Re replacment of Australian F111

[hobbit]

Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
Aussie aging F111?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.639 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 22/03/2004

[Pechs1]

hobbit-<< Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment
for
Aussie aging F111? >><BR><BR>

F/A-18F
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Henry J Cobb]

Pechs1 wrote:
> hobbit-<< Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment
> for
> Aussie aging F111? >><BR><BR>
>
> F/A-18F

Only if they're going to start building big deck carriers.

http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/organisation/technology/aircraft/f111.htm
> Ferry range in excess of 5500km

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-fa18.html
> Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers)

Why doesn't Australia apply to be annexed?

We need their shipbuilding tech for the LCS class and we need a base in
the area to operate these short ranged ships from.

Then we could just base B-2s instead of F-111s there.

-HJC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"hobbit" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good
> replacment for Aussie aging F111?
>

There's nothing available or on the horizon that can do the job of the
F-111.

[Mike Kanze]

Stupid question #479: Is there any reason to replace the Oz F-111s?

IOW, what is (was) the mission of these now-ancient critters?

--
Mike Kanze

"Idealist: One who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage,
concludes that it will also make better soup."

- H. L.Mencken


"hobbit" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
> Aussie aging F111?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.639 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 22/03/2004
>
>

[hobbit]

Perhaps our American friends would lease us a dozen B1's


"hobbit" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
> Aussie aging F111?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.639 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 22/03/2004
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.639 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 22/03/2004

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Depends entirely on what missions Australia need carried out: ASW, A2A, CAS,
ECM, ESM, SIGINT, etc.

WDA

end


"hobbit" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
> Aussie aging F111?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.639 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 22/03/2004
>
>

[Jim Herring]

hobbit wrote:

> Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
> Aussie aging F111?

Their own study says only new F111's work do the job.


--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[gizmo-goddard]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> Stupid question #479: Is there any reason to replace the Oz F-111s?
>
> IOW, what is (was) the mission of these now-ancient critters?

Well in the mid 80s, at least one squadron did photo recon.

__!_!__
Gizmo

[The Raven]

"gizmo-goddard" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Stupid question #479: Is there any reason to replace the Oz F-111s?
> >
> > IOW, what is (was) the mission of these now-ancient critters?
>
> Well in the mid 80s, at least one squadron did photo recon.

They've done heaps of missions since then, most of which aren't public. That
doesn't mean they have literally attacked or bombed anything but they did
the mission they were asked to and achieved the desired result.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"hobbit" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps our American friends would lease us a dozen B1's
>

And who's going to fly them?


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"Jim Herring" > wrote in message
...
> hobbit wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
> > Aussie aging F111?
>
> Their own study says only new F111's work do the job.

There's a couple of issues here.

1. What is the current capability requirement of the F-111?
2. Is that capability requirement still relevant?
3. Is there a more effective means of meeting that capability, perhaps in a
different role?
4. Assuming the same capabilities are required, does anything do that?

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Henry J Cobb]

The Raven wrote:
> There's a couple of issues here.
>
> 1. What is the current capability requirement of the F-111?
> 2. Is that capability requirement still relevant?
> 3. Is there a more effective means of meeting that capability, perhaps in a
> different role?
> 4. Assuming the same capabilities are required, does anything do that?

http://f-111.net/CarloKopp/Defence-News-2908-P8.pdf
> The idea of killing off the F-111 amounts to killing off the potential
> political payoffs from its use in coalition campaigns, and if
> substituted with smaller aircraft, imposes an extra burden on the US
> tanker fleet. The alliance issues arising in the PacRim from the loss
> of the F-111 are thus repeated on the global scene.

-HJC

[Michael Smith]

My vote: TACTOM on Collins class subs.


"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> The Raven wrote:
> > There's a couple of issues here.
> >
> > 1. What is the current capability requirement of the F-111?
> > 2. Is that capability requirement still relevant?
> > 3. Is there a more effective means of meeting that capability, perhaps
in a
> > different role?
> > 4. Assuming the same capabilities are required, does anything do that?
>
> http://f-111.net/CarloKopp/Defence-News-2908-P8.pdf
> > The idea of killing off the F-111 amounts to killing off the potential
> > political payoffs from its use in coalition campaigns, and if
> > substituted with smaller aircraft, imposes an extra burden on the US
> > tanker fleet. The alliance issues arising in the PacRim from the loss
> > of the F-111 are thus repeated on the global scene.
>
> -HJC
>

[Dave Kearton]

"Michael Smith" > wrote in message
...
|
| My vote: TACTOM on Collins class subs.
|
|


"When it positively has to be there in three weeks ...."



--


Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Henry J Cobb]

http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9038318%255E521,00.html
> Russell Lucas from Sale, Victoria says: "The current Defence plan
> includes retiring the RAAF's two squadrons of F-111 strike aircraft
> in 2010, at least 15 years before its existing service life expires."
> Mr Lucas says this will "leave us without our most visible deterrent
> to incursions by 'illegals', interdiction by terrorists and outright
> invasion by foreign powers".

So how many boatloads of refugees, er I mean potential terrorists can a
single F-111 sortie terminate? ;-)

> "The F-111 has been obsolete for some time now. In a modern
> high-threat air combat scenario, the F-111 would not survive to the
> target."

-HJC

[John Dallman]

In article >, (Jim Herring)
wrote:
> hobbit wrote:
> > Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
> > Aussie aging F111?
> Their own study says only new F111's work do the job.

We could maybe build them some new Buccaneers?

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[Tiger]

hobbit wrote:

>Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
>Aussie aging F111?
>
>

Want a used B1B Lancer??? Used little, long legs.

[Prowlus]

"hobbit" > wrote in message >...
> Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
> Aussie aging F111?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.639 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 22/03/2004

Didn't the australian goverment already commit to purchasing the "Jack
of all Trades Fighter" as a Hornet and Aardvark sucessor?

[The Raven]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> "hobbit" > wrote in message
>...
> > Does anyone have a sujestion as to what would be a good replacment for
> > Aussie aging F111?
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.639 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 22/03/2004
>
> Didn't the australian goverment already commit to purchasing the "Jack
> of all Trades Fighter" as a Hornet and Aardvark sucessor?

JSF is what the government has thrown some money at but they have been
careful not to commit outright to it (where's the signed contract?).
Australia will most likely get the JSF to replace the F/A-18's (probably 75)
and argue that all the new UAV/UACV or stand-off capabilities will be
sufficient to replace the F-111.

As it stands now, F-111s will be retired in 2010 (to save dollars). Guess
when the JSF is planned to be available for Australia? Try 2012, assuming
some of the interested *non*-partners don't do some US political arm
twisting to get in first (which is already rumoured).


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.