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

And RAN fire on illegall fishing boat

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...462323299.html (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/navy-opens-fire-on-poacher/2007/08/22/1187462323299.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 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ed_1187506461)

And RAN fire on illegall fishing boat

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...462323299.html (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/navy-opens-fire-on-poacher/2007/08/22/1187462323299.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. :o

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.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

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...



Aaah Boarder Man did you hit a hot spot with that post!!! You got a reaction from a few people here because the RAAF's platform choices have been brought up a few times before, and did we have some BATTLES over it! Whewie!!! It got so hot you could see steam coming of the screen!!! have a look:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4973

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5982

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6190

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5920

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6089

The F111 is an awesome platform, its just beutifull. But the fact is thats its a 1970's platform that is just not surivable in the curent threat environment. We didnt send it to GW1 or 2, even with with all the support of the USAF due to this fact. As it stands now the F111 is totally relyant on fighter assets in any scenario's that include enemy fighters or a decent IADS, which is alot of scenario's. Its primary function, long range deep strike, is constrained by the range restrictions of escorting assets, hence the need to "self escort".


In order for it to be combat viable into the next decade or 2 the pig doesent need to just be up engined, what it would need is an overhal of the likes of that outlined by the infamous Dr Carlo Kopp and his F111S concept, because anything less would be useless given threat capabilities. Lets have a look at the F111S idea. Assuming the US allowed export for all the following technologies, it required:


Up engining with F119
Replacing the radar with the APG 79
life extention prosesses for the airframe
F35 RAM used for a new skin to lower the platforms huge RCS
the engine nosells from the F35 to reduce IR signature
A whole new avionics package, lifted from the F18E/F
Software to goven the whole platform


This would require the whole airframe to be striped to the bone, a new pair of engines that would be a different size and shape to be installed. The whole skin of the aircraft to be replaced with composits used on the F35. The whole avionics pacage would need to be replaced from the radar to the operating system to the flight instrements. This hurculean task would in reality envolve manufacturing a new aircraft in the same shape of as the F111, and was "claimed" to cost less than $4bn...:onfloorl:

The australian taxpayer would have to shoulder the truely massive risk of a project of this scale and complexity that would be bound to have massive set backs and budget blowouts (especially with a budget that optomistic). If you look at the Super Seaspite project, that only envolved new a new, unique avionics package being installed, a much simpler task than the F111S idea and its running years and years behind. What would the RAAF do while the pigs were being upgraded for 10 years??? Anyways if somehow this ridiculously complex project was completed this century what would the commonwealth have for its blood, sweat, tears, money, reduced combat capability during upgrade time and decade of time passed??? A mongerell of a platform that was part F35, part F18F, part F22 and part F111, but enjoyed the benifits on none of them. It would be faster with the F119's installed and it may even supercruse, but its fast now and that doesent really change the game that much. It would have a lower RCS due to the F35's RAM but its total RCS would still be huge given the shape of the platform, especially the engine placement and inlets. I would guess it would be much larger than an F35, in the ballpark of a clean F18F, hardly spectacular. Its IR supression would be better than it is now, especially due to the fact it wouldn't need to use the burners but that is less important because its RCS would still be large enough to be detected at very long range. in an air superiority role it would be AMRAAM capable, but it isnt a platform i would take into battle against any sort of air threat. imagine the thing trying to maneuver???? like a pig i suspect. pluss we would have a totally unique platform with alll the costs of maintinance, upgrades and systemic or individual problems being sholdered by the Commonwealth.

Basically we would be in the same boat we're in right now. The platform would not be survivable without fighter escort so its range would be irrelevent. As an air superiority platform it is a joke, as an ISR platform it would be simlar to an F18F at twice the price, as a CAS platform it would not be as capable as the F35, and in the deep strike role (the pigs fortey) it would be less capable than an JASSM equiped F35/F18F. The high speed low altiude ingress is now outdated and irrelevent. Much better results can be achieved by LO platforms in high altitude profiles, equiped with stadoff weapons and good electronic warfare capability, all with mich less risk. The ONLY thing it would do any better than the current options (not mentioning the F22) would be as a high speed interceptor, but thats it.

In conclusion its a stupid idea. The whole concept of the F111 is outdated, and the masssive cost and risk of heavily upgradeing the platform would be rewarded with what??? A fast lemon thats what. A strike platform that is outclassed by the F35, an ISR platform that would be outclassed by the F35, an air superiority platform that would be outclassed by (you guessed it) an F35 and an F18F. All for huge risk and huge cost. Instrad we get 4 squadrons of 5th generation multi role platforms that will be better strike adn better airsuperiority platforms than our F111S with a mounten of risk removed. I dont understand Carlo's thinking on that one, if the F22 was for sale why not just buy an extra squadron instead of bothering with the F111, its a far better deep strike platform and interceptor???

As far as the F35, the combination of LO, networking, AIM120D/ASRAAM, and EW will make any 5th generation platform far superior to any legacy platform in battle. that combination ensures information dominance and the ability to detect, engage and kill without counter detection. The F35 is definatly the best choice as the basis of the future RAAF orbat, but a sqadron of F22's would be beyond perfect, giving us a hi/lo mix on par with the USAF. Alas the export ban is unliekely to be lifted and in that case 4 squadrons of F35's, will be more than enough to handle most situations, the only problem thay will haveis with the cruise missile threat, as the F35 will be a poor interceptor.

And just 1 question, why on earth would the RAAF want hawk 200's exept as a lead in fighter when they can afford super bugs, eagles or even better lighnings??????

[Todjaeger]

And just 1 question, why on earth would the RAAF want hawk 200's exept as a lead in fighter when they can afford super bugs, eagles or even better lighnings??????

Just wanted to point out, the Hawk 200-series can't be used as a LIF/LIFT. The 200-series is a single-seater light fighter. A Hawk-100 series trainer can be used as such.

Also, I see no advantage for the RAAF in acquiring a fighter with the performance of a Hawk 200 type. Iy isn't able to act as an interceptor (except of prop and rotary aircraft) and has limited range and ordnance carrying capability. Far better to get a dedicated combat platform than a fighter developed from a fast jet trainer.

-Cheers

[scarey1989]

is the raptor really that good

[funtz]

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

And RAN fire on illegall fishing boat

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...462323299.html (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/navy-opens-fire-on-poacher/2007/08/22/1187462323299.html)

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

dear god that was brutal, what happened to the crew.

[Tasman]

dear god that was brutal, what happened to the crew.

The crew were removed before the ship was sunk. It was also emptied of fuel oil, etc, for environmental reasons. It was sunk in a public display to give a message to drug runners.

Tas

[barra]

Actually I think it was just an excuse for the F-111's to drop live ordnance on a "live" target. Remember a few years ago when the yanks bought an old destroyer (cruiser?) out to be sunk. It was at the end of Tandem Thrust, Pitch Black or Talisman Sabre not really sure now. Anyway the F-18's got first chop at it and the plan was for the F-111's to finish it off. Well the first couple of bombs were direct hits and she went straight to the bottom. Left the -111's all dressed up and no place to go. I don't even think they got off the ground, notice how the -111's had it all to themselves this time.
As for sending a message to drug runners, I don't think they will be worrying to much about -111's coming over the horizon to drop PGM's on them.

Hooroo

[Tasman]

As for sending a message to drug runners, I don't think they will be worrying to much about -111's coming over the horizon to drop PGM's on them.



The message was probably aimed more at the Australian public to make them think that the government is serious about it.

I bet the RAAF loved it! :D

Tas