Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:37:30 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

That depends on the mission, for Australia today an F-15 variant
would probably be the best alternative, Typhoon is a little short
on range though that could be an option with a decent tanker
force.

According to _The Illustrated Directory of Fighters_ by Mike Spick,
Typhoon has a range of 1852 km and F-15 1191 km.


As I said it depends on the mission

The figures for Typhoon I have are

a.. ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
a.. ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
a.. air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
a.. air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km

Boieng claim the F-15K has an unrefuelled combat radius
in excess of 1800 km on a deep strike mission

In the air defence with 3 hr CAP they claim a range of 500 km

Keith

Brash wrote:
Not you JD, the Taswegian.

Its alright. You'd be pretty much correct anyway.

(phil hunt) writes:
Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent?

Per money spent? Gripen.

/Tomas

"Paul Krenske" wrote in message


If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the
avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated
now and the avionics package has been much improved. In fact I believe
they are technically capable of AMRAAM carriage now although none have
been tested yet. The RAAF has even investigated the potential for
using them as heavy missile support for the F-18's. (12 AMRAAM's and 4
sidewinders are certainly heavy but are almost a clean load for a
pig.) It must be remembered that they were originally to be Multirole
fighter/bombers with heavy missile loads in the fighter role. F111B
was to carry Phoenix etc.


F-111B had a totally different radar suite than the A, C, etc. (in fact, the
B had much the same systems as the F-14.)

I'm highly skeptical about AMRAAM carriage on the F-111C; the radars are not
even close to right, unless they gutted it entirely in the AUP, which I
don't believe they did. I certainly can find no indication that this
armament is possible. (If even Carlo Kopp isn't claiming AMRAAM capability
for the existing F-111s, I'm guessing it doesn't exist)

--
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)

"Brash" wrote in message
u...

F16's legs are too short. And they've only got one (semi-reliable)
donk.

(F16 Bumper Stickers)

Lean, Mean, Flameout Machine.

I SHALL RETURN...Well, I might.

Mach Nix.

The F-16. Takes a licking, and takes a licking.

Have you hugged your chute today?

This Vehicle Makes Frequent Stops.

I came. I saw. I bingo'd.

No deposit, no return.

We've spent so much money on this thing that we can't afford to admit we
were wrong.

A triumph of style over substance.

The best damn second place fighter in the world.

Instead of a CAS mod, we're going to install a roll bar.

And now with this LANTIRN thing and our new Block 40's, we can hit the
ground at NIGHT!

We cover the target like a thong bikini.

And BINGO is my Name-O.

We crash more airplanes before 9-o'clock than most people crash all day.

Last in the talent show, but first in the swimsuit competition.

Lose a few, lose a few.

Feet and knees together, eyes on the horizon...

Designated no-hitter.

Everything you wanted in a fighter and less.

Optimist: F-16 pilot who's worried about dying from cancer.

Only Michael Jackson is more manly.

Hey, today we didn't lose a single jet.

This is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you.

User friendly... if you've got three hands.

If we have a war with BDUs, we've got 'em beat.

Careful badguys...I'm carrying BOTH bombs today. I'm talkin'
wall-to-wall MK-82's Pal.

If I carried more weapons, and if I had enough gas, and if I could
actually hit the target, and if I had some more REALLY expensive
electrons so I could find you, and if my motor didn't quit, and if My
wings didn't crack, Boy, I'd really teach you a lesson!

The CO

Graham wrote:
Would the new super hornet Suit?

Maybe as a replacement for the F/A-18A/B, but as a bomb truck it's not
the best. The F-15K would appear to be the best replacement for the F-111.

Cheers
David

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:23:47 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

"Paul Krenske" wrote in message


If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the
avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated
now and the avionics package has been much improved. In fact I believe
they are technically capable of AMRAAM carriage now although none have
been tested yet. The RAAF has even investigated the potential for
using them as heavy missile support for the F-18's. (12 AMRAAM's and 4
sidewinders are certainly heavy but are almost a clean load for a
pig.) It must be remembered that they were originally to be Multirole
fighter/bombers with heavy missile loads in the fighter role. F111B
was to carry Phoenix etc.


F-111B had a totally different radar suite than the A, C, etc. (in fact, the
B had much the same systems as the F-14.)

I'm highly skeptical about AMRAAM carriage on the F-111C; the radars are not
even close to right, unless they gutted it entirely in the AUP, which I
don't believe they did. I certainly can find no indication that this
armament is possible. (If even Carlo Kopp isn't claiming AMRAAM capability
for the existing F-111s, I'm guessing it doesn't exist)

The F111's would be unable to self target apparently but would act as
a "Arsenal Aircraft" for F18's. The F18's pass over the information
through some sort of datalink to the missiles and the F111 drops em.
Apparently quite similar to Malaysias idea to use 2 seat f-18s as
controll birds for 4 ship flights of flankers. The new digital fire
control and data systems theoretically allow it to happen, I do not
personally believe it should be a starter though. Instead the F111's
should be smashing the Airbases not running air superiority patrols.

Note the arsenal plane concept with RPV's is alive and well though.
DARPA is seriously proposing some low performance patrol RPV's (mach
9 semi stealthy) with 4-8 AMRAAMs (or the ER follow on) running the
patrol loops taking targeting information from manned fighters and
possibly directly from AWAC's.


--
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)

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a
surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least
intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might
be able to supply from the air).

Supply a force (that can invade Australia) from the air?

Not an option.

"Brash" wrote in message news:3f335ba4$0$15134

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

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

For now.

I hate to disagree, but it is my understanding that F-111s were tasked to
strike Indonesian C3I targets if the E.Timor op had been seriously opposed
by the Indon Military.

Hardly an obsolete task.

"Marcus Andersson" wrote in message

Look at a map, the Pacific rim is literally heaving with potential
threats. But Indonesia is still #1 I'd imagine.


Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
Australia in any way?

Religious differences have been known to cause the odd spot of bother in the
past.

Leaders trying to divert attention from domestic problems,

Natural resources,

Lebensraum,

A wish to get a real grip on the maritime choke points,

to name just a few.