Alternative RAAF fleets.

[Pioneer]

Yes, granted, like most air forces of the 60, the RAAF being no different, everyone was obsessed by the need and want of supersonic flight. But as I've alluded earlier in this thread, once you start hanging bombs, rockets and missiles on your supersonic fighter-bomber - like the Mirage IIIO(A), you lose that supersonic capability, to say range as well, with the drag. Hence why I have always advocated that it would have been better for the RAAF to have employed the likes of the Skyhawk, rather than the Mirage IIIO(A). The Skyhawk in its A-4E configuration was far cheaper to aquire, maintain and operate than the Mirage IIIO(A) and let's be realistic, in the ground attack and CAS mission, the A-4 was more accurate and afforded a much better time on station in support of ground troops.
The A-5C/RA-5C Vigilante would conduct the strike role in RAAF ORBAT.

It should also be appreciated that Australia brought two batches (well three, if you include the addition purchase of two-seat Mirage III's) - one the fighter-interceptor Mirage IIIO(F), the other the being the fighter-bomber Mirage IIIO(A).
So, one need not purchase the second batch, licence-building A-4 Skyhawk's instead. Especially when one considers by around 1969, the RAAF was already studying a replacement for it's Mirage IIIO's.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Yes it was a proper project NOMISYRRUC. It was originally marketed to both RCAF as thr CA-4E/F and if I remember correctly, it later become known and marketed as the International Skyhawk. Apart from the Spey engine, it incorporated a dorsal hump fuel tank, in place of the avionics dorsal hump - a conformal tank if you like.

I'll attempt to find more details for you, I know its on this forum.....

Regards
Pioneer

Here ya go NOMISYRRUC:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/spey-a-4-project.2144/#post-18208

Regards
Pioneer

 

[TsrJoe]

As far as i can tell from existing archive material, the RAAF. were NOT interested in pursuing the A-4 in any form, pursuing types such as A-5 Vigilante and later F-111 primarily for sea lane interdiction

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It should also be appreciated that Australia brought two batches (well three, if you include the addition purchase of two-seat Mirage III's) - one the fighter-interceptor Mirage IIIO(F), the other the being the fighter-bomber Mirage IIIO(A).
So, one need not purchase the second batch, licence-building A-4 Skyhawk's instead. Especially when one considers by around 1969, the RAAF was already studying a replacement for it's Mirage IIIO's.

AFAIK the RAAF has had 6 combat squadrons operating 2 or 3 types of aircraft since the early 1970s. E.g. in the 1970s it was 2 F-111C squadrons, 3 Mirage IIID/O squadrons (plus the OCU) and the surviving Canberra squadron.

Is having the same number of squadrons operating 3 or 4 types (i.e. the OTL types plus the Spey-Skyhawk) a good idea for a relatively small air force like the RAAF from the operational, logistical and economic points of view? Would those disadvantages more than outweigh the advantages of the Spey-Skyhawk?

 

[Rule of cool]

having the same number of squadrons operating 3 or 4 types (i.e. the OTL types plus the Spey-Skyhawk) a good idea for a relatively small air force like the RAAF from the operational, logistical and economic points of view? Would those disadvantages more than outweigh the advantages of the Spey-Skyhawk?

No and yes.

Having ~100 Mirages outweighs any advantage of getting a 2nd fleet, although the RAN might provide some small synergies.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

No and yes.

Having ~100 Mirages outweighs any advantage of getting a 2nd fleet, although the RAN might provide some small synergies.

I agree. Instead of 116 Mirages (3 squadrons plus an OCU) and the RAN's Skyhawks, there'd be about 60 Mirages and 60 Skyhawks (each 2 squadrons and a training flight) plus the RAN's Skyhawks. The extra squadron would be No. 76 Squadron which IOTL was disbanded in August 1973.

Would they synergies be larger (i.e. increased from small to moderate) if the RNZAF bought Spey-Skyhawks instead of the OTL version with the P&W J52?

 

[Rule of cool]

should also be appreciated that Australia brought two batches (well three, if you include the addition purchase of two-seat Mirage III's) - one the fighter-interceptor Mirage IIIO(F), the other the being the fighter-bomber Mirage IIIO(A).
So, one need not purchase the second batch, licence-building A-4 Skyhawk's instead. Especially when one considers by around 1969, the RAAF was already studying a replacement for it's Mirage IIIO's

The RAAF had a continuous build of Mirages. The initial 48 (the survivors anyway) were run back through the factory to recieve the Doppler radar altimeter of the 2nd 'batch' as soon as they were off the line. The entire fleet were to the one spec by 1969.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@Rule of cool, as you're not keen on the RAAF Mirage IIIs being built with the Avon engine, would you accept mid-life upgrade of the surviving aircraft in the 1970s that would include fitting the Atar 9K-50 engine? If the RAAF bought Mirage IVs instead of the F-111C these aircraft would have Atar 9K-50s fitted in the 1970s too. However, if they did that would require spending more money, which I think you don't want to do.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

My guess is that if the RAAF had bought the Mirage IV or Vigilante instead of the F-111C they would have been delivered sooner and cost less. What would have been done with the money saved? IOTL the 24 F-111Cs initially purchased replaced the 50 RAAF Canberras on a one-for-two basis. Therefore, ITTL would the money saved have been used to buy more Mirage IVs or Vigilantes?

 

[Rule of cool]

I agree. Instead of 116 Mirages (3 squadrons plus an OCU) and the RAN's Skyhawks, there'd be about 60 Mirages and 60 Skyhawks (each 2 squadrons and a training flight) plus the RAN's Skyhawks. The extra squadron would be No. 76 Squadron which IOTL was disbanded in August 1973.

Would they synergies be larger (i.e. increased from small to moderate) if the RNZAF bought Spey-Skyhawks instead of the OTL version with the P&W J52?

In the 60s RAAF had 3 Canberra 1, 2 & 6 sqns, when 1 & 6 sqns converted to Phantoms then F111s from 1970 2 sqn kept flying the Canberras until 1981.

The fighter force had 3, 75, 76 & 77 sqn and 2 OCU from the late 50s and 79sqn was stood up for service in Thailand 1962-68. The sqns operated in pairs, 2 at Butterworth Malaysia and 2 at Williamtown NSW, which is where 2 OCU was.

76 sqn was disbanded in 1973, 75 sqn moved from Butterworth to Darwin in 1983 and the RAAF fighters withdrew from Butterworth entirely by 1988.

 

[Rule of cool]

@Rule of cool, as you're not keen on the RAAF Mirage IIIs being built with the Avon engine, would you accept mid-life upgrade of the surviving aircraft in the 1970s that would include fitting the Atar 9K-50 engine? If the RAAF bought Mirage IVs instead of the F-111C these aircraft would have Atar 9K-50s fitted in the 1970s too. However, if they did that would require spending more money, which I think you don't want to do.

Actually this thread has given my opinion of the Avon Mirage a bit of a boost, despite it's non-standard spec which will doubtless be troublesome. I think it would provide a fatter performance envelope, which ultimately is more useable.

The RAAF was keen to replace the Mirage sooner rather than later and was loathe to spend too much money on it (or keep the Phantoms) lest that affect the replacement. Even when it became obvious that the Mirage would serve into the early 80s they didn't take up the option to arm them with Aim9Ls because that would have required strengthening of the wings, whereas the Matra Magic did not.

Bear in mind too that with the end of the Konfrontation and Vietnam war and normalization of relations with China Australia was fundamentally secure. We'd have to go looking for trouble to justify spending more money.

 

[Rule of cool]

My guess is that if the RAAF had bought the Mirage IV or Vigilante instead of the F-111C they would have been delivered sooner and cost less. What would have been done with the money saved? IOTL the 24 F-111Cs initially purchased replaced the 50 RAAF Canberras on a one-for-two basis. Therefore, ITTL would the money saved have been used to buy more Mirage IVs or Vigilantes?

The Hancock report recommended 36 RA5Cs for 2 sqns, presumably the Canberras would be retained for secondary duties for a while after their replacements were in service.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Hancock report recommended 36 RA5Cs for 2 sqns, presumably the Canberras would be retained for secondary duties for a while after their replacements were in service.

I can see where you're coming from given that the 24 F-111C equipped 2 of the 3 Canberra squadrons.

My first guess is that the RAAF would have increased the Unit Equipment of the of Nos. 1 & 6 Squadrons if 36 RA-5Cs had been bought in their place instead of having No. 2 Squadron convert from Canberras to the RA-5C too.

However, my second guess is that 36 RA-5Cs would still cost less than 24 F-111Cs. Therefore, it's possible that the money saved/not spent would be used to buy a second batch of RA-5Cs by 1973. They would be new or second-hand aircraft, depending upon when production of the Vigilante had ended. The second batch would allow No. 2 Squadron to convert to Vigilantes, form a training flight/OCU (if there wasn't one already) and replace attrition.

However, will the Vigilantes remain in service with the RAAF as long as the F-111C? Maybe it busy about 50 second-hand F-111s ITTL when they bought the 15 second-hand F-111Gs IOTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 91.

Actually this thread has given my opinion of the Avon Mirage a bit of a boost, despite it's non-standard spec which will doubtless be troublesome. I think it would provide a fatter performance envelope, which ultimately is more useable.

If it helps my original idea was for half of the 10 Mirage IIIA pre-production aircraft be completed with Avons and for the 100 Mirage IIICs* ordered to have Avons built by Hispano-Suiza which built the Nene and Tay under licence. Therefore, the Mirage IIIO wouldn't have had a non-standard due to the other 1,300-odd production Mirage III/5/50 built ITTL having the Avon engine too. See Message 5.

*95 were built as such and the other 5 may have been completed the 3 Mirage IIIE and 2 Mirage IIIR prototypes.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 91. Again.

Actually this thread has given my opinion of the Avon Mirage a bit of a boost, despite it's non-standard spec which will doubtless be troublesome. I think it would provide a fatter performance envelope, which ultimately is more useable.

P.S.

I thought that non-standardisation with the other 1,300-odd Mirage III/5/50s might have been offset a bit-to-somewhat by synergy with the RAAF's Avon powered Canberras & Sabres and with the RAF & RNZAF aircraft that had Avon engines in FEAF. I know that the latter was only until the early 1970s but the RAAF wasn't to know that when the first batch of Mirage IIIOs was ordered.

Before this thread I thought that the Atar engines on the 100 Mirage IIIOs were built by SNECMA and the 16 Mirage IIIDs were built by Dassault. Now I know that the 16 Mirage IIIDs were built by Commonwealth and that the Atar engines for nearly all of the 116 Mirage IIID/Os were built by Commonwealth.

I though that the 100 Mirage IIIOs had SNECMA-built Atar engines and that the 16 Mirage IIIDs were built in France. However, due to this thread I've learned that the Mirage IIIDs were built by Commonwealth and that nearly all of the 116 Mirage IIID/Os had Atar engines built by Commonwealth.

This makes me think that the Commonwealth-built Atar engines may have been more expensive than the SNECMA built engines due to many fewer being built. If that's correct the difference in cost between the Atar-Mirage III and the Avon Mirage III would have been reduced.

Furthermore, it may have been possible to make the Avon engines for the Mirage IIIs on the production line that Commonwealth already had to build Avons for the RAAF's Canberras and Sabres. If that's correct that would have saved time and money ITTL as it avoided the cost of setting up a production line to build the Atar IOTL. That would have allowed a greater percentage of the 116 Mirage IIIs to have Australian-built engines in addition to reducing the cost difference between the Atar Mirage III and the Avon-Mirage III.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Message 90.

FWIW I knew already.

How many aircraft per squadron?

112 Sabres and 116 Mirage IIIs seems to be too many for 4 squadrons even after making allowances for second-line units like the OCU. Were they expecting high attrition rates?

In the 1950s RAF fighter squadrons usually* had a Unit Equipment (U.E.) of 16 aircraft and in the 1960s they usually* had a U.E. of 12 aircraft. On that basis 112 Sabres is a lot to support a U.E. of 64 aircraft and 116 Mirage IIIs is a lot to support a UE of 48 aircraft.

Similarly 50 Canberras seems a lot for 3 squadrons.

In the 1950s and 1960s RAF Canberra squadrons usually* had a UE of 8-12 aircraft. E.g. in December 1956 the RAF had 288 Canberras in 26.5 light bomber, night interdictor & PR squadrons with an average of 11 aircraft each and in March 1964 there were 150 Canberras in 16 light bomber, night interdictor & PR squadrons for an average of 9.5 per squadron. On that basis 50 Canberras is a lot to support UEs of 33 Canberras in the 1950s and 28.5 in the 1960s. Albeit it's not as bad in relation to the number of Mirage IIIs & Sabres purchased and the size of the front-line forces.

*There were exceptions

 

[Archibald]

RA-5C Vigilantes were retired from USN service circa 1980. No idea how worn out they were. https://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa5_4.html
Please note that

During the Vietnam War, the Navy found that it was running short of RA-5Cs and requested that additional RA-5Cs be built, and the production line at North American-Columbus had to be reopened. 36 additional RA-5Cs were built.

So those Vigilantes could only be "fresh" went retired, say 1965-1980 or 1970-1980.

Also : the Australian climate - whatever its weird quircks - can only be better than an aircraft carrier deck rolling at sea.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 90.

. . . and 79 Sqn was stood up for service in Thailand 1962-68.

I cannot ignore that because it's awoken my inner Ed Reardon.

Squadrons belonging to the air forces of the (British) Commonwealth of Nations aren't "stood up". They were "raised" from the pre-World War One Era until some time between the World Wars when the word "raised" was replaced by "formed" or "re-formed" (but not "reformed") depending upon whether the squadron concerned had a new or used "number plate".

In this case it should have been " . . . and 79 Sqn re-formed for service in Thailand 1962-68", because it originally formed in 1943 and disbanded in 1945.

As far as I know squadrons in the U.S. Armed Forces aren't "stood up" either. They're "activated".

And a point of grammar or syntax or both. Even if "stood up" is the correct term, it's still bad grammar or bad syntax or both.

• It's.
  • " . . . and 79 squadron stood up for service in Thailand 1962-68".
• Or.
  • " . . . and 79 squadron was standing up for service in Thailand 1962-68".
• Not.
  • " . . . and 79 squadron was stood up for service in Thailand 1962-68".

For what it's worth I only know that "was stood up" is bad grammar, bad syntax or both because the teacher corrected me when I did an "Improve Your English" course at work about 15 years ago.

 

[Rule of cool]

Whatever the grammar, 8 aircraft and crews were taken from 77 sqn at Butterworth Malaysia to give the RAAF 5 fighter sqns for 6 years in the 60s. Presumably 77 sqn was bought back up to full strength later.

 

[Pioneer]

The RA-5C proved so useful in Vietnam that the Navy ordered 46 more RA-5Cs in 1968. Only 36 were actually completed, however, the last rolling off the production line in August 1970.

Source: https://airvectors.net/ava5.html

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

RA-5C Vigilantes were retired from USN service circa 1980. No idea how worn out they were. https://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa5_4.html
Please note that

So those Vigilantes could only be "fresh" went retired, say 1965-1980 or 1970-1980.

Also : the Australian climate - whatever its weird quircks - can only be better than an aircraft carrier deck rolling at sea.

The small number of Vigilantes in USN service were flogged pretty hard in VietNam, presumably using up a lot of their fatigue life in combat. The RAAF wouldn't use them as hard, so they'd get more years from the fixed amount of fatigue life.

With the F111 the RAAF di some big buys in the 90s; engines from F111Ds to re-engine the F111Cs, 15 FB111s, Pave Tacks from F111Fs and a big 'end of life' spare parts buy. I'd suggest they'd do the same for the Vigilante and keep it flying for years after the USN etired it.

 

[Rule of cool]

FWIW I knew already.

How many aircraft per squadron?

112 Sabres and 116 Mirage IIIs seems to be too many for 4 squadrons even after making allowances for second-line units like the OCU. Were they expecting high attrition rates?

In the 1950s RAF fighter squadrons usually* had a Unit Equipment (U.E.) of 16 aircraft and in the 1960s they usually* had a U.E. of 12 aircraft. On that basis 112 Sabres is a lot to support a U.E. of 64 aircraft and 116 Mirage IIIs is a lot to support a UE of 48 aircraft.

Similarly 50 Canberras seems a lot for 3 squadrons.

In the 1950s and 1960s RAF Canberra squadrons usually* had a UE of 8-12 aircraft. E.g. in December 1956 the RAF had 288 Canberras in 26.5 light bomber, night interdictor & PR squadrons with an average of 11 aircraft each and in March 1964 there were 150 Canberras in 16 light bomber, night interdictor & PR squadrons for an average of 9.5 per squadron. On that basis 50 Canberras is a lot to support UEs of 33 Canberras in the 1950s and 28.5 in the 1960s. Albeit it's not as bad in relation to the number of Mirage IIIs & Sabres purchased and the size of the front-line forces.

*There were exceptions

Firstly, the RAAF crashed some 47 Mirages but I think somewhat fewer Sabres, so attrition spares would have been part of the production run.

Secondly IIUC the Mirage had a design life of 1,500 hours, which is 6 years if flown an hour each weekday. Having a large fleet means being able to rotate aircraft out into long term maintenance, storage etc to stretch this. In the event several RAAF Mirages flew over 4,000 hours and most over 3,000.

In reality I think in a small air force like the RAAF squadron strengths differ wildly. IIUC 75 sqn Hornets based in Tindal in the 90s was the largest RAAF sqn, having many ore aircraft on strength than 3 and 77 sqn in Newcastle, and now 1 sqn has all 23 Super Hornets with 6 sqn having the 12 Growlers. I'd guess that back in the 60s a lot of Mirages were spares because of the difficulty in maintaining a wing in Butterworth, separated from Australia by a hostile Indonesia.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A bigger question is did the RAAF want any version of the A4 in the 60s?

RAAF is separate from RAN air service, right?

The Skyhawk has about a 450nmi combat radius...

How many aircraft per squadron?

112 Sabres and 116 Mirage IIIs seems to be too many for 4 squadrons even after making allowances for second-line units like the OCU. Were they expecting high attrition rates?

In the 1950s RAF fighter squadrons usually* had a Unit Equipment (U.E.) of 16 aircraft and in the 1960s they usually* had a U.E. of 12 aircraft. On that basis 112 Sabres is a lot to support a U.E. of 64 aircraft and 116 Mirage IIIs is a lot to support a UE of 48 aircraft.

Similarly 50 Canberras seems a lot for 3 squadrons.

In the 1950s and 1960s RAF Canberra squadrons usually* had a UE of 8-12 aircraft. E.g. in December 1956 the RAF had 288 Canberras in 26.5 light bomber, night interdictor & PR squadrons with an average of 11 aircraft each and in March 1964 there were 150 Canberras in 16 light bomber, night interdictor & PR squadrons for an average of 9.5 per squadron. On that basis 50 Canberras is a lot to support UEs of 33 Canberras in the 1950s and 28.5 in the 1960s. Albeit it's not as bad in relation to the number of Mirage IIIs & Sabres purchased and the size of the front-line forces.

*There were exceptions

You're forgetting attrition spares.

Assuming 16x aircraft per frontline squadron, 4x16=64. Call it 6-8 more in OCU, for 70-72 aircraft in active service. 42-46 in spares.

The small number of Vigilantes in USN service were flogged pretty hard in VietNam, presumably using up a lot of their fatigue life in combat. The RAAF wouldn't use them as hard, so they'd get more years from the fixed amount of fatigue life.

With the F111 the RAAF di some big buys in the 90s; engines from F111Ds to re-engine the F111Cs, 15 FB111s, Pave Tacks from F111Fs and a big 'end of life' spare parts buy. I'd suggest they'd do the same for the Vigilante and keep it flying for years after the USN etired it.

Agreed.

 

[Rule of cool]

RAAF is separate from RAN air service, right?

Yes, but when the RAAF was looking to buy their fighter the RAN had given up in fixed wing flying and bought 27 Wessex ASW helicopters. This befits the RANs SEATO/FESR role of providing an ASW carrier, Melbourne would lead an ASW Task Foce in the Sulu Sea. This started to change in 1963, 14 Trackers were ordered in 1964 and 8 & 2 Skyhawks were ordered in 1965 to give Melbourne 4 for self defence. It wasn't until after the British cut and run by 71 and Nixon's Guam Doctrine in the late 60s that the RAN ordered another 8 & 2 Skyhawks to make the Melbourne a multirole carrier, at the expense of 2 submarines.

Of course the decision to ditch fixed wing aviation was wrong, but all that would likely change is the RAN would get a small number of Skyhawks a few years earlier. This wouldn't be enough to move the RAAF decision I wouldn't think.

As for the range, the Forward Defence strategy didn't really need long range light attack aircraft.

 

[Pioneer]

The RA-5C proved so useful in Vietnam that the Navy ordered 46 more RA-5Cs in 1968. Only 36 were actually completed, however, the last rolling off the production line in August 1970.

Source: https://airvectors.net/ava5.html

If the RAAF order new-built A-5C/RA-5C's, then it would make sense to incorporate into this build, the them modern sensors and precision-guided weapons then being used in VietNam - there's no point in using them as dumb bomb trucks, as we would do for years with the F-111C's.

Where possible, eliminate carrier-centric gear and equipment.

Ensure that they featured the J79-GE-10 engines with 79.46 kN (8,100 kgp/17,860 lbf) afterburning thrust, as well as a leading-edge wing extension.

Consider adding low-pressue tyres......


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC the Vigilante was selected in late 1963 in order to have new bombers in service by 1966, so presumably they'd be built in 1965 or so.

There's not many guided weapons in 1966, maybe the Agm 12 and the AS30.

 

[Rule of cool]

In 1957 PM Menzie commissioned Lt Gen Leslie Morshead (Rtd) to conduct a review of the Defence group of departments: Depts of Supply, Defence Production, Defence (responsible for defence policy, financial, and administrative matters), Army, Navy and Air each having their own Minister. Morshead recommended merging Supply and Defence Production and Defence absorbing Army, Navy and Air for a total of 2 Ministers, Menzies accepted the former and rejected the latter. However, the Chiefs of Staff Committee was given a sperate Chairman appointment, but this didn't have command authority. C-CoSCs Scherger and Wilton pushed for more 'jointness' during the 60s and Morshead's recommendations were finally implemented by Tange under the Whitlam Government in 1973.

I wonder if Menzies had accepted Morshead's key recommendation and there was one Defence Minister from 1958 or so what impact that would have on Defence policy and procurements. With all 3 services having to report to single Cabinet level Minister they'd have to justify themselves better, which might result in some of the synergies that get suggested here.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the RAAF order new-built A-5C/RA-5C's, then it would make sense to incorporate into this [1968-1970] build, the them modern sensors and precision-guided weapons then being used in VietNam - there's no point in using them as dumb bomb trucks, as we would do for years with the F-111C's.

The Australian A-5Bs would have been delivered in 1966, not in the 1970s. Might be worthwhile doing a mid-life update in the mid-to-late 1970s, but there just weren't a whole lot of smart weapons in 1966.

Where possible, eliminate carrier-centric gear and equipment.

That would be exceedingly expensive. At best some tire changes to reduce ground pressure might be possible. Very likely a dual nosewheel option would be doable, I'm less positive about changing the mains. I doubt there's a whole lot of space in the MLG bays.

Ensure that they featured the J79-GE-10 engines with 79.46 kN (8,100 kgp/17,860 lbf) afterburning thrust, as well as a leading-edge wing extension.

Not sure that the -10 engines would be available in 1966, they may have to wait for the 1970s MLU.

Obviously, the RAAF would buy Pave Tack as soon as it was available, ~1982 or so. I'm assuming that it'd get installed into a canoe fairing on the belly like for the RA-5C's recon package.

======================
The major downside to the Vigilante is the low bombload for conventional use. My major recommendation for Oz-specific modifications would be upgrading the wing pylons to hold over 5000lbs each, instead of just 2000lbs. This change is to allow for carrying either 3x1000lb bombs on TERs or 6x500lb bombs on MERs.

 

[Archibald]

One major driver of Mirage III losses was the very high landing speed (almost 180 kt), which literally tortured the tyres. That's delta without fly-by-wire for you, Mirage 2000 corrected that: a 140 kt landing speed.

 

[Pioneer]

The Australian A-5Bs would have been delivered in 1966, not in the 1970s. Might be worthwhile doing a mid-life update in the mid-to-late 1970s, but there just weren't a whole lot of smart weapons in 1966.



That would be exceedingly expensive. At best some tire changes to reduce ground pressure might be possible. Very likely a dual nosewheel option would be doable, I'm less positive about changing the mains. I doubt there's a whole lot of space in the MLG bays.



Not sure that the -10 engines would be available in 1966, they may have to wait for the 1970s MLU.

Obviously, the RAAF would buy Pave Tack as soon as it was available, ~1982 or so. I'm assuming that it'd get installed into a canoe fairing on the belly like for the RA-5C's recon package.

======================
The major downside to the Vigilante is the low bombload for conventional use. My major recommendation for Oz-specific modifications would be upgrading the wing pylons to hold over 5000lbs each, instead of just 2000lbs. This change is to allow for carrying either 3x1000lb bombs on TERs or 6x500lb bombs on MERs.

Scott Kenny, all good and valid points, I grant you.
Interesting that you mention

The Australian A-5Bs would have been delivered in 1966, not in the 1970s.

as we spoke about this earlier in the thread, whether it was in fact the A-5B or A-5C which Australia/RAAF was considering?
Can I ask your source for your notion of it being the A-5B please?

Speaking of sources, can I ask for the reference of the following please?

The major downside to the Vigilante is the low bombload for conventional use. My major recommendation for Oz-specific modifications would be upgrading the wing pylons to hold over 5000lbs each, instead of just 2000lbs. This change is to allow for carrying either 3x1000lb bombs on TERs or 6x500lb bombs on MERs.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[TsrJoe]

A-5B actually A3J-2 (A-5C in later documentation) was the strike variant wanted by the RAAF. prior to TFX./F-111
previously posted on the forum was an image of a promotional display model of same in RAAF. markings

Loading…

airpower.airforce.gov.au

 

[Pioneer]

IIUC the Vigilante was selected in late 1963 in order to have new bombers in service by 1966, so presumably they'd be built in 1965 or so.

Fair call Rule of cool.
But given that the whole 'imperatively urgently need' orchestrated fear mongering by Robert Menzies, for the political wedging of Labor, and the fact that urgency was conviently overlooked for what, almost a decade, whilst the structural deficiencies of the F-111C laid in expensive storage till a fix could be derived some ten years after we order them (1963-1973)......
Given the RA-5C entered USN fleet service in 1964 (43 RA-5Cs were built), this indicates that the production could have been extended to include the RAAF order.
In which case, could the Australia government leased, at minimum, twelve USN A-5B's as an interim measure to familiarise themselves with the design, whilst they waited for their new build A-5C/RA-5C's, equipped with J79-GE-10 engines? After all, if the U.S. was willing to lease Australia F-4E's, couldn't they done the same with A-5B's?

You're right about

There's not many guided weapons in 1966, maybe the Agm 12 and the AS30.

Given that the AGM-12 Bullpup was a dog of a missile (by actual Australian assessment), I'd be more inclined to support the AS.30 as it's principle guided missile. But then again, do you think the Pentagon would be willing to allow Australia/RAAF the likes of Walleye or GBU-15 Hobos?, both systems entering operational service by 1969, if I remember correctly.....

What about obtaining the Swedish RB 04 air to surface missile? The RB 04C entering Swedish Air Force service in 1958 and the improved and more capable RB 04D after 1965. With it's 300kg (661 Ib) fragmentation warhead with proximity and impact fuzes, and a 32km (20 mile) range, it was no slouch of a missile.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

AS-30 MCLOS wasn't efficient either. Laser variant was far better but not before the 1980's.

 

[zen]

Just a question, could not an alternative engine for Mirage IIIO be the J79?
This would mesh with US forces.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 103.

You're forgetting attrition spares.

I am not. See this extract from Message 96, which was part of the extract of that message that you quoted in Message 103.

112 Sabres and 116 Mirage IIIs seems to be too many for 4 squadrons even after making allowances for second-line units like the OCU. Were they expecting high attrition rates?

 

[Archibald]

Just a question, could not an alternative engine for Mirage IIIO be the J79?
This would mesh with US forces.

That would be a Kfir (thank you, Captain Obvious !) And yes, it would result in an all J79 fleet, if Vigilantes (I almost added : Phantoms, but RAAF only got a few of them because F-111 technical issues and delays).

Be warned however that putting a J79 in place of an Atar is no picnic, if only because the J79 runs much hotter. This is the reason Kfir have a small intake at the base of the fin: to cool down their J79.

On the plus side, the J79 massive additional power made the Kfir such a hotrod (up to Mach 2.3 with excellent accelerations) that US "aggressors" used it to simulate MiG-23s (after Skyhawks stood for MiG-17s and F-5Es for MiG-21s).

 

[Rule of cool]

Fair call Rule of cool.
But given that the whole 'imperatively urgently need' orchestrated fear mongering by Robert Menzies, for the political wedging of Labor, and the fact that urgency was conviently overlooked for what, almost a decade, whilst the structural deficiencies of the F-111C laid in expensive storage till a fix could be derived some ten years after we order them (1963-1973)......
Given the RA-5C entered USN fleet service in 1964 (43 RA-5Cs were built), this indicates that the production could have been extended to include the RAAF order.
In which case, could the Australia government leased, at minimum, twelve USN A-5B's as an interim measure to familiarise themselves with the design, whilst they waited for their new build A-5C/RA-5C's, equipped with J79-GE-10 engines? After all, if the U.S. was willing to lease Australia F-4E's, couldn't they done the same with A-5B's?

Given that it appears North American could restart production I don't think its crucial that the RAAF tack onto a US buy.

The Hancock mission evaluated 5 aircraft against 2 in-service dates; F4C, Mirage IV and RA5C for a 1966 date and TSR2 and TFX for a 1969 date. While Hacncok recommended the RA5C for the 1966 date the Government decided 1969 was OK and went with the F111. If however their recommendation was accepted I think that it's quite likely that the RAAF A5C version would be delivered within the timeframe as it wasn't a development project.

The reason the F4Es were leased was because while the F111Cs were built and delivered into storage in 1968 there was no set delivery time, indeed the original contract to buy them didn't even specify what constituted an airworthy aircraft for delivery. By 1970 the strategic risk of holding onto the Canberras until 1969 had expired, so Malcolm Fraser went to he US and basically threatened the US SecDef, who countered with the F4E lease.

One thing I do find interesting is that if the RAAF did get Vigilantes with 1966 deliveries what happens in Vietnam? Do 1 and 6 sqn home in Amberley get them and 2 sqn still with Canberras gets chased out of Butterworth by Mirages goes to Vietnam?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Scott Kenny, all good and valid points, I grant you.
Interesting that you mention

as we spoke about this earlier in the thread, whether it was in fact the A-5B or A-5C which Australia/RAAF was considering?
Can I ask your source for your notion of it being the A-5B please?

North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante

A-5B was the attack version with the hunchback, the -C was only the recon version (yes, it's an unusual nomenclature usage). 6x A-5Bs were completed, but got assigned as trainers for the RA-5C once the A-5B plans were dropped. 12x incomplete A-5Bs were converted to RA-5Cs.

Speaking of sources, can I ask for the reference of the following please?

North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante

1) the linear bomb bay was nuclear-only.

2) The wing pylons were only rated to 2000lbs each. Which is perfectly fine if you're hauling drop tanks or 2000lb bombs, but not if you're trying to haul even 3x500lb bombs on Triple Ejector Racks.

Per https://airvectors.net/avf111.html the F-111's wing pylons were rated for 5000lbs, and could therefore carry 3x1000lb or 6x500lb bombs on the appropriate ejector rack.

 

[BlackBat242]

Obviously, the RAAF would buy Pave Tack as soon as it was available, ~1982 or so. I'm assuming that it'd get installed into a canoe fairing on the belly like for the RA-5C's recon package.

======================
The major downside to the Vigilante is the low bombload for conventional use. My major recommendation for Oz-specific modifications would be upgrading the wing pylons to hold over 5000lbs each, instead of just 2000lbs. This change is to allow for carrying either 3x1000lb bombs on TERs or 6x500lb bombs on MERs.

2) The wing pylons were only rated to 2000lbs each. Which is perfectly fine if you're hauling drop tanks or 2000lb bombs, but not if you're trying to haul even 3x500lb bombs on Triple Ejector Racks.

My version of the RAAF A-5C had conformal bomb carriage in the fuselage belly (similar to the camera/SLR canoe but with a couple on the outside part of the belly as well) to increase payload - but now I can see that a possible choice for a mid-late 1970s MLU program would be to allow carriage of the AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack pod (the same one as historically made for USAF F-4Es).

Also, according to the USN, all 4 pylons of the A-5B/RA-5C were rated for just above 3,000lb, not 2,000lb.
The "max bomb size" was listed at 3,080lb - and an external load of 32 MK 82 500lb bombs (8 per pylon, 2,000lb bombs plus MER) in addition to the internal payload.

They are also listed as capable of carrying a full 400 US gallon drop tank on each pylon - the weight of 400 USG JP-5 is 2,588lb to 2,804lb for just the fuel (6.47lb/gal to 7.01lb/gal depending on the temperature of the fuel) - normally simplified to 2,720lb of JP-5 at 59° F. Add in the weight of the tank itself, and you see that pylon capacity is far more than 2,000lb.
This data is from the Nov 1962 Characteristics Summary for the A-5B (attached below).

The July 1967 SAC for the RA-5C lists "(4) 400gal tanks plus 3 internal fuel cans" for buddy-refueling missions*, thus confirming the pylon weight rating (also attached below).

* on the Performance Summary page in the notes at the bottom as well as the Reconnaissance Missions page entries B, C, & F on the mission loadings chart.

 

[Archibald]

If anybody is interested, the Armée de l'Air received its last Mirage IVA in January 1968: they procured 62 of them. Which means (hello, Captain Obvious !) that the production line was up and running as late as 1968.

Mirage IV: origins, characteristics and performance data

Introduced into service in 1964, the Mirage IV was a strategic bomber, the only European aircraft able to maintain Mach 2 for over 30 minutes.

www.dassault-aviation.com

The Strategic Air Forces were equipped at the rate of two aircraft a month up until March of 1968.