Defence plan to scrap F-111s
wessex
Tomahawk raises the argument regarding cruise misslies and our defence policy. Aswell as the partial replacement of the F111 capability.
I understand that the reason we don't have long range missiles is a fear of their proliferation in the region. Presently, the conventional threat is relatively limited fighter-bombers.
Cruise missiles amongst enemies raise new problems. The advantage of distance we have now in our defence, turns right back around into a nightmare disadvantage. Cruise missile platforms can launch from any point of the compass and at distances which make point defence of a few strategic targets the only defensive option.
If the RAAF loses the F111 capability it would be difficult to justify frigates, AEGIS and submarines. A patrol boat style navy with more concentration in the area of army support would make more sense to those who see no role in long range weapons systems.
A tough world now and hope they get the strucure right.
Tomahawk raises the argument regarding cruise misslies and our defence policy. Aswell as the partial replacement of the F111 capability.
I understand that the reason we don't have long range missiles is a fear of their proliferation in the region. Presently, the conventional threat is relatively limited fighter-bombers.
Cruise missiles amongst enemies raise new problems. The advantage of distance we have now in our defence, turns right back around into a nightmare disadvantage. Cruise missile platforms can launch from any point of the compass and at distances which make point defence of a few strategic targets the only defensive option.
If the RAAF loses the F111 capability it would be difficult to justify frigates, AEGIS and submarines. A patrol boat style navy with more concentration in the area of army support would make more sense to those who see no role in long range weapons systems.
A tough world now and hope they get the strucure right.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg brings up a good point and that is LONG RANGE weapon systems. The closest foreign land mas to Australia outside New Guienea is Timor which is a around 350nm -385nm from Darwin. . But the rest of the Land masses and possible fows are much further than this. I think the " White Paper" has still credible points, but really we need to think Globally and not remain content in our Remote Continent.
If the F-111 is out dated lets get something to replace it "PRONTO" not wait forsome Machine that hasnt been proven. We allways go for the non proven Aircraft. Sometimes I admit this comes off like the C-130 but sometimes it bounces us like the inital phase of the F-111 aquisition.
ftrplt: Fair enough but let me tell you that Airframe hours versus Calender year age. Has allways been a questionable one. With an Airframe that gets the starins of a fighter we need to "er" more on the side of replacement. Thats another reason why the US gets rid of theres.
Lets get F-18 Es and F15ES what the heck! Lets spend some of my taxes Mr Howard and I want a free ticket to the Amberely Air Show
Regards
Sheep
If the F-111 is out dated lets get something to replace it "PRONTO" not wait forsome Machine that hasnt been proven. We allways go for the non proven Aircraft. Sometimes I admit this comes off like the C-130 but sometimes it bounces us like the inital phase of the F-111 aquisition.
ftrplt: Fair enough but let me tell you that Airframe hours versus Calender year age. Has allways been a questionable one. With an Airframe that gets the starins of a fighter we need to "er" more on the side of replacement. Thats another reason why the US gets rid of theres.
Lets get F-18 Es and F15ES what the heck! Lets spend some of my taxes Mr Howard and I want a free ticket to the Amberely Air Show
Regards
Sheep
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is this post here.....Time to move it on.
Yes, it is certainly a down under issue, but a lot of people avoid this section of the forums because of the narky and whinging comments that typically follow.
Why not move ths post and similar to the military forums area where it is far more appropriate and is exposed to a more realistic audience.
There have certainly been some constructive posts on the issue but there are some in the fraternity who have some very credible input (globally) that will not venture into this section of the forum, so effectively we are not seeing the best of the responses.
Just a suggestion of course..........
Why not move ths post and similar to the military forums area where it is far more appropriate and is exposed to a more realistic audience.
There have certainly been some constructive posts on the issue but there are some in the fraternity who have some very credible input (globally) that will not venture into this section of the forum, so effectively we are not seeing the best of the responses.
Just a suggestion of course..........
Tomahawks have their place but are far from the be all and end all. Very reliant on real time intelligence, not something we will always be able to get from the US, and something we will never have ourselves to the required fidelity.
Many heads scratched and hairs pulled due to Tomahawk issues in GWII.
Many heads scratched and hairs pulled due to Tomahawk issues in GWII.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wessex,
Thanks for the compliments. When you get to Mach 2, describe it to me and I'll decide whether you're telling the truth. Until then, go back/stick to driving boats.
FADM,
I maintain the F15E IS a strike machine. It just also happens to be a bloody good A to A jet as well. My whole point is "affordable defence"; being able to hit Jakarta with refuelled F15Es being run much more cheaply than a fleet of pigs makes sense to me. And the pig IS a "real bomber". That's all it is. Nothing more. And further, we're talking about aeroplanes, laddy. "Planes" shave wood.
Thanks for the compliments. When you get to Mach 2, describe it to me and I'll decide whether you're telling the truth. Until then, go back/stick to driving boats.
FADM,
I maintain the F15E IS a strike machine. It just also happens to be a bloody good A to A jet as well. My whole point is "affordable defence"; being able to hit Jakarta with refuelled F15Es being run much more cheaply than a fleet of pigs makes sense to me. And the pig IS a "real bomber". That's all it is. Nothing more. And further, we're talking about aeroplanes, laddy. "Planes" shave wood.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about ego central.......
Why is it? Pilots these days act like Anal Retentative Chuck Yeager wannabees.....
Come on Guys act your age
Sheepster
Why is it? Pilots these days act like Anal Retentative Chuck Yeager wannabees.....
Come on Guys act your age
Sheepster
Captain Custard
So tell us about yourself and tell us about Mach 2 in a Hornet!
Truscott, Caldwell and the like would be rolling in their graves seeing how a Hollywood movie and a banana up the bum has pervaded your fighter culture.
Your an advocate of strategic bombing reference Jakarta? Tell us more.
So tell us about yourself and tell us about Mach 2 in a Hornet!
Truscott, Caldwell and the like would be rolling in their graves seeing how a Hollywood movie and a banana up the bum has pervaded your fighter culture.
Your an advocate of strategic bombing reference Jakarta? Tell us more.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 20th Aug 2003 at 20:42.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach 2 in a Hornet? It's only capable of Mach 1.7!!!
But then again, maybe nose down from 55,000ft, full afterburner - who knows?
I sure as hell would like to give it a try!
As I said earlier in the thread, I still think F-15E's or Super Hornets are the way to go.
Whilst on the topic...
What are all these ideas on striking Indonesian targets? Don't you think you're jumping the gun, even just a little bit?
I mean sure, they may be the only targets that we perceive as capable of posing a threat, but I bet the Americans didn't think the Taliban from Afghanistan were capable of hi-jacking four airliners and destorying the WTC, Pentagon and countless lives.
A little bit premature don't you think?
Cheers,
Souls.
But then again, maybe nose down from 55,000ft, full afterburner - who knows?
I sure as hell would like to give it a try!
As I said earlier in the thread, I still think F-15E's or Super Hornets are the way to go.
Whilst on the topic...
What are all these ideas on striking Indonesian targets? Don't you think you're jumping the gun, even just a little bit?
I mean sure, they may be the only targets that we perceive as capable of posing a threat, but I bet the Americans didn't think the Taliban from Afghanistan were capable of hi-jacking four airliners and destorying the WTC, Pentagon and countless lives.
A little bit premature don't you think?
Cheers,
Souls.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheepgizzards,
I was merely defending myself against what I considered unnecessary vitriole from wessex, if that's OK.
Gnadenberg,
You're so gullible.
Soulman,
Given the opinions on this thread about the overwhelming need to keep these fling wings, is it not unreasonable to raise the issue of what the hell you're gunna do with them?? Sorry if I was actually giving them a task. Are they going to be tasked to fly, all on their lonesome, over hundreds of miles of enemy territory, with no support, to drop a few bombs or missiles to act as a deterrent or to destroy Osama in a cave? In today's climate, would they be used this way? Sure, in the 60s and 70s, when they were conceived, they had no threat in the near north and were the perfect device to get bombs a long way (with no tankers, and no other fighter-type jets that would go the distance) to keep the communist Indons at bay. But now, things are different.
The Iraq war proved that: I reckon we would probably be drawn into a regional conflict or assault on terrorists where a Close Air Support type mission (not with Ginweels and smoke!!!) would be the go. A manoeuvrable, dual-role jet would be much more beneficial. And as I said in my previous post, it's all about cost. For the money needed to run a few pigs, we may be able to have a couple of squadrons of F15Es, supported by F18s with overall much more strike power and much greater serviceability.
And if it's ships you want to hit, then let them come to within a couple of hundred miles of the coast, then let them have it with bucketloads of fighters with 'poons. You don't have to bomb them as the sailors are waving farewell to their families at the dock. Besides, today's politics would kill that idea dead quick smart. You start being too aggressive these days, and you run the risk of a small nuke coming our way. Defend the farm, by all means, but watch who you're hitting with your big (F111) stick.
Time for the pigs to join the Concrode at the bar!
And Ronnie, please keep one going for airshows, like you should have done with the Mirage (come to think of it, it was a pig pilot that wouldn't keep any pointies, was it not?).
I was merely defending myself against what I considered unnecessary vitriole from wessex, if that's OK.
Gnadenberg,
You're so gullible.
Soulman,
Given the opinions on this thread about the overwhelming need to keep these fling wings, is it not unreasonable to raise the issue of what the hell you're gunna do with them?? Sorry if I was actually giving them a task. Are they going to be tasked to fly, all on their lonesome, over hundreds of miles of enemy territory, with no support, to drop a few bombs or missiles to act as a deterrent or to destroy Osama in a cave? In today's climate, would they be used this way? Sure, in the 60s and 70s, when they were conceived, they had no threat in the near north and were the perfect device to get bombs a long way (with no tankers, and no other fighter-type jets that would go the distance) to keep the communist Indons at bay. But now, things are different.
The Iraq war proved that: I reckon we would probably be drawn into a regional conflict or assault on terrorists where a Close Air Support type mission (not with Ginweels and smoke!!!) would be the go. A manoeuvrable, dual-role jet would be much more beneficial. And as I said in my previous post, it's all about cost. For the money needed to run a few pigs, we may be able to have a couple of squadrons of F15Es, supported by F18s with overall much more strike power and much greater serviceability.
And if it's ships you want to hit, then let them come to within a couple of hundred miles of the coast, then let them have it with bucketloads of fighters with 'poons. You don't have to bomb them as the sailors are waving farewell to their families at the dock. Besides, today's politics would kill that idea dead quick smart. You start being too aggressive these days, and you run the risk of a small nuke coming our way. Defend the farm, by all means, but watch who you're hitting with your big (F111) stick.
Time for the pigs to join the Concrode at the bar!
And Ronnie, please keep one going for airshows, like you should have done with the Mirage (come to think of it, it was a pig pilot that wouldn't keep any pointies, was it not?).
