Belgian/Dutch Hunter Dissatisfaction

Anybody remember the crews at all ?

http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/reddevil.htm 😉

I remember the `Diables Rouge` 4-ship at Abingdon in 1968,on their last,last,really last swansong. I think they were led by a FG.Off,and 3 NCOs and culminated in a 4-ship `cross`,dead centre at the intersection of the N-S/E-W runway(well maybe a very short gap !). Anybody remember the crews at all ?

Would it be fair to say that the RAF might have felt the same way as Belgium/Dutch A/F?
The RAF had the real advantage though of having many more arframes to play with (useful when problems occured), and as touched on above it was the FGA.9 that was our fully sorted model. We also didn’t have to use the Hunter very long in the pure fighter role, what with F-86 in at the beginning and the Lighting coming in during the early ’60s.

I wonder that if the RAF only had the same models and amounts as Belgium/Dutch A/F and had to be used solely in the same roles, would the RAF have felt the same way?

“Dissatisfied” is, I suggest defensively, not the mot juste.
NATO formed 1949, Belg/Neth in at creation. 1950, Korean War, US Aid as MDAP/MSP. 1952: Swift designated as NATO Standard type, to be licenced into Belg/Neth. with $ Aid, as interceptor; F-84-family supplied for GA/recce. 1954, changed to Hunter as NATO-Standard, due Swift F.1/2 failure. 1955, new FRG in NATO, F-84s as GA/recce, 115 Hunters to be interceptor. Changed, due to compressor stall/engine flame-out issue, to F-86E. Problems fixed in time to confirm Hunter F.4 for RBAF/RNethAF. 1956 F.6.

1959/60: Low Countries’ interception assigned to USAFE/Soesterberg F-102A. NATO-Standard GA/recce competition, winner to be licenced into a Euro-wide consortium as the basis for extending to other NATO Members US’ nuke “dual key” scheme applicable to RAF-in-NATO Valiant, Canberra B.6/B.(I).6/8 and to RAF Thor/Italian and Turkish Jupiter IRBMs. UK, very sensibly, chose to convert interceptor Hunter F.6 into FGA.9/FR.10. The winner was a paper type of modest, deferred, problematic utility in any iron-store role. Lockheed would have been culpable if USSR had ever rolled forward in night and fog. So would Prince Bernhardt and FRG’s Defence Minister Strauss. Having built it, Belg/Neth must deploy it. I know a better place to put the word “dissatisfaction”.

I don’t think the Dutch were displeased with the Hunters, they even took a full squadron to Netherlands New Guinea between 1960 and 1962 as a defense from Sukarno’s Indonesia. But both Belgium and the Netherlands were offered the F-104G, which were much more suited to the nucleair strike role in central Europe, and in the case of the Netherlands the Air Defense tasks over the North Sea. It was the sixties, the Cold War was soaring. We could afford them (although some were MDAP-funded), and we felt we needed them.

Several F4’s remain in Belgium. Only one F6 and its rotten with corrosion. Even the Hunter is our aerobatic team colors in the Brussels museum is an F4. It should be an F6. Guess the F4’s weren’t worth reselling and the F6’s were. It’s also a case of new toys I guess. We had CF-100, F-84,F-104.. coming in great numbers to replace them. The CF-100’s are another bad case of managment. They were scrapped after only a few years of service. Not one remained for a museum. The one in Brussels is a Canadian gifted one, but the wrong MK.

I recall reading that the Belgium F.4’s were troublesome along with everybody elses initially ? It was a case that they had so many (US funded purchase) so they had more than they needed, many were bought back with next to zero hours for refurb and resale. Barry Jones wrote of reliability problems that Hawker couldn’t address as they were tied up with RAF service requirements, but these problems may have come from the Avions Fairey production I guess. Hawker bought back nearly hundred at scrap value. The Dutch seemed happier with their Fokker built aircraft.

Belgium built 256, a mix of F.4’s and F.6’s – 64 paid for by the USA, 256 seems a high figure for a small air force even at that period in history.