SU-27

[HealzDevo]

The Russians though have been giving some of these away to other Airforces, Indonesia has got them, and the RAAF has vitually lost our only effective fighter against them- the F-111. There needs to be more fighters like it however, no-one has tackled the problem of creating a fighter just as good. It is okay for the Americans as they have a lot of money, Airforce bases etc. everywhere to defend themselves but Australia doesn't and therefore Australia needs the long-range fighters. Even aerial refueling doesn't really work that well in extending the FA-18s reach over the whole of Australia. The F-111 is a proven aircraft, and we won't get its replacement until 2015 or more- an aircraft designed to replace the F/A-18 Hornet in US service. Therefore it is doubtful whether it will meet Australia's need for a long-range fighter. Maybe it is time Australia started shoping around rather than going straight to the US. Russia being a country with areas similar to Australia in remoteness may have what Australia needs to use to maintain an effective airforce. Australia's F-111 will also be retired before the replacement is due in service, leaving us without this capability. Some of the airforces on Australia's back door-step are armed with this aircraft as well as other Soviet designs.

 

[Glider]

| dont want to worry you, but if your banking on F111 to take on Su27 then you are on a loser. The F111 is a strike plane and unless I am mistaken the ones in the RAAF are modified A versions well behind the slope when it comes to ability.

 

[evangilder]

I agree with Glider. The F-111 is an excellent ground attack and strike aircraft, but it is no match for modern fighters. Remember that the F-111 is 1960s technology. They are expensive to maintain and prone to compressor stalls. The F models are the fastest ones and can outrun almost any airplane below 2000 feet, but they use a lot of fuel to do so.

The Hornet is a much better fit to go after modern fighters. It may not have the range of the F-111, but normal fighters don't have as much range as strike aircraft.

Although I do know about an F-111 that took out an F-16 during an exercise with an extreme method, that would not be a normal occurance.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My father-in-law has several hundred hours in F-111s. He said it was one of the fastest aircraft he ever flew. If it was made out of different material it would eventually go mach 3, but it was no dogfighter and was not very maneuvable, so he says.....

 

[Glider]

Extreme situations are very enjoyable. We had a Buccaneer that somehow got behind an F5 aggressor in a Red Flag exercise and stayed there for a few glorious seconds.
Buccaneer's weren't armed so the F5 pilot would have been safe but as our pilot pointed out, the safest place was behind him so he stayed there as long as he could.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes the F-111 could not outfly a Su-27 or Mig-29 or hell even any of the next generation Russian fighters. As Glider said it was a strike aircraft and not a fighter in that sence.

You can go to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC and see the X-29.

 

[HealzDevo]

I was meaning that we need that to help us cover our coast, plus it is the only long-range one we have that can hope to intercept any aircraft along our coast. If the US can design Australia a long-range fighter then they should rather than short-range stuff they are currently designing like the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-22 Raptor.

 

[plan_D]

Why do you need long-range aircraft for defence? Long range is for offence, the Lightning had an extremely short range and was a perfect defensive machine.

Short-range, fast and reliable is what a defensive aircraft needs to be.

 

[evangilder]

I think the days of the long range US fighter are gone. Carriers will get attack aircraft and fighters close enough to the action. Big bombers and cruise missiles are also effective. Warfare has changed and the need for long range fighters is no longer there.

 

[Glider]

Australia is a big place with a small population so any fighter needs a decent range. A Lightning type plane would be close to useless as it couldn't cover the area that needed defending. In the 60's the Australians bought the Mirage 3 and found that was a major weakness.
Cruise missiles etc have changed the battlefield and one fallout is that the enemy can hit you from further out. With that in mind you need to have an air force that can operate a good distance from base. I am not saying that you should buy an F14 type plane but modern fighters do have a good range and can cover the requirement.
For Switzerland go for a short range fighter, for Australia you need something bigger.

 

[plan_D]

It's a big place and a sparsely populated place. It doesn't need to cover the entire terrain, just the coast. Well positioned airfields can solve the problem of short range combat aircraft.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Precisely the position that the Canadian Air Force is in these days. Two fighter bases to cover the entire country. One in Québec, the other in Alberta. They're both operating F-18's. It's a stretch, and as has already been proven on more than one occasion, it's not nearly enough for a country this size. They just can't always get to where they need to be quickly enough, and by the time they get there they're in need of fuel in order to be of much use.

I tend to agree with most of what plan_D is saying. With enough squadrons properly positioned, short/medium-range fighters should provide adequate protection. Even to a country the size of Australia. Small population or no, that's still a huge chunk of geography. Bases don't necessarily need to be positioned only near the population centres.

 

[evangilder]

But if you are talkiung about defense, you would be defending against an assault coming from the outside, hence the need for short range from coastal regions. You could also acquire tanker aircraft to allow greater distances and loiter in spots that are away from the action but available to the fighters and to allow ferrying of fighters from place to place.

 

[Glider]

I think Evan has it right. With short range planes by definition you must be close to population areas. A Medium size plane with air to air refueling should cover it.
As for the situation in Canada, two bases for that size of a country is really stretching things. It must take hours to react to a situation which is very risky in the current environment.

 

[Nonskimmer]

All perfectly sensible reasons to increase defence spending and start building up the forces again, but in the meantime it's all we have. No one ever said we were overly bright, I'm afraid.

 

[evangilder]

I am sure that if push came to shove, you could ask your friends to the south for help though, NS. Any threat to you guys would also be a threat to us.

 

[Nonskimmer]

And that's exactly what our government is counting on. That's the single biggest reason why the military of Canada has been allowed to languish and decay the way it has been over the last forty years. Ottawa is banking on the US of A to come to the rescue. It makes us nothing more than cheap freeloaders. Some neighbours, huh?

Sorry guys, please carry on with the intended discussion. I always seem to do this. Sorry.

 

[evangilder]

No worries. I understand where you are coming from. It sucks that the government there has that mentality.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Well, I'll just say this one last thing on the subject. If any invasion does come to us, a lot of us are pretty certain it'll be the States. Sooner or later Uncle Sam is going to have had enough of his goofy neighbour upstairs, and decide to clean his house for him.

Regardless of who it is or where it happens, we're going to get our asses handed to us if we don't soon wake up. It's a sad fact.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I personally think the F-18 can do just what Australia needs. If they dont like what the US is producing buy from some place else or build your own.