC/GAF to license-build a derivative of Douglas' proposed Spey-powered CA-4E Skyhawk for both the RAAF and RAN to replace their earlier Avon-powered Skyhawk's. The Spey-powered derivative of the Skyhawk offering superior performance, range and payload capabilities, while also incorporating the ability to employ modern precision guided weapons......

Love the idea of a Spey powered Mirage F1. If Australia helps pay for the engine integration, maybe the Aeronavale takes a bite and pays for navalisation (big wing, stronger undercarriage). Then you have a naval Mirage F1M instead of Jaguar M/Super Etendard/Crusader.

Then all you need is for Hermes to be sold to Australia prior to 1976 (when it was converted to an ASW carrier), replacing Melbourne, and Australia gets a medium carrier with supersonic jets into the 1980s/90s. (But no Spey powered Skyhawks - the RAN Hermes air wing would be a mix of A-4Gs and new build F1Ms, about 10-12 each depending on how many S-3 Trackers and Sea Kings would be embarked, for a total air group of 30-32 aircraft)

Naval Mirage F1M proposal (1971) from this thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mirage-f1-projects.116/

 

[Archibald]

The 1963 Hancock team also reviewed the Mirage IVA no ? besides the Vigilante. The Atar 9K was the penultimate stage of Atar / Atar 9 / Atar 9C evolution. Next step was the 9K-31 (early Mirage F1s, prototypes) and finally - beyond 1968 - the 9K-50. After what that engine was at the very end of its development rope. 1945-1970, a quarter of century since WWII and nazi turbojet template. First Atar was ran early 1948. Last French Atar combat jets were retired in 2014 (Mirage F1) and 2016 (Super Etendard).

Dassault did build Mirage Vs with a F1 pointy nose and IFR probe (the 50 series by 1979) but (AFAIK) they never got the Cyrano IV to fire Super 530F. That remained the F1 core business, Dassault probably did not wanted the Mirage 50 to make inroads into the F1 territory. Starting from Mirage V in 1967 the III legacy became a daylight bomb truck, not an interceptor - since the F1 was now in that place.

 

[Rule of cool]

Pardon? The Australian pound had twenty shillings just like the British pound. The dollar was based on 10 shillings (unlike the British when they went decimal). One shilling became 10 cents. Perhaps a conversion story has become garbled along the way.

The Australian pound was pegged to British pounds at 16 shillings, not 20. It was USD$2.24 when the British pound was USD$2.80.

 

[Atomic Coyote]

If you want something a bit more off the wall, the RAAF did evaluate the J35 as part of the selection process that led to the Mirage III being chosen; https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=199194
(start at page 74)

 

[Rule of cool]

Cold War Australia is a small and fundamentally secure country with very tight integration with other great powers, there is no need let alone desire for off the wall choices. Indeed, the difficulty the RAAF had with Australianised aircraft like the Avon Sabre or development projects like the F111 would steer us toward more vanilla solutions.

Here are some of the aircraft evaluated against various requirements or that were offered to Australia over the decades but not adopted.

 

[Rule of cool]

As many here know I strongly believe the RAF should have developed the Lightning into a fighter-bomber for the 1958 requirement that was covered on an interim basis by the Hunter conversions.

If the RAF had gone down that path I think the Lightning would have moved up the list that the Mirage IIIO eventually won. The Lightning used the Avon engine that the RAAF already used. Also the RAF would set up Lightning support infrastructure in Malaysia for its own fleet that the RAAF could utilise. Further Australia was in the Sterling Area, which may have made payment easier.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Cold War Australia is a small and fundamentally secure country with very tight integration with other great powers, there is no need let alone desire for off the wall choices. Indeed, the difficulty the RAAF had with Australianised aircraft like the Avon Sabre or development projects like the F111 would steer us toward more vanilla solutions.

Here are some of the aircraft evaluated against various requirements or that were offered to Australia over the decades but not adopted.

As many here know I strongly believe the RAF should have developed the Lightning into a fighter-bomber for the 1958 requirement that was covered on an interim basis by the Hunter conversions.

If the RAF had gone down that path I think the Lightning would have moved up the list that the Mirage IIIO eventually won. The Lightning used the Avon engine that the RAAF already used. Also the RAF would set up Lightning support infrastructure in Malaysia for its own fleet that the RAAF could utilise. Further Australia was in the Sterling Area, which may have made payment easier.

Ninja'd!

I saw that the Lightning was a competitor to the Mirage III when I followed the link to the ADF Serials website last night and intended to write a post first thing this morning, but you beat me to it. My intention was to express surprise that you hadn't suggested that the RAAF should have bought the Lightning fighter-bomber or standard Lightnings instead of the Mirage III.

A cursory look at the dates indicates that the RAAF could have placed an initial contract for 30 Lightning F.3s in October 1960 as the RAF ordered its first 47 Lightning F.3s in June 1960. The Lightnings built instead of the first 30 Mirage IIIO would have been built to F.3 standard, with the next 70 built to F.6 standard and the 16 trainers built instead of the Mirage IIID to T.5 standard. The surviving F.3s would have been converted to F.6s.

Even if the Lightning fighter-bomber hadn't been developed sooner, the last 50 Lightning fighters could have been built to F.53 standard and the survivors of the first 50 converted to that standard.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

• Mirage III vs F104G in 1960-61 is pretty straight forward.
• Buy or return leased F4Es in 1973.

Go the whole hog and order the Phantom in 1960 (instead of the Mirage III) to replace the Sabre and buy the leased F-4Es in 1973 as attrition replacements. I appreciate that the Phantom was more expensive.