Jump to content
The Education Forum

Australian Election


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

"Mark, point me in the direction of the driest uninhabited continent. Sounds good to me. I'll pack a few eskies and move there."

Greg, you wont have far to go (near uninhabited) just head straight south, and forget about an esky. Pack longjohns and parkas instead. :)

Evan, AFAIK the F-!!! (planning dating to early 60's) was only bought by Oz. (outside USofA) Where has it seen active service as far as Oz is concerned. It has dropped out of the sky on a regular basis. A stupid purchase at a time when the Saab Viggen (for example) was far superior.

The purchase of the F-111 was surround by controversy. The main competitor for the purchase was the (now) BAe TSR2. It was being developed for the RAF, and was turning into an impressive aircraft. Almost without warning, Duncan Sandys (the UK Minister for Defence) canceled all research programmes - among them the TSR2. There was shock about this decision, especially when shortly afterwards a decision was made to purchase the F-111K for Britain to fill the gap left by the TSR2! That order was eventually canceled, and F-4 Phantoms were purchased instead.

Anyway, as you say, we were the only customer outside of the US, but the Viggen never even entered into the picture.

The F-111 was purchased for Air Staff Requirement 36 (ASR 36), the Canberra bomber replacement, and called for a high speed aircraft to attack targets deep within enemy territory with bombs or air-to-surface missiles, as well as photo-recon and ECM missions as a secondary role. The basic requirements were for all weather day / night Mach 2 performance at 50 000 feet, and Mach 0.9 at 200 feet, ROA of 900nm minimum with 1100nm preferred. It had to be capable of in-flight refuelling, and carry a weapons load of 4 x 1000lb bombs or 2 x air-to-surface missiles.

Let’s see how the performance figures of the two stand up:

Viggen F-111

Speed M2.1 M2.4

TFR capability No Yes

Weapons load 4400lbs 8000lbs

ROA 550nm 1200nm

In-flight refuelling No Yes

Internal bomb bay No Yes

Air-to-Surface Weapons No Yes

The Viggen wasn't even considered because it wasn't in the same class. It was designed for a different requirement.

I think to say they "...dropped out of the sky on a regular basis..." is completely inaccurate. We bought 24 F-111C originally, then in 1982 bought 4 x F-111A aircraft and converted them to C status as attrition replacements, then in 1993/94 we bought 15 x F-111G to expand our capability and reduce airframe usage on the original Cs / As. So out of 43 airframes bought (of we at least two were bought only to cannibalise for spares), we have lost 7 F-111Cs (since 1973) and an F-111G in 1999. Considering the flight regime they fly in, that's a pretty good record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Evan, I concede that you are essentialy correct in various statistics and specs. However, that's a 19.5% non-combat, merely operational, loss rate. Huge piles of dough down the drain.

"The Viggen wasn't even considered because it wasn't in the same class. It was designed for a different requirement."

this is the crux of the matter.

For what, IMO. an independent Oz needs/needed is a rethink. This rethink would move the Viggen into the "considered" category.

(derived from various sites including Wiki and the swedish air force site.)

Viggen

Empty weight: 26,900 lb (12,200 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 44,000 lb (20,000 kg)

Powerplant: 1× Volvo RM 8B afterburning turbofan, 16,200 lbf dry, 28,110 lbf afterburning (72.1 kN / 125.0 kN)

Maximum speed: Mach 2.1, 1,386 mph at 36,100 ft (2,231 km/h at 11,000 m)

Range: 1,240 mi (2,000 km)

Service ceiling: 59,100 ft (18,000 m)

1x 30 mm Oerlikon KCA cannon with 126 rounds

Six missile stations for two Skyflash, four AIM-120 AMRAAM (JA 37D), or six AIM-9 Sidewinder or four 135 mm (5.4 in) rocket pods.

"In the beginning of the 1960s it was decided that the multipurpose attack/fighter Saab 37 Viggen should be designed as a single seat aircraft. A central computer and a head-up display made it possible to dispense with the need for a human navigator. The digital computer was the central computing and integrating unit for all electronic equipment to support the pilot. This computer, CK37 used in the Saab AJ37, was the first airborne computer in the world to use integrated circuits (first generation ICs).[11] It utilized the STRIL 60 system to be linked with the Swedish defence systems. The main sensor was an Ericsson PS-37 X-band monopulse radar with several functions: air-to-ground and air-to-air telemetry and cartography. A Honeywell radar altimeter with transmitter and receiver in the canard wings was used to assist low altitude flight. A Decca Type 72 doppler navigation radar and a series of other electronic sub-systems. A novel landing-aid device - TILS (Tactical Instrument Landing System) made by Cutler-Hammer AIL was used to improve landing accuracy down to 30 m from the threshold on the short highway airbase system.[12] ECM consisted of SATT RWR system in the wings and the tail, an optional Ericsson Erijammer pod and BOZ-100 chaff/flare pod. In total, the electronics weighed 600 kg which was a substantial amount for a single-engine, late 1960s fighter."

The Viggen (and the Draken), in a suitable strategy, potentially reduces dependence on foreign upkeep and development. It incorporated, at the time, highly advanced independent IT capabilities with low training re servicing, (an all oround aim), from fuelling, arming and general servicing. This means an aircraft that is suitable to Neutral, Defence capabiliities. As, IMO, this is what an independent Oz needs, the F111 is for a scenario that is basically assault oriented and at the time, Oz and the US were involved with the Vietnam War and Australian British Commonwealth committments called for a plane that could serve more than one master. If correct. Why?

Viggen

"Performance comparisons with other aircraft from the same age are however slightly difficult, since no other fighter or attack aircraft, aside from the Harrier and Yak-38. were designed for STOL or VTOL capability."

Australia is essentially an urban, heavily eastern seaboard populated nation. On this Eastern seaboard the population is largely heavily concentrated in a small number of places.

IOW each locality could be serviced by independent units and long range attack need not be a consideration. Nevertheless it has been so considered. IMO wrongly so, it gives an attacker a potential disabling tactical loophole, but understandable, given the various commitments and treaties Oz was/is involved in. This IMO doesn't make this a strategy that is necessarily in Oz's best long term interest.

With qualifications, the Viggen was superior in a number of ways. However, the specs as formulated by in Oz at the time by the powers that be at the time, for whatever reason(s), (and who knows whatever other 'inducements'), the F111 was indeed considered a front contender. And the time frame, escalating costs, fatigue issues et.c. has made it a 'pig'.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost without warning, Duncan Sandys (the UK Minister for Defence) canceled all research programmes - among them the TSR2.

An interesting introduction, for me, to Australian politics. I'm pleased that to some degree punishment has been meted out on those who began a War in Iraq in defiance of international opinion.

However, about the TSR2... Someone wrote a book called "Who killed the TSR2?" But I don't think Duncan Sandys was ever a suspect. For one thing, his politics could have given rise to the expression 'well to the Right of Genghis Khan' - for example he was associated with a last-ditch defence of capital punishment. And in general the Conservative Party was in favour of big military hardware.

The following information comes from a video 'TSR2 the untold story' published by 'DD Home Entertainment'. It was Harold Wilson's (Labour) government (1964-1970) who cancelled the TSR2 project. At any rate during an interview on the video Denis Healey says that the cancellation was announced during the Budget Speech in 1965, that the decision had been made earlier in the relevant Cabinet Committe, but the announcement was held back because Wilson was concerned that cancellation would be unpopular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norman, you are correct - it wasn't Sandys. I was getting mixed up there.

There are a number of good books available about the TSR2 but an excellent first-hand account is from the test pilot for the programme, Ronald "Bea" Beaumont, and called "Phoenix into Ashes".

The F-111 is a magnificent aircraft, but its selection into the Australian inventory involved skullduggery. A lot of pressure was placed on the RAAF to buy the F-111 in favour of the the TSR2, and it is widely believed that the loss of Australian TSR2 orders was one of the final nails in the coffin for the TSR2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the book information, Evan, and usefully timed since it's getting near Christmas! I worked for a couple of months at Vickers in Weybridge, in the despatch department. Most of what I despatched were drawings for Warton (English Electric), and I was duly thrilled to see one drawing I could actually understand - what the TSR2 looked like - before the information became public. However, the fact that English Electric wasn't the main contractor was, according to the commentary on the video, another of the many things that went wrong with the project. In the video the chief test pilot also blames Mountbatten for undermining the sale of the TSR2. He claims that while talking to the Australian Minister of Defence Mountbatten produced from a bag 5 model Buccaneers and 1 model TSR2, and said 'Why do you want one of these when you can have 5 of these?' How he knew this is what Mountbatten said is not clear. Also he refers to the Australian Minister of Defence as Sir Frederick Sherga, and I can't find a Minister of Defence of that name!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard the same thing about Mountbatten.

He was probably speaking to Air Chief Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, Chief of Air Staff (i.e. head of the RAAF) until 1961 then Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (i.e. chief of the armed forces).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...