"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?
Why not look for something a tad more recent?
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/
I see you've not read the FAS article.
i have most certainly read it. and others which i would paste here but
cant
be arsed because of the likes of you.
and because of the humiliating fact that it is 3 years old and doesn't
support your 'argument'.
besides
seems like its something you need to rely on much better
intelligence
to
see
know when/where a missile might actually be launched to get your
assets
in
place to shoot it down.
I see you've not heard of Radar.
******
Dickhead.
******
dickhead
and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what
phase
you
intend to go for the kill in.
******
Dickhead.
******
dickhead
the money wasted on this white elephant would be better spent on
either
something like a couple of airbus multirole tanker transports to
support
our
strategic strike force of f111s or a couple of recon sattelites to
get
some
independent sattelite capability
Yes, a great idea we can pour money into a force that has never had
to
strike anything and is a money sponge, that, at best might bomb
missile
silos after the missiles have launched or a sattelite capability so
we
can
watch the launch, but not stop it.
ignoramus ******
the F111 is, cheap.
Bwahhhh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
The F111 is getting the axe because it is too expensive to operate you
pig
ignorant cocksucker.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
try to get any other aircraft to do the same thing and the RAAF would
be
paying more than twice as much
I see you've not heard of cruise missiles you clown.
youre an absolute ****wit arent you.
the F111 can carry HALF the warload of a B-52 bomber.
more than twice the distance
and more than twice the speed of any cruise missile we might buy.
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!
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.
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 DoD 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.
whod wait till after a launch to bomb a silo?
you?
So you are going to launch F-111s to preemptively strike silos? on what
basis and how will they both reach N Korea and why do you think they
will
be
able to penetrate the NK air defence system given their age?
we dont waste money on NMD, funds would be much better invested in getting
the Airbus multirole tanker transport.
They would provide us with a primary strategic tanker for all the airforce
fleet.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So you have NMD ....
NK launches an attack on us. 5 missiles say.
lets say 3 get downed (for argument sake)
2 hit
ADF reported after Sept 11 that if a nuclear bomb went off in an
australian
city, defence operations would effectively come to a complete stop whilst
defence tried to deal with the issue.
so in this scenario defence is stuck trying to deal with a binary nuclear
stike - not 1, but 2.
NMD is also a defensive system, you cant use it to hit back!
NMD is also not very "usable" in military terms .... in other words you
cant
have it do much of ANYTHING other than have it just sit there and wait for
an attack that may never come (and in my opinion is unlikely ever to)
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.
You also seem to have quite glibly ignored the fact that, in your own
example above, we have 3 more cities to support both the ongoing war effort
and the rescue and recovery efforts in the 2 nuked cities than we'd have had
if we didn't have BMD.
You might also want to explain what it is that Submarines would do to help
in rescue efforts that would prevent them sailing to retailiate? or why
AP-3Cs would be held back to help?
I'd even consider doing it deniably.
Since it would never get near the target and the ability to make the
nukes
would get nuked on day one, it would certainly be deniable.
cost:
NMD = untold billions and debt for generations under current financial
arrangements
airstrike = paltry millions
An airstrike wouldn't make it to the target
wrong
How did they go over Iraq, oh, we couldn't send them could we...
and the F-111 is too costly to operate,
wrong
(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."
ask the DoD who have axed it on that basis.
wrong
(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."
VERY HIGH-COST PLATFORM TO OPERATE, for the hard of understanding.
your concept of intelligence collection is crap sats.
your 40 year old design F111 achieved a perfect record flying against
some
of the worlds most advanced air defences and combat pilots in recent
exercises in the united states.
In an exercise. I'm so impressed.
simpletons are easily awed
Yes, you went with Carlos drivel like a shot.
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.
******!
Dickhead.
You aren't very bright, but you are entertaining - feel free to come
back
and be made a fool of again.
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.
secondly, i really really really cant be made a fool of my someone who
hides
behind a pseudonym, expecially one called "L'acrobat"
You have been sweetheart, you have been.