Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Defence › Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
(Moderator: Brian Ross)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Poll closed Poll
Question: Should Australia Buy the US product?
*** This poll has now closed ***


yes    
  6 (46.2%)
no    
  7 (53.8%)




Total votes: 13
« Last Modified by: Emma on: Mar 4th, 2013 at 6:38pm »

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 ... 53
Send Topic Print
Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?. (Read 74879 times)
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 112614
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #495 - Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:58am  
BigOl64 wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:49am:
Bobby. wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 11:49pm:
Brian,

the link from Wiki that you supplied says:

Quote:
The first F-111C was officially delivered in 1968,[32] finally giving Australia an aircraft that could fly to Jakarta, drop bombs, and return without refueling. (The RAAF only acquired air-to-air refueling for the F/A-18, possibly to avoid causing difficulties with other Asian countries by increasing the F-111C's already great range.)


and

Quote:
Combat radius: 1,330 mi (1,160 nmi, 2,140 km)


That is a contradiction.



The combat range is 1330 mi, full load 48 x Mk 82

The ferry range is 4200 mi, 8 x external fuel tanks


Less bombs, more tanks, there and back, but we did have air to air refuel capability so the point is moot. We would have refuelled with a heavy load, or 4 x GBU 12s or GBU 15s





OK BigOl,
it's taking us forever just to agree on one point especially now Brian is involved.

Does the F35 have less range than the F111?

The 4 corners doco was claiming the F35 had less range & so
was unable to perform a hypothetical Jakarta mission that
the F111 was able to do.
In other words the F35 was a retrograde step & any fuel tankers
would be shot down as sitting ducks.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #496 - Sep 22nd, 2013 at 9:56am  
Bobby. wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:58am:
BigOl64 wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:49am:
Bobby. wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 11:49pm:
Brian,

the link from Wiki that you supplied says:

Quote:
The first F-111C was officially delivered in 1968,[32] finally giving Australia an aircraft that could fly to Jakarta, drop bombs, and return without refueling. (The RAAF only acquired air-to-air refueling for the F/A-18, possibly to avoid causing difficulties with other Asian countries by increasing the F-111C's already great range.)


and

Quote:
Combat radius: 1,330 mi (1,160 nmi, 2,140 km)


That is a contradiction.



The combat range is 1330 mi, full load 48 x Mk 82

The ferry range is 4200 mi, 8 x external fuel tanks


Less bombs, more tanks, there and back, but we did have air to air refuel capability so the point is moot. We would have refuelled with a heavy load, or 4 x GBU 12s or GBU 15s





OK BigOl,
it's taking us forever just to agree on one point especially now Brian is involved.

Does the F35 have less range than the F111?

The 4 corners doco was claiming the F35 had less range & so
was unable to perform a hypothetical Jakarta mission that
the F111 was able to do.
In other words the F35 was a retrograde step & any fuel tankers
would be shot down as sitting ducks.



They would be shot down if the RAAF was too stupid to give them air cover, which after 90+ years of successful air operations it would not allow that to happen. The RAAF does know how to do this stuff, and 4 corners are idiots, best just ignore what ever they have to say.


The F111 is a strike aircraft, the F35 is a multi role fighter, the F35 will replace the F18 hornet and the F111 will have no replacement. We will make so with what we have.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 44654
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #497 - Sep 22nd, 2013 at 3:32pm  
Bobby. wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 11:49pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 7:03pm:
Bobby. wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 6:08pm:
Brain,
Quote:
The F-111 lacked stealth.  It was vulnerable to detection by normal radars.  It lacked the sophisticated stand-off weapons which would negate that problem.   It would also have been just as reliant on air tanking to undertake such a strike and if the F-35's tanker force was vulnerable, so was the F-111s



Brian,
Let's clear that point up first:

I thought the F111 had a long enough range that it could fly
to Jakarta & back without re-fueling from a Northern airstrip?


The combat radius for the F-111c is 1,330 miles [although it should be noted that page does not say carrying what load that radius is valid for].
The air distance between Darwin and Jakarta is 1695 miles.

So, to get there and return you would require at least one tanking up.

Of course you could have checked this yourself before asking the question, now couldn't you?

As you would more than likely also like to approach your target from any point of the compass rather than on a direct (and obvious) route from your base and have at least some loiter time over the target, you would need air tanking to make such an attack.





Brian,

the link from Wiki that you supplied says:

Quote:
The first F-111C was officially delivered in 1968,[32] finally giving Australia an aircraft that could fly to Jakarta, drop bombs, and return without refueling. (The RAAF only acquired air-to-air refueling for the F/A-18, possibly to avoid causing difficulties with other Asian countries by increasing the F-111C's already great range.)


and

Quote:
Combat radius: 1,330 mi (1,160 nmi, 2,140 km)


That is a contradiction.


As I stated, no indication was provided as to what load was being carried however, that is the combat radius which was given.  You can carry less weapons and more fuel and increase the range but you have less to drop at the other end and fewer choices as to route taken.

It is not contradictory, it is merely doesn't state the premises under which those claims were made.
   
Back to top
 
It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 44654
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #498 - Sep 22nd, 2013 at 3:55pm  
BigOl64 wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:40am:
First up thanks for pointing that a First generation stealth capability is not as good as a fifth generation stealth aircraft, 10 yrs as a RAAF aircrtaft technician and that little nugget of informationa had escaped me.


I did not know what your experience was and you had not, as far as I am aware, stated what it was.  Therefore I was forced to assume that you were merely speaking as a layman.

I would hesitate to call the F-111 "stealthy" at all.  No effort was made in it's design to either absorb or diffuse radar.  It's only "stealthy" feature was, as I pointed out, to fly low.  All aircraft can do that and had been since the invention of radar itself, so then, according to you, all aircraft possessed "first generation stealth".  To make such a claim was IMHO quite silly.

Quote:
Second Im not, I repeat NOT arguing the the F111 is a valid competitor to the F35, it was agreat aircraft but is is old and needs to be replaced.


Good, glad to hear that.  Then we are on a similar wavelength.  The F-111 was a great aircraft but advancing technology had made it largely obsolescent.

Quote:
You do realise that preparing an aircraft to accept a new weapons platform is more than just bolting a bomb onto it? The F111 underwent an extensive modification to be able to deliver JDAM and before than platform went operational the aircraft was retired.


As I pointed out, this does not fit the timeline of our acquisition of the JDAM.  I am well aware that a lot needs to be done before a new weapon can be added to an aircraft's repertoire.  The F-111s did undergo a complete refurbishment and changed over to digital avionics which made weapons integration much easier through the use of a databus, compared to the old analogy electronics used.  However, we did not acquire JDAM until well after their retirement.

Quote:
Just like when we modified for Pave tack and Harpoon, we spent several years doing the mods before we actually 'lasered' in. The final mod for the JDAM gave us delivery capability greater than just JDAM it allowed us to accept a range of weapons, if we wanted to use them, but Australia does like defence on the cheap, so none were considered outside of JDAM


It may have but as I keep pointing out, we did not actually acquire the JDAM until after the retirement of the F-111 fleet by several years and that would rather indicated that while they may have been "fitted for" they did not actually have or employ them on that aircraft and so suggesting the F-111s could have used them was a bit nonsensical.

Quote:
Our air assets we have to support any and all strike / fighters is vastly superior to what we had 20 years ago, so the Pig could have maintained the 'gap' if it wasn't so expensive to operate. You keep saing that they (F111) was mothballed due to the re-seal / deseal poisoning of the maintenance crews, that is wrong, it is solely and cost issue, they are just too expensive to operate, the goop exposure problem was resolved 15 + yrs ago.


The seal/de-seal issue was the final nail in the aircraft's coffin.  Defence finally said enough, was enough and decided that it could no longer sustain the costs of the aircraft in the face of the mounting compensation cases against the RAAF.    The F-111 had a "bad smell" by the end of it's career and  Russell wanted to see the back of it.   Some of the machinations it made to do so, were I agree shameful but the aircraft had seen it's day basically and while it had done a good job, keeping it going just wasn't going to happen.  Defence wanted it out and so Defence got rid of it.
Back to top
 
It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #499 - Sep 22nd, 2013 at 4:58pm  
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 3:55pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 7:40am:
First up thanks for pointing that a First generation stealth capability is not as good as a fifth generation stealth aircraft, 10 yrs as a RAAF aircrtaft technician and that little nugget of informationa had escaped me.


I did not know what your experience was and you had not, as far as I am aware, stated what it was.  Therefore I was forced to assume that you were merely speaking as a layman.

I would hesitate to call the F-111 "stealthy" at all.  No effort was made in it's design to either absorb or diffuse radar.  It's only "stealthy" feature was, as I pointed out, to fly low.  All aircraft can do that and had been since the invention of radar itself, so then, according to you, all aircraft possessed "first generation stealth".  To make such a claim was IMHO quite silly.

Quote:
Second Im not, I repeat NOT arguing the the F111 is a valid competitor to the F35, it was agreat aircraft but is is old and needs to be replaced.


Good, glad to hear that.  Then we are on a similar wavelength.  The F-111 was a great aircraft but advancing technology had made it largely obsolescent.

Quote:
You do realise that preparing an aircraft to accept a new weapons platform is more than just bolting a bomb onto it? The F111 underwent an extensive modification to be able to deliver JDAM and before than platform went operational the aircraft was retired.


As I pointed out, this does not fit the timeline of our acquisition of the JDAM.  I am well aware that a lot needs to be done before a new weapon can be added to an aircraft's repertoire.  The F-111s did undergo a complete refurbishment and changed over to digital avionics which made weapons integration much easier through the use of a databus, compared to the old analogy electronics used.  However, we did not acquire JDAM until well after their retirement.

Quote:
Just like when we modified for Pave tack and Harpoon, we spent several years doing the mods before we actually 'lasered' in. The final mod for the JDAM gave us delivery capability greater than just JDAM it allowed us to accept a range of weapons, if we wanted to use them, but Australia does like defence on the cheap, so none were considered outside of JDAM


It may have but as I keep pointing out, we did not actually acquire the JDAM until after the retirement of the F-111 fleet by several years and that would rather indicated that while they may have been "fitted for" they did not actually have or employ them on that aircraft and so suggesting the F-111s could have used them was a bit nonsensical.

Quote:
Our air assets we have to support any and all strike / fighters is vastly superior to what we had 20 years ago, so the Pig could have maintained the 'gap' if it wasn't so expensive to operate. You keep saing that they (F111) was mothballed due to the re-seal / deseal poisoning of the maintenance crews, that is wrong, it is solely and cost issue, they are just too expensive to operate, the goop exposure problem was resolved 15 + yrs ago.


The seal/de-seal issue was the final nail in the aircraft's coffin.  Defence finally said enough, was enough and decided that it could no longer sustain the costs of the aircraft in the face of the mounting compensation cases against the RAAF.    The F-111 had a "bad smell" by the end of it's career and  Russell wanted to see the back of it.   Some of the machinations it made to do so, were I agree shameful but the aircraft had seen it's day basically and while it had done a good job, keeping it going just wasn't going to happen.  Defence wanted it out and so Defence got rid of it.




This is getting tedious, which is why I don't like talking to people who don't know what they are talking about, might I suggest you stick to army stuff.


1. The F111 could fly low like every other aircraft, but unlike every other aircraft it could do it at several hundred knots. That is FIRST generation stealth. But feel free to continue correcting me, I love nothing more than a grunt, crapping on about how much they know about my profession.

2. Your JDAM point is nonsensical, the F111 was modified for JDAM the fact that it was mothballed before the fitment of the first bomb is irrelevant, and if you knew the reason for its mothballing you would understand. You are talking about the JDAM bomb itself, Im talking about the aircraft system. The program was then transfered to the Rhino after the Pig was mothballed if that didn't happen the the 'bombs' would be slung onto the Pig instead. It's about the program not the the timeline, which can be defered and delayed as is needed.

3. You seem to have this idea that the deseal progam had some affect on the F111 mothball decision, it didn't. I have exposure to sealant in my DVA files I have good mates seriously affected by their exposure. The exposure ceased a full decade before the mothballing, your information is wrong. Bloody Boeing civilians were safely conducting deseal / reseal maintance of the aircraft when it got canned.

4. As for the aircraft having a 'bad smell' more ludicrous comment. Maybe you should talk to a few people who worked on the aircraft, instead of what ever supposed research you are doing now.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Moderator
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 44654
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #500 - Sep 22nd, 2013 at 5:38pm  
BigOl64 wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 4:58pm:
This is getting tedious, which is why I don't like talking to people who don't know what they are talking about, might I suggest you stick to army stuff.

1. The F111 could fly low like every other aircraft, but unlike every other aircraft it could do it at several hundred knots. That is FIRST generation stealth. But feel free to continue correcting me, I love nothing more than a grunt, crapping on about how much they know about my profession.


No, that is not "First generation stealth".  I am unsure where you are getting your "generations" from but I would suggest that the experimental use of radar absorbing blankets by Ryan Firebee drones over the DRVN in the late 1960s was the first attempt at creating "stealth".

Most jet aircraft have the capability to fly at "several hundred knots" low.  What the F-111 could do was fly at over a thousand knots, very low, very long periods with the use of terrain avoidance radar, without concern as to the major limiting factor on such activity for jets - inlet lip temperator.  However, it was not the only aircraft that could do that, nor was it even the first.   

Quote:
2. Your JDAM point is nonsensical, the F111 was modified for JDAM the fact that it was mothballed before the fitment of the first bomb is irrelevant, and if you knew the reason for its mothballing you would understand. You are talking about the JDAM bomb itself, Im talking about the aircraft system. The program was then transferred to the Rhino after the Pig was mothballed if that didn't happen the the 'bombs' would be slung onto the Pig instead. It's about the program not the the timeline, which can be defered and delayed as is needed.


Let us jump into our wayback machine and examine your original statement, shall we to see what you actually claimed?
BigOl64 wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 4:42pm:
The Pig has a better bomb load and range and as for stand off weapons we fitted Pave Tack in the 80s and JDAM in the 2000s it had the same delivery capablities ad anything today.


While it is increasingly obvious with your backpeddling that you didn't mean to imply that the F-111 was actually carrying JDAM, that is how I took that statement.  I apologise if I misunderstood you but your language was not clear at the time and remained confusing.

Quote:
3. You seem to have this idea that the deseal progam had some affect on the F111 mothball decision, it didn't. I have exposure to sealant in my DVA files I have good mates seriously affected by their exposure. The exposure ceased a full decade before the mothballing, your information is wrong. Bloody Boeing civilians were safely conducting deseal / reseal maintance of the aircraft when it got canned.


The exposure ceased but claims were still coming forward.  Total cost of ownership is a concept that you appear unfamiliar with.  It means literally the total cost of owning and operating an asset.  Yu cannot divorce the seal/de-seal compensation cases and the ongoing nature of them from that.

In the end, it didn't matter, I suppose.  Defence had decided it wanted to get rid of the F-111 to try and force Government's hand on a replacement and so it got rid of them.   The Seal/De-Seal issue was merely another item which weighed against it in the ledgerbooks.   OK, I am willing to concede it may not have been the major issue which decided Defence but it was one of the issues.

Quote:
4. As for the aircraft having a 'bad smell' more ludicrous comment. Maybe you should talk to a few people who worked on the aircraft, instead of what ever supposed research you are doing now.


It doesn't matter what the people who worked on it thought.  They weren't making the decisions.  They were being made much higher up.

I think we are merely disagreeing about details, rather than the main thrust.  The F-111 was reaching obsolescence.  It's day was done and while its retirement could have been delayed but it was still going to happen.  It was a good aircraft but it was time it was put out to pasture.
Back to top
 
It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 112614
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #501 - Sep 22nd, 2013 at 11:35pm  
The fact is guys that the Yanks never give us the top stuff -
they buried the F117s rather than let us have any.

They wouldn't sell us even one B2 bomber.

They wouldn't sell us the F22 - not even say 5 of them
to go in first before the F35 to take out air defenses.


We are too reliant on the Yanks & could only defend ourselves
if they wanted to be involved.

We need a whole new defense strategy & I'm not sure what it is.

I hope China doesn't decide to flex it's muscles or we'll be finished.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir lastnail
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 30528
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #502 - Sep 22nd, 2013 at 11:41pm  
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 5:38pm:
While it is increasingly obvious with your backpeddling that you didn't mean to imply that the F-111 was actually carrying JDAM, that is how I took that statement.  I apologise if I misunderstood you but your language was not clear at the time and remained confusing.



big hole has a habit of speaking with a forked tongue which is his way of attempting to win every argument he presents Wink
Back to top
 
"All of the arab states have said we will have peace with Israel when there is a state of Palestine as a UN member state and properly constituted." - Jeffrey Sachs.
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #503 - Sep 23rd, 2013 at 1:43am  
hmmm..

wasn't a decision made to defer purchasing these jets..??

anyhow I'm just butting in again....  as a civvie..  to relate an F 111 experience....


May 1983  ... DUNK IS..
Honeymoon

morning of arrival .. overcast, with low cloud.

Checking out the beach .. despite the light rain.. it was lovely and warm.. 
all of a sudden  there was the sound of massive power... and a Jet appeared..
fast,, it hugged the Island's high ground,  and went past us below cloud level ...

AMAZING...

something to remember. Smiley
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Datalife
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #504 - Sep 23rd, 2013 at 1:51am  
Emma wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 1:43am:
hmmm..

wasn't a decision made to defer purchasing these jets..??

anyhow I'm just butting in again....  as a civvie..  to relate an F 111 experience....


May 1983  ... DUNK IS..
Honeymoon

morning of arrival .. overcast, with low cloud.

Checking out the beach .. despite the light rain.. it was lovely and warm.. 
all of a sudden  there was the sound of massive power... and a Jet appeared..
fast,, it hugged the Island's high ground,  and went past us below cloud level ...

AMAZING...

something to remember. Smiley




I got a good look at Townsend Island with 20 Div ESS where we were repairing the observing bunkers and a pair came in at tree top height and you could see the approach from the sea,  frigging awesome.

I also have some photos of them doing dump and burns over Sydney Harbour at the celebration of Federation and I was posted to the Army Maritime School.  Best harbour views possible. 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 23rd, 2013 at 1:57am by Datalife »  
"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #505 - Sep 23rd, 2013 at 2:33am  
Smiley
awesome is right..

Seen a couple of dump and burns over Bris..... yrs ago... ...over the Brisbane River  ... 

wow
the power is intoxicating. 

Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #506 - Sep 23rd, 2013 at 6:30am  
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 5:38pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 4:58pm:
This is getting tedious, which is why I don't like talking to people who don't know what they are talking about, might I suggest you stick to army stuff.

1. The F111 could fly low like every other aircraft, but unlike every other aircraft it could do it at several hundred knots. That is FIRST generation stealth. But feel free to continue correcting me, I love nothing more than a grunt, crapping on about how much they know about my profession.


No, that is not "First generation stealth".  I am unsure where you are getting your "generations" from but I would suggest that the experimental use of radar absorbing blankets by Ryan Firebee drones over the DRVN in the late 1960s was the first attempt at creating "stealth".

Most jet aircraft have the capability to fly at "several hundred knots" low.  What the F-111 could do was fly at over a thousand knots, very low, very long periods with the use of terrain avoidance radar, without concern as to the major limiting factor on such activity for jets - inlet lip temperator.  However, it was not the only aircraft that could do that, nor was it even the first.   

Quote:
2. Your JDAM point is nonsensical, the F111 was modified for JDAM the fact that it was mothballed before the fitment of the first bomb is irrelevant, and if you knew the reason for its mothballing you would understand. You are talking about the JDAM bomb itself, Im talking about the aircraft system. The program was then transferred to the Rhino after the Pig was mothballed if that didn't happen the the 'bombs' would be slung onto the Pig instead. It's about the program not the the timeline, which can be defered and delayed as is needed.


Let us jump into our wayback machine and examine your original statement, shall we to see what you actually claimed?
BigOl64 wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 4:42pm:
The Pig has a better bomb load and range and as for stand off weapons we fitted Pave Tack in the 80s and JDAM in the 2000s it had the same delivery capablities ad anything today.


While it is increasingly obvious with your backpeddling that you didn't mean to imply that the F-111 was actually carrying JDAM, that is how I took that statement.  I apologise if I misunderstood you but your language was not clear at the time and remained confusing.

Quote:
3. You seem to have this idea that the deseal progam had some affect on the F111 mothball decision, it didn't. I have exposure to sealant in my DVA files I have good mates seriously affected by their exposure. The exposure ceased a full decade before the mothballing, your information is wrong. Bloody Boeing civilians were safely conducting deseal / reseal maintance of the aircraft when it got canned.


The exposure ceased but claims were still coming forward.  Total cost of ownership is a concept that you appear unfamiliar with.  It means literally the total cost of owning and operating an asset.  Yu cannot divorce the seal/de-seal compensation cases and the ongoing nature of them from that.

In the end, it didn't matter, I suppose.  Defence had decided it wanted to get rid of the F-111 to try and force Government's hand on a replacement and so it got rid of them.   The Seal/De-Seal issue was merely another item which weighed against it in the ledgerbooks.   OK, I am willing to concede it may not have been the major issue which decided Defence but it was one of the issues.

Quote:
4. As for the aircraft having a 'bad smell' more ludicrous comment. Maybe you should talk to a few people who worked on the aircraft, instead of what ever supposed research you are doing now.


It doesn't matter what the people who worked on it thought.  They weren't making the decisions.  They were being made much higher up.

I think we are merely disagreeing about details, rather than the main thrust.  The F-111 was reaching obsolescence.  It's day was done and while its retirement could have been delayed but it was still going to happen.  It was a good aircraft but it was time it was put out to pasture.





We are arguing points of technicality, something I find irritating as sh1t.


I argues that JDAM program was introduce to the RAAF assets through the F111 as the mod was fitted to the aircraft, you argue the the JDAM bomb was never actually fitted therefore Im wrong. The JDAM isn't launched off any RAAF assets very often, for various reasons, primarily safety distance issues, doesn't mean the F111 wasn't JDAM capable, awaiting ordinance aircraft at the time of mothballing.


As a consesssion, you are vastly more knowledgable than booby & nails and I should take the time to be more specific when taliking to you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 112614
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #507 - Sep 23rd, 2013 at 11:18am  
Bobby. wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 11:35pm:
The fact is guys that the Yanks never give us the top stuff -
they buried the F117s rather than let us have any.

They wouldn't sell us even one B2 bomber.

They wouldn't sell us the F22 - not even say 5 of them
to go in first before the F35 to take out air defenses.


We are too reliant on the Yanks & could only defend ourselves
if they wanted to be involved.

We need a whole new defense strategy & I'm not sure what it is.

I hope China doesn't decide to flex it's muscles or we'll be finished.



bump
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #508 - Sep 23rd, 2013 at 11:28am  
longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:21am:
adelcrow wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 10:46am:
Why buy any planes?
They're just expensive toys that we cannot afford and that will never be used for the purpose they were built for.
Like 99% of our defence spending its a waste of taxpayers money.


They are a deterrent capability. The fact we have them stops other countries from having designs on our territory. Your philosophy was the same as the 1930s British. Their failure to maintain a proper defence force is what emboldened Hitler and at best made the war longer or at worse, allowed it to happen.


But wouldn't we get more deterrence for far far less outlay with ICBMs ?
Back to top
 
"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 112614
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Should Australia Buy These Fighter Jets?.
Reply #509 - Sep 23rd, 2013 at 11:31am  
Grey wrote on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 11:28am:
longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 11:21am:
adelcrow wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 10:46am:
Why buy any planes?
They're just expensive toys that we cannot afford and that will never be used for the purpose they were built for.
Like 99% of our defence spending its a waste of taxpayers money.


They are a deterrent capability. The fact we have them stops other countries from having designs on our territory. Your philosophy was the same as the 1930s British. Their failure to maintain a proper defence force is what emboldened Hitler and at best made the war longer or at worse, allowed it to happen.


But wouldn't we get more deterrence for far far less outlay with ICBMs ?



No - we would start a nuclear arms race.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 ... 53
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge