OzVarkBeautiful pics as always, Glenn. I don’t know what us Aussie military aviation buffs would do without you. 😀
OzVarkWord has it that The Boneyard Wrangler (formally retired from active service on the 3rd May this year) is headed for the RAAF Museum at Point Cook and one has been promised to the City of Ipswich.
OzVarkAs an aside, Boeing offered to Australia some of the B-1Bs that went into storage a few years ago but were obviously turned down.
PBAR
I’ve heard that before. It’s a shame that Australia could not afford to operate such a capable aircraft, there would certainly be no question of a capability gap after the retirement of the F-111!
OzVarkBack in 1978, when I was living in Townsville, Nth Queensland I saw an Aircraft that I swear was a Tupolev Bear flying not far off the Coast. I was at school at the time and while it was far away and not 100 percent distinguishable, someone else reckoned it was a Connie but there are obvious differences and I’ll stick by what I reckon.
So…………….. anyone able to help. I have since heard that the Russians used to fly into Australian Airspace but I have no proof that they were telling the truth.
Interesting story, Glenn. Your story sparked a memory I had of a story in Australian Aviation magazine back in the ’80s, I dug it up (only to realise it had been re-published on the net :mad:) arguing for Australia to acquire an AEW capability. It’s only two lines in the article:
It is a sad state of affairs when the DoD apparently suggests that contrails, sighted over the Kimberley, ‘probably came from a Russian Tu-20 Bear’.
On the subject of the search for a replacement for the Canberra, apparently in 1958, the Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Sir Frederick Schreger, favoured the Vulcan (and later the TSR.2) Quite a tasty what-if, eh? An Aussie Vulcan!
You can actually view the report of the RAAF Evaluation Team online here: http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/imagine.asp?B=1533518&I=1&SE=1 it makes for very interesting reading.
In the section on the TSR.2, there is a very ironic statement:
Prospects of Production of TSR2
86. Verbal assurances were received from Secretary of State for Air and Minister for Aviation that TSR2 was a firm service requirement and they could forsee no reason why production orders would not be approved.
🙁
OzVarkWhen talking about the effectiveness of the Black Buck missions, you have to remember that the Vulcans were being pulled out of semi-retirement and many of the modifications – IFR probe, pylons for AGM-45 – were very hastily put together, the IFR plumbing had not been used for 15 years and only five Vulcans had the adequate wiring, due to the Skybolt programme, to carry the Shrike.
Also, with Black Buck One, the objective was not to destroy the airfield. I believe the ineffectiveness of the mission was due to the laydown pattern, only a couple of bombs were planned to hit the runway, enough to disrupt it but not make it too difficult for the engineers to repair it to enable the RAF to use it after it had been retaken. The rest were meant to cause damage to the taxiways and facilities, as they did.
I’m sure had the RAF had more time, the preparations and modifications on the Vulcans would have been much more thorough and the aircraft much more capable.
On the matter of a follow up Vulcan, I found this in Vulcan Super Profile by Christopher Chant:
“It is interesting to speculate what might have happened had not the Americans cancelled the Skybolt, for Avro had been working on a highly advanced version of the Vulcan B.Mk 2 to offer maximum utility with the Skybolt.
This machine, which would have entered service as the Vulcan B.Mk 3, was designed around the Phase 6 wing and uprated engines.
The Phase 6 wing saw a return to the more convential delta shape, though with span increased to 117 ft 6 in; the powerplant was to have consisted of four 22,500lb Olympus 23 engines fed from internal wing tankage which, as it distributed loads throughout the wing (rather than close to the centerline as on existing marks) permitted a structure weight little increased over that of the Phase 4 wing despite the increased fuel load and maximum take-off weight being increased to 350,000lb. The revised aircraft would have carried six Skybolts (a load of 69,000lb) externally, or a combined internal and external load of 38 1,000lb conventional bombs arranged 3-4-3 in the bomb bay and tandem 2-3-2 in twin pods suspended from the middle Skybolt hardpoints under each wing. Maximum range was calculated as 5,750 miles and seven-hour missions were anticipated.”
OzVarkLOL. Oh dear. It might have gone been better if you hadn’t posted the link to the “Molloy Paper”. Did you by any chance read the first couple of pages? “lengthy and costly study” indeed.
Yes, well I did let my enthusiasm runaway with me. But it dosen’t change the fact that before the pro-JSF lobby used former Defence Minister Moore’s policy against wastage to get rid of the old guard, the RAAF were interested in the F-22, not the JSF. AVM Peter Criss is evidence of this.
Yes of course Mr England is making his own personal statements to foreign governments, no way he would be representing the position of his boss. F-22 with Kangaroo roundels, not going to happen.
That is of course assuming the letter actually exists. Defmin Nelson has made a habit of stating that “high-ranking sources in the American Defence Department have assured me that they won’t sell the F-22” during the debate into the future of Australia’s air power without providing evidence of this. We’re just supposed to take his word for it. Even if this letter does exist, it signals a departure from established US policy towards Australia regarding the export of high-end military technology. Read the link Silvia posted.
OzVarkYes, it’s interesting that the second paragraph in the story begins with “The US statement ends a growing debate among defence experts about which plane should replace the RAAF’s ageing F-111 strike bombers and form the front line of the nation’s future air force.” It’s nice of them to assume that the debate into the future of Australia’s air power is now over just because of a letter that Brendan Nelson says exists. But as the APA media release says its existence was divulged by to a select group of journalists and as The Australian is pretty pro-Liberal, it’s probably no suprise.
If this letter does indeed exist, the onnus is on Brendan Nelson to table the document. Even the Australian Strategic Policy Institute which is Government-funded recommended that the Government needs to seriously consider the Raptor. See this article by the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/on-shopping-list-fighter-jets-with-no-stealth/2007/02/11/1171128816482.html
which also includes the views of ADA’s Neil James and former Air Commander Australia Peter Criss AM AFC.
OzVarkI agree, Scoot. The timing of this, in the same week when the independent defence journal, ADA Defender, published a major paper on the suitability of the F-35 as our only frontline combat aircraft by a group of defence and industry officals under a pen name is highly suspicious.
http://www.ada.asn.au/DefenderIndex.htm
Why would the USAF have conducted “The Molloy Paper”, which was initiated due largely to interest from the pre Defence Reform RAAF in the F-22, which identified Australia as a safe export target for the Raptor if they did not intend to export it? Furthermore, why did, as a result of the Paper, the Intergrated Product Team study different configurations of the Raptor which could be sold to Australia and identified a configuration in which certain sensitive features would be “turned-off” and only available to the RAAF in wartime? This sounds like an awful lot of effort to got to on an aircraft “not available for export” to define a process in which it could be exported to Australia.
With all due respect to Mr England, it is not up him wether the F-22 would be sold for export or not. It would be up to Congress and ultimately, the President. Personally, I think the benefits to the United States of Australia operating the Raptor outweigh the negatives, particularly in terms of the security of the Asia-Pacific.
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/saas/molloy.pdf
OzVark2020 !!! not a chance … my 96 year old grandmother has a better chance of getting to 2020.
Perhaps you should have entered your grandmother in AIR 6000, then. :p
OzVarkI wonder what happen to the RAAF F-4’s after they were returned? Sold secondhand?
ADF Serials has the service history of each aircraft here: http://www.adf-serials.com/3a69.shtml
Where were these pics. taken ,the city they are flying over does not look familiar.Nice anyhow.
It’s St. Louis. They’re scans of original McDonnell Douglas PR photos I picked up recently, apart from that one, they were all taken in Australia.
OzVarkPeace Reef Phantoms
OzVarkThanks for the info, guys. I liked the pic of Red 01 in its green state on the NAPO production line in December’s AFM. Being an F-111 buff, I have a bit of a soft spot for the Fullback. Have you seen the Google Video of it? If not: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=6095317585015883185&q=SU-32
OzVarkNow this is not a completely clear recollection but isn’t the RCS reduction tech of the Raptor a generation behind that of the Lightning and therefore still requiring significant maintenance to its integrity. Would the RAAF not just be trading one hangar queen for another.
I’m not sure about the reduction tech, but the F-22 has a much smaller RCS than the F-35. While the F-22 has all-aspect stealth, the F-35’s stealth band is limited by the inlet and nozzle design.
OzVarkFurther, the US is just stretched to thin and can’t be everywhere at once? Also, as you stated ASIA is becoming the next world hot spot and as the US always works within an Alliance. It would be in her interests to sell F-22 to friends and allies in the region…………..IMO
Indeed. Imagine the deterrent effect of having F-22s at Elmendorf, Anderson, Misawa and Tindal.
OzVarkWhat’s disturbing is the fact that the USAF offered the RAAF high-level classified briefings on the F-22, but were cancelled because of the RAAF leadership’s preference for the F-35. Even if you prefer the F-35, what harm could learning more about the Raptor do?
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub38.pdf
Sign In
