Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"Defender in Tas" 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?

No, but hardly relevant.

It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the expense of
strategic common-sense.

I don't claim to know a whole lot.

Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.

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 -

I'll let you in on something. The Oz media know diddly-squat about defence
matters. And when they haven't been told something, they make it up. ****, 9
times out 10 they'll mis-identify something as Air Force just because it
flies and something as Army just because its painted camouflage.

which included comments by the
Australian Defence Association amongst others,

The ADA are reasonably knowledgeable. But they sometimes fill in the blanks
with opinions that aren't factually correct.

I believe - stated that
it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
they sent according to you?

Its not "according to me", and its none of your business.

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.

Folly to you. and we've already determined that you're a bit thin on
knowledge of this topic.

They
would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during
Interfet.

That was to shorten response time, not because they didn't have the reach.

Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out
of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or
without AAR?

I haven't got the data in front of me. So I can't say.



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

Utter bull****.


Ok, what's the truth?

That the F111 has EW equipment and its getting more. Can you say "Echidna"?




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?

None of your business. Also, can you say "Hawk 127"? Actually, I just
remembered that there was a public article about a Pig shooting down an F16
at Red Flag a few years ago. Make of it what you will.



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,

Its a strike aircraft *primarily*. Its also a bloody good Recon platform,
but I guess you didn't know *that* either.

not a multi-role fighter.

Even though it was conceived as one.

It
was never conceived to be the latter,

Yes it was. Can you say "TFX"? Or "F111B"?

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.

But your contention is based on incomplete knowledge of the subject. Best
you reconsider.



- 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.

So has the RF111.

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.

Multi-role fighters less-than-optimum strike aircraft make.


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.

F16's legs are too short. And they've only got one (semi-reliable) donk.


--
De Oppresso Liber.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
The Raven wrote:

[snip]

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 !

Don't laugh, the ADF get some bizarre ideas for "Australianising" equipment.
If you can fit a big lift fan there someone will suggest a
backseater............whether it's necessary or not is another thing.

Just don't open the lift fans lower doors........... :-)


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

"The Raven" wrote in message

Don't laugh, the ADF get some bizarre ideas for "Australianising"
equipment. If you can fit a big lift fan there someone will suggest a
backseater............whether it's necessary or not is another thing.

The Israelis have made noises about doing much the same thing, because they
still regard the second seat as necessary for many missions.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:09:37 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
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!"

Would it be possible to have a supersonic torpedo? That'd be hard to
dodge, I imagine.

For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.

I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
system.

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.

I guess the F-35 tryies to do to many things to be a superlative
fighter.

Haggle to see what both factions will sell for, and how
degraded the 'export version' is.

That would make sense.

--
A: top posting

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

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:02:58 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

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 !

There's lots of reasons a war might break out, for example over
fishery or oil rights in disputed waters between the 2 countries, or
an Australian politician might be assissinated by people with
alledged links to terrorist groups alledgedly supported by Indonesia
or there could be a conflict originating with a 3rd country e.g.
PNG. Or both countries might be led by politicians wanting to "talk
tough" to divert attention from domestic troubles. Or a combination
of factors.

China has a far simpler plan for world domination. Cheaper, more effective and
doesn't require military force. It's called manufacturing.

Absolutely. But, who will be running China in 15 years time? I don't
know -- do you?

Check where your last
TV / microwave / other consumer goods were made.

I've just looked and TV has "Made in Europe" on the back.

And you reckon the other poor S.E. asian countries want to invade you ?

"You"? You seem to be under the illusion that I'm Australian -- I'm
not. BTW, the Internet is a worldwide phenomenon.

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 ?

Speaking as a UK person, I think public sentiment in the UK would
favour saupporting Austalia militarily, unless Australia had done
something major to **** off the UK recently. However, Australian
military planners cannot rely on foreign support.

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 ?

Can't I be *both*? [FX: evil laughter].

--
A: top posting

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

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:09:37 +0100, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
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!"

Would it be possible to have a supersonic torpedo? That'd be hard to
dodge, I imagine.

Speed of sound in water is about 3,000 miles an hour, from memory, so
getting a torpedo to go that fast would be a significant achievement.

For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.

I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
system.

Torpedo guidance needs the torpedo to listen for either the noise of the
enemy, or the sonar echoes from its own transmission. Shkval achieves
its speed by 'supercavitating', meaning it's sheathed in a layer of
bubbles; and, again, it's really noisy. Both factors mean it can't use a
guidance system other than basic gyrostabilisation.

Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
airframe.

I guess the F-35 tryies to do to many things to be a superlative
fighter.

I think it'll do many things well, but the F-22 and Typhoon were
designed as air-superiority fighters from the outset: Typhoon always had
a secondary ground-attack role, the F-22 is a tacked-on afterthought to
try to protect it from budget cuts

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

Paul J. Adam

In article ,
Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt
writes
For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.

I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
system.

Torpedo guidance needs the torpedo to listen for either the noise of the
enemy, or the sonar echoes from its own transmission. Shkval achieves
its speed by 'supercavitating', meaning it's sheathed in a layer of
bubbles; and, again, it's really noisy. Both factors mean it can't use a
guidance system other than basic gyrostabilisation.

Could, I guess, use swim-out and look-around, then once it's got a fix
point-and-squirt at the target, hoping it hasn't moved much. Of course,
all that achieves with submarine launch is swapping a big, sensitive sonar
for a piddling little one and an added delay, but I guess it could work
for a surface launch from a quiet platform - but if I were driving the
platform I'd want ro be leaving as soon as possible after launch.

I dare say the thing could have a role as a coast-defence weapon in
something like the Fjords - a sort of successor to heavy shore-based
torpedo tubes.


--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

In message , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes
I dare say the thing could have a role as a coast-defence weapon in
something like the Fjords - a sort of successor to heavy shore-based
torpedo tubes.

It's bloody good for its designed role, which is very rapid transport of
a bucket of instant sunshine to the general vicinity of a just-launched
enemy torpedo (and the submarine that launched it).

Like a lot of Russian kit, it does what it was designed to... the
trouble comes when you try making it do other roles.

Conventional warheads limit it to a longer-ranged (because of higher
speed) version of the old straight-runners, meaning "be close with a
really good fire control system" - if the enemy's a threat, you do _not_
want to be that close, if the enemy's supine you don't need Shkval.
Shore defence on the Norwegian model is an example where it could be
handy.

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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam wrote:

(snip)

Speed of sound in water is about 3,000 miles an hour, from memory, so
getting a torpedo to go that fast would be a significant achievement.
(snip)
Speed of sound in water is about 1500m/s, 3375mph roughly. As you would
expect, varies with salinity and temperature.
JD

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:37:30 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

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?

That depends on the mission, for Australia today an F-15 variant
would probably be the best alternative, Typhoon is a little short
on range though that could be an option with a decent tanker
force.

According to _The Illustrated Directory of Fighters_ by Mike Spick,
Typhoon has a range of 1852 km and F-15 1191 km.

--
A: top posting

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