Defence plan to scrap F-111s

L'acrobat wrote:
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.

There were reports of this but we won't know officially until 2029 when
the papers are released by the National Archives. In a speech in 2000,
General Cosgrove said that we came "dangerously close" to a shooting war
with Indonesia but he didn't elaborate. Subsequent media reports were
hard to either prove or disprove.

There was speculation that the TNI, which was totally opposed to giving
up East Timor, might not behave and it was not inconceivable that
elements might resist the INTERFET deployment, and perhaps even stage a
coup.

F-111s and extra F/A-18s were forward deployed to Tindal in the lead up
to the INTERFET deployment (plenty of TV footage at the time). Indonesia
claimed that RF-111s conducted overflights of East Timor and made a very
public threat to shoot down any "spy planes" entering Indonesian
airspace. F/A-18s started carrying white missiles the day that threat
was made.

It is known that Indonesian F-16s, F-5s and A-4s were airborne the night
the ships sailed from Darwin, and reportedly made probing moves towards
the group. There were also some missile boats out of Kupang. The Type
209 subs was in the Timor Sea (but there were also two Collins subs
around, and RAAF and RNZAF Orions, so they weren't a real problem).

What's not known is exactly how close we came. One media report later
said that F-111s were "bombed up" ready to "knock out Indonesian
communications as far back as TNI headquarters on the outskirts of
Jakarta if necessary". Another report said that the commander of the
naval taskforce came within less than a minute of giving the order to
fire on Indonesia aircraft. How much of this is fact won't be known
until 2029.

It's not difficult to work out that if the TNI had gone off the rails
then things could have got very ugly very quickly. While INTERFET wasn't
militarily or politically in a position to make an opposed landing, the
aircraft in theatre would at least have been in a position to cover the
taskforce as it retreated to Darwin.

Cheers
David

"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
Let
me guess, ex-army?

No, but hardly relevant.

It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the
expense of
strategic common-sense.

My pro-army, pro-tanks stance is not at the expense of strategic
commonsense (no hyphen), nor is at the expense of the RAAF or RAN. I
would like it to be at the expense of the enormous, and growing,
social welfare budget, but that's another issue. I believe the defence
budget should be dramatically increased. And I also believe a balance
in capabilities must be maintained, with due regard to the likely
threats and contingencies that our forces must face. It's incredibly
misleading for you to suggest that my support for the probable
retirement of the F-111 around 2006 is linked to my support for
acquiring new tanks. I apologised for giving the false impression that
I favoured using the $300 million (a conservative estimate as some are
now reporting it to be $500m) to be saved from retiring the Pigs on
raising two new infantry battalions. Personally, I believe the number
of infantry battalions at present is adequate. I was quite clear in
stating my views on what we should be doing regarding our air combat
capabilities.



I don't claim to know a whole lot.

Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.

Oh, so you're the local expert?

Some might say that.



The ADA are reasonably knowledgeable. But they sometimes fill in the
blanks
with opinions that aren't factually correct.

You're saying you're more knowledgeable than the ADA?

Ummm, yep.




I believe - stated that
it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
they sent according to you?

Its not "according to me", and its none of your business.

The reason the F-111s were not sent to the Gulf was because "its none
of your business". So not only are you an expert, you are also privy
to information of the highest confidentiality? This is becoming very
amusing.

It is. For me. (And probably a few others who are lurking).




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.

Folly to you. and we've already determined that you're a bit thin on
knowledge of this topic.

Check a map. For operations in those areas, even the long-legged
F-111s would need to be much closer than Amberley to be effective.
Otherwise, you're looking at a much lower sortie rate, less time over
target and a lower bomb load.



They
would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during
Interfet.

That was to shorten response time, not because they didn't have the
reach.

They have the reach, but there's more reasons to it than response
time.

There, were you?




Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out
of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or
without AAR?

I haven't got the data in front of me. So I can't say.

It is.




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

Utter bull****.


Ok, what's the truth?

That the F111 has EW equipment and its getting more. Can you say
"Echidna"?


"Its getting more." (Should have been an apostrophe after the "t" but
I'll let you off.) I have heard of Echidna, also aware that this has
not yet transpired to any new equipment on these aircraft.

A sure sign of a Usenet newbie is spelling flames. I suggest you lurk awhile
longer and work out who is who in the zoo before you make a bigger goose of
yourself.



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?

None of your business. Also, can you say "Hawk 127"? Actually, I just
remembered that there was a public article about a Pig shooting down an
F16
at Red Flag a few years ago. Make of it what you will.

The Hawk 127 is primarily a trainer, with a secondary ground attack
role.

Its a "Lead In Fighter" ****tard. The PC9 is a "trainer".

Riddle me this dickhead, why does the configuration of the Hawk 127 cockpit
closely match that of the F/A-18, and why is the Hawk 127 capable of
employing AIM9s?


It would take some time to prepare either of the Hawk squadrons
- or flights thereof - to deploy for active service.

Yeah, about the same amount of time it would take the gunnies to pull some
white Sidewinders out of J Group and attach 'em to the rails.

Clown.

I would imagine

Yes, keep imagining........ lots. It fills the gaps in your knowledge.

that in such a scenario every operational fighter squadron would
already be in action. Throwing a lead-in fighter training squadron
into the fray is a desperate move.

As for the F-111 notionally shooting down an F-16 at Red Flag, I read
that article, and I have to say it's always good to see an underdog
get on top now and then. I support the Western Bulldogs in the AFL
(feel free to laugh) and every now and then we get a win. Now and then
just doesn't cut it.

What was the F111B designed to do? What did the F14 end up doing? What is an
AIM120? Can you add two and two?

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,

Its a strike aircraft *primarily*. Its also a bloody good Recon
platform,
but I guess you didn't know *that* either.

not a multi-role fighter.

Even though it was conceived as one.

Yes, I was aware of it, partly because one of our RF-111Cs was used to
spy on Tasmania during the dams dispute. I don't blame the RAAF for
that disgraceful decision.

Nor should you. It wasn't unlawful and it wasn't "spying on Tasmania"?


Let's get one thing straight - the F-111 - as a strike and recon
platform - will be a great loss. However, it is an unavoidable one due
to the limited defence budget and need to maintain balanced defence
capabilities. It's expense can not be justified.

Its early retirement will be the expensive waste that cant be justified. Can
you say AGM142?


It
was never conceived to be the latter,

Yes it was. Can you say "TFX"? Or "F111B"?

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.

But your contention is based on incomplete knowledge of the subject.
Best
you reconsider.

It was never conceived to be a multirole fighter, at least as we view
fighters in this category today.

You can't have two bob each way, either it was, or it wasn't. And the fact
is, it was.

A carrier-borne interceptor was
conceived but ultimately failed, losing out to the F-14. (I don't rate
that aircraft as a multirole fighter, do you?)

Obviously you don't know much about F14s either.

The F-111 was selected
for Australian service to replace the Canberra - a bomber.

Thanks for the history lesson. I miss the old B20, the view from the
Bombardier's possie had to be seen to be believed........ and the bang from
the cartridge starts! What a noise!

And it's
air to air capabilities were never strong.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're non-existant. Especially with modern
data-links and AIM120s.


Multi-role fighters less-than-optimum strike aircraft make.

True. But Australia with its current defence budget and given our
likely threats and contingency demands, cannot afford such an
expensive strike aircraft.

And we can't afford to be stuck with a short-legged single donked fighter
that can't haul bombs. Otherwise we will end up, literally, "defending"
Australia instead of defending Australia and her interests.

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.

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

True. In my "ideal" world force structure presented above I would
favour the Hornet over the F-16, but a next generation fighter such as
the Typhoon or the Rafale would also be a good choice.

No they wouldn't. Come back when you've got a clue.


--
De Oppresso Liber.

"Graham" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
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

Bring on the leased F15E's. We've done it before.

Would the new super hornet Suit?

IMHO, a bit short in the legs. But a better option than Vipers.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
L'acrobat wrote:
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.

There were reports of this but we won't know officially until 2029 when
the papers are released by the National Archives. In a speech in 2000,
General Cosgrove said that we came "dangerously close" to a shooting war
with Indonesia but he didn't elaborate. Subsequent media reports were
hard to either prove or disprove.

There was speculation that the TNI, which was totally opposed to giving
up East Timor, might not behave and it was not inconceivable that
elements might resist the INTERFET deployment, and perhaps even stage a
coup.

F-111s and extra F/A-18s were forward deployed to Tindal in the lead up
to the INTERFET deployment (plenty of TV footage at the time). Indonesia
claimed that RF-111s conducted overflights of East Timor and made a very
public threat to shoot down any "spy planes" entering Indonesian
airspace. F/A-18s started carrying white missiles the day that threat
was made.

It is known that Indonesian F-16s, F-5s and A-4s were airborne the night
the ships sailed from Darwin, and reportedly made probing moves towards
the group. There were also some missile boats out of Kupang. The Type
209 subs was in the Timor Sea (but there were also two Collins subs
around, and RAAF and RNZAF Orions, so they weren't a real problem).

What's not known is exactly how close we came. One media report later
said that F-111s were "bombed up" ready to "knock out Indonesian
communications as far back as TNI headquarters on the outskirts of
Jakarta if necessary". Another report said that the commander of the
naval taskforce came within less than a minute of giving the order to
fire on Indonesia aircraft. How much of this is fact won't be known
until 2029.

It's not difficult to work out that if the TNI had gone off the rails
then things could have got very ugly very quickly. While INTERFET wasn't
militarily or politically in a position to make an opposed landing, the
aircraft in theatre would at least have been in a position to cover the
taskforce as it retreated to Darwin.

Cheers
David

As you say, its mostly speculation and rumour. One thing that I know for
certain is that the inter-service rivalry in the TNI is so strong that I
would be surprised if the TNI-AU (Air Force) would have gone into a shooting
match at the behest of the TNI-AD (Army), against the orders of the
government. It would have been a prime opportunity for the TNI-AU to curry
favour with the powers-that-be in Jakarta and stick it to the TNI-AD.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"Brash" wrote in message
...
"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
Let
me guess, ex-army?

No, but hardly relevant.

It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the
expense of
strategic common-sense.

My pro-army, pro-tanks stance is not at the expense of strategic
commonsense (no hyphen), nor is at the expense of the RAAF or RAN. I
would like it to be at the expense of the enormous, and growing,
social welfare budget, but that's another issue. I believe the defence
budget should be dramatically increased. And I also believe a balance
in capabilities must be maintained, with due regard to the likely
threats and contingencies that our forces must face. It's incredibly
misleading for you to suggest that my support for the probable
retirement of the F-111 around 2006 is linked to my support for
acquiring new tanks. I apologised for giving the false impression that
I favoured using the $300 million (a conservative estimate as some are
now reporting it to be $500m) to be saved from retiring the Pigs on
raising two new infantry battalions. Personally, I believe the number
of infantry battalions at present is adequate. I was quite clear in
stating my views on what we should be doing regarding our air combat
capabilities.



I don't claim to know a whole lot.

Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.

Oh, so you're the local expert?

Some might say that.



Only you believe that gate guard, only you.

'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't a
gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
delusions of grandeur.

To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the RAAF,
the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and aren't
smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with his
self important nonsense.

"JD" wrote in message
om...
(Defender in Tas) wrote in message
. com...
Let
me guess, ex-army?

No, but hardly relevant.

It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the
expense of
strategic common-sense.

My pro-army, pro-tanks stance is not at the expense of strategic
commonsense (no hyphen), nor is at the expense of the RAAF or RAN. I
would like it to be at the expense of the enormous, and growing,
social welfare budget, but that's another issue. I believe the defence
budget should be dramatically increased. And I also believe a balance
in capabilities must be maintained, with due regard to the likely
threats and contingencies that our forces must face. It's incredibly
misleading for you to suggest that my support for the probable
retirement of the F-111 around 2006 is linked to my support for
acquiring new tanks. I apologised for giving the false impression that
I favoured using the $300 million (a conservative estimate as some are
now reporting it to be $500m) to be saved from retiring the Pigs on
raising two new infantry battalions. Personally, I believe the number
of infantry battalions at present is adequate. I was quite clear in
stating my views on what we should be doing regarding our air combat
capabilities.

My two cents;

Spend more on the Navy and Air Force. Cut back the army. **** off the
idea of tanks, bushmasters, APCs. Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT. Move 3 RAR up to
Enoggera. Buy ASLAVs, More choppers. Make all reservists infantry.

Or accept that our army really isn't going to do anything, so just
**** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.

Hmmmmm -- you missed your vocation :-)
but idea has merit and will help the balance of payments ;-)

"JD" wrote in message
om...

My two cents;

Spend more on the Navy and Air Force. Cut back the army.

Realistically, in the current environment I think we should be spending
rather more on ALL the services.
This no doubt means an increased budget allocation which would reflect
in increased taxes. The money
has to come from somewhere, so it may be the only real option. We don't
spend enough on defence in
the current somewhat hostile environment.

**** off the idea of tanks, bushmasters, APCs.

It's difficult to envisage a local scenario that would benefit greatly
from heavy armour.
That said, since we have a somewhat capable (depite the length of it's
teeth) MBT,
I'd probably just stick with that. New Leopards might make the turret
heads feel good
but I don't presently believe it would significantly increase our
defence capability.

The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
need to go,
give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more ASLAV
you wouldn't need
to bugger about with it.

Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.

Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning would
seem to be essential.

Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.

Yep.

Buy ASLAVs,

Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We need to
improve our force mobility
*significantly*. This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
support a more highly mobile fielded force
as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..

More choppers.

Yes, and that should include a Cobra or Apache equivalent. But troopie
and heavy lift stuff too.
It's noted that the RAAF are considering *not* retiring the Caribou
fleet for something newer,
so "Wallaby Airlines" can fill *some* of the roles of the transport helo
with only the most basic
of prepared strips (though this becomes harder in the 'wet'.) But we
*need* more helos too.

Make all reservists infantry.

I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements' for
more specialised roles is not
without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
Naval Reserve.

Or accept that our army really isn't going to do anything,

If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
can't assume that.
It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
will probably be largely
infantry and special forces.

so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.

Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
provocativeness
of establishing a permanent presence.

Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)

The CO

"Paul Krenske" wrote in message

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

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.

You'll pardon me if I'm still skeptical. That sort of engage-on-remote
datalink is the sort of thing being planned for the F/A-22; I really doubt
that it already exists in the F-111C. Do you have a source for this
capability?

I'm also skeptical about the Malaysian concept being significantly automated
(even having shared datalink) -- mixing US and Russian systems like that is
very hard. I could believe that the Hornets might serve as pathfinders or
mini-AWACS, but they would almost certainly be limited to passing data via
voice. The Flankers would have to acquire and engage their own targets,
which is a very different prospect from what you describe for the F-111.

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.

Oh sure, I believe it's possible in the future. But you seem to be saying
that this capability already exists now. If DARPA is playing wiht it in the
US, that's because it's still very raw technology.

--
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)

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:19:07 +0800, Bernd Felsche
wrote:

(Paul Krenske) writes:

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

I don't think you can deliver any munitions reliably from mach 9 :-)

Bugger, .9 and I am almost certain I typed the . as well.

patrol loops taking targeting information from manned fighters and
possibly directly from AWAC's.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Brash wrote:

"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
ill.

The Hawk 127 is primarily a trainer, with a secondary ground attack
role.

Its a "Lead In Fighter" ****tard. The PC9 is a "trainer".

IIRC the RAF refers to them as a 'fast jet trainer'.


Riddle me this dickhead, why does the configuration of the Hawk 127 cockpit
closely match that of the F/A-18, and why is the Hawk 127 capable of
employing AIM9s?

Can't comment on the exact detail of that but basically simple. BAe can sell
them innocently enough as 'trainers', whereas the customer knows their true
potential. Nice selling feature.


PB