F-111 Retirement
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Darwin
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fris B.
My apologies, I meant no offence mate, just my opinion. The museum wouldn't exist without the B52.
I will refrain from slandering them any further. However, I do have reasons for my opinion.
My apologies, I meant no offence mate, just my opinion. The museum wouldn't exist without the B52.
I will refrain from slandering them any further. However, I do have reasons for my opinion.
The latest press release from the Queensland Air Museum on the unfolding scandal that is the F-111 Destruction Project:
In December last year, the Royal Australian Air Force finally retired its F-111 strike aircraft after 37 years service to the nation. The event was surrounded by a blaze of publicity and rightly so. The select group of aircrew who flew the F-111 were fiercely proud of their aircraft right to the end. Similarly, specialists from many disciplines who had kept the aeroplane in service for all of these 37 years with many challenges along the way maintained their pride in the aircraft right to the end. It wasn’t just the RAAF that had a genuine affection for the F-111. The aeroplane was well known to the average citizen who otherwise had no interest in aviation. This was largely due to a quirk of the F-111's design. When it was discovered that dumping fuel while using afterburner produced a spectacular torching effect, a star was born in the eyes of the public. It was because of this “dump and burn” capability that the Australian public took the F-111 to their hearts as it became a showpiece at many public ceremonies and sporting events. An aeroplane which was designed as a killing machine and which was born amidst political controversy was now the darling of the people. The F-111 was recognised and adored by everyone. Probably no military aircraft in history has attracted such affection while it was still in service. Most aeroplanes had to wait for years after their retirement for such adoration, if it came at all. By the time the adoration finally came it was usually too late as most of them had gone. But this time it’s going to be different isn’t it? We have 35 surviving F-111s and a public ready and willing to provide them with an honourable retirement.
Australia has a number of museums which might be expected to be obvious homes for an F-111. Foremost is the RAAF Museum at the historic Point Cook RAAF Base in Melbourne. There is also the famous Australian War Memorial in Canberra. In addition to these government owned museums, there are also a number of not-for-profit aviation museums run by community groups.
The Queensland Air Museum (QAM) at Caloundra on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast is one such group. QAM was inaugurated in 1974 with the unveiling of a Canberra bomber (predecessor of the F-111) which it had purchased from the Australian government with funds donated by its members. QAM’s second aeroplane was a Meteor jet fighter which arrived the following year as an outright gift from the British government. Nearly 40 years later, QAM is still waiting to receive an aeroplane from its own government!
As early as 2005, QAM began planning for the retirement of the F-111 by approaching the Australian government with a request that an F-111 be gifted to the museum, not only as a means of preserving an F-111 but also as a means of recognising QAM’s thirty-five years service to the educational needs of the community. During the ensuing years, three different Ministers for Defence assured QAM that it’s interests would be taken into account at the appropriate time.
As the F-111’s December 2010 retirement approached, it was announced that four F-111Cs would be preserved on RAAF Bases at Point Cook, Amberley (2 aircraft) and Edinburgh (SA). Earlier it had been announced that one of the remaining F-111G models would be preserved at the RAAF Museum at Point Cook. However, the rest of the G models would be scrapped in accordance with international treaties as they were technically deemed nuclear capable. Although preservationists generally don’t like to see aeroplanes scrapped, this was accepted as inevitable, despite the apparent anomaly of allowing one F-111G to escape destruction.
Subsequently it was announced that three F-111Cs would be retained for “RAAF Heritage use” but four aircraft would be scrapped as they were determined to be unsuitable for display. The clear implication of this is that the estimated eleven remaining F-111Cs are suitable for display. Indeed it was announced in Air Force News that:
The remaining aircraft are then to be offered for general sale by tender for other groups or organisations to use as static displays. Any such group will be required to agree to pay the costs to make the aircraft inoperable (estimated to be in excess of $1 million) so as to meet US Government approvals to transfer them from Defence, as well as the costs to remove asbestos from the aircraft and to restore them to displayable condition (estimated at up to $1.5 million) before approval is given.
What this means is that any group wishing to display an F-111 would be required to find an estimated $2.5M just to buy the right to submit a tender! The only way a museum such as QAM could find such a fortune would be to approach a sponsor and what sponsor in his right mind is going to hand over $2.5M knowing that it will go to the government for nothing in return? Indeed, no museum would insult a potential sponsor with such a request. When QAM advised the Minister that no community group in Australia could afford that sort of money it was probably seen as confirmation that the government’s inflated estimates had served their intended purpose.
The latest development is that the original tender for the destruction of the 13 remaining F-111Gs has been expanded in its scope. The 13 G models are now identified as the "Core Scope". To this has been added an "Optional Scope" which provides for the destruction of up to another 15 F-111s. What this means is that if the so-called "Optional Scope" is fully invoked, all remaining F-111s can be summarily destroyed without further reference or tenders being called. It would appear that this “Optional Scope” may include aircraft previously set aside for RAAF heritage purposes.
As previously announced, any organisation wishing to display an F-111 would be required to pay $1M to have the aircraft demilitarised. Apart from confirming that the aircraft can be demilitarised to the satisfaction of the U.S. government to permit transfer to a non-government recipient, one has to wonder who will be paying to demilitarise the aircraft that are to be destroyed? If the scrap merchant has to pay the demilitarisation cost then obviously the scrap value of the aircraft would be negated, so it is no surprise that Request For Tender documents make no provision for these costs to be passed on to the successful tenderer. What this means is that the taxpayer will have to absorb the cost of preparing the aircraft for destruction while a private individual or company will make a significant profit from destroying taxpayers’ property! Clearly it would make more sense to gift the aircraft to established museums which have indicated interest in displaying an F-111. At least then the taxpayer would have something to show for the huge investment that has gone into acquiring and maintaining these aeroplanes to say nothing of the potentially huge cost of destroying them. The people who have flown and maintained these aeroplanes with pride for 37 years should be appalled that their years of effort are held in such low esteem by their own government.
Work that needs to be done to demilitarise the aircraft is defined in a “U.S. Government Demilitarisation Manual” which is freely available online. Currently the Defence Materiel Organisation is actively discouraging potential tenderers from referring to this manual because “reference to the Demilitarisation Manual on its own can be confusing and misleading.” The only thing confusing about the Demilitarisation Manual is that its requirements are significantly less stringent than those imposed by the Australian government!
Because of the deterrent factor of the F-111, it was never used in anger by the RAAF. This deterrent factor is now working against the aircraft in that it is deemed to be an ongoing threat. The well-equipped RAAF stopped using the F-111 because the aeroplane was proving difficult to keep in the air. How could a non-nuclear configured, demilitarised airframe, out of the maintenance schedule, and minus engines, pose the slightest threat to anyone, particularly when no other nation on earth operates F-111s?
The US government has already allocated F-111s to community museums in the United States. How would Australian museums differ? Perhaps the Australian government could show some initiative in preservation by working with the US government to identify equally acceptable organisations in Australia that would meet the standards of the National Museum of the United States Air Force (NMUSAF) for the placement of such equipment?
The project to destroy the remaining F-111s would appear to be moving with indecent haste. Why this is so is difficult to understand when even the U.S. government itself provides for the demilitarisation of defence assets to facilitate their placement in museums. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Australian government believes that only their own museums are worthy enough to receive F-111s and that community group museums should remain unrecognised as they have been for decades.
In allocating four aircraft to RAAF Bases, the government doubtless feels that they have fulfilled their heritage obligations and that four is enough. Of these four aircraft, only one (Point Cook) will be accessible to the public in a currently operational aviation museum. The other three will be subject to the stringent security restrictions which are now unavoidable at military establishments. Indeed there have been recorded instances where people attempting to photograph aircraft on display at the front gates of an RAAF Base have been unceremoniously chased away by security staff on the premise that any photos taken will show defence establishments in the background. Only in Melbourne will Australian families be able to turn up unannounced with their cameras to view an F-111 (which they effectively paid for). An F-111 positioned at the front gate of a military establishment is not publicly accessible and does not meet the heritage expectations of the community. They want to see an F-111 displayed as part of a collection of aircraft and above all they want to be able to touch it. No, four aeroplanes is nowhere near enough.
To be using taxpayers’ money to destroy taxpayers’ property is a scandal.
Australia has a number of museums which might be expected to be obvious homes for an F-111. Foremost is the RAAF Museum at the historic Point Cook RAAF Base in Melbourne. There is also the famous Australian War Memorial in Canberra. In addition to these government owned museums, there are also a number of not-for-profit aviation museums run by community groups.
The Queensland Air Museum (QAM) at Caloundra on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast is one such group. QAM was inaugurated in 1974 with the unveiling of a Canberra bomber (predecessor of the F-111) which it had purchased from the Australian government with funds donated by its members. QAM’s second aeroplane was a Meteor jet fighter which arrived the following year as an outright gift from the British government. Nearly 40 years later, QAM is still waiting to receive an aeroplane from its own government!
As early as 2005, QAM began planning for the retirement of the F-111 by approaching the Australian government with a request that an F-111 be gifted to the museum, not only as a means of preserving an F-111 but also as a means of recognising QAM’s thirty-five years service to the educational needs of the community. During the ensuing years, three different Ministers for Defence assured QAM that it’s interests would be taken into account at the appropriate time.
As the F-111’s December 2010 retirement approached, it was announced that four F-111Cs would be preserved on RAAF Bases at Point Cook, Amberley (2 aircraft) and Edinburgh (SA). Earlier it had been announced that one of the remaining F-111G models would be preserved at the RAAF Museum at Point Cook. However, the rest of the G models would be scrapped in accordance with international treaties as they were technically deemed nuclear capable. Although preservationists generally don’t like to see aeroplanes scrapped, this was accepted as inevitable, despite the apparent anomaly of allowing one F-111G to escape destruction.
Subsequently it was announced that three F-111Cs would be retained for “RAAF Heritage use” but four aircraft would be scrapped as they were determined to be unsuitable for display. The clear implication of this is that the estimated eleven remaining F-111Cs are suitable for display. Indeed it was announced in Air Force News that:
The remaining aircraft are then to be offered for general sale by tender for other groups or organisations to use as static displays. Any such group will be required to agree to pay the costs to make the aircraft inoperable (estimated to be in excess of $1 million) so as to meet US Government approvals to transfer them from Defence, as well as the costs to remove asbestos from the aircraft and to restore them to displayable condition (estimated at up to $1.5 million) before approval is given.
What this means is that any group wishing to display an F-111 would be required to find an estimated $2.5M just to buy the right to submit a tender! The only way a museum such as QAM could find such a fortune would be to approach a sponsor and what sponsor in his right mind is going to hand over $2.5M knowing that it will go to the government for nothing in return? Indeed, no museum would insult a potential sponsor with such a request. When QAM advised the Minister that no community group in Australia could afford that sort of money it was probably seen as confirmation that the government’s inflated estimates had served their intended purpose.
The latest development is that the original tender for the destruction of the 13 remaining F-111Gs has been expanded in its scope. The 13 G models are now identified as the "Core Scope". To this has been added an "Optional Scope" which provides for the destruction of up to another 15 F-111s. What this means is that if the so-called "Optional Scope" is fully invoked, all remaining F-111s can be summarily destroyed without further reference or tenders being called. It would appear that this “Optional Scope” may include aircraft previously set aside for RAAF heritage purposes.
As previously announced, any organisation wishing to display an F-111 would be required to pay $1M to have the aircraft demilitarised. Apart from confirming that the aircraft can be demilitarised to the satisfaction of the U.S. government to permit transfer to a non-government recipient, one has to wonder who will be paying to demilitarise the aircraft that are to be destroyed? If the scrap merchant has to pay the demilitarisation cost then obviously the scrap value of the aircraft would be negated, so it is no surprise that Request For Tender documents make no provision for these costs to be passed on to the successful tenderer. What this means is that the taxpayer will have to absorb the cost of preparing the aircraft for destruction while a private individual or company will make a significant profit from destroying taxpayers’ property! Clearly it would make more sense to gift the aircraft to established museums which have indicated interest in displaying an F-111. At least then the taxpayer would have something to show for the huge investment that has gone into acquiring and maintaining these aeroplanes to say nothing of the potentially huge cost of destroying them. The people who have flown and maintained these aeroplanes with pride for 37 years should be appalled that their years of effort are held in such low esteem by their own government.
Work that needs to be done to demilitarise the aircraft is defined in a “U.S. Government Demilitarisation Manual” which is freely available online. Currently the Defence Materiel Organisation is actively discouraging potential tenderers from referring to this manual because “reference to the Demilitarisation Manual on its own can be confusing and misleading.” The only thing confusing about the Demilitarisation Manual is that its requirements are significantly less stringent than those imposed by the Australian government!
Because of the deterrent factor of the F-111, it was never used in anger by the RAAF. This deterrent factor is now working against the aircraft in that it is deemed to be an ongoing threat. The well-equipped RAAF stopped using the F-111 because the aeroplane was proving difficult to keep in the air. How could a non-nuclear configured, demilitarised airframe, out of the maintenance schedule, and minus engines, pose the slightest threat to anyone, particularly when no other nation on earth operates F-111s?
The US government has already allocated F-111s to community museums in the United States. How would Australian museums differ? Perhaps the Australian government could show some initiative in preservation by working with the US government to identify equally acceptable organisations in Australia that would meet the standards of the National Museum of the United States Air Force (NMUSAF) for the placement of such equipment?
The project to destroy the remaining F-111s would appear to be moving with indecent haste. Why this is so is difficult to understand when even the U.S. government itself provides for the demilitarisation of defence assets to facilitate their placement in museums. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Australian government believes that only their own museums are worthy enough to receive F-111s and that community group museums should remain unrecognised as they have been for decades.
In allocating four aircraft to RAAF Bases, the government doubtless feels that they have fulfilled their heritage obligations and that four is enough. Of these four aircraft, only one (Point Cook) will be accessible to the public in a currently operational aviation museum. The other three will be subject to the stringent security restrictions which are now unavoidable at military establishments. Indeed there have been recorded instances where people attempting to photograph aircraft on display at the front gates of an RAAF Base have been unceremoniously chased away by security staff on the premise that any photos taken will show defence establishments in the background. Only in Melbourne will Australian families be able to turn up unannounced with their cameras to view an F-111 (which they effectively paid for). An F-111 positioned at the front gate of a military establishment is not publicly accessible and does not meet the heritage expectations of the community. They want to see an F-111 displayed as part of a collection of aircraft and above all they want to be able to touch it. No, four aeroplanes is nowhere near enough.
To be using taxpayers’ money to destroy taxpayers’ property is a scandal.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it costs $1 less to destroy them than preserve them, then you need to have a good argument in this current climate.
I would suggest that you will only need to pay the 2.5M if you win the contract. I don't think the QAM is doing itself any favours by not doing a gross error check on their PR.
I would suggest that you will only need to pay the 2.5M if you win the contract. I don't think the QAM is doing itself any favours by not doing a gross error check on their PR.
You have to remember too you are dealing with a government that had to be publicly humiliated into giving funding to the Australian War Museum. The only reason they succumbed to that was the hypocrisy that they knew the PM was going to announce a spend over 3 million to build some type of memorial in the US and knowing this mobs record that much would probably buy a couple of red roses, and by the time they got them there they would be the wrong type of flower and dead. ( A brilliant tactical move by a member of the AWM to I might say to squeeze the money from this governement).
Pera
The $2.5M was per aeroplane when there was a suggestion that non-government museums might get a look in. The scrappies won't be paying any of that.
Care to explain?
Rgds
I would suggest that you will only need to pay the 2.5M if you win the contract.
I don't think the QAM is doing itself any favours by not doing a gross error check on their PR.
Rgds
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hasn’t the precedent been set with Private Museums in Australia such as Fighter world and Darwin having Mirages? I know they got those 20 years ago, but when they went to museums smaller countries were still using them as front line fighters, so wasn’t putting them in museums back then a greater risk then allowing the F111 to be given to museums now?
They would have to been demilitarised before going to these museums so what was the cost for them and what had to be done? Did they have asbestos in theml? And what about the asbestos in the Bou, how was that handled? Seems to be no problems from both of these aircraft so why is the government making it so hard for the F111 to go to private museums?
Why can private museums in the USA display fighters and bombers from the same era without any problems?
They would have to been demilitarised before going to these museums so what was the cost for them and what had to be done? Did they have asbestos in theml? And what about the asbestos in the Bou, how was that handled? Seems to be no problems from both of these aircraft so why is the government making it so hard for the F111 to go to private museums?
Why can private museums in the USA display fighters and bombers from the same era without any problems?
GAFA
Don't get me started on the Mirages!
Defence are citing three reasons why civilian museums can't have an F-111.
1. Asbestos
2. Demil costs
3. US Govt end user restrictions.
All of these can be overcome where there is a will to do so. It seems that these reasons are just a smokescreen to hide the objections of a small minority within the RAAF who think that only their museums are good enough to have F-111s (and I'm not referring to the RAAF's museums themselves).
Rgds
Don't get me started on the Mirages!
Defence are citing three reasons why civilian museums can't have an F-111.
1. Asbestos
2. Demil costs
3. US Govt end user restrictions.
All of these can be overcome where there is a will to do so. It seems that these reasons are just a smokescreen to hide the objections of a small minority within the RAAF who think that only their museums are good enough to have F-111s (and I'm not referring to the RAAF's museums themselves).
Rgds
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QAM has a Caribou,it has/had Asbestos and you delt with it. That box should be ticked for the F111 then.
Demil costs, how much does really cost to remove the pave-tack and other weapons systems. Give me a pair of pliers a screwdriver (and a hamer just in case). Open up a few panels and I will cut a few wires and the bloody thing will be demiled. If they want, I will remove some controls in the cockpit all for free! One hit with a hamer to the sensor on the pave-tack pod and it's demiled.
US Govt end user restrictions. Yet the US Govt gave the Darwin museum a B52 while the USAF still operate them, how does that work.
The US Govt trust the Intrepid Museum to not only having aircraft such as the Blackbird, A6, A4 etc, the museum is on a former aircarft carrier. And the Museum of flight at BFI also has a blackbird, B52, A4, A6, F14, AV8C, F4 and a YF5A. They are American museums, but they are civilian and the US GOV is happy for them to have military aircraft so why can't a civilian museum in Australia have a similar aircraft ie the F111?
Keep it in the news, most Aussies don't want to see the F111C's destroyed.
Demil costs, how much does really cost to remove the pave-tack and other weapons systems. Give me a pair of pliers a screwdriver (and a hamer just in case). Open up a few panels and I will cut a few wires and the bloody thing will be demiled. If they want, I will remove some controls in the cockpit all for free! One hit with a hamer to the sensor on the pave-tack pod and it's demiled.
US Govt end user restrictions. Yet the US Govt gave the Darwin museum a B52 while the USAF still operate them, how does that work.
The US Govt trust the Intrepid Museum to not only having aircraft such as the Blackbird, A6, A4 etc, the museum is on a former aircarft carrier. And the Museum of flight at BFI also has a blackbird, B52, A4, A6, F14, AV8C, F4 and a YF5A. They are American museums, but they are civilian and the US GOV is happy for them to have military aircraft so why can't a civilian museum in Australia have a similar aircraft ie the F111?
Keep it in the news, most Aussies don't want to see the F111C's destroyed.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is Defence culture.
It's not good enough adopt proven standards set by other countries for the same kit, they NEED to change things/be arbitrarily more stringent/etc to justify their own existence.
They needlessly fiddle with **** just for the sake of it all the time, this ranges from software to (in this case) demil standards for aircraft.
It's not good enough adopt proven standards set by other countries for the same kit, they NEED to change things/be arbitrarily more stringent/etc to justify their own existence.
They needlessly fiddle with **** just for the sake of it all the time, this ranges from software to (in this case) demil standards for aircraft.
