Alternative RAAF fleets.

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 118.

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.

My conclusion from reading the above is that Mirage IV came fifth out of five.

However, if it had won, would it have been built in Australia? IOTL all but a handful of the 116 Mirage IIIs were built in Australia. My guess is that all but a handful of the Mirage IVs would have been built in Australia too.

There would be an operating synergy (if that's the right expression) with the RAAF's Mirage IIIs because they had Atar engines too. Therefore, simplified training, maintenance and logistics due to having one engine (the Atar) ITTL instead of two (Atar & TF30) IOTL. Plus said simplified training, maintenance and logistics may have resulted in a reduction in the operating costs of both aircraft compared to the Mirage IIIs and F-111s used IOTL.

There is also the possibly a reduction in the production cost of the engines as Commonwealth made the Atars for most of the 116 Mirage IIIs built for the RAAF. ITTL the firm would have made the Atar engines for most (if not all) of the Mirage IVs too. Say, 36 were initially ordered instead of the 36 Vigilantes recommended by Hancock. Then the number of engines would have been increased from 110 plus spares for the 110 Mirage IIIs originally purchased IOTL to 182 plus spares for the 110 Mirage III and 36 Mirage IV initially purchased ITTL.

IOTL there was a gap of a few years between the completion of the initial run of 110 Mirage IIIs in the late 1960s and the 6 additional Mirage IIIDs that were delivered in the early 1970s. Therefore, it aught to be feasible for more Mirage IVs to be built in Australia in the early 1970s, if (as I expect), the first 36 Mirage IVs were cheaper than the first 24 F-111Cs. IIRC the RAAF acquired a total of 55 Canberras of which 48 were built by Australia's Government Aircraft Factory (GAF). Therefore, say another 18 Mirage IVs were bought, for a total of 54. That would increase the number of engines from 116 plus spares for the 116 Mirage IIIs eventually built for the RAAF IOTL to 224 plus spares for the 116 Mirage III and 54 Mirage IV eventually built ITTL.

IOTL GAF built the 48 out of 55 Canberras, Commonwealth built the 112 Sabres, Commonwealth built the Avon engines for both, Commonwealth built all but a few of the 116 Mirage IIIs and it also built all but a handful of the Atars for the 116 Mirage IIIs.

Therefore, ITTL, maybe Commonwealth still builds the Mirage IIIs and GAF builds the Mirage IVs, with Commonwealth building the Atar engines for both.

OTOH the if they were built by Dassault, that would have increased the number built by that firm from 66 (including prototypes) IOTL to 102 or 120 ITTL depending upon whether the RAAF bought 36 or 54. The effect on the economics of Mirage IV production by Dassault would be more than the effects of adding 36 or 54 aircraft to the 158 Vigilantes that (IIRC) were built by North American IOTL or adding 24 F-111Cs to the 550-odd F-111s & FB-111s that were built by General Dynamics for the US Forces IOTL.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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).

Conformal bomb carriage would likely be good until the Pave Tack pods were available.

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.

Okay, that's much better then. It would at least allow carrying 24-32x500lb bombs for small-boom carpet bombing. You'd probably be looking at only 3x750lb bombs per pylon, though, since 4x would mean 3000lbs in boom plus the MER (with 2x empty stations on the MER).

I'd still prefer a greater pylon capacity, but it would require a redesign for the Aussie birds and that would be expensive and force a delay in delivery. So likely not to happen.

But I suspect a choice between 24-32x500lb bombs and 4x2000lb bombs is good enough for the time.

Hold up. 32x? 8 per rack? I've never seen a USN rack with 8x stations, just seen ones with 3x and 6x stations. Triple Ejector Rack and Multiple Ejector Rack, respectively.


It might be entertaining to hang a couple of Sidewinders on the sides of the wing pylons, like on the F-111 or F-14. Not that a Vigilante could dogfight except above 20,000ft. But they'd make a very rude surprise for anyone trying to mess with an unloaded Vigilante.

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

Except the Mirage IVA only has a 670nmi combat range, while the A-5 has a 970nmi range and the F-111C has an 1160nmi range.

Don't think that's enough range to reach Jakarta.

 

[Archibald]

The Mirage was penalized by its Atars and the non-FBW delta wing drag; despite very refined aerodynamics everywhere.
...
Thinking about it, its range could be augmented via a buddy-buddy refueling package inside the bomb recess where the streamlined 1 ton nuke usually went (same package could be replaced by a conformal fuel tank or a recce pod). That refueling package had been tested in 1961 as a cheaper, less vulnerable KC-135FR alternative. So it would be available quickly.
...
More on Mirage IVA refueling. Before C-135FR, the AdA considered Caravelles... both very vulnerable. That's why SO-4050 Vautours were considered... and also buddy-buddy refueling Mirage IVA.
The tricky thing with Mirage IVA was range to nuke Moscow was a bit short, whatever the trajectory. Only one-way trips across Warsaw Pact and its air defenses - unless you gets creative. Such as aerial refueling over the Mediterranean sea, hence entering USSR airspace from the south.
I think the buddy-buddy trick was considered for that kind off missions, but it was never done operationally (because C-135FR and, much more importantly: because Plateau d'Albion S3 IRBMs, and because M1 / M20 SLMBs.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Mirage was penalized by its Atars and the non-FBW delta wing drag; despite very refined aerodynamics everywhere.
...
Thinking about it, its range could be augmented via a buddy-buddy refueling package inside the bomb recess where the streamlined 1 ton nuke usually went (same package could be replaced by a conformal fuel tank or a recce pod). That refueling package had been tested in 1961 as a cheaper, less vulnerable KC-135FR alternative. So it would be available quickly.
...
More on Mirage IVA refueling. Before C-135FR, the AdA considered Caravelles... both very vulnerable. That's why SO-4050 Vautours were considered... and also buddy-buddy refueling Mirage IVA.
The tricky thing with Mirage IVA was range to nuke Moscow was a bit short, whatever the trajectory. Only one-way trips across Warsaw Pact and its air defenses - unless you gets creative. Such as aerial refueling over the Mediterranean sea, hence entering USSR airspace from the south.
I think the buddy-buddy trick was considered for that kind off missions, but it was never done operationally (because C-135FR and, much more importantly: because Plateau d'Albion S3 IRBMs, and because M1 / M20 SLMBs.

The Hancock report stated that the Mirage IV could be refueled by a KC130E at an altitude no greater than 15,000'. It also stated that the Vigilante had a fully developed buddy IFR system available and could refuel from a KC130 a 22,000'.

 

[H_K]

Except the Mirage IVA only has a 670nmi combat range, while the A-5 has a 970nmi range and the F-111C has an 1160nmi range.

Don't think that's enough range to reach Jakarta.

From the Australian report the Mirage IV and RA-5C had similar range "out of the box" with 2 tanks each, but the RA-5C had greater future range potential with new centerline weapons arrangements which would allow for 4x external tanks. The Mirage IV also was expected to meet the range requirement with bigger tanks, but this would be an overload condition where it would no longer meet runway requirements.

Basically the Mirage IV could fly long range strike missions but with more operational restrictions, i.e. JATO on hot days + ideally a top-up after take-off. A pair of canards or Mirage Milan style whiskers would have made all the difference.

Mirage IV
850nm and 6,200ft ground roll with JATO (8,000ft without JATO) @ 73,000lb normal TO weight with 2x 687 US gallon tanks [and probably 422 US gallon conformal centreline tank] and 2x AS-30
Future 945nm @ 77,000lb overload TO weight with partially filled 2x 1,320 US gallon tanks and 2x AS-30. However ground roll doesn't meet requirements (7,200ft with JATO / 9,000ft without).

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

RA-5C
835nm with 2x 400 US gallon tanks and 2x Bullpup missiles (underwing)
Future 1,010nm @ 79,917lb AUW with 4x 400 US gallon tanks and 2x Bullpup (on centerline)
6,100ft ground roll @ 79,917lb AUW meets requirements.

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

 

[Rule of cool]

The RAAF's 30 sqn operated Bloodhound Mk I SAMs from 1961 to 1968, with the sqn going to Darwin in 1965 during the Indonesian Confrontation. I'd like to see the sqn remain in service and upgrade to Bloodhound MkIIs, they' be viable into the 80s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RAAF's 30 sqn operated Bloodhound Mk I SAMs from 1961 to 1968, with the sqn going to Darwin in 1965 during the Indonesian Confrontation. I'd like to see the sqn remain in service and upgrade to Bloodhound MkIIs, they' be viable into the 80s.

Is it true that it was one of two squadrons that were planned? I think it was one to defend Sydney and the other to defend Melbourne.

 

[Volkodav]

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

I am a fan of the FJ-4, and something that fits with another what-if of mine, its folded height is under 14' and as such, it would have fit in the original hangar height of the Implacable class carriers.

 

[Rule of cool]

Is it true that it was one of two squadrons that were planned? I think it was one to defend Sydney and the other to defend Melbourne.

I wouldn't surprised.

The RAAF was heavily influenced by the British 57 DWP and there was a SAMs vs Fighters debate in Australia. I think the 57 DWP was behind the cancellation of the 30 x F104s authorised for acquisition in earlier in 1957 and if the same thinking led to an idea to have SAMs for Sydney and Melbourne it would fit with the times. By 1960 it was realised that SAMs aren't quite as useful in Australia as in Europe, nor are they as useful as manned fighters.

As it was 30 sqn was located in Williamtown with 2 sqns of Sabres/Mirages and a radar unit, some 125km away from Sydney, and a detachment was sent to Darwin in 1965 where there was another radar unit.

 

[Volkodav]

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

Draken would have been an interesting option for the RAAF.

 

[Volkodav]

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/

I believe Hermes was offered to Australia in either 1965 or 1968, then later again in 1982 but in the STOVL configuration.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

I have multiple Airfix Lightning kits and Freightdog conversions for just such a fantasy build when I eventually retire and no longer need to adult.

 

[BlackBat242]

Okay, that's muchbetter then. It would at least allow carrying 24-32x500lb bombs for small-boom carpet bombing. You'd probably be looking at only 3x750lb bombs per pylon, though, since 4x would mean 3000lbs in boom plus the MER (with 2x empty stations on the MER).

I'd still prefer a greater pylon capacity, but it would require a redesign for the Aussie birds and that would be expensive and force a delay in delivery. So likely not to happen.

But I suspect a choice between 24-32x500lb bombs and 4x2000lb bombs is good enough for the time.

Hold up. 32x? 8 per rack? I've never seen a USN rack with 8x stations, just seen ones with 3x and 6x stations. Triple Ejector Rack and Multiple Ejector Rack, respectively.

Since it is in an official USN document I'm guessing they were planning on a new MER for the A-5B itself, but dropped it when the USN decided the A-6 was sufficient for its bombing needs and ordered the few A-5Bs to be converted to RA-5Cs.

The A-5B couldn't go supersonic with multiple external bombs on the pylons anyway, and the A-6A could carry 30x Mk82 500lb bombs.

The A-6 was likely better than the A-5B for night/bad weather work, as it had a full suite of electronics just for those conditions and the A-5B didn't.

Here is someone's "what if" for an EA-5C using a single-EWO version of the EA-6B's EW suite (similar to the AN/ALQ-99E ECM suite then being installed in USAF EF-111A*s [itself a modification of the AN/ALQ-99 fitted in the USN/USMC EA-6Bs]). These could be built from the late 1960s on - or be a 1970s program.




* The EF-111A was ordered in January 1975, its first flight was in March 1977, and the first production deliveries were in November 1981.

I've also considered the RAAF converting the best of its Canberras to a EB configuration in the [strike]late 1960s[/strike] mid-late 1970s using the EA-6B's EW suite.
Here is my version:

6 Canberras were sent to the UK to be fitted with a 4-seat cockpit, new flight/nav avionics, 13,400 lb.s.t. TF30-408 engines (identical to USN A-7B/C engines) in place of their Avon Mk.109s, and the AN/ALQ-99 system fitted in the USN/USMC EA-6Bs.

{edited to add: Even earlier, in the late 1960s Canberras could be fitted with the EA-6A's system. Even this would give the RAAF a capability they historically lacked.}

 

[Archibald]

The B-57 had countless "E" variants for electronic warfare and electronic reconnaissance. Airframe modifications were massive, even without the RB-57D / RB-57F giant wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra#Variants

 

[BlackBat242]

On another note - a few years ago I ran across this info on the RAAF's evaluations for the Mirage III, and it sparked an idea with myself and a friend who I do alternate-history stuff with (I do Australia & New Zealand and he does Canada*).

Here is the info:

Also evaluated was the Hughes TARAN radar (paired with the AIM-7 Sparrow). The Swiss were getting ready to buy the Mirage III, and they had expressed a strong preference for the Avon/TARAN combination (and had done extensive studies on the TARAN/Sparrow combo), but were unwilling to be the sole operator of such a variant. The RAAF's engine/radar evaluation team sent 4 members to Berne to consult with the Swiss Air Force, and they reported favorably on both options. Cost, however, led selection of the Cyrano/Matra R.530 radar.

Jim never liked the F-104 for Canada, and he thought (and I agreed) that a tri-national Avon/TARAN Mirage III program for Australia, Canada, and Switzerland would be a great thing - and with the info on the Avon's reheat pipe diameter having limited the performance of City of Hobart, then building the Avon/TARAN Mirage III with the 36" diameter reheat pipe would really make this a strong contender!



* third friend used to do the UK, but sadly he passed in early 2022.

 

[BlackBat242]

The B-57 had countless "E" variants for electronic warfare and electronic reconnaissance. Airframe modifications were massive, even without the RB-57D / RB-57F giant wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra#Variants

Yes, but none of those was comparable to even the EA-6A's system, much less the EA-6B's.

And with the EA-6B entering service in in July 1971, a mid-1970s program would be fine.


{Yes, I've gone back and edited my earlier post to better fit the ALQ-99's availability date.}

 

[Archibald]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/hughes-taran-18-radar-system.3320/

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

Arming America’s Interceptors: The Hughes Falcon Missile Family

Can't help thinking about Italy F-104S. They carried Sparrow missile and were real hot rods. This Mirage III you described would be very similar (up to the letter "S" because Swiss - how about that ?)

 

[Rule of cool]

The RAAF bought a large-ish batch of R530s with the Mirages, retaining the Aim9Bs from the Sabres. They already have a garbage SARH missile, they don't need the Sparrow, which is also garbage, but somewhat more impressive garbage.

 

[Pioneer]

On another note - a few years ago I ran across this info on the RAAF's evaluations for the Mirage III, and it sparked an idea with myself and a friend who I do alternate-history stuff with (I do Australia & New Zealand and he does Canada*).

Here is the info:


Jim never liked the F-104 for Canada, and he thought (and I agreed) that a tri-national Avon/TARAN Mirage III program for Australia, Canada, and Switzerland would be a great thing - and with the info on the Avon's reheat pipe diameter having limited the performance of City of Hobart, then building the Avon/TARAN Mirage III with the 36" diameter reheat pipe would really make this a strong contender!



* third friend used to do the UK, but sadly he passed in early 2022.

Realistically, this would have been a great opertunity and sharing of R&D between France, Switzerland and Australia, which I'm confident, would have led to further spin off sales.
As much as I would have loved medium-range radar guided Aim-7 Sparrow's on the Mirage III, a point I might make, is that the so-called TARAN/Sparrow combination was in fact the TARAN/Falcon [Aim-26B Falcon] combination.
We had this conversation on another thread here at Secret Projects Forum some years ago https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mirage-iii-why-only-one-r530-on-the-centerline.36296/page-2 , with the conclusion that the 'Sparrow' [Aim-7] reference was a typo/miss interpretation. For Switzerland and Hughes always focused and actually delivered the TARAN 18 radar and AIM-26B (HM-55S) Falcon missiles combination operationally with their Mirage IIIS fleet. In fact, the Swiss Mirage IIIS's were unique, in that they had incorporated two additional rear under fuselage hardpoints for the carriage of these two AIM-26B (HM-55S) Falcon missiles.
An interesting fact, which allowed the Mirage IIIS to operationally carry four AAM's, as opposed to the max three (when including the seldom centreline configured R530) AAA's.

This picture of a Swiss Mirage IIIS in model for shows this arrangement the best:

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

The A-6 was likely better than the A-5B for night/bad weather work, as it had a full suite of electronics just for those conditions and the A-5B didn't.

And since my impression of Vietnam was 100% bad weather ops, it definitely made more sense for the time.

Kinda too bad that they didn't retrofit the Vigilante with the A-6 or F-111 avionics, though.

Here is someone's "what if" for an EA-5C using a single-EWO version of the EA-6B's EW suite (similar to the AN/ALQ-99E ECM suite then being installed in USAF EF-111A*s [itself a modification of the AN/ALQ-99 fitted in the USN/USMC EA-6Bs]). These could be built from the late 1960s on - or be a 1970s program.


View attachment 760222

* The EF-111A was ordered in January 1975, its first flight was in March 1977, and the first production deliveries were in November 1981.

They'd be better off with the USAF system, the EA-6 units needed 3x EWOs to keep track of everything while the EF-111 version automated enough to get away with a single EWO.

 

[Rule of cool]

And since my impression of Vietnam was 100% bad weather ops, it definitely made more sense for the time.

The obsolescent at best RAAF Canberras were the only level bombers in their parent USAF TFW. This meant that it was the only bomber that could operate when the could base was below 3,000', which the USAF needed for their diving attacks. Indeed the old B2s could operate with the cloud base at 1,200' and with 3.5 hours flight endurance rarely had to break off bombing for lack of fuel. Little wonder that with 5% of the TFW strength they got about 16% of the assessed bomb damage.

 

[Archibald]

R530 and Sparrow III might be garbage, Falcon was even garbager than both...

As much as I like this Avon-Mirage, even with Dassault staunch backing it would never be bought by the AdA. Engine commonality, for a start: also SNECMA screaming like hell. Also Mirage IIIE, Mirage F1 and Jaguar massive orders across the 1960's: no room for it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IOTL the RNZAF received new 10 A-4Ks & 4 TA-4Ks in 1970 and 8 A-4Gs & 2 TA-4Gs from the RAN in 1984. That brought the total to 18 single and 6 two-seat Skyhawks for a grand total of 24 Skyhawks of which 21 were modernised in the 1980s in Project Kahu.

Does anyone know if the RNZAF considered buying Commonwealth-built Mirage IIIs instead of the first batch of 14 Skyhawks? They would fit between the initial run of 110 Mirage IIIs for the RAAF and the second batch of 6 Mirage IIIDs. Presumably, the idea was rejected in favour of buying Skyhawks because the latter were cheaper to buy and/or operate.

However, if they did buy 14 new Mirage IIIs in the late 1960s and 10 ex-RAAF Mirage IIIs in the 1980s (instead of the RANs Skyhawks) would the survivors be modernised to Mirage 50 or Mirage IIING standard?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to the Opening Message.

Whilst writing Message 143 I remembered that the RNZAF bought 16 BAC Strikemaster Mk 88s. According to ADF Serials 10 were delivered in 1972 and 6 were delivered in 1975.

I remembered that Commonwealth built 97 Macchi MB-326Hs trainers (79 RAAF & 18 RAN) too. That made me think, why did the RNZAF buy British-built Strikemasters instead of Australian-built MB-326Hs? Does anyone know? According to ADF Serials the MB.326s were delivered 1967-72 so an export order of 16 aircraft for the RNZAF (like American Express) will do nicely.

I'm writing this as a reply to the Opening Message because the MB-326H isn't in the list. Therefore:

• Why did the RAAF buy MB.326s instead of Jet Provosts or Strikemasters?
  • Interestingly, both designs used the Viper turbojet engine.
• What were the other contenders for the contract? Such as.
  • The Magister?
    • Or.
  • The Dragonfly in its A-37 and/or T-37 forms?
• It should go without saying that the alternative aircraft would have been built in Australia too, but "There's always one!"

My reference to American Express reminded me of this.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF-U9nL9Ios

My intention was to write "FWIW Pamela Stephenson is Australian", but according to her Wikipedia entry she was born in New Zealand and moved to Australia when she was 4. I thought she was a lot younger than Billy Connolly, but (again) according to Wikipedia the difference is only 7 years. She was born in 1949 and he was born in 1942.