Indonesian TU-16's "long range" flights

Laurie, it will be in the Journal of the Royal Institute of Navigation although I can email a copy soon.

As for the radius of action, I would not be as generous as the Encylopedia of WMA. There are many open sources that are complete nonsense. For instance the operational data for the Vulcan used by HQ FEAF planning staffs was more akin to the Observer’s Book of Aircraft.

An assumption had been made that a Mark 2 had to be better than a Mark 1 which completely overlooked the fact that the Mark 2 was designed to LIFT 2 Skybolt missiles. It was not designed to fly higher, faster or further than a Mark 1. The only thing it did do better than a Mark 1 was climb!

The ROA quoted was pretty near identical to the Vulcan.

PN, many thanks. I would appreciate a copy of the article. I’ll PM you my email address if that is okay.

Thanks also for the additional gen on operational data. Must admit, I have pretty much accepted these as fact. Will treat them with a little more scepticism now.

thanks for all the gen above, very interesting

As for the radius of action, I would not be as generous as the Encylopedia of WMA. There are many open sources that are complete nonsense. For instance the operational data for the Vulcan used by HQ FEAF planning staffs was more akin to the Observer’s Book of Aircraft.

.

Didn’t the US Navy do the same when they were pitching for funds to build the huge supercarriers at the cost of the B-36/B-52? They made a map that showed how A-1’s, A-3’s and A-4’s could nuke most of mother Russia, working on the undisclosed assumption that a carrier could sail up rivers etc !:confused: 😮

Laurie, it will be in the Journal of the Royal Institute of Navigation although I can email a copy soon.

As for the radius of action, I would not be as generous as the Encylopedia of WMA. There are many open sources that are complete nonsense. For instance the operational data for the Vulcan used by HQ FEAF planning staffs was more akin to the Observer’s Book of Aircraft.

An assumption had been made that a Mark 2 had to be better than a Mark 1 which completely overlooked the fact that the Mark 2 was designed to LIFT 2 Skybolt missiles. It was not designed to fly higher, faster or further than a Mark 1. The only thing it did do better than a Mark 1 was climb!

The ROA quoted was pretty near identical to the Vulcan.

PN, thanks for filling in some blank spaces. The combat radius figure quoted by Wikipedia seems on the low side. Checking through a copy of Vol 2 of ‘Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft’, it shows a Combat radius for the Badger A as 1700nm. Unfortunately, it does not give a similar figure for the ‘B’ model.

I know that there was concern about the Indon Badgers and that a Javelin was kept on special standby during daylight hours, ready to intercept and photograph any that tried to intrude. The Nav of that standby aircraft was issued with a Pentax camera so that he could obtain photos of the Badger to ascertain if it was indeed modified to carry AS-1s.

On 21 September 1965, on the one interception that did occur, photographs were obtained purely by chance. The Javelin had been on routine patrol and the Nav just happened to have his personal camera with him at the time.

I would be interested in obtaining a copy of your article when it is published. When, and in what publication, is that likely to be?

Regards,

Laurie.

Jon, are you referring to the Malayan Emergency from 1948 – 1960 or to the “Confrontation” 1963 -66?

I have a particular interest in both periods and this info on the TU 16 is new to me. Can you say where it came from?

Laurie,

I am preparing an article about the Confrontation period as our target of interest was the same Badgers. At the time there was a fear that they would be used to bomb malaysian targets the AURI Badger Bravo was the naval version with 2 AS 1 Kennel missiles. Its combat radius, according to Wikipedia, was 1125 miles.

From Biak it would certainly have had the range to reach Darwin but Alice Springs would have been about 400 miles beyond its ROA.

The Badger force ‘dispersed’ from its main base at Jakarta some time in Oct/Nov 64 as a defensive deployment. On the other hand the RAAF Defence Commander saw this deployment as an offensive deployment to threaten Darwin and the Northern Territory.

At the time Air defence of Darwin was still vested in the clear air-mass fighter, the F86. By the time No 75 equipped with the Mirage 3 the V-Force had returned to UK and posturing by AURI was much reduced.

“the first 48 Australian assembled [Mirage] aircraft (A3-3 to A3-50) were built as Mirage IIIO(F) interceptors and No 2 OCU at Williamtown began receiving deliveries in 1964. No 75 Squadron became the first operational unit to equip in 1965 followed by No 76 Sqn in 1966. The next 50 aircraft (A3-51 to A3-100) were built as IIIO(A) ground attack variants with slightly different radar and the addition of doppler navigation and radar altimeters for low level operation. In 1967 No 75 Sqn deployed to Malaysia to replace No 3 Sqn.”

Here is the OOB for Dutch Naval Aviation:
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/neth/mld/mldorbat.htm

March 1962
1 Squadron Tracker Hato, Curacao
2 Squadron Tracker HrMS Karel Doorman
3 Squadron Sea Hawk/Meteor T.7 Valkenburg
4 Squadron Tracker Valkenburg
5 Squadron Navigator/Tracker Valkenburg
6 Squadron Firefly 4 Biak, New Guinea
8 Squadron HO4S-3/HSS-1N Valkenburg
9 Squadron Fokker S.11 De Kooij
320 Squadron Tracker Valkenburg
321 Squadron Neptune Biak, New Guinea
860 Squadron Sea Hawk Valkenburg

1 January 1965
1 Squadron CS-2A Tracker Hato, Curacao
2 Squadron S-2A Tracker Valkenburg
4 Squadron S-2A Tracker HrMS Karel Doorman
5 Squadron Navigator Valkenburg
7 Squadron (I)UH-1 Valkenburg
8 Squadron HSS-1N(SH-34J) Valkenburg
9 Squadron Fokker S.11/Harvard De Kooij
320 Squadron Neptune Valkenburg

I think it was Sea Hawks but….

have to admit its quite a way outside of my usual area of interest! I guess if they had any standoff weapons as well, I can’t recall the code names but I think TU-16 carried those HUGE missles (Kangaro?)

Have you tried looking on Wikipedia, interesting, it states that Indonesian Tu-16’s were obtained to take out the Dutch carrier Karel Doorman, which was guarding Dutch territories at the time, what would have been flying off this carrier for protection at the time, Sea Hawks? could they have coped?

Thanks again, Jon.

link to mag page

here you go http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/product.php?productid=57100

the text below is all it says about this but it really did catch my eye.

Cheers

Jon, interesting. Thanks for that. I’ll try and get hold of a copy of that mag. Wonder where they got that info from.

There were certainly incursions over Malaysian airspace during the early months of the Confrontation period. They pretty well ceased after the RAF/RAAF fighter force was reinforced and placed on 24 hour QRA.

here you go lauriebe

In the current “combat aircraft” magazine, P71. In a feature on the Indonesian AF, it says on a TU-16 caption “were used during the putative attempts to bring Malyasia under Indonesian control, carry out airspace incursions, leaflet drops and (albeit uncorroborated) an undetected sortie to alice springs. I was curious I have to say. RAAF would have had Mirage III at the time, would have been interesting!

I read a snippet today that said there was a “claim” that a TU-16 reached as far as central Australia at some stage during the Malayan “emergency”? I know it seems to be generally accepted that the RAF shot down at least one C-130 at the time and that was hushed up. Not even sure a TU-16 has that range, but does anybody know any more about this?

Jon, are you referring to the Malayan Emergency from 1948 – 1960 or to the “Confrontation” 1963 -66?

I have a particular interest in both periods and this info on the TU 16 is new to me. Can you say where it came from?