A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Defence plan to scrap F-111s



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 6th 03, 05:19 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Bromage wrote:
JD wrote:


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?


What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?


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.

-Mike Marron



  #22  
Old August 6th 03, 06:35 AM
Defender in Tas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

As for the Labor Party - with regard to defence they are a joke and
should never be taken seriously. Like it or lump it only a Coalition
Government will give defence a reasonable deal. Just how reasonable is
the argument.

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.

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.

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.

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.
  #23  
Old August 6th 03, 07:46 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Duncan" wrote in message
...


Drewe Manton wrote:
Pooh Bear waxed lyrical
:




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!



Ahh.. but they did have enough sense to get rid of their F-111's - even
found some sucker to buy 15 old ones they had laying around the desert


Only because the arms reduction treaties negotiated with the Soviets
specifically required them to.

Keith


  #24  
Old August 6th 03, 08:16 AM
Errol Cavit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Bromage" wrote in message
...
JD wrote:
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?


What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?


I think the main point is how far it can carry it. The F-15E/K has somewhat
better self-defence ability however (especially on egress)

--
Errol Cavit | to email, my middle initial is G | von Sanders (8/8/15):
"What can be done to save the situation?" Kemal: "We must place all the
commands under one commander." "Is there no alternative?" "No. No
alternative. You must place all the forces under my command." "But surely
there are too many." "Too few" replied Kemal and hung up.


  #25  
Old August 6th 03, 08:28 AM
Brash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Walt, your statement about lack of air bases in far north Oz leads to ask,
have you never heard of RAAF Bases Learmonth, Curtin, Tindal, and Scherger?

--
De Oppresso Liber.


"Walt BJ" wrote in message
om...
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



  #26  
Old August 6th 03, 08:31 AM
Drewe Manton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" waxed lyrical
:

Only because the arms reduction treaties negotiated with the Soviets
specifically required them to.



From which you can draw your own conclusions!

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  #27  
Old August 6th 03, 08:34 AM
Drewe Manton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Duncan waxed lyrical news:3F307E50.9060603
@ausi.com:


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


Badly.


Please provide evidence that the F-111 would fare badly in such a
scenario. It's history, raw performance, avionics and PGM ability would
suggest it would perform rathger better than "badly". First flew in hwta?
1964? NEarly forty years on there are still only a handful of types that
can match or exceed it for specific capability.

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  #28  
Old August 6th 03, 08:36 AM
Brash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're overlooking a couple of really important points.........

"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.


Except Infantry Battalions are kind of manpower-intensive. The ADF is
having a hard enough time filling existing vacancies without creating
1200-1800 more overnight.

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.

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.


A lack of aircrew doesn't help much either. Fast jet-capable crew are few
and far between, and you want to create more airframes with no-one to fly
them?

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.


Wouldn't it be better to destroy those enemy fighters where they are most
vulnerable.......... on the ground? Pigs are better at that than Bugs.

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.


If you have to rely on air *defence*, you'll lose the war.

The F-111 is not a fighter.


No ****?

And we cannot afford a single role bomber in this day and age and with our

defence budget.

Have you been reading the Swiss manual of warfare?

--
De Oppresso Liber.




  #30  
Old August 6th 03, 08:40 AM
Brash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Bromage" wrote in message
...
JD wrote:
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?


What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?

Cheers
David


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

--
De Oppresso Liber.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.