Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"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.

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

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.


....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia


old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages'

"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.

"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' ?

Whoever's attacking.

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

Because it has 90-00 technology added to it that offsets the 60's elements.
Noting that few newer aircraft can match some of the more desirable
capabilities it has had since the 60's.

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

Not all enemies arrive using a country.

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

Pretty damn good, for their specific capability requirements.

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

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.



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.



--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

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

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.



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

Badly.

"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

"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

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