In my opinion the F-111 was simply retired to continue the cycle of rearmament that characterizes the US military complex.

The F-111 probably even in 2008 can deal with the vast majority of threats the F-15E can defeat, with ASRAAMs, cruise missiles, AMRAAMs and new radars the F-111 very likely can remain a potent weapon for at least ten years more.

MiG-23MLD

I second your thoughts and agree 100% on the mater of the F-111.

I have seen the speed, terrain-following and weapons load capability of the ‘Pig’ from a grunts view on the ground, as I have seen F/A-18A Hornets, trying to do the same job!

The Hornet has nothing on the ‘Pig’ in these areas!

Regards
Pioneer

I am very glad to hear that the new Government is looking at carrying out a real and proper evaluation of both the so-called stop-gap F-111 replacement (the F/A-18E Super Hornet!) and the RAAF`s part in the JSF.

The decision by the late-Australian Federal Government was totally political!
Why did they not smartly and fairly evaluate all options for the ‘Stop-gap’ requirement?
Why was it that the ‘Boeing Super Hornet’ able to be picked out of the hat without a proper evaluation process?
I have only two words – ‘Andrew Peacock’

Andrew Peacock was for many years the Federal Liberal Party’s leader, he had his finger in the pie when it came to defence maters in more than one way!

And low and behold – after his so called political retirement, what does he become?????
– the ‘C.E.O’ of Boeing Australia’

And who wins the multi-billion $ ‘Stop Gap’ fighter competition, without correct protocol, evaluation, that the RAAF has done for every previous aircraft before it?

You guessed it Boeing!

Unfortunately for the ADF and the personnel who serve in it, have been undermined by their top brass being overly subordinate to the bullish and stand over ways of the Howard Government for 13-years to long!

Bring on the investigation I say!
Bring on real evaluation of the best equipment that our servicemen deserve and should have to carry out their primary role – the defence of Australia!

I stand by my belief that the F-22 is what Australia needs
I stand by my belief that the F/A-18E Super Hornet is not the best stop-gap measure!

I personally belief that the RAAF should consider leasing the likes of the F-15E Strike Eagle, directly from the USAF (as we did with the McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II’s, whilst waiting for our F-111C’s!!!)
For when compared to the Super Hornet, the F-15E is superior in:
– Range
– Warload
– An outstanding air-to-air combat record – ‘without loss’
– It is an established design that has been in service for many years (= minimal risk)
– Other Air Forces in the Pacific use or will be using it.

Why would the RAAF purchase a ‘stop-gap’ measure aircraft worth billions of $$$$.
When it is only to be replaced by another aircraft, why wouldn’t the RAAF simply just lease the stop-gap design????

Regards
Pioneer

” they will never ever buy a Navy aircraft!”

After the horrible fiascos they had when buying the Navy-designed F-4 Phantom and A-7 Corsair? 😀

And do not forget the Douglas B-66 Destroyer – based on the US Navy’s Douglas A-3 Warrior

The Douglas A-1 Skyraider!

I think the former Soviet Union’s military would have had a very thorough and effective system of decoys.
After all the former Soviets knows and learned better than any other military, what when they had the largest portion of its aircraft destroyed on the ground by a massive and effective pre-emptive air strike by the Luftwaffe.
What with their massive production capability, turning out truck, aircraft artillery and tanks, missiles etc……which they would keep in service after continues improvements and upgrades.
These would have made for many ‘real-life’ decoys.

I have always wondered just how many ‘real’ aircraft NATO would have really destroyed on the ground????
Would NATO intelligence been over optimistic about its strike – Just as the Nazi’s were and yet hordes of endless troops, armour and aircraft would always challenge then again and again – and wear them down.

Anyone got pictures of Soviet decoys??

Regards
Pioneer

Well, the Su-24 obviously. It fell short of the F-111’s performance in some ways, but that might have been a smart design decision rather than incompetence if you consider how troublesome these capabilities proved on the American airframe. Top speed was limited by fixed intakes on the Su-24 and it used less fuel efficient turbojet engines so range was inferior as well. However, given that the intakes on the F-111 went through several revisions before they were satisfactory and the TF-30 turbofans had well documented issues it is possible that Sukhoi considered these technologies too immature and not worth the bother.

I think the Soviet learned much from the US experience of the TFX / F-111 program
Namely the Su-24 ‘Fencer’ was designed from the outset as an introduction/strike aircraft from the outset!
The ‘Fencer’ design had no fantasy about being a jack of all trades like the poor old TFX design requirements which expected an 80,000 lb design to fly air-to-air fighter missions, carrier-based interceptor missions and strike role.
No the ‘Fencer’ was a strike aircraft through and through, which was easy to adapt to reconnaissance and EW missions as an improvised after thought.

Although I must say, I am very surprised with the Soviets way of maximizing its designs, that it never came up with a modified long-range interceptor variant to replace the old Tu-128 ‘Fiddler’!

Regards
Pioneer