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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Brash" wrote in message u...
Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let me guess, ex-army? No, but hardly relevant. I don't claim to know a whole lot. By the way, you'll find I'm not one of these combative, antagonistic people who seem to get off on arguing with others over the internet. I appreciate a good debate with people who share my interests. So if you'd like to detail where I'm wrong and why - I would appreciate that, and if you're right, I'll say so. I'm open-minded, I can have my opinion changed by a persuasive argument. Seeing as more than one person came to that conclusion, I'd say you need to sharpen your writing skills. More accurately, I should have taken more time with that particular post, but let's not be pedantic. I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to the Gulf). Ok, then tell me. Media reports - which included comments by the Australian Defence Association amongst others, I believe - stated that it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't they sent according to you? 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? With SU-27s should 'they' acquire them, or whatever combat aircraft 'they' may possess. The F-111s have great range but it would be pure folly to say they would operate our of Amberley in any crisis centred around, say, East Timor, Irian Jaya, or Indonesia generally. They would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during Interfet. Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or without AAR? The F-111 scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant Utter bull****. Ok, what's the truth? 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****. Ok, we have some Rapiers (to be retired), and RBS-70s, and Tindal is laid out with widely located protective aircraft shelters, but do our F-111 pilots train to launch on air-to-air missions? There would be no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase Of course not. Your point? That the F-111 is a strike aircraft only, not a multi-role fighter. It was never conceived to be the latter, and that was fine. But in this day and age, with the current operational demands on the ADF and the limited defence budget, my contention is that the high (and growing) cost of this single capability cannot be justified for retention. - 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? Obviously the preferred option! But will our politicians give that order? Even Israel has been subject to surprise attacks - remember the Yom Kippur War? I won't suggest you were around at the time of Pearl Harbour . . . 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. No, not quite. They both fill a variety of roles and have both been deployed on operations in recent years. They are also not designed to strike enemy targets which are likely to be defended by combat aircraft. Clearly, my preferrence is that - given our defence budget - the RAAF field a multi-role fighter, not a multi-role fighter and a pure strike / recon aircraft. Of course, ideally, if the defence budget was at a level that would make me happy, I would like to see the F-111s retained, further upgraded and supported by AAR aircraft with booms, and the RAAF also operating at least 6, if not 8, operational squadrons of tactical fighters - perhaps half primarily for air-to-air (the F-15), and half primarily for battlefield air interdiction / CAS with a second role of air-to-air (the Hornets, or F-16s, or take your pick of a few others). But now I'm dreaming. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to the Gulf). Ok, then tell me. Media reports - which included comments by the Australian Defence Association amongst others, I believe - stated that it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't they sent according to you? Wasn't that because you don't send your only long-range strike asset which is irreplacable when there is already a lot of strike assets in the region. I would hate to be the aussie detachtment commander who has to report to his boss. "Sorry boss,we lost a couple of airplanes." Which could be normal in a "normal war" but means let 's say 25 % of the aussie long range strike assets. You only take that risk if you have to. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
phil hunt wrote: 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. Glad someone came out and said so. Pray, please, what would Indonesia gain from attacking Australia - lots of sheep I guess ! Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East Asia. Lmao @ Japan. China has a far simpler plan for world domination. Cheaper, more effective and doesn't require military force. It's called manufacturing. Check where your last TV / microwave / other consumer goods were made. And you reckon the other poor S.E. asian countries want to invade you ? They'll have to get a real military first, never mind the absence of any desire to.Get real ! 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, weeps with laughter and Australia doesn't have any allies, Oh sure - you reckon the US and UK can't / won't protect your interests ? 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. Are you just a war-monger or a madman ? Graham |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
The Raven wrote:
"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. LOL ! Graham |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Saccani wrote: 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. Only in the rabid imaginations of ppl who should know better. The concept of 'state-funded terrorism' is IMHO an imaginary ploy conjured up by the CIA et al to go invade foreign countries and then get their fingers burnt. Very badly it would seem, as things seem to be turning out in Iraq. Those who are in the know realise that Al Qaeda prolly received most of its funding from Saudi Arabia btw. Pls explain how an F-111 will deter a fanatical suicide bomber. Cheers, Graham |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Not you JD, the Taswegian.
-- De Oppresso Liber. "JD" wrote in message om... "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? |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... 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 How strategically myopic of you. -- De Oppresso Liber. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... phil hunt wrote: 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. Glad someone came out and said so. Pray, please, what would Indonesia gain from attacking Australia - lots of sheep I guess ! As an Islamic Republic I reckon they'd like to get ****-loads of sheep (Halal, of course). Or how about natural gas? Oil? Diamonds? Wide open spaces? Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East Asia. Lmao @ Japan. He did say "unlikely" you dickhead. China has a far simpler plan for world domination. Cheaper, more effective and doesn't require military force. It's called manufacturing. Check where your last TV / microwave / other consumer goods were made. And they wouldn't mind getting the materials to make them with for free? And you reckon the other poor S.E. asian countries want to invade you ? They'll have to get a real military first, never mind the absence of any desire to.Get real ! 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, weeps with laughter and Australia doesn't have any allies, Oh sure - you reckon the US and UK can't / won't protect your interests ? When they're hip-deep in hot brass and grenade pins in Korea? Sure, they'll have plenty to spare to come to our rescue. 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. Are you just a war-monger or a madman ? Are you just a tree-hugging peacenik or a troll? -- De Oppresso Liber. Graham |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:15:56 +1000, "Brash" wrote: Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let me guess, ex-army? Look out, blue blinkers on. Only in the interests of "balance". ;o) No need to tar all with the same brush. I only tar them whats needs tarring dude. -- De Oppresso Liber. |
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 |