Posted on 03/23/2006 8:08:08 AM PST by Cliff Dweller
SYDNEY, Australia — A North Korean cargo ship seized after being used to smuggle heroin into Australia was sunk Thursday when the Australian air force used the vessel for target practice.
The Australian Federal Police said the freighter Pong Su was towed out of Sydney Harbor earlier this week, then destroyed Thursday by a bomb dropped from a F-111 jet fighter and sank 140 90 miles off the coast of New South Wales state.
The vessel was seized in 2003 after being used to smuggle in more than 275 pounds of heroin.
It had anchored off the southwestern Victoria state town of Lorne, while the drug haul was carried ashore by dinghy.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It also had a much better ESA (electronically steerable array) radar, with back end subsystems (receiver, signal processor, etc) borrowed from the F-16 radar.
It also featured reduced RCS features, including a new engine inlet design. It also had a reduced top speed at low level.
the title is slightly misleading. looks like the drug ship was already impounded. spoils all the fun of a high seas chase
Making it similar in that regard to many older MiGs. :)
I didn't say they first flew in the F-111B, but rather that they were designed for it. They certainly weren't designed for the A-3.
...And McNamara is a freaking engineering and military genius.
Wasn't it the Chief of Naval Operations who, testifying before some House committee, said there wasn't enough thrust in Christendom to make the F-111 a fighter?
In thanks and appreciation, the F-14 was named by Grumman and the Navy the 'TOM'Cat.
I didn't say they first flew in the F-111B,
Your short term memory is in the crapper. Maybe it's the early stages of Alzheimer's.
Howdy, Democrat!
On a mission flown a few years (quite a few, now) back, we had 3 confirmed 'kills' against the F-16s with no losses on our side. Needless to say, the Lawndarts weren't very happy.
Of course, I've also been in an F-111 where my idiot pilot decided to try a vertical scissors against an F-16.
80,000 pounds of manliness going up - but not for long! At the Red Flag debrief, the F-16 pilot commented, "I almost hated to shoot someone who was so obviously insane."
You WSOing a D or an F?
Horses@$t.
Prowlers carry 6-8 transmitters, which work about 80% of the time. The EF-111 carried 10, which worked 99.8% of the time.
Since the EF-111 carried 32,000 pounds of fuel internal with similiar fuel flows, it could stay on station much longer. Given time to go back & forth to the tanker, and the EF-111 on station time was on the order of 3 times greater.
And since the EF-111 had the option of leaving bad guy land at 1.3+ Mach, it could afford to go in farther. Closer = more power delivered to the enemy radar.
ICAP 3 is a fine upgrade, but you should remember the EF-111 had all jamming upgrades ended in the early 90s in anticipation of retirement.
And while never used (the USAF didn't want competition with the CJs), there was no reason other than USAF stupidity that an EF-111 couldn't have carried 4 HARMS on every mission - without impacting fuel or transmitters.
For land based used, the EF-111 was vastly superior. Unfortunately, the USAF has never given a tinker's damn about EW.
I am sure that is because those who drive Falcon's on a regular basis can suffer from that head-slap they get sometimes with a poor fitting helmet, when they come into the break. It makes them nutty sometimes. Just ask Rokke. They see an F-111, and say to themselves "I'll just show her my ass, then I'll reverse on her, so both those jockey can pay for my beer tonight." SLAP, SLAP.
Then, while the fool recovers you light him up with your.............pod.
LOL.
Wrong on many counts. The 2 ECMOs in the back gave greater capability for collecting elint, but the jamming ability was no better. The EF-111 didn't normally use automatic jamming, but since the pilot handles his own radio calls and the nav suite was lights years superior in the EF, the 1 EWO could handle the jamming workload easily.
Internal generators is one of the main reasons the transmitters worked regularly on the EF. Based on my hours in the Prowler, my earlier post claiming 80% effectiveness for them was optimistic. We typically would launch 3 and see which 2 had the most functional transmitters.
And there is no getting around 10 transmitters in the EF, every sortie.
I never, ever heard of an EF-111 transmitter catching fire.
And I have no idea why you think the EFs couldn't operate from an expeditionary airfield.
And as I mentioned, the ONLY reason the EF couldn't carry 4 HARMs on every mission is that the USAF, with unbeatable stupidity, refused to put the capability into the jet. In fact, they had the wire going to the wing stations cut so they could tell Congress with a straight face, "It cannot be done."
I think there was one....right?
Wasn't your TFR found to occasionally run you into a mountain side? HARMS are expensive! LOL! You do know I am just having fun at your expense?
Actually, by the time they were retired, the F-111F and EF-111 maintenance costs ran about 5% higher than the F-15E.
The cost of keeping all the EF-111s and 24 F-111Fs was the same as the cost of 20 Prowlers, which have much higher MX costs.
I've got more than enough F-4 time to handle the abuse found in all real fighter squadrons!
The F-111 was a poor joke as a fighter, but it turned into a great tactical bomber. It breaks my heart to think of what an F-111F - with 24 GBUs and a ton of loiter time, equipped with a Sniper or Litening targeting pod and a WSO with nothing better to do than make it work - could do in Iraq!
BTW - TFR operations were wholly unnatural!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.