Posted on 03/06/2007 1:29:12 PM PST by LM_Guy
Edited on 03/06/2007 1:41:26 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
From the number (24), that they will all be two seater Fs, and based at Amberly tells me they are direct replacemts for the F-111C "Pig" inderdictor/maritime strikers, which will be retired
Me. I would consider keeping the F-111Cs in service, putting some of the AF-18 HUGBug Hornets into mothballs to extend the fleet life, and basing the F/A-18Fs at RAAF Tindall as air cover for the North.
But that would be more expensive, but more significantly, mean more aircraft types in service.
A key tenent of Australian defence is reducing the number to a mininum (Personaly I think they take it a little to far, but I see the point that a small airforce should be unifoem not be a collection of samples).
The original plan 1.0 c.2000 was to replace the Hornets with JSFs first, then the F-111Cs c.2020 - Two type force rising to 3 during the changeover then dropping to a single type
The hope was that would avoided a centre-barrel replacement. But when that proved not possible, the worry that maintaining the F-111 would get out of hand (actually at present its probably cheaper than its ever been)
Plan 2.0 - Phase out the F-111s first, replacing with JSFs, HUG centre-barrel enough AF-18s to keep then in service until all the JSFs arrive (then sell them to Canada to replace their worn out CF-18 not-Hornets)- Two type force rising to 3 during the changeover then dropping to a single type
JSF delayed
Plan 2.1 - HUG Centre Barrel more Hornets, look into extending the like of the F-111 slightly look into extending the life of the F-111 slightly
JSF delayed
Plan 3.0 - Replace the F-111s with F=18Fs, replace the AF-18s with JSFs (sell AF-18s and maybe F-18Fs to Canada to replace their worn out CF-18 not-Hornets)- two types, rising to 2.5 during both changeovers, droppin to one or two)
The key point to the decision was don't extend the support base. So the F-18F which will be easier to transition to from the AF-18 was the only option
That's why the F-15E was not a contender
And as for the B1-B, the RAAF doesn't have enough aircraft techicians and mechanics to keep that bucket of bolts flying. And what the heck could we do with it?
Those would be a liability for the Aussies than an asset-it's not for no reason that only the US & Russia(barely) operate heavy bombers today.Unless the US would bankroll them.
About being N-capable,would the US part with a few Nuke-tipped LACMs.If it doesn't have those,it would be a sitting duck against the defenses of China or India(Tom Clancy school of international thought).
The F-111 isn't costing a fortune to maintain? That's hard to believe. How are they working that miracle?
Having a formidable self-escort capability will be a nice addition to capability.
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.