Defence plan to scrap F-111s

In article ,
says...
The F-111 has a strategic role, not a CAS role.


I never said it did. Although even the B-52 has been used to drop
bombs on enemy targets close to friendly forces.

Khe Sanh springs to mind. Our Canberras were also used for CAS in SVN. I
think David Hackworth describes using them like artillery in his book About
Face.

"The CO" wrote in message
...

The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
need to go,

They are being rebuilt.

Is it worth the expense? How significant is the improvement? Are they
going to fix the
water crossing capability as well? ISTR that's been broken a very long
time.
Would it be better to ditch them for something better? Cheaper even?
The M113 is only marginally hardened against even infantry/small arms.

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437

The M113 upgrades resistance to SA is classified Secret.


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.

The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle, it
is
markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

Certainly, but it's soft skinned, so it's still just a truck. If you
are going to have highly
trained troops it's best to protect them til they get where they are
going to fight.
Whilst I see your point about cost, perhaps we should also look at the
costs associated
with training troops only to have them become casualties because some
Indo with an
RPG hosed a bunch of them sitting in the soft skinned Bushmaster on
their way in.


The role of motorised forces is not to ride the truck into combat.

The same ambush problem applies to Helos and SAMs, ASLAVS and RPGs etc
nothing is risk free.


Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops

Hmm, make that *light* armour and I'd agree, (Such as ASLAV or some
other type of at least semi hardened APC with medium size fire support
capability)
I would suggest that heavy armour is more useful against other heavy
armour or in certain urban
scenarios that are rather less likely to happen here. But I'm willing
to be convinced otherwise if you
want to get more specific.

Try FSBs Coral and Balmoral in Vietnam for examples of where heavy armour is
of great value in light ops (Lex Mcaulays book covers it).




as is Arty,

Arty is arguably the best form of heavy fire support there is.
Remember Long Tan? Arty is good.

having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.

Yes, but that can be achieved without resorting to an MBT if you are
up against APC/FSV variants. Terrain is also a factor, an MBT can
become
a sitting target (admittedly a hardened one) if the ground turns to mud
and
it can't move. Lighter vehicles such as ASLAV or variants would be the
last thing to grind to a halt when it got too soft, an MBT would be one
of
the first.


That of course depends on the relative ground pressure of the vehicle, not
the overall weight of the vehicle.

An MBT with wide tracks is likely to remain mobile over soft ground after a
Light Vehicle with thin tracks.

Wheeled Veh, soft ground, you could be looking at real problems.

For example, an M113 has a ground pressure of aprox 8.6 PSI,

a Leopard 1 has a ground pressure of aprox 12.8 PSI,

An LAV has a ground pressure of aprox 40 (forty) PSI...

Also, in Vietnam, it was found that Centurions could push through terrain
that M113s could not.


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

snip

Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from
PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops for Para
continuation, exercises and so on.

Ok, there are obviously logistical issues. Effective force placement
would seem
to be something that may require a complete review, nothing is forever.

Nothing is forever, but given that 3RAR is a Para Bn, nothing is to be
gained by moving them to Bris, if the couple of hours flight time ever seems
to be a real concern they can be staged to Bris for an operation.



Thats the point of Bushmaster.

But is it the answer? Or just a cheap expedient?

It is a protected truck, the simple fact is we can't afford to put all our
troops in AFVs, if the choice is move them fast and then operate as leg inf
or do without a few more Bns, then Bushmaster is the answer.


This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
support a more highly mobile fielded force
as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..

Agreed.

The Alice-Darwin rail link is going to help a bit (or even a lot) but
supporting a sizeable
force in the bush in far north is arguably harder than supporting one at
some OS locs.

Yes, fortunately it works both ways.


The Tiger will do the support job just fine.

Probably could do most of it. No real argument, provided it can be
equipped to take out
light armour, which is what we are most likely to encounter in this
country if something happens
and on most likely OS placements. It's worth noting that we don't have
much in the line of COIN
or dedicated CAS airframes. Yes the F/A18 can do it, but something a
bit lower and slower can
also be an asset in many circumstances.

Given that the Tiger will carry Hellfire II it seems quite capable of
handling any armour we are likely to encounter.

Lockheed Martin, Eurocopter Ink Contract to Integrate Hellfire II Missile on
Tigre Attack Helo

ORLANDO, Fla. (May 8, 2002) - Lockheed Martin and Eurocopter recently signed
a contract to integrate the Hellfire II missile and M299 Hellfire launcher
on the Eurocopter Tigre helicopter.

The initial customer is Australia, in the AIR 87 armed reconnaissance
helicopter program, which specified Hellfire for the weaponry after
selecting Tigre to fulfill its coastal reconnaissance and defense mission.
There are additional opportunities in Spain, France, Germany, and other
countries.

The contract provides for integration at Eurocopter's facility in Marignane,
France and missile firings in Australia in early 2005 as part of the Tigre
qualification effort.



http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/a.../050802_2.html




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.

Helos are very expensive to own/operate.

Not disputed, but there are some jobs that nothing else can do,
particularly when everything is
wet and soggy and the clouds are almost dragging on the ground.

Keep in mind that the conditions you cite apply to both sides of a conflict,
in many cases you would be better off just leaving an enemy to rot in the
wet season, interdict his supplys and mop up the remains come the dry.


That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.

Quite. And there is a need for specialists. You might need trained
replacements in
a hurry, that's why it's called a 'reserve'.
That said, it's not unreasonable that the most pressing need would be
for infantry,
so the balance should favour that corp.

But they can't get enough to sign up for Ares Inf now, how do you propose
fixing it?



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.

Agreed.

I'll add a caveat that if there is a major ruction (such as a
fundamentalist govt
coming to power in Djakarta) then that could change, however it's likely
we
would have help from other major players that could provide the heavier
stuff.
What we do best is not armoured warfare or massive logistics, but we
have friends that do, and we are very good at other roles.


Obviously a major local change would require something of a rethink, but
that is one reason to keep cadres of units such as Armour - our friends
could be tied up in Korea, Iraq, etc when we need help or they could be in
an election cycle and unwilling to help (see Clinton/E.Timor).


IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,

Like I said 'cost and provocativeness'.
If the Indos get a dose of nastiness, the provocativeness is no longer a
significant factor, though
the deterrent effect might be.
What's good in one situation isn't necessarily so in another.

The problem is that having the media leap on every single rape case and
every single assault, for years, playing on the 'furriners misbehaving here'
angle is not good in the long term.


put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
good for the
alliance.

Concur. There would need to be an *imminent* threat not a possibility
of one to make
it desirable in view of the negative aspects.

Another good reason for a decent, well balanced military - it raises the bar
significantly as to what constitutes a credible threat.


Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

Unless we have a serious situation looming, not a lot. I feel fairly
sure that such a scenario
wouldn't turn into a conflict overnight, there would be lead time to
seek US support and
get them in place *if* it becomes necessary (or desirable). At the
moment, IMHO, it's
better to be as prepared as we can be on our own.

Agreed.

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Still jealous, and ignorant, I see.

Yawn, back to the gate for you sonny.

"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
m...
That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.

You have demonstrated a serious lack of subject knowledge.

Where exactly?


In almost all of your posts, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly.



As for your comments Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111.


I was in the infantry and the gate guard is an amusement, nothing more.

I don't wish to defend him because he has been a little less than
polite to me, but I happen to think the role of the airfield defence
guards is a very important one. I know one who served in East Timor
and I wouldn't describe his service as being of less value than anyone
else's.

Serving as guard to an airfield is of less importance than that of the
troops on active combat ops.

'They also serve, those who stand at gate', but lets not pretend it's up
there with the real troops out in the J.

I'm thinking
that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday,

I'm ex Army - the Indons in question have a lot further to go before
they
find me.

Well, I said you "might". Could always rejoin my boy.

Nope.




and you
will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres away
at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of guided
bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on pretty
buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated gate
guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?

Nope.

Ok I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but surely it's not that
hard to recognise it when you see it?

In text form it can be very hard to spot.

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

"JD" wrote in message
news:Jug_a.31220$bo1.12853@news-
Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to
and
from PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up troops
for Para continuation, exercises and so on.

For ****s sake, move them too.


So are you just going to flush millions for no reason or do you have a
plan?

Goes to show how far out of it you are General. Or is Private (Rtd)?


Yawn



So far you have moved an Inf Bn, Parachute training School, the RAAF
Herc/Caribou Sqns,

Caribous are already there you cabbage. Hercs are planned to go there too.


Still dull

the Army AD unit, all their supporting elements, maint
etc to Amberley. why? what do you think it will achieve?

Economy of effort.


Is there room for all these units there?

Obviously you've never been there. There's ****-loads.

Not in some time, but then I don't have to guard the gate.


Where is the nearest DZ to Amberley
for PTS?

On the ****ing Base you dickhead. About 200 metres west of the Caribou
flight-line for one. About a kilometre further west for an even bigger,
more
isolated DZ. Clearly, you're a clueless ex-grunt. Dumb****.



So will F-111 ops be suspended for the duration of Para courses?

I realise you are not very bright, but there is a reason that PTS is not at
a very active airfield.



3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
PTS.

Close Richmond, and move PTS. How hard is it?

Politically difficult, financially insane, but keep going.

Yet its planned anyway. I guess the Mandarins at the Dept of Defence
should
have consulted with Private Acrobat (Rtd) before making these decisions.

From the gate guard, lol!, now where is the parking, boy?

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

"The CO" wrote in message
...
Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.

Yep.


Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from
PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up troops for Para
continuation, exercises and so on.

You must be out of the loop dip****. PTS have been known pack up their
bongos and operate out of Amberley (especially during winter) and the long
term plan is for Airlift Group to **** off from Richmond and move
to................... Amberley. Last time I strapped on a parachute and
jumped out of serviceable aircraft in-flight was from Amberley. Funny,
didn't see any gates.


3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and PTS.

PTS should never have gone to Nowra in the first place. A questionable
decision if there ever was one.

If the DoD needs the opinion of a gate guard they will no doubt dictate it
to you.

Canberra drivers were confident in being able to drop as close as 50 Metres
to friendlies if really needed.
B-52 on the other hand required a pull back to/safety distance of 1000
Metres (yep, 1 Km).
in SVN.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
The F-111 has a strategic role, not a CAS role.


I never said it did. Although even the B-52 has been used to drop
bombs on enemy targets close to friendly forces.

Khe Sanh springs to mind. Our Canberras were also used for CAS in SVN. I
think David Hackworth describes using them like artillery in his book
About
Face.

Peter wrote:

s and slab sides. There's a
Canberra flying out of Temora - flying this weekend as a matter of fact -
and occasionally it comes up to Canberra for some commemoration or other.

At it put on an awesome display at Avalon 2003... Lovely..

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"The CO" wrote in message
...

lots of interspersed snippage to stop the message getting too big

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437

The M113 upgrades resistance to SA is classified Secret.

"Upgraded vehicles will have base level protection enhanced by external
appliqué armour and spall curtains for increased vehicle and crew
protection"
(from the tenix site you provided the link to.)
So it's reasonable to assume it will be better than the current M113.
Well, that's a positive.

The role of motorised forces is not to ride the truck into combat.

No, not suggesting they were going to do that at all.

The same ambush problem applies to Helos and SAMs, ASLAVS and RPGs etc
nothing is risk free.

Granted. But if you are going to move bodies around, better to do it in
something hardened
if you are likely to be subject to such assaults in rear areas, and
recent events in Iraq suggest
that this tactic is likely to be employed by any opposition.

Try FSBs Coral and Balmoral in Vietnam for examples of where heavy
armour is
of great value in light ops (Lex Mcaulays book covers it).

Ok, I'll do that.

That of course depends on the relative ground pressure of the vehicle,
not
the overall weight of the vehicle.

It's a function of vehicle weight and footprint area yes.

An MBT with wide tracks is likely to remain mobile over soft ground
after a
Light Vehicle with thin tracks.

Wheeled Veh, soft ground, you could be looking at real problems.

For example, an M113 has a ground pressure of aprox 8.6 PSI,

a Leopard 1 has a ground pressure of aprox 12.8 PSI,

An LAV has a ground pressure of aprox 40 (forty) PSI...

Is that per sq (metre/foot/whatever) of footprint?
Bear in mind that in a tyred vehicle like ASLAV you can reduce that
pressure
a whole bunch just by deflating the tyres somewhat.

Also, in Vietnam, it was found that Centurions could push through
terrain
that M113s could not.

True enough, I guess it gets back to the terrain involved at least in
part.

Nothing is forever, but given that 3RAR is a Para Bn, nothing is to be
gained by moving them to Bris, if the couple of hours flight time ever
seems
to be a real concern they can be staged to Bris for an operation.

Ok, would it *perhaps* be more realistic to base them up there in the
type of
country they would be *more likely* to fight in during a conflict and
shift the
training area? I see no reason to relocate the whole of RAAF Richmond,
a
forward deployment to the AO for an ex or training cycle should not
stretch
RAAF resources overmuch. The P3's have operated in this manner for
years.
I can't imagine it would be real hard to find a suitable DZ in
Queensland, and it
would have the advantage of terrain familiarisation. That said, I won't
disagree
that it would be dead easy or cost free, the value of the reloc would
have to be
weighed tac/training advantages v increased logistic and operational
costs.

Thats the point of Bushmaster.

But is it the answer? Or just a cheap expedient?

It is a protected truck, the simple fact is we can't afford to put all
our
troops in AFVs,

I'm not sure I can agree with that. It's always a question of
cost v survivability, but in view of the (relatively) small size
of the army, it might be desirable to give it all the protection
that we can. IF that means ASLAV's all round, well, defence
spending and presumably tax might need to increase to do so.
The force multiplication value of light armoured transport for your
troops cannot be discounted, particularly if the enemy is not as well
equipped.

if the choice is move them fast and then operate as leg inf
or do without a few more Bns, then Bushmaster is the answer.

I see your point, however I'm not sure I can agree. Casualties are
the new 'centre of gravity' to terrorist/insurgent combatants. The
situation in Iraq seems to suggest that they have adopted an approach
of knocking off just one or two yanks a day until the bill gets too high
and the folks at home scream for their boys and girls to be pulled out.
In 1944 it was acceptable to take a some thousands of casualties in an
op
like that, these days, it's not politically acceptable it seems and even
small
numbers of casualties make the news at home and increase pressure on a
govt to stop the attrition by pulling back.
Faced with a hostile invader on our soil, I don't think that applies, as
I think
we (as a nation) would do 'whatever it takes' to kick them out, but on a
deployment to, say, Java, there might not be such a philosophical
attitude.

This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
support a more highly mobile fielded force
as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..

Agreed.

The Alice-Darwin rail link is going to help a bit (or even a lot)
but
supporting a sizeable
force in the bush in far north is arguably harder than supporting
one at
some OS locs.

Yes, fortunately it works both ways.

True enough. I personally feel any invader is sitting on the sharp end
of
the stick, it would be *very* difficult to do.

Given that the Tiger will carry Hellfire II it seems quite capable of
handling any armour we are likely to encounter.

Lockheed Martin, Eurocopter Ink Contract to Integrate Hellfire II
Missile on
Tigre Attack Helo

snip

Ok, on that basis, assuming it's otherwise capable, I'd probably be
happy with that.

Not disputed, but there are some jobs that nothing else can do,
particularly when everything is
wet and soggy and the clouds are almost dragging on the ground.

Keep in mind that the conditions you cite apply to both sides of a
conflict,

Sure.

in many cases you would be better off just leaving an enemy to rot in
the
wet season, interdict his supplys and mop up the remains come the dry.

I would imagine that containment combined with that would do so *in
time*
though I'm less certain that the people of the area (what there are of
them)
and the population in general would be happy to wait them out. They'd
expect
and I feel strongly that the political masters would order, the defence
force to
jump in and ferret them out rather sharpish. Again, a political
direction may be
the deciding factor, when from a purely tactical viewpoint, your
scenario would
probably work well enough.

That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be
Infantry.

Quite. And there is a need for specialists. You might need trained
replacements in
a hurry, that's why it's called a 'reserve'.
That said, it's not unreasonable that the most pressing need would
be
for infantry,
so the balance should favour that corp.

But they can't get enough to sign up for Ares Inf now, how do you
propose
fixing it?

Never said it was going to be easy. There is a genuine problem with the
ARES
retention levels these days. One issue I've noted is that a number of
recruits go to Pucka for basic
and are then supposed to RTU. However a significant number wind up
going into
the Regs instead. I'm not sure what the solution is, or even if there
*is* a solution.
One thing is that it's quite hard for someone who's employed to get the
time off to
go and do their basic. When it was the weekends and a couple weeks a
year it
was at least possible, but the current system makes it a *lot* harder to
get enough time off.

Obviously a major local change would require something of a rethink,

Concur.

that is one reason to keep cadres of units such as Armour - our
friends
could be tied up in Korea, Iraq, etc when we need help or they could
be in
an election cycle and unwilling to help (see Clinton/E.Timor).

It would be plausible that any enemy might take this into account.
OTOH I suspect we would get considerable priority in such an event, so
it may not necessarily follow that we can't get help when we need it.

The problem is that having the media leap on every single rape case
and
every single assault, for years, playing on the 'furriners misbehaving
here'
angle is not good in the long term.

No argument.

Another good reason for a decent, well balanced military - it raises
the bar
significantly as to what constitutes a credible threat.

Yes.


The CO

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

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

"The CO" wrote in message
...
Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.

Yep.


Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from
PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up troops for
Para
continuation, exercises and so on.

You must be out of the loop dip****. PTS have been known pack up their
bongos and operate out of Amberley (especially during winter) and the
long
term plan is for Airlift Group to **** off from Richmond and move
to................... Amberley. Last time I strapped on a parachute and
jumped out of serviceable aircraft in-flight was from Amberley. Funny,
didn't see any gates.


3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
PTS.

PTS should never have gone to Nowra in the first place. A questionable
decision if there ever was one.

If the DoD needs the opinion of a gate guard they will no doubt dictate it
to you.

And if they ever need strategic advice from an ex-private grunt, I'll give
them your number.

You're dismissed now Private (Rtd).

--
De Oppresso Liber.