When I was in Japan, one day, my Australian classmate Joan M Waring broke into tears when she came out from the school office. I did not want to ask for the reason immediately, but later learned that her brother who was in the RAAF, was lost in an accident. I did not know much about the accident details until today when I watched this video. Joan passed away in 1998. R.I.P. Rob and Joan Thank you for the upload.
At 0:49 you show an F-111C parked next to an F-4. That F111C "127" was lost in a tragic accident in 1993, prior to the RAAF sending crews to the USA to ferry back the F-111Gs they'd purchased from the USAF. During the recovery from a night autotoss weapon delivery profile against a simulated landstrike target near Guyra, NSW, the aircraft impacted the ground and disintegrated. Both crew - Flt Lt Jeremy McNess and Flt Lt Mark Cairns-Cowan - of 1 Squadron RAAF were killed. The accident occurred after 23 minutes of flight and at the first simulated target attack. The mission was designed to reinstate squadron proficiency in night operations as squadron aircrew had not conducted night operations for some time due to other squadron commitments. Apparently, they forgot to disconnect the autopilot during pull up and when the pilot was straining against the autopilot it abruptly disconnected and the stick went full aft, causing the aircraft to loop over the top and impact the ground in full afterburner. Due to boron patch disintegration on impact, the Gov't had to buy the crash site and sift through hectares of dirt to remove the toxic material.
Hello TL. Jeremy was on my RAAF pilots course and we spent the weekend before this accident with him at a wedding in Adelaide. Your description about why the accident happened is correct up to the straining against the autopilot. The autopilot didnt pop itself out, Jez did neglect to disconnect at first but eventually disconnected it himself. Would take too long to explain the sequence of events from there, and I'm not sure I should even write about it here. Because I was such a close mate of Jez's, the lead investigator gave me the details and what they discovered from the voice recorder, including a telltale series of electronic beeps. It was a horrible night to fly, they were not night current and a big mistake occurred. We allmake mistakes but fast jet pilots operate on envelope limits - mistakes can be deadly. But the RAAF is doing so well now safety wise - the last fatal accident was 26 years ago - the year Diana died.
@tomdennis1474 hi Tom, thanks for the updated info on this, I'm sorry for the loss of your Mate. It was a tragic event and the consequences of this have surely increased safety standards in the RAAF. I remember a lot of questions being asked about why they were told to fly this sort of profile while not being current for that type of night Op. Lots of stuff like that happened back then, even with the Army and the Blackhawk tragedy. Asking crews to do too much with too small a budget and not enough training hours. Thankfully most of that has changed, and as you rightly state, lessons were learned. It's unfortunate that lessons are learned due to lives lost. Best, Trev
The way the narration was modulating between eurostralian and american accents made for an interesting delve on the history of the Australian F-4E. Subscribed!
The F4 Phantom was one good looking airplane. It is one of those rare aircraft designs in which the airplane looked like it was in flight while sitting on the ramp. Everything about its design was aerodynamically wrong, yet somehow it all worked.
I saw the Phantoms at Amberley in 1973. I was 5 years old and my father (Army) was doing a course there. All I remember is large ( probably because of the photos my mum took) green and tan planes.
I was lucky to be at Amberly when they arrived in 1970. My Dad was in army aviation there, having recently returned from new guinea after 3yrs. I was in boarding school at Indooroopilly, sat In the cockpit was a magic day.
It’s too bad no one built the Israeli modifications proposed in the “Iron Hammer” proposal. The phantom was to be completely rebuilt. In 1983, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney proposed a “Super Phantom” upgrade powered by the PW1120, which was vastly more fuel-efficient and produced roughly 30 percent more thrust than the Phantom’s smoky 50s-era J79 turbojets. The Boeing Super Phantom would also have come with aerodynamic conformal fuel tanks that nearly doubled range while inducing less drag than wing-mounted drop tanks. The phantom with this configuration also would have had a modern cockpit, single piece front canopy similar to the F-15, much improved visibility for the RIO, etc. Performance was unbelievable! Here is a quote from a National Interest article. “Later in July 986, as IAI proceeded with development of the Lavi, it modified F-4E Phantom #336 to serve as test-bed, replacing its starboard J79 engine with a PW1120-possibly with assistance from Boeing. Less then a year later, the port engine was replaced as well, and the fully re-engined Phantom made its first flight on April 27, 1987. By all accounts, the up-engined Phantom's performance was extraordinary, boosting the F-4E's thrust-to-weight ratio from .86 to 1.04. (A jet with a thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding of 1.0 or higher can fly straight up at a 90-degree angle and still accelerate.) As a result, the Super Phantom could climb 36 percent faster and sustain turns 15 percent faster which combined with wing slates. This put it on par with the fourth-generation F-15E Strike Eagle and could accelerate 27 percent faster, and take off with 20 percent less runway. Due to the engines' lighter weight and greater fuel efficiency, the Super Phantom could also fly considerably further.” Ultimately the US refused to allow the modified F-4’s to be built. Why? Because they believe that congress would demand they not take delivery of the large numbers of F-15’s and instead be forced to refurbish existing and continue building new F-4’s. The Israeli Air Force was disappointed and angry. So, they US said “we’ll sell you F-15’s instead”. So Israel got F-15’s and F-16’s. It all worked out. But truthfully, I think the F-4 modifications should have been allowed. The Japanese, Greek, Turkish and others could have used the F-4’s for alot longer.
i saw them firing at old trams at firing range nsw south coast demolishing the targets ,unfortunately we were 40mm bofors aa regiment so not good for our confidence
I've heard that RAAF really love the F-4 Phantom as it performed very well in Air To Ground attack role. RAAF even requested to keep the F-4 even after the F-111 arrival , the US offered to sell those leased F-4 to RAAF but the Australian Government turned down the RAAF request.
Considering its popularity, and its (eventual) capability enhancements, in hindsight, what *I* would have done is retire the Mirage III from service early, replace those with the Phantoms and keep the F-111s for deep strike. In my opinion, the Mirage III wasn't the right fit for Australia. It certain had good performance but could only carry 3 missiles (2 IR AAMs under the wings plus two slimline external tanks and an IR or radar guided AAM on the centreline) compared to the F-4Es standard "4 and 4" air to air loadout (4 IR AAMs, and 2 drop tanks under the wings, and 4 radar-guided AAMs in recesses on the ventral surface. Plus, a centreline tank - if needed. While it was obviously a thirsty bird, carrying almost 3x the missiles shouldn't have been overlooked. Plus, it would have triggered the RAAF investing in AAR tankers earlier. Like Halvorson said, they were primarily designed as an air interceptor but were also great at ground attack by day. So having the Phantoms for interception/AA combat and acting in a role to augment F-111s and/or provide CAS for troops on the ground would have been a significant force-multiplier for Australia. Plus, given the extensive increase in capabilities offered by the modernised Phantoms (Greek AUP, Israeli Kurnass, Turkish "Terminator" and the German F-4F ICE), they would likely have kept flying in RAAF service until the F-35. We'll never know how that would have turned out, obviously, but the RAAF could have looked very different from 1970 through to the 2020s. Also, some of your footage was very obviously from DCS. Might be worth adding a little comment about that and, funnily enough, the F-4E module for DCS (which will reportedly include RAAF liveries for the aircraft) is due to be released sometime this year.
Funny how although the Buccaneer is mentioned dismissively, it was the only one of the aircraft mentioned that was still worth using in the Gulf War.... And as the song went, 'The fastest way to heaven, is the F-111...'.
I’m curious why needing a bomber the RAAF did not choose the A-6 Intruder. The F-4E is an excellent aircraft but it can’t mimic the F-111C bombing capability
Leftenant is British-Australian, American is lootenant. And I don't think it is a computer, I think it is an American who has lived in Australia for long enough to have his accent slightly affected.
Really, it didn't do anything the RAAF wanted it to do (as pointed out in the Vid) only 24 of them in total. Nearly 120 Mirages and history shows it was well respected by its pilots. The Mirage also kept our small aircarft industry alive for a while longer keeping Aussie specialists employed. BTW the Mirage was already here.
We had Mirage fighter / interceptor aircraft way before the F-4 stand in for the F111..they had to give the boys up at 82 wing something positive to do instead of smokos darts and shuttle cock..from ex 77 Gunnie 😂
The only reply to this is that the Phantom F4 E (range 680 Km) had roughly half the combat range of the Mirage 3 (1200 Km). The Mirage 3 was developed a number of years before the Phantom and entered service before it.
@@damianousley8833 Lots of publications confuse combat range with combat radius, with the latter being, at a rough estimate, usually half of the aircraft's combat range. According to the RAAF Association, the F-4E had a combat radius of 840 km with 12 Mk-82 500 lb bombs and four AIM-9 Sidewinders. During the 1982 Falklands War the Mirage 3s of the Argentine Air Force had a maximum effective combat radius of 833 km while configured with two 375 gallon drop-tanks, two R550 and one R530 air-to-air missiles.
Holding on to one sqn of Phantoms would have meant standing down two sqns of Mirages because there just wasn't the money in the budget to have them **and** meet our regional security committments. You have to remember, Oz wasn't close to having the kind of GNP we have now.
While the F4E was never as good at precision strike as the F111 it was however better than the mirage 3 at everything else and a far superior strike platform than mirage
When I was in Japan, one day, my Australian classmate Joan M Waring broke into tears when she came out from the school office. I did not want to ask for the reason immediately, but later learned that her brother who was in the RAAF, was lost in an accident. I did not know much about the accident details until today when I watched this video. Joan passed away in 1998. R.I.P. Rob and Joan
Thank you for the upload.
At 0:49 you show an F-111C parked next to an F-4. That F111C "127" was lost in a tragic accident in 1993, prior to the RAAF sending crews to the USA to ferry back the F-111Gs they'd purchased from the USAF. During the recovery from a night autotoss weapon delivery profile against a simulated landstrike target near Guyra, NSW, the aircraft impacted the ground and disintegrated. Both crew - Flt Lt Jeremy McNess and Flt Lt Mark Cairns-Cowan - of 1 Squadron RAAF were killed. The accident occurred after 23 minutes of flight and at the first simulated target attack. The mission was designed to reinstate squadron proficiency in night operations as squadron aircrew had not conducted night operations for some time due to other squadron commitments. Apparently, they forgot to disconnect the autopilot during pull up and when the pilot was straining against the autopilot it abruptly disconnected and the stick went full aft, causing the aircraft to loop over the top and impact the ground in full afterburner. Due to boron patch disintegration on impact, the Gov't had to buy the crash site and sift through hectares of dirt to remove the toxic material.
Hello TL. Jeremy was on my RAAF pilots course and we spent the weekend before this accident with him at a wedding in Adelaide. Your description about why the accident happened is correct up to the straining against the autopilot. The autopilot didnt pop itself out, Jez did neglect to disconnect at first but eventually disconnected it himself. Would take too long to explain the sequence of events from there, and I'm not sure I should even write about it here. Because I was such a close mate of Jez's, the lead investigator gave me the details and what they discovered from the voice recorder, including a telltale series of electronic beeps. It was a horrible night to fly, they were not night current and a big mistake occurred. We allmake mistakes but fast jet pilots operate on envelope limits - mistakes can be deadly. But the RAAF is doing so well now safety wise - the last fatal accident was 26 years ago - the year Diana died.
@tomdennis1474 hi Tom, thanks for the updated info on this, I'm sorry for the loss of your Mate. It was a tragic event and the consequences of this have surely increased safety standards in the RAAF. I remember a lot of questions being asked about why they were told to fly this sort of profile while not being current for that type of night Op. Lots of stuff like that happened back then, even with the Army and the Blackhawk tragedy. Asking crews to do too much with too small a budget and not enough training hours. Thankfully most of that has changed, and as you rightly state, lessons were learned. It's unfortunate that lessons are learned due to lives lost. Best, Trev
The way the narration was modulating between eurostralian and american accents made for an interesting delve on the history of the Australian F-4E. Subscribed!
The F4 Phantom was one good looking airplane. It is one of those rare aircraft designs in which the airplane looked like it was in flight while sitting on the ramp. Everything about its design was aerodynamically wrong, yet somehow it all worked.
I saw the Phantoms at Amberley in 1973. I was 5 years old and my father (Army) was doing a course there. All I remember is large ( probably because of the photos my mum took) green and tan planes.
I didn't see the phantom in RAAF service, but I saw Nevada air national guard RF-4C phantoms at Amberley in 1995. Great powerful sound.
I was lucky to be at Amberly when they arrived in 1970. My Dad was in army aviation there, having recently returned from new guinea after 3yrs. I was in boarding school at Indooroopilly, sat In the cockpit was a magic day.
These old beasts together with the f111 were brilliant middle bombers and could put up a tough air to air fight .
It’s too bad no one built the Israeli modifications proposed in the “Iron Hammer” proposal. The phantom was to be completely rebuilt. In 1983, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney proposed a “Super Phantom” upgrade powered by the PW1120, which was vastly more fuel-efficient and produced roughly 30 percent more thrust than the Phantom’s smoky 50s-era J79 turbojets. The Boeing Super Phantom would also have come with aerodynamic conformal fuel tanks that nearly doubled range while inducing less drag than wing-mounted drop tanks. The phantom with this configuration also would have had a modern cockpit, single piece front canopy similar to the F-15, much improved visibility for the RIO, etc.
Performance was unbelievable! Here is a quote from a National Interest article. “Later in July 986, as IAI proceeded with development of the Lavi, it modified F-4E Phantom #336 to serve as test-bed, replacing its starboard J79 engine with a PW1120-possibly with assistance from Boeing. Less then a year later, the port engine was replaced as well, and the fully re-engined Phantom made its first flight on April 27, 1987.
By all accounts, the up-engined Phantom's performance was extraordinary, boosting the F-4E's thrust-to-weight ratio from .86 to 1.04. (A jet with a thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding of 1.0 or higher can fly straight up at a 90-degree angle and still accelerate.) As a result, the Super Phantom could climb 36 percent faster and sustain turns 15 percent faster which combined with wing slates. This put it on par with the fourth-generation F-15E Strike Eagle and could accelerate 27 percent faster, and take off with 20 percent less runway. Due to the engines' lighter weight and greater fuel efficiency, the Super Phantom could also fly considerably further.”
Ultimately the US refused to allow the modified F-4’s to be built. Why? Because they believe that congress would demand they not take delivery of the large numbers of F-15’s and instead be forced to refurbish existing and continue building new F-4’s.
The Israeli Air Force was disappointed and angry. So, they US said “we’ll sell you F-15’s instead”.
So Israel got F-15’s and F-16’s. It all worked out. But truthfully, I think the F-4 modifications should have been allowed. The Japanese, Greek, Turkish and others could have used the F-4’s for alot longer.
i saw them firing at old trams at firing range nsw south coast demolishing the targets ,unfortunately we were 40mm bofors aa regiment so not good for our confidence
theres one at point cook airbase museum in victoria...
I've heard that RAAF really love the F-4 Phantom as it performed very well in Air To Ground attack role. RAAF even requested to keep the F-4 even after the F-111 arrival , the US offered to sell those leased F-4 to RAAF but the Australian Government turned down the RAAF request.
I really enjoyed the history Thank you.
Considering its popularity, and its (eventual) capability enhancements, in hindsight, what *I* would have done is retire the Mirage III from service early, replace those with the Phantoms and keep the F-111s for deep strike. In my opinion, the Mirage III wasn't the right fit for Australia. It certain had good performance but could only carry 3 missiles (2 IR AAMs under the wings plus two slimline external tanks and an IR or radar guided AAM on the centreline) compared to the F-4Es standard "4 and 4" air to air loadout (4 IR AAMs, and 2 drop tanks under the wings, and 4 radar-guided AAMs in recesses on the ventral surface. Plus, a centreline tank - if needed. While it was obviously a thirsty bird, carrying almost 3x the missiles shouldn't have been overlooked. Plus, it would have triggered the RAAF investing in AAR tankers earlier.
Like Halvorson said, they were primarily designed as an air interceptor but were also great at ground attack by day. So having the Phantoms for interception/AA combat and acting in a role to augment F-111s and/or provide CAS for troops on the ground would have been a significant force-multiplier for Australia. Plus, given the extensive increase in capabilities offered by the modernised Phantoms (Greek AUP, Israeli Kurnass, Turkish "Terminator" and the German F-4F ICE), they would likely have kept flying in RAAF service until the F-35.
We'll never know how that would have turned out, obviously, but the RAAF could have looked very different from 1970 through to the 2020s.
Also, some of your footage was very obviously from DCS. Might be worth adding a little comment about that and, funnily enough, the F-4E module for DCS (which will reportedly include RAAF liveries for the aircraft) is due to be released sometime this year.
Funny how although the Buccaneer is mentioned dismissively, it was the only one of the aircraft mentioned that was still worth using in the Gulf War.... And as the song went, 'The fastest way to heaven, is the F-111...'.
Malcolm Fraser "leading" a team of RAAF experts is a hoot, hope he was not found without trousers in a hotel lobby.
poor old 127, helped dig the bits out of the mud at Guyra
One of the greatest looking fighters ever designed. A horny aircraft.!!
Those videos from DCS, with film grain effect and comma are hilarious to see, once you realize they are used on purpose instead of source material ;)
فانتومها همیشه میدرخشند ومحبوب هستن درود بر فانتوم و فانتوم سواران
Narrator: I’m American. No wait! I’m Aussie! Actually, this bit would sound better in an American accent. Oh maybe I’ll be Aussie again
I’m curious why needing a bomber the RAAF did not choose the A-6 Intruder. The F-4E is an excellent aircraft but it can’t mimic the F-111C bombing capability
if i remember right they had a vulcan cannon ?
Yes it is a m61 vulcan 20mm cannon
The A6 intruder would have been a good choice too.
Where's this seventh State?
New Zealand! Lol 😅
Rather interesting 👍
Can someone please explain to the septic narrator how to pronounce 'Lieutenant' and 'missile'? That'd be great.
It’s an AI voice. It’ll get better. Daddy, chill.
@@skibbyau Its a bulk crap VO swapping between Australian and US accent in a very unpleasant way. Fuck AI.
@@skibbyau Apart from the strange shift in accent, it's a pretty convincing AI voice.
@@skibbyau What the hell is even that?
Leftenant is British-Australian, American is lootenant. And I don't think it is a computer, I think it is an American who has lived in Australia for long enough to have his accent slightly affected.
Would of been good to keep these instead of getting the Mirage.
Really, it didn't do anything the RAAF wanted it to do (as pointed out in the Vid) only 24 of them in total. Nearly 120 Mirages and history shows it was well respected by its pilots. The Mirage also kept our small aircarft industry alive for a while longer keeping Aussie specialists employed. BTW the Mirage was already here.
We had Mirage fighter / interceptor aircraft way before the F-4 stand in for the F111..they had to give the boys up at 82 wing something positive to do instead of smokos darts and shuttle cock..from ex 77 Gunnie 😂
Phantoms were the stop gap between the Canberra's and the F-111's.. kind of weird when you think about it
The only reply to this is that the Phantom F4 E (range 680 Km) had roughly half the combat range of the Mirage 3 (1200 Km). The Mirage 3 was developed a number of years before the Phantom and entered service before it.
@@damianousley8833 Lots of publications confuse combat range with combat radius, with the latter being, at a rough estimate, usually half of the aircraft's combat range. According to the RAAF Association, the F-4E had a combat radius of 840 km with 12 Mk-82 500 lb bombs and four AIM-9 Sidewinders. During the 1982 Falklands War the Mirage 3s of the Argentine Air Force had a maximum effective combat radius of 833 km while configured with two 375 gallon drop-tanks, two R550 and one R530 air-to-air missiles.
Could’ve done without the Seppo centric narration.
The RAAF should have held on to their F4Es. Or else the RNZAF should have acquired them.
As I understand it they were on a restricted lease, thus they had to go back. Not sure if the Kiwis ever considered acquiring them.
Holding on to one sqn of Phantoms would have meant standing down two sqns of Mirages because there just wasn't the money in the budget to have them **and** meet our regional security committments. You have to remember, Oz wasn't close to having the kind of GNP we have now.
While the F4E was never as good at precision strike as the F111 it was however better than the mirage 3 at everything else and a far superior strike platform than mirage
In 7 states? We only have 6 states!
I remember the F111 piece of crap half of the ones we had crashed
Half?
Are you sure about that?? 🤔
Yes there were crashes, about 8 over a 25/30 year period. So definitely not half and definitely not CRAP. In fact the crews who flew them loved them.
8 of 43 airframes in total is not half. Are you from Queensland?