Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Madurai

RAAF retires the F-111

34 posts in this topic

That'll do, pig.

Press release

A memorial service on December 3 was attended by more than 2000 people. In a solemn affair, ACAUST AVM Skidmore read out each of the 10 names of the pilots and navigators who died flying the aircraft.

A wreath-laying ceremony was held for the lost aircrew at the memorial at the front gate with relatives of the deceased paying their respects.

Later in the day, a spectacular six-ship F-111 formation performed a final flight to a crowd of more than 2000 wide-eyed spectators.

The crowd cheered, clapped and even cried as the six aircraft conducted a flypast in formation with one aircraft doing a solo display and a low and long dump and burn – the last one in the Air Force’s history.

When the aircraft landed, families of the crews and a huge media pack were waiting for them – and they were greeted by thunderous applause from the crowd.

A8-125 was the first F-111 to touch down on Australian soil on June 1, 1973, and to meet it and marshall it into place was Daryll Macklin, then a CPL airframe fitter. Daryll was also there on its last day and was given the honour of marshalling it for the last time.

“I was proud and privileged to be able to do it,” he said. “It was absolutely magnificent and just like old times. Who would have thought 37 years ago that I would be at the start of it and at the end of it as well?”

Once the six Pigs were on the tarmac and shut down for the last time, two F/A-18F Super Hornets flew low over them to symbolise the changing of the guard and to say, “We take over from here”.

1035.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit environment unfriendly, the F-111. I really think RAF should go for solar panel battery driven for the next heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The saddest part is that the Super Lemon that is replacing it isn't even close to being able to do the same job .

In every way that counts , the F-111 trumps the F/A 18E/F by a huge margin :

Range to payload ratio - Pig wins

Maximum payload - Pig wins

Time to target {when you absolutely , positivly must be there ten minutes ago} - Pig wins

Top speed {run away , run away} - Pig wins and how

Combat radius in general - Pig wins

The Super Lemons' "stealth" is next to worthless once you hang ordinance off the pylons {and without those weapons it is just a badly designed recon bird that costs too much} and the latest gen IRSTs Russia puts on the Su-30 can spot the Lemons' exhaust at better than 25Nm {and being a passive sensor , this is significant} .

The "uber" radar is now inferior to that of the Su-30 that Indonesia is getting {and those Su-30 are superior in pretty much every measurable way to the Super Lemon} .

The Super Lemons' ability to fight its' own way to and from the target is exagerated {the latest F-15E is better to begin with , as is the Su-30} and not what it's role requires anyway .

The latest F-15E B/Eagle is not only better but also cheaper {we're paying $6 billion for 30 Lemons ; yes , that's $200,000,000 per badly designed aircraft ! Some folk in the Australian Government and R.A.A.F. will have made bank off this scam you can bet} and could actually have done the F-111s' job properly {the Pig is better though , that aircraft was a ****ing opus} and the Su-30 likewise .

Australia got ripped off , and we are now not only less well defended than before {whilst our biggest potential threats -Indonesia and China- are getting more powerfully armed} but poorer and standing on the brink of what looks like a comming global depression which would probably leave us unable to afford to upgrade our aging fleet of regular Hornets {which bizarely were actually well designed for their day and are still fairly useful , concidering what the abomination that is the "Super" version} let alone replace the Super Crap we're now saddled with .

We need a new government entirely that can refuse to suck corporate **** {especially foriegn corporations} and equip our own military properly .

No F-111s , no viable replacement and AUD$ 6,000,000,000 in the hole , what an utter ****up .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The saddest part is that the Super Lemon that is replacing it isn't even close to being able to do the same job .

In every way that counts , the F-111 trumps the F/A 18E/F by a huge margin :

Range to payload ratio - Pig wins

Maximum payload - Pig wins

Time to target {when you absolutely , positivly must be there ten minutes ago} - Pig wins

Top speed {run away , run away} - Pig wins and how

Combat radius in general - Pig wins

The Super Lemons' "stealth" is next to worthless once you hang ordinance off the pylons {and without those weapons it is just a badly designed recon bird that costs too much} and the latest gen IRSTs Russia puts on the Su-30 can spot the Lemons' exhaust at better than 25Nm {and being a passive sensor , this is significant} .

The "uber" radar is now inferior to that of the Su-30 that Indonesia is getting {and those Su-30 are superior in pretty much every measurable way to the Super Lemon} .

The Super Lemons' ability to fight its' own way to and from the target is exagerated {the latest F-15E is better to begin with , as is the Su-30} and not what it's role requires anyway .

The latest F-15E B/Eagle is not only better but also cheaper {we're paying $6 billion for 30 Lemons ; yes , that's $200,000,000 per badly designed aircraft ! Some folk in the Australian Government and R.A.A.F. will have made bank off this scam you can bet} and could actually have done the F-111s' job properly {the Pig is better though , that aircraft was a ****ing opus} and the Su-30 likewise .

Australia got ripped off , and we are now not only less well defended than before {whilst our biggest potential threats -Indonesia and China- are getting more powerfully armed} but poorer and standing on the brink of what looks like a comming global depression which would probably leave us unable to afford to upgrade our aging fleet of regular Hornets {which bizarely were actually well designed for their day and are still fairly useful , concidering what the abomination that is the "Super" version} let alone replace the Super Crap we're now saddled with .

We need a new government entirely that can refuse to suck corporate **** {especially foriegn corporations} and equip our own military properly .

No F-111s , no viable replacement and AUD$ 6,000,000,000 in the hole , what an utter ****up .

I agree with you. Well said. You should start some protest and let everyone else know what the score is. Sounds like bull****. Governments need heads from ***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way that the F-15E would be cheaper than the F-18E, even if it was still in production.* Also, the F-18E doesn't have any stealth whatsoever--someone may be conflating it with the F-35. Probably the best deal for Australia's money, assuming you wanted a specialized long-range strike option, is to buy Su-34s.

*Barring some kind of sell-at-a-loss sweetheart deal, which has happened before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno Mad, those Hornets loaded up on a lot of doodads.

Hornets are designed for carriers, and can do for land-based limited range ops like the sheikdoms that have bought them, but really isn't a good medium range land-based solution.

The real question then becomes how many tanker craft the RAAF operates.

Payloads are less of an issue assuming you invest properly in PGMs, a smaller payload can actually be more lethal if it's in the 90% on target range.

So I get Frost's issues, I just don't think anything is designed like the 111 and so you aren't getting that long-range sweet spot, and keeping those things operational would I suspect get more costly and undoable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect a case of Ausairpower.net poisoning. They're like Australia's version of Mike Sparks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Also' date=' the F-18E doesn't have any stealth whatsoever...[/quote']

The Super Lemon has allways been touted as a "partial stealth" design like the Eurofighter .

As for the cost , I'm pretty certain the full cost of an F-15E is less than two hundred million each .

I agree with the Su 34 option {except of course that we now can't afford anything for a good half decade by which time the Su T-50 will be available} .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect a case of Ausairpower.net poisoning. They're like Australia's version of Mike Sparks.

Show me in what way a Super Lemon is worth $200 million ?

The only things it improves on the standard Hornet is a bit of range {no where near enough} and avionics that are already being supassed by aircraft with better performance that cost less and can be bought with full technology transfer . In fact it is actually inferior in certain measures of combat performance to the standard Hornet it was supposed to be greatly improving on .

I'll give them this , to start with what was already a very good design {for its' day , though that day wasn't that long ago given it is just one year older than the Su27} and **** up modernising it given the incredible technology they had takes skill .

Those wankers could be Hollyweird script writers !

If some others have noticed this and spoken out by suggesting Australia not blindly buy American aircraft that are too expensive for us to have in neccessary numbers {and in the case of the F/A 18F , cannot do the job properly} and it anoys you , then perhaps you have a bad case of manifest destiny complecated by a spot of jingoism .

Not everything America does , thinks up or offers is good for Australia , and we certainly don't exist just to fatten pockets in D.C. especially if it significantly weakens our long term ability to defend our nation .

What makes the purchase even worse is they're supposedly an "interum measure" .

A six billion dollar interum measure .

A six billion dollar interum measure until we can buy watered down F-22s that will cost a good 50% more yet again {the full house F-22 is about 350 million each and no , our purchase of couple or few dozen won't lower that worth ****} .

A six billion dollar interum measure until we can buy watered down F-22s that will cost a good 50% more yet again {the full house F-22 is about 350 million each and no , our purchase of couple or few dozen won't lower that worth ****} out of a roughly twenty billion dollar anual budget which would be like America spending nearly two hundred billion dollars on something that is only to tide you over until you bought something costing even more money .

Do you see the problem with this picture ?

Also :

I looked at their website you mentioned , they are nothing like Mike "call it Gavin" Sparks .

Sparks wants Americas entire army to use only variants of an obsolute 1960s battle taxi whereas the blokes at Aussie Airpower merely argue against us buying blindly from America aircraft that are not only too expensive , but seem to be only available to us in such "watered down" form as to be clearly inferior to the aircraft they would likely be facing {which would still be cheaper than what we would be facing} .

Nice use of strawman "arguement" you lovechild of Armand the Gay Vampire you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got some bad news Frosty.

Euros aren't selling better, cheaper. Certainly not the Japanese.

Russians are selling cheaper, maybe more capability, but sortie reliability?

What you want doesn't exist on the market.

Perhaps you think Australia can do it on it's own? Be my guest.

Want to pit your existence on UAV strike wings? Might be the thing to do, might not.

But the market is what it is at this moment, and interim might be better then nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Super Lemon has allways been touted as a "partial stealth" design like the Eurofighter .

By whom? This is the first mention I've ever seen of it, and the first glance at the lines of the plane will tell you it's not stealthy.

In fact it is actually inferior in certain measures of combat performance to the standard Hornet it was supposed to be greatly improving on .

This is patently untrue. It's got more range, a higher sprint speed, more weapons load, an AESA radar, and lower wing loading.

It's not an adequate replacement for the F-111 in the medium bomber role simply because it's a smaller aircraft. The F-15E isn't either, which is one of the reasons the USAF cleared the B-1B for conventional strike missions. And again, the Strike Eagle is out of production, so any airframes you'd get would already have hours on them, no matter how much you got them upgraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By whom? This is the first mention I've ever seen of it' date=' and the first glance at the lines of the plane will tell you it's not stealthy.[/quote']

Do you even live on this planet ?

Survivability is an important feature of the Super Hornet design. The US Navy took a "balanced approach" to survivability in its design.[33] This means that it does not rely on low-observable technology, such as stealth systems, to the exclusion of other survivability factors. Instead, its design incorporates a combination of stealth, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, the use of standoff weapons, and innovative tactics that cumulatively and collectively enhance the safety of the fighter and crew.[34]

Two U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets fly a combat patrol over Afghanistan in 2008. The aircraft banking away in the background can be seen launching infra-red countermeasure flares.The F/A-18E/F's radar cross section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear.[5] The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft's frontal radar cross section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.[35]

The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to direct reflected waves away from the aircraft in uniformly narrow angles.[5]

It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal RCS an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters.[35]

Look under Radar signature reduction measures

And the referances before you say "but they're not reliable"

Jenkins, Dennis R. F/A-18 Hornet: A Navy Success Story. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000. ISBN 0-07134-696-1.

34)US Navy, 24 April 2007

35)US Navy, 17 August 2009

It took me longer to copypasta the links than to find it . Read some Janes and visit Boeing Hip Hop .

But to rub it in

The enlarged airframe incorporates measures to reduce radar cross section ...

Link and Yo Momma

F-A-18E-F-Capabilities-Handbook

Note the panal that says "Super Hornet incorporates advanced strike technology" and then "Technologies" under which it lists the radar and Low Radar Cross-section .

This is patently untrue. It's got more range' date=' a higher sprint speed, more weapons load, an AESA radar, and lower wing loading.[/quote']

What's the comparable roll rate , instantanious turn {at various speeds etc} , accelleration {flat at various speeds , dive , when realising Mad doesn't know it was built to minimise its' radar signature and is advertised as such} , climb , etc , etc ?

It's not an adequate replacement for the F-111 in the medium bomber role simply because it's a smaller aircraft. The F-15E isn't either' date=' which is one of the reasons the USAF cleared the B-1B for conventional strike missions. And again, the Strike Eagle is out of production, so any airframes you'd get would already have hours on them, no matter how much you got them upgraded. [/quote']

The first sentance is all you need to repeat .

When replacing an aircraft that has a viable and important roll {we don't have bases everywhere nor the trillion dollar nuclear tipped war machine to bully others into letting us drag them into our wars , we need to hit **** from Aussie bases !} , it is traditional to pick something that actually can fill that roll .

Clearly our government bought them for other than replacing the F-111 and has left us without a capability we need {only an idiot or a Quisling would bet their nations arse on some other nation allways stepping in to help} .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Got some bad news Frosty.

Euros aren't selling better, cheaper. Certainly not the Japanese.

Russians are selling cheaper, maybe more capability, but sortie reliability?

What you want doesn't exist on the market.

.

You suck as a reporter Killy ; you should go work for Fox or the Chicken Noodle Network .

**** the Euros , Though I think the Rafale might be better than many pundits like to claim .

The Eurofighter is a committee designed money sponge that looks like it was built by Crackychan and the Grippen is too small though it isn't bad for a country of Herring molesters that think consentual sex is rape and what the **** does Japan have to do with it ?

Russian Su -30/34/35 have poor reliability you say ? Don't you mean Russias' military has poor reliability ? The R.A.A.F would have no trouble keeping those birds in proper order with fast turn around between missions and pub crawls !

The Su34 doesn't exist ?

On your planet or ours ?

Edited by mrfrost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the capability you need' date=' exactly? Anti-ship strike?[/quote']

Anti as much of Indonesia as far as we can reach to begin with .

Given we have a small population compared to a lot of our neibours {Indonesia has about ten times our number} and an awful big area to canvas if it happens we need to be able to smash high value targets hard and fast to give ourselves as much of an edge when we hit their shores as possible .

Airfields , munition and fuel stockpiles , Mime schools , accordian factories , ships that sit still long enough {our Navy can handle everyone elses Navy in the region except Indias' , Chinas' and any stray Yank mob but airpower is the big threat that could change that I think} mabey but most especially kill as much of their airforce on the ground as possible .

The Su-30 is no lightweight , especially when most of our airforce is the rapidly aging F/A-18A/B which it out muscles in speed , range , avionics , accelleration , climb , loadout , agility , sensors up the yingyang and by having far younger airframes .

Lets put heavy hitting ground strikes on distant air assets as first , stockpiles of boomboom and F.O.L. second and leave the naval targets to when they're in port buying gay hookers as last .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Su-34 is probably as close as it comes, then. What it sounds like you really want is an IRBM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What it sounds like you really want is an IRBM.

And a new government ... mind if we borrow Jessie Ventura ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never saw the point in trading strike aircraft capable of hitting anyone near us that can threaten us... with a short range interceptor that is barely able to clear our territorial waters, let alone reach hostile shores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never saw the point in trading strike aircraft capable of hitting anyone near us that can threaten us... with a short range interceptor that is barely able to clear our territorial waters' date=' let alone reach hostile shores.[/quote']

There's no beating metal fatigue, ultimately. Whatever happened to all those Mirages you used to have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You suck as a reporter Killy ; you should go work for Fox or the Chicken Noodle Network .

**** the Euros , Though I think the Rafale might be better than many pundits like to claim .

The Eurofighter is a committee designed money sponge that looks like it was built by Crackychan and the Grippen is too small though it isn't bad for a country of Herring molesters that think consentual sex is rape and what the **** does Japan have to do with it ?

Russian Su -30/34/35 have poor reliability you say ? Don't you mean Russias' military has poor reliability ? The R.A.A.F would have no trouble keeping those birds in proper order with fast turn around between missions and pub crawls !

The Su34 doesn't exist ?

On your planet or ours ?

Japan is working up an aeronautics industry as are the Koreans to a lesser extent, but they are finding I think that it's not so cheap to do so even with the shot in the arm from some tech transfers from the US.

Doesn't matter if it's Aussie techs or Russian when you are dealing with harsh realities of Russian builds.

Russian engines fall apart quickly. Real quickly.

So if you aren't keen on being dependent on Russians selling you disposable engines, you are going to replace the engines with a Western build AND the electronics you will be wanting, well you are getting on up into the range of 'might as well buy Western'.

Playing the airpower game ain't cheap.

Likely what you really want given your strategic shopping list is SLCMs and UAV strike craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japan is working up an aeronautics industry

Like I said , what does Japan have to do with it .

They can get back to Me when "is working up" becomes "has worked up" .

Doesn't matter if it's Aussie techs or Russian when you are dealing with harsh realities of Russian builds.

Russian engines fall apart quickly. Real quickly.

They're fixing that problem fast , real fast .

The meme that Russians are somehow genetically incapable of producing anything as good as the west is well past its' use by date . The same schtic was said about Japanese cars 20 years ago , now count the ricers on the highway and survey their owners ; My Mitsubishi runs just fine and Russian engines are continuing to improve {and are powering aircraft that can do the job !} .

So if you aren't keen on being dependent on Russians selling you disposable engines
Then we'll licence produce them ourselves , which Vlad would slide for a resonable fee .
Playing the airpower game ain't cheap.

Neither is divorce , but it's usually a good move .

Likely what you really want given your strategic shopping list is SLCMs and UAV strike craft.
U.A.V.s are overrated . They can be jammed with a relativly simple broadcast whereas jamming a more traditional pilot-machine interface takes a lot more precision and effort and if you think controlling U.A.V.s via tight beam bounced off satilites is a viable workaround ' date=' try playing an online shooter over satilite and you will know the true meaning of [i']lag .

Some I.R.B.M.s as Mad suggested would have a place but the flexibility of a long range manned strike bomber {which can have greatly varied loadouts , is reusable , can be recalled if required and simply flying near their coast to sabre rattle is darned useful} is an absolute must have I feel and the Supertard ain't it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said , what does Japan have to do with it .

They can get back to Me when "is working up" becomes "has worked up" .

They're fixing that problem fast , real fast .

I'm sensing a logical disconnect between these two statements. Are we measuring extant capability, or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.