Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let
me guess, ex-army?


"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
My comments regarding the fact that the cost of keeping the F-111s
flying is equivalent to the cost of raising two regular infanry
battalions was meant as an illustration of the comparitive spending
power of the defence dollar. That's all. I was not advocating raising
those battalions at the expense of the RAAF. I can't see how anyone
would have arrived at a different conclusion.

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


Our updated F/A-18s with AWAC and tanker support would be a much
better match for SU-27s - should our neighbours ever actually take
possesion - than the F-111 which we did not even consider to be up to
an appropriate standard to deploy to the Gulf.

I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent.

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?

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

Utter bull****.

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****.

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

Of course not. Your point?

- 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?

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.


--
De Oppresso Liber.



I'm not against the idea of leasing F-15s till the JSF comes on line -
I just wonder about the cost. It may be a good move.