Commonwealth Air Forces

[Mark]

I was just thinking...

I was looking through some references for the F-111 earlier and always wondered why Australia ended up with them. It got me wondering why New Zealand had A-4s and Canada had F-86s and F-104s.

So other than a few trainer types, why have the Commonwealth countries not supported British industry?

[Shane]

I was just thinking...

I was looking through some references for the F-111 earlier and always wondered why Australia ended up with them. It got me wondering why New Zealand had A-4s and Canada had F-86s and F-104s.

So other than a few trainer types, why have the Commonwealth countries not supported British industry?

Why doesn't the UK buy New Zealand lamb instead of ruinously subsidised lamb from Europe?

Why do Australians need passports to visit the UK, but citizens of all European nations don't?

Same answer. It's 2016, not 1900. And we're old enough and ugly enough to make our own decisions now.

Shane

[old thumper]

Because Britain wasn't making the aircraft these countries needed or wanted.

[Procopius]

Same answer. It's 2016, not 1900. And we're old enough and ugly enough to make our own decisions now.

The F-111 purchase was rather closer to 1900 than it was to 2016.

That aside, the RAAF did buy British for a spell in the 1950s -- they purchased the Meteor and the Canberra, after all, and considered the TSR.2 to replace their Canberras, but a number of factors combined to ensure they ended up with the F-111:

1. The USA is very rich, and as such has a lot of soft power which comes in handy when convincing people of the advisability of purchasing American goods. The US though nothing of offering other aircraft for Australia to use while the F-111 completed its tortuously long development (initially B-47s, but ultimately F-4Es). The British were developing a follow-on to the Canberra and attempting to jump several steps of development, so had no interim aircraft of similar role to offer.

2. The TSR.2, because the UK could not afford to build many of them, would be more expensive than the F-111, as the USA planned to build a very large number of them.

3. While both the F-111 and the TSR.2 were controversial programs for their home nations, the Australians felt the political will to see the F-111 was there in the USA, and (correctly) that this wasn't the case for the TSR.2.

[dcrfan]

Because we had already depleted our defence budgets buying 100's of drip trays to catch all the oil leaking from the UK designed Land Rovers we had purchased .

But seriously - product quality and after sales service.

NZ purchased:

C-130 - stil in service after 50 years

Orion - still in service after 49 years

A4 - sold due to government direction after 32 years service

Strikemaster - withdrawn after 19 years service.

Andover - withdrawn after 22 years service (granted they were second hand when purchased).

See the trend.

Edited January 19, 2016 by dcrfan

[LDSModeller]

I was just thinking...

I was looking through some references for the F-111 earlier and always wondered why Australia ended up with them. It got me wondering why New Zealand had A-4s and Canada had F-86s and F-104s.

So other than a few trainer types, why have the Commonwealth countries not supported British industry?

Actually New Zealand did buy "British" during the 1950's, the Sunderland MR5, HP Hastings, DH Vampire, EE Canberra, Bristol Freighter, DH Devon, all of which soldiered on into the mid/late 60's or even start of the 1970's.

The Lockheed C 130/P 3B's arrived mid 1960's, the MDD A4 Skyhawk arrived early 1970. Remember at the time Australia and New Zealand along with the US were part of ANZUS.

Mid 1960's saw the Westland Wasp come on charge with the RNZAF/RNZN

The 1970's saw other British aircraft brought on charge, BAC Strikemaster, HS Andover.

Regards

Alan

Edited January 19, 2016 by LDSModeller

[Romeo Alpha Yankee]

For the F-111 it was always about range, at the time we needed an aircraft that could reach Jakarta with out tanker support. The F-111 filled the bill though the TSR2 was the front runner until it was cancelled.

As for other capabilities Australian aircraft need to be able to traverse the continent which is roughly the size of Western Europe. We did operate BAC1-11 and HS-748s in VIP Transport and training roles for 25 plus years. Again for the VIP aircraft we needed something with suitable range and the French won out with the Falcon 900. The Falcons have since been replaced with BBJ and CL604 aircraft.

These days most our aircraft come from the US with 'interoperability' being one of the key reasons since we seem to operate with them in a lot of the current theatres. The Super Hornet and C-17 buys seem to fit this bill, though the C-17 purchase also was a result of out commitments in disaster relief in the region, and the rest of the world in fact. Something which it has excelled in since procurement.

These days there aren't that many British offerings that the ADF would be interested in.

[Greg B]

People in UK also forget that it is a lot less distance to the US from Australia and there is not much soil in the way. Defence policy in both countries is also more Asia centric with high interoperability. Personally I think Australia is more aligned to the US in culture now than the UK.

As for equipment, the ADF has invested in European helicopters recently and I don't think it has been a happy marriage in capability versus cost compared to the US offerings.

[Giorgio N]

Well, why should have they supported British industry ? These were and are the air forces of independent countries, with their own governments voted by their own people paying their taxes, there's nothing that requires a country part of the Commonwealth to look at Britain first. With the changes in international politics after WW2 it's no surprise that most Commonwealth countries moved from British influence to being closer to other countries, like the USA for the 3 you mentioned.

Then there's the sad truth that British aviation industry has lost its edge many years ago and really I can't see any British aircraft having been able to compete with the "foreign" types that these countries ended up buying. When the British industry offered something capable of doing better than the competition, these products were sold not only to Commonwealth countries but also to others in good numbers (Canberra, Hunter and more recently the Hawk).

Just looking at the ones you mentioned (leaving out the already discussed F-111):

Canada and the F-86: Canada decided to adopt the Sabre in 1948. In that year the XP-86 was already flying and managed to break the sound barrier. What type could Britain offer in 1948 ? In that year work had started on the Meteor F.8 and Hawker flew the P.1052, an aircraft that was much inferior to the Sabre and not ready yet for production anyway. Considering the relative success of the Meteor and the Sabre in Korea and that the RAF itself ended up using Canadian built Sabres I have to say that Canada decision was a very, very good one.

Canada and the F-104: for all the bribery that was involved in the various F-104 sales we must not forget what the requirement was: an aircraft capable of both air defence and nuclear strike, with Canada most interested in the strike aspect. What British type could fulfil both roles ? None, the Lightning was a pure interceptor while the Buccaneer could have performed the strike mission... however this was a much more complicated aircraft and NATO forces wanted a simpler single seat type. We may like it or not but the F-104 in the end made up a large proportion of NATO's tactical nuclear retaliation force for a good part of the Cold War

Australia also evaluated the Starfighter but with no interest in the strike mission they preferred a type that considered better suited to their needs and bough the French Mirage III. Again, which British type could compete in terms of both performance and flexibility with the Mirage ? None and it's no surprise that the Mirage sold in the thousands while for example the Lightning was exported in very small numbers (with the help of some bribery too).

Australia and the A-4: interest for the A-4 started in the early '60s, the little Douglas aircraft was an attack type that could also perform some limited defence duties. It was small and cheap to operate, perfectly suited for use on the smaller carriers. In those years Britain could offer the Sea Vixen, the the Buccaneer and the Scimitar, all large and complicated types that could not offer the simplicity of the Skyhawk. In those same years Australia bought the Grumman Tracker but also the Westland Wessex

[magwitch]

For the F-111 it was always about range, at the time we needed an aircraft that could reach Jakarta with out tanker support. The F-111 filled the bill though the TSR2 was the front runner until it was cancelled.

Australia (wisely) chose the F-111 over the TSR.2 in October 1963, the TSR.2 wasn't cancelled until April 1965.

The fall of Singapore in WW2 made Australia realise that Britain lacked the capability to protect sufficient power to protect Australia from an existential threat and the USA has been the primary defence partner ever since.

[Truro Model Builder]

It's more down to the fact that by the 1960s the UK was simply not building the variety of aircraft in the numbers that could compete as well as others on the open market. The British aviation industry was largely producing aircraft designed to specific home market requirements, such as the Lightning, the VC10, the Britannia and the V-bombers, because it was able to exist on those requirements. Yes, there were export successes such as the Hunter and the Viscount, but they were in the minority. Look at most of the British aircraft of the time, and you will see relatively short production runs largely for domestic use. So Commonwealth air forces, like many others, had to look elsewhere, despite the historic links.

By the 1970s the aviation industry was moving away from that idea, and the Hawk was the classic example of that. The RAF wrote the requirement for a new trainer around the design, which HSA had been working on independently for a few years already. Of course, by then multi-national projects were all the rage and this became largely the direction that the aviation industry was forced into.

I think it is a bit unfair to say that the quality of British aircraft was poor, however. Many other nations were phasing Strikemasters out during the same time as the RNZAF, but it is still in military service, while the VC10 did almost 50 years in RAF service and the oldest Sea Kings are pushing the same total. I would suggest that the reason that the RNZAF is operating 50-year old P-3s and C-130s is that successive Wellington governments have found it cheaper to pay for life extensions and avionics updates rather than fork out for new aircraft. But that's another argument.

[dcrfan]

You said "I think it is a bit unfair to say that the quality of British aircraft was poor, however. Many other nations were phasing Strikemasters out during the same time as the RNZAF, but it is still in military service, while the VC10 did almost 50 years in RAF service and the oldest Sea Kings are pushing the same total. I would suggest that the reason that the RNZAF is operating 50-year old P-3s and C-130s is that successive Wellington governments have found it cheaper to pay for life extensions and avionics updates rather than fork out for new aircraft."

I acknowledge I cannot personally attend to the quality of the aircraft but the other part of my comment was after sales service. I most definitely can attest that UK defence industry after sales service is very poor compared with other countries we have purchased from.

And I always thought Sea King was a US design

Edited January 20, 2016 by dcrfan

[Jessica]

Canada bought (and built) British during the war. Our experiences with unfriendly people lurking in undersea boats trying hard to sink all the things convinced us that protecting our supply lines by buying things from our neighbours to the South was a better idea.

But don't forget that we bought Vampires, Comets, Bristol Freighters, Fireflies, Sea Furies, Centurions and many other British pieces of kit during the 1950s. We also bought the rights to redesign the Britannia twice.

Then the British Government did its best to kill the British aircraft industry and there was nothing left to buy. Except Hawks, and we bought those.

[Truro Model Builder]

And I always thought Sea King was a US design

A US design, yes, but I was talking about Sea Kings in Royal Navy service, all of which were manufactured in Somerset. I cannot say much about after sales support, though even the RAF and RN have struggled with that one over the years.

[Mark]

Interesting replies, thank you to you all.

I certainly did not intend to elicit anti-colonialist replies or indeed drum up any resentment. After all, I left the UK myself way back in 1994, returning for a short two years from 2007-2009, then quickly left again! I've also only ever bought two British cars, so I'm more likely to be accused of not buying British!

My question was asked after seeing the marvellous F-111 here and I have often wondered why Australia were the only foreign operator of that type. Which got me thinking about other types too... That was all. But now I know a bit more than I did before I posted the question, so thanks again.

[Alan P]

Dunno about aircraft, but the Commonwealth certainly lapped up British warships. Swings and roundabouts, i suppose!

[Giorgio N]

Interesting replies, thank you to you all.

I certainly did not intend to elicit anti-colonialist replies or indeed drum up any resentment. After all, I left the UK myself way back in 1994, returning for a short two years from 2007-2009, then quickly left again! I've also only ever bought two British cars, so I'm more likely to be accused of not buying British!

My question was asked after seeing the marvellous F-111 here and I have often wondered why Australia were the only foreign operator of that type. Which got me thinking about other types too... That was all. But now I know a bit more than I did before I posted the question, so thanks again.

Mark, the answer to why Australia was the only foreign operator of the 111 is simple: the type was too large, sophisticated and expensive to buy and operate for the needs of other potential operators. Regardless of its F designator, the F-111 was a long range bomber, very few countries had a need for such a type. The same range that was one of the main features that made the type appealing to Australia was not needed by countries like Germany that could have easily afforded the type but in the end were happy enough with a much smaller aircraft like the Tornado. The teething troubles experienced during the first decade in service also did not help the reputation of the type.

Most of these objections would have also affected the TSR.2 had this entered service, many seem to think that it could have been a large export success but the failure of the F-111 from this point of view tell us otherwise

[Shane]

Dunno about aircraft, but the Commonwealth certainly lapped up British warships. Swings and roundabouts, i suppose!

Not recently - and recently is almost 50 years - for the RAN and RNZN at least, with the exception of the second hand purchase of RFA Largs Bay (HMAS Choules)

RAN purchases since HMAS Swan and Torrens have mostly been US, German, Swedish and Spanish designs with smaller vessels being local designs

Let's see if the T26 get any traction in the ANZAC Frigate replacement contest, or if it goes to FREMM or the Meko A-400

Shane

[Antoine]

As for equipment, the ADF has invested in European helicopters recently and I don't think it has been a happy marriage in capability versus cost compared to the US offerings.

You just think, or do you have some figures to put on?

[Greg B]

You just think, or do you have some figures to put on?

From the horses mouth.

For example:

In July 2014, the Australian National Audit Office released a report on the MRH90, citing a series of procurement errors and development deficiencies delaying final operational capability (FOC), originally planned for that month, until April 2019, nearly five years later than planned. Some nine years after the initial contract was signed, the models first delivered in 2007 had not validated any of the 11 set operational capability milestones, and forced redesigns including bolstered cabin floors and windscreens, rappelling hooks, and door gunner positions; obtaining spare parts and sustaining the helicopters has also been more costly. The Australian Army will be forced to operate its aging S-70A Black Hawk beyond their planned retirement date. Due to the delays, Australia will receive an additional helicopter, for a total of 47. By September 2015, most of the MRH90's flaws had reportedly been addressed

Linky

RAN decided to go with the Romeo Seahawk instead of a naval NH90 and AUS SF do not like the NH90 for a variety of reasons. I reckon some Mike models will be inbound to bridge and provide for that capbility gap.

[Truro Model Builder]

Australia did not exactly have a good experience with the Seasprite either.

[CharlieNZ]

I think it would be more accurate to say the Seasprite did not have a good experience with Australia.

NZ has managed quite well with three successive fleets of Seasprites. The Ex RAN I models aren't doing too badly under new management.

[upnorth]

Getting out of aircraft; neither the Chieftain nor Challenger tanks saw wide export success. While quite a lot of Cheiftains and Challenger 1s went to Middle East customers, it was only a handful of countries that took them and none Commonwealth.

Edited January 26, 2016 by upnorth

[Truro Model Builder]

It has always been a struggle for anybody to compete with the Americans when selling shiny toys of death; I remember once reading a comment by a member of the Saab sales team that when trying to sell the Gripen, the Americans would always offer the F-16 for $1 million less per aircraft. While facetious, it is true that the economies of scale enjoyed by US companies mean that in terms of price it is very difficult for companies from other nations to compete.

[-Neu-]

I can't comment on any other case except for Canada's, but I can provide you with a sense of the underlying considerations.

Before the end of WWII, Canada decided it wanted to develop an indigenous aircraft industry, with a particular focus on military aircraft. So on the one hand the Government started funding large indigenous aviation programs, mostly run through AV Roe (Avro): CF-100 and later the CF-105. There was also the Avro Jetliner. These were the focus of Canada's efforts, and in some way were intended to supplant British and American industry.

A second, and much more successful program was licensed production of foreign types by Canadair. In the late 1940s we decided we needed to produce the most modern fighter possible: We decided to go with the Sabre at the time. The CF-104 was selected due to the need for a nuclear strike fighter, and it was seen as a cost effective and appropriate for the role. We did consider joining the British program for the Spey-Powered F-4s, but that was not approved. In general Canada found few suitable aircraft for its needs in the UK.

Finally, and this is perhaps the most important consideration, Canada's economic relationships with the United States was much more diverse and open than with the UK, particularly after 1945. During WWII Canada increasingly integrated with American firms, subcontracting for a number of major companies. Canada's relationship with UK industries may on the surface seemed more vibrant: we produced a wide variety of Commonwealth aircraft: the Lancaster, Hurricane and the Mosquito. However many of them were completely indigenously produced, or required certain subcomponents to be brought over from the UK. It actually wasn't a sustainable way to promote integration, and when WWII ended, these programs were wound up with little subsequent followthrough. Canada had purchased a number of Vampire fighters from the UK in 1947: these were financed through balance of payment credits we had with the UK government and not really a part of any program.

Perhaps the key event that signalled this emerged in 1956: Canada signed the Defence production Sharing Agreement with the United States, which allowed Canadian industries to compete on US programs as if they were American based companies. That was massive: we became integrated with US industries. For lack of a better word, the UK became increasingly protectionist, and integration was almost non-existent between Canada and the UK companies.

Hope that helps.