F-111 Retirement
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
One of the USAF guys that flew it in Vietnam was there for the show, pity they did not get him a ride. Amazing to hear some folk had around 4000 hours on the F111 and the guy I met at YCAB on Saturday had 3400 I think.
Quite a lot for military hours.
Quite a lot for military hours.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on the F111C disposal
Update on the F111C disposal from the latest Airforce News
MANY people will be pleased to learn that not all the F-111Cs will go into storage sheds and scrap yards after their retirement. Four of the aircraft are destined to become permanent displays at locations around Australia. One aircraft will be placed on display at RAAF Base Edinburgh, two at RAAF Base Amberley and one at the RAAF Museum at RAAF Base Point Cook. The ADF is planning to have the four aircraft on display during 2011.
Of the remainder of the fleet, another three will be retained within Defence to
preserve military heritage, in particular for Air Force units that have flown or supported the F-111C.
Another four will be disposed through destruction as investigations have determined that they are unsuitable for demilitarisation or for display purposes.
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.
All G models will be destroyed.
Anyone want to chip in and buy one?
MANY people will be pleased to learn that not all the F-111Cs will go into storage sheds and scrap yards after their retirement. Four of the aircraft are destined to become permanent displays at locations around Australia. One aircraft will be placed on display at RAAF Base Edinburgh, two at RAAF Base Amberley and one at the RAAF Museum at RAAF Base Point Cook. The ADF is planning to have the four aircraft on display during 2011.
Of the remainder of the fleet, another three will be retained within Defence to
preserve military heritage, in particular for Air Force units that have flown or supported the F-111C.
Another four will be disposed through destruction as investigations have determined that they are unsuitable for demilitarisation or for display purposes.
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.
All G models will be destroyed.
Anyone want to chip in and buy one?
. Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mention yet of the escape modules that were used at airshows or the sim. Anyone know if they could remove the escape modules from the 'Gs' and sell them. I'm sure if the museums and collectors can't get a complete aircraft the modules would be a great second prize.
There seem to have been so many "final flights" of the F1-11's lately
YouTube - Royal Australian Air Force F-111s - phased out
YouTube - F-111s fly for the last time
Glad to read that one will make it to Point Cook - birthplace of the RAAF.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a mob of cattle mustered up, and driving them to the yards on our leased Forestry block west of the Mary River, back in about '74/'75 or so, (not long after we finally got ours, and the guys were training hard down low in case they had to drop a bomb in anger). Anyway, we were under one of the Low Jet Routes, (probably the one from Kilkivan to about Childers before they did the 'abrupt vertical manoeuvring' - as it was described on the Notams). When the first one came over at what felt like tree-top height, the cattle spooked and scattered - of course, - so we had to spend a few more hours gathering them out of hiding again. Had a few choice words at the time, - but forgave them, of course.. fascinated.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in the AIRTC at Lismore back around 95-96, and we used to get the odd invite by the local RAAF guys out to the Evans Head bombing range to watch the F-111s or SAF Skyhawks do their thing.
One particular time we we watching the F-111s and we were told to climb up on a demountable block, and one cadet was given a large orange triangle to hold above their head. We watched the F-111 appear out from the ocean down south of Yamba and come screaming in directly at us, wings fully swept back and he shot over us at what seemed about 200 feet (probably higher). Never forget the absolute kick to the chest as the sound hit and almost being knocked off the building because of it. Awesome experience.
Also used to watch them do circuits over town when they did touch and goes at YBNA instead of paying attention in class.
My kids first experience of them was one doing a dump and burn at the Richmond air show a few years ago. Unfortunately it was their first introduction to aircraft that close and I am pretty sure it scarred them...
At least that time I had a decent camera.
One particular time we we watching the F-111s and we were told to climb up on a demountable block, and one cadet was given a large orange triangle to hold above their head. We watched the F-111 appear out from the ocean down south of Yamba and come screaming in directly at us, wings fully swept back and he shot over us at what seemed about 200 feet (probably higher). Never forget the absolute kick to the chest as the sound hit and almost being knocked off the building because of it. Awesome experience.
Also used to watch them do circuits over town when they did touch and goes at YBNA instead of paying attention in class.
My kids first experience of them was one doing a dump and burn at the Richmond air show a few years ago. Unfortunately it was their first introduction to aircraft that close and I am pretty sure it scarred them...
At least that time I had a decent camera.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh No! Tell Me it's not True!
From the Australian Government tender website:
The Commonwealth of Australia requires physical destruction and disposal of F-111 aircraft, TF-30 engines and associated components and equipment currently located at RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland. Proper management of environment, health and safety hazards will be a key requirement of the contract.
QSK?
Certainly it is true in the case of the F-111Gs but the position regarding the F-111Cs is less clear. What is clear is that the government is likely to be spending taxpayers' money to destroy taxpayers' property. This is deplorable when there are established aviation museums that would be willing to preserve an F-111. This is the view of one such museum (quoted from the website of the Queensland Air Museum):
Certainly it is true in the case of the F-111Gs but the position regarding the F-111Cs is less clear. What is clear is that the government is likely to be spending taxpayers' money to destroy taxpayers' property. This is deplorable when there are established aviation museums that would be willing to preserve an F-111. This is the view of one such museum (quoted from the website of the Queensland Air Museum):
The Hon Stephen Smith MP
Minister for Defence
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Minister
I refer to my letter of 21 September regarding the disposal of F-111 aircraft. As we have not yet received a response from your office, I would appreciate your urgent advice on this matter.
In the absence of any official advice from your office, we have to accept the following report from Air Force News to be the official policy:
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.
Presumably this offer to make aircraft available to "other groups or organisations" is intended to satisfy the Government's sole commitment to QAM that our request will be considered along with other interested parties. So once again we find ourselves at the mercy of the tender system which has consistently failed to provide for community groups like QAM. Not only do we have to come up with a competitive tender, but now we have to contend with an additional "flagfall" impost estimated to be in excess of $2.5M. I would put it to you Minister that there is no community group in the nation that could afford that amount. In QAM's case, that is more than we have ever spent on capital works in our thirty-five year history and more than we dare aspire to in the foreseeable future.
While we accept that an aircraft must be made safe for display, the quoted cost would appear to be nothing more than a contrived deterrent to prevent non-Government museums from displaying an F-111. The clear implication of this policy is that community group museums are not good enough to display an F-111 despite the fact that these groups are comprised of tax-paying volunteers who effectively paid for these aeroplanes in the first place. It is all very well to claim that the Government is fulfilling its heritage obligations by displaying F-111s at military establishments but are these aeroplanes accessible to the public? Clearly military establishments are obliged to have a high level of security and the level of that security is only going to increase in coming years.
It is also clearly understood that the Government has a need to prevent operational military equipment falling into the wrong hands and yet the Government has demonstrated on many occasions that where there is a will to do so, these problems can be overcome. I refer specifically to the recent gifting of Leopard tanks to various RSL Clubs around the country. While we applaud the Government's action in this case, we have great difficulty reconciling the Government's policy with the disposal of tanks with its policy on the disposal of F-111s. It is our understanding that not only have the Leopard tanks been gifted but they have also been demilitarised and delivered at Government expense. What is so different about QAM and the F-111 given that many of our volunteers are RSL members?
Another example of the prevailing double standard concerns the gifting of former RAN vessels as dive wrecks. Is it not true that these dive wrecks are gifted, demilitarised and delivered at Government expense? Surely the cost of demilitarising a guided missile destroyer would be significantly more expensive than the cost of demilitarising an aeroplane?
In the event that no appropriately constituted organisations are able to tender for an F-111, would it be a reasonable assumption that the aircraft set aside for public tender will be scrapped? If they are to be scrapped, will the successful tenderer be required to pay the estimated $1M cost of decommissioning each aircraft? We estimate that there may be as many as eight aircraft available for public tender. If these aircraft are unsold and have to be scrapped, does that mean that the successful tenderer will be required to pay $8M in "flagfall" just to destroy the airframes? Obviously, this amount exceeds the scrap value of the airframes by a huge margin so clearly scrapping the aircraft cannot be a commercial proposition unless the Government is absorbing the demilitarising cost. If the Government can absorb the cost of destroying taxpayers' property, why can it not absorb the cost of placing the aircraft on display to the people who paid for them?
As alluded to in my previous unanswered letter, there is more to this than the gifting of a single aeroplane to a museum. It's all about recognition. Does the Government accept that QAM's volunteers have provided a useful service to the community during the past 35 years or is it the Government view that we should give up what we are trying to do and leave it all to the Government owned museums? Clearly, if the policy pertaining to the F-111s is projected into the future, QAM can forget about acquiring any ex ADF aircraft forever.
Please do not underestimate the extent of feeling within this organisation and within our wider community regarding the Government's dismissive attitude to a group of citizens who are dedicated to nothing more than trying to put something back into their community.
We would greatly appreciate your urgent assurances that QAM is performing a valuable service to the community and that you will review your attitude to our request for an F-111 to be displayed on the Sunshine Coast. Please be advised that this matter is being followed with great interest by the local media and there is much public interest in taking up a petition.
Minister for Defence
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Minister
I refer to my letter of 21 September regarding the disposal of F-111 aircraft. As we have not yet received a response from your office, I would appreciate your urgent advice on this matter.
In the absence of any official advice from your office, we have to accept the following report from Air Force News to be the official policy:
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.
Presumably this offer to make aircraft available to "other groups or organisations" is intended to satisfy the Government's sole commitment to QAM that our request will be considered along with other interested parties. So once again we find ourselves at the mercy of the tender system which has consistently failed to provide for community groups like QAM. Not only do we have to come up with a competitive tender, but now we have to contend with an additional "flagfall" impost estimated to be in excess of $2.5M. I would put it to you Minister that there is no community group in the nation that could afford that amount. In QAM's case, that is more than we have ever spent on capital works in our thirty-five year history and more than we dare aspire to in the foreseeable future.
While we accept that an aircraft must be made safe for display, the quoted cost would appear to be nothing more than a contrived deterrent to prevent non-Government museums from displaying an F-111. The clear implication of this policy is that community group museums are not good enough to display an F-111 despite the fact that these groups are comprised of tax-paying volunteers who effectively paid for these aeroplanes in the first place. It is all very well to claim that the Government is fulfilling its heritage obligations by displaying F-111s at military establishments but are these aeroplanes accessible to the public? Clearly military establishments are obliged to have a high level of security and the level of that security is only going to increase in coming years.
It is also clearly understood that the Government has a need to prevent operational military equipment falling into the wrong hands and yet the Government has demonstrated on many occasions that where there is a will to do so, these problems can be overcome. I refer specifically to the recent gifting of Leopard tanks to various RSL Clubs around the country. While we applaud the Government's action in this case, we have great difficulty reconciling the Government's policy with the disposal of tanks with its policy on the disposal of F-111s. It is our understanding that not only have the Leopard tanks been gifted but they have also been demilitarised and delivered at Government expense. What is so different about QAM and the F-111 given that many of our volunteers are RSL members?
Another example of the prevailing double standard concerns the gifting of former RAN vessels as dive wrecks. Is it not true that these dive wrecks are gifted, demilitarised and delivered at Government expense? Surely the cost of demilitarising a guided missile destroyer would be significantly more expensive than the cost of demilitarising an aeroplane?
In the event that no appropriately constituted organisations are able to tender for an F-111, would it be a reasonable assumption that the aircraft set aside for public tender will be scrapped? If they are to be scrapped, will the successful tenderer be required to pay the estimated $1M cost of decommissioning each aircraft? We estimate that there may be as many as eight aircraft available for public tender. If these aircraft are unsold and have to be scrapped, does that mean that the successful tenderer will be required to pay $8M in "flagfall" just to destroy the airframes? Obviously, this amount exceeds the scrap value of the airframes by a huge margin so clearly scrapping the aircraft cannot be a commercial proposition unless the Government is absorbing the demilitarising cost. If the Government can absorb the cost of destroying taxpayers' property, why can it not absorb the cost of placing the aircraft on display to the people who paid for them?
As alluded to in my previous unanswered letter, there is more to this than the gifting of a single aeroplane to a museum. It's all about recognition. Does the Government accept that QAM's volunteers have provided a useful service to the community during the past 35 years or is it the Government view that we should give up what we are trying to do and leave it all to the Government owned museums? Clearly, if the policy pertaining to the F-111s is projected into the future, QAM can forget about acquiring any ex ADF aircraft forever.
Please do not underestimate the extent of feeling within this organisation and within our wider community regarding the Government's dismissive attitude to a group of citizens who are dedicated to nothing more than trying to put something back into their community.
We would greatly appreciate your urgent assurances that QAM is performing a valuable service to the community and that you will review your attitude to our request for an F-111 to be displayed on the Sunshine Coast. Please be advised that this matter is being followed with great interest by the local media and there is much public interest in taking up a petition.
From the latest QAM newsletter:
We can report limited progress if acknowledgement of our latest letter can be regarded as progress. We have been advised to expect a response in the new year. From the tone of the advice it would appear that they are now aware that we will not be fobbed off by the usual weasel words and platitudes. Quite likely they are stalling for time while they think up new weasel words and platitudes!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would think they would at least offer the escape modules/cockpits to museum's. I'm sure there would be collectors out there who would also be happy to purchase them. Easy to put on a trailer and would be great for display at airshows.
F-111 Destruction Scandal
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 1 F-111A and up to 14 F-111Cs. What this means is that if the so-called "Optional Scope" is fully invoked, all remaining F-111s can be destroyed without further refernce or tenders being called. The only F-111s left will be the 5 already announced for display at ADF establishments plus another 2 which are rumoured to be going to the USAF Museum.
Given previous advice that any organisation wishing to display an F-111 would be required to pay $1M to have the aircraft demilitarised, one has to wonder who will be paying to demil the aircraft that are to be destroyed? If the scrap merchant has to pay the demil cost then obviously the scrap value of the aircraft would be negated, even if the demil costs were substantially discounted. More likely, we the taxpayers will be required to absorb the demil costs so that someone can profit from the destruction of taxpayers' property.
If the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the demil costs, wouldn't it 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 these aeroplanes. If the destroy/display option were presented to the people who have maintained these aeroplanes with pride for 37 years, I doubt if any would prefer to see them destroyed.
If you agree that this is a scandal, please say so to your local Federal member.
Rgds
Given previous advice that any organisation wishing to display an F-111 would be required to pay $1M to have the aircraft demilitarised, one has to wonder who will be paying to demil the aircraft that are to be destroyed? If the scrap merchant has to pay the demil cost then obviously the scrap value of the aircraft would be negated, even if the demil costs were substantially discounted. More likely, we the taxpayers will be required to absorb the demil costs so that someone can profit from the destruction of taxpayers' property.
If the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the demil costs, wouldn't it 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 these aeroplanes. If the destroy/display option were presented to the people who have maintained these aeroplanes with pride for 37 years, I doubt if any would prefer to see them destroyed.
If you agree that this is a scandal, please say so to your local Federal member.
Rgds