F-111 Disposal
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a F111 at the Pacific Aviation Museum in Hawaii last November. Its kept in a hangar and is in amazing condition in RAAF colours and Markings. Was very surprised to see it there.
Ken
Ken
reading between the lines here, it was a fresh Australian taxpayer funded paint job, as might also have been the transport.
They seem pleased to have it there with the kangaroo on the side of it, as well they should. Free **** is always good, isn't it?
They seem pleased to have it there with the kangaroo on the side of it, as well they should. Free **** is always good, isn't it?
Compared with the cost of acquiring the F-111 and operating it for 37 years, the cost of restoring 13 aircraft for display is insignificant. Even having to destroy the remaining 23 was at the taxpayers' expense so at least the taxpayer has something to show for the additional expenditure on preserving 13 aeroplanes.
So what if we have given one back to our American friends. They have contributed several aircraft to Australian museums so it's good to be able to repay their generosity.
We've got people complaining when we destroy them and people complaining when we save them. Some of you guys need to get it into your heads that this has been a good result.
So what if we have given one back to our American friends. They have contributed several aircraft to Australian museums so it's good to be able to repay their generosity.
We've got people complaining when we destroy them and people complaining when we save them. Some of you guys need to get it into your heads that this has been a good result.
Whether it was a good result depends entirely on ones perspective.
Sure, there are 13 more museum pieces in the world that might otherwise have been toxic landfill. This indeed looks good.
That we have turned 40-odd expensively acquired pieces of useful technology into museum pieces and replaced them with a series of less capable and more expensive aircraft so we can continue to "project power" in the region is perhaps less good.
It's a shame we can't project power with our own technology rather than by just waving the national credit card around.
Sure, there are 13 more museum pieces in the world that might otherwise have been toxic landfill. This indeed looks good.
That we have turned 40-odd expensively acquired pieces of useful technology into museum pieces and replaced them with a series of less capable and more expensive aircraft so we can continue to "project power" in the region is perhaps less good.
It's a shame we can't project power with our own technology rather than by just waving the national credit card around.
Andy
I think we all agree that the F-111 was a very capable aircraft and probably the RAAF might have been perfectly happy to replace them with some new-build F-111s if such were available but the reality is that nobody could afford to maintain the existing fleet. Whether or not the chosen replacement is a worthy successor is an entirely different matter as is the possibility of Australia producing its own combat aircraft.
I think we all agree that the F-111 was a very capable aircraft and probably the RAAF might have been perfectly happy to replace them with some new-build F-111s if such were available but the reality is that nobody could afford to maintain the existing fleet. Whether or not the chosen replacement is a worthy successor is an entirely different matter as is the possibility of Australia producing its own combat aircraft.
Fris B.
I don't wish to labour the point, but Sweden, with a population of less than 10 million supports its own defense industry and has an indigenous strike aircraft.
Taiwan at 23 million population also has its own aircraft and associated industry (and technological spin-offs)
Meanwhile, Australia had access to 40-odd "prototypes" for 40 years and could only sit passively and wait for some US defense giant to sell it some outrageously priced, new-fangled aircraft that may or may not be better.
So, the nation "couldn't afford to maintain the existing fleet", but it could apparently afford to spunk gazillions (insert blank cheque here) on an unknown quantity.
Meanwhile, our trade balance is a disaster (despite a "mining boom" - check out how little impact this boom has had on our trade and current account!) and the nation is in terminal decline in terms of education standards, employment and industrialization.
A complete failure of government of all stripes.
PS: buying expensive future landfill on the credit card isn't just a defense problem - it's a national disease!
I don't wish to labour the point, but Sweden, with a population of less than 10 million supports its own defense industry and has an indigenous strike aircraft.
Taiwan at 23 million population also has its own aircraft and associated industry (and technological spin-offs)
Meanwhile, Australia had access to 40-odd "prototypes" for 40 years and could only sit passively and wait for some US defense giant to sell it some outrageously priced, new-fangled aircraft that may or may not be better.
So, the nation "couldn't afford to maintain the existing fleet", but it could apparently afford to spunk gazillions (insert blank cheque here) on an unknown quantity.
Meanwhile, our trade balance is a disaster (despite a "mining boom" - check out how little impact this boom has had on our trade and current account!) and the nation is in terminal decline in terms of education standards, employment and industrialization.
A complete failure of government of all stripes.
PS: buying expensive future landfill on the credit card isn't just a defense problem - it's a national disease!
