Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"David Bromage" wrote in message

Brash wrote:
"David Bromage" wrote in
message ...
What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?

At a guess........... Harpoons.

Silly me, I should have known that. How hard would it be to clear the
F-15E for Harpoons?

Trivial. Harpoon is already on the approved stores list for the F-15K; the
ROKAF will be getting them as part of thew weapon package for their
aircraft.

--
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)

"David Bromage" wrote in message


USAF did not retire the F-111 by choice. The decision was imposed on
them.

Yes and no. The budget cuts were imposed, but the Air Force decided where
to apply them. When it came down to F-111s or F-15Es, the older aircraft
got the axe. No suprise there.

--
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)

(Marcus Andersson) waxed lyrical
om:

Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
Australia in any way?


This is to miss the point. Indonesia is a large, very populous and not
altogether friendly country immediately to Australia's north. It's very
proximity and different culture makes it a potential threat, regardless
of potential for real world conflict.
If I had a country with more than ten times my population and
significant internal problems in close proximity I'd want to maintain a
strong deterrent in that direction.

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

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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.


And leave Australia with no long range strke capability, which would you
rather do, hit an enemy force before it lands or let the infantry take
it
on
?

According to the article Australia won't face a conventional threat for 15
years............


Ah yes like the British treasuries 10 year rule

Australias "defence" has always been to keep any attackers at a distance.


Which would seem to suggest long range strike is a good idea


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.


But you just spent that money on 2 new infantry batallions

That was so they didn't need to call up the reserves for all these
"coalition" jobs.


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.


Old F/A-18's are not a good match for SU-27/37's


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.

How many F-35's do you think you'll get for $300 million ?

Already committed $150M with no guarantee anything will ever come of
it............


My point exactly


Not enough to equip a single squadron, face it cut the F-111
fleet without a replacement already ordered and it wont happen

Magic point, if you scrap the F-111's now you set yourself up for a
"........if we went this long without them, why should we get them now?".



Precisely.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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.


And leave Australia with no long range strke capability, which would
you
rather do, hit an enemy force before it lands or let the infantry take
it
on
?

According to the article Australia won't face a conventional threat for
15
years............


Ah yes like the British treasuries 10 year rule

But 50% more idiotic.


Australias "defence" has always been to keep any attackers at a
distance.


Which would seem to suggest long range strike is a good idea

Unless you're a politician, who will be long on their way to the US when it
gets to that.



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.


But you just spent that money on 2 new infantry batallions

That was so they didn't need to call up the reserves for all these
"coalition" jobs.


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.


Old F/A-18's are not a good match for SU-27/37's


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.

How many F-35's do you think you'll get for $300 million ?

Already committed $150M with no guarantee anything will ever come of
it............


My point exactly

Well, realistically I do see some intangible returns but at the end of the
day 300M isn't going to get you more than half a dozen aircraft with
spares.......................assuming a friendly discount for being such a
good ally.



Not enough to equip a single squadron, face it cut the F-111
fleet without a replacement already ordered and it wont happen

Magic point, if you scrap the F-111's now you set yourself up for a
"........if we went this long without them, why should we get them
now?".



Precisely.

Precisely what the politicians want. Get rid of the expense now, use that to
offset other costs and pocket any change. When it comes time to get a
replacement, suggest it isn't needed and pocket the money put aside for
that.


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

Yes Keith maybe I could have expressed myself better in my comments
regarding what $300 million could fund. I apologise but I didn't have
the time to overly proof read my original post.

You're right the F/A-18 is a generation behind the SU-27. Fortunately
our near-neighbours (i.e. those in South-East Asia) do not have them
in any concerning numbers, if at all, . . . yet. We know they plan to,
but whether they will - only time will tell. However, fully upgraded,
and with the delivery of the Wedgetail and new tankers, over the next
several years they will remain formidable in our region. You'll
remember I was suggesting that we purchase / lease F/A-18E/Fs to equip
two operational squadrons, reducing the existing fielded Hornet force
from three to two operational squadrons. The older planes would be
able to concentrate on strike - less stressful on their airframes than
air to air. While the newer planes could concentrate on air defence.
But that's just one suggestion. Others have suggested leasing the
F-15. In either case, the idea is for an interim solution - with the
F-35 to ultimately be our only fighter.

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

Pray tell what strike assets does Indonesia have that are
capable of hitting the F-111's at RAAF Amberley ?

I cant think of ANY


Your response here is interesting, you haven't disputed that the
F-111s can't adequately defend themselves. By the way, I was referring
to the operational deployment of the F-111s and the prospect, quite a
real one given our less than aggressive stance at times, that we might
be attacked first, rather than get to begin an air campaign at a time
of our choosing. Is it difficult to imagine a scenario where - if the
'enemy' was say Indonesia - we deployed fighters to Tindal and one or
two bare bases during a crisis, and were then subject to a significant
surprise air attack by SU-27s? Surely you would want to be able to
launch every combat aircraft we had to repel the attackers?

There would be
no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase - their best
option would be to runaway to another base. We can't afford to have
combat aircraft that can't fight.


However the long range of the F-111 means it can strike from bases
far out of range of any Indonsesian combat aircraft. Using F-18's
would mean either buying a LOT of tankers (wave goodbye to that
300 million) or putting them on bases within reach of the enemy.

Not if the Indonesians get the SU-27. They could strike Tindal and
Darwin from a number of air bases in the east of their nation. Where
would our F-111s be operating from?



I'm not against the idea of leasing F-15s till the JSF comes on line -
I just wonder about the cost. It may be a good move.

That depends on the likely threat. As of now Indonesia hasn't
much in the way of air assets to credibly threaten Australia
however it does have large numbers of bodies in areas
where Australia has strategic interests such as Timor
and New Guinea. On that basis a credible long range
strike asset seems a higher priority than boosting the
country's air defenses.

Point 1, Indonesia is planning to have significant air assets in the
near future, we should base our plans on that eventuality. Point 2,
From Tindal, Darwin and some of the bare bases the Hornets with AAR
support or not could operate over the areas you mentioned. They are
relatively close, particularly Timor. Point 3, If the Indonesians were
serious about re-invading ET then their best bet would be to strike
Darwin and Tindal to limit our response capability. Both were
absolutely essential to Interfet.

Anyway, I can see we're not going to agree - you're obviously an F-111
fan, that's good, I'm a fan of the aircraft myself, I just don't think
its cost justifies its position in our force structure anymore.

Defender in Tas wrote:

You're right the F/A-18 is a generation behind the SU-27.

Su-27 (T-10-1) first flight 20 May 1977.
F/A-18A first flight 18 Nov 1978.

On 6 Aug 2003 11:19:24 GMT, Drewe Manton wrote:

(Marcus Andersson) waxed lyrical
. com:

Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
Australia in any way?


This is to miss the point. Indonesia is a large, very populous and not
altogether friendly country immediately to Australia's north. It's very
proximity and different culture makes it a potential threat, regardless
of potential for real world conflict.
If I had a country with more than ten times my population and
significant internal problems in close proximity I'd want to maintain a
strong deterrent in that direction.



We also have to take into account the fact that no war for 15 years is
almost an impossible prediction to back up, ever. 15 years ago we
were still massively supporting the one party, fascist (but
anti-commie), ethnic cleansing/genocidal dictatorship in Jakarta. Face
it we still were 5-6 years ago. Now we are the primary target of not
insignificant numbers of radical terrorists. Their more moderate
political arms could grab substantial parliamentary representation
next year and some have Australia listed as an obvious area for Asian
Muslim Resettlement and expansion in their ideology. 15 years from now
Indonesia could literraly not exist (with 3-4 break away regions) or
it could be a radicalised pan islamic state that threatens australian
sovereignty. Of course it could also contnue as now. Trying to make
long term security decisions in such a fluid environment is silly. If
we need a higher defence budget then raise the tax back up to where it
was 6 weeks back, most people would not notice.

My preference would be to keep them running until we can actually get
hold of some numbers of some extreme range ACAV's. That will be around
2010-15. In old German parlance we need a 4000 kg over 4000 Km at 1000
Kmh airframe. Buy 30+ as bomb trucks and use manned aircraft for the
fighter/attack role. ( Not sure about JSF for that but we'll see. )

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

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:51:43 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On 5 Aug 2003 17:42:57 -0700, (Walt BJ) wrote:


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.

I always wondered what an F-111 would be like after an F-14B style heart
xplant.


If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the
avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated
now and the avionics package has been much improved. In fact I believe
they are technically capable of AMRAAM carriage now although none have
been tested yet. The RAAF has even investigated the potential for
using them as heavy missile support for the F-18's. (12 AMRAAM's and 4
sidewinders are certainly heavy but are almost a clean load for a
pig.) It must be remembered that they were originally to be Multirole
fighter/bombers with heavy missile loads in the fighter role. F111B
was to carry Phoenix etc.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:40:10 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

wrote in message

A former -111 jock (yet another ex-jock who loves flying trikes) said
he used to fly low level at 510 kts to 1.1 mach at 100 ft AGL hand
flying or 200 feet on the auto terrain following system in the weather
and 400 feet AGL at night in the weather. He said the F-15E can't go
near as fast, near as far, or carry the Vark's payload. He said the
ride was smoother too, but admits the F-15E can easily out-turn
the F-111.

There's been much discussion of the F-11s low level performance in this
thread. Can anyone here even remember the last time a strike package went
in a terrain-following altitudes? I sure can't; medium to high altitude
seems to have become the standard.

Well it is now the standard for the number one Airforce in the world
fighting enemies with effectively no ability to reach above 1000
metres. Other airforces have had little to do although I believe
Russia still gets down and Dirty at times for attack and support
duties. In GW 1 the Brit, French and the US strikes generally went in
low for the first week but then went high after almost all oposition
had been turned to tin foil. The US also has massive jammer and Weasel
ability with Harms, etc.

Us aussies on the other hand will have no ability to conduct strike
escort with anything but other strike aircraft over the ranges
involved in SEA. So we have no choice but to fly low or to slowly roll
back defences over a period of months before going for juicy targets.
(hmmm that dam upriver from Jakarta would be an interesting target but
I doubt we would do it due to the more than slight civilian
casualties.)

The low level strike mission is now very survivable due to the ability
to toss GPS glide bombs 40-50 km's from over the horizon. It
effectively requires a standing patrol defence off the coast to stop
and that is a pain for Indonesia.


--
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)