The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: And now for something completely different...RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage.
Volkodav    5/24/2009 4:55:42 AM
The Lightning was a contender for RAAF how serious a contender I don't know. The main choice always seemed to be between the Mirage and the Lockheed Starfighter with the Phantom and Lightning being only bit players.

The Lightning was apparently ruled out due to it's lack of ground attack capability, not that the Mirage was a wiz in the air to ground department either. The RR Avon and Ferranti Airpass radar of the Lightning were actually considered for the baseline Mirage III EO as they would have offered significantly improved performance.

Imagine now that the RAAF had selected an evolved derivative of the Lightning.

Would we have used it in Vietnam?
What modifications and improvements would it have incorporated?
What upgrades would it received during its life?
What weapons would it have been certified for,i.e. Sidewinder, Paveway?
What would the sale to Australia have meant for the program as a whole and then for the British and Austrlaian aviation industries?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain       5/29/2009 4:58:13 PM
Not sure about the claim it didn't have competitive handling. The Thunderbirds used it more than any other mount up til the advent of the F-16. It was also deemed agile enough and sound as an air defence fighter that the Ohio ANG had aircraft deployed to Kunsan to counter the growing Pueblo Crisis. 
 
It doesn't take the most increadibly agile mount to impress airshow spectators. The main problem with handling was that the pilot had to be very careful when performing hard manouvers because it was so unforgiving if he went outside the envelope.
 
I once read a quote by a USAF F-100 fighter on the Hawker Hunter when he said that during ACM "the best place to look for one is on your tail. While that say's a lot for the quality of the Hunter even the non-Avon Sabres were able to put up a competitive show against it in the Indo-Pakistani wars. That isn't much of an advertisement for the F-100.

 
Yup, it came sans radar. Pretty much like many other jets at the time. The ones that did had extreme cases of thermionic overload. The early incarnation of the French Cyrano wasn't all that flash anyway. I still think that as a mud mover, the AN/AJB-1 LABS was a decent bit of kit for the day.
 
We needed a radar equipped air defence fighter, not another mud mover.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Dropbear - Also   5/29/2009 5:00:11 PM
Was it the worlds greatest strike fighter? No, but it was a step above our Avon Sabre and would have plugged the gap nicely until the F-4E arrived (my personal pref being the F-4J/S).
 
I don't think that the F-4E or later models were even planned at that stage so we couldn't have had the foresight to conduct such a plan.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/30/2009 12:32:59 AM
My timeline fits as the F4H-1 was being showed to prospective buyers in 1955.
 
I am aware of the need to buy a radar equipped air defence fighter and not another mud mover. Firstly, the Hun was considered originally as an A2A platform (hence the 4xAIM-9), but my idea was to replace the Avon sabre sooner, purchase the F-100C and then once the likes of Phantom (and others) had matured, then look at them instead of going straight from geriatric Avon Sabre to Miracle in one step.
 
There was a gap between 1955 and Miracle IOC of 1964. This could have given us time using Super Sabre as a stop gap measure in the same way we did with the Phantom prior to 1973 and Super Bugs prior to F-35A.
 
I wasn't suggesting RAAF should have gone with Hun instead of Miracle in its entirety or that it should have lasted thirty odd years of service. I was merely pondering as to why it was not considered as a direct replacement of the Sabre at a time when many airforces were rapidly replacing jets with quicker turnover rates of aircraft designs.
 
I also think the Voodoo may have had some merit instead of the Miracle and would have been an ideal interceptor/recon bird in the same way Canada/ADCOM used them, but that is for another time and thread.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/30/2009 1:09:42 AM
My timeline fits as the F4H-1 was being showed to prospective buyers in 1955.
 
No it doesn't because you specifically mentioned the F-4E which was developed when deficiencies in the early F-4's were identified in Vietnam. Given that the first Phantom kill was achieved by an F-4B on 9 April 1965 (Air War in Vietnam, Dorr and Bishop) and that the F-4E didn't come into production until 1967, it is clear that the F-4E wasn't even concieved of when we chose the chose the Mirage in November 1960. It just wasn't an option. 

I am aware of the need to buy a radar equipped air defence fighter and not another mud mover. Firstly, the Hun was considered originally as an A2A platform (hence the 4xAIM-9), but my idea was to replace the Avon sabre sooner, purchase the F-100C and then once the likes of Phantom (and others) had matured, then look at them instead of going straight from geriatric Avon Sabre to Miracle in one step.
 
We needed a radar equipped fighter ASAP as the bomber threat justified it. Stuffing around with a non-radar equipped type would have just been that, stuffing around.  

There was a gap between 1955 and Miracle IOC of 1964. This could have given us time using Super Sabre as a stop gap measure in the same way we did with the Phantom prior to 1973 and Super Bugs prior to F-35A.
 
A stopgap measure against what? The F-100 wasn't significantly more capable against the threat we faced during that time than the Avon Sabre was. I'd sooner see us build radar equipped Avon Sabres that could perform the night intercept mision or even just purchase existing F-86J's or L's, rather than wasting money on the Super Sabre.

I wasn't suggesting RAAF should have gone with Hun instead of Miracle in its entirety or that it should have lasted thirty odd years of service. I was merely pondering as to why it was not considered as a direct replacement of the Sabre at a time when many airforces were rapidly replacing jets with quicker turnover rates of aircraft designs.
 
It probably was and they probably drew the same conclusion that I have. 

I also think the Voodoo may have had some merit instead of the Miracle and would have been an ideal interceptor/recon bird in the same way Canada/ADCOM used them, but that is for another time and thread.
 
If we decided that we needed an interim interceptor earlier than the Mirage was available then a squadron or two of  Voodoos would have been an option, as we might have gotten some ex-USAF ones quickly in the early 60's like the Canadian's did. However, it was still a big, expensive, specialised aircraft with a lot of bugs and lousy missiles that wasn't sufficiently multi-role enough for our requirements, so it wouldn't have been my first choice. Again, Sabre night fighters would have done the job well enough as an interim or perhaps we might have gotten a couple of squadrons of Gloster Javelins as the UK replaced them with Lightnings.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/30/2009 1:23:23 AM
Again, Sabre night fighters would have done the job well enough as an interim or perhaps we might have gotten a couple of squadrons of Gloster Javelins as the UK replaced them with Lightnings.
 
Thank gawd we didn't. Javelin was an absolute POS!
 
Firestreak was as useful as Red Top and even then, the first six marks came out sans missiles. We would have had to have waited until the F(AW).7 to be able to take down Badgers or the like.
 
A very ordinary 1940's leftover with minor innovations in wing planform. Bulky radar which wasn't totally refined until the APQ-43 variant and numerous aerodynamic stability issues that dogged it from 1951 until the RAF had the sense to dump it in 1967-68.
 
Not a patch on the F-101B even with the latters reliance on Falcon.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/30/2009 3:52:46 AM

Again, Sabre night fighters would have done the job well enough as an interim or perhaps we might have gotten a couple of squadrons of Gloster Javelins as the UK replaced them with Lightnings.

 Thank gawd we didn't. Javelin was an absolute POS!
 
Firestreak was as useful as Red Top and even then, the first six marks came out sans missiles. We would have had to have waited until the F(AW).7 to be able to take down Badgers or the like.

A very ordinary 1940's leftover with minor innovations in wing planform. Bulky radar which wasn't totally refined until the APQ-43 variant and numerous aerodynamic stability issues that dogged it from 1951 until the RAF had the sense to dump it in 1967-68.

 Not a patch on the F-101B even with the latters reliance on Falcon.

Wouldn't have been able to take down Badgers? Aren't you forgetting that it had something that no F-101B ever had, guns. I'd take a quad of 30mm cannon over any number of Falcon's, Fire Streaks or Red tops for achieving a reliable intercept. The Javalin had at least a 70kt speed advantage over the Tu-16 and it could quite easily have successfully achived an intercept. Remember as well that the Javalin carried its weapons under the wings instead of in an internal bay, so it would have been easy for us to wire them for Sidewinders had we preferred them to Firestreak/Red Top.


 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/30/2009 3:54:34 AM




Again, Sabre night fighters would have done the job well enough as an interim or perhaps we might have gotten a couple of squadrons of Gloster Javelins as the UK replaced them with Lightnings.



 Thank gawd we didn't. Javelin was an absolute POS!

 

Firestreak was as useful as Red Top and even then, the first six marks came out sans missiles. We would have had to have waited until the F(AW).7 to be able to take down Badgers or the like.



A very ordinary 1940's leftover with minor innovations in wing planform. Bulky radar which wasn't totally refined until the APQ-43 variant and numerous aerodynamic stability issues that dogged it from 1951 until the RAF had the sense to dump it in 1967-68.



 Not a patch on the F-101B even with the latters reliance on Falcon.




Wouldn't have been able to take down Badgers? Aren't you forgetting that it had something that no F-101B ever had, guns. I'd take a quad of 30mm cannon over any number of Falcon's, Fire Streaks or Red tops for achieving a reliable intercept. The Javalin had at least a 70kt speed advantage over the Tu-16 and it could quite easily have successfully achived an intercept. Remember as well that the Javalin carried its weapons under the wings instead of in an internal bay, so it would have been easy for us to wire them for Sidewinders had we preferred them to Firestreak/Red Top. 
 


I'd also note that the Brits felt confident enough that the Javalin could do the job that they deployed them during the Indonesian Confrontation in 1963, at a time when they had Lightnings in service.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       5/30/2009 6:54:33 AM

Given the available choices, I would have probably gone with the Saab Draken, to replace some of the Sabre fleet, ideally tied into a proper integrated air defence network, as the Swedes did. The rest of the Sabre fleet gets replaced by the rugged A-4 Skyhawk, serving both RAAF and RAN, which would also replace some of the Canberra duties, with the rest being replaced by a squadron of Avro Vulcans. The Drakens would probably not have deployed to Vietnam, simply because of the lack of need, but the Skyhawks could have (and could have been very useful), and the Vulcans could have flown bombing missions against VC bunkers, dropping 21x 1,000lb penetrator bombs. 

Weapons-wise, as previously said, the US Navy route is probably best - Sidewinder in all it's various marks and Sparrow once available (I suspect the excellent Draken radar could have been made compatible with Sparrow). The AGM-62 Walleye would probably be a good option, and the Shrike might be acquired in small numbers. 

Ideally, I would have liked to see a 1970s fleet consisting of F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks and A-6 Intruders (basically three of my favourite aircraft). Even without these, a fleet of Drakens, A-4s and Vulcans, if suitably updated, would have been an amazing force for the region. Had MAP/MDA funding been available, as arguably it should have been, to deal with Indonesia, then A-4s would be a pretty logical choice, though F-5As, to the Canadian CF-5 spec would be pretty good too. The Israelis demonstrated that it could be fitted with a 30mm cannon (they used DEFA, but ADEN would be just as practical). Two F-106 squadrons, for defence of Australia, and then four or so squadrons of A-4s or F-5As, to carry out overseas tactical fighter duties could be a good option if the money is there.

On a side note, all of this requires a lot of money, and a fair amount of foresight (e.g. anticipating problems with buying Mirages). If the funds were there, I would have dearly loved to have seen HMAS Sydney and HMAS Melbourne  brought to a single, modern spec in the early '60s, allowing both to operate as strike carriers, embarking a full squadron of Skyhawks. Two small carriers, a squadron of Vulcans, and a mix of Drakens, Skyhawks, and Bristol Bloodhounds would have helped give Australia the ability to really punch well above its weight. 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/30/2009 8:04:34 AM
Australia looked at the F-104 during the mid 50's with an eye to it entering service during the late 50's as a supplement for the Sabre but the idea was canned as it was seen as too expensive and too complex for Australia so an additional batch of Sabres were ordered instead. CAC also worked on Radar equiped, Firestreak armed Sabres with uprated Avons as well as more basic 4 ADEN cannon armed derivatives before the Sidewinder solution was decided on.
 
When Indonesia started receiving, then, state of the art Soviet gear and were rumoured to be ordering all sorts of other goodies Australia revisited the F-104 as well as looking at just about every available and conceptual type around at the time. This included many of the types being discussed and suggested, but also I believe the J-79 powered Grumman Super Tiger was looked at, one of the best fighters never to enter service.
 
On the question of something to intercept Badgers well, to go back to my original suggestion, the English Electric Lightning was designed to do just that and was available (entered service F1 1960, and F2 1962). The earlier mention of the Hawker Hunter giving Hun Jockies grief got me thinking that the Hunter F6 would have been a good alternative to follow on batches of Sabres and could have served into the 80's as upgraded FGA9's serving along side lightnings that replaced the Sabres and hybrid EE/GAF/Martin B-57 like Canberra's.
 
The Indonesian (specifically the Irian, an ex Soviet Sverdlov Class Cruiser) threat was also one of the main factors behind the selection the Charles F Adams DDG over the County class, with the antisurface capability of Tartar and the Mk42 5" gun seen as superior to that of Seaslug and Mk6 4.5". In the same line plans to fit the Adams with helicoper hangers and flight decks in place of the aft gun were also dropped as the extra gun was seen as vital. The RAN did request information on a Tartar armed County derivative but the UK wasn't interested.
 
On upgrading bother Sydney and Melbourne as Stike Carriers, unfortunately they were just too small and according to my dear old dad who served on Sydney in the late 50's she was basically shagged with her flight deck being unusable. What might have worked though would have been to buy Hermes when she was offered in the mid 60's as well as buying and upgrading Centaur to a similar standard.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/30/2009 10:24:15 AM
Australia looked at the F-104 during the mid 50's with an eye to it entering service during the late 50's as a supplement for the Sabre but the idea was canned as it was seen as too expensive and too complex for Australia so an additional batch of Sabres were ordered instead. CAC also worked on Radar equiped, Firestreak armed Sabres with uprated Avons as well as more basic 4 ADEN cannon armed derivatives before the Sidewinder solution was decided on.
 
The CAC Sabre had 2 Aden, not 4. I'd be interested to see a source on the work on a radar equiped one, I've never heard of that before.

On the question of something to intercept Badgers well, to go back to my original suggestion, the English Electric Lightning was designed to do just that and was available (entered service F1 1960, and F2 1962).

Yeah but the Mirage could do that, was available in the same timeframe, was a better all rounder and was cheaper. That's why they chose it.
 
The earlier mention of the Hawker Hunter giving Hun Jockies grief got me thinking that the Hunter F6 would have been a good alternative to follow on batches of Sabres and could have served into the 80's as upgraded FGA9's serving along side lightnings that replaced the Sabres and hybrid EE/GAF/Martin B-57 like Canberra's.

Why? It was very similar to the CAC Sabre in performance so why go to the trouble of having two airframes when one would do? 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/30/2009 12:15:46 PM

Given the available choices, I would have probably gone with the Saab Draken, to replace some of the Sabre fleet, ideally tied into a proper integrated air defence network, as the Swedes did. The rest of the Sabre fleet gets replaced by the rugged A-4 Skyhawk, serving both RAAF and RAN, which would also replace some of the Canberra duties, with the rest being replaced by a squadron of Avro Vulcans. The Drakens would probably not have deployed to Vietnam, simply because of the lack of need, but the Skyhawks could have (and could have been very useful), and the Vulcans could have flown bombing missions against VC bunkers, dropping 21x 1,000lb penetrator bombs. 

Depending on how much money was available I might have bought a few surplus B-66s or maybe A-3 Skywarriors along with the A-4s. These aircraft could do EW support quite well. The Vulcan was EXPENSIVE, far more so than a Canberra. I think a Canberra SLEP (a few tanker conversions and refueling probes) might have been better money spent for the extra range needed..

Weapons-wise, as previously said, the US Navy route is probably best - Sidewinder in all it's various marks and Sparrow once available (I suspect the excellent Draken radar could have been made compatible with Sparrow). The AGM-62 Walleye would probably be a good option, and the Shrike might be acquired in small numbers. 

I am not too ashamed of SPARROW. Its actually a very GOOD rocket. It took Italy and Britain to fix the SARH (monopulse) feature and controller actuators (2 dimension roll, yaw, pitch control) in their respective adaptations and the US eventually (reluctantly) followed suit, but at the time (1955-1965)  getting a radar guided A2A missile of any type to hit anything at 9% PK at any range was simply phenomenal.  Shrike (ARM SPARROW) had its problems-mainly that it was too specialized and puny to be a proper general target strike missile. None of the French A2G missiles at the time were worth a damn (fusing problems), though they were still better than MOST of the US ones (guidance issues). The type in service I would have looked at: was the RB04. Again, a Swedish missile,(designed using a vastly improved version of the guidance used on the USN BAT) it was subsonic, had fusing that worked reliably, packed a good wallop, and was RADAR guided. I don't know if Draken could have been wired for it; I know that Lansen was, and I don't see why Skyhawk couldn't be since it was wired for just about everything else.

Ideally, I would have liked to see a 1970s fleet consisting of F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks and A-6 Intruders (basically three of my favourite aircraft). Even without these, a fleet of Drakens, A-4s and Vulcans, if suitably updated, would have been an amazing force for the region. Had MAP/MDA funding been available, as arguably it should have been, to deal with Indonesia, then A-4s would be a pretty logical choice, though F-5As, to the Canadian CF-5 spec would be pretty good too. The Israelis demonstrated that it could be fitted with a 30mm cannon (they used DEFA, but ADEN would be just as practical). Two F-106 squadrons, for defence of Australia, and then four or so squadrons of A-4s or F-5As, to carry out overseas tactical fighter duties could be a good option if the money is there.

By the 1970s, I would be buying Phantoms with Skyflash, Sidewinder, and a homegrown standoff guided glidebomb. DSTO by then are no slouches. Reminds me of DARPA.

On a side note, all of this requires a lot of money, and a fair amount of foresight (e.g. anticipating problems with buying Mirages). If the funds were there, I would have dearly loved to have seen HMAS Sydney and HMAS Melbourne  brought to a single, modern spec in the early '60s, allowing both to operate as strike carriers, embarking a full squadron of Skyhawks. Two small carriers, a squadron of Vulcans, and a mix of Drakens, Skyhawks, and Bristol Bloodhounds would have helped give Australia the ability to really punch well above its weight. 

Buy an ESSEX or two. The A-4s were designed for those bird barns. The Essexes could still then serve as commando carriers after they were past their ASW/AShW use date down to around 1990..

 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       5/30/2009 12:40:12 PM
 

The earlier mention of the Hawker Hunter giving Hun Jockies grief got me thinking that the Hunter F6 would have been a good alternative to follow on batches of Sabres and could have served into the 80's as upgraded FGA9's serving along side lightnings that replaced the Sabres and hybrid EE/GAF/Martin B-57 like Canberra's.

Why? It was very similar to the CAC Sabre in performance so why go to the trouble of having two airframes when one would do?  

Well, the RAF were supposedly rather keen on their Canadian made Sabres, and compared them favourably with their replacement Hunters...

Frankly, I agree with your statements on the Lightning, the Mirage was perfectly capable of intercepting Tu-16s, and at a much lower cost. The Saab Draken, if the Swedish air defence networking can be implemented in Australia, is even more capable of interception. The F-106, if SAGE is implemented, could be as useful, and if the money and will were there, then the Nike Hercules could be a possibility. My personal preference would probably be the Saab Draken, coupled to the Bloodhound (with sites around the major populated areas). For the naval threat, especially had it fully emerged, e.g. more Sverdlovs, and especially more, smaller, types, I would be sorely tempted to go the RN route, and go for something like the Buccaneer (shore based, sadly). Mind you, I suspect the A-4 Skyhawk could probably have been cleared to carry the Swedish Rb04 anti-ship missile, possibly even from the RAN's small carriers! A payload of one Rb04, two drop tanks and two Sidewinders would have been pretty good - if it worked. It would require either offboard targetting (S-2 Tracker?) or a suitable radar in the nose, probably the former; in fact the S-2 might have been modified to carry them...
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/30/2009 8:08:17 PM
CAC also worked on Radar equiped, Firestreak armed Sabres with uprated Avons as well as more basic 4 ADEN cannon armed derivatives before the Sidewinder solution was decided on.
 
Pretty much sums up why there was a fair amount of bad blood within CAC at the time. The organisations history makes for interesting reading.
 
Easier solution would have been to buy Sabredog and replace MightyMouse with 9-Bravo.
 
They could have even looked at using FFAR to strafe ground targets ala Meteor.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    AG   5/30/2009 9:34:32 PM
The CAC Sabre had 2 Aden, not 4. I'd be interested to see a source on the work on a radar equiped one, I've never heard of that before.
 
"Meteor, Sabre and Mirage in Australian Service" by Stewart Wilson
 
Page 94 "Firestreak testing" with a photo of A94-915 fitted with Firestreaks and A94-922 fitted with an under fuselage pod fitted with test and recoding equipment used for the trials on Page 99. The text mentioned that the trials demonstrated that the Sabres AN/APG radar was not able to take advantage of the Firestreaks capabilities and that it was proposed that any operational aircraft be fitted with a more powerful radar coupled with the MG-4 firecontrol system as fitted to the F-86K and mounted in a large nose radome similar to that of the F-86D/K/L.
 
Page 96 "Paper Sabres" including the proposed use of the 33% more powerful 10000lb thrust Avon RA14 inplace of the RA7 our Sabres did use, this version would have been armed with 4 ADEN's in place of the 2 of the basic CAC Sabre.
 
The other proposal mentioned, that I had fogotten, was an In flight Refuelling Probe fit.
 
By the way I have Wilsons entire series of books on RAAF types, which is where many of my little gems come from. I haven't read some of them for over a decade but they are there for reference when my memory fails or I need more detail.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    As an aside   5/30/2009 9:51:44 PM
From the Mirage section of the book:
"...by mid 1957 an order for 30 Lockheed F-104 Starfighters seemed imminent with the aircraft to be build in Australia. But shortly after this it was announced that the Starfighter had been rejected and extra Avon-Sabres ordered instead, the rejection being made on the grounds that Lockheed's 'missile with a man in it' was too specialised, too expensive at £1,000,000 ($2m) a copy, of questionable use for ground support duties and too sophisticated."
 
Sound familiar doesn't it?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy