davral64 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 (edited) This question isn't modelling related as such. I suppose this question goes to the Aussies in the crowd. I've always been curious as to the how and whys of the RAAF buying the F-111. Was it acquired to give OZ the ability to project power or did GD just do the best sales job in history? Edited April 5, 2020 by davral64 Spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanKB Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 The RAAF wanted a Canberra replacement that offered higher speeds, a larger payload and more sophisticated targeting, together with the ability to lob nuclear bombs. They were initially attracted to the TSR.2, but as we all know, that was cancelled after costs increased at the same time as the UK economy was in a long-term decline. So, with no TSR.2, the only real alternative was the F111. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davral64 Posted April 5, 2020 Author Share Posted April 5, 2020 The pure strike role makes sense. The Mirage then filled the fighter interceptor slot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanKB Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, davral64 said: The pure strike role makes sense. The Mirage then filled the fighter interceptor slot? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldbaldguy Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 North American Aviation tried desperately to sell their Vigilante to the RAAF as a Canberra replacement. It had range, payload, sophistication, mission flexibility and was originally designed to be an interdiction bomber, just like the Vaark. It also had a whopping big price per airplane and may not have been quite as good down low, even though it had that capability. I never did hear for sure why GD won the contract -- not sure the Viggie was any more complex or more of a maintenance hog -- but I suspect politics played a big role in the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Williams Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 I don’t think the Vigilante was anywhere near as flexible for conventional weapons as the F-111. It was designed as a nuclear bomber and it’s “weapons” bay was a long tunnel that ejected the weapon out of the rear of the aircraft. That design may have been fine for a nuclear weapon, and didn’t hinder it’s use in reconnaissance form, but is pretty limiting for convention loads, especially for guided weapons. The A-5 did have two (later four) wing hardpoints, but they were rarely used, so there would probably have been a lot of work and expense involved in getting the aircraft set up to be a tactical fighter-bomber. Plus, the Viggie was pretty big and heavy. Even with a ton of work and money, I can’t see the A-5 coming close to the F-111 in effectiveness. I’m sure the NA sales people told Australia it would work, but it probably wouldn’t have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanKB Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 1 minute ago, Dave Williams said: I don’t think the Vigilante was anywhere near as flexible for conventional weapons as the F-111. It was designed as a nuclear bomber and it’s “weapons” bay was a long tunnel that ejected the weapon out of the rear of the aircraft. That design may have been fine for a nuclear weapon, and didn’t hinder it’s use in reconnaissance form, but is pretty limiting for convention loads, especially for guided weapons. The A-5 did have two (later four) wing hardpoints, but they were rarely used, so there would probably have been a lot of work and expense involved in getting the aircraft set up to be a tactical fighter-bomber. Plus, the Viggie was pretty big and heavy. Even with a ton of work and money, I can’t see the A-5 coming close to the F-111 in effectiveness. I’m sure the NA sales people told Australia it would work, but it probably wouldn’t have. That's right, it was an out-and-out nuclear bomber, with a unique delivery system of "pooping" the bomb out the rear of the aircraft! It found use mostly as a high quality reconnaissance aircraft, because that's the only other role - outside of nuclear poop bombing - that it could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 F-111 = range and payload. It possessed an extremely accurate radar/inertial all-weather/night bomb-nav system and highly sophisticated countermeasures suite. Its weapons bay could also house an M61 20mm rotary canon and Sidewinder trapeze. A reconnaissance pallet was made for a few RF-111Cs, using conventional framing and panoramic cameras, dual band IRLS and a TV system. The rest got the Ford Aeronutronic Pave Tack targeting pod. Later, the aircraft got a digital bomb-nav update, and long-range missiles including Harpoon (and tested HARM). The RAAF also bought a bunch of attrition replacements and ex-SAC F-111Gs, so took delivery of about 46 F-111s in all. Mountbatten, who hated TSR.2, wanted Britain to sell Australia the Blackburn brick, but the Aussies went for F-111. The wing issue caused deliveries to be put back from 1968 to 1973, during which time the RAAF leased F-4E Phantoms (which they quite liked). F-111 was the Pig in RAAF service and, as the old saying goes, "...when I see Pigs fly". Sadly, they stopped doing that in 2010, after up to 37 years of service. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanKB Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 The F-111 seemed to be a bit of an unlucky aircraft, especially for a twin-engined aeroplane. For instance, an early F-111 developed a serious problem that was not fixable. Crew correctly decided to eject, and the capsule ejected perfectly away from the aircraft. Unfortunately, the parachutes failed to deploy because - and this is really what happened - they were still in their shrink-wrapped delivery plastic bags, and hadn't even been connected to the aircraft. Another was testing Phoenix missiles. Pre-flight inspection noted that they might hang when ejected from the aircraft. Flight crews fixed the problem after hours of work, and undertook multiple tests. Aircraft took off & deployed a Phoenix missile against a target drone. The 13ft long missile hung, but still tried to accelerate to its mach 5 speed. With a 27 second burn time, the aircraft was seen heading out to the Atlantic at speed and, despite searches, the body of one of the pilots was never found. In another instance, 2 F-111's collided. Again, the crews ejected, but the jet engine - from one of the ejected crew capsule - managed to burn through the others parachute & destroy it. The other capsule failed to deploy parachutes at all - all four aboard died. The first three F-111 losses in Vietnam were caused by structural failure at speed. Another F-111 was brought down at low altitude due to a bird strike through the windscreen - the cockpit did not have laminated windows in the spec. Unfortunately, not the luckiest aeroplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 On 6 April 2020 at 7:56 PM, DeanKB said: The F-111 seemed to be a bit of an unlucky aircraft... Unfortunately, not the luckiest aeroplane. Dean, after having researched and written five books on the F-111, some of them considered authoritative, I have to differ. Certainly, all its pioneering technologies did test things to the limit at times, especially a capsule weight-limited laminated windshield and side panels which used to have a two minute overheat warning if the F-111F reached Mach 2.6 and accelerating as happened during a post PDM FCF from Sacramento. I, hand on heart, reckon most of your wicker basket biplane heroes would have given a whole crate of Fray Bentos to conduct recce-strike in an RF-111C and would have found the sight of them utterly jaw dropping. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_K2 Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 Which five books, if I may ask? I may actually own a couple of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanKB Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 41 minutes ago, Tony T said: Dean, after having researched and written five books on the F-111, some of them considered authoritative, I have to differ. Certainly, all its pioneering technologies did test things to the limit at times, especially a capsule weight-limited laminated windshield and side panels which used to have a two minute overheat warning if the F-111F reached Mach 2.6 and accelerating as happened during a post PDM FCF from Sacramento. I, hand on heart, reckon most of your wicker basket biplane heroes would have given a whole crate of Fray Bentos to conduct recce-strike in an RF-111C and would have found the sight of them utterly jaw dropping. Tony Tony, You win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 35 minutes ago, LSP_K2 said: Which five books, if I may ask? I may actually own a couple of them. Okay, embarrassing. Anything with Tony/Anthony Thornborough on the cover. F-4, F-111, stealth etc. I handed the baton to Peter Davies and have passed my picture library to Andreas Klein at Double Ugly — great guys. Cheers Tony T LSP_K2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_K2 Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 14 minutes ago, Tony T said: Okay, embarrassing. Anything with Tony/Anthony Thornborough on the cover. F-4, F-111, stealth etc. I handed the baton to Peter Davies and have passed my picture library to Andreas Klein at Double Ugly — great guys. Cheers Tony T I'll check and see what I have, but throwing the F-4 into the mix just means that many more books to sort through, and I have quite a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now