The F-35 would be a loser at 25 million apiece, but a disaster at its current price.

Well no one thinks of fuel economy when designing attack aircraft, but having to launch tankers all the time is not efficient. Our 40 hour mission usually involved at least 2 and possibly 3 refuelings. They were damn expensive and wasted a lot of fuel just getting the tankers airborne and in position. With combat aircraft it is a dangerous time refueling near a combat zone.

It should be remembered that the RAAF F-111’s pretty much terrified Nations in the Asia-Pac region and on several occasions helped bring Indonesia & others to their senses. The threat was enough to guarantee East Timor’s independence. To drive the point home, a couple were deployed to East Timor as part of the International Force for East Timor.

I was told that Indonesian defense minister Benny Murdani, told Kim Beazley (AU defense Minister @ that time) that when other Ministers became upset with Australia during Indonesian cabinet meetings, Murdani would say “You do realise the Australians have a bomber that can put a bomb through that window on to the table here in front of us?” which apparently ended the discussion. 🙂 An F-111 was also used to sink the the North Korean ship Pong Su with 2 GBU-10 Paveway II laser-guided bombs.

We also don’t have a replacement for the EW Raven variant.

Something else I haven’t heard mentioned is that the F-35 will also require an increase of about double of our air tankers due to it’s short operation range. Just to ferry an empty F- 35 from Sydney to Perth will require at least 2 refueling’s. The F-111 could make the trip in ferry mode without refueling.

The Aussie F-111C (& later) variant had capabilities the US models didn’t. Such as the capability to launch the Harpoon anti-ship missile, and the Popeye stand-off missile.

The RAAF was not designated FB-111 because it couldn’t carry 2 AGM-69 SRAM nuclear missiles in the weapons bay (mainly because the bay had been reconfigured for Harpoon & Popeye). What wasn’t mentioned was that it could carry 4 AGM-69 SRAM’s on the pylons & had the avionics to do so (arming & launch control computer etc.) It could also carry AIM-7 Sparrow’s for self defense, which the USAF decided against.

I’d put an RAAF F-111 & crew against an F-35 any day! F-35 would be toast. Wouldn’t even need missiles. The 20mm M61 cannon w/ 2,100 rounds would rip one to shreds!

*shrug*

Politicians are morons. Anyone intelligent wouldn’t want the job! (With perhaps a few notable & rare exceptions)! 😉

I don’t understand why politicians don’t understand the logic of manufacturing vital defense equipment in country, even if it is under license. It is always a good idea to have the shortest supply lines possible.

We know the FB-111’s very well, were even involved in the design/construction & maintenance in the USA (I have photo’s). They have excellent range & weapon versatility & capacity. They can fly very high & very low (avoiding radar & visual sighting)… etc, etc.

Politicians are ALL (with a very few exceptions) asshole morons with vested interest in their own bank accounts! Nothing else matters to them.

In another step on the road to poverty we shot down a quadcopter drone with a Patriot missile. The Patriot tops a million bucks and the drone probably didn’t cost $1K. A 10-gauge goose gun with a 36-inch barrel would have been a better choice.

Of course the F-111 was far better suited for Australia than any of the above, but what’s done is done…

Would have been far cheaper to completely rebuild-refit the FB-111’s. We know their service life could have easily, and far more cheaply, be extended to 2030. *shrug* That’s just 1 example.

Greed wins every time. Common sense & value for that $ come last, as usual now.