Defence plan to scrap F-111s [Archive]

Walt BJ

August 6th 03, 01:42 AM

A couple points need to be made here to expound on staemenst in
previous messages.
First, relating to age. The 111 is a 60's design. But aircraft
performance is now at the upper flattening arc of the familiar S-curve
where lots of money will gain you greatly proportionate less
performance. just what modern aircraft can match the 11, dollar for
dollar, at low-level long range penetration at night or all-weather?
And give you supersonic over-the target performance? Or long range
standoff supersonic loft of guided weapons?
The Hornet is very short-legged compared to the 111.
As to the need for an effective defence, a lot of OZ's earning do now
and will increasingly come from the Timor Sea oil and gas fields. They
are an attractive
target for any covetous regime, especially one in economic trouble
that
'boasts' an oligarchic government. (Test: name one nearby.)(Hint:
there's two, with a third some ways away but quite expansionist in
character.)
And the 111 force is in being now. Replacing one aircraft type with a
newer and questionably better one is not cheap.
Have I ever flown the Vark? No.
Did I ever want to? No.
Why not? I like the air to air fighter mission a lot more than
strategic strike.
Does it do its job better than one hell of a lot of other aircraft?
Yes.
What could replace it? Something with the same range and blind-bombing
capability. BTW I'd a lot rather re-engine the Vark and heat-armor the
front for high altitude supersonic cruise than load up on Hornets.
Note that OZ lacks any effective in-flight refueling capability and
also lacks any really capable chain of peripheral air bases from Perth
northabout to T'ville.
Looks like the best thing to do is declare "no war will be fought for
ten years", cross your fingers and let everything go to pot. Alice
Springs can be OZ's 'boneyard' and y'all can just hope you get more
lead-time than did England in the late thirties . . .
Lots of luck - GI!
Cheers - I think. Walt BJ

David Bromage

August 6th 03, 02:03 AM

A proposal to ground Australia's fleet of F-111 bombers would leave a
dangerous gap in the country's defences, the Federal Opposition has
claimed. Labor's defence spokesman Chris Evans said the F-111s provided
a critically important ability to strike at an enemy force before it
reached Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/05/1060064182886.html

Paul Saccani

August 6th 03, 03:17 AM

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:03:53 +1000, David Bromage
> wrote:

>A proposal to ground Australia's fleet of F-111 bombers would leave a
>dangerous gap in the country's defences, the Federal Opposition has
>claimed. Labor's defence spokesman Chris Evans said the F-111s provided
>a critically important ability to strike at an enemy force before it
>reached Australia.

Labor's defence spokesman demonstrated that he is a not as
knowledgeable as he should be, by citing the loss of the F-111 as
leaving a gap in Australia's *air defence* capability.... I notice
his phrasing is absent from the cited report.

....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages'

David Bromage

August 6th 03, 04:42 AM

JD wrote:
> I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the
> Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s
> for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of
> munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are
> compatible?

What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?

Cheers
David

John Duncan

August 6th 03, 04:59 AM

>
> Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its cost.
>

Wot it does is drop tactical nukes in a cold war Europe.....
>
>>Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to defend
>
> itself from ?
>
> The one that decides it can threaten us or our interests.
>
>
>>In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?
>
>
> Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.
>
>
Better yet (and for half the cost)...get some Su30's like everyone else
in the region.

John Duncan

August 6th 03, 05:04 AM

Drewe Manton wrote:
> Pooh Bear > waxed lyrical
> :
>
>
>
>
>>Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ?
>
>
> Because it's still in the premier league of strike aircraft and brings
> massive capability to a small force. I suppose the USAF better get on
> with scrapping all those B-52's and KC-135's and E-3's and E-8's and C-
> 130's eh? After all, they are *fifties* designs!
>
>

Ahh.. but they did have enough sense to get rid of their F-111's - even
found some sucker to buy 15 old ones they had laying around the desert

>>Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to
>>defend itself from ?
>
>
> Look at a map, the Pacific rim is literally heaving with potential
> threats. But Indonesia is still #1 I'd imagine.
>
>
>
>>In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?
>
Badly.

[email protected]

August 6th 03, 05:19 AM

>David Bromage wrote:
>>JD wrote:

>>I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the
>>Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s
>>for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of
>>munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are
>>compatible?

>What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?

A former -111 jock (yet another ex-jock who loves flying trikes) said
he used to fly low level at 510 kts to 1.1 mach at 100 ft AGL hand
flying or 200 feet on the auto terrain following system in the weather
and 400 feet AGL at night in the weather. He said the F-15E can't go
near as fast, near as far, or carry the Vark's payload. He said the
ride was smoother too, but admits the F-15E can easily out-turn
the F-111.

-Mike Marron

Defender in Tas

August 6th 03, 06:35 AM

I was referring to the A-400M which I understood to be close to
deployment and with substantial orders in Europe. Anyone have any
accurate information on this?

As for the Labor Party - with regard to defence they are a joke and
should never be taken seriously. Like it or lump it only a Coalition
Government will give defence a reasonable deal. Just how reasonable is
the argument.

The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
infantry battalions.

We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare
bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we
need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.

That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
seems to be rare.

With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the
AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel
attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.

Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves,
we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the
F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters. The
F-111 is not a fighter. And we cannot afford a single role bomber in
this day and age and with our defence budget.

Keith Willshaw

August 6th 03, 07:46 AM

"John Duncan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Drewe Manton wrote:
> > Pooh Bear > waxed lyrical
> > :
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ?
> >
> >
> > Because it's still in the premier league of strike aircraft and
brings
> > massive capability to a small force. I suppose the USAF better get on
> > with scrapping all those B-52's and KC-135's and E-3's and E-8's and C-
> > 130's eh? After all, they are *fifties* designs!
> >
> >
>
> Ahh.. but they did have enough sense to get rid of their F-111's - even
> found some sucker to buy 15 old ones they had laying around the desert
>

Only because the arms reduction treaties negotiated with the Soviets
specifically required them to.

Keith

Errol Cavit

August 6th 03, 08:16 AM

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
...
> JD wrote:
> > I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the
> > Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s
> > for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of
> > munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are
> > compatible?
>
> What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?
>

I think the main point is how far it can carry it. The F-15E/K has somewhat
better self-defence ability however (especially on egress)

--
Errol Cavit | to email, my middle initial is G | von Sanders (8/8/15):
"What can be done to save the situation?" Kemal: "We must place all the
commands under one commander." "Is there no alternative?" "No. No
alternative. You must place all the forces under my command." "But surely
there are too many." "Too few" replied Kemal and hung up.

Brash

August 6th 03, 08:28 AM

Walt, your statement about lack of air bases in far north Oz leads to ask,
have you never heard of RAAF Bases Learmonth, Curtin, Tindal, and Scherger?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"Walt BJ" > wrote in message
om...
> A couple points need to be made here to expound on staemenst in
> previous messages.
> First, relating to age. The 111 is a 60's design. But aircraft
> performance is now at the upper flattening arc of the familiar S-curve
> where lots of money will gain you greatly proportionate less
> performance. just what modern aircraft can match the 11, dollar for
> dollar, at low-level long range penetration at night or all-weather?
> And give you supersonic over-the target performance? Or long range
> standoff supersonic loft of guided weapons?
> The Hornet is very short-legged compared to the 111.
> As to the need for an effective defence, a lot of OZ's earning do now
> and will increasingly come from the Timor Sea oil and gas fields. They
> are an attractive
> target for any covetous regime, especially one in economic trouble
> that
> 'boasts' an oligarchic government. (Test: name one nearby.)(Hint:
> there's two, with a third some ways away but quite expansionist in
> character.)
> And the 111 force is in being now. Replacing one aircraft type with a
> newer and questionably better one is not cheap.
> Have I ever flown the Vark? No.
> Did I ever want to? No.
> Why not? I like the air to air fighter mission a lot more than
> strategic strike.
> Does it do its job better than one hell of a lot of other aircraft?
> Yes.
> What could replace it? Something with the same range and blind-bombing
> capability. BTW I'd a lot rather re-engine the Vark and heat-armor the
> front for high altitude supersonic cruise than load up on Hornets.
> Note that OZ lacks any effective in-flight refueling capability and
> also lacks any really capable chain of peripheral air bases from Perth
> northabout to T'ville.
> Looks like the best thing to do is declare "no war will be fought for
> ten years", cross your fingers and let everything go to pot. Alice
> Springs can be OZ's 'boneyard' and y'all can just hope you get more
> lead-time than did England in the late thirties . . .
> Lots of luck - GI!
> Cheers - I think. Walt BJ

Drewe Manton

August 6th 03, 08:31 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > waxed lyrical
:

> Only because the arms reduction treaties negotiated with the Soviets
> specifically required them to.
>
>

From which you can draw your own conclusions!

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Drewe Manton

August 6th 03, 08:34 AM

John Duncan > waxed lyrical news:3F307E50.9060603
@ausi.com:

>>
>>>In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?
>>
> Badly.
>

Please provide evidence that the F-111 would fare badly in such a
scenario. It's history, raw performance, avionics and PGM ability would
suggest it would perform rathger better than "badly". First flew in hwta?
1964? NEarly forty years on there are still only a handful of types that
can match or exceed it for specific capability.

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Brash

August 6th 03, 08:36 AM

You're overlooking a couple of really important points.........

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
m...
> The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
> that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
> sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
> cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
> million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
> infantry battalions.

Except Infantry Battalions are kind of manpower-intensive. The ADF is
having a hard enough time filling existing vacancies without creating
1200-1800 more overnight.

> We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
> air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare
> bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
> much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we
> need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.
>
> That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
> surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
> aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
> planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
> seems to be rare.

A lack of aircrew doesn't help much either. Fast jet-capable crew are few
and far between, and you want to create more airframes with no-one to fly
them?

> With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the
> AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel
> attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.

Wouldn't it be better to destroy those enemy fighters where they are most
vulnerable.......... on the ground? Pigs are better at that than Bugs.

> Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
> arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves,
> we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the
> F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters.

If you have to rely on air *defence*, you'll lose the war.

>The F-111 is not a fighter.

No ****?

>And we cannot afford a single role bomber in this day and age and with our
defence budget.

Have you been reading the Swiss manual of warfare?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 6th 03, 08:39 AM

"JD" > wrote in message
om...
> (Defender in Tas) wrote in message
>...
> [...]
>
> I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the
> Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s
> for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of
> munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are
> compatible?

I'm no expert on air weapons, but I'm fairly sure that since every thing is
digitised these days its only a matter of software changes to use different
ordnance. Our current stocks of F111 weapons are most probably compatible
with the F15E (or K).

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 6th 03, 08:40 AM

Brash

August 6th 03, 08:42 AM

"John Duncan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> >
> > Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its
cost.
> >
>
> Wot it does is drop tactical nukes in a cold war Europe.....
> >
> >>Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to defend
> >
> > itself from ?
> >
> > The one that decides it can threaten us or our interests.
> >
> >
> >>In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?
> >
> >
> > Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.
> >
> >
> Better yet (and for half the cost)...get some Su30's like everyone else
> in the region.

Not this again. Can you say "compatible with allies" and
"serviceability"?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>

Guy Alcala

August 6th 03, 08:46 AM

Defender in Tas wrote:

> I was referring to the A-400M which I understood to be close to
> deployment

Not even close. In fact they just recently, after far too many years and
numerous reschedulings, selected the engine _design_ that will allow them
to go ahead with building the _prototype_.

> and with substantial orders in Europe. Anyone have any
> accurate information on this?

Numerous articles in AvLeak and just about any decent aviation magazine
will detail the tortuous process that has allowed them to stagger this
far, and the current state of the program. Expect further delays to the
in-service date.

Guy

Greg Hennessy

August 6th 03, 08:49 AM

On 5 Aug 2003 22:35:58 -0700, (Defender in Tas)
wrote:

>I was referring to the A-400M which I understood to be close to
>deployment

Is it ********.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

Greg Hennessy

August 6th 03, 08:51 AM

On 5 Aug 2003 17:42:57 -0700, (Walt BJ) wrote:

>What could replace it? Something with the same range and blind-bombing
>capability. BTW I'd a lot rather re-engine the Vark and heat-armor the
>front for high altitude supersonic cruise than load up on Hornets.

I always wondered what an F-111 would be like after an F-14B style heart
xplant.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

David Bromage

August 6th 03, 08:58 AM

Brash wrote:
> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> ...
>>What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?
>
> At a guess........... Harpoons.

Silly me, I should have known that. How hard would it be to clear the
F-15E for Harpoons?

Cheers
David

Brash

August 6th 03, 09:18 AM

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
...
> Brash wrote:
> > "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?
> >
> > At a guess........... Harpoons.
>
> Silly me, I should have known that. How hard would it be to clear the
> F-15E for Harpoons?
>
> Cheers
> David

I don't know, to be honest. From what little I know of it, I don't think it
would be too hard. The wing hard-points can handle the weight, and I'm told
that because the weapon and the aircraft are both digital its only a matter
of writing the proper software. IIRC, F15s were cleared to launch the
Pegasus(?) anti-satellite missile, and it was a big mother too.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>

Marcus Andersson

August 6th 03, 10:22 AM

Drewe Manton > wrote in message >...
> Pooh Bear > waxed lyrical
> :
>
> >
> > Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?
>
> Australia is situated in one of the most unstable regions of the world
> currently. A deep strike capability is very important to her, both as a
> deterrant and as an effective force should it become necessary to fight.
> That's like saying the US borders friends to the south and friends to the
> north. . who does she intend striking (Oh, I forgot, they have "The War
> Against Terrorism(TM))
>
> >
> > Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ?
>
> Because it's still in the premier league of strike aircraft and brings
> massive capability to a small force. I suppose the USAF better get on
> with scrapping all those B-52's and KC-135's and E-3's and E-8's and C-
> 130's eh? After all, they are *fifties* designs!
>
> >
> > Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to
> > defend itself from ?
>
> Look at a map, the Pacific rim is literally heaving with potential
> threats. But Indonesia is still #1 I'd imagine.

Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
Australia in any way?

> >
> > In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?
>
> Given the avionics upgrade, it's raw performance, it's range of weapons
> and the supremely high skill levels of the crews, as well as any F-15E,
> Tornado or (insert premier league strike platform here)
>
> >
> > Yawn......
>
> Indeed, very much so.

Defender in Tas

August 6th 03, 10:46 AM

My comments regarding the fact that the cost of keeping the F-111s
flying is equivalent to the cost of raising two regular infanry
battalions was meant as an illustration of the comparitive spending
power of the defence dollar. That's all. I was not advocating raising
those battalions at the expense of the RAAF. I can't see how anyone
would have arrived at a different conclusion.

Our updated F/A-18s with AWAC and tanker support would be a much
better match for SU-27s - should our neighbours ever actually take
possesion - than the F-111 which we did not even consider to be up to
an appropriate standard to deploy to the Gulf.

Here's a question - what's the point having a good strike aircraft if
the enemy has already knocked them out on the ground? The F-111
scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant and its best
move is to run. Thus if an attack was launched against us the Hornets
would be the only defence of the F-111s on the ground. There would be
no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase - their best
option would be to runaway to another base. We can't afford to have
combat aircraft that can't fight.

I'm not against the idea of leasing F-15s till the JSF comes on line -
I just wonder about the cost. It may be a good move.

kalsariprikaati

August 6th 03, 11:27 AM

F-15K will be able to carry Harpoon and SLAM.

Brash wrote:
> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Brash wrote:
>> > "David Bromage" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?
>> >
>> > At a guess........... Harpoons.
>>
>>Silly me, I should have known that. How hard would it be to clear the
>>F-15E for Harpoons?
>>
>>Cheers
>>David
>
>
> I don't know, to be honest. From what little I know of it, I don't think it
> would be too hard. The wing hard-points can handle the weight, and I'm told
> that because the weapon and the aircraft are both digital its only a matter
> of writing the proper software. IIRC, F15s were cleared to launch the
> Pegasus(?) anti-satellite missile, and it was a big mother too.
>

Thomas Schoene

August 6th 03, 11:29 AM

"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
. 4
> David Bromage > waxed lyrical
> :
>
> > What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?
> >
>
> Two that spring to mind immediately are AGM-84 Harpoon and Popeye.
> Neither cleared for F-15E AFIK,

Israeli F-15Is are probably the prime carriers of Popeye, and ROKAF F-15Ks
are supposed to get Harpoon.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Thomas Schoene

August 6th 03, 11:30 AM

"David Bromage" > wrote in message

> Brash wrote:
> > "David Bromage" > wrote in
> message > ...
> >>What can our F-111s carry that an F-15E can't?
> >
> > At a guess........... Harpoons.
>
> Silly me, I should have known that. How hard would it be to clear the
> F-15E for Harpoons?

Trivial. Harpoon is already on the approved stores list for the F-15K; the
ROKAF will be getting them as part of thew weapon package for their
aircraft.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Thomas Schoene

August 6th 03, 11:34 AM

"David Bromage" > wrote in message

> USAF did not retire the F-111 by choice. The decision was imposed on
> them.

Yes and no. The budget cuts were imposed, but the Air Force decided where
to apply them. When it came down to F-111s or F-15Es, the older aircraft
got the axe. No suprise there.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Drewe Manton

August 6th 03, 12:19 PM

(Marcus Andersson) waxed lyrical
om:

> Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
> Australia in any way?
>

This is to miss the point. Indonesia is a large, very populous and not
altogether friendly country immediately to Australia's north. It's very
proximity and different culture makes it a potential threat, regardless
of potential for real world conflict.
If I had a country with more than ten times my population and
significant internal problems in close proximity I'd want to maintain a
strong deterrent in that direction.

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Keith Willshaw

August 6th 03, 12:47 PM

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> > >
> > > The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
> > > that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
> > > sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
> > > cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
> > > million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
> > > infantry battalions.
> > >
> >
> > And leave Australia with no long range strke capability, which would you
> > rather do, hit an enemy force before it lands or let the infantry take
it
> on
> > ?
>
> According to the article Australia won't face a conventional threat for 15
> years............
>

Ah yes like the British treasuries 10 year rule

> Australias "defence" has always been to keep any attackers at a distance.
>

Which would seem to suggest long range strike is a good idea

> >
> > > We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
> > > air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare
> > > bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
> > > much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we
> > > need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.
> > >
> >
> > But you just spent that money on 2 new infantry batallions
>
> That was so they didn't need to call up the reserves for all these
> "coalition" jobs.
>
> >
> > > That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
> > > surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
> > > aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
> > > planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
> > > seems to be rare.
> > >
> >
> > Old F/A-18's are not a good match for SU-27/37's
> >
> >
> > > With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the
> > > AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel
> > > attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.
> > >
> > > Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
> > > arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves,
> > > we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the
> > > F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters. The
> > > F-111 is not a fighter. And we cannot afford a single role bomber in
> > > this day and age and with our defence budget.
> >
> > How many F-35's do you think you'll get for $300 million ?
>
> Already committed $150M with no guarantee anything will ever come of
> it............
>

My point exactly

> > Not enough to equip a single squadron, face it cut the F-111
> > fleet without a replacement already ordered and it wont happen
>
> Magic point, if you scrap the F-111's now you set yourself up for a
> "........if we went this long without them, why should we get them now?".
>
>

Precisely.

Keith

The Raven

August 6th 03, 01:59 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
> > > > that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
> > > > sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
> > > > cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
> > > > million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
> > > > infantry battalions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And leave Australia with no long range strke capability, which would
you
> > > rather do, hit an enemy force before it lands or let the infantry take
> it
> > on
> > > ?
> >
> > According to the article Australia won't face a conventional threat for
15
> > years............
> >
>
> Ah yes like the British treasuries 10 year rule

But 50% more idiotic.

>
> > Australias "defence" has always been to keep any attackers at a
distance.
> >
>
> Which would seem to suggest long range strike is a good idea

Unless you're a politician, who will be long on their way to the US when it
gets to that.

>
> > >
> > > > We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
> > > > air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our
bare
> > > > bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
> > > > much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but
we
> > > > need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But you just spent that money on 2 new infantry batallions
> >
> > That was so they didn't need to call up the reserves for all these
> > "coalition" jobs.
> >
> > >
> > > > That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
> > > > surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
> > > > aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
> > > > planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
> > > > seems to be rare.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Old F/A-18's are not a good match for SU-27/37's
> > >
> > >
> > > > With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and
the
> > > > AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to
repel
> > > > attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.
> > > >
> > > > Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
> > > > arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid
ourselves,
> > > > we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring
the
> > > > F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters. The
> > > > F-111 is not a fighter. And we cannot afford a single role bomber in
> > > > this day and age and with our defence budget.
> > >
> > > How many F-35's do you think you'll get for $300 million ?
> >
> > Already committed $150M with no guarantee anything will ever come of
> > it............
> >
>
> My point exactly

Well, realistically I do see some intangible returns but at the end of the
day 300M isn't going to get you more than half a dozen aircraft with
spares.......................assuming a friendly discount for being such a
good ally.

>
>
> > > Not enough to equip a single squadron, face it cut the F-111
> > > fleet without a replacement already ordered and it wont happen
> >
> > Magic point, if you scrap the F-111's now you set yourself up for a
> > "........if we went this long without them, why should we get them
now?".
> >
> >
>
> Precisely.

Precisely what the politicians want. Get rid of the expense now, use that to
offset other costs and pocket any change. When it comes time to get a
replacement, suggest it isn't needed and pocket the money put aside for
that.

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

Defender in Tas

August 7th 03, 01:39 AM

Yes Keith maybe I could have expressed myself better in my comments
regarding what $300 million could fund. I apologise but I didn't have
the time to overly proof read my original post.

You're right the F/A-18 is a generation behind the SU-27. Fortunately
our near-neighbours (i.e. those in South-East Asia) do not have them
in any concerning numbers, if at all, . . . yet. We know they plan to,
but whether they will - only time will tell. However, fully upgraded,
and with the delivery of the Wedgetail and new tankers, over the next
several years they will remain formidable in our region. You'll
remember I was suggesting that we purchase / lease F/A-18E/Fs to equip
two operational squadrons, reducing the existing fielded Hornet force
from three to two operational squadrons. The older planes would be
able to concentrate on strike - less stressful on their airframes than
air to air. While the newer planes could concentrate on air defence.
But that's just one suggestion. Others have suggested leasing the
F-15. In either case, the idea is for an interim solution - with the
F-35 to ultimately be our only fighter.

> > The F-111
> > scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant and its best
> > move is to run. Thus if an attack was launched against us the Hornets
> > would be the only defence of the F-111s on the ground.
>
> Pray tell what strike assets does Indonesia have that are
> capable of hitting the F-111's at RAAF Amberley ?
>
> I cant think of ANY
>

Your response here is interesting, you haven't disputed that the
F-111s can't adequately defend themselves. By the way, I was referring
to the operational deployment of the F-111s and the prospect, quite a
real one given our less than aggressive stance at times, that we might
be attacked first, rather than get to begin an air campaign at a time
of our choosing. Is it difficult to imagine a scenario where - if the
'enemy' was say Indonesia - we deployed fighters to Tindal and one or
two bare bases during a crisis, and were then subject to a significant
surprise air attack by SU-27s? Surely you would want to be able to
launch every combat aircraft we had to repel the attackers?

> > There would be
> > no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase - their best
> > option would be to runaway to another base. We can't afford to have
> > combat aircraft that can't fight.
> >
>
> However the long range of the F-111 means it can strike from bases
> far out of range of any Indonsesian combat aircraft. Using F-18's
> would mean either buying a LOT of tankers (wave goodbye to that
> 300 million) or putting them on bases within reach of the enemy.

Not if the Indonesians get the SU-27. They could strike Tindal and
Darwin from a number of air bases in the east of their nation. Where
would our F-111s be operating from?

>
> > I'm not against the idea of leasing F-15s till the JSF comes on line -
> > I just wonder about the cost. It may be a good move.
>
> That depends on the likely threat. As of now Indonesia hasn't
> much in the way of air assets to credibly threaten Australia
> however it does have large numbers of bodies in areas
> where Australia has strategic interests such as Timor
> and New Guinea. On that basis a credible long range
> strike asset seems a higher priority than boosting the
> country's air defenses.

Point 1, Indonesia is planning to have significant air assets in the
near future, we should base our plans on that eventuality. Point 2,
From Tindal, Darwin and some of the bare bases the Hornets with AAR
support or not could operate over the areas you mentioned. They are
relatively close, particularly Timor. Point 3, If the Indonesians were
serious about re-invading ET then their best bet would be to strike
Darwin and Tindal to limit our response capability. Both were
absolutely essential to Interfet.

Anyway, I can see we're not going to agree - you're obviously an F-111
fan, that's good, I'm a fan of the aircraft myself, I just don't think
its cost justifies its position in our force structure anymore.

kalsariprikaati

August 7th 03, 02:16 AM

Defender in Tas wrote:

> You're right the F/A-18 is a generation behind the SU-27.

Su-27 (T-10-1) first flight 20 May 1977.
F/A-18A first flight 18 Nov 1978.

Paul Krenske

August 7th 03, 02:19 AM

On 6 Aug 2003 11:19:24 GMT, Drewe Manton > wrote:

(Marcus Andersson) waxed lyrical
om:
>
>> Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
>> Australia in any way?
>>
>
> This is to miss the point. Indonesia is a large, very populous and not
>altogether friendly country immediately to Australia's north. It's very
>proximity and different culture makes it a potential threat, regardless
>of potential for real world conflict.
> If I had a country with more than ten times my population and
>significant internal problems in close proximity I'd want to maintain a
>strong deterrent in that direction.
>
>

We also have to take into account the fact that no war for 15 years is
almost an impossible prediction to back up, ever. 15 years ago we
were still massively supporting the one party, fascist (but
anti-commie), ethnic cleansing/genocidal dictatorship in Jakarta. Face
it we still were 5-6 years ago. Now we are the primary target of not
insignificant numbers of radical terrorists. Their more moderate
political arms could grab substantial parliamentary representation
next year and some have Australia listed as an obvious area for Asian
Muslim Resettlement and expansion in their ideology. 15 years from now
Indonesia could literraly not exist (with 3-4 break away regions) or
it could be a radicalised pan islamic state that threatens australian
sovereignty. Of course it could also contnue as now. Trying to make
long term security decisions in such a fluid environment is silly. If
we need a higher defence budget then raise the tax back up to where it
was 6 weeks back, most people would not notice.

My preference would be to keep them running until we can actually get
hold of some numbers of some extreme range ACAV's. That will be around
2010-15. In old German parlance we need a 4000 kg over 4000 Km at 1000
Kmh airframe. Buy 30+ as bomb trucks and use manned aircraft for the
fighter/attack role. ( Not sure about JSF for that but we'll see. )

-
>--------
>Regards
>Drewe
>Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Paul Krenske

August 7th 03, 02:32 AM

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:51:43 +0100, Greg Hennessy
> wrote:

>On 5 Aug 2003 17:42:57 -0700, (Walt BJ) wrote:
>
>
>>What could replace it? Something with the same range and blind-bombing
>>capability. BTW I'd a lot rather re-engine the Vark and heat-armor the
>>front for high altitude supersonic cruise than load up on Hornets.
>
>I always wondered what an F-111 would be like after an F-14B style heart
>xplant.
>

If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the
avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated
now and the avionics package has been much improved. In fact I believe
they are technically capable of AMRAAM carriage now although none have
been tested yet. The RAAF has even investigated the potential for
using them as heavy missile support for the F-18's. (12 AMRAAM's and 4
sidewinders are certainly heavy but are almost a clean load for a
pig.) It must be remembered that they were originally to be Multirole
fighter/bombers with heavy missile loads in the fighter role. F111B
was to carry Phoenix etc.

>
>greg
>
>--
>$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
>Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
>Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
>She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

Paul Krenske

August 7th 03, 02:42 AM

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:40:10 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

> wrote in message

>> A former -111 jock (yet another ex-jock who loves flying trikes) said
>> he used to fly low level at 510 kts to 1.1 mach at 100 ft AGL hand
>> flying or 200 feet on the auto terrain following system in the weather
>> and 400 feet AGL at night in the weather. He said the F-15E can't go
>> near as fast, near as far, or carry the Vark's payload. He said the
>> ride was smoother too, but admits the F-15E can easily out-turn
>> the F-111.
>
>There's been much discussion of the F-11s low level performance in this
>thread. Can anyone here even remember the last time a strike package went
>in a terrain-following altitudes? I sure can't; medium to high altitude
>seems to have become the standard.

Well it is now the standard for the number one Airforce in the world
fighting enemies with effectively no ability to reach above 1000
metres. Other airforces have had little to do although I believe
Russia still gets down and Dirty at times for attack and support
duties. In GW 1 the Brit, French and the US strikes generally went in
low for the first week but then went high after almost all oposition
had been turned to tin foil. The US also has massive jammer and Weasel
ability with Harms, etc.

Us aussies on the other hand will have no ability to conduct strike
escort with anything but other strike aircraft over the ranges
involved in SEA. So we have no choice but to fly low or to slowly roll
back defences over a period of months before going for juicy targets.
(hmmm that dam upriver from Jakarta would be an interesting target but
I doubt we would do it due to the more than slight civilian
casualties.)

The low level strike mission is now very survivable due to the ability
to toss GPS glide bombs 40-50 km's from over the horizon. It
effectively requires a standing patrol defence off the coast to stop
and that is a pain for Indonesia.

>--
>Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
>"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
>special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>
>

matt weber

August 7th 03, 03:41 AM

On 5 Aug 2003 22:35:58 -0700, (Defender in
Tas) wrote:

>I was referring to the A-400M which I understood to be close to
>deployment and with substantial orders in Europe. Anyone have any
>accurate information on this?
NOT EVEN CLOSE. The formal decision to build the thing along with the
necessary budgetary approval from the buyers only has occured within
the last few months. At best deployment is still YEARS away... (which
is why there are fair number of C130J's being leased in Europe)...

Brash

August 7th 03, 03:50 AM

"Graeme Hogan" > wrote in message
u...
> They're only saying that because they are in Opposition.

That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > A proposal to ground Australia's fleet of F-111 bombers would leave a
> > dangerous gap in the country's defences, the Federal Opposition has
> > claimed. Labor's defence spokesman Chris Evans said the F-111s provided
> > a critically important ability to strike at an enemy force before it
> > reached Australia.
> >
> > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/05/1060064182886.html
> >
>
>

Brash

August 7th 03, 04:15 AM

Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let
me guess, ex-army?

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
om...
> My comments regarding the fact that the cost of keeping the F-111s
> flying is equivalent to the cost of raising two regular infanry
> battalions was meant as an illustration of the comparitive spending
> power of the defence dollar. That's all. I was not advocating raising
> those battalions at the expense of the RAAF. I can't see how anyone
> would have arrived at a different conclusion.

Seeing as more than one person came to that conclusion, I'd say you need to
sharpen your writing skills.

> Our updated F/A-18s with AWAC and tanker support would be a much
> better match for SU-27s - should our neighbours ever actually take
> possesion - than the F-111 which we did not even consider to be up to
> an appropriate standard to deploy to the Gulf.

I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent.

> Here's a question - what's the point having a good strike aircraft if
> the enemy has already knocked them out on the ground?

With what?

>The F-111 scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant

Utter bull****.

>and its best
> move is to run. Thus if an attack was launched against us the Hornets
> would be the only defence of the F-111s on the ground.

More bull****.

>There would be
> no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase

Of course not. Your point?

>- their best
> option would be to runaway to another base.

How about we just use them to destroy the enemy's strike aircraft or base
before this scenario unfolds?

>We can't afford to have
> combat aircraft that can't fight.

No **** Sherlock? Given your premise, we should **** the P3s and Hercs
off as well, since they're pretty useless in a dogfight too.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

> I'm not against the idea of leasing F-15s till the JSF comes on line -
> I just wonder about the cost. It may be a good move.

Pooh Bear

August 7th 03, 05:15 AM

Brash wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > David Bromage wrote:
> >
> > > The RAAF's 35 F-111 warplanes - Australia's front-line strategic strike
> > > force - could be retired from service from 2006, a decade earlier than
> > > originally planned, if the Government accepts a controversial option put
> > > forward by the Defence Department. A key issue is whether early
> > > retirement for the long-range F-111s could leave a gaping hole in
> > > Australia's front-line defences early next decade.
> > >
> > >
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6866971%255E601,00.html
> >
> > Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?
>
> Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought
> that was self-evident.

And just who might "the enemy" be ?

You reckon the Japs fancy having another go for sake of example ?

>
> > Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ?
>
> Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its cost.

Maybe that's so... but the task itself is obsolete.

> > Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to defend
> itself from ?
>
> The one that decides it can threaten us or our interests.

Do please provide a candidate list.

> > In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?
>
> Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.

Can't say I recall seeing an F-111 perform vertical landing !

Graham

Pooh Bear

August 7th 03, 05:18 AM

Dai wrote:

> "Stuart Chapman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > When the F-111 was purchased its intention was to bomb Jakarta....
> >
> > Stupot
> >
> Speaking of Jakarta, the Marriott Hotel has been devasted by a car bomb. An
> Australian has been killed.

A highly relevant comment.

The real danger to nation states in the future is low-tech terrorism - not 'toys
for boys' hi-tech fighter bombers.

Regds, Graham

Pits

August 7th 03, 05:23 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
...
> Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
Let
> me guess, ex-army?

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr No Way ! Far too articulate :-)
and Subtle unless ex armour or aviation

Greg Hennessy

August 7th 03, 09:00 AM

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:32:25 GMT, (Paul Krenske) wrote:

>If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the
>avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated
>now

They wouldnt be in the same ballpark as the F110 though ?

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

Paul Saccani

August 7th 03, 11:22 AM

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:18:14 +0100, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>> Speaking of Jakarta, the Marriott Hotel has been devasted by a car bomb. An
>> Australian has been killed.
>
>A highly relevant comment.
>
>The real danger to nation states in the future is low-tech terrorism - not 'toys
>for boys' hi-tech fighter bombers.

You seem to forget that terrorism generally has a goal other than
terror itself. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

One of the most common objectives of terrorists is the establishment
of a nation state to implent their ideas.

You seem to forget that this places the resources of a state at their
disposal.

....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages'

Paul Saccani

August 7th 03, 11:27 AM

On 6 Aug 2003 02:22:10 -0700, (Marcus
Andersson) wrote:

>> Look at a map, the Pacific rim is literally heaving with potential
>> threats. But Indonesia is still #1 I'd imagine.
>
>
>Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
>Australia in any way?

Please gaurantee that they won't have one in ten years time,
especially if they have an Islamic revolution, the objective of
present day terror attacks within Indonesia.

Capability and stability (or lack thereof) are the driving factors in
threat assement when one looks over a period of ten years, given that
no threat is seen as immintint today.

....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages'

Paul Saccani

August 7th 03, 11:31 AM

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:01:42 +1000, "Brash"
> wrote:

>> Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
>> Australia in any way?
>
>To deliver Jihad to the "crusader infidels" after a Islamic revolution would
>be one plausible reason.

JI have an expressed desire to create an Islamic republic similar to
the old MaPhilIndo lines, but incorporating the upper third or so of
Australia, as well as out friends in PNG.

I would call that a threat of low probability but extreme graveness.

Overall, it is just one risk that is too great to ignore, but still
one that is unlikely to occur.

....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages'

Paul Saccani

August 7th 03, 11:44 AM

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:39:41 +1000, "Brash"
> wrote:

>"JD" > wrote in message
om...
>> (Defender in Tas) wrote in message
>...
>> [...]
>>
>> I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the
>> Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s
>> for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of
>> munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are
>> compatible?
>
>I'm no expert on air weapons, but I'm fairly sure that since every thing is
>digitised these days its only a matter of software changes to use different
>ordnance.

Unfortunately, this is not the case, and software changes are a much
bigger deal than you might expect.

Clearing ordnance for drop is quite a long and involved process that
takes quite a time. Unless you are willing to lose aircraft and
aircrew finding out the hard way.

In a war, you might just have to do that.

EG, IIRC, using small bombs in WWII RAAF Bostons, the aerodynamics
interactions between these small bombs was discovered by blowing up
several aircraft when they dropped their bombs on the enemy.

> Our current stocks of F111 weapons are most probably compatible
>with the F15E (or K).

Concur, or little trouble at any rate. Some of our munitions have not
been directly cleared for use on those aircraft, but US license made
versions have been, so unless they are significantly different, it
should not be a problem.

....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages'

The Raven

August 7th 03, 12:18 PM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Brash wrote:
>
> > "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > David Bromage wrote:
> > >
> > > > The RAAF's 35 F-111 warplanes - Australia's front-line strategic
strike
> > > > force - could be retired from service from 2006, a decade earlier
than
> > > > originally planned, if the Government accepts a controversial option
put
> > > > forward by the Defence Department. A key issue is whether early
> > > > retirement for the long-range F-111s could leave a gaping hole in
> > > > Australia's front-line defences early next decade.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6866971%255E601,00.html
> > >
> > > Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?
> >
> > Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have
thought
> > that was self-evident.
>
> And just who might "the enemy" be ?
>
> You reckon the Japs fancy having another go for sake of example ?
>
> >
> > > Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ?
> >
> > Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its
cost.
>
> Maybe that's so... but the task itself is obsolete.
>
> > > Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to
defend
> > itself from ?
> >
> > The one that decides it can threaten us or our interests.
>
> Do please provide a candidate list.
>
> > > In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?
> >
> > Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.
>
> Can't say I recall seeing an F-111 perform vertical landing !

Only one of the three variants of JSF does VTOL and it's unlikely to be the
variant Australia would ever buy. Heck, the ADF would probably try to fit
another seat back in that lift-fan area.

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

phil hunt

August 7th 03, 03:05 PM

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:19:08 GMT, Paul Krenske > wrote:
>
>My preference would be to keep them running until we can actually get
>hold of some numbers of some extreme range ACAV's. That will be around
>2010-15. In old German parlance we need a 4000 kg over 4000 Km at 1000
>Kmh airframe. Buy 30+ as bomb trucks and use manned aircraft for the
>fighter/attack role. ( Not sure about JSF for that but we'll see. )

Since Australia currently operates the F/A-18, it makes sense to
buy more of them in the short term, if more are needed.

The F-111s could be mothballed, rather than scrapped.

For air superiority, in the medium term (2010 onwards) if Indonesia
is getting the Su-35 or derivatives, Australia probably wants
something better than the F/A-18. I'm not sure either about the JSF,
since its power/weight ratio is nothing to write home about.

I agree that unmanned vehicles for strike are the way to go. Perhaps
Australia could develop its own cruise missile -- if a guy can do so
for US$ 5000, I'm sure a medium-size[1] country can.

[1] economically speaking.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

phil hunt

August 7th 03, 03:17 PM

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani > wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
> wrote:
>
>>> Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought
>>> that was self-evident.
>>
>>And just who might "the enemy" be ?
>
>It would not be diplomatic to say who the enemy *might* be.

I'm not a diplomat: Indonesia.

Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm
its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East
Asia.

>Given the long lead time in such programs, you need 100% certainty
>that there will be no significant changes in our geo-political
>circumstances for at least ten years. That is a big ask.
>
>One needs to look at the capability that will exist nearby over the
>next ten years at least, then factor for the low, but non-zero chance
>of a radical change in circumstances.

A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia, and
Australia doesn't have any allies, sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes) and anti-ship missiles.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Keith Willshaw

August 7th 03, 03:52 PM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani >
wrote:
> >On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
> >

>
> A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia, and
> Australia doesn't have any allies, sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
> imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
> win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
> invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
> cavitating torpedoes)

An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

>
> and anti-ship missiles.
>

Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation,
fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting
an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime
surveillance
and that requires air superiority.

Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the
choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better
strategy.

Keith

Keith

phil hunt

August 7th 03, 05:14 PM

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> [...] in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
>> invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
>> cavitating torpedoes)
>
>An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

>> and anti-ship missiles.
>
>Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation,
>fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting
> an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime
>surveillance and that requires air superiority.

True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a
surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least
intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might
be able to supply from the air).

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

>Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the
>choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better
>strategy.

Indeed, if possible.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Harry Andreas

August 7th 03, 05:27 PM

In article >, "Brash"
> wrote:

> "JD" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Defender in Tas) wrote in message
> >...
> > [...]
> >
> > I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the
> > Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s
> > for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of
> > munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are
> > compatible?
>
> I'm no expert on air weapons, but I'm fairly sure that since every thing is
> digitised these days its only a matter of software changes to use different
> ordnance. Our current stocks of F111 weapons are most probably compatible
> with the F15E (or K).

If the weapon uses a -1750 interface then it can be launched from
a -1750 compatible platform, with the usual caveats.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Paul J. Adam

August 7th 03, 09:09 PM

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw <keith@kwil
>lshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians
>
>Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you
fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if
you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we
are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be
a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound,
bearing steady!"

For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.
Even at 200 knots, the huge noise signature means the enemy will alter
course and speed at once, so long range shots are unlikely to succeed.

Like some other Russian weapons, it's an elegant and well-engineered
solution to a particular problem they faced, that works much less well
when transplanted to other roles and export markets.

>Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
>supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
>F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
>Something else?

Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
airframe. Haggle to see what both factions will sell for, and how
degraded the 'export version' is.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

August 7th 03, 11:19 PM

Paul Saccani > wrote in message >...

> EG, IIRC, using small bombs in WWII RAAF Bostons, the aerodynamics
> interactions between these small bombs was discovered by blowing up
> several aircraft when they dropped their bombs on the enemy.

Isn't that why we developed high drag munitions? ;-)

August 7th 03, 11:24 PM

"Brash" > wrote in message >...
> Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let
> me guess, ex-army?

Excuse me?

August 7th 03, 11:27 PM

(Defender in Tas) wrote in message >...
[...]
> > However the long range of the F-111 means it can strike from bases
> > far out of range of any Indonsesian combat aircraft. Using F-18's
> > would mean either buying a LOT of tankers (wave goodbye to that
> > 300 million) or putting them on bases within reach of the enemy.
>
> Not if the Indonesians get the SU-27. They could strike Tindal and
> Darwin from a number of air bases in the east of their nation. Where
> would our F-111s be operating from?

Where the are now, Amberly?

> > > I'm not against the idea of leasing F-15s till the JSF comes on line -
> > > I just wonder about the cost. It may be a good move.
> >
> > That depends on the likely threat. As of now Indonesia hasn't
> > much in the way of air assets to credibly threaten Australia
> > however it does have large numbers of bodies in areas
> > where Australia has strategic interests such as Timor
> > and New Guinea. On that basis a credible long range
> > strike asset seems a higher priority than boosting the
> > country's air defenses.
>
> Point 1, Indonesia is planning to have significant air assets in the
> near future, we should base our plans on that eventuality. Point 2,
> From Tindal, Darwin and some of the bare bases the Hornets with AAR
> support or not could operate over the areas you mentioned. They are
> relatively close, particularly Timor. Point 3, If the Indonesians were
> serious about re-invading ET then their best bet would be to strike
> Darwin and Tindal to limit our response capability. Both were
> absolutely essential to Interfet.

Has anyone actually considered the fact that Indonesia has the best AD
systems in our region?

Defender in Tas

August 8th 03, 01:24 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message >...
> Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let
> me guess, ex-army?

No, but hardly relevant. I don't claim to know a whole lot. By the
way, you'll find I'm not one of these combative, antagonistic people
who seem to get off on arguing with others over the internet. I
appreciate a good debate with people who share my interests. So if
you'd like to detail where I'm wrong and why - I would appreciate
that, and if you're right, I'll say so. I'm open-minded, I can have my
opinion changed by a persuasive argument.

>
> Seeing as more than one person came to that conclusion, I'd say you need to
> sharpen your writing skills.
>

More accurately, I should have taken more time with that particular
post, but let's not be pedantic.

> I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to the Gulf).

Ok, then tell me. Media reports - which included comments by the
Australian Defence Association amongst others, I believe - stated that
it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
they sent according to you?

>
> > Here's a question - what's the point having a good strike aircraft if
> > the enemy has already knocked them out on the ground?
>
> With what?

With SU-27s should 'they' acquire them, or whatever combat aircraft
'they' may possess. The F-111s have great range but it would be pure
folly to say they would operate our of Amberley in any crisis centred
around, say, East Timor, Irian Jaya, or Indonesia generally. They
would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during
Interfet. Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out
of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or
without AAR?

>
> >The F-111 scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant
>
> Utter bull****.
>

Ok, what's the truth?

> >and its best
> > move is to run. Thus if an attack was launched against us the Hornets
> > would be the only defence of the F-111s on the ground.
>
> More bull****.
>

Ok, we have some Rapiers (to be retired), and RBS-70s, and Tindal is
laid out with widely located protective aircraft shelters, but do our
F-111 pilots train to launch on air-to-air missions?

> >There would be
> > no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase
>
> Of course not. Your point?

That the F-111 is a strike aircraft only, not a multi-role fighter. It
was never conceived to be the latter, and that was fine. But in this
day and age, with the current operational demands on the ADF and the
limited defence budget, my contention is that the high (and growing)
cost of this single capability cannot be justified for retention.

>
> >- their best
> > option would be to runaway to another base.
>
> How about we just use them to destroy the enemy's strike aircraft or base
> before this scenario unfolds?

Obviously the preferred option! But will our politicians give that
order? Even Israel has been subject to surprise attacks - remember the
Yom Kippur War? I won't suggest you were around at the time of Pearl
Harbour . . .

>
> >We can't afford to have
> > combat aircraft that can't fight.
>
> No **** Sherlock? Given your premise, we should **** the P3s and Hercs
> off as well, since they're pretty useless in a dogfight too.

No, not quite. They both fill a variety of roles and have both been
deployed on operations in recent years. They are also not designed to
strike enemy targets which are likely to be defended by combat
aircraft.

Clearly, my preferrence is that - given our defence budget - the RAAF
field a multi-role fighter, not a multi-role fighter and a pure strike
/ recon aircraft.

Of course, ideally, if the defence budget was at a level that would
make me happy, I would like to see the F-111s retained, further
upgraded and supported by AAR aircraft with booms, and the RAAF also
operating at least 6, if not 8, operational squadrons of tactical
fighters - perhaps half primarily for air-to-air (the F-15), and half
primarily for battlefield air interdiction / CAS with a second role of
air-to-air (the Hornets, or F-16s, or take your pick of a few others).
But now I'm dreaming.

August 8th 03, 01:50 AM

>> I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to the Gulf).
>
>
>Ok, then tell me. Media reports - which included comments by the
>Australian Defence Association amongst others, I believe - stated that
>it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
>they sent according to you?
>
>

Wasn't that because you don't send your only long-range strike asset
which is irreplacable when there is already a lot of strike assets in
the region.

I would hate to be the aussie detachtment commander who has to report
to his boss. "Sorry boss,we lost a couple of airplanes." Which could
be normal in a "normal war" but means let 's say 25 % of the aussie
long range strike assets.

You only take that risk if you have to.

Pooh Bear

August 8th 03, 08:02 AM

phil hunt wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani > wrote:
> >On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought
> >>> that was self-evident.
> >>
> >>And just who might "the enemy" be ?
> >
> >It would not be diplomatic to say who the enemy *might* be.
>
> I'm not a diplomat: Indonesia.

Glad someone came out and said so.

Pray, please, what would Indonesia gain from attacking Australia - lots of sheep I
guess !

> Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm
> its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East
> Asia.

Lmao @ Japan.

China has a far simpler plan for world domination. Cheaper, more effective and
doesn't require military force. It's called manufacturing. Check where your last
TV / microwave / other consumer goods were made.

And you reckon the other poor S.E. asian countries want to invade you ? They'll
have to get a real military first, never mind the absence of any desire to.Get
real !

> >Given the long lead time in such programs, you need 100% certainty
> >that there will be no significant changes in our geo-political
> >circumstances for at least ten years. That is a big ask.
> >
> >One needs to look at the capability that will exist nearby over the
> >next ten years at least, then factor for the low, but non-zero chance
> >of a radical change in circumstances.
>
> A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia,

< weeps with laughter >

> and
> Australia doesn't have any allies,

Oh sure - you reckon the US and UK can't / won't protect your interests ?

> sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
> imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
> win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
> invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
> cavitating torpedoes) and anti-ship missiles.

Are you just a war-monger or a madman ?

Graham

Pooh Bear

August 8th 03, 08:05 AM

The Raven wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Brash wrote:
> >
> > > "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > David Bromage wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The RAAF's 35 F-111 warplanes - Australia's front-line strategic
> strike
> > > > > force - could be retired from service from 2006, a decade earlier
> than
> > > > > originally planned, if the Government accepts a controversial option
> put
> > > > > forward by the Defence Department. A key issue is whether early
> > > > > retirement for the long-range F-111s could leave a gaping hole in
> > > > > Australia's front-line defences early next decade.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6866971%255E601,00.html
> > > >
> > > > Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ?
> > >
> > > Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have
> thought
> > > that was self-evident.
> >
> > And just who might "the enemy" be ?
> >
> > You reckon the Japs fancy having another go for sake of example ?
> >
> > >
> > > > Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ?
> > >
> > > Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its
> cost.
> >
> > Maybe that's so... but the task itself is obsolete.
> >
> > > > Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to
> defend
> > > itself from ?
> > >
> > > The one that decides it can threaten us or our interests.
> >
> > Do please provide a candidate list.
> >
> > > > In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ?
> > >
> > > Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.
> >
> > Can't say I recall seeing an F-111 perform vertical landing !
>
> Only one of the three variants of JSF does VTOL and it's unlikely to be the
> variant Australia would ever buy. Heck, the ADF would probably try to fit
> another seat back in that lift-fan area.

LOL !

Graham

Pooh Bear

August 8th 03, 08:13 AM

Paul Saccani wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:18:14 +0100, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >> Speaking of Jakarta, the Marriott Hotel has been devasted by a car bomb. An
> >> Australian has been killed.
> >
> >A highly relevant comment.
> >
> >The real danger to nation states in the future is low-tech terrorism - not 'toys
> >for boys' hi-tech fighter bombers.
>
> You seem to forget that terrorism generally has a goal other than
> terror itself. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
>
> One of the most common objectives of terrorists is the establishment
> of a nation state to implent their ideas.
>
> You seem to forget that this places the resources of a state at their
> disposal.

Only in the rabid imaginations of ppl who should know better. The concept of
'state-funded terrorism' is IMHO an imaginary ploy conjured up by the CIA et al to go
invade foreign countries and then get their fingers burnt. Very badly it would seem,
as things seem to be turning out in Iraq. Those who are in the know realise that Al
Qaeda prolly received most of its funding from Saudi Arabia btw.

Pls explain how an F-111 will deter a fanatical suicide bomber.

Cheers, Graham

Brash

August 8th 03, 08:39 AM

Not you JD, the Taswegian.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"JD" > wrote in message
om...
> "Brash" > wrote in message
>...
> > Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
Let
> > me guess, ex-army?
>
> Excuse me?

Brash

August 8th 03, 09:14 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Dai wrote:
>
> > "Stuart Chapman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > When the F-111 was purchased its intention was to bomb Jakarta....
> > >
> > > Stupot
> > >
> > Speaking of Jakarta, the Marriott Hotel has been devasted by a car
bomb. An
> > Australian has been killed.
>
> A highly relevant comment.
>
> The real danger to nation states in the future is low-tech terrorism - not
'toys
> for boys' hi-tech fighter bombers.
>
> Regds, Graham

How strategically myopic of you.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 8th 03, 09:26 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
> phil hunt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani >
wrote:
> > >On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have
thought
> > >>> that was self-evident.
> > >>
> > >>And just who might "the enemy" be ?
> > >
> > >It would not be diplomatic to say who the enemy *might* be.
> >
> > I'm not a diplomat: Indonesia.
>
> Glad someone came out and said so.
>
> Pray, please, what would Indonesia gain from attacking Australia - lots of
sheep I
> guess !

As an Islamic Republic I reckon they'd like to get ****-loads of sheep
(Halal, of course). Or how about natural gas? Oil? Diamonds? Wide open
spaces?

>
> > Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm
> > its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East
> > Asia.
>
> Lmao @ Japan.

He did say "unlikely" you dickhead.

> China has a far simpler plan for world domination. Cheaper, more effective
and
> doesn't require military force. It's called manufacturing. Check where
your last
> TV / microwave / other consumer goods were made.

And they wouldn't mind getting the materials to make them with for free?

> And you reckon the other poor S.E. asian countries want to invade you ?
They'll
> have to get a real military first, never mind the absence of any desire
to.Get
> real !
>
> > >Given the long lead time in such programs, you need 100% certainty
> > >that there will be no significant changes in our geo-political
> > >circumstances for at least ten years. That is a big ask.
> > >
> > >One needs to look at the capability that will exist nearby over the
> > >next ten years at least, then factor for the low, but non-zero chance
> > >of a radical change in circumstances.
> >
> > A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia,
>
> < weeps with laughter >
>
> > and
> > Australia doesn't have any allies,
>
> Oh sure - you reckon the US and UK can't / won't protect your interests ?

When they're hip-deep in hot brass and grenade pins in Korea? Sure, they'll
have plenty to spare to come to our rescue.

> > sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
> > imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
> > win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
> > invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
> > cavitating torpedoes) and anti-ship missiles.
>
> Are you just a war-monger or a madman ?

Are you just a tree-hugging peacenik or a troll?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>
> Graham
>

Brash

August 8th 03, 09:29 AM

"Paul Saccani" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:15:56 +1000, "Brash"
> > wrote:
>
> >Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
Let
> >me guess, ex-army?
>
> Look out, blue blinkers on. ;)

Only in the interests of "balance". ;o)

>
> No need to tar all with the same brush.

I only tar them whats needs tarring dude.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 8th 03, 09:56 AM

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
om...
> "Brash" > wrote in message
>...
> > Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
Let
> > me guess, ex-army?
>
> No, but hardly relevant.

It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the expense of
strategic common-sense.

>I don't claim to know a whole lot.

Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.

>By the
> way, you'll find I'm not one of these combative, antagonistic people
> who seem to get off on arguing with others over the internet. I
> appreciate a good debate with people who share my interests. So if
> you'd like to detail where I'm wrong and why - I would appreciate
> that, and if you're right, I'll say so. I'm open-minded, I can have my
> opinion changed by a persuasive argument.
>
> >
> > Seeing as more than one person came to that conclusion, I'd say you need
to
> > sharpen your writing skills.
> >
>
> More accurately, I should have taken more time with that particular
> post, but let's not be pedantic.
>
>
> > I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to
the Gulf).
>
>
> Ok, then tell me. Media reports -

I'll let you in on something. The Oz media know diddly-squat about defence
matters. And when they haven't been told something, they make it up. ****, 9
times out 10 they'll mis-identify something as Air Force just because it
flies and something as Army just because its painted camouflage.

>which included comments by the
> Australian Defence Association amongst others,

The ADA are reasonably knowledgeable. But they sometimes fill in the blanks
with opinions that aren't factually correct.

>I believe - stated that
> it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
> they sent according to you?

Its not "according to me", and its none of your business.

> > > Here's a question - what's the point having a good strike aircraft if
> > > the enemy has already knocked them out on the ground?
> >
> > With what?
>
>
> With SU-27s should 'they' acquire them, or whatever combat aircraft
> 'they' may possess. The F-111s have great range but it would be pure
> folly to say they would operate our of Amberley in any crisis centred
> around, say, East Timor, Irian Jaya, or Indonesia generally.

Folly to you. and we've already determined that you're a bit thin on
knowledge of this topic.

>They
> would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during
> Interfet.

That was to shorten response time, not because they didn't have the reach.

>Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out
> of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or
> without AAR?

I haven't got the data in front of me. So I can't say.

>
> >
> > >The F-111 scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant
> >
> > Utter bull****.
> >
>
> Ok, what's the truth?

That the F111 has EW equipment and its getting more. Can you say "Echidna"?

>
>
>
> > >and its best
> > > move is to run. Thus if an attack was launched against us the Hornets
> > > would be the only defence of the F-111s on the ground.
> >
> > More bull****.
> >
>
>
> Ok, we have some Rapiers (to be retired), and RBS-70s, and Tindal is
> laid out with widely located protective aircraft shelters, but do our
> F-111 pilots train to launch on air-to-air missions?

None of your business. Also, can you say "Hawk 127"? Actually, I just
remembered that there was a public article about a Pig shooting down an F16
at Red Flag a few years ago. Make of it what you will.

>
>
> > >There would be
> > > no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase
> >
> > Of course not. Your point?
>
> That the F-111 is a strike aircraft only,

Its a strike aircraft *primarily*. Its also a bloody good Recon platform,
but I guess you didn't know *that* either.

>not a multi-role fighter.

Even though it was conceived as one.

>It
> was never conceived to be the latter,

Yes it was. Can you say "TFX"? Or "F111B"?

>and that was fine. But in this
> day and age, with the current operational demands on the ADF and the
> limited defence budget, my contention is that the high (and growing)
> cost of this single capability cannot be justified for retention.

But your contention is based on incomplete knowledge of the subject. Best
you reconsider.

>
> >
> > >- their best
> > > option would be to runaway to another base.
> >
> > How about we just use them to destroy the enemy's strike aircraft or
base
> > before this scenario unfolds?
>
> Obviously the preferred option! But will our politicians give that
> order? Even Israel has been subject to surprise attacks - remember the
> Yom Kippur War? I won't suggest you were around at the time of Pearl
> Harbour . . .
>
> >
> > >We can't afford to have
> > > combat aircraft that can't fight.
> >
> > No **** Sherlock? Given your premise, we should **** the P3s and
Hercs
> > off as well, since they're pretty useless in a dogfight too.
>
> No, not quite. They both fill a variety of roles and have both been
> deployed on operations in recent years.

So has the RF111.

>They are also not designed to
> strike enemy targets which are likely to be defended by combat
> aircraft.
>
> Clearly, my preferrence is that - given our defence budget - the RAAF
> field a multi-role fighter, not a multi-role fighter and a pure strike
> / recon aircraft.

Multi-role fighters less-than-optimum strike aircraft make.

>
> Of course, ideally, if the defence budget was at a level that would
> make me happy, I would like to see the F-111s retained, further
> upgraded and supported by AAR aircraft with booms, and the RAAF also
> operating at least 6, if not 8, operational squadrons of tactical
> fighters - perhaps half primarily for air-to-air (the F-15), and half
> primarily for battlefield air interdiction / CAS with a second role of
> air-to-air (the Hornets, or F-16s, or take your pick of a few others).
> But now I'm dreaming.

F16's legs are too short. And they've only got one (semi-reliable) donk.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

The Raven

August 8th 03, 10:53 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> The Raven wrote:
>
[snip]

> > > > Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling.
> > >
> > > Can't say I recall seeing an F-111 perform vertical landing !
> >
> > Only one of the three variants of JSF does VTOL and it's unlikely to be
the
> > variant Australia would ever buy. Heck, the ADF would probably try to
fit
> > another seat back in that lift-fan area.
>
> LOL !

Don't laugh, the ADF get some bizarre ideas for "Australianising" equipment.
If you can fit a big lift fan there someone will suggest a
backseater............whether it's necessary or not is another thing.

Just don't open the lift fans lower doors........... :-)

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

Thomas Schoene

August 8th 03, 11:32 AM

"The Raven" > wrote in message

> Don't laugh, the ADF get some bizarre ideas for "Australianising"
> equipment. If you can fit a big lift fan there someone will suggest a
> backseater............whether it's necessary or not is another thing.

The Israelis have made noises about doing much the same thing, because they
still regard the second seat as necessary for many missions.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

phil hunt

August 8th 03, 05:17 PM

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:09:37 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>>On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw <keith@kwil
>>lshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians
>>
>>Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.
>
>They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you
>fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if
>you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we
>are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be
>a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound,
>bearing steady!"

Would it be possible to have a supersonic torpedo? That'd be hard to
dodge, I imagine.

>For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.

I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
system.

>>Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
>>supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
>>F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
>>Something else?
>
>Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
>airframe.

I guess the F-35 tryies to do to many things to be a superlative
fighter.

>Haggle to see what both factions will sell for, and how
>degraded the 'export version' is.

That would make sense.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

phil hunt

August 8th 03, 05:43 PM

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:02:58 +0100, Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
>phil hunt wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani > wrote:
>> >On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought
>> >>> that was self-evident.
>> >>
>> >>And just who might "the enemy" be ?
>> >
>> >It would not be diplomatic to say who the enemy *might* be.
>>
>> I'm not a diplomat: Indonesia.
>
>Glad someone came out and said so.
>
>Pray, please, what would Indonesia gain from attacking Australia - lots of sheep I
>guess !

There's lots of reasons a war might break out, for example over
fishery or oil rights in disputed waters between the 2 countries, or
an Australian politician might be assissinated by people with
alledged links to terrorist groups alledgedly supported by Indonesia
or there could be a conflict originating with a 3rd country e.g.
PNG. Or both countries might be led by politicians wanting to "talk
tough" to divert attention from domestic troubles. Or a combination
of factors.

>China has a far simpler plan for world domination. Cheaper, more effective and
>doesn't require military force. It's called manufacturing.

Absolutely. But, who will be running China in 15 years time? I don't
know -- do you?

>Check where your last
>TV / microwave / other consumer goods were made.

I've just looked and TV has "Made in Europe" on the back.

>And you reckon the other poor S.E. asian countries want to invade you ?

"You"? You seem to be under the illusion that I'm Australian -- I'm
not. BTW, the Internet is a worldwide phenomenon.

>> A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia,
>
>< weeps with laughter >
>
>> and
>> Australia doesn't have any allies,
>
>Oh sure - you reckon the US and UK can't / won't protect your interests ?

Speaking as a UK person, I think public sentiment in the UK would
favour saupporting Austalia militarily, unless Australia had done
something major to **** off the UK recently. However, Australian
military planners cannot rely on foreign support.

>> sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
>> imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
>> win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
>> invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
>> cavitating torpedoes) and anti-ship missiles.
>
>Are you just a war-monger or a madman ?

Can't I be *both*? [FX: evil laughter].

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Paul J. Adam

August 8th 03, 06:42 PM

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:09:37 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwlyn
>ch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you
>>fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if
>>you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we
>>are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be
>>a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound,
>>bearing steady!"
>
>Would it be possible to have a supersonic torpedo? That'd be hard to
>dodge, I imagine.

Speed of sound in water is about 3,000 miles an hour, from memory, so
getting a torpedo to go that fast would be a significant achievement.

>>For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.
>
>I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
>system.

Torpedo guidance needs the torpedo to listen for either the noise of the
enemy, or the sonar echoes from its own transmission. Shkval achieves
its speed by 'supercavitating', meaning it's sheathed in a layer of
bubbles; and, again, it's really noisy. Both factors mean it can't use a
guidance system other than basic gyrostabilisation.

>>Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
>>airframe.
>
>I guess the F-35 tryies to do to many things to be a superlative
>fighter.

I think it'll do many things well, but the F-22 and Typhoon were
designed as air-superiority fighters from the outset: Typhoon always had
a secondary ground-attack role, the F-22 is a tacked-on afterthought to
try to protect it from budget cuts :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

August 8th 03, 08:17 PM

In article >,
Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>>>For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.
>>
>>I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
>>system.
>
>Torpedo guidance needs the torpedo to listen for either the noise of the
>enemy, or the sonar echoes from its own transmission. Shkval achieves
>its speed by 'supercavitating', meaning it's sheathed in a layer of
>bubbles; and, again, it's really noisy. Both factors mean it can't use a
>guidance system other than basic gyrostabilisation.

Could, I guess, use swim-out and look-around, then once it's got a fix
point-and-squirt at the target, hoping it hasn't moved much. Of course,
all that achieves with submarine launch is swapping a big, sensitive sonar
for a piddling little one and an added delay, but I guess it could work
for a surface launch from a quiet platform - but if I were driving the
platform I'd want ro be leaving as soon as possible after launch.

I dare say the thing could have a role as a coast-defence weapon in
something like the Fjords - a sort of successor to heavy shore-based
torpedo tubes.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Paul J. Adam

August 8th 03, 09:47 PM

In message >, ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
> writes
>I dare say the thing could have a role as a coast-defence weapon in
>something like the Fjords - a sort of successor to heavy shore-based
>torpedo tubes.

It's bloody good for its designed role, which is very rapid transport of
a bucket of instant sunshine to the general vicinity of a just-launched
enemy torpedo (and the submarine that launched it).

Like a lot of Russian kit, it does what it was designed to... the
trouble comes when you try making it do other roles.

Conventional warheads limit it to a longer-ranged (because of higher
speed) version of the old straight-runners, meaning "be close with a
really good fire control system" - if the enemy's a threat, you do _not_
want to be that close, if the enemy's supine you don't need Shkval.
Shore defence on the Norwegian model is an example where it could be
handy.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

August 8th 03, 10:14 PM

Paul J. Adam wrote:

(snip)
>
> Speed of sound in water is about 3,000 miles an hour, from memory, so
> getting a torpedo to go that fast would be a significant achievement.
(snip)
Speed of sound in water is about 1500m/s, 3375mph roughly. As you would
expect, varies with salinity and temperature.
JD

phil hunt

August 8th 03, 11:04 PM

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:37:30 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>> Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
>> supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
>> F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
>> Something else?
>
>That depends on the mission, for Australia today an F-15 variant
>would probably be the best alternative, Typhoon is a little short
>on range though that could be an option with a decent tanker
>force.

According to _The Illustrated Directory of Fighters_ by Mike Spick,
Typhoon has a range of 1852 km and F-15 1191 km.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Keith Willshaw

August 9th 03, 09:45 AM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:37:30 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >> Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
> >> supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
> >> F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
> >> Something else?
> >
> >That depends on the mission, for Australia today an F-15 variant
> >would probably be the best alternative, Typhoon is a little short
> >on range though that could be an option with a decent tanker
> >force.
>
> According to _The Illustrated Directory of Fighters_ by Mike Spick,
> Typhoon has a range of 1852 km and F-15 1191 km.
>

As I said it depends on the mission

The figures for Typhoon I have are

a.. ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
a.. ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
a.. air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
a.. air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km

Boieng claim the F-15K has an unrefuelled combat radius
in excess of 1800 km on a deep strike mission

In the air defence with 3 hr CAP they claim a range of 500 km

Keith

August 9th 03, 02:09 PM

Brash wrote:
> Not you JD, the Taswegian.

Its alright. You'd be pretty much correct anyway.

Tomas By

August 10th 03, 09:45 AM

(phil hunt) writes:
> Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
> supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent?

Per money spent? Gripen.

/Tomas

Thomas Schoene

August 11th 03, 12:23 AM

"Paul Krenske" > wrote in message

> If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the
> avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated
> now and the avionics package has been much improved. In fact I believe
> they are technically capable of AMRAAM carriage now although none have
> been tested yet. The RAAF has even investigated the potential for
> using them as heavy missile support for the F-18's. (12 AMRAAM's and 4
> sidewinders are certainly heavy but are almost a clean load for a
> pig.) It must be remembered that they were originally to be Multirole
> fighter/bombers with heavy missile loads in the fighter role. F111B
> was to carry Phoenix etc.
>

F-111B had a totally different radar suite than the A, C, etc. (in fact, the
B had much the same systems as the F-14.)

I'm highly skeptical about AMRAAM carriage on the F-111C; the radars are not
even close to right, unless they gutted it entirely in the AUP, which I
don't believe they did. I certainly can find no indication that this
armament is possible. (If even Carlo Kopp isn't claiming AMRAAM capability
for the existing F-111s, I'm guessing it doesn't exist)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

The CO

August 11th 03, 02:32 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...

> F16's legs are too short. And they've only got one (semi-reliable)
donk.

(F16 Bumper Stickers)

Lean, Mean, Flameout Machine.

I SHALL RETURN...Well, I might.

Mach Nix.

The F-16. Takes a licking, and takes a licking.

Have you hugged your chute today?

This Vehicle Makes Frequent Stops.

I came. I saw. I bingo'd.

No deposit, no return.

We've spent so much money on this thing that we can't afford to admit we
were wrong.

A triumph of style over substance.

The best damn second place fighter in the world.

Instead of a CAS mod, we're going to install a roll bar.

And now with this LANTIRN thing and our new Block 40's, we can hit the
ground at NIGHT!

We cover the target like a thong bikini.

And BINGO is my Name-O.

We crash more airplanes before 9-o'clock than most people crash all day.

Last in the talent show, but first in the swimsuit competition.

Lose a few, lose a few.

Feet and knees together, eyes on the horizon...

Designated no-hitter.

Everything you wanted in a fighter and less.

Optimist: F-16 pilot who's worried about dying from cancer.

Only Michael Jackson is more manly.

Hey, today we didn't lose a single jet.

This is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you.

User friendly... if you've got three hands.

If we have a war with BDUs, we've got 'em beat.

Careful badguys...I'm carrying BOTH bombs today. I'm talkin'
wall-to-wall MK-82's Pal.

If I carried more weapons, and if I had enough gas, and if I could
actually hit the target, and if I had some more REALLY expensive
electrons so I could find you, and if my motor didn't quit, and if My
wings didn't crack, Boy, I'd really teach you a lesson!

The CO

David Bromage

August 11th 03, 05:30 AM

Graham wrote:
> Would the new super hornet Suit?

Maybe as a replacement for the F/A-18A/B, but as a bomb truck it's not
the best. The F-15K would appear to be the best replacement for the F-111.

Cheers
David

Paul Krenske

August 11th 03, 05:42 AM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:23:47 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>"Paul Krenske" > wrote in message

>
>> If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the
>> avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated
>> now and the avionics package has been much improved. In fact I believe
>> they are technically capable of AMRAAM carriage now although none have
>> been tested yet. The RAAF has even investigated the potential for
>> using them as heavy missile support for the F-18's. (12 AMRAAM's and 4
>> sidewinders are certainly heavy but are almost a clean load for a
>> pig.) It must be remembered that they were originally to be Multirole
>> fighter/bombers with heavy missile loads in the fighter role. F111B
>> was to carry Phoenix etc.
>>
>
>F-111B had a totally different radar suite than the A, C, etc. (in fact, the
>B had much the same systems as the F-14.)
>
>I'm highly skeptical about AMRAAM carriage on the F-111C; the radars are not
>even close to right, unless they gutted it entirely in the AUP, which I
>don't believe they did. I certainly can find no indication that this
>armament is possible. (If even Carlo Kopp isn't claiming AMRAAM capability
>for the existing F-111s, I'm guessing it doesn't exist)

The F111's would be unable to self target apparently but would act as
a "Arsenal Aircraft" for F18's. The F18's pass over the information
through some sort of datalink to the missiles and the F111 drops em.
Apparently quite similar to Malaysias idea to use 2 seat f-18s as
controll birds for 4 ship flights of flankers. The new digital fire
control and data systems theoretically allow it to happen, I do not
personally believe it should be a starter though. Instead the F111's
should be smashing the Airbases not running air superiority patrols.

Note the arsenal plane concept with RPV's is alive and well though.
DARPA is seriously proposing some low performance patrol RPV's (mach
9 semi stealthy) with 4-8 AMRAAMs (or the ER follow on) running the
patrol loops taking targeting information from manned fighters and
possibly directly from AWAC's.

>--
>Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
>"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
>special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>
>

L'acrobat

August 11th 03, 06:46 AM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a
> surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least
> intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might
> be able to supply from the air).

Supply a force (that can invade Australia) from the air?

Not an option.

L'acrobat

August 11th 03, 06:56 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message news:3f335ba4$0$15134

> > > Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its
> cost.
> >
> > Maybe that's so... but the task itself is obsolete.
>
> For now.

I hate to disagree, but it is my understanding that F-111s were tasked to
strike Indonesian C3I targets if the E.Timor op had been seriously opposed
by the Indon Military.

Hardly an obsolete task.

L'acrobat

August 11th 03, 07:04 AM

"Marcus Andersson" > wrote in message
> >
> > Look at a map, the Pacific rim is literally heaving with potential
> > threats. But Indonesia is still #1 I'd imagine.
>
>
> Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack
> Australia in any way?

Religious differences have been known to cause the odd spot of bother in the
past.

Leaders trying to divert attention from domestic problems,

Natural resources,

Lebensraum,

A wish to get a real grip on the maritime choke points,

to name just a few.

David Bromage

August 11th 03, 11:29 AM

L'acrobat wrote:
> I hate to disagree, but it is my understanding that F-111s were tasked to
> strike Indonesian C3I targets if the E.Timor op had been seriously
opposed
> by the Indon Military.

There were reports of this but we won't know officially until 2029 when
the papers are released by the National Archives. In a speech in 2000,
General Cosgrove said that we came "dangerously close" to a shooting war
with Indonesia but he didn't elaborate. Subsequent media reports were
hard to either prove or disprove.

There was speculation that the TNI, which was totally opposed to giving
up East Timor, might not behave and it was not inconceivable that
elements might resist the INTERFET deployment, and perhaps even stage a
coup.

F-111s and extra F/A-18s were forward deployed to Tindal in the lead up
to the INTERFET deployment (plenty of TV footage at the time). Indonesia
claimed that RF-111s conducted overflights of East Timor and made a very
public threat to shoot down any "spy planes" entering Indonesian
airspace. F/A-18s started carrying white missiles the day that threat
was made.

It is known that Indonesian F-16s, F-5s and A-4s were airborne the night
the ships sailed from Darwin, and reportedly made probing moves towards
the group. There were also some missile boats out of Kupang. The Type
209 subs was in the Timor Sea (but there were also two Collins subs
around, and RAAF and RNZAF Orions, so they weren't a real problem).

What's not known is exactly how close we came. One media report later
said that F-111s were "bombed up" ready to "knock out Indonesian
communications as far back as TNI headquarters on the outskirts of
Jakarta if necessary". Another report said that the commander of the
naval taskforce came within less than a minute of giving the order to
fire on Indonesia aircraft. How much of this is fact won't be known
until 2029.

It's not difficult to work out that if the TNI had gone off the rails
then things could have got very ugly very quickly. While INTERFET wasn't
militarily or politically in a position to make an opposed landing, the
aircraft in theatre would at least have been in a position to cover the
taskforce as it retreated to Darwin.

Cheers
David

Brash

August 11th 03, 01:40 PM

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
om...
> > Let
> > > > me guess, ex-army?
> > >
> > > No, but hardly relevant.
> >
> > It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the
expense of
> > strategic common-sense.
>
> My pro-army, pro-tanks stance is not at the expense of strategic
> commonsense (no hyphen), nor is at the expense of the RAAF or RAN. I
> would like it to be at the expense of the enormous, and growing,
> social welfare budget, but that's another issue. I believe the defence
> budget should be dramatically increased. And I also believe a balance
> in capabilities must be maintained, with due regard to the likely
> threats and contingencies that our forces must face. It's incredibly
> misleading for you to suggest that my support for the probable
> retirement of the F-111 around 2006 is linked to my support for
> acquiring new tanks. I apologised for giving the false impression that
> I favoured using the $300 million (a conservative estimate as some are
> now reporting it to be $500m) to be saved from retiring the Pigs on
> raising two new infantry battalions. Personally, I believe the number
> of infantry battalions at present is adequate. I was quite clear in
> stating my views on what we should be doing regarding our air combat
> capabilities.
>
>
>
> > >I don't claim to know a whole lot.
> >
> > Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.
>
> Oh, so you're the local expert?

Some might say that.

>
>
> > The ADA are reasonably knowledgeable. But they sometimes fill in the
blanks
> > with opinions that aren't factually correct.
>
> You're saying you're more knowledgeable than the ADA?

Ummm, yep.

>
>
> >
> > >I believe - stated that
> > > it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
> > > they sent according to you?
> >
> > Its not "according to me", and its none of your business.
>
> The reason the F-111s were not sent to the Gulf was because "its none
> of your business". So not only are you an expert, you are also privy
> to information of the highest confidentiality? This is becoming very
> amusing.

It is. For me. (And probably a few others who are lurking).

>
> >
> > > > > Here's a question - what's the point having a good strike aircraft
if
> > > > > the enemy has already knocked them out on the ground?
> > > >
> > > > With what?
> > >
> > >
> > > With SU-27s should 'they' acquire them, or whatever combat aircraft
> > > 'they' may possess. The F-111s have great range but it would be pure
> > > folly to say they would operate our of Amberley in any crisis centred
> > > around, say, East Timor, Irian Jaya, or Indonesia generally.
> >
> > Folly to you. and we've already determined that you're a bit thin on
> > knowledge of this topic.
>
> Check a map. For operations in those areas, even the long-legged
> F-111s would need to be much closer than Amberley to be effective.
> Otherwise, you're looking at a much lower sortie rate, less time over
> target and a lower bomb load.
>
>
> >
> > >They
> > > would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during
> > > Interfet.
> >
> > That was to shorten response time, not because they didn't have the
reach.
>
> They have the reach, but there's more reasons to it than response
> time.

There, were you?

>
>
> >
> > >Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out
> > > of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or
> > > without AAR?
> >
> > I haven't got the data in front of me. So I can't say.
>
> It is.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >The F-111 scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant
> > > >
> > > > Utter bull****.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok, what's the truth?
> >
> > That the F111 has EW equipment and its getting more. Can you say
"Echidna"?
> >
>
> "Its getting more." (Should have been an apostrophe after the "t" but
> I'll let you off.) I have heard of Echidna, also aware that this has
> not yet transpired to any new equipment on these aircraft.

A sure sign of a Usenet newbie is spelling flames. I suggest you lurk awhile
longer and work out who is who in the zoo before you make a bigger goose of
yourself.

>
>
> > > Ok, we have some Rapiers (to be retired), and RBS-70s, and Tindal is
> > > laid out with widely located protective aircraft shelters, but do our
> > > F-111 pilots train to launch on air-to-air missions?
> >
> > None of your business. Also, can you say "Hawk 127"? Actually, I just
> > remembered that there was a public article about a Pig shooting down an
F16
> > at Red Flag a few years ago. Make of it what you will.
>
> The Hawk 127 is primarily a trainer, with a secondary ground attack
> role.

Its a "Lead In Fighter" ****tard. The PC9 is a "trainer".

Riddle me this dickhead, why does the configuration of the Hawk 127 cockpit
closely match that of the F/A-18, and why is the Hawk 127 capable of
employing AIM9s?

>It would take some time to prepare either of the Hawk squadrons
> - or flights thereof - to deploy for active service.

Yeah, about the same amount of time it would take the gunnies to pull some
white Sidewinders out of J Group and attach 'em to the rails.

Clown.

>I would imagine

Yes, keep imagining........ lots. It fills the gaps in your knowledge.

> that in such a scenario every operational fighter squadron would
> already be in action. Throwing a lead-in fighter training squadron
> into the fray is a desperate move.
>
> As for the F-111 notionally shooting down an F-16 at Red Flag, I read
> that article, and I have to say it's always good to see an underdog
> get on top now and then. I support the Western Bulldogs in the AFL
> (feel free to laugh) and every now and then we get a win. Now and then
> just doesn't cut it.

What was the F111B designed to do? What did the F14 end up doing? What is an
AIM120? Can you add two and two?

> > > > >There would be
> > > > > no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase
> > > >
> > > > Of course not. Your point?
> > >
> > > That the F-111 is a strike aircraft only,
> >
> > Its a strike aircraft *primarily*. Its also a bloody good Recon
platform,
> > but I guess you didn't know *that* either.
> >
> > >not a multi-role fighter.
> >
> > Even though it was conceived as one.
>
> Yes, I was aware of it, partly because one of our RF-111Cs was used to
> spy on Tasmania during the dams dispute. I don't blame the RAAF for
> that disgraceful decision.

Nor should you. It wasn't unlawful and it wasn't "spying on Tasmania"?

> Let's get one thing straight - the F-111 - as a strike and recon
> platform - will be a great loss. However, it is an unavoidable one due
> to the limited defence budget and need to maintain balanced defence
> capabilities. It's expense can not be justified.

Its early retirement will be the expensive waste that cant be justified. Can
you say AGM142?

> > >It
> > > was never conceived to be the latter,
> >
> > Yes it was. Can you say "TFX"? Or "F111B"?
> >
> > >and that was fine. But in this
> > > day and age, with the current operational demands on the ADF and the
> > > limited defence budget, my contention is that the high (and growing)
> > > cost of this single capability cannot be justified for retention.
> >
> > But your contention is based on incomplete knowledge of the subject.
Best
> > you reconsider.
>
> It was never conceived to be a multirole fighter, at least as we view
> fighters in this category today.

You can't have two bob each way, either it was, or it wasn't. And the fact
is, it was.

>A carrier-borne interceptor was
> conceived but ultimately failed, losing out to the F-14. (I don't rate
> that aircraft as a multirole fighter, do you?)

Obviously you don't know much about F14s either.

>The F-111 was selected
> for Australian service to replace the Canberra - a bomber.

Thanks for the history lesson. I miss the old B20, the view from the
Bombardier's possie had to be seen to be believed........ and the bang from
the cartridge starts! What a noise!

>And it's
> air to air capabilities were never strong.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean they're non-existant. Especially with modern
data-links and AIM120s.

>
> > Multi-role fighters less-than-optimum strike aircraft make.
>
> True. But Australia with its current defence budget and given our
> likely threats and contingency demands, cannot afford such an
> expensive strike aircraft.

And we can't afford to be stuck with a short-legged single donked fighter
that can't haul bombs. Otherwise we will end up, literally, "defending"
Australia instead of defending Australia and her interests.

> > > Of course, ideally, if the defence budget was at a level that would
> > > make me happy, I would like to see the F-111s retained, further
> > > upgraded and supported by AAR aircraft with booms, and the RAAF also
> > > operating at least 6, if not 8, operational squadrons of tactical
> > > fighters - perhaps half primarily for air-to-air (the F-15), and half
> > > primarily for battlefield air interdiction / CAS with a second role of
> > > air-to-air (the Hornets, or F-16s, or take your pick of a few others).
> > > But now I'm dreaming.
> >
> > F16's legs are too short. And they've only got one (semi-reliable) donk.
>
> True. In my "ideal" world force structure presented above I would
> favour the Hornet over the F-16, but a next generation fighter such as
> the Typhoon or the Rafale would also be a good choice.

No they wouldn't. Come back when you've got a clue.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 11th 03, 01:42 PM

"Graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > The RAAF's 35 F-111 warplanes - Australia's front-line strategic
strike
> > > force - could be retired from service from 2006, a decade earlier than
> > > originally planned, if the Government accepts a controversial option
put
> > > forward by the Defence Department. A key issue is whether early
> > > retirement for the long-range F-111s could leave a gaping hole in
> > > Australia's front-line defences early next decade.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6866971%255E60
> 1,00.html
> >
> > Bring on the leased F15E's. We've done it before.
> >
> Would the new super hornet Suit?

IMHO, a bit short in the legs. But a better option than Vipers.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 11th 03, 01:47 PM

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> L'acrobat wrote:
> > I hate to disagree, but it is my understanding that F-111s were tasked
to
> > strike Indonesian C3I targets if the E.Timor op had been seriously
> opposed
> > by the Indon Military.
>
> There were reports of this but we won't know officially until 2029 when
> the papers are released by the National Archives. In a speech in 2000,
> General Cosgrove said that we came "dangerously close" to a shooting war
> with Indonesia but he didn't elaborate. Subsequent media reports were
> hard to either prove or disprove.
>
> There was speculation that the TNI, which was totally opposed to giving
> up East Timor, might not behave and it was not inconceivable that
> elements might resist the INTERFET deployment, and perhaps even stage a
> coup.
>
> F-111s and extra F/A-18s were forward deployed to Tindal in the lead up
> to the INTERFET deployment (plenty of TV footage at the time). Indonesia
> claimed that RF-111s conducted overflights of East Timor and made a very
> public threat to shoot down any "spy planes" entering Indonesian
> airspace. F/A-18s started carrying white missiles the day that threat
> was made.
>
> It is known that Indonesian F-16s, F-5s and A-4s were airborne the night
> the ships sailed from Darwin, and reportedly made probing moves towards
> the group. There were also some missile boats out of Kupang. The Type
> 209 subs was in the Timor Sea (but there were also two Collins subs
> around, and RAAF and RNZAF Orions, so they weren't a real problem).
>
> What's not known is exactly how close we came. One media report later
> said that F-111s were "bombed up" ready to "knock out Indonesian
> communications as far back as TNI headquarters on the outskirts of
> Jakarta if necessary". Another report said that the commander of the
> naval taskforce came within less than a minute of giving the order to
> fire on Indonesia aircraft. How much of this is fact won't be known
> until 2029.
>
> It's not difficult to work out that if the TNI had gone off the rails
> then things could have got very ugly very quickly. While INTERFET wasn't
> militarily or politically in a position to make an opposed landing, the
> aircraft in theatre would at least have been in a position to cover the
> taskforce as it retreated to Darwin.
>
> Cheers
> David

As you say, its mostly speculation and rumour. One thing that I know for
certain is that the inter-service rivalry in the TNI is so strong that I
would be surprised if the TNI-AU (Air Force) would have gone into a shooting
match at the behest of the TNI-AD (Army), against the orders of the
government. It would have been a prime opportunity for the TNI-AU to curry
favour with the powers-that-be in Jakarta and stick it to the TNI-AD.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>

L'acrobat

August 11th 03, 03:27 PM

"Brash" > wrote in message
...
> "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > Let
> > > > > me guess, ex-army?
> > > >
> > > > No, but hardly relevant.
> > >
> > > It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the
> expense of
> > > strategic common-sense.
> >
> > My pro-army, pro-tanks stance is not at the expense of strategic
> > commonsense (no hyphen), nor is at the expense of the RAAF or RAN. I
> > would like it to be at the expense of the enormous, and growing,
> > social welfare budget, but that's another issue. I believe the defence
> > budget should be dramatically increased. And I also believe a balance
> > in capabilities must be maintained, with due regard to the likely
> > threats and contingencies that our forces must face. It's incredibly
> > misleading for you to suggest that my support for the probable
> > retirement of the F-111 around 2006 is linked to my support for
> > acquiring new tanks. I apologised for giving the false impression that
> > I favoured using the $300 million (a conservative estimate as some are
> > now reporting it to be $500m) to be saved from retiring the Pigs on
> > raising two new infantry battalions. Personally, I believe the number
> > of infantry battalions at present is adequate. I was quite clear in
> > stating my views on what we should be doing regarding our air combat
> > capabilities.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >I don't claim to know a whole lot.
> > >
> > > Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.
> >
> > Oh, so you're the local expert?
>
> Some might say that.
>

Only you believe that gate guard, only you.

'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't a
gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
delusions of grandeur.

To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the RAAF,
the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and aren't
smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with his
self important nonsense.

Pits

August 12th 03, 02:33 AM

"JD" > wrote in message
om...
> (Defender in Tas) wrote in message
>...
> > > Let
> > > > > me guess, ex-army?
> > > >
> > > > No, but hardly relevant.
> > >
> > > It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the
expense of
> > > strategic common-sense.
> >
> > My pro-army, pro-tanks stance is not at the expense of strategic
> > commonsense (no hyphen), nor is at the expense of the RAAF or RAN. I
> > would like it to be at the expense of the enormous, and growing,
> > social welfare budget, but that's another issue. I believe the defence
> > budget should be dramatically increased. And I also believe a balance
> > in capabilities must be maintained, with due regard to the likely
> > threats and contingencies that our forces must face. It's incredibly
> > misleading for you to suggest that my support for the probable
> > retirement of the F-111 around 2006 is linked to my support for
> > acquiring new tanks. I apologised for giving the false impression that
> > I favoured using the $300 million (a conservative estimate as some are
> > now reporting it to be $500m) to be saved from retiring the Pigs on
> > raising two new infantry battalions. Personally, I believe the number
> > of infantry battalions at present is adequate. I was quite clear in
> > stating my views on what we should be doing regarding our air combat
> > capabilities.
>
> My two cents;
>
> Spend more on the Navy and Air Force. Cut back the army. **** off the
> idea of tanks, bushmasters, APCs. Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
> Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT. Move 3 RAR up to
> Enoggera. Buy ASLAVs, More choppers. Make all reservists infantry.
>
> Or accept that our army really isn't going to do anything, so just
> **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.

Hmmmmm -- you missed your vocation :-)
but idea has merit and will help the balance of payments ;-)

The CO

August 12th 03, 03:15 AM

"JD" > wrote in message
om...

> My two cents;
>
> Spend more on the Navy and Air Force. Cut back the army.

Realistically, in the current environment I think we should be spending
rather more on ALL the services.
This no doubt means an increased budget allocation which would reflect
in increased taxes. The money
has to come from somewhere, so it may be the only real option. We don't
spend enough on defence in
the current somewhat hostile environment.

> **** off the idea of tanks, bushmasters, APCs.

It's difficult to envisage a local scenario that would benefit greatly
from heavy armour.
That said, since we have a somewhat capable (depite the length of it's
teeth) MBT,
I'd probably just stick with that. New Leopards might make the turret
heads feel good
but I don't presently believe it would significantly increase our
defence capability.

The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
need to go,
give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more ASLAV
you wouldn't need
to bugger about with it.

> Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
> Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.

Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning would
seem to be essential.

> Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.

Yep.

> Buy ASLAVs,

Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We need to
improve our force mobility
*significantly*. This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
support a more highly mobile fielded force
as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..

> More choppers.

Yes, and that should include a Cobra or Apache equivalent. But troopie
and heavy lift stuff too.
It's noted that the RAAF are considering *not* retiring the Caribou
fleet for something newer,
so "Wallaby Airlines" can fill *some* of the roles of the transport helo
with only the most basic
of prepared strips (though this becomes harder in the 'wet'.) But we
*need* more helos too.

> Make all reservists infantry.

I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements' for
more specialised roles is not
without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
Naval Reserve.

> Or accept that our army really isn't going to do anything,

If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
can't assume that.
It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
will probably be largely
infantry and special forces.

> so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.

Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
provocativeness
of establishing a permanent presence.

Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)

The CO

Thomas Schoene

August 12th 03, 03:31 AM

"Paul Krenske" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:23:47 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> > wrote:

> The F111's would be unable to self target apparently but would act as
> a "Arsenal Aircraft" for F18's. The F18's pass over the information
> through some sort of datalink to the missiles and the F111 drops em.
> Apparently quite similar to Malaysias idea to use 2 seat f-18s as
> controll birds for 4 ship flights of flankers. The new digital fire
> control and data systems theoretically allow it to happen, I do not
> personally believe it should be a starter though. Instead the F111's
> should be smashing the Airbases not running air superiority patrols.

You'll pardon me if I'm still skeptical. That sort of engage-on-remote
datalink is the sort of thing being planned for the F/A-22; I really doubt
that it already exists in the F-111C. Do you have a source for this
capability?

I'm also skeptical about the Malaysian concept being significantly automated
(even having shared datalink) -- mixing US and Russian systems like that is
very hard. I could believe that the Hornets might serve as pathfinders or
mini-AWACS, but they would almost certainly be limited to passing data via
voice. The Flankers would have to acquire and engage their own targets,
which is a very different prospect from what you describe for the F-111.

> Note the arsenal plane concept with RPV's is alive and well though.
> DARPA is seriously proposing some low performance patrol RPV's (mach
> 9 semi stealthy) with 4-8 AMRAAMs (or the ER follow on) running the
> patrol loops taking targeting information from manned fighters and
> possibly directly from AWAC's.

Oh sure, I believe it's possible in the future. But you seem to be saying
that this capability already exists now. If DARPA is playing wiht it in the
US, that's because it's still very raw technology.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Paul Krenske

August 12th 03, 03:40 AM

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:19:07 +0800, Bernd Felsche
> wrote:

(Paul Krenske) writes:
>
>>Note the arsenal plane concept with RPV's is alive and well though.
>>DARPA is seriously proposing some low performance patrol RPV's (mach
>>9 semi stealthy) with 4-8 AMRAAMs (or the ER follow on) running the
>
>I don't think you can deliver any munitions reliably from mach 9 :-)

Bugger, .9 and I am almost certain I typed the . as well.

>>patrol loops taking targeting information from manned fighters and
>>possibly directly from AWAC's.
>--
>/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
>\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
> X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
>/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Pooh Bear

August 12th 03, 05:17 AM

Brash wrote:

> "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> om...
> ill.
> >
> > The Hawk 127 is primarily a trainer, with a secondary ground attack
> > role.
>
> Its a "Lead In Fighter" ****tard. The PC9 is a "trainer".

IIRC the RAF refers to them as a 'fast jet trainer'.

>
> Riddle me this dickhead, why does the configuration of the Hawk 127 cockpit
> closely match that of the F/A-18, and why is the Hawk 127 capable of
> employing AIM9s?

Can't comment on the exact detail of that but basically simple. BAe can sell
them innocently enough as 'trainers', whereas the customer knows their true
potential. Nice selling feature.

PB

L'acrobat

August 12th 03, 10:18 AM

"The CO" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JD" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > My two cents;
> >
> > Spend more on the Navy and Air Force. Cut back the army.
>
> Realistically, in the current environment I think we should be spending
> rather more on ALL the services.
> This no doubt means an increased budget allocation which would reflect
> in increased taxes. The money
> has to come from somewhere, so it may be the only real option. We don't
> spend enough on defence in
> the current somewhat hostile environment.

Agreed.

>
> > **** off the idea of tanks, bushmasters, APCs.
>
> It's difficult to envisage a local scenario that would benefit greatly
> from heavy armour.
> That said, since we have a somewhat capable (depite the length of it's
> teeth) MBT,
> I'd probably just stick with that. New Leopards might make the turret
> heads feel good
> but I don't presently believe it would significantly increase our
> defence capability.
>
> The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
> need to go,

They are being rebuilt.

> give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
> replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
> The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more ASLAV
> you wouldn't need
> to bugger about with it.
>

The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle, it is
markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

> > Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
> > Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.

Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops as is Arty, having
the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.

>
> Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning would
> seem to be essential.
>
> > Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.
>
> Yep.
>

Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and from
PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops for Para
continuation, exercises and so on.

3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and PTS.

> > Buy ASLAVs,
>
> Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We need to
> improve our force mobility
> *significantly*.

Thats the point of Bushmaster.

> This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
> support a more highly mobile fielded force
> as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..

Agreed.

>
> > More choppers.
>
> Yes, and that should include a Cobra or Apache equivalent. But troopie
> and heavy lift stuff too.

That is going to cost, and why buy Helos that are specialist anti armour
Helos?

The Tiger will do the support job just fine.

> It's noted that the RAAF are considering *not* retiring the Caribou
> fleet for something newer,
> so "Wallaby Airlines" can fill *some* of the roles of the transport helo
> with only the most basic
> of prepared strips (though this becomes harder in the 'wet'.) But we
> *need* more helos too.

Helos are very expensive to own/operate.

>
> > Make all reservists infantry.
>
> I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements' for
> more specialised roles is not
> without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
> Naval Reserve.

That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.

>
> > Or accept that our army really isn't going to do anything,
>
> If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
> can't assume that.
> It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
> will probably be largely
> infantry and special forces.

Agreed.

>
> > so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.
>
> Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
> mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
> base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
> the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
> provocativeness
> of establishing a permanent presence.
>
> Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)

IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems, put in
a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not good for the
alliance.

Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

Defender in Tas

August 12th 03, 02:13 PM

> Only you believe that gate guard, only you.
>
> 'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't a
> gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
> delusions of grandeur.
>
> To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the RAAF,
> the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and aren't
> smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with his
> self important nonsense.

That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.

As for your comments re: Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111. I'm thinking
that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday, and you
will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres away
at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of guided
bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on pretty
buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated gate
guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?

L'acrobat

August 12th 03, 10:45 PM

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
om...
> > Only you believe that gate guard, only you.
> >
> > 'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't
a
> > gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
> > delusions of grandeur.
> >
> > To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the
RAAF,
> > the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and
aren't
> > smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with
his
> > self important nonsense.
>
> That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
> know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.

You have demonstrated a serious lack of subject knowledge.

>
> As for your comments re: Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
> some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
> for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111.

I was in the infantry and the gate guard is an amusement, nothing more.

The F-111 has a strategic role, not a CAS role.

>I'm thinking
> that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
> fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
> with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday,

I'm ex Army - the Indons in question have a lot further to go before they
find me.

>and you
> will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres away
> at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
> while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
> even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of guided
> bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on pretty
> buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated gate
> guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
> the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
> some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
> carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
> guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
> here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?

Nope.

He is largely a waste of space in regards the RAAF role.

If you want directions as to where to park on a RAAF base, gate guard is
your man, otherwise don't bother.

August 13th 03, 02:28 AM

L'acrobat wrote:
> "The CO" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "JD" > wrote in message
>> om...
>
>> give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
>> replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
>> The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more
>> ASLAV you wouldn't need
>> to bugger about with it.
>
> The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle,
> it is markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

The Bushmaster is a complete and utter waste of money.

>>> Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
>>> Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.
>
> Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops as is Arty,
> having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.

And we don't have the biggest sticks.

>> Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning
>> would seem to be essential.
>>
>>> Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.
>>
>> Yep.
>
> Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
> from PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops
> for Para continuation, exercises and so on.

For ****s sake, move them too.

> 3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
> PTS.

Close Richmond, and move PTS. How hard is it?

>>> Buy ASLAVs,
>>
>> Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We
>> need to improve our force mobility
>> *significantly*.
>
> Thats the point of Bushmaster.

No it isn't. Basically, as soon as it rains, Bushmaster needs to be on
sealed roads. We don't even have a recovery capability for it.
[...]

>>> Make all reservists infantry.
>>
>> I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements'
>> for more specialised roles is not
>> without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
>> Naval Reserve.
>
> That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.

So?
[...]

>>> so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.
>>
>> Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
>> mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
>> base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
>> the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
>> provocativeness
>> of establishing a permanent presence.
>>
>> Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)
>
> IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,
> put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
> good for the alliance.

Like?

> Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

We don't have to spend billions of wasted money on the army.

L'acrobat

August 13th 03, 02:54 AM

"JD" > wrote in message
news:Jug_a.31220$bo1.12853@news-
> >
> > The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle,
> > it is markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.
>
> The Bushmaster is a complete and utter waste of money.

It is a sensible, practical response to the need for infantry mobility in a
limited funding environment.

If dollars didn't matter Helos would be great, dollars do matter.

>
> >>> Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
> >>> Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.
> >
> > Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops as is Arty,
> > having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.
>
> And we don't have the biggest sticks.

Compared to whom?

Remember it has to be people we are likely to fight in light ops.

>
> >> Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning
> >> would seem to be essential.
> >>
> >>> Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >
> > Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
> > from PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops
> > for Para continuation, exercises and so on.
>
> For ****s sake, move them too.
>

So are you just going to flush millions for no reason or do you have a plan?

So far you have moved an Inf Bn, Parachute training School, the RAAF
Herc/Caribou Sqns, the Army AD unit, all their supporting elements, maint
etc to Amberley. why? what do you think it will achieve?

Is there room for all these units there? Where is the nearest DZ to Amberley
for PTS?

> > 3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
> > PTS.
>
> Close Richmond, and move PTS. How hard is it?

Politically difficult, financially insane, but keep going.

>
> >>> Buy ASLAVs,
> >>
> >> Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We
> >> need to improve our force mobility
> >> *significantly*.
> >
> > Thats the point of Bushmaster.
>
> No it isn't. Basically, as soon as it rains, Bushmaster needs to be on
> sealed roads. We don't even have a recovery capability for it.
> [...]

We have a recovery capability for Leopard tanks and Mack trucks, are you
suggesting that we can't recover a Bushmaster?

When it rains up north very little moves off roads.

>
> >>> Make all reservists infantry.
> >>
> >> I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements'
> >> for more specialised roles is not
> >> without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
> >> Naval Reserve.
> >
> > That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.
>
> So?
> [...]
>

At the moment they provide useful supplements to areas where reg forces
lack, make 'em all Inf or quit and you lose that.

> >>> so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.
> >>
> >> Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
> >> mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
> >> base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
> >> the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
> >> provocativeness
> >> of establishing a permanent presence.
> >>
> >> Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)
> >
> > IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,
> > put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
> > good for the alliance.
>
> Like?

In english please?

>
> > Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?
>
> We don't have to spend billions of wasted money on the army.

So an American base, that is there purely to support US aims, will replace
our own military? what a strange world you live in. Perhaps you should ask
the South Vietnamese about how well a total reliance on the US for your
defence can work out?

L'acrobat

August 13th 03, 02:58 AM

"JD" > wrote in message
...
> The CO wrote:
> > "JD" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >> My two cents;
> >>
> >> Spend more on the Navy and Air Force. Cut back the army.
> >
> > Realistically, in the current environment I think we should be
> > spending rather more on ALL the services.
>
> Why?

Because we live in an unstable defence environment.

>
> > This no doubt means an increased budget allocation which would reflect
> > in increased taxes. The money
> > has to come from somewhere, so it may be the only real option.
>
> No thanks. I pay enough tax and I rather see what I do contribute go to
> Health and Education.

Always good to have those in top shape for the new owners.

>
> > The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
> > need to go,
> > give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
> > replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
>
> The reserves do play with them. The problem is they are nothing but battle
> taxis unless substantial money is spent modernising them.

They are being modernised.

> >> Remove 1 Armd, 5/7 RAR, 8/12 Mdm
> >> Regt and associated support elements from the ORBAT.
> >
> > Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning would
> > seem to be essential.
>
> Beacuse they aren't needed.

Proof?

> >
> > If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
> > can't assume that.
> > It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
> > will probably be largely
> > infantry and special forces.
>
> Like what? We had no business going to Iraq. Solomons, ok. But we *really*
> don't need an army the size we've got. It isn't big enough to do anything,

The Indonesians certainly disagree.

> our security is guaranteed anyway.

Really? by whom?

>
> >> so just **** it off and let the Yanks have their base here.
> >
> > Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
> > mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
> > base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
> > the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
> > provocativeness
> > of establishing a permanent presence.
>
> The Yanks have stated their desire to have a base here. Give it to them.

The Yanks have specifically stated their LACK of desire to have a base here.

Vector

August 13th 03, 04:35 AM

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:58:21 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> wrote:

>
>"JD" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The Yanks have stated their desire to have a base here. Give it to them.
>
>The Yanks have specifically stated their LACK of desire to have a base here.
>
Yes, that viewpoint was reiterated by Armitage just yesterday.

The CO

August 13th 03, 04:37 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The CO" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> > We don't spend enough on defence in
> > the current somewhat hostile environment.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > It's difficult to envisage a local scenario that would benefit
greatly
> > from heavy armour.
> > That said, since we have a somewhat capable (depite the length of
it's
> > teeth) MBT,
> > I'd probably just stick with that. New Leopards might make the
turret
> > heads feel good
> > but I don't presently believe it would significantly increase our
> > defence capability.
> >
> > The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
> > need to go,
>
> They are being rebuilt.

Is it worth the expense? How significant is the improvement? Are they
going to fix the
water crossing capability as well? ISTR that's been broken a very long
time.
Would it be better to ditch them for something better? Cheaper even?
The M113 is only marginally hardened against even infantry/small arms.

> > give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
> > replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
> > The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more
ASLAV
> > you wouldn't need
> > to bugger about with it.
> >
> The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle, it
is
> markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

Certainly, but it's soft skinned, so it's still just a truck. If you
are going to have highly
trained troops it's best to protect them til they get where they are
going to fight.
Whilst I see your point about cost, perhaps we should also look at the
costs associated
with training troops only to have them become casualties because some
Indo with an
RPG hosed a bunch of them sitting in the soft skinned Bushmaster on
their way in.

> Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops

Hmm, make that *light* armour and I'd agree, (Such as ASLAV or some
other type of at least semi hardened APC with medium size fire support
capability)
I would suggest that heavy armour is more useful against other heavy
armour or in certain urban
scenarios that are rather less likely to happen here. But I'm willing
to be convinced otherwise if you
want to get more specific.

> as is Arty,

Arty is arguably the best form of heavy fire support there is.
Remember Long Tan? Arty is good.

> having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.

Yes, but that can be achieved without resorting to an MBT if you are
up against APC/FSV variants. Terrain is also a factor, an MBT can
become
a sitting target (admittedly a hardened one) if the ground turns to mud
and
it can't move. Lighter vehicles such as ASLAV or variants would be the
last thing to grind to a halt when it got too soft, an MBT would be one
of
the first.

> > Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning
would
> > seem to be essential.

<snip>

> Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from
> PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops for Para
> continuation, exercises and so on.

Ok, there are obviously logistical issues. Effective force placement
would seem
to be something that may require a complete review, nothing is forever.

> 3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
PTS.

Understood. I *do* see your point.

> > Yep. Lots of. It's a *big* country if you have to walk it. We
need to
> > improve our force mobility
> > *significantly*.
>
> Thats the point of Bushmaster.

But is it the answer? Or just a cheap expedient?

> > This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
> > support a more highly mobile fielded force
> > as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..
>
> Agreed.

The Alice-Darwin rail link is going to help a bit (or even a lot) but
supporting a sizeable
force in the bush in far north is arguably harder than supporting one at
some OS locs.

> > Yes, and that should include a Cobra or Apache equivalent. But
troopie
> > and heavy lift stuff too.

> That is going to cost, and why buy Helos that are specialist anti
armour
> Helos?

I consider it would be a good idea to have *some*. But I agree that
Utility and heavy lift
is a bigger force multiplier.

> The Tiger will do the support job just fine.

Probably could do most of it. No real argument, provided it can be
equipped to take out
light armour, which is what we are most likely to encounter in this
country if something happens
and on most likely OS placements. It's worth noting that we don't have
much in the line of COIN
or dedicated CAS airframes. Yes the F/A18 can do it, but something a
bit lower and slower can
also be an asset in many circumstances.

> > It's noted that the RAAF are considering *not* retiring the Caribou
> > fleet for something newer,
> > so "Wallaby Airlines" can fill *some* of the roles of the transport
helo
> > with only the most basic
> > of prepared strips (though this becomes harder in the 'wet'.) But
we
> > *need* more helos too.
>
> Helos are very expensive to own/operate.

Not disputed, but there are some jobs that nothing else can do,
particularly when everything is
wet and soggy and the clouds are almost dragging on the ground.

> > I'd say make *most* of them infantry, a core of 'ready replacements'
for
> > more specialised roles is not
> > without merit, this is essentially the role of the RAAF Reserve and
> > Naval Reserve.
>
> That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.

Quite. And there is a need for specialists. You might need trained
replacements in
a hurry, that's why it's called a 'reserve'.
That said, it's not unreasonable that the most pressing need would be
for infantry,
so the balance should favour that corp.

> > If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
> > can't assume that.
> > It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
> > will probably be largely
> > infantry and special forces.
>
> Agreed.

I'll add a caveat that if there is a major ruction (such as a
fundamentalist govt
coming to power in Djakarta) then that could change, however it's likely
we
would have help from other major players that could provide the heavier
stuff.
What we do best is not armoured warfare or massive logistics, but we
have friends that do, and we are very good at other roles.

> > Or keep it and let the Yanks have a base. The choices need not be
> > mutually exclusive, however I doubt the Yanks really want or need a
> > base here. If something flares up they could probably occupy one of
> > the 'bare bones' bases fairly quickly without the cost and
> > provocativeness
> > of establishing a permanent presence.
> >
> > Just my 1c worth (I'm somewhat less qualified than others here)
>
> IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,

Like I said 'cost and provocativeness'.
If the Indos get a dose of nastiness, the provocativeness is no longer a
significant factor, though
the deterrent effect might be.
What's good in one situation isn't necessarily so in another.

> put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
good for the
> alliance.

Concur. There would need to be an *imminent* threat not a possibility
of one to make
it desirable in view of the negative aspects.

> Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

Unless we have a serious situation looming, not a lot. I feel fairly
sure that such a scenario
wouldn't turn into a conflict overnight, there would be lead time to
seek US support and
get them in place *if* it becomes necessary (or desirable). At the
moment, IMHO, it's
better to be as prepared as we can be on our own.

The CO

Brash

August 13th 03, 04:40 AM

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
om...
> > Only you believe that gate guard, only you.
> >
> > 'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't
a
> > gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
> > delusions of grandeur.
> >
> > To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the
RAAF,
> > the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and
aren't
> > smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with
his
> > self important nonsense.
>
> That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
> know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.
>
> As for your comments re: Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
> some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
> for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111. I'm thinking
> that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
> fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
> with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday, and you
> will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres away
> at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
> while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
> even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of guided
> bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on pretty
> buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated gate
> guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
> the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
> some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
> carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
> guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
> here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?

FYI, ADGs don't do "gates" ( and "guard" is a historic term dating back to
WW2). That's the role of the RAAF Security Police.

"Acrobat" is just jealous that ADGs are better-trained, better-equipped, and
better-paid, than grunts.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 13th 03, 04:58 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The CO" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
>
> Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and from
> PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up troops for Para
> continuation, exercises and so on.

You must be out of the loop dip****. PTS have been known pack up their
bongos and operate out of Amberley (especially during winter) and the long
term plan is for Airlift Group to **** off from Richmond and move
to................... Amberley. Last time I strapped on a parachute and
jumped out of serviceable aircraft in-flight was from Amberley. Funny,
didn't see any gates.

>
> 3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and PTS.

PTS should never have gone to Nowra in the first place. A questionable
decision if there ever was one.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Peter

August 13th 03, 05:10 AM

In article >,
says...
> > The F-111 has a strategic role, not a CAS role.
> >
>
> I never said it did. Although even the B-52 has been used to drop
> bombs on enemy targets close to friendly forces.

Khe Sanh springs to mind. Our Canberras were also used for CAS in SVN. I
think David Hackworth describes using them like artillery in his book About
Face.

L'acrobat

August 13th 03, 05:41 AM

"The CO" > wrote in message
...

> > > The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
> > > need to go,
> >
> > They are being rebuilt.
>
> Is it worth the expense? How significant is the improvement? Are they
> going to fix the
> water crossing capability as well? ISTR that's been broken a very long
> time.
> Would it be better to ditch them for something better? Cheaper even?
> The M113 is only marginally hardened against even infantry/small arms.

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437

The M113 upgrades resistance to SA is classified Secret.

>
> > > give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
> > > replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
> > > The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more
> ASLAV
> > > you wouldn't need
> > > to bugger about with it.
> > >
> > The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle, it
> is
> > markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.
>
> Certainly, but it's soft skinned, so it's still just a truck. If you
> are going to have highly
> trained troops it's best to protect them til they get where they are
> going to fight.
> Whilst I see your point about cost, perhaps we should also look at the
> costs associated
> with training troops only to have them become casualties because some
> Indo with an
> RPG hosed a bunch of them sitting in the soft skinned Bushmaster on
> their way in.

The role of motorised forces is not to ride the truck into combat.

The same ambush problem applies to Helos and SAMs, ASLAVS and RPGs etc
nothing is risk free.

>
> > Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops
>
> Hmm, make that *light* armour and I'd agree, (Such as ASLAV or some
> other type of at least semi hardened APC with medium size fire support
> capability)
> I would suggest that heavy armour is more useful against other heavy
> armour or in certain urban
> scenarios that are rather less likely to happen here. But I'm willing
> to be convinced otherwise if you
> want to get more specific.

Try FSBs Coral and Balmoral in Vietnam for examples of where heavy armour is
of great value in light ops (Lex Mcaulays book covers it).

>
> > as is Arty,
>
> Arty is arguably the best form of heavy fire support there is.
> Remember Long Tan? Arty is good.
>
> > having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.
>
> Yes, but that can be achieved without resorting to an MBT if you are
> up against APC/FSV variants. Terrain is also a factor, an MBT can
> become
> a sitting target (admittedly a hardened one) if the ground turns to mud
> and
> it can't move. Lighter vehicles such as ASLAV or variants would be the
> last thing to grind to a halt when it got too soft, an MBT would be one
> of
> the first.
>

That of course depends on the relative ground pressure of the vehicle, not
the overall weight of the vehicle.

An MBT with wide tracks is likely to remain mobile over soft ground after a
Light Vehicle with thin tracks.

Wheeled Veh, soft ground, you could be looking at real problems.

For example, an M113 has a ground pressure of aprox 8.6 PSI,

a Leopard 1 has a ground pressure of aprox 12.8 PSI,

An LAV has a ground pressure of aprox 40 (forty) PSI...

Also, in Vietnam, it was found that Centurions could push through terrain
that M113s could not.

> > > Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning
> would
> > > seem to be essential.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
> from
> > PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops for Para
> > continuation, exercises and so on.
>
> Ok, there are obviously logistical issues. Effective force placement
> would seem
> to be something that may require a complete review, nothing is forever.

Nothing is forever, but given that 3RAR is a Para Bn, nothing is to be
gained by moving them to Bris, if the couple of hours flight time ever seems
to be a real concern they can be staged to Bris for an operation.

> >
> > Thats the point of Bushmaster.
>
> But is it the answer? Or just a cheap expedient?

It is a protected truck, the simple fact is we can't afford to put all our
troops in AFVs, if the choice is move them fast and then operate as leg inf
or do without a few more Bns, then Bushmaster is the answer.

>
> > > This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
> > > support a more highly mobile fielded force
> > > as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> The Alice-Darwin rail link is going to help a bit (or even a lot) but
> supporting a sizeable
> force in the bush in far north is arguably harder than supporting one at
> some OS locs.

Yes, fortunately it works both ways.

> > The Tiger will do the support job just fine.
>
> Probably could do most of it. No real argument, provided it can be
> equipped to take out
> light armour, which is what we are most likely to encounter in this
> country if something happens
> and on most likely OS placements. It's worth noting that we don't have
> much in the line of COIN
> or dedicated CAS airframes. Yes the F/A18 can do it, but something a
> bit lower and slower can
> also be an asset in many circumstances.

Given that the Tiger will carry Hellfire II it seems quite capable of
handling any armour we are likely to encounter.

Lockheed Martin, Eurocopter Ink Contract to Integrate Hellfire II Missile on
Tigre Attack Helo

ORLANDO, Fla. (May 8, 2002) - Lockheed Martin and Eurocopter recently signed
a contract to integrate the Hellfire II missile and M299 Hellfire launcher
on the Eurocopter Tigre helicopter.

The initial customer is Australia, in the AIR 87 armed reconnaissance
helicopter program, which specified Hellfire for the weaponry after
selecting Tigre to fulfill its coastal reconnaissance and defense mission.
There are additional opportunities in Spain, France, Germany, and other
countries.

The contract provides for integration at Eurocopter's facility in Marignane,
France and missile firings in Australia in early 2005 as part of the Tigre
qualification effort.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/articles/050802_2.html

>
> > > It's noted that the RAAF are considering *not* retiring the Caribou
> > > fleet for something newer,
> > > so "Wallaby Airlines" can fill *some* of the roles of the transport
> helo
> > > with only the most basic
> > > of prepared strips (though this becomes harder in the 'wet'.) But
> we
> > > *need* more helos too.
> >
> > Helos are very expensive to own/operate.
>
> Not disputed, but there are some jobs that nothing else can do,
> particularly when everything is
> wet and soggy and the clouds are almost dragging on the ground.

Keep in mind that the conditions you cite apply to both sides of a conflict,
in many cases you would be better off just leaving an enemy to rot in the
wet season, interdict his supplys and mop up the remains come the dry.

> >
> > That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.
>
> Quite. And there is a need for specialists. You might need trained
> replacements in
> a hurry, that's why it's called a 'reserve'.
> That said, it's not unreasonable that the most pressing need would be
> for infantry,
> so the balance should favour that corp.

But they can't get enough to sign up for Ares Inf now, how do you propose
fixing it?

>
> > > If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
> > > can't assume that.
> > > It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
> > > will probably be largely
> > > infantry and special forces.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> I'll add a caveat that if there is a major ruction (such as a
> fundamentalist govt
> coming to power in Djakarta) then that could change, however it's likely
> we
> would have help from other major players that could provide the heavier
> stuff.
> What we do best is not armoured warfare or massive logistics, but we
> have friends that do, and we are very good at other roles.

Obviously a major local change would require something of a rethink, but
that is one reason to keep cadres of units such as Armour - our friends
could be tied up in Korea, Iraq, etc when we need help or they could be in
an election cycle and unwilling to help (see Clinton/E.Timor).

> >
> > IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,
>
> Like I said 'cost and provocativeness'.
> If the Indos get a dose of nastiness, the provocativeness is no longer a
> significant factor, though
> the deterrent effect might be.
> What's good in one situation isn't necessarily so in another.

The problem is that having the media leap on every single rape case and
every single assault, for years, playing on the 'furriners misbehaving here'
angle is not good in the long term.

>
> > put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
> good for the
> > alliance.
>
> Concur. There would need to be an *imminent* threat not a possibility
> of one to make
> it desirable in view of the negative aspects.

Another good reason for a decent, well balanced military - it raises the bar
significantly as to what constitutes a credible threat.

>
> > Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?
>
> Unless we have a serious situation looming, not a lot. I feel fairly
> sure that such a scenario
> wouldn't turn into a conflict overnight, there would be lead time to
> seek US support and
> get them in place *if* it becomes necessary (or desirable). At the
> moment, IMHO, it's
> better to be as prepared as we can be on our own.

Agreed.

L'acrobat

August 13th 03, 05:42 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> Still jealous, and ignorant, I see.

Yawn, back to the gate for you sonny.

L'acrobat

August 13th 03, 05:46 AM

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
m...
> > > That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
> > > know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.
> >
> > You have demonstrated a serious lack of subject knowledge.
>
> Where exactly?
>

In almost all of your posts, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

> >
> > >
> > > As for your comments re: Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
> > > some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
> > > for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111.
> >
> >
> > I was in the infantry and the gate guard is an amusement, nothing more.
>
> I don't wish to defend him because he has been a little less than
> polite to me, but I happen to think the role of the airfield defence
> guards is a very important one. I know one who served in East Timor
> and I wouldn't describe his service as being of less value than anyone
> else's.

Serving as guard to an airfield is of less importance than that of the
troops on active combat ops.

'They also serve, those who stand at gate', but lets not pretend it's up
there with the real troops out in the J.

> > >I'm thinking
> > > that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
> > > fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
> > > with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday,
> >
> > I'm ex Army - the Indons in question have a lot further to go before
they
> > find me.
>
> Well, I said you "might". Could always rejoin my boy.

Nope.

>
> >
> > >and you
> > > will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres away
> > > at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
> > > while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
> > > even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of guided
> > > bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on pretty
> > > buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated gate
> > > guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
> > > the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
> > > some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
> > > carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
> > > guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
> > > here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Ok I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but surely it's not that
> hard to recognise it when you see it?

In text form it can be very hard to spot.

L'acrobat

August 13th 03, 05:50 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "JD" > wrote in message
> > news:Jug_a.31220$bo1.12853@news-
> > > > Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to
and
> > > > from PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up troops
> > > > for Para continuation, exercises and so on.
> > >
> > > For ****s sake, move them too.
> > >
> >
> > So are you just going to flush millions for no reason or do you have a
> plan?
>
> Goes to show how far out of it you are General. Or is Private (Rtd)?

Yawn

>
>
> > So far you have moved an Inf Bn, Parachute training School, the RAAF
> > Herc/Caribou Sqns,
>
> Caribous are already there you cabbage. Hercs are planned to go there too.
>

Still dull

> >the Army AD unit, all their supporting elements, maint
> > etc to Amberley. why? what do you think it will achieve?
>
> Economy of effort.
>
> >
> > Is there room for all these units there?
>
> Obviously you've never been there. There's ****-loads.

Not in some time, but then I don't have to guard the gate.

>
> >Where is the nearest DZ to Amberley
> > for PTS?
>
> On the ****ing Base you dickhead. About 200 metres west of the Caribou
> flight-line for one. About a kilometre further west for an even bigger,
more
> isolated DZ. Clearly, you're a clueless ex-grunt. Dumb****.
>

So will F-111 ops be suspended for the duration of Para courses?

I realise you are not very bright, but there is a reason that PTS is not at
a very active airfield.

> >
> >
> > > > 3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
> > > > PTS.
> > >
> > > Close Richmond, and move PTS. How hard is it?
> >
> > Politically difficult, financially insane, but keep going.
>
> Yet its planned anyway. I guess the Mandarins at the Dept of Defence
should
> have consulted with Private Acrobat (Rtd) before making these decisions.

From the gate guard, lol!, now where is the parking, boy?

L'acrobat

August 13th 03, 05:51 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The CO" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> >
> > Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from
> > PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up troops for Para
> > continuation, exercises and so on.
>
> You must be out of the loop dip****. PTS have been known pack up their
> bongos and operate out of Amberley (especially during winter) and the long
> term plan is for Airlift Group to **** off from Richmond and move
> to................... Amberley. Last time I strapped on a parachute and
> jumped out of serviceable aircraft in-flight was from Amberley. Funny,
> didn't see any gates.
>
> >
> > 3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and PTS.
>
> PTS should never have gone to Nowra in the first place. A questionable
> decision if there ever was one.

If the DoD needs the opinion of a gate guard they will no doubt dictate it
to you.

Sunny

August 13th 03, 06:41 AM

Canberra drivers were confident in being able to drop as close as 50 Metres
to friendlies if really needed.
B-52 on the other hand required a pull back to/safety distance of 1000
Metres (yep, 1 Km).
in SVN.

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> > > The F-111 has a strategic role, not a CAS role.
> > >
> >
> > I never said it did. Although even the B-52 has been used to drop
> > bombs on enemy targets close to friendly forces.
>
> Khe Sanh springs to mind. Our Canberras were also used for CAS in SVN. I
> think David Hackworth describes using them like artillery in his book
About
> Face.

Lindsay

August 13th 03, 08:02 AM

Peter wrote:

s and slab sides. There's a
> Canberra flying out of Temora - flying this weekend as a matter of fact -
> and occasionally it comes up to Canberra for some commemoration or other.

At it put on an awesome display at Avalon 2003... Lovely..

The CO

August 13th 03, 08:32 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The CO" > wrote in message
> ...

<lots of interspersed snippage to stop the message getting too big>

> http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437
>
> The M113 upgrades resistance to SA is classified Secret.

"Upgraded vehicles will have base level protection enhanced by external
appliqué armour and spall curtains for increased vehicle and crew
protection"
(from the tenix site you provided the link to.)
So it's reasonable to assume it will be better than the current M113.
Well, that's a positive.

> The role of motorised forces is not to ride the truck into combat.

No, not suggesting they were going to do that at all.

> The same ambush problem applies to Helos and SAMs, ASLAVS and RPGs etc
> nothing is risk free.

Granted. But if you are going to move bodies around, better to do it in
something hardened
if you are likely to be subject to such assaults in rear areas, and
recent events in Iraq suggest
that this tactic is likely to be employed by any opposition.

> Try FSBs Coral and Balmoral in Vietnam for examples of where heavy
armour is
> of great value in light ops (Lex Mcaulays book covers it).

Ok, I'll do that.

> That of course depends on the relative ground pressure of the vehicle,
not
> the overall weight of the vehicle.

It's a function of vehicle weight and footprint area yes.

> An MBT with wide tracks is likely to remain mobile over soft ground
after a
> Light Vehicle with thin tracks.

> Wheeled Veh, soft ground, you could be looking at real problems.
>
> For example, an M113 has a ground pressure of aprox 8.6 PSI,
>
> a Leopard 1 has a ground pressure of aprox 12.8 PSI,
>
> An LAV has a ground pressure of aprox 40 (forty) PSI...

Is that per sq (metre/foot/whatever) of footprint?
Bear in mind that in a tyred vehicle like ASLAV you can reduce that
pressure
a whole bunch just by deflating the tyres somewhat.

> Also, in Vietnam, it was found that Centurions could push through
terrain
> that M113s could not.

True enough, I guess it gets back to the terrain involved at least in
part.

> Nothing is forever, but given that 3RAR is a Para Bn, nothing is to be
> gained by moving them to Bris, if the couple of hours flight time ever
seems
> to be a real concern they can be staged to Bris for an operation.

Ok, would it *perhaps* be more realistic to base them up there in the
type of
country they would be *more likely* to fight in during a conflict and
shift the
training area? I see no reason to relocate the whole of RAAF Richmond,
a
forward deployment to the AO for an ex or training cycle should not
stretch
RAAF resources overmuch. The P3's have operated in this manner for
years.
I can't imagine it would be real hard to find a suitable DZ in
Queensland, and it
would have the advantage of terrain familiarisation. That said, I won't
disagree
that it would be dead easy or cost free, the value of the reloc would
have to be
weighed tac/training advantages v increased logistic and operational
costs.

> > > Thats the point of Bushmaster.
> >
> > But is it the answer? Or just a cheap expedient?
>
> It is a protected truck, the simple fact is we can't afford to put all
our
> troops in AFVs,

I'm not sure I can agree with that. It's always a question of
cost v survivability, but in view of the (relatively) small size
of the army, it might be desirable to give it all the protection
that we can. IF that means ASLAV's all round, well, defence
spending and presumably tax might need to increase to do so.
The force multiplication value of light armoured transport for your
troops cannot be discounted, particularly if the enemy is not as well
equipped.

> if the choice is move them fast and then operate as leg inf
> or do without a few more Bns, then Bushmaster is the answer.

I see your point, however I'm not sure I can agree. Casualties are
the new 'centre of gravity' to terrorist/insurgent combatants. The
situation in Iraq seems to suggest that they have adopted an approach
of knocking off just one or two yanks a day until the bill gets too high
and the folks at home scream for their boys and girls to be pulled out.
In 1944 it was acceptable to take a some thousands of casualties in an
op
like that, these days, it's not politically acceptable it seems and even
small
numbers of casualties make the news at home and increase pressure on a
govt to stop the attrition by pulling back.
Faced with a hostile invader on our soil, I don't think that applies, as
I think
we (as a nation) would do 'whatever it takes' to kick them out, but on a
deployment to, say, Java, there might not be such a philosophical
attitude.

> > > > This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
> > > > support a more highly mobile fielded force
> > > > as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> >
> > The Alice-Darwin rail link is going to help a bit (or even a lot)
but
> > supporting a sizeable
> > force in the bush in far north is arguably harder than supporting
one at
> > some OS locs.
>
> Yes, fortunately it works both ways.

True enough. I personally feel any invader is sitting on the sharp end
of
the stick, it would be *very* difficult to do.

> Given that the Tiger will carry Hellfire II it seems quite capable of
> handling any armour we are likely to encounter.
>
> Lockheed Martin, Eurocopter Ink Contract to Integrate Hellfire II
Missile on
> Tigre Attack Helo

<snip>

Ok, on that basis, assuming it's otherwise capable, I'd probably be
happy with that.

> > Not disputed, but there are some jobs that nothing else can do,
> > particularly when everything is
> > wet and soggy and the clouds are almost dragging on the ground.
>
> Keep in mind that the conditions you cite apply to both sides of a
conflict,

Sure.

> in many cases you would be better off just leaving an enemy to rot in
the
> wet season, interdict his supplys and mop up the remains come the dry.

I would imagine that containment combined with that would do so *in
time*
though I'm less certain that the people of the area (what there are of
them)
and the population in general would be happy to wait them out. They'd
expect
and I feel strongly that the political masters would order, the defence
force to
jump in and ferret them out rather sharpish. Again, a political
direction may be
the deciding factor, when from a purely tactical viewpoint, your
scenario would
probably work well enough.

> > > That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be
Infantry.
> >
> > Quite. And there is a need for specialists. You might need trained
> > replacements in
> > a hurry, that's why it's called a 'reserve'.
> > That said, it's not unreasonable that the most pressing need would
be
> > for infantry,
> > so the balance should favour that corp.
>
> But they can't get enough to sign up for Ares Inf now, how do you
propose
> fixing it?

Never said it was going to be easy. There is a genuine problem with the
ARES
retention levels these days. One issue I've noted is that a number of
recruits go to Pucka for basic
and are then supposed to RTU. However a significant number wind up
going into
the Regs instead. I'm not sure what the solution is, or even if there
*is* a solution.
One thing is that it's quite hard for someone who's employed to get the
time off to
go and do their basic. When it was the weekends and a couple weeks a
year it
was at least possible, but the current system makes it a *lot* harder to
get enough time off.

> Obviously a major local change would require something of a rethink,

Concur.

> that is one reason to keep cadres of units such as Armour - our
friends
> could be tied up in Korea, Iraq, etc when we need help or they could
be in
> an election cycle and unwilling to help (see Clinton/E.Timor).

It would be plausible that any enemy might take this into account.
OTOH I suspect we would get considerable priority in such an event, so
it may not necessarily follow that we can't get help when we need it.

> The problem is that having the media leap on every single rape case
and
> every single assault, for years, playing on the 'furriners misbehaving
here'
> angle is not good in the long term.

No argument.

> Another good reason for a decent, well balanced military - it raises
the bar
> significantly as to what constitutes a credible threat.

Yes.

The CO

Brash

August 13th 03, 12:32 PM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "The CO" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Move 3 RAR up to Enoggera.
> > > >
> > > > Yep.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
> from
> > > PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up troops for
Para
> > > continuation, exercises and so on.
> >
> > You must be out of the loop dip****. PTS have been known pack up their
> > bongos and operate out of Amberley (especially during winter) and the
long
> > term plan is for Airlift Group to **** off from Richmond and move
> > to................... Amberley. Last time I strapped on a parachute and
> > jumped out of serviceable aircraft in-flight was from Amberley. Funny,
> > didn't see any gates.
> >
> > >
> > > 3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond and
PTS.
> >
> > PTS should never have gone to Nowra in the first place. A questionable
> > decision if there ever was one.
>
> If the DoD needs the opinion of a gate guard they will no doubt dictate it
> to you.

And if they ever need strategic advice from an ex-private grunt, I'll give
them your number.

You're dismissed now Private (Rtd).

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 13th 03, 12:41 PM

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
m...
> > > That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
> > > know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.
> >
> > You have demonstrated a serious lack of subject knowledge.
>
> Where exactly?
>
> >
> > >
> > > As for your comments re: Brash, it might be worth remembering that at
> > > some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be grateful
> > > for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111.
> >
> >
> > I was in the infantry and the gate guard is an amusement, nothing more.
>
> I don't wish to defend him because he has been a little less than
> polite to me, but I happen to think the role of the airfield defence
> guards is a very important one. I know one who served in East Timor
> and I wouldn't describe his service as being of less value than anyone
> else's.
>
> >
> > The F-111 has a strategic role, not a CAS role.
> >
>
> I never said it did. Although even the B-52 has been used to drop
> bombs on enemy targets close to friendly forces.

Something the Private (Rtd) obviously doesn't know about. Grunts (especially
Privates) are even more removed from being airpower experts than interested
civilians because they already think they know everything about everything
and therefore don't need to learn.

And you're correct about B52s being used for CAirS. In Afghanistan the
phrase "loitering bombardment" was coined when B52s were kept on-station
over Afghanistan with AAR and ready to drop ordnance on-call by forward
controllers operating with SF and infantry forces. The BUFF would stay there
until it ran out of bombs or crew hours before being replaced by another.

>
> > >I'm thinking
> > > that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
> > > fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
> > > with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday,
> >
> > I'm ex Army - the Indons in question have a lot further to go before
they
> > find me.
>
> Well, I said you "might". Could always rejoin my boy.

Naah, he's too fat and stupid.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 13th 03, 12:48 PM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> m...
> > > > That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may" not
> > > > know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.
> > >
> > > You have demonstrated a serious lack of subject knowledge.
> >
> > Where exactly?
> >
>
> In almost all of your posts, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As for your comments re: Brash, it might be worth remembering that
at
> > > > some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be
grateful
> > > > for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111.
> > >
> > >
> > > I was in the infantry and the gate guard is an amusement, nothing
more.
> >
> > I don't wish to defend him because he has been a little less than
> > polite to me, but I happen to think the role of the airfield defence
> > guards is a very important one. I know one who served in East Timor
> > and I wouldn't describe his service as being of less value than anyone
> > else's.
>
> Serving as guard to an airfield is of less importance than that of the
> troops on active combat ops.

Typical comment would expect from a dumb grunt with a head full of the usual
khaki ****.

Question to you Private (Rtd), if its securing airpower is so unimportant,
why is so much effort (airstrikes, missile attacks, special forces action)
put into destroying airpower?

That you think ADGs only do airfields is further proof of what a clueless
****-for-brains you are.

> 'They also serve, those who stand at gate', but lets not pretend it's up
> there with the real troops out in the J.

Real troops? What a ******. Can't say I'm surprised though.

>
> > > >I'm thinking
> > > > that, say, in 2008, you might be sitting there in a comfortable
> > > > fortified position on the East Timor border pleasantly interacting
> > > > with hundreds of Indonesian soldiers who have come to holiday,
> > >
> > > I'm ex Army - the Indons in question have a lot further to go before
> they
> > > find me.
> >
> > Well, I said you "might". Could always rejoin my boy.
>
> Nope.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >and you
> > > > will thank your lucky stars to know that thousands of kilometres
away
> > > > at RAAF Amberley gate guards are keeping the militant media at bay
> > > > while venerable F-111s launch a steady and impressive rate of 8, or
> > > > even maybe twice that many, sorties a day, carrying a couple of
guided
> > > > bombs, external fuel tanks and maybe an AAM or two, to drop on
pretty
> > > > buildings in Jakarta. And the worst of it is that those dedicated
gate
> > > > guards will have to keep the increasingly pestilent media away from
> > > > the surviving F-111s until you and your army friends - helped out by
> > > > some Hornets flying out of Tindal, the navy, and probably a USN
> > > > carrier group - have been able to convince East Timor's uninvited
> > > > guests to leave or until you leave. Now aren't you glad we have him
> > > > here to tell us how to wage war with the F-111?
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > Ok I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but surely it's not that
> > hard to recognise it when you see it?
>
> In text form it can be very hard to spot.

Especially when you never finished Yr 6.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 13th 03, 01:02 PM

I see you're starting to flounder Private (Rtd). You should have learned
from the previous floggings I've given you.

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "JD" > wrote in message
> > > news:Jug_a.31220$bo1.12853@news-
> > > > > Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to
> and
> > > > > from PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberley to pick up
troops
> > > > > for Para continuation, exercises and so on.
> > > >
> > > > For ****s sake, move them too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So are you just going to flush millions for no reason or do you have a
> > plan?
> >
> > Goes to show how far out of it you are General. Or is Private (Rtd)?
>
>
> Yawn

Right on target, am I?

Didn't need to be psychic to work you out. Dumb****.

>
> >
> >
> > > So far you have moved an Inf Bn, Parachute training School, the RAAF
> > > Herc/Caribou Sqns,
> >
> > Caribous are already there you cabbage. Hercs are planned to go there
too.
> >
>
> Still dull

But factual, nonetheless. I realise the cavity in your head is too small to
accommodate new learning. They didn't call you "thickhead" for nothing did
they? The dumbest Private with the thickest skull to ever retire from the
Army.

You'd be out of your depth in a car park puddle and trying to match wits
with an amoeba.

>
> > >the Army AD unit, all their supporting elements, maint
> > > etc to Amberley. why? what do you think it will achieve?
> >
> > Economy of effort.
> >
> > >
> > > Is there room for all these units there?
> >
> > Obviously you've never been there. There's ****-loads.
>
> Not in some time, but then I don't have to guard the gate.

Neither do I. They have civilians for that.

You could apply for job there but I doubt you'd pass the selection test.

Q1. The "up" arrow makes the boom go.........?

>
> >
> > >Where is the nearest DZ to Amberley
> > > for PTS?
> >
> > On the ****ing Base you dickhead. About 200 metres west of the Caribou
> > flight-line for one. About a kilometre further west for an even bigger,
> more
> > isolated DZ. Clearly, you're a clueless ex-grunt. Dumb****.
> >
>
>
> So will F-111 ops be suspended for the duration of Para courses?

They weren't previously moron.

>
> I realise you are not very bright, but there is a reason that PTS is not
at
> a very active airfield.

I didn't realise Learjets and A4's screaming around with Sea Kings and
Seahawks buzzing to and fro constituted a "not very active airfield".
Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.
But why would you?
You were only ever a dumb**** Infantry Private with delusions of mediocrity.

> > >
> > > > > 3RAR is in Holsworthy because it is convenient to RAAF Richmond
and
> > > > > PTS.
> > > >
> > > > Close Richmond, and move PTS. How hard is it?
> > >
> > > Politically difficult, financially insane, but keep going.
> >
> > Yet its planned anyway. I guess the Mandarins at the Dept of Defence
> should
> > have consulted with Private Acrobat (Rtd) before making these decisions.
>
> From the gate guard, lol!, now where is the parking, boy?

Thanks for validating my statement about your inability to learn.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 13th 03, 01:22 PM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
>
> > >
> > > Only you believe that gate guard, only you.
> > >
> > > 'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he
isn't
> a
> > > gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra)
with
> > > delusions of grandeur.
> > >
> > > To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the
> > RAAF,
> > > the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and
> > aren't
> > > smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with
> his
> > > self important nonsense.
> >
> > Hello cock-sucker. Back for another thrashing?
>
>
> Yawn, what a dullard you are.

Thought you were.

>
> >
> > I see you still haven't improved your knowledge of.....................
> > anything.
> >
> > No "gates" in Baghdad, and yet........................
> >
>
> Wake me up when your wank fest is over.

Thanks for proving my statement that you're too stupid to assimilate new
information.
For those who are interested in doing what you can't, learning something
new...............

http://www.defence.gov.au/opfalconer/gallery.htm

>
>

Vector

August 13th 03, 01:53 PM

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:02:24 +1000, "Brash"
> wrote:
>
>Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
>there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.

Maybe he didn't - but neither did you.

I did - and the DZ was NOT on the airfield.

>But why would you?
>You were only ever a dumb**** Infantry Private with delusions of mediocrity.

Mediocrity? - last time I heard you were still hunting away kids and
bumping your head under ice cream vans in a vain search for those
Weapons of Mass Delusion which suckered you right in - yes sireee.

I was sure it must have been you in your desperation that they found
laying still and cold beside a Mr Whippy covered in chopped nuts and
chocolate sprinkles - "Greensleeves" still playing mournfully.

Topped himself they said - but bugger it here you are again - no sense
no reason as always.

Peter Twydell

August 13th 03, 09:03 PM

In article >, Paul Saccani
> writes
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 05:07:35 GMT, "JB" > wrote:
>
>>>> > The Hawk 127 is primarily a trainer, with a secondary ground attack
>>> > > role.
>>> >
>>> > Its a "Lead In Fighter" ****tard. The PC9 is a "trainer".
>>
>>Sorry, but a 'Lead in Fighter' is still a trainer. Perhaps a more advanced
>>one, and it may have some secondary capabilities, but it's still a
>>trainer....
>
>Funny that a number of air forces, including the RAF, have seen fit to use them
>in the fighter and strike roles. Not the same model, of course, because ours
>are set up to mimic the F-18 cockpit, but near enough. Besides the FAC role,
>the PC-9 really is a trainer.
>
>The Hawk was not developed as trainer, but does have a secondary capability in
>that role....

The people at Hawker Siddeley Aviation developed the Hawk as a trainer
with a secondary strike role, not the other way round. It was envisaged
as a replacement for the Gnat and Hunter trainers. The P1182 project won
the competition for the RAF's new advanced jet trainer.

>Of course, that is the role that we assign them, but it is
>analogous to the Folland Gnat in that regard. They seem to have seen a lot
>more combat than their supposed "trainer" status would suggest.
>cheers,
>
>Paul Saccani
>Perth West Australia

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

L'acrobat

August 14th 03, 12:08 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > > > That was harsh Mr Acrobat, very harsh. Although you did I "may"
not
> > > > > know much on the subject, which at least tones down your comment.
> > > >
> > > > You have demonstrated a serious lack of subject knowledge.
> > >
> > > Where exactly?
> > >
> >
> > In almost all of your posts, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As for your comments re: Brash, it might be worth remembering that
> at
> > > > > some point in time if you were an infantry soldier you may be
> grateful
> > > > > for that gate guard and his campaign to save the F-111.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was in the infantry and the gate guard is an amusement, nothing
> more.
> > >
> > > I don't wish to defend him because he has been a little less than
> > > polite to me, but I happen to think the role of the airfield defence
> > > guards is a very important one. I know one who served in East Timor
> > > and I wouldn't describe his service as being of less value than anyone
> > > else's.
> >
> > Serving as guard to an airfield is of less importance than that of the
> > troops on active combat ops.
>
> Typical comment would expect from a dumb grunt with a head full of the
usual
> khaki ****.
>
> Question to you Private (Rtd), if its securing airpower is so unimportant,
> why is so much effort (airstrikes, missile attacks, special forces action)
> put into destroying airpower?
>
> That you think ADGs only do airfields is further proof of what a clueless
> ****-for-brains you are.

Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.

L'acrobat

August 14th 03, 12:08 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > u...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Only you believe that gate guard, only you.
> > > >
> > > > 'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he
> isn't
> > a
> > > > gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra)
> with
> > > > delusions of grandeur.
> > > >
> > > > To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in
the
> > > RAAF,
> > > > the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army
and
> > > aren't
> > > > smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh
with
> > his
> > > > self important nonsense.
> > >
> > > Hello cock-sucker. Back for another thrashing?
> >
> >
> > Yawn, what a dullard you are.
>
> Thought you were.

Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.

L'acrobat

August 14th 03, 12:09 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> I see you're starting to flounder Private (Rtd). You should have learned
> from the previous floggings I've given you.

You are a sad loser with delusions of grandeur.

Back to the gate.

L'acrobat

August 14th 03, 12:23 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
>
> I didn't realise Learjets and A4's screaming around with Sea Kings and
> Seahawks buzzing to and fro constituted a "not very active airfield".
> Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
> there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.
> But why would you?
> You were only ever a dumb**** Infantry Private with delusions of
mediocrity.

Flailing about pretty badly here Brash.

Salt Ash was the primary PTS Williamtown DZ, not the airfield.

Was it that hard to tell from your position at the gate?

Perhaps if you had a clue?

It must suck knowing that the RAAF holds you in contempt and the army
doesn't even notice losers like yourself.

L'acrobat

August 14th 03, 12:25 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...

> > > PTS should never have gone to Nowra in the first place. A questionable
> > > decision if there ever was one.
> >
> > If the DoD needs the opinion of a gate guard they will no doubt dictate
it
> > to you.
>
> And if they ever need strategic advice from an ex-private grunt, I'll give
> them your number.
>
> You're dismissed now Private (Rtd).

Poor gate guard, you are a second rate loser and you know it.

That must hurt.

L'acrobat

August 14th 03, 12:27 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> Targets down, patch out. Acrobat scuttles back under his rotting log.
>

Yawn.

Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.

L'acrobat

August 14th 03, 09:52 AM

"The CO" > wrote in message
...

> > It is a protected truck, the simple fact is we can't afford to put all
> our
> > troops in AFVs,
>
> I'm not sure I can agree with that. It's always a question of
> cost v survivability, but in view of the (relatively) small size
> of the army, it might be desirable to give it all the protection
> that we can. IF that means ASLAV's all round, well, defence
> spending and presumably tax might need to increase to do so.
> The force multiplication value of light armoured transport for your
> troops cannot be discounted, particularly if the enemy is not as well
> equipped.

If you can find the money to go AFVs all round, then the ASLAV is not the
way to go.

Upgraded M113s are much better value and are likely to get better in the
next 3 - 5 years as the 'Rubber band' tracks are perfected (For the M113,
they are in use on some armoured Veh already).

An American exchange officer reports:
"Just returned from Australia. While there, the Australian officers to
include their senior leadership outlined the problems they encountered with
the LAVs in East Timor. Apparently, the LAVs were never able to operate off
the roads and when the rains washed out the asphalt road surfaces, the LAVs
bellied out and the Australians became entirely dependent on the M113s for
operations in the interior. They have decided that the LAVs are useful on
roads inside Australia where the requirement to cross the northern deserts
quickly make them useful. However, for deployments, they are inclined to
restrict the use of LAVs to urban areas where the roads are good and rely
otherwise exclusively on the new upgraded M113s that they are purchasing.
Apparently, the ground pressure exerted by the LAVs is very high indeed and
this was a problem on East Timor's poor roads as well. Plus the LAVs provide
little or no protection against mines. Australian Generals like MG Abigail
and Brigadier Quinn along with a host of Australian Majors and Lieutenant
Colonels left me with the impression that the LAVs could be useful in the
context of home defense, but should not be the first consideration for use
in the deployable formations of the active army."

Brash

August 14th 03, 11:38 AM

This should be good............ lefty dumb**** teaming up with a...........
plain old dumb**** to try and match wits with lil ol me. What's the matter
girls? Got no life of your own?

"Vector" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:02:24 +1000, "Brash"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
> >there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.
>
> Maybe he didn't - but neither did you.

Bzzzzzzzt again ****tard.

> I did - and the DZ was NOT on the airfield.

No **** Sherlock? So how was the plane-spotting in those days?

>
> >But why would you?
> >You were only ever a dumb**** Infantry Private with delusions of
mediocrity.
>
> Mediocrity? - last time I heard you were still hunting away kids and
> bumping your head under ice cream vans in a vain search for those
> Weapons of Mass Delusion which suckered you right in - yes sireee.

You know, you can get drugs to help you with your compulsive lying.

>
> I was sure it must have been you in your desperation that they found
> laying still and cold beside a Mr Whippy covered in chopped nuts and
> chocolate sprinkles - "Greensleeves" still playing mournfully.

Are you seeking psychiatric help?

>
> Topped himself they said - but bugger it here you are again - no sense
> no reason as always.

Talking about yourself in the third-person is a sure sign of lunacy. I
suggest you get a new shrink.
--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 14th 03, 11:39 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > I see you're starting to flounder Private (Rtd). You should have learned
> > from the previous floggings I've given you.
>
> You are a sad loser with delusions of grandeur.
>
> Back to the gate.

Is that all you've got?

Lame.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 14th 03, 11:44 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> >
> > I didn't realise Learjets and A4's screaming around with Sea Kings and
> > Seahawks buzzing to and fro constituted a "not very active airfield".
> > Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
> > there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.
> > But why would you?
> > You were only ever a dumb**** Infantry Private with delusions of
> mediocrity.
>
> Flailing about pretty badly here Brash.

Of course you'd say that. Pathological dickheads like yourself are incapable
of admitting you're wrong.

>
> Salt Ash was the primary PTS Williamtown DZ, not the airfield.

Took you all day to find that out? ****.

Going to tell me something I don't know?

>
> Was it that hard to tell from your position at the gate?

Wasn't at any gate dickhead. Your obsessions with these things are quite
deep, aren't they? Did they completely remove what was left of your brain at
Singleton, or did your Platoon Sergeant bash it out of your left ear for
****ing him off with your mumbling to yourself during O groups?

> Perhaps if you had a clue?

LOL, like you'd know what one was!

> It must suck knowing that the RAAF holds you in contempt and the army
> doesn't even notice losers like yourself.

LOL, that's funny. Does anybody actually talk to you when you turn up at the
old Battalion boozer? Or do they all finish their drinks and find somewhere
else to be?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 14th 03, 11:47 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > > u...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Only you believe that gate guard, only you.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he
> > isn't
> > > a
> > > > > gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra)
> > with
> > > > > delusions of grandeur.
> > > > >
> > > > > To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in
> the
> > > > RAAF,
> > > > > the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army
> and
> > > > aren't
> > > > > smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh
> with
> > > his
> > > > > self important nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > Hello cock-sucker. Back for another thrashing?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yawn, what a dullard you are.
> >
> > Thought you were.
>
> Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.

What I really find amusing, is that I could happily smack ten shades of ****
out of you and you think I'm a gate guard. How embarrassing it must be for
you to know a mere "gate guard" could flog you to a bloody pulp.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 14th 03, 11:49 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > Targets down, patch out. Acrobat scuttles back under his rotting log.
> >
>
> Yawn.
>
> Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.

Scratched record, no intelligent thought, scratched record, no intelligent
thought.

Can't say I'm surprised though. Privates (Rtd) have never been renowned for
intellectual excellence.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 14th 03, 12:26 PM

"Paul Repacholi" > wrote in message
...
> (Defender in Tas) writes:
>
> > Yes Keith maybe I could have expressed myself better in my comments
> > regarding what $300 million could fund. I apologise but I didn't
> > have the time to overly proof read my original post.
>
> More to the point, are there details on where this $300M is really
> coming from? Are they laying off RAAF numbers,

No.

>closing Amberly,

Hell no.

> cutting support contracts?

Boeing won't be quite so busy, that much is true.

>Or is this another book `saving' that
> will vanish up the Cambera Porkers fundament?

Prolly.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
> --
> Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
> +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> West Australia 6076
> comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
> EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Alan

August 14th 03, 12:36 PM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

and
> > > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> >
> > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
>
> What I really find amusing, is that I could happily smack ten shades of
****
> out of you and you think I'm a gate guard. How embarrassing it must be for
> you to know a mere "gate guard" could flog you to a bloody pulp.
>
> --

What we (bit presumptuous, I know) don't find amusing is Brash and acrobat
continuing on with this crap.
Alan

äksä

August 14th 03, 12:52 PM

Finnish Troll plan to scrap Australia.

Alan wrote:
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
>
>>"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> and
>
>>>>"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
>>
>>What I really find amusing, is that I could happily smack ten shades of
>
> ****
>
>>out of you and you think I'm a gate guard. How embarrassing it must be for
>>you to know a mere "gate guard" could flog you to a bloody pulp.
>>
>>--
>
>
> What we (bit presumptuous, I know) don't find amusing is Brash and acrobat
> continuing on with this crap.
> Alan
>
>

Nick Pedley

August 14th 03, 01:44 PM

"Alan" > wrote in message
. au...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
SNIP
>
> What we (bit presumptuous, I know) don't find amusing is Brash and acrobat
> continuing on with this crap.
> Alan
>
I cleared out my killfile last month (250+ names!) to see how things had
changed. So far the majority of new/re-entries are from this ng. Just
blocked Brash and Acrobat and the number of messages to read practically
halved....

Nick

L'acrobat

August 15th 03, 12:32 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> > >
> > > Thought you were.
> >
> > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
>
> What I really find amusing, is that I could happily smack ten shades of
****
> out of you and you think I'm a gate guard. How embarrassing it must be for
> you to know a mere "gate guard" could flog you to a bloody pulp.

and so gate guard descends into his fantasy world.

I think the most pathetic thing I have seen on the net to date (aside from
cretins like yourself trying to pick fights via the net), was your public
display of your total lack of self esteem some time ago on one of the
binary groups, where you encouraged a number of ther posters to come here
and tell me they thought you were 'cool'.

They didn't. and it was possibly the saddest example of a second raters
public desperation for approval I've ever seen, but keep going, I'm sure you
can top it.

Graham

August 15th 03, 03:38 AM

I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger but i do see what is getting used the
most on deployments in this new climate and its not F111 (great aircraft
tho) and really i dont see them or a a new type being used often or at all.
When was the F111s last used in combat?
What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and our
equipment.
We need more 50 to 100% full time battalions and the suport to go with it
(the suport is not there now).
More troop lift (blackhawks ect) more Lavs ect and we definitely need more
sea transport landing types.
This is where our limited budget neads to go.
Truely I cant sea a situation where we will need the long range of the 111
to defend Aus, who is willing or wants to have a go at us? I just dont see
anyone out there who realy would have a go.
The F111s are great but can we aford them now (old) and what is needed? ie
look at what is being used. We just dont have the $ for every thing we need.
Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.

"Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
m...
> I was referring to the A-400M which I understood to be close to
> deployment and with substantial orders in Europe. Anyone have any
> accurate information on this?
>
> As for the Labor Party - with regard to defence they are a joke and
> should never be taken seriously. Like it or lump it only a Coalition
> Government will give defence a reasonable deal. Just how reasonable is
> the argument.
>
> The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
> that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
> sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
> cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
> million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
> infantry battalions.
>
> We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
> air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare
> bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
> much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we
> need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.
>
> That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
> surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
> aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
> planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
> seems to be rare.
>
> With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the
> AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel
> attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.
>
> Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
> arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves,
> we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the
> F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters. The
> F-111 is not a fighter. And we cannot afford a single role bomber in
> this day and age and with our defence budget.

Graham

August 15th 03, 03:46 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
...
> You're overlooking a couple of really important points.........
>
> "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> m...
> > The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
> > that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
> > sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
> > cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
> > million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
> > infantry battalions.
>
> Except Infantry Battalions are kind of manpower-intensive. The ADF is
> having a hard enough time filling existing vacancies without creating
> 1200-1800 more overnight.

Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that full
these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions. How often
r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r the F111s
being deployed?

> > We need extra capability for air defence - the F/A-18s with adequate
> > air refuelling or basing sufficiently close to the action (at our bare
> > bases in the north, or Tindal) have strike capabilities, and it is
> > much cheaper to add new weapons such as HARM to their arsenal - but we
> > need more aircraft for air superiority, to take on SU-27s and win.
> >
> > That's why I suggest replacing the F-111s with either the F/A-18E or
> > surplus ex-USN or USMC F/A-18s. We need to be able to put more
> > aircraft in the air at once. The F-111 force cannot put that many
> > planes over a target even allowing for full serviciability - which
> > seems to be rare.
>
> A lack of aircrew doesn't help much either. Fast jet-capable crew are few
> and far between, and you want to create more airframes with no-one to fly
> them?
>
> > With four full squadrons of fighters, additional AAR aircraft and the
> > AWACS that will enter service in a few years we would be able to repel
> > attacks against likely threats from our near neighbours.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to destroy those enemy fighters where they are most
> vulnerable.......... on the ground? Pigs are better at that than Bugs.
>
> > Eventually those fighters will be the stealthy F-35. But until that
> > arrives, and it won't be available in 2012 - let's not kid ourselves,
> > we need to maintain all-round air defence capabilities by retiring the
> > F-111 and acquiring as a temporary measure additional fighters.
>
> If you have to rely on air *defence*, you'll lose the war.
>
> >The F-111 is not a fighter.
>
> No ****?
>
> >And we cannot afford a single role bomber in this day and age and with
our
> defence budget.
>
> Have you been reading the Swiss manual of warfare?
>
> --
> De Oppresso Liber.
>
>
>
>

The CO

August 15th 03, 04:18 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...

> If you can find the money to go AFVs all round, then the ASLAV is not
the
> way to go.
>
> Upgraded M113s are much better value and are likely to get better in
the
> next 3 - 5 years as the 'Rubber band' tracks are perfected (For the
M113,
> they are in use on some armoured Veh already).
>
> An American exchange officer reports:
> "Just returned from Australia. While there, the Australian officers to
> include their senior leadership outlined the problems they encountered
with
> the LAVs in East Timor. Apparently, the LAVs were never able to
operate off
> the roads and when the rains washed out the asphalt road surfaces, the
LAVs
> bellied out and the Australians became entirely dependent on the M113s
for
> operations in the interior. They have decided that the LAVs are useful
on
> roads inside Australia where the requirement to cross the northern
deserts
> quickly make them useful. However, for deployments, they are inclined
to
> restrict the use of LAVs to urban areas where the roads are good and
rely
> otherwise exclusively on the new upgraded M113s that they are
purchasing.
> Apparently, the ground pressure exerted by the LAVs is very high
indeed and
> this was a problem on East Timor's poor roads as well. Plus the LAVs
provide
> little or no protection against mines. Australian Generals like MG
Abigail
> and Brigadier Quinn along with a host of Australian Majors and
Lieutenant
> Colonels left me with the impression that the LAVs could be useful in
the
> context of home defense, but should not be the first consideration for
use
> in the deployable formations of the active army."

That's *very* interesting. Thanks...

The CO
>
>

L'acrobat

August 15th 03, 06:04 AM

"The CO" > wrote in message
...

>
> That's *very* interesting. Thanks...

http://strategypage.com/articles/ibctrevisited/default.asp

Has some comparisons of the LAV III and M113 for the US Army IBCT.

They lean very heavily towards a requirement to fit the Veh into a C130 in a
'roll off, and drive straight into combat' state.

Graham

August 15th 03, 12:24 PM

Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?
have they ever? just asking.
Graham
"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Brash" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you?
> Let
> > > me guess, ex-army?
> >
> > No, but hardly relevant.
>
> It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the expense
of
> strategic common-sense.
>
> >I don't claim to know a whole lot.
>
> Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.
>
> >By the
> > way, you'll find I'm not one of these combative, antagonistic people
> > who seem to get off on arguing with others over the internet. I
> > appreciate a good debate with people who share my interests. So if
> > you'd like to detail where I'm wrong and why - I would appreciate
> > that, and if you're right, I'll say so. I'm open-minded, I can have my
> > opinion changed by a persuasive argument.
> >
> > >
> > > Seeing as more than one person came to that conclusion, I'd say you
need
> to
> > > sharpen your writing skills.
> > >
> >
> > More accurately, I should have taken more time with that particular
> > post, but let's not be pedantic.
> >
> >
> > > I doubt you know the real reasons behind why the Pigs weren't sent (to
> the Gulf).
> >
> >
> > Ok, then tell me. Media reports -
>
> I'll let you in on something. The Oz media know diddly-squat about defence
> matters. And when they haven't been told something, they make it up. ****,
9
> times out 10 they'll mis-identify something as Air Force just because it
> flies and something as Army just because its painted camouflage.
>
> >which included comments by the
> > Australian Defence Association amongst others,
>
> The ADA are reasonably knowledgeable. But they sometimes fill in the
blanks
> with opinions that aren't factually correct.
>
> >I believe - stated that
> > it was for this very reason, perhaps amongst others. So why weren't
> > they sent according to you?
>
> Its not "according to me", and its none of your business.
>
> > > > Here's a question - what's the point having a good strike aircraft
if
> > > > the enemy has already knocked them out on the ground?
> > >
> > > With what?
> >
> >
> > With SU-27s should 'they' acquire them, or whatever combat aircraft
> > 'they' may possess. The F-111s have great range but it would be pure
> > folly to say they would operate our of Amberley in any crisis centred
> > around, say, East Timor, Irian Jaya, or Indonesia generally.
>
> Folly to you. and we've already determined that you're a bit thin on
> knowledge of this topic.
>
> >They
> > would be deployed - most likely - to Tindal, as some were during
> > Interfet.
>
> That was to shorten response time, not because they didn't have the reach.
>
> >Surely, Tindal would be within range of SU-27s operating out
> > of Indonesian air bases, and possibly other combat aircraft, with or
> > without AAR?
>
> I haven't got the data in front of me. So I can't say.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >The F-111 scarcely has a defence - its EW equipment is non-existant
> > >
> > > Utter bull****.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, what's the truth?
>
> That the F111 has EW equipment and its getting more. Can you say
"Echidna"?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > >and its best
> > > > move is to run. Thus if an attack was launched against us the
Hornets
> > > > would be the only defence of the F-111s on the ground.
> > >
> > > More bull****.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ok, we have some Rapiers (to be retired), and RBS-70s, and Tindal is
> > laid out with widely located protective aircraft shelters, but do our
> > F-111 pilots train to launch on air-to-air missions?
>
> None of your business. Also, can you say "Hawk 127"? Actually, I just
> remembered that there was a public article about a Pig shooting down an
F16
> at Red Flag a few years ago. Make of it what you will.
>
> >
> >
> > > >There would be
> > > > no point having the F-111s take-off to defend the airbase
> > >
> > > Of course not. Your point?
> >
> > That the F-111 is a strike aircraft only,
>
> Its a strike aircraft *primarily*. Its also a bloody good Recon platform,
> but I guess you didn't know *that* either.
>
> >not a multi-role fighter.
>
> Even though it was conceived as one.
>
> >It
> > was never conceived to be the latter,
>
> Yes it was. Can you say "TFX"? Or "F111B"?
>
> >and that was fine. But in this
> > day and age, with the current operational demands on the ADF and the
> > limited defence budget, my contention is that the high (and growing)
> > cost of this single capability cannot be justified for retention.
>
> But your contention is based on incomplete knowledge of the subject. Best
> you reconsider.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >- their best
> > > > option would be to runaway to another base.
> > >
> > > How about we just use them to destroy the enemy's strike aircraft or
> base
> > > before this scenario unfolds?
> >
> > Obviously the preferred option! But will our politicians give that
> > order? Even Israel has been subject to surprise attacks - remember the
> > Yom Kippur War? I won't suggest you were around at the time of Pearl
> > Harbour . . .
> >
> > >
> > > >We can't afford to have
> > > > combat aircraft that can't fight.
> > >
> > > No **** Sherlock? Given your premise, we should **** the P3s and
> Hercs
> > > off as well, since they're pretty useless in a dogfight too.
> >
> > No, not quite. They both fill a variety of roles and have both been
> > deployed on operations in recent years.
>
> So has the RF111.
>
> >They are also not designed to
> > strike enemy targets which are likely to be defended by combat
> > aircraft.
> >
> > Clearly, my preferrence is that - given our defence budget - the RAAF
> > field a multi-role fighter, not a multi-role fighter and a pure strike
> > / recon aircraft.
>
> Multi-role fighters less-than-optimum strike aircraft make.
>
> >
> > Of course, ideally, if the defence budget was at a level that would
> > make me happy, I would like to see the F-111s retained, further
> > upgraded and supported by AAR aircraft with booms, and the RAAF also
> > operating at least 6, if not 8, operational squadrons of tactical
> > fighters - perhaps half primarily for air-to-air (the F-15), and half
> > primarily for battlefield air interdiction / CAS with a second role of
> > air-to-air (the Hornets, or F-16s, or take your pick of a few others).
> > But now I'm dreaming.
>
> F16's legs are too short. And they've only got one (semi-reliable) donk.
>
>
> --
> De Oppresso Liber.
>
>
>
>

The Raven

August 15th 03, 12:33 PM

"Graham" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?

The Australian F-111's or just general F-111's?

> have they ever? just asking.

I believe some were used in VN but not sure if that included Australia. I
would have thought Australia received them too late for VN.

The were used as recently as GW One in combat.

I'd also hazard a guess they've been used for lots of non-combat missions
that aren't public record..........

E.Timor was probably a case were they publicly weren't used.........

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

Peter

August 15th 03, 12:37 PM

In article >,
says...
> Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?
> have they ever? just asking.

We got them after Vietnam, some time in the mid 70s. I remember them making
a flypast over the centre of Brisbane on their delivery flight.

The only "conflicts" we've had since then have been Gulf War, East Timor,
and Gulf W War, and we didn't deploy them for any of those.

They are intended for a strategic role in our national defence, and it's
unlikely we'd use them for a foreign adventure.

They are getting on a bit, but they remain enormously capable aircraft, and
it is difficult to see how we could replace them with anything possessing
the same range and payload.

That we could afford, I mean - I can't see us buying Bones.

Brash

August 15th 03, 12:59 PM

"Graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You're overlooking a couple of really important points.........
> >
> > "Defender in Tas" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The problem with our having the F-111 is we now have people arguing
> > > that we shouldn't lose such a great capability. It's a double-edged
> > > sword. The F-111 has served us well, but can we really justify its
> > > cost in this day and age? The Army has been run down, and the $300
> > > million we spend on the Pigs would fund the raising of two extra
> > > infantry battalions.
> >
> > Except Infantry Battalions are kind of manpower-intensive. The ADF is
> > having a hard enough time filling existing vacancies without creating
> > 1200-1800 more overnight.
>
> Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that full
> these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions. How
often
> r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r the
F111s
> being deployed?

Obviously the finer points of Strategy are lost on you. Infantry battalions
(especially those a "light" as ours) don't make much of a strategic
deterrent. And F111s aren't suited to peace-keeping.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Lindsay

August 15th 03, 01:03 PM

The Raven wrote:
>
> "Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?
>
> The Australian F-111's or just general F-111's?
>
> > have they ever? just asking.
>
> I believe some were used in VN but not sure if that included Australia. I
> would have thought Australia received them too late for VN.

We got ours in '78.

USAF F-111's were first used in Vietnam, where 3 or 4 of the original
6 crashed, with only the 4'th's crew being saved. They were withdrawn,
and General Dynamics found the fault lied with the pivot box. Went
back to Vietnam where they participated in Operation Linebacker
with great success.

> The were used as recently as GW One in combat.

Also used from air base in England to bomb Gadaffi in Libya in '85.
(going the long way around too. Someone wouldnt give overfly
rights.. cant remember who tho...)

Regards

Lindsay

Lindsay

August 15th 03, 01:09 PM

Peter wrote:

> They are getting on a bit, but they remain enormously capable aircraft, and
> it is difficult to see how we could replace them with anything possessing
> the same range and payload.

Agreed.

I asked an F-111 pilot at Avalon what he would like to replace his
F-111 with.. His reply?

"Another F-111".

Brash

August 15th 03, 01:30 PM

"Alan" > wrote in message
. au...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
>
> and
> > > > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
> >
> > What I really find amusing, is that I could happily smack ten shades of
> ****
> > out of you and you think I'm a gate guard. How embarrassing it must be
for
> > you to know a mere "gate guard" could flog you to a bloody pulp.
> >
> > --
>
> What we (bit presumptuous, I know) don't find amusing is Brash and acrobat
> continuing on with this crap.
> Alan

Take it up with him. Apparently, you are all his mates and, therefore, may
have some influence.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 15th 03, 01:47 PM

"Graham" > wrote in message
...
> I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger

I won't hold it against you, but you need more than a digger's eye view to
grasp some of this.

>but i do see what is getting used the
> most on deployments in this new climate and its not F111 (great aircraft
> tho) and really i dont see them or a a new type being used often or at
all.

There's a Chinese bloke named Sun Tzu, he wrote a book called "The Art of
War". In it, he says the only true victory in a war is to not have to fight
it. Fighting it (and hopefully) then winning it, is a bit of a mug's game.
F111's (and their class of aircraft) are designed not to win wars by
fighting them but to win wars by preventing them. Show me an infantry
battalion that can do *that*.

> When was the F111s last used in combat?

Ours? Never. The Yank's, Gulf War 1.

> What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and our
> equipment.

And you haven't even been in a proper war yet. Makes you worry, doesn't it?

> We need more 50 to 100% full time battalions and the suport to go with it
> (the suport is not there now).

Glad to see you're thinking above Private level. As they say, "Amateurs talk
tactics, professionals talk logistics". People who think infantry are the be
all and end all of the ADF are the sorts of people our enemies love. Easy to
outsmart.

> More troop lift (blackhawks ect)

Hopefully, Air 9000 will deliver something more capable than that.

>more Lavs ect

Agreed. Some proper APCs wouldn't go astray either.

>and we definitely need more
> sea transport landing types.

Concur. We should be doing more to develop Incat's product before the Yank's
steal another bloody good idea off us.

> This is where our limited budget neads to go.

Can't agree with that. If we do it your way, we'll end up with an ADF that
will actually have to defend Australia. Sun Tzu wouldn't approve.

> Truely I cant sea a situation where we will need the long range of the 111
> to defend Aus, who is willing or wants to have a go at us?

I guess you haven't read the paper lately.

>I just dont see
> anyone out there who realy would have a go.

Wake up................. the rag-heads are on our case right now. If the
Intel revealed a al-Q or JI camp someplace that we couldn't openly get at,
wouldn't it makes sense to go in and bomb said camp with a plane that fly
across countries and avoid radar detection, hit the camp, and make it back
to international airspace without needing AAR 4 or 5 times?

> The F111s are great but can we aford them now (old) and what is needed? ie
> look at what is being used. We just dont have the $ for every thing we
need.

We would if we didn't waste millions on arts festivals for lefty ******s.

> Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.

Spend the money where it will give us the most strategic value, I say.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Peter

August 15th 03, 10:09 PM

In article >,
says...
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?
> > > have they ever? just asking.
> >
> > We got them after Vietnam, some time in the mid 70s. I remember them
> making
> > a flypast over the centre of Brisbane on their delivery flight.
> >
> > The only "conflicts" we've had since then have been Gulf War,
>
> >East Timor,
>
> RF111C's.

Aha. A technicality. Good man.

matt weber

August 16th 03, 12:21 AM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:33:39 +1000, "The Raven"
> wrote:

>"Graham" > wrote in message
...
>> Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?
>
>The Australian F-111's or just general F-111's?
>
>> have they ever? just asking.
>
>I believe some were used in VN but not sure if that included Australia. I
>would have thought Australia received them too late for VN.
US lost several in VN in the first deployment, probably due to TFR
failures, but since no bits and pieces were ever found...

I believe EF-111A's were used in First Gulf War, but I suspect the
last time they carried weapons was probably over Libya..
>
>The were used as recently as GW One in combat.
>
>I'd also hazard a guess they've been used for lots of non-combat missions
>that aren't public record..........
>
>E.Timor was probably a case were they publicly weren't used.........

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 12:31 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> > > >
> > > > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
> > >
> > > Scratched record, no intelligent thought, scratched record, no
> intelligent
> > > thought.
> > >
> >
> > Poor second rate gate guard.
>
> Playing "last word" are we? The sure sign you've bitten off more than you
> can chew.
>

gate guard - son you are a sad one indeed, tell us again about PTS using
RAAF Williamtown as a DZ.

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 12:32 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > u...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
> > >
> > > I see you've realised you've no cohesive argument to offer, but can't
> > admit
> > > you're outclassed and need to resort to puerile one-liners. The more
you
> > > pursue this "line of argument" the further proof you provide how
> > second-rate
> > > and outclassed you are. Thanks for coming Private (Rtd), you can go
now.
> >
> > Yawn, from the king of purile drivel that is quite a compliment.
>
> You're starting to bore me. Did you parents have any children, or just
other
> failed abortions?

Gate guard, you've always bored me.

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 12:34 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > u...
> > > > >
> > > > > Thought you were.
> > > >
> > > > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
> > >
> > > What I really find amusing, is that I could happily smack ten shades
of
> > ****
> > > out of you and you think I'm a gate guard. How embarrassing it must be
> for
> > > you to know a mere "gate guard" could flog you to a bloody pulp.
> >
> > and so gate guard descends into his fantasy world.
>
> Except I'm not a gate guard. I don't where you get your delusions from.
>
> >
> > I think the most pathetic thing I have seen on the net to date (aside
from
> > cretins like yourself trying to pick fights via the net), was your
public
> > display of your total lack of self esteem some time ago on one of the
> > binary groups, where you encouraged a number of ther posters to come
here
> > and tell me they thought you were 'cool'.
>
> Sorry dickhead, but I think you're off on your own planet now. I did no
such
> thing. I guess you've got me mixed up with someone else who knows what a
> cretin you are.

Oh, I'm afraid you did.

Very sad indeed, but then I can see why you lack self esteem.

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 12:41 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...

> >
> > Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that full
> > these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions. How
> often
> > r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r the
> F111s
> > being deployed?
>
> Obviously the finer points of Strategy are lost on you. Infantry
battalions
> (especially those a "light" as ours) don't make much of a strategic
> deterrent. And F111s aren't suited to peace-keeping.
>

again the gate guard shows his ignorance.

The size of the Army force in Aus significantly raises the bar as to what
constitutes an effective invasion force, which consequently raises the
logistic requirements to invade Aust significantly.

Perhaps if you didn't use words that you don't understand (like 'strategy'),
you would not keep making such a fool of yourself?

Long range strike is a very useful capability for Aust, but it doesn't
neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111 and it is not the be all and end
all of deterrent.

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 01:11 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger
>
> I won't hold it against you, but you need more than a digger's eye view to
> grasp some of this.
>

You need a gates eye view! lol.

> >but i do see what is getting used the
> > most on deployments in this new climate and its not F111 (great aircraft
> > tho) and really i dont see them or a a new type being used often or at
> all.
>
> There's a Chinese bloke named Sun Tzu, he wrote a book called "The Art of
> War". In it, he says the only true victory in a war is to not have to
fight
> it. Fighting it (and hopefully) then winning it, is a bit of a mug's game.
> F111's (and their class of aircraft) are designed not to win wars by
> fighting them but to win wars by preventing them. Show me an infantry
> battalion that can do *that*.

Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.

The other disadvantage of relying on Mr Tzus deterrence is that if the enemy
calls your bluff, 35 x F-111s are not going to last very long (let alone the
markedly smaller number we can crew) or the stocks of weapons for the a/c.

3 more Bns with supporting units (for example) would mean an enemy would
need to bring at least 9 more Bns to invade (actually more, but lets not
quibble), with the consequent increase in logistic support, transport,
shipping, escorts etc.

It raises the cost significantly more for the attacker than the defender.

See how deterrence works?

And those forces are available for other tasks when the threat to Aust is
not high, as well as increasing the most effective recruiting pool for
SASR - the ones who are most effective in the current, existing war.

>
> > What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and our
> > equipment.
>
> And you haven't even been in a proper war yet. Makes you worry, doesn't
it?

Certainly when money is being spent on a/c that Aust hasn't used and won't
use.

Have they put EW on them that would let them risk it on real world ops yet?

Has the interim jammer even made it to the plane yet?

> > This is where our limited budget neads to go.
>
> Can't agree with that. If we do it your way, we'll end up with an ADF that
> will actually have to defend Australia. Sun Tzu wouldn't approve.

Or we can keep putting money into a/c that soak up resources, but are of no
use dealing with the threats we face.

>
> > Truely I cant sea a situation where we will need the long range of the
111
> > to defend Aus, who is willing or wants to have a go at us?
>
> I guess you haven't read the paper lately.
>

Who has the capability that is more threatened by F-111s than SASR?

> >I just dont see
> > anyone out there who realy would have a go.
>
> Wake up................. the rag-heads are on our case right now. If the
> Intel revealed a al-Q or JI camp someplace that we couldn't openly get at,
> wouldn't it makes sense to go in and bomb said camp with a plane that fly
> across countries and avoid radar detection, hit the camp, and make it back
> to international airspace without needing AAR 4 or 5 times?
>

Or to hit it covertly with SASR and recover intelligence as well.

Or pass the info onto our allies who have the ability to hit it with a
proper strike package rather than a half arsed attempt.

> > The F111s are great but can we aford them now (old) and what is needed?
ie
> > look at what is being used. We just dont have the $ for every thing we
> need.
>
> We would if we didn't waste millions on arts festivals for lefty ******s.
>
> > Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.
>
> Spend the money where it will give us the most strategic value, I say.

Which may not be the F-111 given the limited need for long ranged strike and
the disproportionate amount of funding the F-111 soaks up.

smithxpj

August 16th 03, 01:31 AM

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:53:59 +1000, Vector >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:02:24 +1000, "Brash"
> wrote:
>>
>>Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
>>there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.
>
>Maybe he didn't - but neither did you.
>
>I did - and the DZ was NOT on the airfield.
>

Yair...but the DZ is within spitting distance of Saltash air-ground
gunnery range and operations at both sites comfortably interlaced
without much of a hitch (when it was in full swing in the 70s anyway!)

smithxpj

August 16th 03, 01:31 AM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:25:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> wrote:

>
>Poor gate guard, you are a second rate loser and you know it.

Gate guards ain't in military uniform these days, Sunshine! The job
has been contracted out to civvy security companies.

Ipso facto, Brash ain't on a gate!!

Thomas Schoene

August 16th 03, 02:11 AM

"matt weber" > wrote in message

> US lost several in VN in the first deployment, probably due to TFR
> failures, but since no bits and pieces were ever found...

Not true. They never recovered the first or third aircraft lost on the
initial Combat Lancer deployment, but the second aircraft was located and
retrieved. They ultimately traced the loss to a structural failure in the
stabilator at low level. Not the fault of the radar at all.

http://afmuseum.com/friends/journal/frj_242.html

> I believe EF-111A's were used in First Gulf War, but I suspect the
> last time they carried weapons was probably over Libya..

AFAIK, the EF-111s never carried weapons (unlike their EA-6B counterparts).

USAF F-111s definitely dropped weapons in Gulf War 1. They were much
praised for "tank-plinking" with 500-lb laser-guided bombs, in addition to
their usual interdiction/deep attack missions.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/perspectives/desert_storm/1093tank.html

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 02:57 AM

"smithxpj" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:25:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Poor gate guard, you are a second rate loser and you know it.
>
> Gate guards ain't in military uniform these days, Sunshine! The job
> has been contracted out to civvy security companies.
>
> Ipso facto, Brash ain't on a gate!!

Correct, they can't be trusted to carry out their only useful function any
longer.

It was the high point of his undistinguished career.

Victor

August 16th 03, 04:09 AM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:31:12 +1000, smithxpj >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:53:59 +1000, Vector >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:02:24 +1000, "Brash"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was operating
>>>there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.
>>
>>Maybe he didn't - but neither did you.
>>
>>I did - and the DZ was NOT on the airfield.
>>
>
>Yair...but the DZ is within spitting distance of Saltash air-ground
>gunnery range and operations at both sites comfortably interlaced
>without much of a hitch (when it was in full swing in the 70s anyway!)

Which does nothing to validate Brash's BS claim that the DZ was on the
airfield.

It wasn't - even though PJI's did occasional demo jumps there.

And if he didn't have his head so far up his Khyber, Brash might
realise his other claim re the PTS operating alongside Mirages and
Hornets was complete bull**** as well - it never happened!

Michael Williamson

August 16th 03, 06:32 AM

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.
>

The one bad thing (or good thing, depending upon your point of view)
about deterrence is that it is virtually impossible to show a 100%
certain 'win' for it. On the other hand, it is also almost impossible
to show a situation in which deterrence may not have played a factor,
unless an attack actually took place. In other words, the natural
response to your question is the challenge "show me a nation that
carried out their aggressive plans against Australia in spite of the
F-111. Since I have not read of an invasion or other blatant attack
against Australia proper (as opposed to against Australians, outside
of the country), I would be hard pressed to point to a failure of
deterrence. And while I haven't been observing ALL that closely,
I'd expect to have noticed a large scale incident that would prove
that reply wrong...

Mike

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 08:00 AM

"Michael Williamson" > wrote in
message ...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.
> >
>
> The one bad thing (or good thing, depending upon your point of view)
> about deterrence is that it is virtually impossible to show a 100%
> certain 'win' for it. On the other hand, it is also almost impossible
> to show a situation in which deterrence may not have played a factor,
> unless an attack actually took place. In other words, the natural
> response to your question is the challenge "show me a nation that
> carried out their aggressive plans against Australia in spite of the
> F-111.

OK, show me a nation that we could, credibly, have deterred with F-111s.

Brash

August 16th 03, 09:32 AM

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:33:39 +1000, "The Raven"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in
combat?
> >
> >The Australian F-111's or just general F-111's?
> >
> >> have they ever? just asking.
> >
> >I believe some were used in VN but not sure if that included Australia. I
> >would have thought Australia received them too late for VN.
> US lost several in VN in the first deployment, probably due to TFR
> failures, but since no bits and pieces were ever found...

Due to wing failures.

>
> I believe EF-111A's were used in First Gulf War, but I suspect the
> last time they carried weapons was probably over Libya..

Spark 'Varks were used, so were bomb truck Pigs as well IIRC. The Yanks
asked us to send our photo Pigs too.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 16th 03, 09:38 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > > > >
> > > > > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
> > > >
> > > > Scratched record, no intelligent thought, scratched record, no
> > intelligent
> > > > thought.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Poor second rate gate guard.
> >
> > Playing "last word" are we? The sure sign you've bitten off more than
you
> > can chew.
> >
>
> gate guard - son you are a sad one indeed, tell us again about PTS using
> RAAF Williamtown as a DZ.

Come back when you've finished Yr 10 and can comprehend English properly.
Got a clue for you, parachuting doesn't start when the plane approaches the
DZ, it starts way earlier than that. Either way, the DZ *ON-BASE* at
Amberley runs quite nicely alongside air ops. But you couldn't be expected
to know that, you're a mere Private (Rtd) with nothing more than your
infantry experiences to go on. Hardly a qualification to discuss aviation
matters. But feel free to hang around. If you take those khaki blinkers off,
you might learn something here.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 16th 03, 09:40 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > > u...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
> > > >
> > > > I see you've realised you've no cohesive argument to offer, but
can't
> > > admit
> > > > you're outclassed and need to resort to puerile one-liners. The more
> you
> > > > pursue this "line of argument" the further proof you provide how
> > > second-rate
> > > > and outclassed you are. Thanks for coming Private (Rtd), you can go
> now.
> > >
> > > Yawn, from the king of purile drivel that is quite a compliment.
> >
> > You're starting to bore me. Did you parents have any children, or just
> other
> > failed abortions?
>
> Gate guard, you've always bored me.

L'abortion, you so dumb its a disgrace to Australian society. I'm starting
to doubt you were ever in the army, even the infantry. You're way too stupid
even for that.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 16th 03, 09:50 AM

Oh ****. This is like trying to explain quantum physics to monkeys.
(Actually, I suspect that would be easier).

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
>
> > >
> > > Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that
full
> > > these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions. How
> > often
> > > r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r the
> > F111s
> > > being deployed?
> >
> > Obviously the finer points of Strategy are lost on you. Infantry
> battalions
> > (especially those a "light" as ours) don't make much of a strategic
> > deterrent. And F111s aren't suited to peace-keeping.
> >
>
> again the gate guard shows his ignorance.

Seeing as I'm not a gate guard, who is being ignorant here?

>
> The size of the Army force in Aus significantly raises the bar as to what
> constitutes an effective invasion force, which consequently raises the
> logistic requirements to invade Aust significantly.

That's right, you two-dimensional spastic. Australia's interests aren't
affected unless enemy troops lodge on our shore. I'd expect a lowly infantry
Private (Rtd) to think in such constrained terms. Clearly, this topic is way
out of your ability to comprehend.

> Perhaps if you didn't use words that you don't understand (like
'strategy'),
> you would not keep making such a fool of yourself?

Perhaps if you just spared us your "insights" and stuck to what you know
(whatever the **** that is) you wouldn't make a fool of YOURself.

>
> Long range strike is a very useful capability for Aust,

Especially when it makes potential aggressor decide not to be aggressive in
the first place. Its little wonder you think the way you do. Its that low
level army training you've been exposed to. Sadly,, a great many army
officers display the same "understanding" until they've done a Joint Warfare
Course and learn that defending Australia doesn't start at the low-tide
mark.

>but it doesn't
> neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111

The only correct thing you've said all day.

>and it is not the be all and end
> all of deterrent.

No **** Private (Rtd) L'abortion?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 10:13 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> Oh ****. This is like trying to explain quantum physics to monkeys.
> (Actually, I suspect that would be easier).
>

You aren't very good at this are you?

> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > u...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that
> full
> > > > these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions.
How
> > > often
> > > > r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r
the
> > > F111s
> > > > being deployed?
> > >
> > > Obviously the finer points of Strategy are lost on you. Infantry
> > battalions
> > > (especially those a "light" as ours) don't make much of a strategic
> > > deterrent. And F111s aren't suited to peace-keeping.
> > >
> >
> > again the gate guard shows his ignorance.
>
> Seeing as I'm not a gate guard, who is being ignorant here?

Poor gate guard, BTW what was it you applied for when you joined the RAAF?,
GD after all, gate guard is as low as it goes.

>
> >
> > The size of the Army force in Aus significantly raises the bar as to
what
> > constitutes an effective invasion force, which consequently raises the
> > logistic requirements to invade Aust significantly.
>
> That's right, you two-dimensional spastic. Australia's interests aren't
> affected unless enemy troops lodge on our shore. I'd expect a lowly
infantry
> Private (Rtd) to think in such constrained terms. Clearly, this topic is
way
> out of your ability to comprehend.
>

And how much has the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our shores
in the time since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same
time.

But then a gate guard like you has no idea at all have you?

>
> > Perhaps if you didn't use words that you don't understand (like
> 'strategy'),
> > you would not keep making such a fool of yourself?
>
> Perhaps if you just spared us your "insights" and stuck to what you know
> (whatever the **** that is) you wouldn't make a fool of YOURself.

Yawn, perhaps if you stuck to begging other dweebs in binaries NGs to tell
people you are cool and continued to promote assaulting females then you
would simply maintain all of our opinions of you?

>
> >
> > Long range strike is a very useful capability for Aust,
>
> Especially when it makes potential aggressor decide not to be aggressive
in
> the first place.

You see the problem with that is it's religion, not fact - you can give no
examples of potential aggressors who have been deterred by the F-111, you
just have faith in it.

Wheras in WW2 the Japanese acknowledged that they lacked the ability to move
and supply the amount of troops they would need to invade Aust because of
the Army forces in situ.

Fact V religious belief.

> Its little wonder you think the way you do. Its that low
> level army training you've been exposed to. Sadly,, a great many army
> officers display the same "understanding" until they've done a Joint
Warfare
> Course and learn that defending Australia doesn't start at the low-tide
> mark.

Poor gate guard, you believe that and thats important, please tell us how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

>
> >but it doesn't
> > neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111
>
> The only correct thing you've said all day.
>
> >and it is not the be all and end
> > all of deterrent.
>
> No **** Private (Rtd) L'abortion?
>

What a sad little dweeb you are.

L'acrobat

August 16th 03, 10:20 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > u...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scratched record, no intelligent thought, scratched record, no
> > > intelligent
> > > > > thought.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Poor second rate gate guard.
> > >
> > > Playing "last word" are we? The sure sign you've bitten off more than
> you
> > > can chew.
> > >
> >
> > gate guard - son you are a sad one indeed, tell us again about PTS
using
> > RAAF Williamtown as a DZ.
>
> Come back when you've finished Yr 10 and can comprehend English properly.
> Got a clue for you, parachuting doesn't start when the plane approaches
the
> DZ, it starts way earlier than that. Either way, the DZ *ON-BASE* at
> Amberley runs quite nicely alongside air ops. But you couldn't be expected
> to know that, you're a mere Private (Rtd) with nothing more than your
> infantry experiences to go on.

You poor sad little gate guard, you suggested that Willamtown was an example
of how Amberly could operate.

Surprise, surprise you turned out to be full of ****, who'da thunk it.

> Hardly a qualification to discuss aviation
> matters. But feel free to hang around. If you take those khaki blinkers
off,
> you might learn something here.

Gate guard, watching planes take off like the gaping yokel that you are
doesn't qualify you as the expert you pretend you are.

Remember that they don't let you play in the planes either, your past B707
tanker (fuel capacity) blunders are a great example of your stupidity vastly
exceeding your knowledge.

Brash

August 16th 03, 10:21 AM

Folks, this is what's wrong with the ADF today. Too many tiny-minded clowns
in khaki suits "thinking". They remind me of a poem.........

The grand old Duke of York,
he had ten thousand men,
he marched them to the top of the hill,
and he marched them down again.

Our brain-dead friend who was nothing more than a lowly infantry Private
(and now, he's not even that), would have us believe that Australia's
interests are best served by having a few thousand more Privates for the
generals to march up and down Mt Stuart instead of a proper strategy to
protect Australia and her interests.

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "Graham" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I agree with Tas, i'm just a digger
> >
> > I won't hold it against you, but you need more than a digger's eye view
to
> > grasp some of this.
> >
>
> You need a gates eye view! lol.

Even that would be better than the pathetic views you would offer.

Here's the fact. Infantry Privates aren't taught to use their brains on such
weighty topics as geo-strategic policy and how to defend Australia and her
interest's. All you were taught was how to defend a hole in the ground on
the side of a hill.

You're not qualified to engage in discussions with grown-ups. But feel free
to lurk, you might learn something.

>
> > >but i do see what is getting used the
> > > most on deployments in this new climate and its not F111 (great
aircraft
> > > tho) and really i dont see them or a a new type being used often or at
> > all.
> >
> > There's a Chinese bloke named Sun Tzu, he wrote a book called "The Art
of
> > War". In it, he says the only true victory in a war is to not have to
> fight
> > it. Fighting it (and hopefully) then winning it, is a bit of a mug's
game.
> > F111's (and their class of aircraft) are designed not to win wars by
> > fighting them but to win wars by preventing them. Show me an infantry
> > battalion that can do *that*.
>
>
> Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.

Have you stopped sucking dick?

> The other disadvantage of relying on Mr Tzus deterrence is that if the
enemy
> calls your bluff, 35 x F-111s are not going to last very long (let alone
the
> markedly smaller number we can crew) or the stocks of weapons for the a/c.

That's why we don't solely rely on 35 F111's. This is like having a
conversation with an 8 year old.

> 3 more Bns with supporting units (for example) would mean an enemy would
> need to bring at least 9 more Bns to invade (actually more, but lets not
> quibble), with the consequent increase in logistic support, transport,
> shipping, escorts etc.

Hmmm, yes, I realise army indoctrination has got you believing that the
defence of Australia starts at the low-tide mark, but the thruth is
different.

> It raises the cost significantly more for the attacker than the defender.

Of course it never occurs to people like you, Private, that there are other
ways of "attacking" a country that doesn't involve lodging troops on the
mainland. To adopt your "policy" and rely solely on a few thousand more
lowly Privates (all as thick as you too, no doubt) would be strategic
suicide. I know they told you that the war isn't won till the "man with the
rifle stands on the hill", but that's just romantic nonsense they feed to
dildo Privates to make them think they're something special and to stop them
whingeing about being treated like dogs.

You're not qualified to discuss these matters with adults. Run along.

>
> See how deterrence works?

Yes Private (Rtd), whatever you say.

You're dismissed now.

> And those forces are available for other tasks when the threat to Aust is
> not high, as well as increasing the most effective recruiting pool for
> SASR - the ones who are most effective in the current, existing war.
>
> >
> > > What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and
our
> > > equipment.
> >
> > And you haven't even been in a proper war yet. Makes you worry, doesn't
> it?
>
>
> Certainly when money is being spent on a/c that Aust hasn't used

Which proves what a success its been as a strategic deterrent.

>nd won't use.

Got a crystal ball, have you?

>hat would let them risk it on real world ops yet?
>
> Has the interim jammer even made it to the plane yet?
>
>
> > > This is where our limited budget neads to go.
> >
> > Can't agree with that. If we do it your way, we'll end up with an ADF
that
> > will actually have to defend Australia. Sun Tzu wouldn't approve.
>
>
> Or we can keep putting money into a/c that soak up resources, but are of
no
> use dealing with the threats we face.

Poor Private, your training has limited your ability to think beyond one
thing at a time, hasn't it?

>who is willing or wants to have a go at us?
> >
> > I guess you haven't read the paper lately.
> >
>
>
> Who has the capability that is more threatened by F-111s than SASR?
>
>
> > >I just dont see
> > > anyone out there who realy would have a go.
> >
> > Wake up................. the rag-heads are on our case right now. If the
> > Intel revealed a al-Q or JI camp someplace that we couldn't openly get
at,
> > wouldn't it makes sense to go in and bomb said camp with a plane that
fly
> > across countries and avoid radar detection, hit the camp, and make it
back
> > to international airspace without needing AAR 4 or 5 times?
> >
>
> Or to hit it covertly with SASR and recover intelligence as well.

And risk losing people on the ground in a country that hasn't given
permission for us to send them there? Oh, that's just brilliant. You really
are an abortion that went wrong, aren't you?

>
> Or pass the info onto our allies who have the ability to hit it with a
> proper strike package rather than a half arsed attempt.

I'm going to pull the plug on this soon, because you're clearly too stupid
and inexperienced/untrained to cope with the concepts involved. Just like so
many other infantry privates I've dealt with, you're a pig-headed goose who
thinks he's the duck's guts and an expert on everything. Got some news for
you..............

>
>
> > > The F111s are great but can we aford them now (old) and what is
needed?
> ie
> > > look at what is being used. We just dont have the $ for every thing we
> > need.
> >
> > We would if we didn't waste millions on arts festivals for lefty
******s.
> >
> > > Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.
> >
> > Spend the money where it will give us the most strategic value, I say.
>
> Which may not be the F-111

Of course not. Putting all your eggs in one strategic basket has never been
a good idea. That's why we have a Navy too.

>given the limited need for long ranged strike and
> the disproportionate amount of funding the F-111 soaks up.

Here's the deal. If we scrap one-third of our strategic triad (the Pigs) and
a threat to Australia's interests appear thereafter that the Pigs could have
deterred, you have to run up and down Swanston Street in a tu-tu and a
dunce's hat yelling "infantry privates are dumb****s" every Anzac day.
--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 16th 03, 10:33 AM

Well put. But most probably lost on the Private (Rtd) with the single-digit
IQ.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"Michael Williamson" > wrote in
message ...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.
> >
>
> The one bad thing (or good thing, depending upon your point of view)
> about deterrence is that it is virtually impossible to show a 100%
> certain 'win' for it. On the other hand, it is also almost impossible
> to show a situation in which deterrence may not have played a factor,
> unless an attack actually took place. In other words, the natural
> response to your question is the challenge "show me a nation that
> carried out their aggressive plans against Australia in spite of the
> F-111. Since I have not read of an invasion or other blatant attack
> against Australia proper (as opposed to against Australians, outside
> of the country), I would be hard pressed to point to a failure of
> deterrence. And while I haven't been observing ALL that closely,
> I'd expect to have noticed a large scale incident that would prove
> that reply wrong...
>
> Mike
>

Brash

August 16th 03, 10:40 AM

"Victor" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:31:12 +1000, smithxpj >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:53:59 +1000, Vector >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:02:24 +1000, "Brash"
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Obviously you never saw Williamtown in full swing when PTS was
operating
> >>>there alongside a couple of Mirage or Hornet squadrons.
> >>
> >>Maybe he didn't - but neither did you.
> >>
> >>I did - and the DZ was NOT on the airfield.
> >>
> >
> >Yair...but the DZ is within spitting distance of Saltash air-ground
> >gunnery range and operations at both sites comfortably interlaced
> >without much of a hitch (when it was in full swing in the 70s anyway!)
>
> Which does nothing to validate Brash's BS claim that the DZ was on the
> airfield.

I never said it was on the airfield cocksucker.

>
> It wasn't - even though PJI's did occasional demo jumps there.

Oh my god! A DZ *ON* the airfield.

>
> And if he didn't have his head so far up his Khyber, Brash might
> realise his other claim re the PTS operating alongside Mirages and
> Hornets was complete bull**** as well - it never happened!

PTS was never at Williamtown and conducting training while Mirages and/or
Hornets were flying in and out and using Saltash? You're a knobgobbler.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Brash

August 16th 03, 10:50 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > > u...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Poor gate guard, it must suck knowing you are second rate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scratched record, no intelligent thought, scratched record, no
> > > > intelligent
> > > > > > thought.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Poor second rate gate guard.
> > > >
> > > > Playing "last word" are we? The sure sign you've bitten off more
than
> > you
> > > > can chew.
> > > >
> > >
> > > gate guard - son you are a sad one indeed, tell us again about PTS
> using
> > > RAAF Williamtown as a DZ.
> >
> > Come back when you've finished Yr 10 and can comprehend English
properly.
> > Got a clue for you, parachuting doesn't start when the plane approaches
> the
> > DZ, it starts way earlier than that. Either way, the DZ *ON-BASE* at
> > Amberley runs quite nicely alongside air ops. But you couldn't be
expected
> > to know that, you're a mere Private (Rtd) with nothing more than your
> > infantry experiences to go on.
>
> You poor sad little gate guard,

Wrong again dumb grunt. How said that you cant refute the fact that you are
dumb, and you were, a grunt. no wonder you've got such a big inferiority
complex.

>you suggested that Willamtown was an example
> of how Amberly could operate.

Sure did.

>
> Surprise, surprise you turned out to be full of ****, who'da thunk it.

Wrong again dumb grunt.

>
>
> > Hardly a qualification to discuss aviation
> > matters. But feel free to hang around. If you take those khaki blinkers
> off,
> > you might learn something here.
>
> Gate guard, watching planes take off like the gaping yokel that you are
> doesn't qualify you as the expert you pretend you are.

LOL, that's funny coming form a dill that left the *army*, of all things, as
nothing more than a Private and then proceeds to think he's an aviation
expert.

I wonder, were you in the Air Training Corps before the army?

>
> Remember that they don't let you play in the planes either,

Wrong again dickhead. But hey, you're only a poor dumb ex-infantry private.
What would you know?

>your past B707
> tanker (fuel capacity) blunders are a great example of your stupidity
vastly
> exceeding your knowledge.

Is that all you've got to work with? I'd list all your balls-ups, but I
don't want to cause a power blackout or melt my computer.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Brash

August 16th 03, 11:02 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > Oh ****. This is like trying to explain quantum physics to monkeys.
> > (Actually, I suspect that would be easier).
> >
>
>
> You aren't very good at this are you?

This is pointless. Just like all the other "discussions" I've had with
dumb**** grunts in boozers and pubs over the years. You're all ****ing
brainwashed and stupid and can't be taught anything after they've finished
programming you at Kapooka and Singelton.

> Poor gate guard, BTW what was it you applied for when you joined the
RAAF?,
> GD after all, gate guard is as low as it goes.

What's funny about this line you've adopted, is that "gate guards" get paid
more and are better trained than your precious little lot.

> And how much has the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our
shores
> in the time since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same
> time.
>
> But then a gate guard like you has no idea at all have you?

I'm not a gate guard dill. It's obvious you have no idea at all.

> > Perhaps if you just spared us your "insights" and stuck to what you know
> > (whatever the **** that is) you wouldn't make a fool of YOURself.
>
>
> Yawn, perhaps if you stuck to begging other dweebs in binaries NGs to tell
> people you are cool

What the **** are you on about spastic?

>and continued to promote assaulting females then you
> would simply maintain all of our opinions of you?

Refresh my memory.

> > Especially when it makes potential aggressor decide not to be aggressive
> in
> > the first place.
>
> You see the problem with that is it's religion, not fact

And your bull**** about scrapping jets in favour of a few thousand more
dumbass grunts isn't? **** off idiot.

>- you can give no
> examples of potential aggressors who have been deterred by the F-111, you
> just have faith in it.
>
> Wheras in WW2 the Japanese acknowledged that they lacked the ability to
move
> and supply the amount of troops they would need to invade Aust because of
> the Army forces in situ.
>
> Fact V religious belief.

Listen up dickhead, do the math and tell me how many troops were in the
various arms of the 2nd AIF, the RAAF, the RAN and the militia at the time
and compare that to the 21st Century. See ya later dickhead.

>
> > Its little wonder you think the way you do. Its that low
> > level army training you've been exposed to. Sadly,, a great many army
> > officers display the same "understanding" until they've done a Joint
> Warfare
> > Course and learn that defending Australia doesn't start at the low-tide
> > mark.
>
> Poor gate guard, you believe that and thats important, please tell us how
> many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Do you still stick your cock in dogs?

>
> >
> > >but it doesn't
> > > neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111
> >
> > The only correct thing you've said all day.
> >
> > >and it is not the be all and end
> > > all of deterrent.
> >
> > No **** Private (Rtd) L'abortion?
> >
>
> What a sad little dweeb you are.

And this "dweeb" could knock your stupid block off. How embarrassing for
you!

--
De Oppresso Liber.

>
>

Paul Repacholi

August 16th 03, 03:37 PM

Petzl > writes:

> The Collins Class aside from bad press is invisible and a particular
> deterrent for aircraft carriers and troop carriers

> Perhaps it is time to look at more modern Aircraft while one can and
> before the equation changes

And with the pigs to deter the grey uglies, they are VERY good for
dropping off a few friends for a quiet shooftie around.

The enemy who may not be named have had to back off several times
during a recent operation.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Thomas Schoene

August 16th 03, 08:10 PM

"Paul Repacholi" > wrote in message

> matt weber > writes:
>
> > I believe EF-111A's were used in First Gulf War, but I suspect the
> > last time they carried weapons was probably over Libya..
>
> Nope, the bombing mission that took out the air raid shelter in
> Bagdad. Loaded on East coast, flew to DG with tankers, checked,
> dropped and returned to US. At the time, they where the only AC that
> had the range, and could handle the length of the bomb. F-15s can now
> carry the bomb, but without the legs.

WTFO

I can only assume you're talking about the initial GBU-28 strikes in Gulf
War 1. Those targets were not in Baghdad; more like 20 miles outside it.
Don't confuse them with the Amariya attack, which was appparently done by
F-117s.

The F-111/GBU-28 missions were absolutely NOT flown direct from the United
States. The bombs were flown direct from the US to Saudi Arabia, but that
was in a C-141 cargo plane. They were delivered to the target by F-111s
operating out of Taif air base in Saudi Arabia.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Peter

August 16th 03, 11:45 PM

In article et>,
says...
> "Paul Repacholi" > wrote in message
>
> > matt weber > writes:
> >
> > > I believe EF-111A's were used in First Gulf War, but I suspect the
> > > last time they carried weapons was probably over Libya..
> >
> > Nope, the bombing mission that took out the air raid shelter in
> > Bagdad. Loaded on East coast, flew to DG with tankers, checked,
> > dropped and returned to US. At the time, they where the only AC that
> > had the range, and could handle the length of the bomb. F-15s can now
> > carry the bomb, but without the legs.
>
> WTFO
>
> I can only assume you're talking about the initial GBU-28 strikes in Gulf
> War 1. Those targets were not in Baghdad; more like 20 miles outside it.
> Don't confuse them with the Amariya attack, which was appparently done by
> F-117s.
>
> The F-111/GBU-28 missions were absolutely NOT flown direct from the United
> States. The bombs were flown direct from the US to Saudi Arabia, but that
> was in a C-141 cargo plane. They were delivered to the target by F-111s
> operating out of Taif air base in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28.htm has
some more details. An astonishing weapon, developed and tested in an
astounding time.

L'acrobat

August 17th 03, 12:08 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > u...
> > > Oh ****. This is like trying to explain quantum physics to monkeys.
> > > (Actually, I suspect that would be easier).
> > >
> >
> >
> > You aren't very good at this are you?
>
> This is pointless. Just like all the other "discussions" I've had with
> dumb**** grunts in boozers and pubs over the years. You're all ****ing
> brainwashed and stupid and can't be taught anything after they've finished
> programming you at Kapooka and Singelton.

Or to put it another way, you lost all those arguments too.

>
> > Poor gate guard, BTW what was it you applied for when you joined the
> RAAF?,
> > GD after all, gate guard is as low as it goes.
>
> What's funny about this line you've adopted, is that "gate guards" get
paid
> more and are better trained than your precious little lot.
>

What did you get turned down for to wind up in that role gate guard?

>
> > And how much has the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our
> shores
> > in the time since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the
same
> > time.
> >
> > But then a gate guard like you has no idea at all have you?
>
> I'm not a gate guard dill. It's obvious you have no idea at all.

Not answering the question, gate guard, so I'll restate it - how much has
the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our shores in the time
since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same time.

Do try to keep up.

>
> > > Perhaps if you just spared us your "insights" and stuck to what you
know
> > > (whatever the **** that is) you wouldn't make a fool of YOURself.
> >
> >
> > Yawn, perhaps if you stuck to begging other dweebs in binaries NGs to
tell
> > people you are cool
>
> What the **** are you on about spastic?

I'd deny it too if I was that pathetic.

>
> >and continued to promote assaulting females then you
> > would simply maintain all of our opinions of you?
>
> Refresh my memory.

The female officer you claimed to have threatened.

I'd probably be trying to deny it too if I was as pathetic a piece of ****
as that.

>
> > > Especially when it makes potential aggressor decide not to be
aggressive
> > in
> > > the first place.
> >
> > You see the problem with that is it's religion, not fact
>
> And your bull**** about scrapping jets in favour of a few thousand more
> dumbass grunts isn't? **** off idiot.

Not really a fact based argument is it gate guard, who has the F-111
deterred?

>
> >- you can give no
> > examples of potential aggressors who have been deterred by the F-111,
you
> > just have faith in it.
> >
> > Wheras in WW2 the Japanese acknowledged that they lacked the ability to
> move
> > and supply the amount of troops they would need to invade Aust because
of
> > the Army forces in situ.
> >
> > Fact V religious belief.
>
> Listen up dickhead, do the math and tell me how many troops were in the
> various arms of the 2nd AIF, the RAAF, the RAN and the militia at the time
> and compare that to the 21st Century. See ya later dickhead.

What has that got to do with combat ratios? or the fact that, starting from
a larger base force, the Army can be expanded more quickly to meet a
credible threat?

The quick answer is, nothing. Brash has again demonstrated his ignorance.

>
> >
> > > Its little wonder you think the way you do. Its that low
> > > level army training you've been exposed to. Sadly,, a great many army
> > > officers display the same "understanding" until they've done a Joint
> > Warfare
> > > Course and learn that defending Australia doesn't start at the
low-tide
> > > mark.
> >
> > Poor gate guard, you believe that and thats important, please tell us ho
w
> > many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?
>
> Do you still stick your cock in dogs?

Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

>
> >
> > >
> > > >but it doesn't
> > > > neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111
> > >
> > > The only correct thing you've said all day.
> > >
> > > >and it is not the be all and end
> > > > all of deterrent.
> > >
> > > No **** Private (Rtd) L'abortion?
> > >
> >
> > What a sad little dweeb you are.
>
> And this "dweeb" could knock your stupid block off. How embarrassing for
> you!

and again the dweeb heads off into his cozy fantasy world.

L'acrobat

August 17th 03, 12:37 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> Folks, this is what's wrong with the ADF today. Too many tiny-minded
clowns
> in khaki suits "thinking". They remind me of a poem.........
>
> The grand old Duke of York,
> he had ten thousand men,
> he marched them to the top of the hill,
> and he marched them down again.
>
> Our brain-dead friend who was nothing more than a lowly infantry Private
> (and now, he's not even that), would have us believe that Australia's
> interests are best served by having a few thousand more Privates for the
> generals to march up and down Mt Stuart instead of a proper strategy to
> protect Australia and her interests.

Poor gate guard, getting desperate I see.

>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > > >but i do see what is getting used the
> > > > most on deployments in this new climate and its not F111 (great
> aircraft
> > > > tho) and really i dont see them or a a new type being used often or
at
> > > all.
> > >
> > > There's a Chinese bloke named Sun Tzu, he wrote a book called "The Art
> of
> > > War". In it, he says the only true victory in a war is to not have to
> > fight
> > > it. Fighting it (and hopefully) then winning it, is a bit of a mug's
> game.
> > > F111's (and their class of aircraft) are designed not to win wars by
> > > fighting them but to win wars by preventing them. Show me an infantry
> > > battalion that can do *that*.
> >
> >
> > Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian F-111s.
>
> Have you stopped sucking dick?

No facts here, Show me a country that has been deterred by Australian
F-111s.

just one credible attacker that the F-111 could have deterred.

>
>
> > The other disadvantage of relying on Mr Tzus deterrence is that if the
> enemy
> > calls your bluff, 35 x F-111s are not going to last very long (let alone
> the
> > markedly smaller number we can crew) or the stocks of weapons for the
a/c.
>
> That's why we don't solely rely on 35 F111's. This is like having a
> conversation with an 8 year old.

Yes, I expect you lose those too.

>
> > 3 more Bns with supporting units (for example) would mean an enemy would
> > need to bring at least 9 more Bns to invade (actually more, but lets not
> > quibble), with the consequent increase in logistic support, transport,
> > shipping, escorts etc.
>
> Hmmm, yes, I realise army indoctrination has got you believing that the
> defence of Australia starts at the low-tide mark, but the thruth is
> different.

No facts here, just denial.

>
> > It raises the cost significantly more for the attacker than the
defender.
>
> Of course it never occurs to people like you, Private, that there are
other
> ways of "attacking" a country that doesn't involve lodging troops on the
> mainland. To adopt your "policy" and rely solely on a few thousand more
> lowly Privates (all as thick as you too, no doubt) would be strategic
> suicide. I know they told you that the war isn't won till the "man with
the
> rifle stands on the hill", but that's just romantic nonsense they feed to
> dildo Privates to make them think they're something special and to stop
them
> whingeing about being treated like dogs.

No facts here, If the enemy doesn't try to lodge on the mainland there are
cheaper ways to deal with them than keeping the F-111.

>
> You're not qualified to discuss these matters with adults. Run along.

Poor little gate guard thinks his opinion counts.

>
> >
> > See how deterrence works?
>
> Yes Private (Rtd), whatever you say.
>
> You're dismissed now.

Yawn.

>
> > And those forces are available for other tasks when the threat to Aust
is
> > not high, as well as increasing the most effective recruiting pool for
> > SASR - the ones who are most effective in the current, existing war.
> >
> > >
> > > > What is being used allmost to the breaking point is us (diggers) and
> our
> > > > equipment.
> > >
> > > And you haven't even been in a proper war yet. Makes you worry,
doesn't
> > it?
> >
> >
> > Certainly when money is being spent on a/c that Aust hasn't used
>
> Which proves what a success its been as a strategic deterrent.
>

Who has it deterred?

Name the country.

This is where the Aust F-111 deterrence argument descends into religion,
there is no evidence, let alone proof, to support it yet its brainwashed
adherents cling to it desperately.

The F-111 has sucked up a huge amount of money that would have been far
better spent on almost anything else.

> >nd won't use.
>
> Got a crystal ball, have you?
>

Name a credible threat to Aust in the next 12 years, that is in range of the
F-111, that has such **** poor air defence that our F-111s could strike it
more than once, that F-111s could have a serious effect on.

>
> >hat would let them risk it on real world ops yet?
> >
> > Has the interim jammer even made it to the plane yet?
> >
> >
> > > > This is where our limited budget neads to go.
> > >
> > > Can't agree with that. If we do it your way, we'll end up with an ADF
> that
> > > will actually have to defend Australia. Sun Tzu wouldn't approve.
> >
> >
> > Or we can keep putting money into a/c that soak up resources, but are of
> no
> > use dealing with the threats we face.
>
> Poor Private, your training has limited your ability to think beyond one
> thing at a time, hasn't it?

You have yet to provide the big threat that the F-111 deals with, you know
the big threat that only the F-111 can reach but has such **** poor air
defences that the F-111 will survive reaching it.

>
> >who is willing or wants to have a go at us?
> > >
> > > I guess you haven't read the paper lately.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Who has the capability that is more threatened by F-111s than SASR?
> >
> >
> > > >I just dont see
> > > > anyone out there who realy would have a go.
> > >
> > > Wake up................. the rag-heads are on our case right now. If
the
> > > Intel revealed a al-Q or JI camp someplace that we couldn't openly get
> at,
> > > wouldn't it makes sense to go in and bomb said camp with a plane that
> fly
> > > across countries and avoid radar detection, hit the camp, and make it
> back
> > > to international airspace without needing AAR 4 or 5 times?
> > >
> >
> > Or to hit it covertly with SASR and recover intelligence as well.
>
> And risk losing people on the ground in a country that hasn't given
> permission for us to send them there? Oh, that's just brilliant. You
really
> are an abortion that went wrong, aren't you?

As opposed to sending in a strategic bombing mission to a country that
hasn't given permission for us to send them there?, when WE are the only
operators of the a/c type in the world, using a/c that are below par in ECM
defences.

Great idea, a neighbour shooting down some of our armed bombers illegally
intruding on their airspace will be completely unable to work out where the
F-111s came from.

Throw in the fact that even USA, with it's far more effective air recon
capability than ours, was routinely decoyed away from hitting actual
tactical targets in the Balkans with cheap and simple decoys and you are
looking at generating a major international incident for little or no gain.

Your family must cringe every time you open your mouth.

>
> >
> > Or pass the info onto our allies who have the ability to hit it with a
> > proper strike package rather than a half arsed attempt.
>
> I'm going to pull the plug on this soon, because you're clearly too stupid
> and inexperienced/untrained to cope with the concepts involved. Just like
so
> many other infantry privates I've dealt with, you're a pig-headed goose
who
> thinks he's the duck's guts and an expert on everything. Got some news for
> you..............
>

No info content here.

> >
> >
> > > > The F111s are great but can we aford them now (old) and what is
> needed?
> > ie
> > > > look at what is being used. We just dont have the $ for every thing
we
> > > need.
> > >
> > > We would if we didn't waste millions on arts festivals for lefty
> ******s.
> > >
> > > > Spend the $ where its needed is what i say.
> > >
> > > Spend the money where it will give us the most strategic value, I say.
> >
> > Which may not be the F-111
>
> Of course not. Putting all your eggs in one strategic basket has never
been
> a good idea. That's why we have a Navy too.
>
> >given the limited need for long ranged strike and
> > the disproportionate amount of funding the F-111 soaks up.
>
> Here's the deal. If we scrap one-third of our strategic triad (the Pigs)
and
> a threat to Australia's interests appear thereafter that the Pigs could
have
> deterred, you have to run up and down Swanston Street in a tu-tu and a
> dunce's hat yelling "infantry privates are dumb****s" every Anzac day.

The F-111s are toast, they are a waste of money, I expect the money saved
will go into some cruise missiles (possibly navy owned, possibly let the
RAAF have some) to maintain the strike role and the rest will go into the
Army/Navy where it is actually effective in both high intensity warfare and
the current crop of wars we face.

Facing a credible threat, the attrition rate on the 25 - 30 F-111s we can
actually man was always going to be such that they would be little more than
cruise missiles anyway.

But heres the deal, if you cannot credibly show a threat to Aust that the
F-111s could deter you will run up and down george street every Anzac day,
in RAAF uniform, yelling 'gate guards suck cock'.

Start warming up for the run.

Paul Repacholi

August 17th 03, 12:42 AM

"Thomas Schoene" > writes:

> The F-111/GBU-28 missions were absolutely NOT flown direct from the
> United States. The bombs were flown direct from the US to Saudi
> Arabia, but that was in a C-141 cargo plane. They were delivered to
> the target by F-111s operating out of Taif air base in Saudi Arabia.

AIR, the report I read said the bombed up AC flew from the US due to
time constraints of some sort. It may well have been SA they staged
through, rather than DG. I'm moderatly sure they returned direct, but
can't remember why, or if a reason was stated.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

L'acrobat

August 17th 03, 12:45 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message

> > > > gate guard - son you are a sad one indeed, tell us again about PTS
> > using
> > > > RAAF Williamtown as a DZ.
> > >
> > > Come back when you've finished Yr 10 and can comprehend English
> properly.
> > > Got a clue for you, parachuting doesn't start when the plane
approaches
> > the
> > > DZ, it starts way earlier than that. Either way, the DZ *ON-BASE* at
> > > Amberley runs quite nicely alongside air ops. But you couldn't be
> expected
> > > to know that, you're a mere Private (Rtd) with nothing more than your
> > > infantry experiences to go on.
> >
> > You poor sad little gate guard,
>
> Wrong again dumb grunt. How said that you cant refute the fact that you
are
> dumb, and you were, a grunt. no wonder you've got such a big inferiority
> complex.

Poor gate guard, it hurts that people don't respect POGOs like yourself
doesn't it?

>
> >you suggested that Willamtown was an example
> > of how Amberly could operate.
>
> Sure did.

Good, now we all know that you are stupid.

>
> >
> > Surprise, surprise you turned out to be full of ****, who'da thunk it.
>
> Wrong again dumb grunt.
>

Since Williamtown never used the airfield as a a routine DZ, try explaining
why the two cases are similar. cretin.

> >
> >
> > > Hardly a qualification to discuss aviation
> > > matters. But feel free to hang around. If you take those khaki
blinkers
> > off,
> > > you might learn something here.
> >
> > Gate guard, watching planes take off like the gaping yokel that you are
> > doesn't qualify you as the expert you pretend you are.
>
> LOL, that's funny coming form a dill that left the *army*, of all things,
as
> nothing more than a Private and then proceeds to think he's an aviation
> expert.

Being a gate guard in the RAAF hardly qualifies you to know any more about
aviation than an army dentist.

> >
> > Remember that they don't let you play in the planes either,
>
> Wrong again dickhead. But hey, you're only a poor dumb ex-infantry
private.
> What would you know?
>

Not seeing any reason to respect you opinion on aviation subjects, still
keep trying to distract from the lack of knowledge.

Remember, you ARE the clown who believes that "some here consider you to be
an expert".

> >your past B707
> > tanker (fuel capacity) blunders are a great example of your stupidity
> vastly
> > exceeding your knowledge.
>
> Is that all you've got to work with? I'd list all your balls-ups, but I
> don't want to cause a power blackout or melt my computer.

Yawn, just one of your more egregious cock ups.

Peter

August 17th 03, 06:17 AM

In article >,
says...
> The impression I got at the time is that they'd have used the F-15 in
> theater if they could have, but there wasn't time to reprogram the
> weapons computer.

A sign of the times when the hardware is ready before the software. Back in
the old days it didn't matter if they hadn't written the manual for a new
battleship or tank, but nowadays the weapon system might be standing right
there in front of you as large as life and ready to go in camouflage paint,
but if a collection of magnetic values ain't in the right order, it ain't
going nowhere.

Pete, whose computer will handle a version of Windows that hasn't been
written yet.

Brash

August 17th 03, 08:34 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
> > This is pointless. Just like all the other "discussions" I've had with
> > dumb**** grunts in boozers and pubs over the years. You're all ****ing
> > brainwashed and stupid and can't be taught anything after they've
finished
> > programming you at Kapooka and Singelton.
>
>
> Or to put it another way, you lost all those arguments too.

Try arguing with a gate post. It's much the same thing. Too stupid to
understand the topic.

> > I'm not a gate guard dill. It's obvious you have no idea at all.
>
>
>
> Not answering the question, gate guard, so I'll restate it - how much has
> the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our shores in the time
> since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same time.
>
> Do try to keep up.

So you don't deny you're a dill. Good to see.

The F111 has deterred everybody who contemplated openly attacking Australia
and her interests.

> > What the **** are you on about spastic?
>
>
> I'd deny it too if I was that pathetic.

In other words, you're making **** up.

> > Refresh my memory.
>
> The female officer you claimed to have threatened.

Oh yes. How about you tell the whole story cocksucker?

> I'd probably be trying to deny it too if I was as pathetic a piece of ****
> as that.

But you are a pathetic piece of ****.

> > And your bull**** about scrapping jets in favour of a few thousand more
> > dumbass grunts isn't? **** off idiot.
>
> Not really a fact based argument is it gate guard, who has the F-111
> deterred?

Every nation-state that contemplated attacking Australia or her interests.

> > Listen up dickhead, do the math and tell me how many troops were in the
> > various arms of the 2nd AIF, the RAAF, the RAN and the militia at the
time
> > and compare that to the 21st Century. See ya later dickhead.
>
> What has that got to do with combat ratios? or the fact that, starting
from
> a larger base force, the Army can be expanded more quickly to meet a
> credible threat?

Which credible threat might that be? I can't see how an infantry battalion
can deter submarines blockading our SLOCs.

>
> The quick answer is, nothing. Brash has again demonstrated his ignorance.

Waffle waffle. You're full of **** boy. Run along.

> > Do you still stick your cock in dogs?
>
> Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us how
> many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Answer the question dog-****er.

> > And this "dweeb" could knock your stupid block off. How embarrassing for
> > you!
>
> and again the dweeb heads off into his cozy fantasy world.

You're the one in fantasy-land Private Lard-arse (Rtd).
>
>

Brash

August 17th 03, 08:41 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> u...
> > Folks, this is what's wrong with the ADF today. Too many tiny-minded
> clowns
> > in khaki suits "thinking". They remind me of a poem.........
> >
> > The grand old Duke of York,
> > he had ten thousand men,
> > he marched them to the top of the hill,
> > and he marched them down again.
> >
> > Our brain-dead friend who was nothing more than a lowly infantry Private
> > (and now, he's not even that), would have us believe that Australia's
> > interests are best served by having a few thousand more Privates for the
> > generals to march up and down Mt Stuart instead of a proper strategy to
> > protect Australia and her interests.
>
>
> Poor gate guard, getting desperate I see.

No, getting fed up with trying to enlighten an idiot.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

Thomas Schoene

August 17th 03, 01:05 PM

"Paul Repacholi" > wrote in message

> "Thomas Schoene" > writes:
>
> > The F-111/GBU-28 missions were absolutely NOT flown direct from the
> > United States. The bombs were flown direct from the US to Saudi
> > Arabia, but that was in a C-141 cargo plane. They were delivered to
> > the target by F-111s operating out of Taif air base in Saudi Arabia.
>
> AIR, the report I read said the bombed up AC flew from the US due to
> time constraints of some sort. It may well have been SA they staged
> through, rather than DG. I'm moderatly sure they returned direct, but
> can't remember why, or if a reason was stated.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. As I said, the flew into theater
in a cargo plane and were then loaded on combat aircraft already based
there. Here is the most readily accessilble history I could find; it
matches very closely with all of the printed versions I have read of the
same event.

http://f-111.net/CarloKopp/gbu-28.htm

"3 Into Battle

"The third and fourth bomb casings, destined for Iraq, arrived at Eglin on
the 23rd February and were immediately loaded. Still warm from the explosive
loading process, the two rounds were loaded on to a C-141 at Eglin on the
27th February, for the seventeen hour flight to Taif in Saudi Arabia. Within
5 hours of landing these bombs were under the wings of 48th TFW F-111s, en
route to Iraq. "

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

L'acrobat

August 18th 03, 12:55 AM

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > This is pointless. Just like all the other "discussions" I've had with
> > > dumb**** grunts in boozers and pubs over the years. You're all ****ing
> > > brainwashed and stupid and can't be taught anything after they've
> finished
> > > programming you at Kapooka and Singelton.
> >
> >
> > Or to put it another way, you lost all those arguments too.
>
> Try arguing with a gate post. It's much the same thing. Too stupid to
> understand the topic.
>

I'm sure you have the greater knowledge of gates.

> > > I'm not a gate guard dill. It's obvious you have no idea at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not answering the question, gate guard, so I'll restate it - how much
has
> > the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our shores in the time
> > since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same time.
> >
> > Do try to keep up.
>
> So you don't deny you're a dill. Good to see.

Still not able to deal with the question are you?

>
> The F111 has deterred everybody who contemplated openly attacking
Australia
> and her interests.
>

Name them, who has been a credible attacker against Australia and her
interests?

> > > What the **** are you on about spastic?
> >
> >
> > I'd deny it too if I was that pathetic.
>
> In other words, you're making **** up.
>

No, you and I and anyone else who happened to see your sad post knows
exactly how pathetic you are.

> > > Refresh my memory.
> >
> > The female officer you claimed to have threatened.
>
> Oh yes. How about you tell the whole story cocksucker?

You threaten to beat up females you sad piece of ****, try to justify it any
way you like but there is no way back from that one gate guard.

>
> > I'd probably be trying to deny it too if I was as pathetic a piece of
****
> > as that.
>
> But you are a pathetic piece of ****.
>

Possibly, but not one so needy as to ask strangers in a newsgroup to tell
other strangers that they think I'm cool, nor do I threaten to assault
women.

Where does that leave you?

> > > And your bull**** about scrapping jets in favour of a few thousand
more
> > > dumbass grunts isn't? **** off idiot.
> >
> > Not really a fact based argument is it gate guard, who has the F-111
> > deterred?
>
> Every nation-state that contemplated attacking Australia or her interests.
>

No names there, come on gate guard NAME them, who has contemplated it?

Its a question simple enough even for you NAMES, boy, names.

> > > Listen up dickhead, do the math and tell me how many troops were in
the
> > > various arms of the 2nd AIF, the RAAF, the RAN and the militia at the
> time
> > > and compare that to the 21st Century. See ya later dickhead.
> >
> > What has that got to do with combat ratios? or the fact that, starting
> from
> > a larger base force, the Army can be expanded more quickly to meet a
> > credible threat?
>
> Which credible threat might that be? I can't see how an infantry battalion
> can deter submarines blockading our SLOCs.

Oh my, gate guard swings and misses!

Pray tell, how will an F-111 deter a submarine from blockading our SLOCs?

and who has the credible sub force in the region that could do it?

>
> >
> > The quick answer is, nothing. Brash has again demonstrated his
ignorance.
>
> Waffle waffle. You're full of **** boy. Run along.

yawn.

>
> > > Do you still stick your cock in dogs?
> >
> > Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us
how
> > many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?
>
> Answer the question dog-****er.

Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Poor gate guard, his argument is again crushed.

>
> > > And this "dweeb" could knock your stupid block off. How embarrassing
for
> > > you!
> >
> > and again the dweeb heads off into his cozy fantasy world.
>
> You're the one in fantasy-land Private Lard-arse (Rtd).

Go beat up some women gate guard, it'll make you feel like you are a man, or
as close as you ever get.

smithxpj

August 18th 03, 01:58 AM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:03:19 +1000, Lindsay >
wrote:

>
>
>The Raven wrote:
>>
>> "Graham" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Yeah hi, can anyone tell me when the F111s were last deployed in combat?
>>
>> The Australian F-111's or just general F-111's?
>>
>> > have they ever? just asking.
>>
>> I believe some were used in VN but not sure if that included Australia. I
>> would have thought Australia received them too late for VN.
>
>We got ours in '78.
>

Try 1973, Sport!

The CO

August 18th 03, 09:37 AM

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "smithxpj" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:25:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Poor gate guard, you are a second rate loser and you know it.
> >
> > Gate guards ain't in military uniform these days, Sunshine! The job
> > has been contracted out to civvy security companies.
> >
> > Ipso facto, Brash ain't on a gate!!
>
> Correct, they can't be trusted to carry out their only useful function
any
> longer.

AHEM!

Gentlemen. I realise that you have deep seated and perhaps
insurmountable differences of personality
and opinion, however this is getting out of hand.

M. L'Acrobat. As I am sure you *are* aware, the function of the ADG's
is to protect RAAF assets against
enemy action, particularly (though not exclusively) special forces type
attacks. You and Brash can play verbal
ping pong with each other all day if you like, Your constant ridiculing
of ADG's as a group is seriously discrediting a fine bunch of
professional fighting
men who are *at least* as good at small unit ground defence within their
specialist area as any infantry unit
of similar size and composition in the army. Emphasis on *specialist
area*. Key point protection is their
major role and they *are* very good at it. Consider who their likely
opposition would be and you understand
*why* they need to be very good at it.
They are skilled *way* beyond the 'gate guard' level, and you would only
see them in that role if the facility were
on a very high state of alert. Otherwise it's farmed out to civvie
security guards who are probably adequate at
that level. If you want to keep a long range sniping engagement with
Brash going, fill yer boots, however *I* would
appreciate it if you ceased to disparage an entire combat specialty in
the process.

Brash, you have quite a different perspective on things military than
L'Acrobat and that creates some marked differences
of opinion that a clash of personality tends to ramp up to an all out
****fight. You might also appreciate that L'Acrobat has
a *different* perspective as a former infantryman, and he naturally
tends to focus on that which seems important according to
his experience and training. I'm not suggesting you bury the hatchet, I
suspect that's unlikely at best, (except in respective heads)
but you might want to consider toning it down a notch, especially in
view of the bandwidth you are both consuming in here on what
is becoming mostly personal attacks and not debate (however heated). As
such it doesn't do either of you credit.

That said, it's a (mostly) free net and I have no authority to tell
anyone what to do (or not do), so if you disregard my advice, so be it.

However other members of the group might appreciate a little more debate
with a little less personal attack in the process...

Just my 2c worth, make of it what you will...

The CO