RAAF slashes heritage fleet
Royal Australian Air Force will dispose of eight of its 19 heritage aircraft following a review of “technical and airworthiness factors”.
CAPTION: A94-983 Sabre in RAAF’s 75 Squadron markings on its first flight after restoration at Temora Aviation Museum. Photo by Brian Hartigan.
Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Stephen Chappell said the review was essential to balancing heritage preservation with operational safety.
“Our heritage fleet holds deep significance to the Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian public,” Air Marshal Chappell said.
“While withdrawing aircraft is never easy, this step ensures we preserve aviation history responsibly.
“By transferring these aircraft to museums and heritage organisations, their stories of service and innovation will remain accessible for future generations.”
However, the cost of operating a fleet of 19 aged aircraft was also a significant deciding factor, with RAAF’s official announcement citing ‘sustainability’ and ‘long-term viability’.
“Streamlining the fleet will allow 100 Squadron to maintain quality heritage displays, engage communities, and protect the long-term viability of the Royal Australian Air Force’s heritage capability,” the statement said.
“As aircraft age, upkeep becomes increasingly complex [and costly], especially for flying displays.
“Reducing the fleet will allow 100 Squadron to focus on operating a select group of historic aircraft for ceremonial duties and flying displays, maintaining a living connection to Royal Australian Air Force traditions.
“The withdrawn aircraft – DH-115 Vampire T.35, Gloster Meteor F.8, Cessna A-37B Dragonfly, Ryan STM-S2, English Electric Canberra, CA-27 Sabre, CT4A, and RE8 – will be transitioned with dignity.
“Five aircraft originally transferred from Temora Aviation Museum will return there, while the remaining three will be considered for static display at approved institutions.”
Royal Australian Air Force will continue to operate 11 heritage aircraft – Mustang, Harvard, Winjeel, two Tiger Moths, Sopwith Pup, Hudson, Spitfire Mk8, Spitfire Mk16, Boomerang and Wirraway.
The pain is not over yet, though, with heritage operations to be further reviewed over the next 12 months “to ensure sustainability and continued public engagement”.
.
RELATED STORY: RAAF 100 Squadron re-formed [February 2021]
.
.
EDITOR’S NOTE: CONTACT believes RAAF is deliberately dropping ‘Royal Australian’ from its name – despite Defence formally assuring us it isn’t true. Campaigning against this name-change-by-stealth, CONTACT has amended the above story appropriately. See here for the back story
.
.
.
.
So despite invoking innovation as a heritage aspect of aircraft preservation, the whole jet age heritage of the RAAF being grounded, doesn’t add up. Innovation if genuine should have been applied to keep the aircraft flying, and as for budget issues as the ratinale for no longer having flying jets, where is the initiative and creativity in ensuring monies are made available for historical flying preservation? No, something doesn’t add up! Imagine after over a 100 flying Sabres, over 100 flying Meteors, nearly 50 flying Canberras, over 50 flying Vampires, not one of each could still be kept flying, really? Many folk go to airshows for the old jets, but now, well, why bother! The problem with static displays is usually they are location limited i.e. you can’t fly them around airshows around Australia to be just put on static display because the cost of doing so wouldn’t be justifiable according to today’s government accountants.
In times of peace, God and the armed forces are forgotten.
My understanding is that the sabre is grounded due to Martin Baker not recertifying the ejection seat. It looks like the alternative solution being investigated by TAM didn’t work out.
All my favourites and the ones that are less common to see are being removed from the heritage collection. What a sad day.
Hi I cannot understand how it is that spares are a problem for static displays.
Our RAAF history is not important to our younger generation please keep what we have and cut polys perks need be this alone would go a long way to keeping our heritage afloat.
Les Graham
RAAF slashes heritage fleet
What a sad, sad day for Australian jet aviation heritage.
The RAAF couldn’t use it’s initiative to keep the jets flying, i.e. a case of “too hard, too bad, too expensive, so sorry, that’s life!” despite such aircraft flying in other countries.
Thank you
Greg Jarosch
Maybe less junket trips and extravagant spending by Politicians, Public Servants and their families would go along way to keeping these heritage listed aircraft where they belong. Volunteers have devoted their lives to restoring these aircraft for the benefit of the Australian People. This will be another nail in the coffin of the Labor Government. Not Happy.
How do we give tanks, other equipment and millions of dollars to other countries such as Ukraine and Gaza?
Only by robbing the money from the ADF.
Keep up the campaign regarding the ‘Royal’ suffix this is the doing of Albo and his mob who hate anything to do with the Monarchy even if it effects long held and earned traditions.
Remember his resistance to King Charles effigy on currencies.
As the RSL says the price of liberty is ETERNAL VIGILANCE.
A shot has been fired over our bows as the Navy says “Action Stations”
This is not limited to the RAAF the other two services are in the firing line.
Jack
The ‘Royal’ suffix in RAAF was lost to a rebranding exercise in 2016 – i.e. Malcom Turnbull’s government.
I thought it was the Prefix
“Royal” I thought it was the Prefix. My english was never real good though.
You’re absolutely right – it is a prefix.
My bad – I absent-mindedly copied the first writer.
Brian Hartigan
CONTACT Editor
So Sad, great aircraft to work on, the backbone of the RAAF, back in the day.
Keep up the campaign for sure in regard to the full RAAF name but don’t be changing quotes from other sources…. a quote is a quote, and changing it just because you don’t agree with it compromises integrity.
What changes are you referring to? I’d like to defend myself against your slight.
Brian Hartigan
CONTACT Editor
I apologise if I’ve misunderstood, however the note at the end of the article states “Campaigning against this name-change-by-stealth, CONTACT has amended the above story appropriately.” Given that all references to the RAAF, including quotes from Air Marshal Chappell, within your story refer to it as either the RAAF or the Royal Australian Air Force I have assumed that you have changed them to this, otherwise, at least this specific article, doesnt include any examples of the ROYAL AUSTRALIAN being dropped.
Yes mate – “CONTACT has amended the above story appropriately” – meaning I have inserted “Royal Australian” where they insist on calling it “Air Force”.
In this case, the original story had one “Royal Australian”, while my edited version has five.
Brian Hartigan
CONTACT Editor
I’m really not trying to be a pain in the arse here, but that does seem to confirm that you have altered quotes… and in that case it is no longer a quote and your grammer should reflect this. Otherwise where is the limit to editors modifying quotes ?
Yes, I have altered quotes – on the grounds that if anyone challenges the validity of the change then they would be arguing in favour of dropping the true and proper name of the Royal Australian Air Force. I’m not saying that’s what you are doing, but, I was really rather hoping that a high-ranking RAAF officer would challenge me on it, so that I could have a good argument about it (unless you are a high-ranking RAAF officer?).
I was trained as a reporter at ARMY Newspaper (which used The Australian newspaper’s style guide) and one of the things I was taught was that it was OK to change a quote to correct an obvious error or bad grammar in what the speaker actually said, if it made the quote more correct to the speaker’s intent or made him sound more intelligent (e.g. remove umms and aahs, or correct youze to you, me to my etc), as long as the true intent of the quote was unchanged.
In this case, I absolutely know that the quoted person was talking about the Royal Australian Air Force, therefore ‘correcting’ his quote from Air Force (which should be spelt with a small a and f because it isn’t a proper noun) to Royal Australian Air Force cannot be considered incorrect or misquoting – except by those who would demand that the name has changed.
Also, if a press release spelt a quote “Air Force”, and I changed it to “air force” then, it could also be argued that I was misquoting on the grounds that the speaker was indeed referring to a known entity that should be spelt with uppercase initials.
I make no apologies for ‘correcting’ RAAF’s deliberate (and officially denied) name-change-by-stealth. If they want to officially change the name, let them do so through proper channels. A branding guide doesn’t count.
Until then, I will continue to rail against it in my own little way.
Thank you for your interest in this. I love a good debate.
You would think that aircraft with jet engines, as opposed to those with piston engines, would be less costly to maintain, given that there’s a lot less moving parts, plus they’re younger than the WW2 aircraft.
It seems the RAAF is deliberately turning its back on its transition to the jet age.
Money has been withdrawn.
Can’t publicly say, [risk losing their high paid jobs], they have to make budget choices forced on them by treasury.
Probably went something like this if you want to keep flying etc etc then cut your running costs, don’t care where or how but stay within the budget.
Result got rid of some heritage”
Jack
I find it sad also to see our heritage aircraft shifted off the register so to speak however, the good part is that those still flyable will no doubt be utilised by the group at Temora (well done there lads), while those that are considered nonflyable will be utilised for static display.
The problem I see with these old aircraft is that spare parts are no longer made or if they are would be extremely expensive to acquire, hence I can understand the RAAF having budget difficulties particularly given the planned equipment purchases for all of our defence forces.
An ex sumpy.
No exactly the opposite. Most piston engine parts are either still available or can be remanufactured, pricey, but not difficult. These jet engines are 60-70plus years old. They at best when new, only had lives of few hundred hours ( modern turbines much, much better longevity) majority engine parts are virtually non exisitant & would be catastrophically expensive to remake. Higher performance also means shorter part life- There’s a reason there’s no Ex-raaf mirage with even a running engine.
What a crying arse shame this has to happen. But, if you look at the aircraft that are being saved; they’re a majority piston engine planes. Just wondering if any of the jet aircraft will be saved or not. 🤔
Yes mate I agree however, the piston aircraft are an easier to maintain and I think, from a display perspective provide a better show for the crowd not the least because they fly slower and turn in a much shorter distance.
Yup.
Budget trimming.