![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger but i do see what is getting used the
most on deployments in this new climate and its not F111 (great aircraft tho) and really i dont see them or a a new type being used often or at all. When was the F111s last used in combat? What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and our equipment. We need more 50 to 100% full time battalions and the suport to go with it (the suport is not there now). More troop lift (blackhawks ect) more Lavs ect and we definitely need more sea transport landing types. This is where our limited budget neads to go. Truely I cant sea a situation where we will need the long range of the 111 to defend Aus, who is willing or wants to have a go at us? I just dont see anyone out there who realy would have a go. The F111s are great but can we aford them now (old) and what is needed? ie look at what is being used. We just dont have the $ for every thing we need. Spend the $ where its needed is what i say. "Defender in Tas" wrote in message m... I was referring to the A-400M which I understood to be close to deployment and with substantial orders in Europe. Anyone have any accurate information on this? As for the Labor Party - with regard to defence they are a joke and should never be taken seriously. Like it or lump it only a Coalition Government will give defence a reasonable deal. Just how reasonable is the argument. The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300 million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra infantry battalions. We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win. That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which seems to be rare. With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours. Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves, we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters. The F-111 is not a fighter. And we cannot afford a single role bomber in this day and age and with our defence budget. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR Flight Plan question | Snowbird | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 13th 04 12:55 AM |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
Canadian IFR/VFR Flight Plan | gwengler | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | August 11th 04 03:55 AM |
IFR flight plan filing question | Tune2828 | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:33 AM |
USA Defence Budget Realities | Stop SPAM! | Military Aviation | 17 | July 9th 03 02:11 AM |