RAAF F - 4E's

[La Rouge Beret]

The F - 4E was acquired by the RAAF to provide as an interim measure pending the delivery of the F - 111. As such under what circumstances could we see a deployment to Vietnam and if included what impact would that have on the development of tactics for the RAAF afterwards?

 

[Riain]

I doubt that they would see service in Vietnam under any reasonable circumstances. The Canberra first deployed in early 1967, some 3 1/2 years before the first leased F4E entered RAAF service, and left Vietnam in mid 1971 after the F4E had been in RAAF service for about 9 months. The timings just don't line up.

The Phantom was leased as a high-end deterrent in the event of a high-intensity war. In the low-threat environment the RAAF was operating over South Vietnam the Canberra was very suitable and preformed extremely well, the Phantom could not have done a better job.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

I doubt that they would see service in Vietnam under any reasonable circumstances. The Canberra first deployed in early 1967, some 3 1/2 years before the first leased F4E entered RAAF service, and left Vietnam in mid 1971 after the F4E had been in RAAF service for about 9 months. The timings just don't line up.

The Phantom was leased as a high-end deterrent in the event of a high-intensity war. In the low-threat environment the RAAF was operating over South Vietnam the Canberra was very suitable and preformed extremely well, the Phantom could not have done a better job.

I was waiting for your response, and what I envisaged was RAAF F - 4's going down town with the USAF from Thailand. My question being and I think you would be better placed to answer... would the integration of RAAF aircraft into the USAF strike packages have influenced RAAF strategy and tactics in the 1970's and 1980s and would this translate to a different force structure?

 

[Delta Force]

The Phantom was acquired by the RAAF mostly for use as a strike aircraft, not a fighter. However, some RAAF pilots flew USAF Phantoms in Vietnam. Perhaps that program could be expanded? Having a few pilots participate would allow the RAAF to gain combat experience while allowing them to keep their Phantoms for defense of Australia.

 

[Riain]

Perhaps Mirages could have escorted strike packages, which perhaps may have lead to the RAAF getting some tankers in the 70s. But the force structure for the 70s was set in 1963 when we ordered the F111, the F4E only appeared because the F111 was late and the Canberra wasn't a good deterrent, not because we needed more combat power in Vietnam.

However with the British withdrawal from East of Suez and Nixon's 'Guam Doctrine' I don't think closer integration with USAF strike packages is our best bet. I think it would have been better for the RAAF and RAN combat assets to work as closely with the Army in Phuoc Tuy; I'd have 78 sqn move to Vietnam in 1966 and a frigate or gun destroyer offshore at all times. 5 years of the Army calling in RAAF airstrikes and RAN NGS would work wonders for the exercise of national power.

 

[NORGCO]

Perhaps Mirages could have escorted strike packages, which perhaps may have lead to the RAAF getting some tankers in the 70s. But the force structure for the 70s was set in 1963 when we ordered the F111, the F4E only appeared because the F111 was late and the Canberra wasn't a good deterrent, not because we needed more combat power in Vietnam.

However with the British withdrawal from East of Suez and Nixon's 'Guam Doctrine' I don't think closer integration with USAF strike packages is our best bet. I think it would have been better for the RAAF and RAN combat assets to work as closely with the Army in Phuoc Tuy; I'd have 78 sqn move to Vietnam in 1966 and a frigate or gun destroyer offshore at all times. 5 years of the Army calling in RAAF airstrikes and RAN NGS would work wonders for the exercise of national power.

Agreed, with a minor point to add.

The Mirage's couldn't be used in Vietnam because the French threatend to cut off spare parts if they were. Given that they actually did that to Israel after the six day war in 1967 it cannot be considered an empty threat.

The same went for the Army's Carl Guastav Recoiless Rifles, the Swedes cut off ammo supply for them. Which is a pity because they would have been very useful for bunker busting etc, a great support weapon.

 

[Riain]

Agreed, with a minor point to add.

The Mirage's couldn't be used in Vietnam because the French threatend to cut off spare parts if they were. Given that they actually did that to Israel after the six day war in 1967 it cannot be considered an empty threat.

The same went for the Army's Carl Guastav Recoiless Rifles, the Swedes cut off ammo supply for them. Which is a pity because they would have been very useful for bunker busting etc, a great support weapon.

That's not a minor point at all, I knew about the Carl Gustavs but not the Mirages. Do you know if it was all of Vietnam, or just the North?

It's moot anyway because the Mirage lacks the range to operate against anything but the smallest portion of North Vietnam and I don't think that Mirage IIIE had IFR as an option in the Vietnam era.

 

[NORGCO]

That's not a minor point at all, I knew about the Carl Gustavs but not the Mirages. Do you know if it was all of Vietnam, or just the North?

It's moot anyway because the Mirage lacks the range to operate against anything but the smallest portion of North Vietnam and I don't think that Mirage IIIE had IFR as an option in the Vietnam era.

Agreed that the Mirage III is too short ranged to be useful against much of the North, but my understanding is the French restriction was about using them in the war, rather than in any particular part of it.

Arguably this the reason Australia - or at least PM John Howard - cancelled the evaluation of F-18 replacement aircraft and just ordered the F-35. The French and Swedish planes were out because of previous bad behavour. The Russian SU-30 was out because they would likely do the same thing. Eurofighter as a multi-national project had similar potential issues. That didn't leave much alternative really.

The lesson is that actions have consequences long after the immediate issue is dealt with. Not exactly a radical idea but still worth more consideration than it gets...

 

[deathscompanion1]

Agreed that the Mirage III is too short ranged to be useful against much of the North, but my understanding is the French restriction was about using them in the war, rather than in any particular part of it.

Arguably this the reason Australia - or at least PM John Howard - cancelled the evaluation of F-18 replacement aircraft and just ordered the F-35. The French and Swedish planes were out because of previous bad behavour. The Russian SU-30 was out because they would likely do the same thing. Eurofighter as a multi-national project had similar potential issues. That didn't leave much alternative really.

The lesson is that actions have consequences long after the immediate issue is dealt with. Not exactly a radical idea but still worth more consideration than it gets...

The USA also has a habit of dicking around with the nations it supplies but then again Australia and the USA more often than not see eye to eye on defence post WWII so I suppose of the big suppliers the USA is the most reliable in the eyes of the Australian government.

 

[Riain]

The USA also has a habit of dicking around with the nations it supplies but then again Australia and the USA more often than not see eye to eye on defence post WWII so I suppose of the big suppliers the USA is the most reliable in the eyes of the Australian government.

They all do, it is why a country becomes an arms exporter; in order to dick other countries around for its own benefit.

As it happens one RAAF Canberra was shot down by a SAM near the DMZ, so they were close to the danger zone and most likely did cross the border at times. Perhaps the RNZAF could swap their 9 B8s for our B2s instead of rotating them back from Asia to NZ in 1966, and we could keep some 3rd Generation Night Interdictors on 2sqn strength with the B2s. 2sqn could use these against the north, if only in pairs or threes.

 

[Delta Force]

France has a reputation for selling things to just about anyone. Why did they have an issue with Israel and the 1967 War and Australia and Vietnam, but not with the Argentinian junta, Baathist Iraq, and other far more troublesome states?

 

[Riain]

Probably because Vietnam was a former french colony and there was still a lot of French interests in the country that needed protection. I know that the SAS conducted an ambush on a tractor stolen from a French owned plantation that had to be deniable so that we wouldn't have to pay compensation for wrecking private property. I think we had to pay compensation for damage to the Courtenay rubber plantation after the battle of long tan.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

They all do, it is why a country becomes an arms exporter; in order to dick other countries around for its own benefit.

As it happens one RAAF Canberra was shot down by a SAM near the DMZ, so they were close to the danger zone and most likely did cross the border at times. Perhaps the RNZAF could swap their 9 B8s for our B2s instead of rotating them back from Asia to NZ in 1966, and we could keep some 3rd Generation Night Interdictors on 2sqn strength with the B2s. 2sqn could use these against the north, if only in pairs or threes.

I always thought that the mission for the Canberra would be in Eastern Cambodia along the North Vietnamese supply chain there or in Southern Laos along the panhandle. Could a RAAF Canberra have handled the at the time sophisticated air defences of North Vietnam?

 

[Mumbles]

I always thought that the mission for the Canberra would be in Eastern Cambodia along the North Vietnamese supply chain there or in Southern Laos along the panhandle. Could a RAAF Canberra have handled the at the time sophisticated air defences of North Vietnam?

Maybe, but the inevitable attrition would have much more impact on the small overall RAAF force than it would on say the USAF. As far as I know no Canberras, be they USAF B-57's or RAAF B.20's went north during the war.

 

[Mumbles]

Perhaps the RNZAF could swap their 9 B8s for our B2s instead of rotating them back from Asia to NZ in 1966, and we could keep some 3rd Generation Night Interdictors on 2sqn strength with the B2s. .

Ours were B(I).12's rather than B.8's (albeit based on the latter), but I can't see the RNZAF or NZ government being too keen on that idea


Also perversely, while two RAAF B.20's are preserved in NZ, one in the RNZAF museum, no RNZAF Canberras are. We onsold them all to India when the A-4 arrived in 1970. The RNZAF Museum has an ex RAF B(I).8 in storage that could be displayed as an RNZAF .12 at some point though.

 

[Mumbles]

would the integration of RAAF aircraft into the USAF strike packages have influenced RAAF strategy and tactics in the 1970's and 1980s

Perhaps, but bear in mind that this was already happening on exercises with US and allied forces anyway under the ANZUS agreement.

 

[Riain]

Ours were B(I).12's rather than B.8's (albeit based on the latter), but I can't see the RNZAF or NZ government being too keen on that idea


Also perversely, while two RAAF B.20's are preserved in NZ, one in the RNZAF museum, no RNZAF Canberras are. We onsold them all to India when the A-4 arrived in 1970. The RNZAF Museum has an ex RAF B(I).8 in storage that could be displayed as an RNZAF .12 at some point though.

I was thinking that by the time the RNZAF bought their canberras back from Asia they were well into planning the replacement, so the canberras were going to spend their last 3 or 4 years as a general deterrent and maintain the skills. This could be done almost as effectively with swapped RAAF B2s, but the RAAF could make great operational use of the 3rd generation kiwi canberras. The only problem is selling them to India afterwards.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Perhaps, but bear in mind that this was already happening on exercises with US and allied forces anyway under the ANZUS agreement.

This is an interesting point about the ability of other countries to learn by osmosis, however for me it is about the continued development and maintenance of operational experience within a service. Although exercises can simulate combat to a degree overall I feel that the RAAF would have benefited by having a broader exposure to operations in North Vietnam.

Alternatively through the Canberras could have been used on the various interdiction missions against the Ho Chi Minh trail. But as you have alluded to any losses were liable to have a disproportionate impact on the RAAF. Perhaps we could see a joint RAAF / RNZAF use of Canberras.

 

[Riain]

This is an interesting point about the ability of other countries to learn by osmosis, however for me it is about the continued development and maintenance of operational experience within a service. Although exercises can simulate combat to a degree overall I feel that the RAAF would have benefited by having a broader exposure to operations in North Vietnam.

Alternatively through the Canberras could have been used on the various interdiction missions against the Ho Chi Minh trail. But as you have alluded to any losses were liable to have a disproportionate impact on the RAAF. Perhaps we could see a joint RAAF / RNZAF use of Canberras.

Didn't the two 'Red Baron' reports show that the USAF sucked in Vietnam, and Red Flag was invented to stop the USAF from sucking in the future?

 

[Mumbles]

I was thinking that by the time the RNZAF bought their canberras back from Asia they were well into planning the replacement, so the canberras were going to spend their last 3 or 4 years as a general deterrent and maintain the skills. This could be done almost as effectively with swapped RAAF B2s, but the RAAF could make great operational use of the 3rd generation kiwi canberras. The only problem is selling them to India afterwards.

Yeah that might work. Canberra replacement for the RNZAF was identified as a need in the 1965 defence review (which also saw the acquisition of the P-3, C-130 and UH-1 fleets still in (much upgraded) RNZAF service today), but the serious planning and evaluations didn't really get under way until 1967 or so. The A-4's were ordered in mid 1968.