Defence plan to scrap F-111s

Petzl writes:

The Collins Class aside from bad press is invisible and a particular
deterrent for aircraft carriers and troop carriers

Perhaps it is time to look at more modern Aircraft while one can and
before the equation changes

And with the pigs to deter the grey uglies, they are VERY good for
dropping off a few friends for a quiet shooftie around.

The enemy who may not be named have had to back off several times
during a recent operation.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

"Paul Repacholi" wrote in message

matt weber writes:

I believe EF-111A's were used in First Gulf War, but I suspect the
last time they carried weapons was probably over Libya..

Nope, the bombing mission that took out the air raid shelter in
Bagdad. Loaded on East coast, flew to DG with tankers, checked,
dropped and returned to US. At the time, they where the only AC that
had the range, and could handle the length of the bomb. F-15s can now
carry the bomb, but without the legs.

WTFO

I can only assume you're talking about the initial GBU-28 strikes in Gulf
War 1. Those targets were not in Baghdad; more like 20 miles outside it.
Don't confuse them with the Amariya attack, which was appparently done by
F-117s.

The F-111/GBU-28 missions were absolutely NOT flown direct from the United
States. The bombs were flown direct from the US to Saudi Arabia, but that
was in a C-141 cargo plane. They were delivered to the target by F-111s
operating out of Taif air base in Saudi Arabia.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

In article . net,
lid says...
"Paul Repacholi" wrote in message

matt weber writes:

I believe EF-111A's were used in First Gulf War, but I suspect the
last time they carried weapons was probably over Libya..

Nope, the bombing mission that took out the air raid shelter in
Bagdad. Loaded on East coast, flew to DG with tankers, checked,
dropped and returned to US. At the time, they where the only AC that
had the range, and could handle the length of the bomb. F-15s can now
carry the bomb, but without the legs.

WTFO

I can only assume you're talking about the initial GBU-28 strikes in Gulf
War 1. Those targets were not in Baghdad; more like 20 miles outside it.
Don't confuse them with the Amariya attack, which was appparently done by
F-117s.

The F-111/GBU-28 missions were absolutely NOT flown direct from the United
States. The bombs were flown direct from the US to Saudi Arabia, but that
was in a C-141 cargo plane. They were delivered to the target by F-111s
operating out of Taif air base in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ons/gbu-28.htm has
some more details. An astonishing weapon, developed and tested in an
astounding time.

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Oh ****. This is like trying to explain quantum physics to monkeys.
(Actually, I suspect that would be easier).



You aren't very good at this are you?

This is pointless. Just like all the other "discussions" I've had with
dumb**** grunts in boozers and pubs over the years. You're all ****ing
brainwashed and stupid and can't be taught anything after they've finished
programming you at Kapooka and Singelton.


Or to put it another way, you lost all those arguments too.


Poor gate guard, BTW what was it you applied for when you joined the
RAAF?,
GD after all, gate guard is as low as it goes.

What's funny about this line you've adopted, is that "gate guards" get
paid
more and are better trained than your precious little lot.


What did you get turned down for to wind up in that role gate guard?



And how much has the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our
shores
in the time since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the
same
time.

But then a gate guard like you has no idea at all have you?

I'm not a gate guard dill. It's obvious you have no idea at all.



Not answering the question, gate guard, so I'll restate it - how much has
the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our shores in the time
since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same time.

Do try to keep up.



Perhaps if you just spared us your "insights" and stuck to what you
know
(whatever the **** that is) you wouldn't make a fool of YOURself.


Yawn, perhaps if you stuck to begging other dweebs in binaries NGs to
tell
people you are cool

What the **** are you on about spastic?


I'd deny it too if I was that pathetic.


and continued to promote assaulting females then you
would simply maintain all of our opinions of you?

Refresh my memory.

The female officer you claimed to have threatened.

I'd probably be trying to deny it too if I was as pathetic a piece of ****
as that.


Especially when it makes potential aggressor decide not to be
aggressive
in
the first place.

You see the problem with that is it's religion, not fact

And your bull**** about scrapping jets in favour of a few thousand more
dumbass grunts isn't? **** off idiot.

Not really a fact based argument is it gate guard, who has the F-111
deterred?


- you can give no
examples of potential aggressors who have been deterred by the F-111,
you
just have faith in it.

Wheras in WW2 the Japanese acknowledged that they lacked the ability to
move
and supply the amount of troops they would need to invade Aust because
of
the Army forces in situ.

Fact V religious belief.

Listen up dickhead, do the math and tell me how many troops were in the
various arms of the 2nd AIF, the RAAF, the RAN and the militia at the time
and compare that to the 21st Century. See ya later dickhead.

What has that got to do with combat ratios? or the fact that, starting from
a larger base force, the Army can be expanded more quickly to meet a
credible threat?

The quick answer is, nothing. Brash has again demonstrated his ignorance.




Its little wonder you think the way you do. Its that low
level army training you've been exposed to. Sadly,, a great many army
officers display the same "understanding" until they've done a Joint
Warfare
Course and learn that defending Australia doesn't start at the
low-tide
mark.

Poor gate guard, you believe that and thats important, please tell us ho
w
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Do you still stick your cock in dogs?

Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?





but it doesn't
neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111

The only correct thing you've said all day.

and it is not the be all and end
all of deterrent.

No **** Private (Rtd) L'abortion?


What a sad little dweeb you are.

And this "dweeb" could knock your stupid block off. How embarrassing for
you!

and again the dweeb heads off into his cozy fantasy world.

"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.

"Thomas Schoene" writes:

The F-111/GBU-28 missions were absolutely NOT flown direct from the
United States. The bombs were flown direct from the US to Saudi
Arabia, but that was in a C-141 cargo plane. They were delivered to
the target by F-111s operating out of Taif air base in Saudi Arabia.

AIR, the report I read said the bombed up AC flew from the US due to
time constraints of some sort. It may well have been SA they staged
through, rather than DG. I'm moderatly sure they returned direct, but
can't remember why, or if a reason was stated.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message

gate guard - son you are a sad one indeed, tell us again about PTS
using
RAAF Williamtown as a DZ.

Come back when you've finished Yr 10 and can comprehend English
properly.
Got a clue for you, parachuting doesn't start when the plane
approaches
the
DZ, it starts way earlier than that. Either way, the DZ *ON-BASE* at
Amberley runs quite nicely alongside air ops. But you couldn't be
expected
to know that, you're a mere Private (Rtd) with nothing more than your
infantry experiences to go on.

You poor sad little gate guard,

Wrong again dumb grunt. How said that you cant refute the fact that you
are
dumb, and you were, a grunt. no wonder you've got such a big inferiority
complex.

Poor gate guard, it hurts that people don't respect POGOs like yourself
doesn't it?



you suggested that Willamtown was an example
of how Amberly could operate.

Sure did.

Good, now we all know that you are stupid.



Surprise, surprise you turned out to be full of ****, who'da thunk it.

Wrong again dumb grunt.


Since Williamtown never used the airfield as a a routine DZ, try explaining
why the two cases are similar. cretin.



Hardly a qualification to discuss aviation
matters. But feel free to hang around. If you take those khaki
blinkers
off,
you might learn something here.

Gate guard, watching planes take off like the gaping yokel that you are
doesn't qualify you as the expert you pretend you are.

LOL, that's funny coming form a dill that left the *army*, of all things,
as
nothing more than a Private and then proceeds to think he's an aviation
expert.

Being a gate guard in the RAAF hardly qualifies you to know any more about
aviation than an army dentist.




Remember that they don't let you play in the planes either,

Wrong again dickhead. But hey, you're only a poor dumb ex-infantry
private.
What would you know?


Not seeing any reason to respect you opinion on aviation subjects, still
keep trying to distract from the lack of knowledge.

Remember, you ARE the clown who believes that "some here consider you to be
an expert".


your past B707
tanker (fuel capacity) blunders are a great example of your stupidity
vastly
exceeding your knowledge.

Is that all you've got to work with? I'd list all your balls-ups, but I
don't want to cause a power blackout or melt my computer.

Yawn, just one of your more egregious cock ups.

In article ,
says...
The impression I got at the time is that they'd have used the F-15 in
theater if they could have, but there wasn't time to reprogram the
weapons computer.

A sign of the times when the hardware is ready before the software. Back in
the old days it didn't matter if they hadn't written the manual for a new
battleship or tank, but nowadays the weapon system might be standing right
there in front of you as large as life and ready to go in camouflage paint,
but if a collection of magnetic values ain't in the right order, it ain't
going nowhere.

Pete, whose computer will handle a version of Windows that hasn't been
written yet.

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...
This is pointless. Just like all the other "discussions" I've had with
dumb**** grunts in boozers and pubs over the years. You're all ****ing
brainwashed and stupid and can't be taught anything after they've
finished
programming you at Kapooka and Singelton.


Or to put it another way, you lost all those arguments too.

Try arguing with a gate post. It's much the same thing. Too stupid to
understand the topic.

I'm not a gate guard dill. It's obvious you have no idea at all.



Not answering the question, gate guard, so I'll restate it - how much has
the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our shores in the time
since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same time.

Do try to keep up.

So you don't deny you're a dill. Good to see.

The F111 has deterred everybody who contemplated openly attacking Australia
and her interests.

What the **** are you on about spastic?


I'd deny it too if I was that pathetic.

In other words, you're making **** up.

Refresh my memory.

The female officer you claimed to have threatened.

Oh yes. How about you tell the whole story cocksucker?

I'd probably be trying to deny it too if I was as pathetic a piece of ****
as that.

But you are a pathetic piece of ****.

And your bull**** about scrapping jets in favour of a few thousand more
dumbass grunts isn't? **** off idiot.

Not really a fact based argument is it gate guard, who has the F-111
deterred?

Every nation-state that contemplated attacking Australia or her interests.

Listen up dickhead, do the math and tell me how many troops were in the
various arms of the 2nd AIF, the RAAF, the RAN and the militia at the
time
and compare that to the 21st Century. See ya later dickhead.

What has that got to do with combat ratios? or the fact that, starting
from
a larger base force, the Army can be expanded more quickly to meet a
credible threat?

Which credible threat might that be? I can't see how an infantry battalion
can deter submarines blockading our SLOCs.


The quick answer is, nothing. Brash has again demonstrated his ignorance.

Waffle waffle. You're full of **** boy. Run along.

Do you still stick your cock in dogs?

Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Answer the question dog-****er.

And this "dweeb" could knock your stupid block off. How embarrassing for
you!

and again the dweeb heads off into his cozy fantasy world.

You're the one in fantasy-land Private Lard-arse (Rtd).

"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.