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
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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' |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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' ? Whoever's attacking. Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ? Because it has 90-00 technology added to it that offsets the 60's elements. Noting that few newer aircraft can match some of the more desirable capabilities it has had since the 60's. Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to defend itself from ? Not all enemies arrive using a country. In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ? Pretty damn good, for their specific capability requirements. -- The Raven http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3 ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's ** since August 15th 2000. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. -- -------- Regards Drewe Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |