Reply With QuoteAFAIK, its because the USA gave them to us,,,
interesting you saying that 5 are NOT to be scrapped,,,
am quite happy to pay the 5 mill if we get to display them publically,,
Master
Saw on the news last night that all the retired F111 (with the exception of 5 of them) are being torn apart and scrapped at Amberley. Not sure how many tonnes of ally on an F111 but at 60cents a kilo or so, who wouldn't chip in for a great garden ornament?
Not sure why they wouldn't sell them like the old Migs to collectors and enthusiasts, and why they need the US to give permission to keep them? Will cost over $1million per aircraft to make them "safe" for display, what about donating them as is or for scrap prices to RSL or other interested parties like they did with the retired tanks, seems like such a waste.
If it was worth $5k in scrap I'd buy one. Park it in the front yard and intimidate the neighbours!
The MOD Father
AFAIK, its because the USA gave them to us,,,
interesting you saying that 5 are NOT to be scrapped,,,
am quite happy to pay the 5 mill if we get to display them publically,,
"How long since you've visited The Good Oil?"
'93 V8 Rossi
'97 to '07. sold.
'01 V8 D2
'06 to 10. written off.
'03 4.6 V8 HSE D2a with Tornado ECM
'10 to '21
'16.5 RRS SDV8
'21 to Infinity and Beyond!
1988 Isuzu Bus. V10 15L NA Diesel
Home is where you park it..
[IMG][/IMG]
Master
that would be so cool to have one for 5 grand, i would rig the play station up and play air combat. The kids would love it.
Major Part of the Heart and Soul of AULRO
SubscriberYou can read about QAM's efforts to obtain one here:
QAM - F-111
and PLEASE sign the petition.
It's not broken. It's "Carbon Neutral".
gone
1993 Defender 110 ute "Doris"
1994 Range Rover Vogue LSE "The Luxo-Barge"
1994 Defender 130 HCPU "Rolly"
1996 Discovery 1
current
1995 Defender 130 HCPU and Suzuki GSX1400
RoverLord
They were designed as a nuclear capable delivery system, and this was one of the conditions of the sale. I can not imagine, however, that this permission would not be forthcoming. But worth noting that there is no current aircraft with the same capabilities, and it is likely that they have some structural or system details that are still secret.Originally Posted by pfillery
John
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
AULRO Holiday Reward Points Winner!
well look what the poms did with a couple of mothballed Vs
AT REST
I seem to remember a LOT of money was paid for this gift
Martyn
1998 Defender
2008 Madigan
2010 Cape York
2012 Beadell, Bombs and other Blasts
2014 Centreing the Simpson
VKS-737 mob 7669
Major Part of the Heart and Soul of AULRO
Subscriber
The -G's are nuclear capable (or were, at any rate) not the -C's.
The USA would be very unlikely to make exceptions on that sort of thing as they won;t want to set any sort of precedent.
Aust Government stated reason include asbestos risk... so I guess there musn't be an asbestos brake pads on those land rovers they got rid of eh ?
It's not broken. It's "Carbon Neutral".
gone
1993 Defender 110 ute "Doris"
1994 Range Rover Vogue LSE "The Luxo-Barge"
1994 Defender 130 HCPU "Rolly"
1996 Discovery 1
current
1995 Defender 130 HCPU and Suzuki GSX1400
Fossicker
There's a lot of history to these stunning aircraft. I'd give my right nut for a ride in one. I'd kill for one in my front yard!
They were on a hiding to nowhere when the SAC and USN were told to come up with a single aircraft. They deliberately put up specs that meant no single aircraft wold ever work - still the Grumman F111 did the job. The most exciting aircraft ever built.
Got to stand inside the bomb bay of one once (with a RAAF mate) before the guy with the guard dog arrived and ordered us to move away.
Gotta love the TFR.
I have a book called Flight of the Pig...a fantastic book of the history of the F111 in the RAAF.
Wizard
It has been a standard clause in all USA defence equipment contracts going back many decades that they retain the right to decide what happens to the kit once the purchaser has finished with it.
They never used to be concerned with it except in special circumstances however over the last decade USA government have become very active in enforcing this clause.
There is a very active (paranoid) USA government department which now exists just to enforce this. If you can obtain permission to keep the kit the associated paper work goes on as they can say where you keep it and what you can do with it.
Is now enough of a problem that the Canadian government has a clause in their latest naval contracts that USA sourced kit is only to be specified where there is no non USA equilivant available.
Posting Permissions
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks