Defence plan to scrap F-111s

On 5 Aug 2003 22:35:58 -0700, (Defender in
Tas) wrote:

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?
NOT EVEN CLOSE. The formal decision to build the thing along with the
necessary budgetary approval from the buyers only has occured within
the last few months. At best deployment is still YEARS away... (which
is why there are fair number of C130J's being leased in Europe)...

"Graeme Hogan" wrote in message
u...
They're only saying that because they are in Opposition.

That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

--
De Oppresso Liber.




"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
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

Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let
me guess, ex-army?


"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
My comments regarding the fact that the cost of keeping the F-111s
flying is equivalent to the cost of raising two regular infanry
battalions was meant as an illustration of the comparitive spending
power of the defence dollar. That's all. I was not advocating raising
those battalions at the expense of the RAAF. I can't see how anyone
would have arrived at a different conclusion.

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


Our updated F/A-18s with AWAC and tanker support would be a much
better match for SU-27s - should our neighbours ever actually take
possesion - than the F-111 which we did not even consider to be up to
an appropriate standard to deploy to the Gulf.

I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent.

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?

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

Utter bull****.

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****.

There would be
no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase

Of course not. Your point?

- 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?

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.


--
De Oppresso Liber.



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.

Brash wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

David Bromage wrote:

The RAAF's 35 F-111 warplanes - Australia's front-line strategic strike
force - could be retired from service from 2006, a decade earlier than
originally planned, if the Government accepts a controversial option put
forward by the Defence Department. A key issue is whether early
retirement for the long-range F-111s could leave a gaping hole in
Australia's front-line defences early next decade.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E601,00.html

Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?

Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought
that was self-evident.

And just who might "the enemy" be ?

You reckon the Japs fancy having another go for sake of example ?


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

Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its cost.

Maybe that's so... but the task itself is obsolete.

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.

Do please provide a candidate list.

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

Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.

Can't say I recall seeing an F-111 perform vertical landing !


Graham

Dai wrote:

"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.

A highly relevant comment.

The real danger to nation states in the future is low-tech terrorism - not 'toys
for boys' hi-tech fighter bombers.

Regds, Graham

"Brash" wrote in message
...
Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
Let
me guess, ex-army?

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr No Way ! Far too articulate :-)
and Subtle unless ex armour or aviation

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:32:25 GMT, (Paul Krenske) wrote:


If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the
avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated
now

They wouldnt be in the same ballpark as the F110 though ?


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 Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:18:14 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

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

A highly relevant comment.

The real danger to nation states in the future is low-tech terrorism - not 'toys
for boys' hi-tech fighter bombers.

You seem to forget that terrorism generally has a goal other than
terror itself. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

One of the most common objectives of terrorists is the establishment
of a nation state to implent their ideas.

You seem to forget that this places the resources of a state at their
disposal.


....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia


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

On 6 Aug 2003 02:22:10 -0700, (Marcus
Andersson) wrote:

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


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

Please gaurantee that they won't have one in ten years time,
especially if they have an Islamic revolution, the objective of
present day terror attacks within Indonesia.

Capability and stability (or lack thereof) are the driving factors in
threat assement when one looks over a period of ten years, given that
no threat is seen as immintint today.


....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia


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

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:01:42 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

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

To deliver Jihad to the "crusader infidels" after a Islamic revolution would
be one plausible reason.

JI have an expressed desire to create an Islamic republic similar to
the old MaPhilIndo lines, but incorporating the upper third or so of
Australia, as well as out friends in PNG.

I would call that a threat of low probability but extreme graveness.

Overall, it is just one risk that is too great to ignore, but still
one that is unlikely to occur.


....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia


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