"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
Let
me guess, ex-army?

No, but hardly relevant.

It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the expense of
strategic common-sense.

I don't claim to know a whole lot.

Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.

By the
way, you'll find I'm not one of these combative, antagonistic people
who seem to get off on arguing with others over the internet. I
appreciate a good debate with people who share my interests. So if
you'd like to detail where I'm wrong and why - I would appreciate
that, and if you're right, I'll say so. I'm open-minded, I can have my
opinion changed by a persuasive argument.


Seeing as more than one person came to that conclusion, I'd say you need
to
sharpen your writing skills.


More accurately, I should have taken more time with that particular
post, but let's not be pedantic.


I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to
the Gulf).


Ok, then tell me. Media reports -

I'll let you in on something. The Oz media know diddly-squat about defence
matters. And when they haven't been told something, they make it up. ****, 9
times out 10 they'll mis-identify something as Air Force just because it
flies and something as Army just because its painted camouflage.

which included comments by the
Australian Defence Association amongst others,

The ADA are reasonably knowledgeable. But they sometimes fill in the blanks
with opinions that aren't factually correct.

I believe - stated that
it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
they sent according to you?

Its not "according to me", and its none of your business.

Here's a question - what's the point having a good strike aircraft if
the enemy has already knocked them out on the ground?

With what?


With SU-27s should 'they' acquire them, or whatever combat aircraft
'they' may possess. The F-111s have great range but it would be pure
folly to say they would operate our of Amberley in any crisis centred
around, say, East Timor, Irian Jaya, or Indonesia generally.

Folly to you. and we've already determined that you're a bit thin on
knowledge of this topic.

They
would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during
Interfet.

That was to shorten response time, not because they didn't have the reach.

Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out
of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or
without AAR?

I haven't got the data in front of me. So I can't say.



The F-111 scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant

Utter bull****.


Ok, what's the truth?

That the F111 has EW equipment and its getting more. Can you say "Echidna"?




and its best
move is to run. Thus if an attack was launched against us the Hornets
would be the only defence of the F-111s on the ground.

More bull****.



Ok, we have some Rapiers (to be retired), and RBS-70s, and Tindal is
laid out with widely located protective aircraft shelters, but do our
F-111 pilots train to launch on air-to-air missions?

None of your business. Also, can you say "Hawk 127"? Actually, I just
remembered that there was a public article about a Pig shooting down an F16
at Red Flag a few years ago. Make of it what you will.



There would be
no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase

Of course not. Your point?

That the F-111 is a strike aircraft only,

Its a strike aircraft *primarily*. Its also a bloody good Recon platform,
but I guess you didn't know *that* either.

not a multi-role fighter.

Even though it was conceived as one.

It
was never conceived to be the latter,

Yes it was. Can you say "TFX"? Or "F111B"?

and that was fine. But in this
day and age, with the current operational demands on the ADF and the
limited defence budget, my contention is that the high (and growing)
cost of this single capability cannot be justified for retention.

But your contention is based on incomplete knowledge of the subject. Best
you reconsider.



- their best
option would be to runaway to another base.

How about we just use them to destroy the enemy's strike aircraft or
base
before this scenario unfolds?

Obviously the preferred option! But will our politicians give that
order? Even Israel has been subject to surprise attacks - remember the
Yom Kippur War? I won't suggest you were around at the time of Pearl
Harbour . . .


We can't afford to have
combat aircraft that can't fight.

No **** Sherlock? Given your premise, we should **** the P3s and
Hercs
off as well, since they're pretty useless in a dogfight too.

No, not quite. They both fill a variety of roles and have both been
deployed on operations in recent years.

So has the RF111.

They are also not designed to
strike enemy targets which are likely to be defended by combat
aircraft.

Clearly, my preferrence is that - given our defence budget - the RAAF
field a multi-role fighter, not a multi-role fighter and a pure strike
/ recon aircraft.

Multi-role fighters less-than-optimum strike aircraft make.


Of course, ideally, if the defence budget was at a level that would
make me happy, I would like to see the F-111s retained, further
upgraded and supported by AAR aircraft with booms, and the RAAF also
operating at least 6, if not 8, operational squadrons of tactical
fighters - perhaps half primarily for air-to-air (the F-15), and half
primarily for battlefield air interdiction / CAS with a second role of
air-to-air (the Hornets, or F-16s, or take your pick of a few others).
But now I'm dreaming.

F16's legs are too short. And they've only got one (semi-reliable) donk.


--
De Oppresso Liber.