Was the F-111 the wrong aircraft for Australia?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Was the F-111 the wrong aircraft for Australia?
Volkodav 4/12/2010 7:16:29 AM

With the benefit of hindsight can it be said that the F-111 was the wrong aircraft for Australia? It was very expensive when we ordered it and its eventual price was astronomical for the time. The delivery schedule was tight with the Canberra already obsolescent, its final delivery date was unacceptable and required the leasing of an interim capability (24 F-4E Phantoms). It's through life costs were extremely high and while it eventually (after expensive upgrades) became a very capable platform we never used it in action and reliability was always an issue. What was the opportunity cost of the F-111 purchase? What level of capability could the money and resourses have been used for instead? Just a suggestion but how about 50 F-4C (1965) + 12 RF-4C (1968) + 50 F-4E (1972) + 30 to 50 A-4 Skyhawks (1965), supported by 12 KC-135.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Nichevo 4/12/2010 8:20:26 AM

Since you apparently achieved all your political objectives since then and have not lost any wars, it would seem the F-111 was a success. "Never using it in combat" is actually good, means you were never challenged, that its deterrent effect sufficed. Its difficulties provided you with opportunities to develop technical mastery and independence. And, apparently, the performance envelope of the F-111 provided you with capabilities that none of your other choices would seem to have offered.

Maybe you could explain to us how F-4/A-4 would have met your needs in the alternative; doubtless I may misunderstand your requirements. If you had gone with a mixed Phantom/Skyhawk force (both personal favorites of mine), you would have doubtless ended up running a carrier or carriers. That would have been fun, but not cheap, and then you would have had to invest in a whole CBG onion set or sets, this meanwhile taking you to a point where manning would have become an issue...

No, I would say the Aardvark as "silver bullet" was probably the best thing for you, unless indeed you could have got the B-1 or something of that sort. Range for deep strike seems to be your key so no fighter-bomber of my acquaintance would have really done a better job for you. Maybe the B-52 or the British V bombers, but then you'd need escort and maybe tanking anyway...more personnel, more logistics...no, I really don't see it.

Quote Reply

Nichevo 4/12/2010 8:27:42 AM

Of course maybe your conclusion could be that you needed no military at all since ultimately there was no DOA.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 4/12/2010 9:02:36 AM

The RAAF never used the F-111 in combat even though there were many opportunities, they did use the F/A-18 even though the F-111 was available at the time.

The F-111 was acquired to carry a nuclear bomb to Jakata, our nuclear program fell over when John Gorton was replaced as Prime Minister. The F-111 spent most of its career without a real role and most of it under the assumption if it ever was used in combat it would have been a one way mission with no survivors to return to base.

The RAAF initially selected a variant of the A-5 Vigilante but were over ruled by the then Prime Minister who ordered the F-111 instead.

Had Australia not bought the F-111 there would have been money to buy tankers which would have permitted the use of strike packages instead of lone bombers at extended ranges.

Quote Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2 4/12/2010 9:12:52 AM

I don't think it was "wrong" it just over stayed it's welcome by about 20 years...

Should have been replaced with Strike Eagles in the early - mid 90's, supported by KC-135R's and we would not have many air power issues right now. Not that we do anyway, but still...

Quote Reply

Volkodav 4/12/2010 9:48:40 AM

I don't think it was "wrong" it just over stayed it's welcome by about 20 years...

Should have been replaced with Strike Eagles in the early - mid 90's, supported by KC-135R's and we would not have many air power issues right now. Not that we do anyway, but still...

True.

I am actually a fan of the F-111 but looking at the rational behind buying it in the first place I can not help but wonder if we would have been better off overall had we prioritised high end multi role fighters supported by efficient and capable light strike aircraft and tankers instead.

It strikes me as strange that we always seem to go for the best money can buy for our combat (or should I say strike) aircraft yet near enough is always good enough for everything else. We rarely if ever actually deploy our combat aircraft yet are perfectly happy to send personnel into harms way with gear that is often anything but state of the art.

I also like the Beagle and could see it as a replacement for the F-4E, had we gone that way, but again I wonder what else the ADF could have spent the money on instead.

Another thought that crossed my mind was F-8NE Crusader instead of Mirage and A-7 instead of F-111. Vought used the Spey for the A-7D and E but also offered a reheated Spey two seat Crusader (Twosader) to the RN FAA, now that would have been interesting. Going for the Vought option would have provided us with a much more capable air combat fleet than we had, for much less money. We may even have saved enough money to fund the replacement of HMAS Melbourne with a new carrier, capable of operating Crusaders and Corsairs.

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" alt="" />

Quote Reply

hairy man 4/12/2010 7:28:53 PM

Those of you who are old enough to have been around in the '50s and '60s will remember that it was a choice between the American F111 and the British TSR2. They were very similar in size and performance. I dont recall the Vigilante or whatever ever being mentioned. We went with the Yanks, and the British then killed their TSR2.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 4/12/2010 7:38:06 PM

I'm old enough to remember the furore.

I remember when older that the TSR2 was my preferred option, but I always have a preference for the Vigilante over the pig. It was a far more flexible platform, and if it had been mainstream (not just USN) could have had a better future,

we could have had R5's instead of RF's and the R packages would have been easier to integrate and develop.

IMO the A5/R5's were one of the more elegant designs of that period

Quote Reply

DropBear 4/13/2010 2:18:47 AM

Well, considering I have been fortunate to watch many dump and burns from the old Pig over the course of its service, I would say it has been the best choice and certainly not the wrong aircraft.

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emthup.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />

Seriously, I'm not sure that had we gone with any other type, that we would have operated them OS any more than we may have with the Pig.

I have always loved the SLUF and would have liked to have seen it down here. Reckon it would have looked spiffy just like these...

source: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,23590.msg353856/highlight,raaf+a-7+corsair.html#msg353856

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/lewis148/RAAFNo3squadron.jpg" width="1000" border="0" />

Quote Reply

Volkodav 4/13/2010 9:06:29 AM

Aircraft evaluated by the RAAF to replace the Canberra in 1963 were the Mirage IV, TSR-2, A-5, F-4 and TFX (F-111). The aircraft recommended by the Chief of Air Staff was the A-5 as it met or exceeded all of the RAAF requirements and would have achieved RAAF IOC by December 1966.

In terms of our need to have a modern strike aircraft in service by the mid 60's the Vigilante or Phantom were the only viable options and of the two the Vigilante was the better strike platform. The F-111 should never have been in the running as it was still developmental and in 1963 Indonesia was a real and present threat to our security.

The A-7 was not looked at as a replacement for the Canberra or as an interim option to cover the delayed F-111 but it should have been. It was a very cost effective platform that would have served us very well, potentially for decades.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 4/13/2010 9:24:52 AM

V, the F-111 is still used as an example in both govt and ind of how NOT to do procurement.

add in the development, through life and slipped dates and its the 1960's version of JSF.

at least with JSF the risk is mitigated by a broad suite of partners and buyers.

we can look fondly back on the F-111, but we were hosed - throughout its entire life. 5 years of good vendfor behaviour and improved availability doesn't make up for a bad 40+ year "other" support and utility issues.

Quote Reply

1 2