Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??
DropBear    6/13/2005 4:53:55 AM
In response to lacrobat's comment wrt "Why not cut the JSFs entirely?" I am interested to know how many of you believe the F-111, F-18 and Hawk127 are a complete waste of time, resources, money, training, funding, manpower etc etc etc... What would you spend the allocated funds on otherwise? You know my views, what are yours...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
AussieEngineer    RE:Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??   6/16/2005 6:43:32 AM
Had it been an AWD, it would have downed the fighter after the first launch and probably nailed the missile too. The reason the Hobart didn't fire was because it identified the fighters as friendlies (which they were). An AWD is overkill for such an attack. I'll ask again, when have RAN ships been under saturation missile attacks. I have never advocated not getting the AWDs I think they are needed if a high intensity war occurs. We don't need them for any other reason. OPVs are needed more than AWDs in peace time, but thats not what the military is for, it is there for times of war, that is the number one priority. The RAAF combat arm punched well above their weight in both Korea and Vietnam. The RAAF contribution was small in both cases when compared to the the US ones. However, the army and navy contributions were also small in comparison. They were the right amount for the size of our defence force and country. count the ACTUAL combat deployments in the last 50 years and then tell me its good value, then tell me its a good idea to cut the RANs AWDs (that WILL go in harms way) to make sure the RAAF has enough airframes to maintain its airshow schedule The RAAF has been involved in every major conflict we have been in since WW2. Just because you believe that flying CAPs and strike missions are not real combat doesn't make it so. So you are proposing making savings by removing one bureacracy and replacing it with two. Adding to this you will have billions apon billions of additional costs associated with support platform purchases. You may buy 30 less fighters but you are going to spend several times that amount of the other things required by your plan. It's called a false economy. All you are proposing is removing important warfighting capability. You are against cancelling other purely high intensity war platforms such as the Abrams and AWDs yet you want to remove the most important capability we have in a high intensity war. First and foremost we need a strong RAAF and RAN, the army comes second as they are the second line of defence. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. If you are going to drop the combat arm of the RAAF you might as well drop the AWDs and the Abrams because without the combat arm of the RAAF the ADF won't be able to fight a high intensity war effectively. You can either spend the money and have a comprehensive well rounded military or focus on niche capabilities for coalition ops. Trying cut the combat arm of the RAAF is like buying a car with a motor and expecting it to run.
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    RE:Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??   6/16/2005 6:59:57 AM
>>>An AWD is overkill for such an attack. I'll ask again, when have RAN ships been under saturation missile attacks.<<< she did get hit though, obviously something more sophisticated is needed. I would rather overkill than to be underequipped. >>>I have never advocated not getting the AWDs I think they are needed if a high intensity war occurs. We don't need them for any other reason.<<< They are useful in other areas, from what i understand they will have very good command facilities which is something we lack. They can give unparalleled eyes to a wide area and remain on station for a long time. Other uses are there.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??   6/16/2005 8:15:58 AM
If the attacking aircraft had been identified as MiGs I think the Hobart would have fire first and would have at least returned fire. From what I've read it seems like the Hobart was tracking the aircraft approach and would have been able to fire on them at any time but didn't because they were friendlies. The agree the AWDs will be useful for doing things other than defeating saturation missile attacks but on the same note so are aircraft. A JSF doesn't have to be penetrating IADS or shooting down enemy strike aircraft to be useful. They will be really useful for CAS, ISR and strike in lower intensity and quasi peace keeping operations like Iraq.
 
Quote    Reply

ThePuss    RE:Should we abolish the RAAF combat fleet??   6/16/2005 8:39:12 AM
As I understand with the Hobart attack, they didn't fire at first because the planes were "friendlies" however after they got hit Hobart did try and shoot back but the cabling between fire control and the launcher had be destroyed. It think they may have fired off some 5" rounds in they general direction as well but im not sure.
 
Quote    Reply

cdr1985       5/17/2011 12:17:46 PM
How could the F-111 be a complete waste of time??, firstly i would like to point out that they dont make aircraft the way they used too (hence why the B-52 is still in service in the USAF and prob will be in the next 50 years) , now more too the piont the F-111 was a extremely influencual aircraft nothing could match it in this region. because of one thing, speed. get to the target drop the bombs and get the hell out of there even if there were fighters in the air they couldnt catch it. It had a great range more then our new super hornets, its great too be able to track multiple targets ground and air but do you think you could out run or out fight a Su-27 or a Mig 29 in a super hornet i dont think so !! thats where the f-111 was far superior nothing could accelerate or catch it in a fight, if we went to war right now with indonesia we would get wooped in the air losing aircraft left right and centre !!! what we needed was F-16  instead of our F18/C and Ds as our main fighter group and F15J to replace the F1-11 we will never have a big airforce but we need to have the edge in our region and defence is spending in all the wrong areas. Did you know the only reason why we went for the f-18 over the f-16 in the mid 80's if because they were afraid of single engine fighters because of bird strikes . The benifit of 15 and 16s also would be they share the same interchangable engine !!If anything now the F-111 should be in reserve squadrons and too keep them flying if we cant find the parts make them create some jobs and industry in this country for aircraft there is none left !!! because without something big and intimidating we are at serious risk of conflict. as for scraping the JSF they are buying the basic model imagine the capability if we actually bought the Vtol version, can land on our ships could be hidden all over australia in a conflict so the enemy didnt have concentrated targets makes sense hey ?? but some dude who went too uni and studied military history makes those calls and thinks he knows it all. The us navy knows too having the super hornet as well ask any pilot and it aint no Tomcat !!!! bigger and powerful is better proven in world history !!!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/17/2011 5:14:39 PM

....  pulls out the popcorn and waits for incoming.....
 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       5/17/2011 6:26:57 PM
..6 years later...
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    Sorry I couldn't help myself   5/28/2011 9:16:20 AM

The F-111 was bought to intimidate Sukarno?s Indonesia with the threat of being able to drop atomic bombs on their major cities.  We never acquired nucs and Sukarno was sent packing by Suharto removing Indonesia as a serious Soviet backed threat to our interests.  The requirement for the aircraft disappeared almost a decade before they were delivered. QED

 

It became an expensive asset, never used in anger (unless of course you count photo rec missions over Tasmania), that sapped resources from the ADF as a whole throughout its service life.  These resources? could have been used to replace the Canberras one for one with F-4E/G and RF-4C, buy a dozen boom equipped tankers and replace the Mirage with F-15C/D?..

 

 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       5/28/2011 10:14:07 PM

The F-111 was bought to intimidate Sukarno?s Indonesia with the threat of being able to drop atomic bombs on their major cities.  We never acquired nucs and Sukarno was sent packing by Suharto removing Indonesia as a serious Soviet backed threat to our interests.  The requirement for the aircraft disappeared almost a decade before they were delivered. QED


 


It became an expensive asset, never used in anger (unless of course you count photo rec missions over Tasmania), that sapped resources from the ADF as a whole throughout its service life.  These resources? could have been used to replace the Canberras one for one with F-4E/G and RF-4C, buy a dozen boom equipped tankers and replace the Mirage with F-15C/D?..

 

From what i've heard the F-15 was never seriously considered as it had no air to ground capabilities. Although if we did get them and fast forwarded today, a likely replacement would have been the F-22 (providing the US would sell them, providing we could afford them and providing they didn't shut down production). Although I don't think Australia needs an air-superiority fighter. We need a multi-role fighter, its not like we are constantly having enemy aircraft waiting to burst into our airspace and destroy everything in sight.

Although regarding the topic, if we did get rid of our ACF... what I would do in the pollies place would probably be dismantle most of the ADF... as without a good ACF, what good would we be anyway.. 

Could then spend the money on other more important things, instead of trying to make the ADF look good to make up for the lack of an ACF.... 

The only perceived threat to 2030-2050 is a war between Chinese and America anyway.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/29/2011 12:33:50 AM

The only perceived threat to 2030-2050 is a war between Chinese and America anyway.

not by a long shot.....  there's a bit more than china that needs to be considered....
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics