COMMONWEALTH OF. AUSTRALIA
SPEEC JA
BY
The Rt Hon. J. G. GORTON, M. P.
ON
F Ill AIRCRAFT
( Ministerial Statement)
[ From the ' Parliamentary Debates', 23 September 1969]
Mr GORTON ( Higgins-Prime Minister)
-by leave-This House will know that the
Government recently sent a high level mission
to the United States of America to
discuss matters concerning F1 11 aircraft.
That mission has now submitted its report
to the Government and the Government
has considered it. However, before detailing
the matters discussed and the
conclusions reached there is one matter
which I believe should be made clear.
Because of the great publici * ty which has
been given to any accident in which any
Fll aircraft has been involved there has
grown up a feeling that the aircraft is itself
unsafe. The record shows that this belief
is simply* not true. The United States Air
Force fleet of Fl 11 aircraft have now
been flying for a total of more than 40,000
hours, including more than 25,000 hours in
the, operational command, and it now has
an accident record better, for example, than
the Super Sabre or the Phantom and better
than any other F century series of aircraft.
On the record the aircraft is not unsafe
and this should be known.
The matters discussed by the mission
related to the aircraft's range, its weapons
load, the assurance of a continuing supply
of spare parts during its service life and
the fatigue performance of the wing carry
through box. Our military advisers are
completely satisfied that the range and
22518/ 69 weapons load of the aircraft will meet the
requirements of the Air Force, as set down
when the decision to order the aircraft was
made. It will do the job which the Air
Force wanted an aircraft to do. Our
military advisers are also completely satisfied
that there will continue to be a full
availability of spares, readily available,
during the full period of service of this
aircraft with the Royal Australian Air
Force. Furthermore, our advice is that the Fll,
both in practice and during operations, has
demonstrated a capacity to deliver a bomb
load in any weather conditions with unprecedented
accuracy, whether the target can
be seen or not. For this purpose it is the
best aircraft in the world, and our military
advisers after evaluating other possible aircraft
types tell us that there is not in being
or in prospect any aircraft that would
approach the already.. demonstrated performance
of the Fl 11I as a strike aircraft
of the kind the RAAF requires.
The Government believes that the RAAF
must have an ultra modem bomber strike
aircraft to replace the Canberras which are
now the RAAF's only strike force. The
Government knows that the Canberras are
approaching the limit of their service life,
and the considerations which I have set
out above all point to the Fll as the best
aircraft to be this replacement, without
exception.
But there remains the problem of the
fatigue performance of the wing carry
through box. This has been a matter of
concern to us because it indicates that we
would not get the length of service from
the aircraft which we require, or anything
approaching it; and our concern has been
shared by the United States Air Force,
although the United States already has over
120 F111 aircraft operating with the
present wing box.
As a result of this concern two matters
are in progress. Firstly, the wing box which
gave an insufficiently long life under test
has been modified as a result of information
gained and is to begin a new series of
fatigue tests next month. Secondly, more
far reaching activity has been undertaken
to overcome the fatigue problems identified
as limiting the service life of the aircraft.
Action has been comprehensive and has
included the participation of groups of
technical experts from universities, industry
and government, all. participating in detailed
reviews of the test results and the proposed
actions to resolve those technical problems.
These groups, Mr Speaker, have been
assisted by Australian structural experts.
As a result of these investigations a new
design of the wing carry through box is
under way and it is intended that this new
design will be fitted to Fill aircraft by
1972. But, of course, the new design box,
which our mission has advised us it confidently
expects to be successful, has not yet
been proved in practice. The question posed
now is whether we should accept our F 1 ls
with the modified wing box which is due
to begin testing next month. If we do it
is expected that this box will give our Fl 1 ls
a longer service life than the present wing
box but not the length of service life we
require. Modifications seen to be required
would be made to the wing boxes already
fitted to our aircraft without additional cost
to the RAAF.
The Government has decided that, provided
the modified wing box to be tested
next month lives up to expectations, we
should accept the aircraft. This, however,
is conditional on an agreement which has
already been reached that whatever ii
needed to finally overcome the wing bo
problem will'be incorporated in our aircraft
at the appropriate time and at no
increase to the ceiling price under the formula applicable to the purchase of our
aircraft. That is to say that unless the
modified wing box we now propose to
accept meets the endurance requirements
for which it is designed, the United States
Air Force will replace it with the new
design box to be available in 1972-again
with no increase to the ceiling price under
the formula applicable to the purchase of
the aircraft.
A further safeguard is the agreement that
should one or more of the wing boxes we
now propose to accept become unserviceable
due to a design deficiency before the
new design wing box is ready for fitting
then the United States will replace those
boxes at no cost to us-and as often as
may be necessary until the new wing box
is available for fitting.
As a result of these agreements we have
therefore decided to accept delivery of our
FllIs as soon as the fatigue tests to begin
next month have proved successful. We
believe that in so doing we will be greatly
strengthening the defence capacity of Australia
and that the remaining problems of
the aircraft which is not one of safety but
of service life will have been overcome by
the arrangements to fit new boxes or to fit
replacement boxes until the new boxes are
ready. I believe I should, in this statement,
remind honourable members that the
arrangements made with the United States
Air Force for these aircraft were that the
ceiling price was to be $ US5.95m plus
escalation of labour costs and materials
after 1965, plus modifications requested by
the RAAF and improvement modifications
proposed by the USAF and accepted by the
RAAF. The combined effect of this item
will approximate $ USI. 5m per aircraft. I
would also add that the USAF has decided
to go to an RF1 I IA version for the reconnaissance
aircraft and that this decision now
makes it possible for the RAAF to proceed
to a reconnaissance version of the F lC,
as originally contemplated, which will be
common with the reconnaissance aircraft in
the USAF inventory. Before, however, the
Government makes a decision on this
matter we would require far more information
as to costs.
Sir, I hope the House and the country
iwill agree that our Air Force needs a strike
Sbomber most effective in operations. I hope
they will accept the advice of our military
experts that the F111 is far and away the
best such bomber available, and I believe
they will agree that our acceptance of the
bomber subject to the conditions I have set
out will be a powerful addition to our capacity to defend ourselves in time of
need. May I add, Mr Speaker, that should
the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr
Barnard) wish time to study this statement
and to reply to it tomorrow, then that time
will be accorded to him.
Printed for the Government of the Commonwealth by W. G. MuKAY at the
Government Printing Office, Canberra