Rule of cool

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
16 January 2024
Messages
655
Reaction score
825
In late 1956-early 1957 the RAAF received Cabinet approval to acquire 30 F104A to equip a single sqn, this was announced publicly, but in mid 1957 this order (or approval) was cancelled and instead the RAAF ordered 40 Australian built CAC Avon Sabres. It is important to note that this order, if it actually progressed to an order rather than just an announced approval to buy, has nothing to do with the 1960-61 investigation into the F104G as part of the Sabre replacement competition that saw the Mirage IIIO built in Australia to replace the CAC Sabres.

WI this approval/order was not rescinded and the RAAF received the 30 F104s in about 1959?
 
It seems that the version of the F-104 approved in 1956 could have been a longer-ranged one, going by this letter:


RR F104-1_zpsccbhtcog.jpg

RR F104-2_zpsisdcbuau.jpg

Your reference to Avon Sabres being purchased "instead" is, I assume, to the 20 Mk.32s ordered in July 1957 and the 21 Mk.32s ordered in 1959... the original order for "72" composed 1 prototype, 22 MK.30s, 21 Mk.31s, and 28 Mk.32s (71 production plus prototype), the last two orders brought the useful total to 112.

F-104A selected in 1956-57 to replace CA-27 Sabre, with Australian assembly/partial manufacture:
http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=1085830 461 pages
Project later canceled.

Had this gone ahead, I expect them to be a year or so later than 1959, but I don't know if the RAAF would have stuck with them or dropped further purchases of the Starfighter in favor of the Mirage III.
 
Last edited:
I take a quick look at the F-104 for the RAAF in an article (Yes, an article, as in published in a magazine) on the Lightning for the RAAF for August's issue of Aeroplane.

RAAF picked it, but then unpicked it as they didn't like the flap blowing.

Chris
 
I take a quick look at the F-104 for the RAAF in an article (Yes, an article, as in published in a magazine) on the Lightning for the RAAF for August's issue of Aeroplane.

RAAF picked it, but then unpicked it as they didn't like the flap blowing.

Chris
The RAAF evaluation of the Lightning would be most intriguing.

Regards
Pioneer
 
The RAAF evaluation of the Lightning would be most intriguing.

Regards
Pioneer
It's not so much a look at the RAAF's evaluation (which was beyond the scope of the article) but more a look at the English Electric/BAC proposals for AIR34 to replace the Sabre.

Article on Lightning development proposals and is part of a Lightning supplement that will be in August's Aeroplane.

Chris
 
It's not so much a look at the RAAF's evaluation (which was beyond the scope of the article) but more a look at the English Electric/BAC proposals for AIR34 to replace the Sabre.

Article on Lightning development proposals and is part of a Lightning supplement that will be in August's Aeroplane.

Chris
Can't wait
 
Australia is awfully big to have F104s based there. You'd need them up north (and dealing with the hot&high conditions all the time).

I'd want something with a lot more range.
 
IIUC the F104A had an all or nothing afterburner, it was either going subsonic or mach 2, and the F104C had a multi stage afterburner that allowed settings in between off and flat out. I imagine that helped with flight endurance.

In any case how many long endurance mach 2 fighters were there in the world in 1955-57?
 
In any case how many long endurance mach 2 fighters were there in the world in 1955-57?
I'm not aware of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure that if they did exist someone here will fill me in. Y'all have been good about that.

This is a comment that I'd rather have a Mach 1.5 fighter with an 800 nmi combat range than a Mach 2 fighter with 400nmi range.
 
The big thing at the time wasn't fighter range but the hope that a mach 2 fighter could operate from the huge amount of 3,000' runways that were built during WW2. The F104 was a nightmare in this regard, the Mirage III was better but still not very good.
 
Below is from the minutes of the ANZUS meeting on 1 October 1958.


Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger:10

Perhaps I should stand to make myself seen and heard, sir. ... we have been desperately seeking a small, versatile airplane which can range over the whole area and which can operate from the thousand and one 6000-foot strips left over from the last war and which still are there and from which commercial airplanes are still operating.
We believe we have found the airplane in a project which has been raised and was having a little difficulty here, the Northrop–156, which is a development of the T–38 supersonic trainer. It is a light airplane and can have a lot of sophistication in it, but we don’t want a lot of sophistication. We want it in a fairly cheap and uncomplicated form. It is the kind of thing we can build and build relatively cheaply, and it is the kind of airplane which could be used right throughout that area, where we ourselves are perhaps the most capable in the use of modern equipment. But we know that the Filipinos and Thais and the Pakistanis are having more than a little trouble in operating the F–86’s. They can fly them all right, but even they require a fairly good airfield, and their ferry range isn’t all that much. We want an airplane that can go across Australia and from the top end of Australia, across the Philippines, up to Singapore.
I found the philosophy in airplanes here is to build a single-seater airplane which costs over two million dollars a copy, which demands, if you are going to make it mobile, in-air refueling capabilities, which we can’t afford, and which requires an eight-to-eleven thousand foot runway. That kind of airplane is beyond our capabilities.
We find ourselves approaching now the time when it looks as though we are going to be priced out of being able to buy airplanes with which we can suitably arm ourselves. It is a fairly disturbing proposition, sir. And it is one which I thought perhaps, and Mr. Casey agreed, should be aired here, because it is the kind of military problem which I believe ANZUS could solve and I believe should solve. We are willing to build it, we are willing to operate it, and we are very willing to supply it, if we can manufacture it, to the whole SEATO area, if they can afford to buy it and if arrangements can be made for them to get them and use them. That is our problem, sir: How to get the airplane and where to get it—where to get it, rather than how to get it. Europe has nothing. The small NATO fighter which has been proposed to me, the F–91, is just like the Australian boomerang. It is never out of sight. It won’t go far enough. You have these F–105 airplanes, which are over $2,000,000 a copy. Even if we could afford them or build them in sufficient numbers, we couldn’t afford to operate them.
The same applies to the naval tactical fighter, the thing that carries ordinary, or shall I call them conventional bombs. I don’t know why these airplanes are so complex and so sophisticated unless perhaps it is that they are all designed around a nuclear capacity, which of course we don’t possess. We have to base whatever we have on a conventional capacity. I think that is it.

Mr. Irwin:

... There is undoubtedly a need for a less-sophisticated aircraft that can meet the problem. ...

Ambassador Beale:

Mr. Secretary, could I supplement what Air Marshal Scherger said. This is quite a serious problem for Australia. We have got a first-class aircraft industry in the country. We have a profound political and military necessity for maintaining that aircraft industry in Australia. It is in danger of languishing because we just haven’t got aircraft to make and we can’t plan ahead. A year or two ago we made a decision to buy and probably also to build to sell the F–104, but when a mission came over here,11 we were, I think, very rightly told, “Don’t be silly. Don’t build that one. It is far too sophisticated for you. If that type of aircraft has to be used in a war which you are planning to participate in, we in the United States will be there with that aircraft.” And quite rightly we would have made a great mistake to build the F–104. And we were also told at the same time, “Why not have a look at the Northrop and one or two others?” This was on the technical level.

11. Apparent reference to a group headed by Sir Philip McBride, then Australian Minister of Defense, which visited Washington in late May and early June 1957.
 
Cheers for the link, I've written a script for the Aussie archives site that grabs all the pages and makes a PDF out of it. Will upload the PDF later.
You could just use the conveniently unlabelled 'download all as PDF' button. Given how long it takes, I have a nasty feeling it does exactly the same thing, but at least it's using their processor cycles to do it.
 
In any case how many long endurance mach 2 fighters were there in the world in 1955-57?
The McDonnell F-101A/B Voodoo derivative is the closest I can think of. But one would assume the Voodoo would be substantially more expensive to both purchase and operate.

Regards
Pioneer
 
The big thing at the time wasn't fighter range but the hope that a mach 2 fighter could operate from the huge amount of 3,000' runways that were built during WW2. The F104 was a nightmare in this regard, the Mirage III was better but still not very good.
Yes, good and valid point Rule for cool, I immediately thought of the expensive runway consideration by the Australian Government/RAAF of the later 1960-61 F-104G investigation, let alone the said earlier F-104A.......

Regards
Pioneer
 
Yes, good and valid point Rule for cool, I immediately thought of the expensive runway consideration by the Australian Government/RAAF of the later 1960-61 F-104G investigation, let alone the said earlier F-104A.......

Regards
Pioneer

Apparently the runway length is 6,000'. The point still stands, 6,000' is pretty short for the sorts of fighters that could do mach 2 in the late 50s/early 60s.
 
Australia is awfully big to have F104s based there. You'd need them up north (and dealing with the hot&high conditions all the time).

I'd want something with a lot more range.
I've read somewhere, that the Atar performance of the Mirage III by the Australians Team was measured in European climate stands and when the RAAF Atar-powered Mirage III began operations in Australia's North - let alone Malaysia, it's performance shortcomings were very apparent...So it should be a serious consideration.

Regards
Pioneer
 
That's a big aircraft, more in the size (and likely cost) class of the Lightning, F106 and F4 than small fighters like the F104 and Mirage III.
 
The big thing at the time wasn't fighter range but the hope that a mach 2 fighter could operate from the huge amount of 3,000 6000' runways that were built during WW2. The F104 was a nightmare in this regard, the Mirage III was better but still not very good.
Edit mine.

But oof, good point. Not a lot of fighters that could take off from a 6000' runway then. I'm not sure F15s or 16s can do that now, not with full combat loads anyways.

In terms of airfields available and ground to cover, yes, something like the F-5 would be very good. Two sidewinders and 3-5 fuel tanks for the ferry flight.
 
FWIW the Australian defence budget between 1953-62 hovered between 170-200 million Australian pounds. That's not a lot of money for expensive aircraft.
 
Mirage orders were already valued at $190 million Australian, right?
 
Firstly the Australian pound was valued at USD$2.24, we went to decimal currency 14 Feb 1966 with the AU pound valued at AUD$2.

Secondly we ordered our Mirages in batches of 30, 30, 40, 10 & 6, with 110 being delivered 1963-68 and the last 6 in 1973-74. So USD$190 million is about AU 85 million pounds, and mostly spread over 5 years so about 17 million AU pounds annually.

Thirdly from about FY 1963-64 the defence budget grew, that's when we started to increase the size of the Army and to start buying M113s, DDGs and F111s.
 
XF8U fills the role here very well.
Yeah, I didn't think of the Crusader!
RAAF orders them as a de-carrierised derivative from the get go [a pre V-1000, if you like].

Regards
Pioneer
 
If I recall correctly, the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger competed but lost against the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for sales in Canada, Japan, and West Germany.
Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger.jpg

Was the Super Tiger ever considered an option by the Royal Australian Air Force?
 
Was the Super Tiger ever considered an option by the Royal Australian Air Force?

That depends on what you mean by 'considered'. I've read that the Super Tiger was looked at, and might have been able to use the 6,000' runways, but rejected. It's important to remember that as an export customer who doesn't own the IP its very difficult and expensive to operate an aircraft that is not in service with it's own great-power country.

During this time period the USAF ordered 17 YF104s in March 1955 which first flew in Feb 1956 and ordered some 722 F104As (later reduced to 170) which entered sqn service in Feb 1958. In contrast only 2 F11-1Fs were built, flying in May 1956 and no follow on development batch let alone production orders were placed by the US.

Getting the F11-1F from the stage of 2 prototypes to a development batch then into series production is well beyond the capabilities of Australia, and was also likely the reason no other export customer picked it up.
 
Mirage III may have hit Mach 2 unloaded, but speed in combat had an irrefutable impact on range. Mirage also used slow firing heavy cannon that were not ideal for air superiority. F-104 had the clear advantage for gun work and was unmatched for raw speed. BUT then Sidewinder came about. F11H was smaller and literally 75% the size and lacked capability cimpared with an F8U, using the same guns but pinched for shells. F11H carried 125 rounds per gun while F8U carried 144. F3H and F8U, while even in speed to F11H, were better choices than either F-104 or F11H without the massive cimpromise on speed or capability. F3H had Sparrow and Sidewinder, and was suited for short takeoffs. F8U carried four AIM-8 versus two for the Tiger. The Super Tiger carried missiles to match F8U but it was too late. Super Tiger was the only F11H version that was realistic to compare to F-8B, but (like the Mirage and Starfighter) its superior speed came at a huge cost to range. And the Super Tiger was short on volume to upgrade. The F-8 version at the time of Super Tiger was XF8U-3, a huge leap ahead and more similar in capability to F-4D.
 
Last edited:
If my memory serves me correctly, Grumman did propose a Rolls-Royce Avon-powered derivative of the F11F-1F Super Tiger to West Germany/Luftwaffe, which the Australian government/RAAF were big fans of.
Also, I'm pretty sure the F11F-1F Super Tiger was Aim-7 Sparrow compatible from the getgo.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom