Defence plan to scrap F-111s

Drewe Manton wrote in message .4...
Pooh Bear waxed lyrical
:


Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?

Australia is situated in one of the most unstable regions of the world
currently. A deep strike capability is very important to her, both as a
deterrant and as an effective force should it become necessary to fight.
That's like saying the US borders friends to the south and friends to the
north. . who does she intend striking (Oh, I forgot, they have "The War
Against Terrorism(TM))


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

Because it's still in the premier league of strike aircraft and brings
massive capability to a small force. I suppose the USAF better get on
with scrapping all those B-52's and KC-135's and E-3's and E-8's and C-
130's eh? After all, they are *fifties* designs!


Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to
defend itself from ?

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?



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

Given the avionics upgrade, it's raw performance, it's range of weapons
and the supremely high skill levels of the crews, as well as any F-15E,
Tornado or (insert premier league strike platform here)


Yawn......

Indeed, very much so.

(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

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 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'

"Marcus Andersson" wrote in message

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?

Religious differences have been known to cause the odd spot of bother in the
past.

Leaders trying to divert attention from domestic problems,

Natural resources,

Lebensraum,

A wish to get a real grip on the maritime choke points,

to name just a few.

Is it actually a gap in our fronnt line defence when it is actually a strike
aircraft ?


"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
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...6866971%255E60
1,00.html

"Glenn" wrote in message
...
Is it actually a gap in our fronnt line defence when it is actually a
strike
aircraft ?

Yes, when it has a powerful deterrent quality.

--
De Oppresso Liber.





"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
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...6866971%255E60
1,00.html

:-)
"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"Glenn" wrote in message
...
Is it actually a gap in our fronnt line defence when it is actually a
strike
aircraft ?

Yes, when it has a powerful deterrent quality.

--
De Oppresso Liber.





"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
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...6866971%255E60
1,00.html

Personally, I would fully agree with a decision to retire the F-111s
early. It currently costs over $300 million a year to maintain them.
This is clearly a huge chunk out of our Defence Budget and we do not
get value for money. Spending more to upgrade them to enable their
operation in high intensity theatres of combat - as someone like Carlo
Kopp may argue - would be a waste. F-111 supporters keep talking about
the range advantage conferred by the aircraft. But the reality is no
aircraft will become available now or in the next 20 years that will
confer a similar advantage. We might as well replace the F-111 now
with possibly 40-50 F/A-18E/Fs to equip two operational squadrons. We
could then cut the existing three F/A-18 squadrons back to two to
ensure that our fleet of that aircraft survive to the introduction of
the F-35. At the very least if we are to retire the F-111 early we
should acquire surplus early-model US F/A-18s to equip a fourth
operational squadron. Retiring the Pigs without at least a partial,
temporary replacement would be too much of a degrading of our
capabilities. Of course, another issue is that to make up for the
lesser range of new aircraft we will need more refuelling aircraft
than the 3-5 we are currently planning to buy. The replacement for the
C-130H should be a new aircraft with dual tanker / air lift
capabilities - Airbus may have the running on this one.

A couple points need to be made here to expound on staemenst in
previous messages.
First, relating to age. The 111 is a 60's design. But aircraft
performance is now at the upper flattening arc of the familiar S-curve
where lots of money will gain you greatly proportionate less
performance. just what modern aircraft can match the 11, dollar for
dollar, at low-level long range penetration at night or all-weather?
And give you supersonic over-the target performance? Or long range
standoff supersonic loft of guided weapons?
The Hornet is very short-legged compared to the 111.
As to the need for an effective defence, a lot of OZ's earning do now
and will increasingly come from the Timor Sea oil and gas fields. They
are an attractive
target for any covetous regime, especially one in economic trouble
that
'boasts' an oligarchic government. (Test: name one nearby.)(Hint:
there's two, with a third some ways away but quite expansionist in
character.)
And the 111 force is in being now. Replacing one aircraft type with a
newer and questionably better one is not cheap.
Have I ever flown the Vark? No.
Did I ever want to? No.
Why not? I like the air to air fighter mission a lot more than
strategic strike.
Does it do its job better than one hell of a lot of other aircraft?
Yes.
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.
Note that OZ lacks any effective in-flight refueling capability and
also lacks any really capable chain of peripheral air bases from Perth
northabout to T'ville.
Looks like the best thing to do is declare "no war will be fought for
ten years", cross your fingers and let everything go to pot. Alice
Springs can be OZ's 'boneyard' and y'all can just hope you get more
lead-time than did England in the late thirties . . .
Lots of luck - GI!
Cheers - I think. Walt BJ