Author Topic: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968  (Read 20318 times)

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2018, 12:23:37 PM »
The F-8 would be my pick as an excellent all-rounder. OK, it only carried AIM-9's but they were relatively reliable compared to the longer range & BVR missiles of the day, & it had good dog-fighting abilities at both super-sonic & sub-sonic speeds.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2018, 04:47:35 PM »
I support the hypothesis, that due to potential political constraints by the Swedish government  (and hats off to them),  that depending on your 'medium -sized country, and your nature of military bravado,  the choice of the Draken (although I personally love the design and concept) will undoubtedly have many strings  attached with its usage and deployment prospect! But then again,  Australia found this out with its Mirage III's and the French government, didn't it!

M.A.D


Offline Kelmola

  • Seeking motivation to start buillding the stash
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2018, 05:06:18 PM »
Re Swedish government constraining the sale of the Draken, one has to also remember it was powered by a licence-built Avon. Granted, the UK was not as overt with its meddling as the US (cf. what happened with the Viggen and its licence-built JT8D) but I guess the UK could have hampered the Swedish efforts in case the Draken would have been competing against the Lightning for sales.

You're forgetting that the USN & USAF went to a gun-armed F-4 (& the USN created the Naval Fighter Weapons School) after lessons learned in Vietnam, where the lack of training & guns had been a serious issue.
"No."

The USAF added an internal gun and wing slats to F-4E in order to make it a close-in dogfighter. The Navy established the Fighter Weapons School, but the F-4J they went back to Vietnam with did not have a gun or slats (the slats were added in the S rebuild after Vietnam though, but the Navy never added a gun).

The USAF kill ratio worsened. The USN kill ratio soared. Even with the modifications, the Phantom still didn't belong to a furball with MiG-17's (preferably not even with 21's), but the Navy experience showed it didn't have to if properly flown. So the USAF did what Navy had done and established their own aggressor squadrons for the purpose of DACT.

Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2018, 11:17:47 PM »
I think the J32B Lansen could also be a nice choice, with its radar, 4 AIM-9 and 4 30mm ADENs. Good range and a second set of eyes in the back as a plus. Unfortunately I have no idea about its maneuverability though I've read somewhere it could outclimb the Hunter and hold its own against it, as long as the fight was kept in the vertical.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2018, 02:35:28 AM »
Looking back to the original post (or parts thereof):

What's the best land-based air superiority option for a medium-sized nation in the years 1956-1968?

Because of the rapid development in capabilities in this era, I think you really need to consider when said nation acquires.  If it was towards the start (say pre-1960) than the subsonic (Sabre etc) or 1st Gen supersonic (F-100/MiG-19) would have to be the leading candidates.  If however, you want to consider a latter acquisition (post 1960 and especially towards the latter '60s) than platforms such as the F-4 Phantom and others become more viable.  To try to select something for right across this period is too difficult otherwise.

No specific threat environment, East/West alignment, or terrain to consider. Aerial refueling is a plus, but in no way a requirement. More range is a plus, but no specific figure to consider. These are not to be operated from a carrier, so that is a superfluous feature. Ground attack capability is a plus, but not the focus here. Fleet size would be around 100 aircraft.

Again, I think some more context is required here.  Are we talking about a nation with a definite threat/competitor at hand or just a run of the mill country.  For instance, a selection for New Zealand would potentially be different than say a Israel.  are they likely to go up against a peer force or not?  Are they likely to be purely defensive or just as likely to go on the offensive.  As alluded to in my last post, a pure defensive role may point you more towards an interceptor whereas an offensive role (or "taking the fight to the enemy") will favour something with more range/weapons compliment.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 02:45:54 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2018, 03:49:16 AM »
I am always careful where it comes to pilot accounts. Ego is not a dirty word to most of them. I've read two accounts of the RAAF's encounter with the F-5 with the Mirage and it occurred way back in the 1980s. The Mirage pilots claimed they defeated the Aggressors when they came on a tour of Oceania. Now, they may have had a bad day or they may have let the Mirage's win, deliberately. However, the accounts I have read appeared to back up that the superior tactics of the Mirages were what defeated the F-5s, not any inherent flying abilities of the aircraft. They were published in Australian magazines back in the day, so they aren't available any more.

It might have been that the F-5 pilots were just a little cocky and suffered as a consequence? I think one of the problems they had was that they flew like they believed Soviet pilots flew - with limited creative input from the pilots and a lot of GC input? The RAAF flew more creatively than they were used to as well? Who knows?

As I have suggested, the Soviet method of piloting, in those days, didn't allow for much creativity. You took off, you carried out your interception, you fought, you landed (if you survived) and all the time were under ground control direction. After Vietnam, the Soviets realised it wasn't working and started their own "Top Gun" school and loosened up their control of the pilots. Training is always the key which wins the battles. If you train hard you have a better edge than the person who doesn't.  The Mirage was a good interceptor which got turned into a good fighter-bomber. It wasn't a super-plane - no aircraft is. Some are better than others some worse. It is the pilot and their abilities which are the winner.


That's very much in line with my assessment and understanding.

Instead of buying a super-plane, I'd go for a smaller aircraft, such as the F-5 or the Hunter - both cheaper and more easily replaceable. I'd concentrate on the pilot's training. Purchase a trainer version of your fighter and teach your pilots how to fly by the seat of their pants. It might not win you any battles but it will ensure you don't lose many. Build a ground defence radar network and invest in AEW aircraft. Make sure it is nearly impossible for your enemy to attack you without being detected. Train your fighter pilots and use the radars to your advantage.


Totally valid choice, especially if you upgrade the Hunters to use Sidewinders. Otherwise, they may be at a disadvantage against opponents armed with AIM-9Bs or K-13s.

I think the J32B Lansen could also be a nice choice, with its radar, 4 AIM-9 and 4 30mm ADENs. Good range and a second set of eyes in the back as a plus. Unfortunately I have no idea about its maneuverability though I've read somewhere it could outclimb the Hunter and hold its own against it, as long as the fight was kept in the vertical.


All good point, though I'd worry about its deficiencies in speed and agility. I've not read anything outstanding in either category regarding it. I do love the look of it, though, and think it's a good all-weather fighter for the era, as well as a good strike platform, too.

Because of the rapid development in capabilities in this era, I think you really need to consider when said nation acquires.  If it was towards the start (say pre-1960) than the subsonic (Sabre etc) or 1st Gen supersonic (F-100/MiG-19) would have to be the leading candidates.  If however, you want to consider a latter acquisition (post 1960 and especially towards the latter '60s) than platforms such as the F-4 Phantom and others become more viable.  To try to select something for right across this period is too difficult otherwise.

Again, I think some more context is required here.  Are we talking about a nation with a definite threat/competitor at hand or just a run of the mill country.  For instance, a selection for New Zealand would potentially be different than say a Israel.  are they likely to go up against a peer force or not?  Are they likely to be purely defensive or just as likely to go on the offensive.  As alluded to in my last post, a pure defensive role may point you more towards an interceptor whereas an offensive role (or "taking the fight to the enemy") will favour something with more range/weapons compliment.


As for the timeframe, assume that this is a force already equipped with something like the F-86 Sabre or MiG-15 and you're in charge of lining up a replacement that's to serve until about 1968-70. So, you're country is not without a fighter (in other words, it doesn't have to enter service in 1956), but the sooner the better. That's why the F-5A wouldn't be ideal. It means that you'd have to keep the Sabre as your frontline fighter until 1965 and that its replacement would only serve 3-5 years until it was replaced.

As I mentioned earlier, I would say that the scenario favors defense, but not exclusively. If attacked by neighbors, you'd want to be able to take the fight to them, I'd think. I'm evaluating other platforms separately for the strike role, so the multi-role aspect isn't huge, but you're going to want to escort strike packages. I'd say this would be a country like Greece, Iran, or Indonesia in that period, for example. Multiple different threat vectors and profiles. No single enemy, but a variety of opposing equipment types and regions.



The reason this thought experiment started in my head was that I was used to comparing combat aircraft purely as airplanes. In doing this, though, I was looking at combat performance and I realized that the weapons used (20mm Colts, 30mm DEFA, AIM-4 Falcom, AIM-9B Sidewinder, Shafrir-1, K-13, etc.) began to have more of an impact on effectiveness than the airframe that carried them. In short, the concept of "weapon system" really starts to come into its own at this time. I feel like I know enough about modern systems and aircraft to be able to evaluate their capabilities relatively well, but this 12 year period during the years of early jets, early missiles, early radar, and early countermeasures is a bit less clear to me.

Furthermore, during this time, most missile-equipped fighters were designed to down bombers, any yet most aerial combat in this period was actually fighter vs. fighter, further complicating things. So, that led to this thread.

In short, taken as a weapon system, which fighter aircraft was the best practical solution to likely threats in the air-to-air role?

Cheers,

Logan

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2018, 07:00:42 AM »


Bill Gunston had no doubt: for him, Draken was the best.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2018, 12:29:59 PM »


Bill Gunston had no doubt: for him, Draken was the best.

I would be very interested in Bill Gunston's analogy of why he viewed the Draken "was the best" if you have it Carlos!
If you do,  could you PM it to me please?

M.A.D

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2018, 01:44:14 PM »
Draken looked so advanced.  Ahead of its time when I discovered it in early 60s.  Like a junior SR-71.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2018, 05:37:01 PM »
Instead of buying a super-plane, I'd go for a smaller aircraft, such as the F-5 or the Hunter - both cheaper and more easily replaceable. I'd concentrate on the pilot's training. Purchase a trainer version of your fighter and teach your pilots how to fly by the seat of their pants. It might not win you any battles but it will ensure you don't lose many. Build a ground defence radar network and invest in AEW aircraft. Make sure it is nearly impossible for your enemy to attack you without being detected. Train your fighter pilots and use the radars to your advantage.

Totally valid choice, especially if you upgrade the Hunters to use Sidewinders. Otherwise, they may be at a disadvantage against opponents armed with AIM-9Bs or K-13s.

Singapore and the Netherlands did exactly that.   I'd upgrade it further to carrying four Sidewinders, on multiple launchers.   The Indians showed that the Hunter was an excellent dog fighter.   Another alternative has been suggested - the CAC Avon-Sabre.  I am sure Australia would enjoy selling them.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 08:08:40 PM by Rickshaw »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2018, 06:58:04 PM »
I know you said land based but I have always had a soft spot for the FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury.  It was fast, agile and very long ranged, with cannon instead of MGs, four or six under wing stores stations it could carry two, four (or even six) sidewinders, drop tanks, buddy refuelling pod etc.  As is it was a very capable aircraft that could have easily provided the sort of long effective service that the Sabre, Hunter, Super Mystere, Mig 17 and 19 did.

A very minor WIFF (outside the scope of the topic sorry) its carrier gear could have been deleted reducing weight providing either improved performance or space and weight for other equipment.  For instance there could have been a Mk33 Avon Sabre based on the FJ-4 with ADEN cannon and a 10,000lb thrust 200 series Avon.

The other thought is the F-86D/K/L but a Wiff would be needed for sidewinder and guns.

Ultimate Wiff, CAC Mk34+, an FJ-4B derived land based airframe with a 200 series Avon, F-86D/K/L style radar nose, Sidewinder and Firestreak and possibly an afterburner to give it a supersonic dash capability.  Yep know its a wiff but its a wiff using off the shelf options by an organisation that had already done just that to produce the original Avon Sabre.

Another thought, a Sea Venom with Sidewinder would have been quite effective throughout the specified time period.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2018, 08:11:18 PM »
As would a Sea Vixen, Javelin or Scimitar...

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2018, 08:21:20 PM »
As would a Sea Vixen, Javelin or Scimitar...

True

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2018, 04:08:57 AM »


Bill Gunston had no doubt: for him, Draken was the best.

I would be very interested in Bill Gunston's analogy of why he viewed the Draken "was the best" if you have it Carlos!
If you do,  could you PM it to me please?

M.A.D

https://www.amazon.es/Fighters-Fifties-Bill-Gunston/dp/0850594634/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515701218&sr=8-1&keywords=fighters+fifties+gunston

'... one wonders why this amazingly cost/effective family should hardly have been considered by the flood of air forces that instead bought the F-104, F-5, or Mirage. Even today the ability to make automatic all-weather interceptions at Mach 2, drop 9,000 lb of bombs, or fly any kind of electronic-warfare or recon mission, and then vanish into the obscurity of farmland where there is no evident airfield, is not exactly common.'

This is just a quote from J35 article of mentioned book.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 06:13:10 PM by ysi_maniac »

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2018, 08:20:36 AM »
I know you said land based but I have always had a soft spot for the FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury.  It was fast, agile and very long ranged, with cannon instead of MGs, four or six under wing stores stations it could carry two, four (or even six) sidewinders, drop tanks, buddy refuelling pod etc.  As is it was a very capable aircraft that could have easily provided the sort of long effective service that the Sabre, Hunter, Super Mystere, Mig 17 and 19 did.

A very minor WIFF (outside the scope of the topic sorry) its carrier gear could have been deleted reducing weight providing either improved performance or space and weight for other equipment.  For instance there could have been a Mk33 Avon Sabre based on the FJ-4 with ADEN cannon and a 10,000lb thrust 200 series Avon.

The other thought is the F-86D/K/L but a Wiff would be needed for sidewinder and guns.

Ultimate Wiff, CAC Mk34+, an FJ-4B derived land based airframe with a 200 series Avon, F-86D/K/L style radar nose, Sidewinder and Firestreak and possibly an afterburner to give it a supersonic dash capability.  Yep know its a wiff but its a wiff using off the shelf options by an organisation that had already done just that to produce the original Avon Sabre.
Since the FJ-4 and FJ-4B used Curtiss-Wright produced Sapphires (J65s) (indeed, Fj-2 and on did), I would imagine that an Avon-powered one would be reasonably simple to produce.  NAA-Columbus had already studied a FJ-4/F-86K combination as their entry for the Canadian competition won by the F2H Banshee.  Upgrading to a dry 200-series or 300-series Avon would be a minimal problem, if any.  I could see replacing the 4x 20mm cannon with 2x 30mm ADEN but don't think that would be too major a change (Israelis swapped out 20mm cannon for 30mm DEFA cannon on their A-4s).

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2018, 06:40:15 PM »
Since the FJ-4 and FJ-4B used Curtiss-Wright produced Sapphires (J65s) (indeed, Fj-2 and on did), I would imagine that an Avon-powered one would be reasonably simple to produce.  NAA-Columbus had already studied a FJ-4/F-86K combination as their entry for the Canadian competition won by the F2H Banshee.  Upgrading to a dry 200-series or 300-series Avon would be a minimal problem, if any.  I could see replacing the 4x 20mm cannon with 2x 30mm ADEN but don't think that would be too major a change (Israelis swapped out 20mm cannon for 30mm DEFA cannon on their A-4s).

Very interesting and probably belongs in another thread but I would love to find out more about the FJ-4/F-86K combo concept.

There were CAC plans for a four ADEN evolved Avon Sabre

Offline tahsin

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2018, 07:13:45 PM »
The thing about Aggressors, as already mentioned above, is that they can take defeats in a good way. While the glitter of the movie Top Gun might lead to believe otherwise order one to be a "novice" and the other to be a "pro" and the novice would readily die in any scenario. Which is a big thing too, Taking everybody as a "pro" throughout an engagement might lead to missed kills and whatever that entails. Then 1980s must be the days Australia defended the whole SouthEast Asia against Vietnamese hordes with a single base in Malaysia. Was that Buttersworth? So, the Vietnamese must be "convinced" that those Mirages know their business inside out and their Floggers should not attack "bases" in Thailand, that sort of thing.

Does the scenario suppose the buyer country has the tech know how? If so, MiG-19.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2018, 09:48:07 PM »
It was "Butterworth".

As to Australia defending the whole of South-East Asia - forget it.  We were committed to the defence of Malaysia only.   SEATO had died a timely death when the US decided to become involved in South Vietnam.   Our Government lied about our own commitment to South Vietnam being part of SEATO.  SEATO in fact specifically kept South Vietnam out of the agreement.  It was a region of "special interest" but the failure of the UK to become involved in Laos and then Vietnam spelt the death of SEATO.

The Mirages were stationed at Butterworth as part to the Five Powers Defence Agreement (and as a carry on of the original Imperial Defence concept).   It was why the UK allowed Australia to purchase the Canberra bomber way back in 1951 - to allow us to carry UK Atomic Bombs to southern China.   We were the first export customer for the Canberra.   

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2018, 03:16:55 AM »
Very interesting and probably belongs in another thread but I would love to find out more about the FJ-4/F-86K combo concept.

There were CAC plans for a four ADEN evolved Avon Sabre
What I know about it I got from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from the early 1950's to when they closed.

That CAC four ADEN concept sounds nice.  Got any drawings?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2018, 05:06:27 AM »
It was why the UK allowed Australia to purchase the Canberra bomber way back in 1951 - to allow us to carry UK Atomic Bombs to southern China.

I think you will find that there was more to it than that...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2018, 06:14:55 AM »
Ok, given the new scenario information my selection options would be the following:

Saab Draken - probably something based upon the B or D variant
Dassault Mirage III - probably something based on the IIIE variant
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - probably C or D variant
Convair F-106 Delta Dart

Rational is:

Given said country already has a fighter in service in the class of a F-86/MiG-15, one could probably get by with a new fighter entering service in the early - mid 1960s.  If more capability was deemed necessary earlier, then maybe add missiles to the existing as an interim upgrade.  Either way, this allows one to consider one of the 2nd gen supersonic platforms (treating MiG-19/F-100 as first gen supersonic here).  This largely puts all the listed contenders on the same basic level in terms of max aerodynamic performance.  It also gives a reason to possibly eliminate the F-8.

Next, I looked at the range since having more endurance would be of benefit both in terms of endurance but also in that it does allow more options if you later want to take the fight to the enemy..  This eliminated such contenders as EE. Lightning and MiG-21 since these are more of point defence interceptors at this stage and even if they aren't, the listed ones supposedly have more range.

Concurrent to this, I also looked at weapons load out.  Again, here I believe all the listed have a slight advantage in terms of quantity of weapons able to be carried.  That said, in most cases the quality of the missiles in this period often left a lot to be desired, even systems such as the AIM-9.  In this regard, the Draken and the Mirage benefit from already having cannon built in - twin 30mm cannon in both cases.  Yes, both the F-4 and the F-106 received guns later on in their service but at this stage they didn't have them.  Similarly, whilst the F-4 would have the maximum missile compliment and carry the most BVR missiles with its AIM-7s, unless the RoE allowed these weren't going to be of much use.  Even if RoE wasn't a factor, missile performance as well as likely engagement ranges (which factor in coming velocities of both forces, radar performance and missile range amongst other things) would probably see more than 1 or 2 BVR shots unlikely anyway.  Most likely there might be a chance or a single shot (with understanding that it may not result in a kill but would potentially turn the opposing force onto the defensive) before a merge and more traditional dogfight with WVR weapons.  In this regard I don't believe that either the Draken or Mirage are really hindered by having less BVR missiles.

Both Draken and Mirage also have the advantage of having a reasonable (for the time) ground attack capability with bombs and/or unguided rockets.

Finally, if said nation was also able to introduce something akin to the Swedish STRIL 60 system, possibly as part of a package deal from the Swedes, than that might give a slight advantage to the Draken.  That said though, aspects such as cost and potential logistic support etc may come into play in the final selection.  Interestingly enough, I also believe cost would be something that rule the F-4 out in comparison for most countries - both the up front and ongoing support costs for the Draken/Mirage would be better than the F-4.

Overall, if I had to choose, I would possibly go for a Saab Draken fleet based upon the J-35D with more powerful Rolls-Royce Avon 300 (RM6C) and slightly more capable PS-03 radar.  In addition to the internal 30mm cannon I would plan on using AIM-9 missiles and possibly either an AIM-9C SARH variant or something similar to give a SARH BVR weapon.  Ideally, I would also try to integrate such a platform with something such as the STRIL 60 system to give the best possible use of the weapons system in that timeframe.

« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 06:40:31 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2018, 10:15:07 AM »
It was why the UK allowed Australia to purchase the Canberra bomber way back in 1951 - to allow us to carry UK Atomic Bombs to southern China.

I think you will find that there was more to it than that...

Of course there is, Greg, there always is.  You have Ming the Mercilless's ego, you have the British playing on that with some clever marketing (naming the aircraft after the Australian capital certainly helped), the promise of Australia getting it's own nukes, and so on and so on.   The purchase was ultimately a good idea but there were plenty of shenanigans around it which helped it along it's way.   The fact that there was no real American equivalent to the Canberra also helped.  The B-45 was no where as good which is why the USAF adopted the B-57 - a Canberra.  Ultimately, however, the reason was because the British were terrified that the UK as going to get wiped out in any nuclear exchange between the US and the fUSSR, so the Empire needed to fight on from the "periphery" - Australia, New Zealand, South Africa...   

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2018, 07:08:06 PM »


Bill Gunston had no doubt: for him, Draken was the best.

I would be very interested in Bill Gunston's analogy of why he viewed the Draken "was the best" if you have it Carlos!
If you do,  could you PM it to me please?

M.A.D

https://www.amazon.es/Fighters-Fifties-Bill-Gunston/dp/0850594634/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515701218&sr=8-1&keywords=fighters+fifties+gunston

'... one wonders why this amazingly cost/effective family should hardly have been considered by the flood of air forces that instead bought the F-104, F-5, or Mirage. Even today the ability to make automatic all-weather interceptions at Mach 2, drop 9,000 lb of bombs, or fly any kind of electronic-warfare or recon mission, and then vanish into the obscurity of farmland where there is no evident airfield, is not exactly common.'

This is just a quote from J35 article of mentioned book.

Thank you Carlos, you're a gentleman  ;)

M.A.D

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2018, 07:24:01 PM »
Very interesting and probably belongs in another thread but I would love to find out more about the FJ-4/F-86K combo concept.

There were CAC plans for a four ADEN evolved Avon Sabre
What I know about it I got from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from the early 1950's to when they closed.

That CAC four ADEN concept sounds nice.  Got any drawings?

I second that request elmayerle

M.A.D

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2018, 09:10:00 PM »
Very interesting and probably belongs in another thread but I would love to find out more about the FJ-4/F-86K combo concept.

There were CAC plans for a four ADEN evolved Avon Sabre

What I know about it I got from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from the early 1950's to when they closed.

That CAC four ADEN concept sounds nice.  Got any drawings?


Just text references in a book

http://regimental-books.com.au/the-meteor-sabre-and-mirage-in-australian-service-p-2620.html