Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"Brash" wrote in message
u...


Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that full
these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions. How
often
r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r the
F111s
being deployed?

Obviously the finer points of Strategy are lost on you. Infantry
battalions
(especially those a "light" as ours) don't make much of a strategic
deterrent. And F111s aren't suited to peace-keeping.


again the gate guard shows his ignorance.

The size of the Army force in Aus significantly raises the bar as to what
constitutes an effective invasion force, which consequently raises the
logistic requirements to invade Aust significantly.

Perhaps if you didn't use words that you don't understand (like 'strategy'),
you would not keep making such a fool of yourself?

Long range strike is a very useful capability for Aust, but it doesn't
neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111 and it is not the be all and end
all of deterrent.

"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.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:53:59 +1000, Vector
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:02:24 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.

Maybe he didn't - but neither did you.

I did - and the DZ was NOT on the airfield.


Yair...but the DZ is within spitting distance of Saltash air-ground
gunnery range and operations at both sites comfortably interlaced
without much of a hitch (when it was in full swing in the 70s anyway!)

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:25:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


Poor gate guard, you are a second rate loser and you know it.

Gate guards ain't in military uniform these days, Sunshine! The job
has been contracted out to civvy security companies.

Ipso facto, Brash ain't on a gate!!

"matt weber" wrote in message


US lost several in VN in the first deployment, probably due to TFR
failures, but since no bits and pieces were ever found...

Not true. They never recovered the first or third aircraft lost on the
initial Combat Lancer deployment, but the second aircraft was located and
retrieved. They ultimately traced the loss to a structural failure in the
stabilator at low level. Not the fault of the radar at all.

http://afmuseum.com/friends/journal/frj_242.html

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

AFAIK, the EF-111s never carried weapons (unlike their EA-6B counterparts).

USAF F-111s definitely dropped weapons in Gulf War 1. They were much
praised for "tank-plinking" with 500-lb laser-guided bombs, in addition to
their usual interdiction/deep attack missions.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/perspect.../1093tank.html

--
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)

"smithxpj" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:25:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


Poor gate guard, you are a second rate loser and you know it.

Gate guards ain't in military uniform these days, Sunshine! The job
has been contracted out to civvy security companies.

Ipso facto, Brash ain't on a gate!!

Correct, they can't be trusted to carry out their only useful function any
longer.

It was the high point of his undistinguished career.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:31:12 +1000, smithxpj
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:53:59 +1000, Vector
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:02:24 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.

Maybe he didn't - but neither did you.

I did - and the DZ was NOT on the airfield.


Yair...but the DZ is within spitting distance of Saltash air-ground
gunnery range and operations at both sites comfortably interlaced
without much of a hitch (when it was in full swing in the 70s anyway!)

Which does nothing to validate Brash's BS claim that the DZ was on the
airfield.

It wasn't - even though PJI's did occasional demo jumps there.

And if he didn't have his head so far up his Khyber, Brash might
realise his other claim re the PTS operating alongside Mirages and
Hornets was complete bull**** as well - it never happened!

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.

"matt weber" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:33:39 +1000, "The Raven"
wrote:

"Graham" wrote in message
...
Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in
combat?

The Australian F-111's or just general F-111's?

have they ever? just asking.

I believe some were used in VN but not sure if that included Australia. I
would have thought Australia received them too late for VN.
US lost several in VN in the first deployment, probably due to TFR
failures, but since no bits and pieces were ever found...

Due to wing failures.


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

Spark 'Varks were used, so were bomb truck Pigs as well IIRC. The Yanks
asked us to send our photo Pigs too.


--
De Oppresso Liber.