Defence plan to scrap F-111s

Finnish Troll plan to scrap Australia.

Alan wrote:
"Brash" wrote in message
u...

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...


and

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.

What I really find amusing, is that I could happily smack ten shades of

****

out of you and you think I'm a gate guard. How embarrassing it must be for
you to know a mere "gate guard" could flog you to a bloody pulp.

--


What we (bit presumptuous, I know) don't find amusing is Brash and acrobat
continuing on with this crap.
Alan

"Alan" wrote in message
. au...

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

SNIP

What we (bit presumptuous, I know) don't find amusing is Brash and acrobat
continuing on with this crap.
Alan

I cleared out my killfile last month (250+ names!) to see how things had
changed. So far the majority of new/re-entries are from this ng. Just
blocked Brash and Acrobat and the number of messages to read practically
halved....

Nick

"Brash" wrote in message
u...

Thought you were.

Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.

What I really find amusing, is that I could happily smack ten shades of
****
out of you and you think I'm a gate guard. How embarrassing it must be for
you to know a mere "gate guard" could flog you to a bloody pulp.

and so gate guard descends into his fantasy world.

I think the most pathetic thing I have seen on the net to date (aside from
cretins like yourself trying to pick fights via the net), was your public
display of your total lack of self esteem some time ago on one of the
binary groups, where you encouraged a number of ther posters to come here
and tell me they thought you were 'cool'.

They didn't. and it was possibly the saddest example of a second raters
public desperation for approval I've ever seen, but keep going, I'm sure you
can top it.

I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger 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.
When was the F111s last used in combat?
What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and our
equipment.
We need more 50 to 100% full time battalions and the suport to go with it
(the suport is not there now).
More troop lift (blackhawks ect) more Lavs ect and we definitely need more
sea transport landing types.
This is where our limited budget neads to go.
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 just dont see
anyone out there who realy would have a go.
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.
Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.

"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
m...
I was referring to the A-400M which I understood to be close to
deployment and with substantial orders in Europe. Anyone have any
accurate information on this?

As for the Labor Party - with regard to defence they are a joke and
should never be taken seriously. Like it or lump it only a Coalition
Government will give defence a reasonable deal. Just how reasonable is
the argument.

The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
infantry battalions.

We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare
bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we
need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.

That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
seems to be rare.

With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the
AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel
attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.

Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves,
we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the
F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters. The
F-111 is not a fighter. And we cannot afford a single role bomber in
this day and age and with our defence budget.

"Brash" wrote in message
...
You're overlooking a couple of really important points.........

"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
m...
The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
infantry battalions.

Except Infantry Battalions are kind of manpower-intensive. The ADF is
having a hard enough time filling existing vacancies without creating
1200-1800 more overnight.

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?

We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare
bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we
need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.

That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
seems to be rare.

A lack of aircrew doesn't help much either. Fast jet-capable crew are few
and far between, and you want to create more airframes with no-one to fly
them?

With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the
AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel
attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.

Wouldn't it be better to destroy those enemy fighters where they are most
vulnerable.......... on the ground? Pigs are better at that than Bugs.

Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves,
we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the
F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters.

If you have to rely on air *defence*, you'll lose the war.

The F-111 is not a fighter.

No ****?

And we cannot afford a single role bomber in this day and age and with
our
defence budget.

Have you been reading the Swiss manual of warfare?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

If you can find the money to go AFVs all round, then the ASLAV is not
the
way to go.

Upgraded M113s are much better value and are likely to get better in
the
next 3 - 5 years as the 'Rubber band' tracks are perfected (For the
M113,
they are in use on some armoured Veh already).

An American exchange officer reports:
"Just returned from Australia. While there, the Australian officers to
include their senior leadership outlined the problems they encountered
with
the LAVs in East Timor. Apparently, the LAVs were never able to
operate off
the roads and when the rains washed out the asphalt road surfaces, the
LAVs
bellied out and the Australians became entirely dependent on the M113s
for
operations in the interior. They have decided that the LAVs are useful
on
roads inside Australia where the requirement to cross the northern
deserts
quickly make them useful. However, for deployments, they are inclined
to
restrict the use of LAVs to urban areas where the roads are good and
rely
otherwise exclusively on the new upgraded M113s that they are
purchasing.
Apparently, the ground pressure exerted by the LAVs is very high
indeed and
this was a problem on East Timor's poor roads as well. Plus the LAVs
provide
little or no protection against mines. Australian Generals like MG
Abigail
and Brigadier Quinn along with a host of Australian Majors and
Lieutenant
Colonels left me with the impression that the LAVs could be useful in
the
context of home defense, but should not be the first consideration for
use
in the deployable formations of the active army."

That's *very* interesting. Thanks...

The CO

"The CO" wrote in message
...


That's *very* interesting. Thanks...

http://strategypage.com/articles/ibc...ed/default.asp

Has some comparisons of the LAV III and M113 for the US Army IBCT.

They lean very heavily towards a requirement to fit the Veh into a C130 in a
'roll off, and drive straight into combat' state.

Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?
have they ever? just asking.
Graham
"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
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.

I don't claim to know a whole lot.

Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.

By the
way, you'll find I'm not one of these combative, antagonistic people
who seem to get off on arguing with others over the internet. I
appreciate a good debate with people who share my interests. So if
you'd like to detail where I'm wrong and why - I would appreciate
that, and if you're right, I'll say so. I'm open-minded, I can have my
opinion changed by a persuasive argument.


Seeing as more than one person came to that conclusion, I'd say you
need
to
sharpen your writing skills.


More accurately, I should have taken more time with that particular
post, but let's not be pedantic.


I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to
the Gulf).


Ok, then tell me. Media reports -

I'll let you in on something. The Oz media know diddly-squat about defence
matters. And when they haven't been told something, they make it up. ****,
9
times out 10 they'll mis-identify something as Air Force just because it
flies and something as Army just because its painted camouflage.

which included comments by the
Australian Defence Association amongst others,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.



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"?




and its best
move is to run. Thus if an attack was launched against us the
Hornets
would be the only defence of the F-111s on the ground.

More bull****.



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.



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.

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.



- their best
option would be to runaway to another base.

How about we just use them to destroy the enemy's strike aircraft or
base
before this scenario unfolds?

Obviously the preferred option! But will our politicians give that
order? Even Israel has been subject to surprise attacks - remember the
Yom Kippur War? I won't suggest you were around at the time of Pearl
Harbour . . .


We can't afford to have
combat aircraft that can't fight.

No **** Sherlock? Given your premise, we should **** the P3s and
Hercs
off as well, since they're pretty useless in a dogfight too.

No, not quite. They both fill a variety of roles and have both been
deployed on operations in recent years.

So has the RF111.

They are also not designed to
strike enemy targets which are likely to be defended by combat
aircraft.

Clearly, my preferrence is that - given our defence budget - the RAAF
field a multi-role fighter, not a multi-role fighter and a pure strike
/ recon aircraft.

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


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.


--
De Oppresso Liber.

"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.

The were used as recently as GW One in combat.

I'd also hazard a guess they've been used for lots of non-combat missions
that aren't public record..........

E.Timor was probably a case were they publicly weren't used.........

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

In article ,
says...
Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?
have they ever? just asking.

We got them after Vietnam, some time in the mid 70s. I remember them making
a flypast over the centre of Brisbane on their delivery flight.

The only "conflicts" we've had since then have been Gulf War, East Timor,
and Gulf W War, and we didn't deploy them for any of those.

They are intended for a strategic role in our national defence, and it's
unlikely we'd use them for a foreign adventure.

They are getting on a bit, but they remain enormously capable aircraft, and
it is difficult to see how we could replace them with anything possessing
the same range and payload.

That we could afford, I mean - I can't see us buying Bones.