Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"Paul Repacholi" wrote in message

"Thomas Schoene" writes:

The F-111/GBU-28 missions were absolutely NOT flown direct from the
United States. The bombs were flown direct from the US to Saudi
Arabia, but that was in a C-141 cargo plane. They were delivered to
the target by F-111s operating out of Taif air base in Saudi Arabia.

AIR, the report I read said the bombed up AC flew from the US due to
time constraints of some sort. It may well have been SA they staged
through, rather than DG. I'm moderatly sure they returned direct, but
can't remember why, or if a reason was stated.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. As I said, the flew into theater
in a cargo plane and were then loaded on combat aircraft already based
there. Here is the most readily accessilble history I could find; it
matches very closely with all of the printed versions I have read of the
same event.

http://f-111.net/CarloKopp/gbu-28.htm

"3 Into Battle

"The third and fourth bomb casings, destined for Iraq, arrived at Eglin on
the 23rd February and were immediately loaded. Still warm from the explosive
loading process, the two rounds were loaded on to a C-141 at Eglin on the
27th February, for the seventeen hour flight to Taif in Saudi Arabia. Within
5 hours of landing these bombs were under the wings of 48th TFW F-111s, en
route to Iraq. "

--
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)

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...
This is pointless. Just like all the other "discussions" I've had with
dumb**** grunts in boozers and pubs over the years. You're all ****ing
brainwashed and stupid and can't be taught anything after they've
finished
programming you at Kapooka and Singelton.


Or to put it another way, you lost all those arguments too.

Try arguing with a gate post. It's much the same thing. Too stupid to
understand the topic.



I'm sure you have the greater knowledge of gates.


I'm not a gate guard dill. It's obvious you have no idea at all.



Not answering the question, gate guard, so I'll restate it - how much
has
the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our shores in the time
since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same time.

Do try to keep up.

So you don't deny you're a dill. Good to see.

Still not able to deal with the question are you?



The F111 has deterred everybody who contemplated openly attacking
Australia
and her interests.



Name them, who has been a credible attacker against Australia and her
interests?



What the **** are you on about spastic?


I'd deny it too if I was that pathetic.

In other words, you're making **** up.



No, you and I and anyone else who happened to see your sad post knows
exactly how pathetic you are.

Refresh my memory.

The female officer you claimed to have threatened.

Oh yes. How about you tell the whole story cocksucker?


You threaten to beat up females you sad piece of ****, try to justify it any
way you like but there is no way back from that one gate guard.


I'd probably be trying to deny it too if I was as pathetic a piece of
****
as that.

But you are a pathetic piece of ****.


Possibly, but not one so needy as to ask strangers in a newsgroup to tell
other strangers that they think I'm cool, nor do I threaten to assault
women.

Where does that leave you?

And your bull**** about scrapping jets in favour of a few thousand
more
dumbass grunts isn't? **** off idiot.

Not really a fact based argument is it gate guard, who has the F-111
deterred?

Every nation-state that contemplated attacking Australia or her interests.



No names there, come on gate guard NAME them, who has contemplated it?

Its a question simple enough even for you NAMES, boy, names.


Listen up dickhead, do the math and tell me how many troops were in
the
various arms of the 2nd AIF, the RAAF, the RAN and the militia at the
time
and compare that to the 21st Century. See ya later dickhead.

What has that got to do with combat ratios? or the fact that, starting
from
a larger base force, the Army can be expanded more quickly to meet a
credible threat?

Which credible threat might that be? I can't see how an infantry battalion
can deter submarines blockading our SLOCs.

Oh my, gate guard swings and misses!

Pray tell, how will an F-111 deter a submarine from blockading our SLOCs?

and who has the credible sub force in the region that could do it?




The quick answer is, nothing. Brash has again demonstrated his
ignorance.

Waffle waffle. You're full of **** boy. Run along.


yawn.


Do you still stick your cock in dogs?

Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us
how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Answer the question dog-****er.


Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Poor gate guard, his argument is again crushed.


And this "dweeb" could knock your stupid block off. How embarrassing
for
you!

and again the dweeb heads off into his cozy fantasy world.

You're the one in fantasy-land Private Lard-arse (Rtd).

Go beat up some women gate guard, it'll make you feel like you are a man, or
as close as you ever get.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:03:19 +1000, Lindsay
wrote:



The Raven wrote:

"Graham" wrote in message
...
Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?

The Australian F-111's or just general F-111's?

have they ever? just asking.

I believe some were used in VN but not sure if that included Australia. I
would have thought Australia received them too late for VN.

We got ours in '78.


Try 1973, Sport!

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"smithxpj" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:25:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


Poor gate guard, you are a second rate loser and you know it.

Gate guards ain't in military uniform these days, Sunshine! The job
has been contracted out to civvy security companies.

Ipso facto, Brash ain't on a gate!!

Correct, they can't be trusted to carry out their only useful function
any
longer.

AHEM!

Gentlemen. I realise that you have deep seated and perhaps
insurmountable differences of personality
and opinion, however this is getting out of hand.

M. L'Acrobat. As I am sure you *are* aware, the function of the ADG's
is to protect RAAF assets against
enemy action, particularly (though not exclusively) special forces type
attacks. You and Brash can play verbal
ping pong with each other all day if you like, Your constant ridiculing
of ADG's as a group is seriously discrediting a fine bunch of
professional fighting
men who are *at least* as good at small unit ground defence within their
specialist area as any infantry unit
of similar size and composition in the army. Emphasis on *specialist
area*. Key point protection is their
major role and they *are* very good at it. Consider who their likely
opposition would be and you understand
*why* they need to be very good at it.
They are skilled *way* beyond the 'gate guard' level, and you would only
see them in that role if the facility were
on a very high state of alert. Otherwise it's farmed out to civvie
security guards who are probably adequate at
that level. If you want to keep a long range sniping engagement with
Brash going, fill yer boots, however *I* would
appreciate it if you ceased to disparage an entire combat specialty in
the process.

Brash, you have quite a different perspective on things military than
L'Acrobat and that creates some marked differences
of opinion that a clash of personality tends to ramp up to an all out
****fight. You might also appreciate that L'Acrobat has
a *different* perspective as a former infantryman, and he naturally
tends to focus on that which seems important according to
his experience and training. I'm not suggesting you bury the hatchet, I
suspect that's unlikely at best, (except in respective heads)
but you might want to consider toning it down a notch, especially in
view of the bandwidth you are both consuming in here on what
is becoming mostly personal attacks and not debate (however heated). As
such it doesn't do either of you credit.

That said, it's a (mostly) free net and I have no authority to tell
anyone what to do (or not do), so if you disregard my advice, so be it.

However other members of the group might appreciate a little more debate
with a little less personal attack in the process...

Just my 2c worth, make of it what you will...

The CO

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Folks, this is what's wrong with the ADF today. Too many tiny-minded
clowns
in khaki suits "thinking". They remind me of a poem.........

The grand old Duke of York,
he had ten thousand men,
he marched them to the top of the hill,
and he marched them down again.

Our brain-dead friend who was nothing more than a lowly infantry
Private
(and now, he's not even that), would have us believe that
Australia's
interests are best served by having a few thousand more Privates for
the
generals to march up and down Mt Stuart instead of a proper strategy
to
protect Australia and her interests.


Poor gate guard, getting desperate I see.

No, getting fed up with trying to enlighten an idiot.

Name the country that has been deterred by our F-111s or give it up.

Yep, you're an idiot.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:59:22 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

It's a fair call. I grow bored of Private Trog's gruntings. Further
discourse is pointless.

Oh good - so now that you've got some spare time on your hands maybe
you can tell us more about those Hornets mixing it with PTS at
Williamtown.

OTOH you could make it easy on youself and admit that you got it
wrong.

smithxpj wrote:

We got ours in '78.


Try 1973, Sport!

Yep.. My bad... This year is their 30th birthday... :0

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:07:19 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

"Victor" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:59:22 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

It's a fair call. I grow bored of Private Trog's gruntings. Further
discourse is pointless.

Oh good - so now that you've got some spare time on your hands maybe
you can tell us more about those Hornets mixing it with PTS at
Williamtown.

The air traffic controllers could explain it to you better.

Translation - I screwed up but haven't the guts to admit it.

He just showed his true colours and out of respect to CO let's drop it.

Well handled anyway Brash ...


"Vector" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:07:19 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

"Victor" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:59:22 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

It's a fair call. I grow bored of Private Trog's gruntings. Further
discourse is pointless.

Oh good - so now that you've got some spare time on your hands maybe
you can tell us more about those Hornets mixing it with PTS at
Williamtown.

The air traffic controllers could explain it to you better.

Translation - I screwed up but haven't the guts to admit it.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:45:40 +1000, "iCentral"
wrote:

He just showed his true colours and out of respect to CO let's drop it.

Well handled anyway Brash ...

You call Brash refusing to acknowledge that his abusive and bull****
posts were wrong as well handled?

"Vector" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:07:19 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

"Victor" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:59:22 +1000, "Brash"
wrote:

It's a fair call. I grow bored of Private Trog's gruntings. Further
discourse is pointless.

Oh good - so now that you've got some spare time on your hands maybe
you can tell us more about those Hornets mixing it with PTS at
Williamtown.

The air traffic controllers could explain it to you better.

Translation - I screwed up but haven't the guts to admit it.