RAAF F111 sinks North Korean Drug Ship

[Jezza]

After being caught trying to smuggle drugs into Australia the Pong Su was sunk by two 2000-pound (900 kg) laser-guided bombs dropped from an RAAF F-111 aircraft. The deliberate destruction of the freighter was said to deliver a strong message to international drug smuggling rings that the Australian Federal Government would take all measures necessary to stop illegal drug importation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ed_1187506461

And RAN fire on illegall fishing boat

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...462323299.html

About time Australia ( Harden the F$#K UP )
Sink everthing that comes near Aus waters without authorization
:ar15

 

[kinggodzilla87]

After being caught trying to smuggle drugs into Australia the Pong Su was sunk by two 2000-pound (900 kg) laser-guided bombs dropped from an RAAF F-111 aircraft. The deliberate destruction of the freighter was said to deliver a strong message to international drug smuggling rings that the Australian Federal Government would take all measures necessary to stop illegal drug importation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ed_1187506461

And RAN fire on illegall fishing boat

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...462323299.html

About time Australia ( Harden the F$#K UP )
Sink everthing that comes near Aus waters without authorization
:ar15

first they tell lranto text deleted
now this lol
they are getting hard

Mod edit: Please watch the language. This is an international defence forum that strives for a certain amount of decorum in posts. If you have any questions, please see the forum rules, or ask a Moderator.
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
-Preceptor

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is quiet a oldy now..

Still shows how effective a F-111 would be for anti shipping... Big range and big payloads..

Looks like they were incomming from different directions..

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[barra]

I've checked google and i can't find out if the F111's have actually fired a shot with intent to kill (and the July 24 06 post from Aussie Digger - as opposed to a NZ digger - on the f111 beyond 2012 thread - would seem to suggest this has not happened).

You are right that the F111s have never fired a shot in anger. However they have been the ADFs main strike option for over thirty years now, so the possibility has always been there. They were originally purchased, in 1963, to fly from Darwin to Jakarta to deliver "special weapons". Australia never went on to develope nukes, but construction was started on a reactor at Jervis Bay before being abandoned in the early 70's. After confrontation ended and with improvements in relations the idea of a nuclear deterrent was put aside. The yanks and poms were also asked if they would supply the weapons if required, not sure of the response though.

F111's were useful during the Timor Crisis, just there potential presence was a deterrent for things not to get out of hand. If Indo troops had started to openly engage Aust diggers then they would have naturally called for air support, which was ready. Remember the Indonesian complaints about Australian aircraft flying over there territory? Recon flights by F111's that the Indos were powerless to stop. Both Gulf wars would have been ideal oportunities for the pigs to prove themselves in battle. I guess for various reasons they were not deployed, in 2003 I suspect as a sole operator they would have been harder to maintain whereas the Hornets could plug in to USMC or USN supplies if needed. They still would have excelled in my opinion, with pave tack, extended loiter time and a large payload they would have been a popular air support asset with the grunts on the ground.

Hooroo

 

[AGRA]

F111's were useful during the Timor Crisis, just there potential presence was a deterrent for things not to get out of hand. If Indo troops had started to openly engage Aust diggers then they would have naturally called for air support, which was ready.

Only in the mind of some in the RAAF and Carlo Kopp...

On the ground things were different. Remember there was no 'Battle for East Timor' the Indonesian Government had ordered their troops to withdraw - which they all did, pretty much as quick as they could with their level of transport and logistics. Only one battalion caused a ruckus, a locally recruited territorial battalion that murdered a Dutch journalist. I doubt these guys ever once thought of an F-111 as they fled west on motorbikes and trucks with their families and whatever they could loot on the way.

The border clash between 2RAR and the Indonesian Police because we had better maps than they did - actually showing where the border was - was resolved by (then) Maj. David Kilcullen and his PHD in Indonesian Anthropology. Again the F-111 had nothing to do with it.

INTERFET was invited into East Timor by the Indonesian Government – the whole thing happened because they decided to ‘cut and run’. The F-111 deployment was to provide reconnaissance photography support and frankly a more discrete asset would have been better because it wouldn’t have created a stink and we could have kept using it.

Once people will get past their emotional attachments history will show the F-111 as being nothing special for Australia. It was and is a wallflower queen…

 

[AGRA]

Still shows how effective a F-111 would be for anti shipping... Big range and big payloads.

As long as no one is shooting back. Otherwise its Harpoon launches from over the horizon.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Once people will get past their emotional attachments history will show the F-111 as being nothing special for Australia. It was and is a wallflower queen…

Much like the many unused ICBM's deployed in Russia and the USA. What a terrible waste. Interestingly as the ICBM's are getting on there reliability has been questioned. Which is why many countries are now favouring aircraft delivery systems over ICBM's.

The F-111 was our ICBM. It still is our ICBM. It is deterance. Origional plans had them flying one way missions. Which is why we still persisted with them after our nuclear program strangely wound down. Which is also why we got the G series frames and life extension bits. No one kicked up a stink? Australia got frames specifically for a nuclear capable bomber.. Can you imagine if Indonesia got a delivery of Backfires? Or (slightly more realistically) even China for that matter?

They should be painted anti flash white. Perhaps that would be a too strong statement about Australia's capabilities.

Sure combat wise the F-111 has contributed nothing to Australian defences. But strategically its been a massive ace in the hole.

Its much like the argument that the B-2 isn't used enough in combat.

The F-111 wasn't purchased to be used in missions like Timor. It was purchased to avoid all out war.

 

[AGRA]

The F-111 was our ICBM. It still is our ICBM. It is deterance.

Deterrence against what? Since 1973 name one potential conflict or argy bargy that the F-111s deterred for Australia?

The deterrence mission was in the 1960s and the F-111, being the F-111, wasn't available at this time. Which is why it was and always will be the wrong plane. Because of its selection we had to reduce the number of flying hours of the Canberra to extend their life and send Canberras to Vietnam which cost the life of two aircrew. The RAAF's recommendation was to acquire the Block II Vigilante. Which would have been in service from 1963 - 10 years before F-111 and would have contributed to countering Sukarno's Konfrontasi and fought far better than the Canberras in Vietnam.

Origional plans had them flying one way missions. Which is why we still persisted with them after our nuclear program strangely wound down. Which is also why we got the G series frames and life extension bits. No one kicked up a stink? Australia got frames specifically for a nuclear capable bomber..

This is absolute bull-text deleted, straight from the text deleted-pit of Australian conspiracy theorists. Australia's nuclear weapons program ended with the signing of the NPT - it’s in the cabinet papers, the highest policy organ of the nation.

The F-111Gs, ex FB-111s, have as much an airframe nuclear weapons capability as our F-111Cs. It’s the little black boxes that you need to arm and launch nuclear bombs or AGM-69 SRAM that made it a nuclear bomber. They were all removed long before we got our hands on them.

Mod edit: Text deleted due to scatological reference.
-Preceptor

 

[Tasman]

The deterrence mission was in the 1960s and the F-111, being the F-111, wasn't available at this time. Which is why it was and always will be the wrong plane. Because of its selection we had to reduce the number of flying hours of the Canberra to extend their life and send Canberras to Vietnam which cost the life of two aircrew. The RAAF's recommendation was to acquire the Block II Vigilante. Which would have been in service from 1963 - 10 years before F-111 and would have contributed to countering Sukarno's Konfrontasi and fought far better than the Canberras in Vietnam.

For the same reason I believe that the purchase of a squadron of FA-18Fs now is the right decision for Australia. Better to have the best available when it is needed (and in 1963 that would have been the A-5 Vigilante or perhaps the F-4 Phantom II) rather than a better aircraft (in this case the F-35A) that is not yet ready. John Gorton, who was then the Navy Minister reckoned that the Defence Minister, Athol Townley, must have 'been on the claret' when he signed the F-111 deal!

Having said that I agree that the F-111 turned out to be a superb aircraft. It just wasn't there, though, when we really needed it.

Tas

 

[Preceptor]

I wish to remind posters that there are acceptable standards of language as part of the Forum Rules, please abide by them. See Forum Rules link in signature below.

Also, this thread appears more of an Air Force themed thread, therefore will relocate it to Air Force/Aviation category.

-Preceptor

 

[barra]

AGRA,

Yeah you are right, Timor is a bad example but the fact is they were ready if required. The role that they were originally purchased for did disappear and I acknowledged that. To imply that their service life has been of little value because of this is a stretch. I don't know why F111s provoke such passions in people, they either love em or hate em. Personally I think their time was up ten years ago, we should have replaced them with some F15E Strike Eagles. And what exactly is a wallflower?

As for the Canberras in Vietnam, they were an excellent platform with an excellent record. I have seen figures stating their percentage of bombs on target was some of the highest out of all units in Vietnam. I don't see how you can attribute the loss of a canberra crew to the F111 either?

If you can only measure the usefullness of an aircrafts service by its combat record then we have had many failures. The Sabre and Mirage come to mind straight away, neither fired a shot in anger but both were great aircraft in their day. The F111 will go the same way, but it will always be remembered for the controversies it provoked (and still does!!).

Hooroo

PS Can anyone tell me what IIRC means?

 

[AGRA]

To imply that their service life has been of little value because of this is a stretch. I don't know why F111s provoke such passions in people, they either love em or hate em. Personally I think their time was up ten years ago, we should have replaced them with some F15E Strike Eagles. And what exactly is a wallflower?

What I really mean is there could have been better choices, because the F-111 was a ‘wallflower’ – a woman at a dance that doesn’t get invited to dance and just stands up against the wall. It couldn’t do Confrontation and Vietnam for the RAAF because it wasn’t ready. It couldn’t do Operation Desert Storm because it wasn’t cutting edge and casualty aversion probably scared the government off. It couldn’t do Operation Iraqi Freedom because it was even older, despite a systems upgrade.

Now if instead we had purchased the A-5B ‘Vigilante’ we would have had a 1960s and 1970s bomber. It would have needed replacement at the same time as the Miro (early 1980s). Therefore a new combined strike/fighter bomber competition – which would have been won by… F-15… So we could have had F-15Es for ODS and OIF.

As for the Canberras in Vietnam, they were an excellent platform with an excellent record. I have seen figures stating their percentage of bombs on target was some of the highest out of all units in Vietnam. I don't see how you can attribute the loss of a canberra crew to the F111 either?

No they were a text-deleted platform with magnificent operators. With a better plane like the A-5B they could have done so much more. They would not have been as vulnerable so the one shot down hopefully would have outpaced the AA fire.

PS Can anyone tell me what IIRC means?

IIRC: If I Recall/Remember Correctly

 

[barra]

OK, see were you are coming from now and they certainly were magnificent operators. Their contribution in Vietnam is often overlooked or undervalued. Thanks for the IIRC info, has bugged me for quite a while.

Hooroo

 

[Border Man]

I'm just a tad worried about the range/payload comparison with the JSF. I have a feeling this airframe will not be remembered as one of the greats - it's not optimised for any particular task. Part stealthy, not much range (though better than an FA18) and too much of a compromise design (the basic structure has to be designed to handle CTOL carrier landings - adds weight and reduces payload.).

There was a proposal put forward to re-engine the F111 - toss out the TF33's (50/60's technology) and whack in a pair of F110's - bang up to date. More thrust, more reliability, (maybe even the ability to supercruise?), lower fuel burn so more range or payload. The avionics have been progressively updated to an 80/90's level, why not the powerplants? I believe there were enough airframes at the Arizona Boneyard a few years back to ensure the pick of low fatigue airframe components... Oh well too late now

We could then have chosen a smaller number of F22's (yes I know the septic's haven't released them for overseas sales yet - they would have with the right persuasion) and had a proper air superiority fighter to defend the pigs. If the close support/interdiction role was needed then a squadron purchase of FA 18F's (as is already coming) or more Hawks (maybe 200's) could have filled the role.

Force could have looked like this 12 - 18 F111 'upgrades', 30 odd F22's, 24 or so fA18F's/Hawk 200's.

Instead we'll have all the eggs in the JSF basket. Hope it works...

 

[Tasman]

We could then have chosen a smaller number of F22's (yes I know the septic's haven't released them for overseas sales yet - they would have with the right persuasion) ...

You have got to be kidding! There are hundreds of posts in this forum re the fact that no country other than the USA will be cleared to buy the F-22 ... Not Australia, not Japan, no-one!

I suggest you read through some of the threads dealing with the F-22.

Tas

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm just a tad worried about the range/payload comparison with the JSF. I have a feeling this airframe will not be remembered as one of the greats - it's not optimised for any particular task. Part stealthy, not much range (though better than an FA18) and too much of a compromise design (the basic structure has to be designed to handle CTOL carrier landings - adds weight and reduces payload.).

You should worry more about trying to fly F-111's into those "deadly" "double digit" SAM environments against "evolved Flanker" variants.

BTW, aircraft designed for CTOL carrier landings have fared pretty well over the years. F-8 Crusader, F-4 Phantom and F/A-18 Hornets are all pretty handy combat aircraft I hear...

Isn't it amazing though that Russian CTOL carrier designed (MiG-29 etc) aircraft don't seem to suffer the same issues that Western ones do?

There was a proposal put forward to re-engine the F111 - toss out the TF33's (50/60's technology) and whack in a pair of F110's - bang up to date. More thrust, more reliability, (maybe even the ability to supercruise?), lower fuel burn so more range or payload. The avionics have been progressively updated to an 80/90's level, why not the powerplants? I believe there were enough airframes at the Arizona Boneyard a few years back to ensure the pick of low fatigue airframe components... Oh well too late now

There certainly was. WHY I cannot understand.

Apparently an F/A-18E/F or "legacy" Hornet or F-35 Lightning II is not survivable in a region "flush" with advanced Flanker variants, but a re-engined F-111 is...

There WERE enough airframes at AMARC for Dr Kopp to have a wet dream over, but unfortunately Google Earth seems to show that they've all be chopped up for scrap...

Pity. Guess we won't be getting 55 of them any longer will we?

We could then have chosen a smaller number of F22's (yes I know the septic's haven't released them for overseas sales yet - they would have with the right persuasion) and had a proper air superiority fighter to defend the pigs. If the close support/interdiction role was needed then a squadron purchase of FA 18F's (as is already coming) or more Hawks (maybe 200's) could have filled the role.

So "legacy" Bugs and F-35's are not survivable in this region of ours "flush" with advanced Flanker variants, but a Hawk 200 is?

Now I've heard EVERYTHING.

What "persuasion" is this, that could cause the US Congress to overturn it's decision? An order of "30 odd" F-22's?

Japan tried to order 100+ and got rejected.

Perhaps we could hold the US to ransom or something? Maybe put a gun to "Dubya's" head in Sydney this week or something?

Force could have looked like this 12 - 18 F111 'upgrades', 30 odd F22's, 24 or so fA18F's/Hawk 200's.

Instead we'll have all the eggs in the JSF basket. Hope it works...

OMG, another "believer"...

Feed from the Carlo Kopp trough my friend. It'll get you almost as far as it's got him, ie: nowhere.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I have to say this aircraft business seems pretty insane.

F-111 deterance. Even tho Australia's nuclear program stopped. It could always be restarted, and the delivery system was always there. If Indonesia went all sneakey with its nuke program, Australia could indepedantly if it wanted, arm itself and deliver nuclear devices. It was australia's ticket if it ever needed it during the cold war.

Regardless the F-111 can now forfill the same roll as the B-52 does for the USAF. Bomb truck. Needs clean skys and escorts to do that. Its just about as survivable as a russian Backfire.

I don't know why the F-15 isn't very popular here. People are pushing everything except it. F-18's, F-22's, F-35, Hawks, gyrocopters etc. It would seem to fit Australia's needs pretty well. I think the F-15 strike was really the only other viable alternative to the Superhornets, yet no one cares.

I think the F-35 will be a very capable aircraft, its just its on paper specs aren't spectacular. By a simular token a F-117 should be a horrible useless plane (first gen stealth).

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have to say this aircraft business seems pretty insane.

F-111 deterance. Even tho Australia's nuclear program stopped. It could always be restarted, and the delivery system was always there. If Indonesia went all sneakey with its nuke program, Australia could indepedantly if it wanted, arm itself and deliver nuclear devices. It was australia's ticket if it ever needed it during the cold war.

Regardless the F-111 can now forfill the same roll as the B-52 does for the USAF. Bomb truck. Needs clean skys and escorts to do that. Its just about as survivable as a russian Backfire.

Except we don't NEED a bomb truck these days. Australian ROE's will NOT allow us to employ "dumb" bombs in the overwhelming majority of situations. How many PGM's can an F-111 carry? About 4x would be it's maximum with current munitions I'd suggest, provided an external radar jammer is not required, nor a Sidewinder AAM.

I don't know why the F-15 isn't very popular here. People are pushing everything except it. F-18's, F-22's, F-35, Hawks, gyrocopters etc. It would seem to fit Australia's needs pretty well. I think the F-15 strike was really the only other viable alternative to the Superhornets, yet no one cares.

I think the F-35 will be a very capable aircraft, its just its on paper specs aren't spectacular. By a simular token a F-117 should be a horrible useless plane (first gen stealth).

Who says the F-15's not popular here? I saw some at Avalon in 2005 and in March this year and I thought they were awesome.

That doesn't mean they are the best option for RAAf, NOW.

In 1991, yes I think RAAF should have replaced it's F-111 fleet with an F-15E based fleet and we would have had a useable strike jet force that could have been employed operationally throughout the 90's and early 00's and would have had the airframe life to last us until F-35 was ready.

And yes, DSTO and RAAF DO care about it's future air combat capability. They simply think the Rhino's are the best option, NOW and the F-35's in the FUTURE...

 

[abramsteve]

What I really mean is there could have been better choices, because the F-111 was a ‘wallflower’ – a woman at a dance that doesn’t get invited to dance and just stands up against the wall. It couldn’t do Confrontation and Vietnam for the RAAF because it wasn’t ready. It couldn’t do Operation Desert Storm because it wasn’t cutting edge and casualty aversion probably scared the government off. It couldn’t do Operation Iraqi Freedom because it was even older, despite a systems upgrade.

Now if instead we had purchased the A-5B ‘Vigilante’ we would have had a 1960s and 1970s bomber. It would have needed replacement at the same time as the Miro (early 1980s). Therefore a new combined strike/fighter bomber competition – which would have been won by… F-15… So we could have had F-15Es for ODS and OIF.

I see what your saying but I cant entirely agree with you.

Yes it didnt do Vietnam because it wasnt ready, but I would imagine it didnt 'do' desert storm for reasons other than because it wasnt cutting edge, like maybe it wasnt needed because of all the USAF pigs that were there. Iraqi freedom Id agree with.

Now surely your not suggesting that the A-5B would have been a good choice for a long range bomber. From what I know about the aircraft it didnt work, it released it bombs out the back and they could get stuck in the slip stream. Hence the reason the USN relegated them to recon roles. And you really dont believe we would have gotten a replacement strike aircraft in the 80s do you? We were lucky to get what we got (18s) let alone F-15s. Was there a dedicated strike variant of the F-15 in the 80s anyways?

Now whilst its never been used (like the Sabres and the Mirages before it), I dont think we should under-rate the service the F111s have provided.