If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Defence plan to scrap F-111s
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...55E601,00.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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...55E601,00.html Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ? Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ? Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to defend itself from ? In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ? Yawn...... Graham |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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...55E601,00.html Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ? Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought that was self-evident. 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. 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. -- De Oppresso Liber. Yawn...... Graham |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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...55E601,00.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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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...55E601,00.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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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...55E601,00.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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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...6866971%255E60 1,00.html Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ? Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ? Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to defend itself from ? In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ? Yawn...... Graham When the F-111 was purchased its intention was to bomb Jakarta.... Stupot |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Stuart Chapman wrote:
When the F-111 was purchased its intention was to bomb Jakarta.... The actual requirement for replacing the Canberra was for the strategic defence of Australia anywhere in the region and an offensive tactical strike capability if Malaya went pear shaped. Also Australia still had ideas about joining the nuclear club when they were ordered in 1963. The alternatives under consideration included the TSR-2 and Mirage IV. Cheers David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR Flight Plan question | Snowbird | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 13th 04 12:55 AM |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
Canadian IFR/VFR Flight Plan | gwengler | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | August 11th 04 03:55 AM |
IFR flight plan filing question | Tune2828 | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:33 AM |
USA Defence Budget Realities | Stop SPAM! | Military Aviation | 17 | July 9th 03 02:11 AM |