Originally Posted by
Sunfish
Oh dear! I don’t know where to start...... As for the subs, nobody will tell you what they get up to,
but if it’s anything like Oberon class escapades, they suffice. As for the aircraft, the F111, I’m told it was problematic once look down/shoot down system became readily available but I wouldn’t know. I also think I heard that there are these things called stand off weapons that don’t require an F111 to deliver them effectively.
Stand off weapons... yeh, that's why we bought the F-111s in the first place because of their capability with stand-off weapons, long-range and low-level supersonic capability with terrain following radar, being low enough and far away enough (but able to go a long way in the first place) that stealth isn't really a factor if we had kept them... that made them a formidable 'deterrent' which was never used, never fired a shot in anger. To suggest that was because we had them that we never got attacked is stretching it a bit as though diplomacy and good regional relations never played any part, but the reason the argument is naff is because with all that capability (and yes, they were old, but so will the USAF B-52 long range subsonic bombers be in 2045 when they are retired after 80 years service) they were dispensed with, replaced with an aeroplane that has only front-on stealth (not all-round), half the speed and half the range or less and can't get anywhere without a tanker the size of a small apartment building sticking out like the proverbial on any half-sophisticated radar.
Not to mention that as stated, if they don't get everything on the way in, they'll be toast on the way out.
The fact this has happened (the F-111 being retired) means that the deterrent really isn't required required other than for 'show'. The fact is, according to several military people I've known over the years, it is ALL show because we actually are incapable of defending ourselves if it happened anyway. So, we may as well have kept the F-111s and spent the money on something else. They ONLY reason the USAF agreed to retire their F-111s is because they got the larger scale B-1B to replace it.
As for the subs, yeh, I may not 'ever' know whether they're used or have been or not but the understanding of most people is they've spent most of their life in port due to endless problems.
Most of the rhetoric from defence and government is BS... I remember the Chief of AF saying at the time "Range isn't really important these days" when being questioned about the fact the F-18F has a 5th of the range of the F-111 and is slower... Mmm... that'd be why the RAAF have been looking into conformal tanks for the F-18 Supers in the last few years, because "range doesn't matter" (or, as is more likely, that was just the BS at the time to chop the -111s and justify buying a useless aircraft that no one other than the Americans have bought (then only because, well, the Military Industrial Complex) but now when it's died down a bit, it appears range is important. The F-18F was bought with zero evaluation and zero assessment, it's a known fact. I don't doubt we need a 'deterrent' but we should not be p-ssing money up against the wall on rubbish that has not even been assessed as meeting our capabilities.