Defence plan to scrap F-111s

Pooh Bear waxed lyrical
:


Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?

Australia is situated in one of the most unstable regions of the world
currently. A deep strike capability is very important to her, both as a
deterrant and as an effective force should it become necessary to fight.
That's like saying the US borders friends to the south and friends to the
north. . who does she intend striking (Oh, I forgot, they have "The War
Against Terrorism(TM))


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

Because it's still in the premier league of strike aircraft and brings
massive capability to a small force. I suppose the USAF better get on
with scrapping all those B-52's and KC-135's and E-3's and E-8's and C-
130's eh? After all, they are *fifties* designs!


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

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



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

Given the avionics upgrade, it's raw performance, it's range of weapons
and the supremely high skill levels of the crews, as well as any F-15E,
Tornado or (insert premier league strike platform here)


Yawn......

Indeed, very much so.



--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Personally, I would fully agree with a decision to retire the F-111s
early. It currently costs over $300 million a year to maintain them.
This is clearly a huge chunk out of our Defence Budget and we do not
get value for money. Spending more to upgrade them to enable their
operation in high intensity theatres of combat - as someone like Carlo
Kopp may argue - would be a waste. F-111 supporters keep talking about
the range advantage conferred by the aircraft. But the reality is no
aircraft will become available now or in the next 20 years that will
confer a similar advantage. We might as well replace the F-111 now
with possibly 40-50 F/A-18E/Fs to equip two operational squadrons. We
could then cut the existing three F/A-18 squadrons back to two to
ensure that our fleet of that aircraft survive to the introduction of
the F-35. At the very least if we are to retire the F-111 early we
should acquire surplus early-model US F/A-18s to equip a fourth
operational squadron. Retiring the Pigs without at least a partial,
temporary replacement would be too much of a degrading of our
capabilities. Of course, another issue is that to make up for the
lesser range of new aircraft we will need more refuelling aircraft
than the 3-5 we are currently planning to buy. The replacement for the
C-130H should be a new aircraft with dual tanker / air lift
capabilities - Airbus may have the running on this one.

"Stuart Chapman" wrote in message
...




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

Stupot

Speaking of Jakarta, the Marriott Hotel has been devasted by a car bomb. An
Australian has been killed.

"Grant" wrote in message

"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
Of course, another issue is that to make up for the
lesser range of new aircraft we will need more refuelling aircraft
than the 3-5 we are currently planning to buy. The replacement for
the C-130H should be a new aircraft with dual tanker / air lift
capabilities - Airbus may have the running on this one.

Nice post and I can understand where you are coming from.

However, a little more think tank time would be needed to replace the
C130H with an Airbus. Do you really think that an aircraft like the
Airbus could operate in the same areas as a truck like the Hercules?
Maybe. Maybe not. I seriously doubt it though.

"The Airbus" covers a pretty wide range of aircraft. I rather suspect he
was talking about the A400M. Granted, it's years from firts flight, much
less deployment, but the A400M fits a niche rather akin to the C-130

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/

--
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)

A couple points need to be made here to expound on staemenst in
previous messages.
First, relating to age. The 111 is a 60's design. But aircraft
performance is now at the upper flattening arc of the familiar S-curve
where lots of money will gain you greatly proportionate less
performance. just what modern aircraft can match the 11, dollar for
dollar, at low-level long range penetration at night or all-weather?
And give you supersonic over-the target performance? Or long range
standoff supersonic loft of guided weapons?
The Hornet is very short-legged compared to the 111.
As to the need for an effective defence, a lot of OZ's earning do now
and will increasingly come from the Timor Sea oil and gas fields. They
are an attractive
target for any covetous regime, especially one in economic trouble
that
'boasts' an oligarchic government. (Test: name one nearby.)(Hint:
there's two, with a third some ways away but quite expansionist in
character.)
And the 111 force is in being now. Replacing one aircraft type with a
newer and questionably better one is not cheap.
Have I ever flown the Vark? No.
Did I ever want to? No.
Why not? I like the air to air fighter mission a lot more than
strategic strike.
Does it do its job better than one hell of a lot of other aircraft?
Yes.
What could replace it? Something with the same range and blind-bombing
capability. BTW I'd a lot rather re-engine the Vark and heat-armor the
front for high altitude supersonic cruise than load up on Hornets.
Note that OZ lacks any effective in-flight refueling capability and
also lacks any really capable chain of peripheral air bases from Perth
northabout to T'ville.
Looks like the best thing to do is declare "no war will be fought for
ten years", cross your fingers and let everything go to pot. Alice
Springs can be OZ's 'boneyard' and y'all can just hope you get more
lead-time than did England in the late thirties . . .
Lots of luck - GI!
Cheers - I think. Walt BJ

A proposal to ground Australia's fleet of F-111 bombers would leave a
dangerous gap in the country's defences, the Federal Opposition has
claimed. Labor's defence spokesman Chris Evans said the F-111s provided
a critically important ability to strike at an enemy force before it
reached Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...064182886.html

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:03:53 +1000, David Bromage
wrote:

A proposal to ground Australia's fleet of F-111 bombers would leave a
dangerous gap in the country's defences, the Federal Opposition has
claimed. Labor's defence spokesman Chris Evans said the F-111s provided
a critically important ability to strike at an enemy force before it
reached Australia.

Labor's defence spokesman demonstrated that he is a not as
knowledgeable as he should be, by citing the loss of the F-111 as
leaving a gap in Australia's *air defence* capability.... I notice
his phrasing is absent from the cited report.


....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia


old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages'

JD wrote:
I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the
Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s
for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of
munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are
compatible?

What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?

Cheers
David

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.

Drewe Manton wrote:
Pooh Bear waxed lyrical
:




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


Because it's still in the premier league of strike aircraft and brings
massive capability to a small force. I suppose the USAF better get on
with scrapping all those B-52's and KC-135's and E-3's and E-8's and C-
130's eh? After all, they are *fifties* designs!



Ahh.. but they did have enough sense to get rid of their F-111's - even
found some sucker to buy 15 old ones they had laying around the desert

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


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



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

Badly.