Defence plan to scrap F-111s

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:39:41 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

"JD" wrote in message
. com...
(Defender in Tas) wrote in message
.com...
[...]

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?

I'm no expert on air weapons, but I'm fairly sure that since every thing is
digitised these days its only a matter of software changes to use different
ordnance.

Unfortunately, this is not the case, and software changes are a much
bigger deal than you might expect.

Clearing ordnance for drop is quite a long and involved process that
takes quite a time. Unless you are willing to lose aircraft and
aircrew finding out the hard way.

In a war, you might just have to do that.

EG, IIRC, using small bombs in WWII RAAF Bostons, the aerodynamics
interactions between these small bombs was discovered by blowing up
several aircraft when they dropped their bombs on the enemy.

Our current stocks of F111 weapons are most probably compatible
with the F15E (or K).

Concur, or little trouble at any rate. Some of our munitions have not
been directly cleared for use on those aircraft, but US license made
versions have been, so unless they are significantly different, it
should not be a problem.


....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia


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

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
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 !

Only one of the three variants of JSF does VTOL and it's unlikely to be the
variant Australia would ever buy. Heck, the ADF would probably try to fit
another seat back in that lift-fan area.


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

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:19:08 GMT, Paul Krenske wrote:

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. )

Since Australia currently operates the F/A-18, it makes sense to
buy more of them in the short term, if more are needed.

The F-111s could be mothballed, rather than scrapped.

For air superiority, in the medium term (2010 onwards) if Indonesia
is getting the Su-35 or derivatives, Australia probably wants
something better than the F/A-18. I'm not sure either about the JSF,
since its power/weight ratio is nothing to write home about.

I agree that unmanned vehicles for strike are the way to go. Perhaps
Australia could develop its own cruise missile -- if a guy can do so
for US$ 5000, I'm sure a medium-size[1] country can.


[1] economically speaking.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

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

And just who might "the enemy" be ?

It would not be diplomatic to say who the enemy *might* be.

I'm not a diplomat: Indonesia.

Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm
its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East
Asia.

Given the long lead time in such programs, you need 100% certainty
that there will be no significant changes in our geo-political
circumstances for at least ten years. That is a big ask.

One needs to look at the capability that will exist nearby over the
next ten years at least, then factor for the low, but non-zero chance
of a radical change in circumstances.

A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia, and
Australia doesn't have any allies, sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes) and anti-ship missiles.



--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:



A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia, and
Australia doesn't have any allies, sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes)

An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians


and anti-ship missiles.


Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation,
fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting
an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime
surveillance
and that requires air superiority.

Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the
choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better
strategy.

Keith

Keith

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
[...] in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes)

An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

and anti-ship missiles.

Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation,
fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting
an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime
surveillance and that requires air superiority.

True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a
surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least
intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might
be able to supply from the air).

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the
choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better
strategy.

Indeed, if possible.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

In article , "Brash"
wrote:

"JD" wrote in message
om...
(Defender in Tas) wrote in message
. com...
[...]

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?

I'm no expert on air weapons, but I'm fairly sure that since every thing is
digitised these days its only a matter of software changes to use different
ordnance. Our current stocks of F111 weapons are most probably compatible
with the F15E (or K).

If the weapon uses a -1750 interface then it can be launched from
a -1750 compatible platform, with the usual caveats.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw keith@kwil
lshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk wrote:
An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you
fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if
you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we
are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be
a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound,
bearing steady!"

For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.
Even at 200 knots, the huge noise signature means the enemy will alter
course and speed at once, so long range shots are unlikely to succeed.

Like some other Russian weapons, it's an elegant and well-engineered
solution to a particular problem they faced, that works much less well
when transplanted to other roles and export markets.

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
airframe. Haggle to see what both factions will sell for, and how
degraded the 'export version' is.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

Paul Saccani wrote in message . ..

EG, IIRC, using small bombs in WWII RAAF Bostons, the aerodynamics
interactions between these small bombs was discovered by blowing up
several aircraft when they dropped their bombs on the enemy.

Isn't that why we developed high drag munitions? ;-)

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

Excuse me?