From 1970 to 1973, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) utilized 24 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II fighter-bombers for ground attack missions. These planes were borrowed from the United States Air Force (USAF) due to unforeseen hold-ups in the delivery of the RAAF’s 24 General Dynamics F-111C bombers. Although the F-4Es showcased notable performance, once the F-111s were in service by 1973, the Australian government declined the RAAF’s suggestion to keep the Phantoms.

In 1963, during a search for a replacement for its English Electric Canberra bombers, the RAAF assessed multiple aircraft, including the F-4C Phantom II variant. However, the F-111 was the preferred choice. Yet, ongoing technical issues with the F-111 during the late 1960s prompted the RAAF to see the F-4E Phantom II as the most suitable alternative. Subsequent to the F-111 delivery setbacks, in 1970, the Australian and US Governments struck a deal allowing the RAAF to lease 24 F-4Es, along with their necessary equipment, from the USAF.

The RAAF introduced their F-4Es in September 1970. These aircraft, deployed for air-to-ground missions, significantly aided in training crews for the impending F-111 operations. Additionally, the intensive training sessions with these jets elevated the RAAF’s operational expertise. Unfortunately, one Phantom met its end in a flight mishap in June 1971, while another was salvaged by the RAAF after a harsh landing caused substantial damage. By June 1973, the 23 remaining Phantoms were handed back to the USAF, with most of them later transformed into F-4G Wild Weasel versions upon their return to the US.

On 6 June 1966, eight Iroquois helicopters, belonging to the 9 Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), made their descent on the Vung Tau airbase in Vietnam. The Bell UH-1B Iroquois, commonly known as the “Huey”, became an emblematic figure of the Vietnam War. For the subsequent five and a half years, these Hueys of the 9 Squadron backed the 1st Australian Task Force (1ATF).

Previously, during World War II, 9 Squadron had been involved in maritime operations. It was later resurrected in 1962 at the Fairbairn air base near Canberra. Alongside 5 Squadron, which had been operating in Malaysia since 1964, they were the RAAF’s primary helicopter squadrons. The initial assumption in March 1966 was that, when a helicopter squadron was designated for Vietnam, it would constitute a new flight unit, mirroring the setup of RAAF Transport Flight Vietnam with its Caribou aircraft. But it was later clarified that the entire 9 Squadron would be deployed to Vietnam, while 5 Squadron would head back to Australia. This led to a restructure at Fairbairn.

In an interesting reshuffle, on 12 April, 9 Squadron transitioned to 5 Squadron. The then-existing 5 Squadron was rebranded as 5 Squadron Detachment C until its disbandment on 29 April. The separate 9 Squadron contingents in Williamtown, NSW, and Darwin were renamed as offshoots of 5 Squadron. Miraculously, 9 Squadron was resurrected on 13 April, adopting eight Iroquois from 5 Squadron. Throughout the war, these two squadrons remained intertwined. Personnel would initially train with 5 Squadron in Australia and subsequently serve in Vietnam under 9 Squadron. 9 Squadron’s journey to Vietnam involved both sea and air, with helicopters and their crews being ferried by the HMAS Sydney, and other personnel traveling via a Qantas chartered flight.

Once stationed at Vung Tau, their primary duty was to facilitate 1ATF by shuttling troops and delivering vital supplies like ammunition, water, and food to units in combat zones. If the Viet Cong (VC) compromised or blocked the Vung Tau-Nui Dat roadway, the squadron partnered with 35 Squadron for resupply operations.

Their missions were multifaceted, including deploying Special Air Service patrols, rescuing injured soldiers, distributing herbicides and pesticides, disseminating leaflets, and executing “people sniffer” recon missions. They played a vital role in all major Australian operations, with a staggering 237,424 missions to their credit. It’s worth noting that from July 1967 to November 1971, the squadron also had 16 officers from the Royal New Zealand Air Force in its ranks.

Despite their commendable reputation and synergy with the army, the early months witnessed some friction, primarily because the air force couldn’t match the army’s anticipations. The Hueys lacked armour, and crews were deprived of flak jackets (which were eventually sourced from American forces). Relations took a positive turn post the Battle of Long Tan in August, marked by the valiant efforts of two squadron helicopters which delivered ammo to Australian forces amid challenging conditions.

By 1968, the squadron’s fleet expanded to 16 Hueys. Four were later adapted into “Bushranger” gunships, equipped with twin 7.62-millimetre mini-guns, rocket launchers, and door-mounted M60 machine-guns, providing pivotal cover and support for landing zones.

Concluding their esteemed service, 9 Squadron executed their final mission on 19 November 1971. The following month saw their 16 Iroquois depart Vung Tau, eventually landing on the HMAS Sydney, marking their journey back home.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Legal representatives of the former SAS soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, are seeking clarification on how sensitive information from his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against several newspapers will be utilized by war crimes investigators. These publications had reported allegations of Roberts-Smith’s connection to four murders.

The investigative team from Operation Emerald is keen on accessing certain confidential documents that were presented during Roberts-Smith’s legal battle against the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and the Canberra Times.

Back in June, the Federal Court had ruled that the allegations presented by the newspapers regarding Roberts-Smith’s supposed involvement in the four murders in Afghanistan were predominantly accurate. While Roberts-Smith has not faced any criminal charges yet, he is challenging Justice Anthony Besanko’s judgment.

The court was informed on Monday that the Office of the Special Investigator, in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police, is currently probing 33 allegations of misconduct by defence personnel in Afghanistan spanning the period from 2005 to 2016.

The formation of the OSI was a direct result of an inquiry by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into the behaviour of soldiers in Afghanistan.

Investigators are particularly interested in parts of the testimony from individuals who were mandated to provide possibly self-incriminating statements during the inspector-general’s inquiry. Some of these individuals also testified in the defamation lawsuit.

Luke Livingston SC, representing the ex-soldier, expressed concerns in court over the protective immunities for any suspect who had been compelled to provide information during the inspector-general’s inquiry. Livingston also requested to cross-question Ross Barnett, the director of OSI investigations.

In response to Livingston’s concerns, Barnett assured the court that there were robust systems in place to safeguard the integrity of the probes and the rights of those under investigation. However, Livingston challenged this, emphasizing the need for concrete proof that these protective measures were both strong and effective.

There were previous concerns raised by lawyers regarding the handling of information, with calls for related policy documents. Livingston indicated the Commonwealth’s lack of a significant response to these concerns. Jennifer Single SC, representing the Commonwealth, mentioned that it’s highly improbable for any non-protected data to be included in the sensitive court records.

Single acknowledged potential human errors in redacting documents but highlighted existing protective measures. Livingston, however, noted that the repercussions of any unintended disclosure would remain severe. He further commented on the possibility of a lack of established protocols, a detail he deemed critical.

However, Single pointed out that divulging further information might raise security concerns. She emphasized that the decision regarding potential leaks or mishandling of materials should rest with criminal courts.

The court will further discuss the Commonwealth’s proposed amendments to the 2020 national security orders and the access to the sensitive data from Roberts-Smith’s defamation lawsuit on September 27 this year.