"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
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.

My pro-army, pro-tanks stance is not at the expense of strategic
commonsense (no hyphen), nor is at the expense of the RAAF or RAN. I
would like it to be at the expense of the enormous, and growing,
social welfare budget, but that's another issue. I believe the defence
budget should be dramatically increased. And I also believe a balance
in capabilities must be maintained, with due regard to the likely
threats and contingencies that our forces must face. It's incredibly
misleading for you to suggest that my support for the probable
retirement of the F-111 around 2006 is linked to my support for
acquiring new tanks. I apologised for giving the false impression that
I favoured using the $300 million (a conservative estimate as some are
now reporting it to be $500m) to be saved from retiring the Pigs on
raising two new infantry battalions. Personally, I believe the number
of infantry battalions at present is adequate. I was quite clear in
stating my views on what we should be doing regarding our air combat
capabilities.



I don't claim to know a whole lot.

Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.

Oh, so you're the local expert?

Some might say that.



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

You're saying you're more knowledgeable than the ADA?

Ummm, yep.




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.

The reason the F-111s were not sent to the Gulf was because "its none
of your business". So not only are you an expert, you are also privy
to information of the highest confidentiality? This is becoming very
amusing.

It is. For me. (And probably a few others who are lurking).




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.

Check a map. For operations in those areas, even the long-legged
F-111s would need to be much closer than Amberley to be effective.
Otherwise, you're looking at a much lower sortie rate, less time over
target and a lower bomb load.



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.

They have the reach, but there's more reasons to it than response
time.

There, were you?




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.

It is.




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"?


"Its getting more." (Should have been an apostrophe after the "t" but
I'll let you off.) I have heard of Echidna, also aware that this has
not yet transpired to any new equipment on these aircraft.

A sure sign of a Usenet newbie is spelling flames. I suggest you lurk awhile
longer and work out who is who in the zoo before you make a bigger goose of
yourself.



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.

The Hawk 127 is primarily a trainer, with a secondary ground attack
role.

Its a "Lead In Fighter" ****tard. The PC9 is a "trainer".

Riddle me this dickhead, why does the configuration of the Hawk 127 cockpit
closely match that of the F/A-18, and why is the Hawk 127 capable of
employing AIM9s?


It would take some time to prepare either of the Hawk squadrons
- or flights thereof - to deploy for active service.

Yeah, about the same amount of time it would take the gunnies to pull some
white Sidewinders out of J Group and attach 'em to the rails.

Clown.

I would imagine

Yes, keep imagining........ lots. It fills the gaps in your knowledge.

that in such a scenario every operational fighter squadron would
already be in action. Throwing a lead-in fighter training squadron
into the fray is a desperate move.

As for the F-111 notionally shooting down an F-16 at Red Flag, I read
that article, and I have to say it's always good to see an underdog
get on top now and then. I support the Western Bulldogs in the AFL
(feel free to laugh) and every now and then we get a win. Now and then
just doesn't cut it.

What was the F111B designed to do? What did the F14 end up doing? What is an
AIM120? Can you add two and two?

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.

Yes, I was aware of it, partly because one of our RF-111Cs was used to
spy on Tasmania during the dams dispute. I don't blame the RAAF for
that disgraceful decision.

Nor should you. It wasn't unlawful and it wasn't "spying on Tasmania"?


Let's get one thing straight - the F-111 - as a strike and recon
platform - will be a great loss. However, it is an unavoidable one due
to the limited defence budget and need to maintain balanced defence
capabilities. It's expense can not be justified.

Its early retirement will be the expensive waste that cant be justified. Can
you say AGM142?


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.

It was never conceived to be a multirole fighter, at least as we view
fighters in this category today.

You can't have two bob each way, either it was, or it wasn't. And the fact
is, it was.

A carrier-borne interceptor was
conceived but ultimately failed, losing out to the F-14. (I don't rate
that aircraft as a multirole fighter, do you?)

Obviously you don't know much about F14s either.

The F-111 was selected
for Australian service to replace the Canberra - a bomber.

Thanks for the history lesson. I miss the old B20, the view from the
Bombardier's possie had to be seen to be believed........ and the bang from
the cartridge starts! What a noise!

And it's
air to air capabilities were never strong.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're non-existant. Especially with modern
data-links and AIM120s.


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

True. But Australia with its current defence budget and given our
likely threats and contingency demands, cannot afford such an
expensive strike aircraft.

And we can't afford to be stuck with a short-legged single donked fighter
that can't haul bombs. Otherwise we will end up, literally, "defending"
Australia instead of defending Australia and her interests.

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.

True. In my "ideal" world force structure presented above I would
favour the Hornet over the F-16, but a next generation fighter such as
the Typhoon or the Rafale would also be a good choice.

No they wouldn't. Come back when you've got a clue.


--
De Oppresso Liber.