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: 1991: To risk or not?
DropBear    8/11/2008 11:43:00 PM
Just been perusing Wikipedia (don't laugh!) and under the Oz entry for the F-111 it states... During the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States Government asked Australia to deploy RF-111 aircraft to the Persian Gulf. This request was denied as the Australian government judged that these aircraft were too important to Australia's security to risk in a distant war. Now, why would one assume there was a risk involved in sending the Recce pigs to the OS sand pit? Would the risk be from a potential to see one or more shot down and hence a costly attrition in terms of crew/platform and capability to Oz, or was there some other national circumstance at the time such as a possible flair up in our region, ie a coup in Fiji or the like? Secondly, what type of internal EW suite could have been integrated onto those four R/F-111C to allow for deployment to Iraq? Curious.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Volkodav       8/12/2008 5:23:14 AM
Gut feeling it probably was just an excuse and the real reason was they couldn't get Gerry Hand and the left to buy into it.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DB   8/12/2008 8:31:34 AM


Just been perusing Wikipedia (don't laugh!) and under the Oz entry for the F-111 it states...

During the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States Government asked Australia to deploy RF-111 aircraft to the Persian Gulf. This request was denied as the Australian government judged that these aircraft were too important to Australia's security to risk in a distant war.

Now, why would one assume there was a risk involved in sending the Recce pigs to the OS sand pit? Would the risk be from a potential to see one or more shot down and hence a costly attrition in terms of crew/platform and capability to Oz, or was there some other national circumstance at the time such as a possible flair up in our region, ie a coup in Fiji or the like?

Secondly, what type of internal EW suite could have been integrated onto those four R/F-111C to allow for deployment to Iraq?

Curious.


I'm not laughing at you using Wiki, its matured into a pretty good resource nowdays with lots of knowledgable people updating it with good references. Its certainly not the last word but it makes for a good first stop to get a bit of an idea about a topic.
 
As for your question, the potential loss of one of our four only strategic recon assets would undoubtedly not have been a good thing. However, given that in any regional circumstance we could have relied on the US to provide us with sattellite recon assistance in lieu or helped out with the deployment of some of their manned recon assets, then I think it was pretty miserable for Hawke to deny them an important asset like this. After all, had one gone down we could have replaced the capability pretty quickly by putting a recon pack into one of our other Pigs, then replace the airframe with an AMARC special. It could have been something to do with Beazley's obsession with defence self-reliance or a sap to the left as Volkodav has said.
 
As for the type of EW suit it would have needed, the same as was fitted to the US F-111F's would have obviously done the trick, because they survived ok.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DB   8/12/2008 9:11:59 AM


Just been perusing Wikipedia (don't laugh!) and under the Oz entry for the F-111 it states...

During the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States Government asked Australia to deploy RF-111 aircraft to the Persian Gulf. This request was denied as the Australian government judged that these aircraft were too important to Australia's security to risk in a distant war.

Now, why would one assume there was a risk involved in sending the Recce pigs to the OS sand pit? Would the risk be from a potential to see one or more shot down and hence a costly attrition in terms of crew/platform and capability to Oz, or was there some other national circumstance at the time such as a possible flair up in our region, ie a coup in Fiji or the like?

Secondly, what type of internal EW suite could have been integrated onto those four R/F-111C to allow for deployment to Iraq?

Curious.


I'm not laughing at you using Wiki, its matured into a pretty good resource nowdays with lots of knowledgable people updating it with good references. Its certainly not the last word but it makes for a good first stop to get a bit of an idea about a topic.
 
As for your question, the potential loss of one of our four only strategic recon assets would undoubtedly not have been a good thing. However, given that in any regional circumstance we could have relied on the US to provide us with sattellite recon assistance in lieu or helped out with the deployment of some of their manned recon assets, then I think it was pretty miserable for Hawke to deny them an important asset like this. After all, had one gone down we could have replaced the capability pretty quickly by putting a recon pack into one of our other Pigs, then replace the airframe with an AMARC special. It could have been something to do with Beazley's obsession with defence self-reliance or a sap to the left as Volkodav has said.
 
As for the type of EW suit it would have needed, the same as was fitted to the US F-111F's would have obviously done the trick, because they survived ok.
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas       8/13/2008 5:49:59 PM
Question: was the RF-111 mission profile for low-level missions? The coalition had to change mission profiles because too many Tornado operating at low-level were downed by Iraqi air defenses.


 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       8/13/2008 6:15:32 PM

Question: was the RF-111 mission profile for low-level missions? The coalition had to change mission profiles because too many Tornado operating at low-level were downed by Iraqi air defenses.






I don't think that was a problem for the F111's operated by the USAF.  The Tornados only suffered, not because of the low level flights alone, but because they were in a straight line over Iraqi airfields during their weapons release (JP233 or something?).
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       8/14/2008 5:00:11 AM
 
Gut feeling it probably was just an excuse and the real reason was they couldn't get Gerry Hand and the left to buy into it.

"Americans asked, we said 'no' - Singapore never again! ALP no.1!"

 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       8/14/2008 5:03:13 AM

Question: was the RF-111 mission profile for low-level missions? The coalition had to change mission profiles because too many Tornado operating at low-level were downed by Iraqi air defenses.


The USAF did use their F-111s for 'tank plinking' (tactical bombing in prep for the ground assault) but that only happened later into the air campaign.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics