Defence plan to scrap F-111s

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.

"Graham" wrote in message
...
I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger

I won't hold it against you, but you need more than a digger's eye view to
grasp some of this.

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.

There's a Chinese bloke named Sun Tzu, he wrote a book called "The Art of
War". In it, he says the only true victory in a war is to not have to fight
it. Fighting it (and hopefully) then winning it, is a bit of a mug's game.
F111's (and their class of aircraft) are designed not to win wars by
fighting them but to win wars by preventing them. Show me an infantry
battalion that can do *that*.

When was the F111s last used in combat?

Ours? Never. The Yank's, Gulf War 1.

What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and our
equipment.

And you haven't even been in a proper war yet. Makes you worry, doesn't it?

We need more 50 to 100% full time battalions and the suport to go with it
(the suport is not there now).

Glad to see you're thinking above Private level. As they say, "Amateurs talk
tactics, professionals talk logistics". People who think infantry are the be
all and end all of the ADF are the sorts of people our enemies love. Easy to
outsmart.

More troop lift (blackhawks ect)

Hopefully, Air 9000 will deliver something more capable than that.

more Lavs ect

Agreed. Some proper APCs wouldn't go astray either.

and we definitely need more
sea transport landing types.

Concur. We should be doing more to develop Incat's product before the Yank's
steal another bloody good idea off us.

This is where our limited budget neads to go.

Can't agree with that. If we do it your way, we'll end up with an ADF that
will actually have to defend Australia. Sun Tzu wouldn't approve.

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 guess you haven't read the paper lately.

I just dont see
anyone out there who realy would have a go.

Wake up................. the rag-heads are on our case right now. If the
Intel revealed a al-Q or JI camp someplace that we couldn't openly get at,
wouldn't it makes sense to go in and bomb said camp with a plane that fly
across countries and avoid radar detection, hit the camp, and make it back
to international airspace without needing AAR 4 or 5 times?

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.

We would if we didn't waste millions on arts festivals for lefty ******s.

Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.

Spend the money where it will give us the most strategic value, I say.


--
De Oppresso Liber.

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"Graham" wrote in message
...
I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger

I won't hold it against you, but you need more than a digger's eye view to
grasp some of this.


You need a gates eye view! lol.

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.

There's a Chinese bloke named Sun Tzu, he wrote a book called "The Art of
War". In it, he says the only true victory in a war is to not have to
fight
it. Fighting it (and hopefully) then winning it, is a bit of a mug's game.
F111's (and their class of aircraft) are designed not to win wars by
fighting them but to win wars by preventing them. Show me an infantry
battalion that can do *that*.


Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.

The other disadvantage of relying on Mr Tzus deterrence is that if the enemy
calls your bluff, 35 x F-111s are not going to last very long (let alone the
markedly smaller number we can crew) or the stocks of weapons for the a/c.

3 more Bns with supporting units (for example) would mean an enemy would
need to bring at least 9 more Bns to invade (actually more, but lets not
quibble), with the consequent increase in logistic support, transport,
shipping, escorts etc.

It raises the cost significantly more for the attacker than the defender.

See how deterrence works?

And those forces are available for other tasks when the threat to Aust is
not high, as well as increasing the most effective recruiting pool for
SASR - the ones who are most effective in the current, existing war.


What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and our
equipment.

And you haven't even been in a proper war yet. Makes you worry, doesn't
it?


Certainly when money is being spent on a/c that Aust hasn't used and won't
use.

Have they put EW on them that would let them risk it on real world ops yet?

Has the interim jammer even made it to the plane yet?


This is where our limited budget neads to go.

Can't agree with that. If we do it your way, we'll end up with an ADF that
will actually have to defend Australia. Sun Tzu wouldn't approve.


Or we can keep putting money into a/c that soak up resources, but are of no
use dealing with the threats we face.


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 guess you haven't read the paper lately.



Who has the capability that is more threatened by F-111s than SASR?


I just dont see
anyone out there who realy would have a go.

Wake up................. the rag-heads are on our case right now. If the
Intel revealed a al-Q or JI camp someplace that we couldn't openly get at,
wouldn't it makes sense to go in and bomb said camp with a plane that fly
across countries and avoid radar detection, hit the camp, and make it back
to international airspace without needing AAR 4 or 5 times?


Or to hit it covertly with SASR and recover intelligence as well.

Or pass the info onto our allies who have the ability to hit it with a
proper strike package rather than a half arsed attempt.


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.

We would if we didn't waste millions on arts festivals for lefty ******s.

Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.

Spend the money where it will give us the most strategic value, I say.

Which may not be the F-111 given the limited need for long ranged strike and
the disproportionate amount of funding the F-111 soaks up.

L'acrobat wrote:

Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.


The one bad thing (or good thing, depending upon your point of view)
about deterrence is that it is virtually impossible to show a 100%
certain 'win' for it. On the other hand, it is also almost impossible
to show a situation in which deterrence may not have played a factor,
unless an attack actually took place. In other words, the natural
response to your question is the challenge "show me a nation that
carried out their aggressive plans against Australia in spite of the
F-111. Since I have not read of an invasion or other blatant attack
against Australia proper (as opposed to against Australians, outside
of the country), I would be hard pressed to point to a failure of
deterrence. And while I haven't been observing ALL that closely,
I'd expect to have noticed a large scale incident that would prove
that reply wrong...

Mike

"Michael Williamson" wrote in
message ...
L'acrobat wrote:

Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.


The one bad thing (or good thing, depending upon your point of view)
about deterrence is that it is virtually impossible to show a 100%
certain 'win' for it. On the other hand, it is also almost impossible
to show a situation in which deterrence may not have played a factor,
unless an attack actually took place. In other words, the natural
response to your question is the challenge "show me a nation that
carried out their aggressive plans against Australia in spite of the
F-111.


OK, show me a nation that we could, credibly, have deterred with F-111s.

Well put. But most probably lost on the Private (Rtd) with the single-digit
IQ.

--
De Oppresso Liber.


"Michael Williamson" wrote in
message ...
L'acrobat wrote:

Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.


The one bad thing (or good thing, depending upon your point of view)
about deterrence is that it is virtually impossible to show a 100%
certain 'win' for it. On the other hand, it is also almost impossible
to show a situation in which deterrence may not have played a factor,
unless an attack actually took place. In other words, the natural
response to your question is the challenge "show me a nation that
carried out their aggressive plans against Australia in spite of the
F-111. Since I have not read of an invasion or other blatant attack
against Australia proper (as opposed to against Australians, outside
of the country), I would be hard pressed to point to a failure of
deterrence. And while I haven't been observing ALL that closely,
I'd expect to have noticed a large scale incident that would prove
that reply wrong...

Mike

Folks, this is what's wrong with the ADF today. Too many tiny-minded clowns
in khaki suits "thinking". They remind me of a poem.........

The grand old Duke of York,
he had ten thousand men,
he marched them to the top of the hill,
and he marched them down again.

Our brain-dead friend who was nothing more than a lowly infantry Private
(and now, he's not even that), would have us believe that Australia's
interests are best served by having a few thousand more Privates for the
generals to march up and down Mt Stuart instead of a proper strategy to
protect Australia and her interests.

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"Graham" wrote in message
...
I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger

I won't hold it against you, but you need more than a digger's eye view
to
grasp some of this.


You need a gates eye view! lol.

Even that would be better than the pathetic views you would offer.

Here's the fact. Infantry Privates aren't taught to use their brains on such
weighty topics as geo-strategic policy and how to defend Australia and her
interest's. All you were taught was how to defend a hole in the ground on
the side of a hill.

You're not qualified to engage in discussions with grown-ups. But feel free
to lurk, you might learn something.


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.

There's a Chinese bloke named Sun Tzu, he wrote a book called "The Art
of
War". In it, he says the only true victory in a war is to not have to
fight
it. Fighting it (and hopefully) then winning it, is a bit of a mug's
game.
F111's (and their class of aircraft) are designed not to win wars by
fighting them but to win wars by preventing them. Show me an infantry
battalion that can do *that*.


Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.

Have you stopped sucking dick?


The other disadvantage of relying on Mr Tzus deterrence is that if the
enemy
calls your bluff, 35 x F-111s are not going to last very long (let alone
the
markedly smaller number we can crew) or the stocks of weapons for the a/c.

That's why we don't solely rely on 35 F111's. This is like having a
conversation with an 8 year old.

3 more Bns with supporting units (for example) would mean an enemy would
need to bring at least 9 more Bns to invade (actually more, but lets not
quibble), with the consequent increase in logistic support, transport,
shipping, escorts etc.

Hmmm, yes, I realise army indoctrination has got you believing that the
defence of Australia starts at the low-tide mark, but the thruth is
different.

It raises the cost significantly more for the attacker than the defender.

Of course it never occurs to people like you, Private, that there are other
ways of "attacking" a country that doesn't involve lodging troops on the
mainland. To adopt your "policy" and rely solely on a few thousand more
lowly Privates (all as thick as you too, no doubt) would be strategic
suicide. I know they told you that the war isn't won till the "man with the
rifle stands on the hill", but that's just romantic nonsense they feed to
dildo Privates to make them think they're something special and to stop them
whingeing about being treated like dogs.

You're not qualified to discuss these matters with adults. Run along.


See how deterrence works?

Yes Private (Rtd), whatever you say.

You're dismissed now.

And those forces are available for other tasks when the threat to Aust is
not high, as well as increasing the most effective recruiting pool for
SASR - the ones who are most effective in the current, existing war.


What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and
our
equipment.

And you haven't even been in a proper war yet. Makes you worry, doesn't
it?


Certainly when money is being spent on a/c that Aust hasn't used

Which proves what a success its been as a strategic deterrent.

nd won't use.

Got a crystal ball, have you?


hat would let them risk it on real world ops yet?

Has the interim jammer even made it to the plane yet?


This is where our limited budget neads to go.

Can't agree with that. If we do it your way, we'll end up with an ADF
that
will actually have to defend Australia. Sun Tzu wouldn't approve.


Or we can keep putting money into a/c that soak up resources, but are of
no
use dealing with the threats we face.

Poor Private, your training has limited your ability to think beyond one
thing at a time, hasn't it?

who is willing or wants to have a go at us?

I guess you haven't read the paper lately.



Who has the capability that is more threatened by F-111s than SASR?


I just dont see
anyone out there who realy would have a go.

Wake up................. the rag-heads are on our case right now. If the
Intel revealed a al-Q or JI camp someplace that we couldn't openly get
at,
wouldn't it makes sense to go in and bomb said camp with a plane that
fly
across countries and avoid radar detection, hit the camp, and make it
back
to international airspace without needing AAR 4 or 5 times?


Or to hit it covertly with SASR and recover intelligence as well.

And risk losing people on the ground in a country that hasn't given
permission for us to send them there? Oh, that's just brilliant. You really
are an abortion that went wrong, aren't you?


Or pass the info onto our allies who have the ability to hit it with a
proper strike package rather than a half arsed attempt.

I'm going to pull the plug on this soon, because you're clearly too stupid
and inexperienced/untrained to cope with the concepts involved. Just like so
many other infantry privates I've dealt with, you're a pig-headed goose who
thinks he's the duck's guts and an expert on everything. Got some news for
you..............



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.

We would if we didn't waste millions on arts festivals for lefty
******s.

Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.

Spend the money where it will give us the most strategic value, I say.

Which may not be the F-111

Of course not. Putting all your eggs in one strategic basket has never been
a good idea. That's why we have a Navy too.

given the limited need for long ranged strike and
the disproportionate amount of funding the F-111 soaks up.

Here's the deal. If we scrap one-third of our strategic triad (the Pigs) and
a threat to Australia's interests appear thereafter that the Pigs could have
deterred, you have to run up and down Swanston Street in a tu-tu and a
dunce's hat yelling "infantry privates are dumb****s" every Anzac day.
--
De Oppresso Liber.

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Folks, this is what's wrong with the ADF today. Too many tiny-minded
clowns
in khaki suits "thinking". They remind me of a poem.........

The grand old Duke of York,
he had ten thousand men,
he marched them to the top of the hill,
and he marched them down again.

Our brain-dead friend who was nothing more than a lowly infantry Private
(and now, he's not even that), would have us believe that Australia's
interests are best served by having a few thousand more Privates for the
generals to march up and down Mt Stuart instead of a proper strategy to
protect Australia and her interests.


Poor gate guard, getting desperate I see.


"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...



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.

There's a Chinese bloke named Sun Tzu, he wrote a book called "The Art
of
War". In it, he says the only true victory in a war is to not have to
fight
it. Fighting it (and hopefully) then winning it, is a bit of a mug's
game.
F111's (and their class of aircraft) are designed not to win wars by
fighting them but to win wars by preventing them. Show me an infantry
battalion that can do *that*.


Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.

Have you stopped sucking dick?

No facts here, Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian
F-111s.

just one credible attacker that the F-111 could have deterred.




The other disadvantage of relying on Mr Tzus deterrence is that if the
enemy
calls your bluff, 35 x F-111s are not going to last very long (let alone
the
markedly smaller number we can crew) or the stocks of weapons for the
a/c.

That's why we don't solely rely on 35 F111's. This is like having a
conversation with an 8 year old.


Yes, I expect you lose those too.


3 more Bns with supporting units (for example) would mean an enemy would
need to bring at least 9 more Bns to invade (actually more, but lets not
quibble), with the consequent increase in logistic support, transport,
shipping, escorts etc.

Hmmm, yes, I realise army indoctrination has got you believing that the
defence of Australia starts at the low-tide mark, but the thruth is
different.

No facts here, just denial.


It raises the cost significantly more for the attacker than the
defender.

Of course it never occurs to people like you, Private, that there are
other
ways of "attacking" a country that doesn't involve lodging troops on the
mainland. To adopt your "policy" and rely solely on a few thousand more
lowly Privates (all as thick as you too, no doubt) would be strategic
suicide. I know they told you that the war isn't won till the "man with
the
rifle stands on the hill", but that's just romantic nonsense they feed to
dildo Privates to make them think they're something special and to stop
them
whingeing about being treated like dogs.

No facts here, If the enemy doesn't try to lodge on the mainland there are
cheaper ways to deal with them than keeping the F-111.


You're not qualified to discuss these matters with adults. Run along.

Poor little gate guard thinks his opinion counts.



See how deterrence works?

Yes Private (Rtd), whatever you say.

You're dismissed now.

Yawn.


And those forces are available for other tasks when the threat to Aust
is
not high, as well as increasing the most effective recruiting pool for
SASR - the ones who are most effective in the current, existing war.


What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and
our
equipment.

And you haven't even been in a proper war yet. Makes you worry,
doesn't
it?


Certainly when money is being spent on a/c that Aust hasn't used

Which proves what a success its been as a strategic deterrent.


Who has it deterred?

Name the country.

This is where the Aust F-111 deterrence argument descends into religion,
there is no evidence, let alone proof, to support it yet its brainwashed
adherents cling to it desperately.

The F-111 has sucked up a huge amount of money that would have been far
better spent on almost anything else.


nd won't use.

Got a crystal ball, have you?


Name a credible threat to Aust in the next 12 years, that is in range of the
F-111, that has such **** poor air defence that our F-111s could strike it
more than once, that F-111s could have a serious effect on.


hat would let them risk it on real world ops yet?

Has the interim jammer even made it to the plane yet?


This is where our limited budget neads to go.

Can't agree with that. If we do it your way, we'll end up with an ADF
that
will actually have to defend Australia. Sun Tzu wouldn't approve.


Or we can keep putting money into a/c that soak up resources, but are of
no
use dealing with the threats we face.

Poor Private, your training has limited your ability to think beyond one
thing at a time, hasn't it?


You have yet to provide the big threat that the F-111 deals with, you know
the big threat that only the F-111 can reach but has such **** poor air
defences that the F-111 will survive reaching it.


who is willing or wants to have a go at us?

I guess you haven't read the paper lately.



Who has the capability that is more threatened by F-111s than SASR?


I just dont see
anyone out there who realy would have a go.

Wake up................. the rag-heads are on our case right now. If
the
Intel revealed a al-Q or JI camp someplace that we couldn't openly get
at,
wouldn't it makes sense to go in and bomb said camp with a plane that
fly
across countries and avoid radar detection, hit the camp, and make it
back
to international airspace without needing AAR 4 or 5 times?


Or to hit it covertly with SASR and recover intelligence as well.

And risk losing people on the ground in a country that hasn't given
permission for us to send them there? Oh, that's just brilliant. You
really
are an abortion that went wrong, aren't you?

As opposed to sending in a strategic bombing mission to a country that
hasn't given permission for us to send them there?, when WE are the only
operators of the a/c type in the world, using a/c that are below par in ECM
defences.

Great idea, a neighbour shooting down some of our armed bombers illegally
intruding on their airspace will be completely unable to work out where the
F-111s came from.

Throw in the fact that even USA, with it's far more effective air recon
capability than ours, was routinely decoyed away from hitting actual
tactical targets in the Balkans with cheap and simple decoys and you are
looking at generating a major international incident for little or no gain.

Your family must cringe every time you open your mouth.




Or pass the info onto our allies who have the ability to hit it with a
proper strike package rather than a half arsed attempt.

I'm going to pull the plug on this soon, because you're clearly too stupid
and inexperienced/untrained to cope with the concepts involved. Just like
so
many other infantry privates I've dealt with, you're a pig-headed goose
who
thinks he's the duck's guts and an expert on everything. Got some news for
you..............



No info content here.




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.

We would if we didn't waste millions on arts festivals for lefty
******s.

Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.

Spend the money where it will give us the most strategic value, I say.

Which may not be the F-111

Of course not. Putting all your eggs in one strategic basket has never
been
a good idea. That's why we have a Navy too.

given the limited need for long ranged strike and
the disproportionate amount of funding the F-111 soaks up.

Here's the deal. If we scrap one-third of our strategic triad (the Pigs)
and
a threat to Australia's interests appear thereafter that the Pigs could
have
deterred, you have to run up and down Swanston Street in a tu-tu and a
dunce's hat yelling "infantry privates are dumb****s" every Anzac day.

The F-111s are toast, they are a waste of money, I expect the money saved
will go into some cruise missiles (possibly navy owned, possibly let the
RAAF have some) to maintain the strike role and the rest will go into the
Army/Navy where it is actually effective in both high intensity warfare and
the current crop of wars we face.

Facing a credible threat, the attrition rate on the 25 - 30 F-111s we can
actually man was always going to be such that they would be little more than
cruise missiles anyway.

But heres the deal, if you cannot credibly show a threat to Aust that the
F-111s could deter you will run up and down george street every Anzac day,
in RAAF uniform, yelling 'gate guards suck cock'.

Start warming up for the run.

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Folks, this is what's wrong with the ADF today. Too many tiny-minded
clowns
in khaki suits "thinking". They remind me of a poem.........

The grand old Duke of York,
he had ten thousand men,
he marched them to the top of the hill,
and he marched them down again.

Our brain-dead friend who was nothing more than a lowly infantry Private
(and now, he's not even that), would have us believe that Australia's
interests are best served by having a few thousand more Privates for the
generals to march up and down Mt Stuart instead of a proper strategy to
protect Australia and her interests.


Poor gate guard, getting desperate I see.

No, getting fed up with trying to enlighten an idiot.

--
De Oppresso Liber.