Defence doves wanted F-111 deal canned

The Watcher

New Member
Digging the old graves... ;)

I don't wana say how much enemies but how much friends are australia and indonesia? :D :australia :indonesia
-------------------------------------------------

Defence doves wanted F-111 deal canned

THE doves in the 1973 Whitlam government faced a tough battle against bureaucratic hawks and a wary top brass as they fought to cut defence spending and revamp the military.

Defence minister Lance Barnard was forced to the middle ground on defence spending.

The choice was stark.

Either cut programs and retire equipment such as aircraft and ships or cancel capital programs already under way.

According to cabinet documents released today, Gough Whitlam and his left-wing treasurer Jim Cairns wanted immediate cuts of $120 million from the $1.4 billion defence budget.

Barnard got the cuts reduced to $85 million for a total budget of $1345 million or 3.09 per cent of GDP – about $213 million under the previous government's budget forecast.

Today the Government devotes about 1.9 per cent ($15 billion) of the nation's total economic activity of $734 billion to defence.


The sensitivity of post-Vietnam War budget cuts was highlighted in a file note from August 1973 from Cabinet secretary Sir John Bunting.

He had spoken to defence secretary Sir Arthur Tange telling him that Mr Whitlam was keen that post-budget statements did not "overdo the dismal side".

"I could rest assured that he (Tange) and the minister would be using all the ingenuity at their command to present the slaughter as plastic surgery," Mr Bunting said.

One controversial project at the forefront of defence discussions was the F-111 strike aircraft which Mr Whitlam was keen to abandon.

The government had received legal advice that it could not cancel the deal.

It agreed to proceed, but recorded its disapproval at the way the previous government had negotiated the purchase and sought to improve the terms of the deal with the US government.

The first aircraft landed at Amberley, west of Brisbane, on June 1. They have been in service ever since with the Government only this year deciding to retire them in 2010.

The government of Robert Menzies ordered the F-111 – then referred to as the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) – off the drawing board at a meeting at the Pentagon in 1963.

The government needed an aircraft with the range to reach Jakarta, at that time led by the erratic president Sukarno who took the country to war to try to stamp out the new nation of Malaysia.
Defence contingency planning at the time envisaged bombing raids from Australian territory to eliminate Indonesia's military as a last resort.

It was also envisaged the F-111s could form the delivery system for an Australian atomic bomb option.

INFORMATION about the cabinet records, lists of the documents and images of key cabinet documents, including all publicly released submissions and decisions, are available on the archives website – www.naa.gov.au

source
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
At the beginning of the 1960's when Malaya was under threat due to Konfrontassi, Australia was prepared to nuke Jakarta if we couldn't save Malaya.

It's pretty common knowledge
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Apparently now we no longer require the F-111 and the Beaucratic hawks have finally won. It's strike capability can apparently be replaced by a stand-off precision attack missile and FA/18A hornets fitted with JDAMS... What do you think about THAT decision Gf?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
daft idea. we should have maintained them. they still are the best long range fast strikers in the world - even though they are 30+ years old - thats no mean feat. JDAM could have been plugged into them. I'd rather lose 35 Hornets than 35 flips/pigs.

there is nothing in the region that can outfly them at sea level. excellent durability, capacity etc...
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
My thoughts exactly. The thought that you could strip 36 odd capable aircraft from a very small aircraft fleet and replace the lost capability by mildly upgrading what is left is ridiculous. Where is the money going that is being put into the pigs now? Back into defence? I doubt it... Dr Carlo Kopp has written at great length on the force structure and strategic issues this decision will create. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he does make some valid points about the detriment to the ADF's firepower and capability overall. Now if the Australian Government decided to replace the F111's with a couple of squadrons of brand new F15E Strike Eagles, well it might not be too bad, but I can't see that realistically happening...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
My thoughts exactly. The thought that you could strip 36 odd capable aircraft from a very small aircraft fleet and replace the lost capability by mildly upgrading what is left is ridiculous. Where is the money going that is being put into the pigs now? Back into defence? I doubt it... Dr Carlo Kopp has written at great length on the force structure and strategic issues this decision will create. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he does make some valid points about the detriment to the ADF's firepower and capability overall. Now if the Australian Government decided to replace the F111's with a couple of squadrons of brand new F15E Strike Eagles, well it might not be too bad, but I can't see that realistically happening...
The other thing which I have never understood is why we didn't have 4-6 Ravens in the wing. The EF-111's could have been included and used some of the australian EW kit, the US probably would have given us a couple for free if we'd have bought 4 or so. We got a reasonable deal out of the F111g's.

An effective strike force package, F111C's and G's, RF111's and EF111's. air to air refueling and coupled together with the Wedgetail AWACs, a very very potent projection and multiplication capability. With long range weapons systems in place (even harpoons and/or penguins) they would be lethal More than enough to protect SLOC and air interdiction. They could outrun the Hornets without trying, go 6 times as far as a Hornet and still fight. ;)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
We did get a good deal on the G's, but as far as I've read, the Australian Government in their infinite wisdom decided not to include the G's in the F-111 AUP. Thus leaving the G's in the situation that they are unable to deliver precision guided munitions (no pavetack for instance) and have limited EWSP capability. In reality the G's are limited to conventional "Dumb" bombs and flight/navigation training and that's about it. EADS provided an unsolicited offer to the Australian Government a while back to provide an upgrade package to the G's which would have converted them into an F-111 Wild Weasel aircraft with superior capabilities to the German Tornado Wild Weasel aircraft, widely considered the finest such aircraft in existence. Thus vastly improving the capability of the F-111 fleet and the RAAF in general. Unfortunately however, the powers that be decided this capability was not required and didn't proceed with it. The RAAF now seems destined to possess no dedicated SEAD capability as there is no announced plans to add this capability to our (already overworked) fleet of FA-18's. Hopefully the JSF will rectify this but we seem to be asking a lot of this aircraft already and we may just end up disappointed...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There are a couple of things in the new force mix that seem strange to me. I'm assuming that there are going to be more announcements to be announced eventually.

SEAD via the navy will be possible as a cannister solution, but SEAD should always have a strong air driven delivery profile as well.

In short, my judgements reserved and I'm in "dunno" mode.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
If you're referring to Tactical Tomahawk or some such weapon then I can't really see it happening. If $50 million or so to upgrade the F-111G fleet was too expensive then I can't see Tomahawk being considered economical at $1 million a round. Plus DFAT would chuck a wobbly if we bought Cruise Missile's and upset the "strategic balance" and actually possessed a force projection capability...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
well, we aren't going to buy any equipment that can be perceived as offensive. On the other hand, if we decide to buy anything like that then all the diplomats will be bought in for tea and biscuits to reassure them etc...

we have developed our own cruise missile system in the last 6 years, but the US didn't like the idea as it would have knocked off JDAM as a potential local buy op.

BUT, we could build and produce our own fairly quickly if needed.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Is that the Kerkava or something like that, that you're referring to?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Surely the JASSM could only be perceived as offensive? A longe range standoff precision attack missile with a greater range than any planned or fielded SAM?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Kerkanya.. ;)

as for JASSM sooner or later one of the nations involved with the SLOC to our north west will have to deal with those pirates affecting commercial shipping. (they have stolen a couple of deep sea ocean tugs that are alleged to be armed)

At the moment Aust, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore have offered to run proper vessels along there to deal with the issue. Indonesia is the sticking point. BUT a well lobbed JASSM from an Orion would send a clear message. The Philippinos must be close to wanting to do that as well, they've got serious similar problems of their own.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Close. ;) That was the planned winged JDAM wasn't it? With a standoff range of 90 odd miles or something. I'm not sure about the JASSM into the pirate's boat though, a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, not to mention the cost at $400000 US a shot, I hear. It certainly would send a message though. He he he.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
Close. ;) That was the planned winged JDAM wasn't it? With a standoff range of 90 odd miles or something. I'm not sure about the JASSM into the pirate's boat though, a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, not to mention the cost at $400000 US a shot, I hear. It certainly would send a message though. He he he.
It's a boat you're attacking, all you need to do is to make half of the warhead a sodium cube.. ;)

The Kerkanyas range could be extended considerably if required.... plus as a local system we could build it a hell of a lot cheaper than any US purchase by using German ordinance. Why go shopping at Alliant when you can go to Diehl? ;)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Why go for the efficient demise of the said ship. Drop a daisy-cutter on it I say!!! That'd send a signal...
 
Top