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..

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?  

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.

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.

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."

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?

which led to the miracles being split into OA and OF classifications.

damn shame that they never did proceed with the avon engined miracle.  it could have resolved the crap ATAR C problems.

better engine, existing infrastructure, through life sunk costs on maint etc.....

ground attack could have been achieved via bucaneers if we wanted to have a mix. always regarded regarded the Voodoo and Thunders as over rated when compared to bang for buck against the bucks....

 

Not really having closely studied the years in Australia's Mirage timeframe,

I find it odd that Australia had such problems with it, yet the Israelis don't seem to mention as much disappoint in their homegrown Nesher variant Mirage, or its follow-on, J79-powered, souped-up model, the Kfir.

 

Ditto for South Africa's impressive upgrades it did to their Mirages they called Cheetahs.

 

Realizing the years actually between Australia's first Mirages and Israeli Kfirs and the Atlas Cheetahs,

it just seems to me that if the Israelis, and even embargoed South Africa, could make them worked so successfully, why was Australia having such a hard time with them?

 

Steep learning curve on the maintenance? (compared to previous types like the Sabre.)

Poor maintenance standards? (if so, the aircraft type wouldn't really have mattered here at all.)

 

Numerous other countries seem to have fared well enough with their Mirage programs (and its Atar engine).

 

What gives?

(were other countries' Mirage troubles just not as well known?)

 

Digging around further, I read the separate Wiki articles on the Mirage III and the Mirage 5 (which, my bad, seems to be where the Israeli Nesher and Kfir derived from).

Was the 5 an option at any point to Australia, seeing as there were obviously issues with the IIIs they got?

 

(also seems odd the exent Australia went thru to upgrade other aircraft (Sabre, F-111) in comparison to their Mirages.)

 

 

- Engine modifications: With the 11/11/1963 crash-landing after an engine cut by IIICJ #53 piloted by Ran Ronen, and the subsequent investigation of the aircraft and the Atar 9B engine, it was discovered that the cause for four Israeli AF Mirage IIICJ losses were the defective gasket of the fuel-injectors. Consequently, the engines were modified, although never considered as reliable.

- Engine change: After 1974, and with the end of the Nesher production, the Atar 9C output was earmarked for Atar 9B replacement in the Mirage III fleet, requiring some minor modifications in the aircraft?s tail.

- ?Technolog? conversion: Mirage IIIBJ #88 was converted as trials aircraft for the Kfir development, with the J79 engine and canards

 

Oh they were KNOWN, just not advertised. As soon as Israel could; she got an AMERICAN engine to replace that SNECMA PoJ for the KFIR.The GE J-79 wasn't that great a turbojet, only producing about 53 kN of thrust dry, but at least it didn't stall or explode for some strange reason.   

 

As for the Cheetahs, the Atlas Corporation (Denel) rebuilt those engines COMPLETELY (presumably with Israeli help).

 

 Herald