Defence plan to scrap F-111s

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

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' ?

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

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

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

Yawn......


Graham

"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.


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.


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.


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

Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.


--
De Oppresso Liber.




Yawn......


Graham

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


Wot it does is drop tactical nukes in a cold war Europe.....

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.


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


Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.


Better yet (and for half the cost)...get some Su30's like everyone else
in the region.

"John Duncan" wrote in message
...




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


Wot it does is drop tactical nukes in a cold war Europe.....

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.


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


Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.


Better yet (and for half the cost)...get some Su30's like everyone else
in the region.

Not this again. Can you say "compatible with allies" and
"serviceability"?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

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 !


Graham

"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.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

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

"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...6866971%255E60
1,00.html

Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?

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

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

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

Yawn......


Graham



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

Stupot

Stuart Chapman wrote:
When the F-111 was purchased its intention was to bomb Jakarta....

The actual requirement for replacing the Canberra was for the strategic
defence of Australia anywhere in the region and an offensive tactical
strike capability if Malaya went pear shaped.

Also Australia still had ideas about joining the nuclear club when they
were ordered in 1963. The alternatives under consideration included the
TSR-2 and Mirage IV.

Cheers
David