F-86F Sabre: initial fighter version with J-47 engine & 6 x HMGs
F-86K Sabre: all-weather fighter with 4 x 20mm cannon & Sidewinders
Well, we went with the CAC Avon Sabre which had the Rolls-Royce Avon Mk 26 engine, which had roughly 50% more thrust than the J47, as well as 30 mm Aden cannons and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles so why bother?
Time, basically. The RAAF didn't get the Avon Sabre until 1954, too late for Korea. Had a perfectly standard non-developmental Sabre been put into service in 1950 or 1951 as an emergency measure, the RAAF in Korea would have been materially better off.
As for the F-86K, well this is the export version of the radar-equipped Sabre-Dog, so a totally different mission. I must admit to being slightly puzzled that Australia doesn't seem to have adopted any jet night-fighter in the 1950s: was there no requirement, or was it just too far down the list?
Sapphire Sabre (RAN): basically an FJ-3 Fury with a UK-spec Sapphire (licence built) instead of the J-65 and 2 x ADEN cannons.
Sapphire Sabre (RAAF): ulitmate fighter version, basically the RAN fuselage with a non-folding 6-3 wing and a shorter nosewheel.
Another favourite of mine and one touched upon already:
![](http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/FJ-4FuryGreg02.jpg)
I would prefer to go with a naval version of the Avon Sabre though.
Primary reason for going this route was to avoid re-inventing the wheel: if NAA are already adapting a much more powerful engine to the Sabre, then why not simply go with them? Since the Sapphire and Avon wre interchangeable in many installations anyway, Aus could probably have an 'Avon-Fury' if they really wanted one.
I went for the FJ-3 rather than the FJ-4 specifically because it's more of a fighter and more like the CA-27. The FJ-4 was more of a strike aircraft in practice.
F-100D/F Super Sabre: possibly with developed Sapphire or Avon engines.
Another possibility - one probably needs for the standard Sabre to be taken out of the picture though...maybe CAC really plan to do the F-100 but do the standard Sabre as an interim measure while working unto the F-100? A carrier based version could definitely be interesting.
I think that, looking at dates, the Super Sabre is an alternative to the Sapphire Sabres if anything. The RAAF and CAC would have an interesting decision to make: go for an 'Aussie Sabre' development of the F-86F with low risk but limited potential or jump ahead to the genuinely supersonic F-100, thereby betting the farm on something much more developmental and likely to suffer from problems?
It would be realistic, if not satisfying, for a muddy compromise to see both happen. The RAAF want to go straight from the F-86F to the F-100, but when the development problems with the latter become apparent, it all gets political and CAC's offer of the Sapphire Sabre as a safe interim buy is forced on the RAAF against their will. The problem then is that they have too many new aircraft all at once in the late 1950s, and are therefore forced to keep flying the F-100 and Sapphire Sabre into the early 1970s when they'd really rather have switched to something like the Mirage with radar and Mach 2 capability.
F-107: Super Sabre follow-on with radar, original chin intake and no recessed nuke, possibly with an Olympus engine. This would be bought instead of the Mirage.
Maybe, though suffering same issue as with F-100 above. Maybe the F-107 is introduced as an interim Canberra replacement rather than Mirage alternate?
The intake went dorsal when the ventral intake was shown to interfere with the semi-recessed tac nuke they planned to carry. I can't imagine it improved high AoA capability though, which is why I suggested the chin intake for a non-nuclear fighter-bomber version. it would also be more sutiable for an AI radar too. The Aussie Mirages were actually bought in two different standards originally, one interceptor and one strike, so you might imagine the F-107 doing both roles too.
Did Australia have, or have access to, tac nukes for it's Canberras and F-111s?
One of my personal preferences is for the RAAF and RAN to share designs wherever possible This may influence many choices.
It gets tricky when you're trying to reconcile the RAAF's very long range strike requirement and the RAN's tiny carriers though. I'm not even sure that you'd get a Crusader onto a Colossus/Majestic safely: the F-8(FN) mods only barely allowed it to operate from the larger Clemenceaus.
Of course one whiff option we havn't looked at yet in this thread is the RAN getting bigger and better carriers at some point:
Build a
Clemenceau locally? (Crusaders plus Skyhawks or A7s?)
Take a second-hand
Essex from the USN?
How about buying the newly-refitted
Victorious after she was surprise-decommissioned? Buccaneers and Crusaders would be a tasty option.
For any option, purchase and operating costs are obviously going to be a big deal, but also, what about manning issues?