Mishap, pure and simple. Someone forgot to put a locking pin on a wheel nut.
Move on!
Magoo
F-111's until 2020
- Thread starter pnl3410
- Start date
- Status
Move on!
Magoo
Nor I, I was just amused by your claim to fame, that is all.
Why? I don't see that as "denigration", I see it as criticism and often that criticism is valid. Not wearing a uniform can often be an advantage in that it allows you to be a lot more objective about what you're reviewing. Service myopea is a well known problem and that is why services often bring in independent consultants who can look at problems objectively. I see it being done everyday in industry, so why should the services be immune? Don't give me then old, "if you haven't worn a uniform you're not qualified" bullshit, digger. That sort of thinking led to WWI - when the services lived in their own little world and ignored technological and tactical developments outside of it, to not only their expence but to the expence of millions of lives.
"Conspiracy" is a much overused and over-rated word, digger, I'd suggest. Conspiracy conjures up dark corners, whispered agreements and hidden agendas. I'd suggest merely "service mentality" is a more appropriate term and all military services suffer from it, more or less at various times in their existences. The ADF has suffered from service rivalries since federation (and before, if truth be known, in the colonial militaries). Without disagreement, we wouldn't have alternative viewpoints and without those disagreements, we wouldn't be able to reach consensus in the end as they work themselves out in argument and criticism. While I don't necessarily agree with Carlo 100% and he not with me, in the exchanges we've had over the years, we've both come to realise that we have in our relative areas of expertise some useful complimentry areas. I'll listen to anything he has to say about Air. He listens to what I have to say about Ground. Where we overlap, we debate matters. What he says about Air though, I'd suggest makes a lot of sense. Fighting any war is about depth, as well as breadth and the RAAF at the moment lacks depth - badly.
Yes it will but it is beholden under our governmentry system to do so after taking considered advice from the experts in the field. This government has long ignored expert advice when it does not suit its purposes. Its got a long track record of doing what it wants - often in direct contradiction of expert advice because of its ideological convictions. 15 years ago when the Berlin Wall went down, it was said that ideology was dead. I think announcement of its death, like Samuel Clemens' was, has been rather immature, as the present Australian government has proven upon many occasions. Its present enamourment with the Army is one such aspect of that - and coming from a former ground pounder, that is saying something.
Whereas Carlo has provided substantial data which suggests the reverse. There is still considerable life in the F-111 and it has a subsantial capability which we cannot replace with anything in the short term. Purchasing F/A-18Es is a stop gap. It is also more expensive that maintaining the present F-111 fleet. Their realy retirement is a mistake. Carlo has put a convincing argument IMO and proven that the RAAF and the Government has lied a great deal about the F-111 fleet. Such lies are not new. The Army did with the Leopards. What is new is that this is the first time a service has done it to rid itself of a capability, rather than attempting to retain it!
Then we must differ. I do not think the F-35 is a good purchase. Over the life of the programme its costs will be appreciably higher than the F-22. The F-22 is an all round more capable aircraft that delivers far more "bang for a buck" than does the F-35. The F-22 is in addition, so far in advance of the F-35, it will provide us with a lead over our neighbours and competitors such that when they acquire the F-35, which they will, in the years to come, we will still have a capability that is superior to their's.
Nor I. More tankers, yes. AD DD, yes. We can afford both IMO.
Unless the new Democratic congress decides to override the Republicans to buy an aircraft twice as expensive, the Raptor construction program will die after this year. You'll notice that we in America consider the above statement a ruse. Last year a Republican congress bought the last of the Raptors, at $175 million each (US dollars, not Australian).
I still have doubts whether a Democratic congress will ever buy any Lightning II production aircraft.
And it appears Australia will buy this coming year 15 Super Hornets with the spares and support packages at $96 million each, the fly away costs for the US Navy aircraft is $56 million each (again in US dollars) without the added spares and support packages. Notice there is a significant cost difference when the spares and support packages are included.
If Australia bought Raptors today, or very soon before 2008, 2008 would probably be too late. I would expect the price of the Raptor with the spares and support packages easily pass $250 million (again in US dollars), and it wouldn't surprise me if the price approached $300 million.
50 times 300 million is, yep, 15 billion. Really, does Australia want a 50 Raptor fleet, or would it be better off buying 150 Super Hornets for the same amount? Your choice.....
I still have doubts whether a Democratic congress will ever buy any Lightning II production aircraft.
And it appears Australia will buy this coming year 15 Super Hornets with the spares and support packages at $96 million each, the fly away costs for the US Navy aircraft is $56 million each (again in US dollars) without the added spares and support packages. Notice there is a significant cost difference when the spares and support packages are included.
If Australia bought Raptors today, or very soon before 2008, 2008 would probably be too late. I would expect the price of the Raptor with the spares and support packages easily pass $250 million (again in US dollars), and it wouldn't surprise me if the price approached $300 million.
50 times 300 million is, yep, 15 billion. Really, does Australia want a 50 Raptor fleet, or would it be better off buying 150 Super Hornets for the same amount? Your choice.....
On Topic
As to "criticising the ADF heirarcy's <sic> tactical and strategic nous", both of these aspects of military competency need to be criticised and, moreover, should be criticised for their lack of diligence, intellectual rigour, veracity and paucity in the very competencies themselves.
Moreover, don't let these officials and bureaucrats hide behind the fine deeds and work of the fighting men and women of the ADF and those in the Defence community (Defence and industry) who support them.
The 'venom' as you call it is criticism of the Department of Defence, principally the senior officials and bureaucrats responsible for the recommendations that have been made to Government. It is the ADF as well as fellow Australians that APA are trying to protect from the risks being generated by these officials.
We would also end up with an air combat capability which is far superior at far less risk and far more cost effective than the present plans of the Department and, on the Department's recommendations, the Government.
Nor do I. However, would appreciate your reading the posts a little bit more carefully. If you do you will see the 33 refers to 33 years service which is a tad more than your no doubt venerable 6 years of military service. Similary, reading the reports you cite a little more carefully would also be helpful. For instance, you cited a CRS report recently in relation to the cost of the F-22.
Apart from getting the figure wrong as well as claiming this to be in 2006 dollars, you neglected to say that this CRS report was talking about the average unit procurement cost of the then planned production number of 183 aircraft. This average unit procurement cost was attained before aircraft number AF4087 which, for your information, is now flying. The APA folks are talking about the price after the currently planned production which has all airframes allocated to the USAF.Aussie Digger said:
Again, not true, AD. Many of those who are seeking critical debate on these very important issues have served this country loyally and diligently for many years. Again, re-read the post.Aussie Digger said:
As to "criticising the ADF heirarcy's <sic> tactical and strategic nous", both of these aspects of military competency need to be criticised and, moreover, should be criticised for their lack of diligence, intellectual rigour, veracity and paucity in the very competencies themselves.
If this is the case, then why are you not supporting going for the best, particularly when it is far more capable than, far less risky than, and far more cost effective than what the senior officials and bureaucrats in the Department are advocating with little, if any, substantiation. Why believe the lies?Aussie Digger said:
Moreover, don't let these officials and bureaucrats hide behind the fine deeds and work of the fighting men and women of the ADF and those in the Defence community (Defence and industry) who support them.
Like most of my professional colleagues, I have spent the bulk of my career around aircraft in both flying and engineering capacities. Therefore, I hope you will show me the courtesy that I know what is realistic and what is not when it comes to aircraft. I assure you the best air combat capability for our fighting men and women is a combination of the Raptor and the F-111, evolved to the status originally anticipated in the Defence 2000 White Paper.Aussie Digger said:
The 'venom' as you call it is criticism of the Department of Defence, principally the senior officials and bureaucrats responsible for the recommendations that have been made to Government. It is the ADF as well as fellow Australians that APA are trying to protect from the risks being generated by these officials.
Then you need to read the submissions to the JSCFADT of 2004 and more recently, like Subs # 20 and 29, for instance. These have been put together and peer reviewed by people who do know. Geoff Shephard may have two and a half thousand hours flying the F-111 but so do others who strongly disagree with what he is advocating. In addition, there are engineers who each have over 20,000 manhours maintaining, designing and engineering on the aircraft who say it is not 'shagged', in fact, they say the exact opposite - as did the draft DSTO reports from the Sole Operator Program which have been conveniently 'buried'. Why do you think the Defence 2000 White Paper directed the retirement of the F/A-18s first (2012) and retention of the F-111s out to 2020?Aussie Digger said:
The aircraft has yet to prove itself and you are at odds with the majority of the independent expert community both here and overseas - people with far more experience in such things than I.Aussie Digger said:
Why retire the F-111 when even Angus Houston has stated there is nothing that can replace the F-111s.Aussie Digger said:
Why would the AWD have to be cancelled? Whose idea is this? The now over $7,000 million dollar savings that would accrue from not buying JSF, stopping the HUG, not buying Super Hornet but buying Raptors and evolving the F-111 would be more than enough to get sufficient numbers of tankers, sufficient numbers of AEW&Cs, ISR and jamming capabilities, plus further hardening of the Army plus some.Aussie Digger said:
We would also end up with an air combat capability which is far superior at far less risk and far more cost effective than the present plans of the Department and, on the Department's recommendations, the Government.
Is this on topic enough for you and the Webs?Aussie Digger said:
Do The Numbers
Having done the numbers and seen the analyses of others with the competencies and skills to do same, I can assure you 50 Raptors will be far better then 100 JSFs - even better with 36 x Evolved F-111s to provide long range strike, persistence, and additional high speed intercept capabilities. Two complementary Tier 1 capabilities are far superior to a single type, Tier 2 capability.
Having done the numbers and seen the analyses of others with the competencies and skills to do same, I can assure you 50 Raptors will be far better then 100 JSFs - even better with 36 x Evolved F-111s to provide long range strike, persistence, and additional high speed intercept capabilities. Two complementary Tier 1 capabilities are far superior to a single type, Tier 2 capability.
Of course we have to accept the status quo. We dont have the money to afford the best of everything. F-22's, B-2's, Aircraft carrier battle groups etcs
If we wanted the best air force for our fighting men and women it would suck all the money out of other area's and you put the lives of many more people at risk.
Hopefully we have less of what you call "Aussie Diggers" and more people who know where to actually spend the money. These area's are the ones where you actually have people getting killed.
For example, one step would actually to buy anti ship missiles for our aircraft. Its hilarious that we dont even have any available, people claim the F-22 isn't good because it cant attack ships, sorry to say but out Hornets and F-111's cant attack ships either. Its also hypocritcical that we laugh at indonesia's unarmed suhkoi's, when we aren't much better.
If i was defence minister i would:
- Cancel the JSF purchase.
- Buy 80 Super Hornets and replace the Hornets ASAP.
- Retire the F-111 soon after. Its capability has never been used and is not needed.
- Buy a large inventory of weapons for the Super Hornets.
- Convert our C-130H's into gunships that would actually usefull.
- Buy multiple MQ-9 Reapers to patrol the oceans instead of boats. Its not effcient having a ship with 100 sailors traveling at 20 knots. This will reduce the amount of patrolling required by our navy. It will NOT replace the navy when it comes to patrolling only reduce it and free up alot of money.
- Meet the wish list of every soldier when it comes to basic equipment, give them the Rolls Royce of boots, clothing, body armour and communication equipment. None of this overweight made in china shit!!
- Look into a UCAV purchase to link in with the Super Hornets in the coming decades.
That make the Australia defence force stronger and more powerful than any number of F-22 aircraft.
The above list is a conservative and safe approach at Australia defence spending. The Super Hornet covers all the bases, sure its not a super star but it will get the job done and is within budget. It IS the status quo but it does NOT put the lives at risk.
The F-22 is out there and has a small niche that put frankly can remain unfilled. I will still be able to sleep soundly at night, however the soldiers in the field with their made in china equipment might not be too comfortable
Last edited:
Common Sense
What many are also missing is that the RAAF (eh, the Minister's Office????) are following Rick McCrary's Project Archangel plan and pushing for the F/A-18F - the two seat trainer version of the SH.
The F model SH has an acceleration (0.8M to 1.2M, FL250) that, euphemistically, one would measure in calendar months - almost as slow as the JSF is likely to be.
:shudder
Very sage words.
What many are also missing is that the RAAF (eh, the Minister's Office????) are following Rick McCrary's Project Archangel plan and pushing for the F/A-18F - the two seat trainer version of the SH.
The F model SH has an acceleration (0.8M to 1.2M, FL250) that, euphemistically, one would measure in calendar months - almost as slow as the JSF is likely to be.
:shudder
True but if you only need to send five, instead of fifteen to accomplish the same mission, doesn't that suggest that you could do more with the 50 than you can with the 150?
Perhaps.
Bad move IMHO.
A good idea.
Why bother? I'd rather see the C-130s utilised properly as transport aircraft than wasted as gunships. We'd be better off spending the money on flying hours and weapons for the existing airframes, as you've already suggested.
Reapers might make a useful compliment to ships but ships still are able to stay on station and in far worse weathers than a UAV can fly in. They can also tend to do it a much greater distance from base, as well.
Strange i dont think i have ever seen made in China on any of my gear and where does all this talk of not having any Harpoons for our aircraft come from,i remember providing manpower for the fitting of a warshot Harpoon in 2003 at Edinburgh to an AP-3.
The Super Hornet can perform every mission that is currently performed by the RAAF for the last decade. With the help of a tanker the Super Hornet can hit the same targets that the F-111 can.
The Super Hornet also gives us an advantage over all countries in the region. I do agree that the F-22 would give us a massive advantage but i dont think it is required.
The range of the F-111 is very impressive in normal flight. However once you put four big bombs on it, include a supersonic dash and low level penetration in the mission profile its combat radius is reachable by a Hornet with help from a tanker. Some missions even the F-111 will require a tanker, F-111's consume twice as much fuel compared to a hornet so that offsets the fact that the hornet will have to refuel twice as often.
The Super Hornet can get the job done, without putting lives at risk.
East timor, Solomon islands and PNG would have benefited from a gunship. Its endurance, range and precision firepower is unmatched by any other aircraft.
Of course more transport aircraft would be purchased so their is no reduction in air lift. The New Zealand H model life extension program and US gunship program are both running now, so we can jump on board very easily.
Would be a good move.
When one Reaper gets low on fuel you would send a replace up for 24 hour operation. You could have a dozen Reapers in the air and the running cost would still be less than a ship. The Reapers range and altitude is also very impressive you might be looking at the specs of the smaller Predator A. 50,000 feet is high enough to fly above the weather being unmanned it has no one to go air sick in a storm. Its sensors allow it to see through and fly around storms so it could infact operate in any weather that the ship can.
The current equipment is quite poor, though it is improving heaps. The defence went with the cheapest option and got sub par equipment, Made in China, India, Kazakstan either way they went with the poor quality option.
Alot of the soldiers actually go out and buy their own gear and put their own kits together. A 50% weight reduction in equipment would offer a huge performance improvement from a soldier. Increased comfort also reduces fatigue. Money well spend i reccon.
The Australian Government Department of Defence Image Gallery shows several pictures of Harpoon missiles being loaded onto an AP3C Orion for Exercise Rimpac 2002.
I was very concerned at AD's comments that a suitable stockpile of Harpoons had not been acquired meaning that Orions, along with FA18s and F111Cs were effectively only fitted 'for but not with'. Is this still the case today? If so it deserves to be heavily criticised IMHO.
I suspect he is mistaken. I would interested to know on what basis he makes this statement.
Can it? According to whom? Its radar is less powerful, it is not optimised for low-level strike. Therefore there are missions that the F/A-18E cannot undertake that the F-111 can. Further, the F-111 can undertake them without air tankers.
Isn't it? We have seen the lead that the F/A-18s can when they were first purchased steadily eroded. We are now facing MiG-29s, Su-27s and Su-30s. We soon will be facing J-10s. There are F-16Ds also in the region. How long do you think the relatively slim lead that the F/A-18E will provide will last?
Depends upon the mission profile, I think you'll find in either case. Further you won't get that supersonic, low-level dash out of a Super-Hornet that you can out of a F-111.
If you believe that, I have a nice, shiny, new bridge I'd like you to have a look at. Only one owner. :lol:
East Timor might have. Solomans and PNG? Doubtful. What wasn't required or could be required there (as we have yet to actually intervene in PNG), is something as indiscriminate as a C-130 gunship. A SDB with laser designation would be more appropriate for most targets anyway.
Yes we could. However it might be cheaper to purchase C-130Js.
Its sensors won't allow it to rescue a drowning sailor. Its ability to fly above the storm won't allow it to see a sinking ship and render assistence immediately. UAVs have a place as a suppliment to ships, not a replacement IMHO.
Well, I'd suggest they in fact chose the cheapest, rather than necessarily the poorest quality. I'd also suggest they chose, as they always do, the one size fits all solution., which is why diggers end up doing what you describe next, rather than because of the actual quality of the equipment itself:
You won't get a 50% reduction in weight with personal equipment. If you do, you're basically leaving 50% of it home. I've been there, done that. Most personal load bearing equipment is as good as you'll get on the open market. I've played with most of the commercial stuff and in reality, it is just as well made as the issue stuff, once you look closely at it.
I am really disappointed as to how this topic always degenerates into name-calling, lies, and half-truths. The disrepectful attitude members show to others when talking about this subject is unacceptable. I personally don't know why APA followers keep beating a dead horse but even mentioning F-22s in a RAAF orbat is fantasy and has no place here. You might as well order a Cloaking Device... it ain't gonna happen.
I have already seen this thread insult a members service time, question racial motivations, and insulted a RAAF member. As far as I've seen none of the options considered by MoD even has the F-111 in it. It's either JSF or a Super Bug stop gap... no F-111 upgrade. It's time for some views here to catch up to some of the international and national defense realities facing Australia. The lala land this topic sometimes predicates is an embarssement to intelligent defense conversation.
I have already seen this thread insult a members service time, question racial motivations, and insulted a RAAF member. As far as I've seen none of the options considered by MoD even has the F-111 in it. It's either JSF or a Super Bug stop gap... no F-111 upgrade. It's time for some views here to catch up to some of the international and national defense realities facing Australia. The lala land this topic sometimes predicates is an embarssement to intelligent defense conversation.
This thread is going into the cooler for a while. It will be re-opened at Webs discretion after review by all site mods.
- Status