"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
The "progressive newswire" yep I really believe that they lack
bias,
their
webpage is a whingefest you ****ing goose.
cutting a long story shot lets actually read part of the article
instead
of
disregarding it because of who owns the webpage:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 6, 2000
8:18 AM
CONTACT: Federation of American Scientists
Henry Kelly or Charles Ferguson, 202-546-3300
Nobel Laureates Warn Against Missile Defense Deployment
WASHINGTON - July 6 - The Federation of American Scientists
(FAS)
today released a letter to the President signed by 50 American Nobel
laureates in the sciences stating that under current circumstances,
"any
movement toward deployment" of a ballistic missile defense system
would
be
"premature, wasteful, and dangerous."
So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote
a
letter?
50 nobel laureates one would assume have more understanding of this than
you
or I.
Why?, it was written 3 years ago from older data than that and they never
bothered updating it.
Why not look for something a tad more recent?
to be honest, I couldn't be stuffed, I'm not paranoid about being nuked.
snips ****
ie you are a bull****ter.
what literature do you read besides the Beano?
(Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003)
"By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that
beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." He (CAF
Air
Marshal Angus Houston) said the F-111 would not be withdrawn until Air
Force
had fully upgraded the F/A-18s and its weapons systems, and the AEW&Cs
and
tankers were in service.
high cost after 2010, as opposed to ... what? B2? (which doesnt
necessarily
need a strike package assembled with it hence the associated costs of
other
aircraft)
Cruise missiles, you know, the ones the RAAF are replacing the clapped out
F-111s with.
Already our AWACS have been cut in number .... maybe if we werent getting
involved in NMD we could afford a "full" half a squadron.
And wheres these tankers? nothings going ahead (ie metal being cut) as far
as im aware - unlike our (albeit cropped) number of awacs.
Or maybe not, the DoDs role is to defend us and you will note we are
participating in the program not fully funding it ourselves.
"The F/A-18 will be capable of dropping not only laser-guided precision
munitions but also satellite-guided precision munitions and will also be
capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon, which will also be
fitted to the AP-3C," he said.
FA 18 is already capable of droping laser guided bombs. which is what were
used in iraq.
Reading comprehension failure "but also satellite-guided precision munitions
and will also be
capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon"
Typical australian defence policy ...
usually reminicent of the Navy
soon the airforce will be able to boast it....
"Equiped for, but not with."
Above is crap. they are procuring cruise missiles.
do you read Defence Today by strike publications?
no i bet you dont
had a recent article entitled "How expensive is the F-111?"
the article starts:
"Perhaps the most pernicious of the carious commonly heard myths about
the
F-111 is that it is an unusually expensive asset to maintain, or
indeed
that
it presents a particulary expensive way of delivering bombs to
targets.
whilst such assertations might appear reasonable at first glance to
the
lay
observer, expert observers with exposure to overseas cost structuring
models
tend to see such comments for what they really are - malicious and
unsubstantiated bunk"
BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAA, an article by Carlo "the F-111 is the ultimate
weapon in the world, can do everything and cannot be defeated" Kopp?
Carlo is in love with the F-111, he fails to factor in the point that an
old, clapped out, expensive to operate plane like the F-111 isn't coming
back from its missions - you will note Carlo doesn't ever speak of the
attrition rate (or factor in that cost).
Carlo also chooses not to compare the F-111 to cruise missiles, as that
would require that he accept that the attrition rate imposed on F-111s
in
a
modern air defence environment would be prohbitive.
What ARE you going to launch these cruise missiles from? What is the
cruise
missiles radius? What is the TRANSIT time of the launch platform to get
within strike distance? (especially if its a sub or ship)
Can't you read? AP-3C and F/A-18 to start with.
Take the B-52 for example, its over 50 years old, and all B52s flying
today
were built in the 60's, and they dont plan to retire it until sometime
after
2020. by which time it will be over 75 years old. It is however mainly a
cruise missile launcher (although has done ground strike in the gulf and
kosovo).
Jesus wept! we can't affort to operate B-52s either, so who cares.
If everything could be done cost effectively by cruise missile we could
probably get away with buying brand new civil aircraft 747's or 777's and
modify them to be massive cruise missile platforms (it has been proposed
by
the yanks). Why hasnt it been done?
Cost
over a million dollars (US) a pop for a tomahawk. compared to 200,000 for
a
laser guided bomb (or less for a GPS guided, concrete filled one) - yes
concrete.
Yet you fail to factor in the system cost (as all the F-111 pundits do) of
the F-111, for the cost of operating the F-111s (using Carlos 3% of the
defence budget figure) we could buy around 470 cruise missiles a year and
launch them from existing platforms.
How many potential regional adveraries can take 1000 (3 years worth of F-111
operating budget with a bit shaved of for storage etc) precision guided
missile hits?
the article then goes on to demolish point by point your beliefs that
the
F111 is an expense, it even has an answer to the question:
"we might ask the question of how the myth of the expensive f111 came
to
be?"
you dont believe me? I'll scan it and post it.
I've read it, only the most uncritical of reader would accept it as
anything
more than the last dying gasp of an F-111 fan.
sure youve read it
Would you like me to quote it? it was a hoot!
The RAAF are retiring it because it is getting to be too expensive to
operate, Carlo needs to get over that and so do you.
RAAFs retiring it because government wont cough up the money defence
needs.
and because of the enemies the F111 has in DFAT.
No, its too expensive to operate, the Chief of the Air Force stated that.
Conspiracy theories too, just how desperate can you get!
You see, the RAAF have the actual operating costs on file and have done
the
long term studies on the a/c, Carlo hasn't.
and you have
No, its too expensive to operate, the Chief of the Air Force stated that - I
believe him over a loon like you and a fanboy like Carlo.
snips ****
and the F-111 costs a fortune to operate, base, train with, and maintain
you
sad lackwit, and the F-111 is not coming back from any mission against a
decent air defence system, jesus wept clownboy - we couldn't even send
them
to Iraq where the AD system had been bombed for a decade!
oh for ****s sake you do talk such ****
i bet everyone reading this is having a good laugh at you. I know I am.
Yes, but then you are a congenital moron.
How did our F-111s go in Iraq then?
Surely they'd have been just the thing for there or Afghanistan, yet they
couldn't go could they?
it doesnt cost a fortune
"By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that
beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain."
Yes it does.
the f111 can will and has come back against decent air defences - in
exercises -
But can't go out when the enemy is real, can it?
and is even more likely to considering the overwhelming ECM &
ECCM support we would get in any "coalition" we'd participate in.
But what if it isn't a coalition operation, then the F-111 is unable to
fight.
You might want to explain why it didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan too, you
know those well supported coalition ops that our F/A 18s attended?
the reason why they werent sent to iraq is because of their capabilities
they would have required to be tasked against heavily defended urban
targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk civillian casualties, and
wasnt prepared to foot the bill for the ammo expenditure (unless the yanks
supplied it).
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer
Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that
you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and
burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance
crew. "
Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to
go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to
operate?
However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is
because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against
heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk
civillian casualties"
Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that
F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that
the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target
was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk.
Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting
considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s?
Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision
guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not
cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear
sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload
that prevented the F-111 deployment.
that said, i'm not against cruise missiles, i think we should equip
our
subs
with them.
It was proposed a number of years back that we get tommahawks - the
proposed
launch vehicle??? - the F111.
Given that we operated the F-111 it seems reasonable, now we won't
operate
it, so we will hang Tomahawk off of Orions, F/A-18s and possibly JSFs
later
on.
if at all
..
Its in the defence plan, F-111 isn't.
I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a
money
sponge out of the water.
Yet you chose not to and the oD who have the actual figures to hand
have
chosen the axe the white elephant and go with cruise missiles, why
is
it
that against that expertise you come out looking like a fool?
you want me to scan the article and post it? ill scan the article.
anyone who matters is against retirement of the F111, its purely a
political
decision to free up funds for something else, instead of increasing
defence
funds overall.
I've read it, it's a joke - the fact that you rely on it simply shows
what
a
credulous buffoon you are.
i dont "rely" on it, merely using it as an example.
hands up anyone in here who supports defence monies being spent on NMD
instead of fixing holes in defence??
Hands up those who want to build a fortress without a roof, its been done
before and didn't go well.
yet our bomber would still cost a fortune to own, have no stealth
features,
be 40 years old and have so little survivability that we couldn't send
it
to
hit targets in a country that had been bombed for 10 years.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer
Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that
you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and
burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance
crew. "
Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to
go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to
operate?
However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is
because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against
heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk
civillian casualties"
Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that
F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that
the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target
was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk.
Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting
considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s?
Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision
guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not
cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear
sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload
that prevented the F-111 deployment.
..
i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be.
the countrys broke
and yet if they detect our approach they can launch nukes at us and its
in
gods hands from there.
if if if but if but but
i dont think we're going to go to war with north korea anytime soon
You raised the hypothetical and now are backing away from it because you
hadn't thought it through.
Nobody thought we were going to war with Japan either, yet we did.
Nor did we expect our last war with Korea,
Fortunately, the DoD don't care what you 'think', they plan on defending
Aust.
like i said the F111 (our F111) flew up against some of the most
sophisticated air defence systems (and aggressor pilots) in the united
states recently and achieved a perfect record. UNMATCHED by any other
national participant.
but not against N Korea, in N Korea when they can launch nukes at us if
there is one a/c detected - it is a unique a/c, so they'd know who to
hit.
i dont believe north korea can yet weaponise a ballistic missile with a
nuclear weapon - yet.
You don't believe, so we should wait until we know they can?
nor do i believe they have a ballistic missile capable of reaching
australia.
So we should wait until a specific country that has already built and tested
multi stage missiles actually demonstrates an ability to hit Aust before we
consider aquiring a defence against anyones missiles?
i dont believe they would nuke australia with a ballistic missile even if
they had one.
Fortunately, the DoD don't care what you 'think', they plan on defending
Aust.
we're one of the few countries they have diplomatic relations with and
they
wouldnt want to give that up.
Which would explain the shipments of reasonably priced Heroin to Aust, just
to help with diplomatic relations?
You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have us flying
bombers
in and stirring up trouble in their backyard either, but then you don't
do
reality do you?
You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have N Korea
launching
ballistic missiles at Australia and stirring up trouble in OUR backyard
either, but then you don't do reality do you?
I see you avoided the question, I'll answer yours - who cares how S Korea
reacts to outbound nukes?
If we don't have BMD by then its too late to care.
So now tell us why the S Koreans and/or the Japanese would let us nuke N
Korea in light of the fact that they would wear the fallout.
If they did do something like that, (which i dont believe they will) Im
sure
S Korea and the United States AND China, would come down on N Korea like a
ton of bricks ..
Oh yes, I can see every one of those countries being prepared to risk losing
a major city if Brisbane were nuked...
I am firmly grouned in reality, which is why I think we wont be threatened
with ballistic missiles.
If you leave an obvious capability gap, a potential enemy will exploit it -
N Korea (as the obvious example) has sacrificed a vast amount to develop
nukes and to develop ballistic missiles.
The odds are good that they will not go quietly.
which .... is not to say however, that Im not worried about poliferation
of
missile technology and nuclear weapons, and bio weapns - I am....
Then the obvious first step is to put in place BMD.
Or how we would explain flying this armada over Indonesia and back, one
phone call from our well trusted friend in Indonesia and a few Aust
cities
fountain skywards.
We dont explain it. because it isnt going to happen.
Youre the one who says we're gonna be nuked.
Im saying we wont. - or at least the risk is so LOW that its not justified
spending money on NMD. which is an imperfect system.
The odds may be low, but the consequences are so great that participating in
NMD is justified - you seem to think we will be funding the entire project
alone.
Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down
valleys
underneath radar.
and perfect profile to be downed by AAA, Manpads and Small arms.
we wont be flying there anyway so forget about it.
Oh I see, you put up your hypothetical, get shown the facts and then try to
back away from it as if it wasn't your justification. spineless.
whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds??
excuse me
You are certainly excused for being an idiot, thats your parents fault.
Personally, I'd be more concerned about NKs Mig 29s than the Mig 21s,
but
to
each their own.
Aircraft and weapons alone, an Airforce do not make .....
Avoiding the issue, the North Korean military is reasonably well funded and
have hi tech fighters, you proposed sending 40 year old death traps against
them.
Hence the D for 'defence' in BMD, which funnily enough is pretty
prominent
in both 'ADF' and the 'DoD', you see, you pathetic lackwit it is the
PRIMARY
role of the ADF to DEFEND Australia, BMD fits EXACTLY into their job
description.
WRONG
read the Defence Act ....
and you will find that there is NO DEFINITION of "defence"
and its one of the most contentious issues within Defence today, because
the
role of the ADF is not readily defined, or, atleast defined poorly
Defence is the role of Government.
The role of the ADF is to provide the largest array of military OPTIONS
for
the the SUPPORT OF (Governments) NATIONAL POLICY.
big difference.
http://www.ada.asn.au/policy1.htm
The same weaselling **** I've come to expect from you.
Defence does not need to be defined in the act you cretin.
The word 'from' is not defined in the act, nor is 'go' yet they can be used
in their common meanings as are all other 'common' terms in all acts.
BTW "The role of the ADF is to provide the largest array of military OPTIONS
for the the SUPPORT OF (Governments) NATIONAL POLICY." is NOT in the act,
its from The Australia Defence Association, organised as a public company
(ABN 16
083 007 390) limited by guarantee and established under the Corporations Act
2001
How did they go over Iraq, oh, we couldn't send them could we...
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer
and heres why
Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that
you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and
burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance
crew. "
Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to
go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to
operate?
However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is
because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against
heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk
civillian casualties"
Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that
F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that
the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target
was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk.
Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting
considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s?
Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision
guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not
cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear
sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload
that prevented the F-111 deployment.
snip
Did they launch unsupported strikes against an air defence system
simulating
N Korea? did they cover the distance between Darwin and North Korea
alone,
carrying a bodged up nuke that we hope will work?
youre splitting hairs
No, you are drawing conclusions from false data.
no Im being realistic saying we wont be at war with North Korea.
North Korea is not the only potential threat, just a good current example.
snip
firstly, the difference, between you an me is that i am ready to be
persuaded otherwise, on any issue, you however _arent_
The fact is that CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston says its too expensive to
operate, weighed against this we have Carlo, the ultimate F-111 fanboy.
and
you, an idiot.
CAF doest what government tells him to do
Carlo, probably more aviation experience that you - and likewise myself
(which isnt much aviation experience - compared to others in this group)
So CAF lacks the integrity to stand up for his force or resign wheras Carlo,
the ultimate F-111 fanboy, who doesn't have access to the actual F-111
operating figures, knows more than all the expertise that CAF has on call.
Seek help.