If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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' |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR Flight Plan question | Snowbird | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 13th 04 12:55 AM |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
Canadian IFR/VFR Flight Plan | gwengler | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | August 11th 04 03:55 AM |
IFR flight plan filing question | Tune2828 | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:33 AM |
USA Defence Budget Realities | Stop SPAM! | Military Aviation | 17 | July 9th 03 02:11 AM |