Defence plan to scrap F-111s

(Defender in Tas) wrote in message . com...
[...]
However the long range of the F-111 means it can strike from bases
far out of range of any Indonsesian combat aircraft. Using F-18's
would mean either buying a LOT of tankers (wave goodbye to that
300 million) or putting them on bases within reach of the enemy.

Not if the Indonesians get the SU-27. They could strike Tindal and
Darwin from a number of air bases in the east of their nation. Where
would our F-111s be operating from?

Where the are now, Amberly?

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.

That depends on the likely threat. As of now Indonesia hasn't
much in the way of air assets to credibly threaten Australia
however it does have large numbers of bodies in areas
where Australia has strategic interests such as Timor
and New Guinea. On that basis a credible long range
strike asset seems a higher priority than boosting the
country's air defenses.

Point 1, Indonesia is planning to have significant air assets in the
near future, we should base our plans on that eventuality. Point 2,
From Tindal, Darwin and some of the bare bases the Hornets with AAR
support or not could operate over the areas you mentioned. They are
relatively close, particularly Timor. Point 3, If the Indonesians were
serious about re-invading ET then their best bet would be to strike
Darwin and Tindal to limit our response capability. Both were
absolutely essential to Interfet.

Has anyone actually considered the fact that Indonesia has the best AD
systems in our region?

"Brash" wrote in message u...
Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let
me guess, ex-army?

No, but hardly relevant. I don't claim to know a whole lot. By the
way, you'll find I'm not one of these combative, antagonistic people
who seem to get off on arguing with others over the internet. I
appreciate a good debate with people who share my interests. So if
you'd like to detail where I'm wrong and why - I would appreciate
that, and if you're right, I'll say so. I'm open-minded, I can have my
opinion changed by a persuasive argument.


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


More accurately, I should have taken more time with that particular
post, but let's not be pedantic.


I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to the Gulf).


Ok, then tell me. Media reports - which included comments by the
Australian Defence Association amongst others, I believe - stated that
it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
they sent according to you?



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?


With SU-27s should 'they' acquire them, or whatever combat aircraft
'they' may possess. The F-111s have great range but it would be pure
folly to say they would operate our of Amberley in any crisis centred
around, say, East Timor, Irian Jaya, or Indonesia generally. They
would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during
Interfet. Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out
of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or
without AAR?


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

Utter bull****.


Ok, what's the truth?



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****.



Ok, we have some Rapiers (to be retired), and RBS-70s, and Tindal is
laid out with widely located protective aircraft shelters, but do our
F-111 pilots train to launch on air-to-air missions?


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

Of course not. Your point?

That the F-111 is a strike aircraft only, not a multi-role fighter. It
was never conceived to be the latter, and that was fine. But in this
day and age, with the current operational demands on the ADF and the
limited defence budget, my contention is that the high (and growing)
cost of this single capability cannot be justified for retention.


- 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?

Obviously the preferred option! But will our politicians give that
order? Even Israel has been subject to surprise attacks - remember the
Yom Kippur War? I won't suggest you were around at the time of Pearl
Harbour . . .


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.

No, not quite. They both fill a variety of roles and have both been
deployed on operations in recent years. They are also not designed to
strike enemy targets which are likely to be defended by combat
aircraft.

Clearly, my preferrence is that - given our defence budget - the RAAF
field a multi-role fighter, not a multi-role fighter and a pure strike
/ recon aircraft.

Of course, ideally, if the defence budget was at a level that would
make me happy, I would like to see the F-111s retained, further
upgraded and supported by AAR aircraft with booms, and the RAAF also
operating at least 6, if not 8, operational squadrons of tactical
fighters - perhaps half primarily for air-to-air (the F-15), and half
primarily for battlefield air interdiction / CAS with a second role of
air-to-air (the Hornets, or F-16s, or take your pick of a few others).
But now I'm dreaming.

I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to the Gulf).


Ok, then tell me. Media reports - which included comments by the
Australian Defence Association amongst others, I believe - stated that
it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
they sent according to you?



Wasn't that because you don't send your only long-range strike asset
which is irreplacable when there is already a lot of strike assets in
the region.

I would hate to be the aussie detachtment commander who has to report
to his boss. "Sorry boss,we lost a couple of airplanes." Which could
be normal in a "normal war" but means let 's say 25 % of the aussie
long range strike assets.

You only take that risk if you have to.

phil hunt wrote:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought
that was self-evident.

And just who might "the enemy" be ?

It would not be diplomatic to say who the enemy *might* be.

I'm not a diplomat: Indonesia.

Glad someone came out and said so.

Pray, please, what would Indonesia gain from attacking Australia - lots of sheep I
guess !

Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm
its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East
Asia.

Lmao @ Japan.

China has a far simpler plan for world domination. Cheaper, more effective and
doesn't require military force. It's called manufacturing. Check where your last
TV / microwave / other consumer goods were made.

And you reckon the other poor S.E. asian countries want to invade you ? They'll
have to get a real military first, never mind the absence of any desire to.Get
real !

Given the long lead time in such programs, you need 100% certainty
that there will be no significant changes in our geo-political
circumstances for at least ten years. That is a big ask.

One needs to look at the capability that will exist nearby over the
next ten years at least, then factor for the low, but non-zero chance
of a radical change in circumstances.

A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia,

weeps with laughter

and
Australia doesn't have any allies,

Oh sure - you reckon the US and UK can't / won't protect your interests ?

sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes) and anti-ship missiles.

Are you just a war-monger or a madman ?


Graham

The Raven wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Brash wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

David Bromage wrote:

The RAAF's 35 F-111 warplanes - Australia's front-line strategic
strike
force - could be retired from service from 2006, a decade earlier
than
originally planned, if the Government accepts a controversial option
put
forward by the Defence Department. A key issue is whether early
retirement for the long-range F-111s could leave a gaping hole in
Australia's front-line defences early next decade.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E601,00.html

Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?

Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have
thought
that was self-evident.

And just who might "the enemy" be ?

You reckon the Japs fancy having another go for sake of example ?


Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ?

Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its
cost.

Maybe that's so... but the task itself is obsolete.

Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to
defend
itself from ?

The one that decides it can threaten us or our interests.

Do please provide a candidate list.

In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?

Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.

Can't say I recall seeing an F-111 perform vertical landing !

Only one of the three variants of JSF does VTOL and it's unlikely to be the
variant Australia would ever buy. Heck, the ADF would probably try to fit
another seat back in that lift-fan area.

LOL !

Graham

Paul Saccani wrote:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:18:14 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Speaking of Jakarta, the Marriott Hotel has been devasted by a car bomb. An
Australian has been killed.

A highly relevant comment.

The real danger to nation states in the future is low-tech terrorism - not 'toys
for boys' hi-tech fighter bombers.

You seem to forget that terrorism generally has a goal other than
terror itself. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

One of the most common objectives of terrorists is the establishment
of a nation state to implent their ideas.

You seem to forget that this places the resources of a state at their
disposal.

Only in the rabid imaginations of ppl who should know better. The concept of
'state-funded terrorism' is IMHO an imaginary ploy conjured up by the CIA et al to go
invade foreign countries and then get their fingers burnt. Very badly it would seem,
as things seem to be turning out in Iraq. Those who are in the know realise that Al
Qaeda prolly received most of its funding from Saudi Arabia btw.

Pls explain how an F-111 will deter a fanatical suicide bomber.

Cheers, Graham

Not you JD, the Taswegian.

--
De Oppresso Liber.


"JD" wrote in message
om...
"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
Let
me guess, ex-army?

Excuse me?

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Dai wrote:

"Stuart Chapman" wrote in message
...


When the F-111 was purchased its intention was to bomb Jakarta....

Stupot

Speaking of Jakarta, the Marriott Hotel has been devasted by a car
bomb. An
Australian has been killed.

A highly relevant comment.

The real danger to nation states in the future is low-tech terrorism - not
'toys
for boys' hi-tech fighter bombers.

Regds, Graham

How strategically myopic of you.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

phil hunt wrote:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have
thought
that was self-evident.

And just who might "the enemy" be ?

It would not be diplomatic to say who the enemy *might* be.

I'm not a diplomat: Indonesia.

Glad someone came out and said so.

Pray, please, what would Indonesia gain from attacking Australia - lots of
sheep I
guess !

As an Islamic Republic I reckon they'd like to get ****-loads of sheep
(Halal, of course). Or how about natural gas? Oil? Diamonds? Wide open
spaces?


Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm
its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East
Asia.

Lmao @ Japan.

He did say "unlikely" you dickhead.

China has a far simpler plan for world domination. Cheaper, more effective
and
doesn't require military force. It's called manufacturing. Check where
your last
TV / microwave / other consumer goods were made.

And they wouldn't mind getting the materials to make them with for free?

And you reckon the other poor S.E. asian countries want to invade you ?
They'll
have to get a real military first, never mind the absence of any desire
to.Get
real !

Given the long lead time in such programs, you need 100% certainty
that there will be no significant changes in our geo-political
circumstances for at least ten years. That is a big ask.

One needs to look at the capability that will exist nearby over the
next ten years at least, then factor for the low, but non-zero chance
of a radical change in circumstances.

A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia,

weeps with laughter

and
Australia doesn't have any allies,

Oh sure - you reckon the US and UK can't / won't protect your interests ?

When they're hip-deep in hot brass and grenade pins in Korea? Sure, they'll
have plenty to spare to come to our rescue.

sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes) and anti-ship missiles.

Are you just a war-monger or a madman ?

Are you just a tree-hugging peacenik or a troll?

--
De Oppresso Liber.





Graham

"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:15:56 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

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

Look out, blue blinkers on.

Only in the interests of "balance". ;o)


No need to tar all with the same brush.

I only tar them whats needs tarring dude.


--
De Oppresso Liber.