Read the forum code of contact
By: - 3rd October 2002 at 03:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
That's absurd. Where'd you hear that?
By: - 3rd October 2002 at 03:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
Why is it "absurd " ? The United States has a special relationship with Australia , much as it has with the United Kingdom in Geo-Strategic terms and in Recon ( aka World Wide Echelon Sytem ).
Anyway , there is talk here , that the US has surplus B1-B's which it would like to give to Australia , rather than gather dust in Arizona , or some other base .
They ( the Americans ) are generally not happy with the performance of teh B-1B's in US service anyway :)
By: - 3rd October 2002 at 03:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl749478903d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-…
This is the only thing I found online
By: - 3rd October 2002 at 04:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
"The situation has come about due to serious cracks developing in
centre sections of the F-18 Hornet fleet. It is now envisaged that
F-18 will no longer be serviceable past 2004 and that they would be
replaced in the air defence role by F-111's until the new Joint Strike
Fighter became available to the RAAF."
Hi Astron,
This part of the link certainly sounds rather suspect, I don't recall hearing anything even vaguely like this, either about the Hornet problems, or the RAAF F-111 modifications.
While the original plans for the F-111 program called for a fleet defence fighter (F-111B) armed with AIM-54s, that never eventuated and the USN went on to the F-14. Adapting the current RAAF F-111s into something akin to a 'B' model would be prohibitively expensive.
Cheers,
Jim
By: - 3rd October 2002 at 06:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
BS. Service problems would be the cause for an early retirement of the Hornet, which then should be replaced by F-111s, which then again should be replaced with the oh so maintenance-friendly B-1B. Absolute crap. The Bone is a maintenance and servicability nightmare, and the RAAF knows that.
Unless wishful thinking is an officially accepted religion down under.
By: - 3rd October 2002 at 06:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
What? So the RAAF is to DUMP the recently re-newed (last year I believe) 10-year service and support contract for the F-111s??? Ahh.. don't think so.
WHERE did you 'hear' this?
Regards, Glenn.
By: - 4th October 2002 at 00:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
Like my Good Buddy Glenn here, we both live in Australia and know all about the defence purchaces cause they don't hide them down here at all. Seriously this is garbage!
Who ever wrote this Krap is high on their own fumes. The RAAF don't have the personel to:
a) Man these machines
b) Work on these machines
c) the tools to fix them
Besides it not the Hornets that had the Mid Wing spar problems, but the Pigs, so putting them in the Air Defence Role is ludicrouse and borders on the point of insanity. As Glenn said, our Pigs have just completed a massive AUP and are good till around 2020 though 2015 is a more realistic figure for retirement.
Arthur: No we don't live on wishful thinking down here, though some of our polies might.
Give me coffee and no-one gets hurt!
By: - 4th October 2002 at 01:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
HI all , im a brand new forum member and first just want to say hi to u all!
About the B-1b's coming down under that is absolute crap :+
First of all besides the huge technical probs with it , its just way too "warrie" for any Australian government to wear , I mean does anybody expect the government would let the ADF have somthing that others could mistake as an offensive weopen.Even our pigs are only ever talked about in the media as dump and burn platforms at major events( when somthing isn't cracked or fatigued that is ).There was a huge out cry when some defense people suggested cruise missles to be fitted to our ships ( in some way to replace/augment our pigs ), it was like we were threatning to become belligerant with all our neighbours!
It is true that the hornets have centre line cracks but that is because when our pigs are on the ground we use them as bomb trucks.
any way hope to hear from you all soon!
regards gazza
Attachments:
By: - 6th October 2002 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
Welcome AF, nice to see the Aussie contingent growing. Interesting about the Hornets, they never showed anything on the news about it but then again, all the fuss they made when we got them they don't want to ruin their image and prove that they made a mistake.
Give me coffee and no-one gets hurt!
By: - 6th October 2002 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 06-10-02 AT 01:11 PM (GMT)]Guys
I might have a strong interest in aviation, but I have to say my knowledge of our current and proposed aerial defences is pretty weak.
I do know that our pigs are now the only operational F-111's anywhere in the world since the yanks retired the RF-111G (I think) some time ago, and that they have to soldier on until 2015. By that time, the oldest of them will be 45 years of age or so. Pretty damned old, and with the development of aviation technology going at its current pace, I can forsee the pigs being totally obsolete long before 2015.
To some extent, ditto the F/A-18's. The oldest of them are now 17 to 18 years of age. I'm not sure of their projected retirement date, but it's probably the other side of 2010. Again, they will be bloody old and probably second-rate aircraft by then.
The JSF project is still a bit uncertain and I can see the costs blowing out enormously, which will probably reduce the number we eventually end up with. We certainly need to push for local production of as much of the airframe/avionics and even engines as possible.
Now to the Bone. It's interesting that one member stated that the yanks are not all that happy with their performance. That'd be the way to fix the problem of what to do with them - offer them to the dumb Aussies. After all, we sold them the two rustiest ships in our navy a few years back and it cost billions to put them right.
I don't think we will ever end up with Bones. As Ja said, we don't have the aircrew, technical support or NEED for these aircraft. They certainly would convey the message to our neighbours to the north that we were getting a little more aggressive and we are already having a difficult time with Indonesia.
Nup, the Bone thing won't happen. But I reckon that both the F-111's and the Hornets will need replacement long before 2010/15 and their replacement needs selecting soon.
Regards
Wombat
By: - 7th October 2002 at 08:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
The yanks did retire there pigs some years ago but us aussies were the only ones that operate the RF-111. Also why are we so scared about aquiring military equipment ( we should have the best if we need it )Who cares what Indonesia thinks or Malaysia for that matter! I don't think they give a rats about what we think. As a country rich in resources , stability & land we should have the sharpest teeth in the region to protect it (somthing that is fast eroding away) against countries in our region that have the exact opposite. Not to mention the exact same equipment is going to be needed if we want to take a larger role in coalition activity around the world.
We SHOULD have cruise missles fitted to our warships, we SHOULD have a modern replacement to our Leopard MBTs (and don,t tell me MBTs don't have a role in the Jungles of south east asia, just ask our diggers who fought in Vietnam ), we SHOULD have a replacement to the Hornet & pig with the range and armament to out class ANYTHING that might appear, not some kind of average "jack of all trades"( F-22/ strike eagle combo be nice :9 )
Maybe countries in our region would respect us if we started to assert ourselves ie not groviling for existing or acting the way we do. Does anybody agree?
By: - 7th October 2002 at 08:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
and you are also willing to pay higher taxes?
By: - 7th October 2002 at 09:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
Also why are we so scared about aquiring military equipment ( we
should have the best if we need it )
Does Australia need B-1B's? I think that one is open to debate...
Who cares what Indonesia thinks or Malaysia for that matter! I don't think they give a rats about what we think.
Nice one! You assume they don't give a rat's ass about what you think, so you automatically don't give a damn about them. Really considerate...
Maybe countries in our region would respect us if we started to assert ourselves ie not groviling for existing or acting the way we do. Does anybody agree?
If you want to compensate your lack of understanding of international affairs by having a massive army so you can ignore the rest of the world, be my guest. But i don't think that is much of a realistic world view, let alone your fellow taxpayers will be happy about it.
By: - 7th October 2002 at 10:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
Aussie Force
Garry and Arthur are right. I agree that Australia needs an effective DEFENCE force, not an offensive one. But the recent experience with the drain on our armed services created by East Timor, Afghanistan and the possibility of war against Iraq, shows just how weak and under-manned our defence forces are.
Australia simply cannot afford the sort of armed service you wish for. And I doubt that we ever will. We occupy the seventh largest land mass on earth, with a population that fits into London and its surrounding counties. I for one don't even want to think of the levels of taxation that would be necessary to upgrade our defences to the levels you promote. Recent discussion about a tax levy to fund the cost of military action in Iraq shows just how short this country is of defence funding.
I WOULD like to see a far more viable local defence industry, instead of sitting on our blots and shopping around for the best "deals". I would love a viable avionics and aircraft industry, producing aircraft that were so good, even the Yanks would have to buy them. I personally think that the key to effective defence in this country is to have a strong (much stronger than at present) air force, with early warning radar networks more advanced and reliable than Jindalee, covering the entire nation. Aircraft would need to be strategically placed at about 10 key locations nation-wide, with the need to respond rapidly to anywhere in the country. I could go on, but it just won't happen - we don't have the money and, more importantly, we don't have the need.
Indonesia and China would be the most likely nations to act agressively towards Australia. As the other guys point out, neither has the logistics to deploy troops in sufficient numbers to effectively nullify and overwhelm the entire country.
The natural defences which made Australia so unappealing to the Japanese in 1942, that is, the vast distances, poor infrastructure, lack of reliable water supplies, lack of natural cover against attack from the air, huge distances to provide support, would all mitigate against attack in the forseeable future.
Don't think that attack against the more densely populated south-eastern part of the continent is practical, because the distances between Indonesia and China and Brisbane/Sydney/Melbourne are just far too great for existing air or sea transport and the inability to ensure supply to support the attacks, make that option even more impractical.
I think the best Australia can do for itself is to encourage its own defence industries, to remove the dependence on its allies, and to prevent us being sold second-rate, rusted out, or over-priced new and used equipment. Sometimes I feel as though the yanks look upon us as an opportunity to print money.
Regards
Wombat
By: - 8th October 2002 at 00:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-10-02 AT 00:45 AM (GMT)]Guys, I don't mind telling you, I cried when I read what AF just wrote, are there people that ignorant still living in this world? Where I come from he'd be called a "Westy", these are people who hate everything not like them, they want it all and want to do nothing, complain when work is being taken up by New Australians, yet won't lift a finger to actually do any work at all. A typical example of the old "She'll be right mate" attitude. AF my friend, "She won't be right"!
I've made some very good friends here from Malaysia, and I've been to both of those countries (Malaysia and Indonesia), I've met some of the people that you claim don't care what we think, and you'd be suprised to know, they actually do care, especially in the Indonesian provences.
The only way the ADF is going to recover from its current maning troubles is to reintroduce conscription, which is a growing thought these days, to that end they have done so, by making people who have been unemployed for 6 months serve time in the Army reserves. I applaud this decission, conscriptio0n never hurt anyone, I have served my time in the Navy and would gladly do it all again, what have you done?
I also agree in the fact that we need to both produce locally and bid for more production of major products locally, the recent Tiger aquisition being sa very good call indeed, for now we are set to produce componants for all the Tigers hereas well as build EC's for the common market all out of Brissy A/p.
Sure we need to build up our forces, but not on any major scale that you are talking about. we need to regain certain asspects of our fighting force that we have just got rid of over the last 20 years.
Guys we need a minimum of 100 new combat planes if we are going to be effective. The Hornets are due to retire in 2015 and the pigs in 2020 that's the official stance at the moment, and now with the RNZAF combat force gone, no doubt that we'd have to arrange patrolls over NZ as well. so regardless of what happens, we are going to need every one of those 100 planes to be effective.
And back to the B-1's: sure we bought the LPA's in a sorry state, what makes you think that the RAAF are going to make that same mistake? Besides, sure the Indonesians have a good inventory, but they don't actually have the equipment on strength. most of the F-16's are sorely needing spares same with most of the other planes, about the only thing they can arm and throw at us continiously are the SF-260's because they could caniblise civvy ones. As for their Navy, ha forget it, they are a green water navy bordering on becoming a brown water capability, ours is still a Blue water combat force. Only our Army are on the verge of capability loss, but that is not for this board.
Give me coffee and no-one gets hurt!
By: - 8th October 2002 at 04:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-10-02 AT 04:57 AM (GMT)] First of all Arthur where did I say I think we should have a massive army ?
I don't think adding conventional cruise missle technology to the VLS on our EXISTING fleet or replacing our EXISTING Leopard 1s with a more modern tank ( one that CAN fight at night ) can automatically mean a huge increase in manpower,where is this HUGE army that is envisaged with theese changes?
With regards to funding I agree maybe it might be hard for us , but it does not mean it is not possible without raising taxes ( maybe if our procurement process was run better e.g Not running our A.R.H competition for tender TWICE!) Then again maybe I"m wrong.
I don't think that Malaysia or Indonesia want to "invade" us I just think that our blokes should hav the best kit for the job,even if another country gets there nose out of joint, its not there blokes going into harms way in East Timor or contributing to a strike on Iraq or the war on terror ( all current or possible scenarios for the ADF )And when I say assert I mean by providing support for stability & democracy e.g peacekeeping or diplomatic advice, and not changing our head of state so they like us better as some seem to think is a good idea.
I do agree that Australia probably does't need the B-1, but I do think we need replacements for our combat aircraft with significant range & dominance.
By: - 8th October 2002 at 08:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
im goingto diagree with you there Ja
conscription in the modern western world is defintely on the out, it means that people whio don't wnat to be in the military are in the military and witht eh high tech weapons that are out there you don't have the time to trian (expensive) the conscripts to the modern stnadard beofre you loose them to civilian life. the military spends millions in training people and if they were just conscirpts then the military would ahve wasted millions trainging them.
conscription will make the goverment unpopular, look at americ ain vietnam, for example the troops didn't want to be there.
the whole point of the military is that it is voluntary.
yes we need more peole in the military and hence the military should ciompete on the jobs market and pay people a much better wage, provide better comforts (liek houses)a nd give the peole more persoanl time (ie shorter deployments, etc).
the military is a normal employer and hence should be consider a job and hence pay real market wages
herith beginith the fight }> :D }>
rabie :9
By: - 9th October 2002 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: B1B Lancer set for RAAF ? Fact or Fiction ?
Garry: Sorry to sound Cheeky, but it has been in the talks for somnetime now, a detachment of RAAF going over there and just helping out in local security matters, nothing serious, similar to what the Kahu's did when they were here.
Rabs: More and More people that I talk to over here are actually liking the idea of re-introduction of conscription, the benifits really do out weigh the costs and it would make people more employable, employers would rather someone who has had disipline instilled in them rather than someone fresh off the street. I don't know about where you are, but here kids get snapped up if they have worked at McDonalds simply because of the disipling and training that they have had, same with the military.
AF: Yes we doo need something to replace our failing fleet, but not these as you now see (we are realists on this board), and as for the TLAM's well we need our fleet fully funtional first, and that includes the Subs. I admit that I am one to back TALM's for the collins but being a realist, it will never happen.
Give me coffee and no-one gets hurt!
Posts: 59
By: astron - 3rd October 2002 at 03:04
I heard/read the Australian RAAF is being offered B1B Lancer Intercontinental Bombers to replace the F-111's they have and until the F-22 or JSF comes into servive . Any truth to it ?