jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (02/28/91)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) A longish posting, begging Bill's indulgence. Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> asked, >>Why did we buy so many B-52s when we could have bought F-111s? then corrected herself, >Obviously, I misspoke here, since the B-52 production run ended >in 62, before the F-111 flew. True. The F-111 was in flight test in 1965, along about the time the B-52s first went to war -- and three years after the B-52 plant closed. >I should have written something like: >Why did we keep our B-52s once we got F-111s? >or >Why did we get F-111s when we could have bought more cheap B-52s? Well, there was the thought of using the FB-111 to replace the older B-52s (more on this below). But the B-52s would not have been so cheap after the line had been shut down -- and nobody had any idea how expensive the F-111 would be. The story of the TFX/F-111 project (Tactical Fighter Experimental) is a monumental comedy of errors. I suspect that a full retelling is beyond the tolerance of our moderator, especially since two books on the subject are available readily enough. Here's the gist of it. In this context, the key point is that the TFX originated with a TAC requirement (significantly, not SAC) for the logical successor to the F-105. In other words, a tactical bomber for the nuclear- strike mission at fairly short range (combat radius 540 nm for this mission profile, though capable of ferrying across the Atlantic at best-range speed). Fair enough. But they also wanted to make an air-superiority fighter (by the standards of the day -- high Mach at high altitude, and why maneuver when you've got this super radar?). And it was supposed to be usable by the Navy, too. The requirements piled up, many of them (as we can see today) damn near mutually exclusive, and some of them, such as preferring low-level supersonic penetration over even lower-level subsonic, not even very good ideas. In other words, they tried to make it all things for all people, and they were lucky to end up with anything for anybody. One of the stated goals for the FB-111A, a plane announced in 1965 and somewhat resembling the soon-to-be cancelled Navy F-111B (better than "General Hospital," eh?), was replacement of the B-52C through F. Some say that this announcement was just a political move to bury the already enormous and still growing cost of this managerially hamburgered program. Some 76 of the 450 or so F-111s were FB-111s. The story of this multi-billion-dollar pratfall is told in detail in Coulam, Robert F., "Illusions of choice: the F-111 and the problem of weapons acquisition reform," Princeton University Press (1977). This is a formidable yet readable treatment of all aspects of the project; you'll learn about management theory and practice as well as engine/ inlet mismatches and stress cracks. He offers abundant references in case you're doing a paper in business administration or military science or somesuch, or just want to read the original sources. It's kind of a sick story, but a compelling one. Unfortunately, one of the key lessons -- that avalanches of reports and office complexes full of overseers don't ensure success -- was at best half-learned and certainly was not propagated and generalized throughout the government. But I digress... Another book I have yet to dig up (referred to extensively in Coulam's footnotes) is Art, Robert J., "The TFX decision: McNamara and the military," Little, Brown (1968). --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
gabriele@riverdale.toronto.edu (Mark Gabriele ) (03/05/91)
From: gabriele@riverdale.toronto.edu (Mark Gabriele ) [brief discussion of the F-111 saga omitted] I was astonished to read in Tuesday's NYT about an F-111 that encountered an Iraqi helicopter in flight and had *no* armament suitable for dealing with it. How can it be that a plane that is ostensibly a *fighter* would have no cannon, no missiles, nothing? Can anyone illuminate this for me? (Note: the F-111 pilot thought fast and dropped a laser-guided 2000-lb BOMB on the helicopter - and actually hit it. Amazingly effective, both from a cost and kill standpoint, but hardly recommended dogfight procedure. I can just hear the preflight briefing: "Now if you've got to get into the furball, make sure you're on top....") =Mark (gabriele@hub.toronto.edu)
urbanf@tuura.UUCP (Urban Fredriksson) (03/05/91)
From: urbanf@tuura.UUCP (Urban Fredriksson)
Just want to add that there was a rather good
aircraft cancelled in favor of the F-111:
The British TSR-2. But the RAF never got any
F-111's anyway.
| Urban Fredriksson |"When waking a tiger, use a | I do NOT speak |
| Stockholm, Sweden | long stick." | for my employer! |flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower) (03/06/91)
From: flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower)
True the B2 is very, very expensive. However the prices I am aware of make
it about 4 times the cost of a commercial Boeing 747. Is this really way
out of line considering the R&D overhead loaded onto this project as well
as the sophisticated systems on this plane? (Also consider the volume
differential).
______________________________________________________________________________
Graham Flower ms 90-TT | Better to have convictions and act on
Hewlett-Packard 350 W Trimble Rd | them, even if they are wrong, than to
Microwave Semiconductor Division | waffle in indecision endlessly.
San Jose, California, 95131 |v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (03/06/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1991Mar4.204930.4811@cbnews.att.com>, gabriele@riverdale.toronto.edu (Mark Gabriele ) writes... > >I was astonished to read in Tuesday's NYT about an F-111 that >encountered an Iraqi helicopter in flight and had *no* armament >suitable for dealing with it. How can it be that a plane that is >ostensibly a *fighter* would have no cannon, no missiles, nothing? >Can anyone illuminate this for me? Originally it was intended to be a fighter for the Navy (using stand-off Eagle missiles (which evolved into the Phoenix.) Many aircraft have been called fighters when they were really attack planes (such as the F-105.) The F-111D model does carry the 20mm Vulcan cannon with 2084 rounds in the bomb bay (the largest capacity of rounds in any plane today so I've read.) At least some of the F-111's now carry Sidewinders on the wing pylons (resembling the way they are carried on F-15's.) Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/07/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: gabriele@riverdale.toronto.edu (Mark Gabriele ) >I was astonished to read in Tuesday's NYT about an F-111 that >encountered an Iraqi helicopter in flight and had *no* armament >suitable for dealing with it. How can it be that a plane that is >ostensibly a *fighter* would have no cannon, no missiles, nothing? Despite its designation, the F-111 is a bomber, not a fighter. It was originally meant to also serve as a heavy interceptor for the Navy, but that never came off. Like the F-105, the F-111's primary mission was tactical nuclear strike; unlike the F-105, the F-111 was developed after guns were discarded as obsolete weaponry (and before Vietnam caused some rethinking), so adding air-to-air armament requires reducing air-to-ground load. The reason it's not the B-111 (well, probably B-72 or thereabouts) is that the Strategic Air Command has exclusive rights to the letter B. :-) Well, not quite, but pretty close; neither the Navy nor the tactical-air people have ever been allowed to use B, even when talking about aircraft like the Skywarrior which were unquestionably strategic bombers. The reason it's not the A-111 (well, maybe A-8 or thereabouts) is that the USAF never voluntarily uses A; that letter is for inferior Navy aircraft, not glamorous USAF aircraft. (The A-10 was built only because the alternative -- giving the close-air-support mission to the Army -- was unquestionably worse.) -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (03/07/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) | I was astonished to read in Tuesday's NYT about an F-111 that | encountered an Iraqi helicopter in flight and had *no* armament | suitable for dealing with it. How can it be that a plane that is | ostensibly a *fighter* would have no cannon, no missiles, nothing? | Can anyone illuminate this for me? F-111 is no longer a fighter plane; almost all F-111s have been converted into FB-111A, which is a strategic bomber version. There may also be some ECM and reconnaissance versions of F-111s, but I am not sure. Steve Williams "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." -- Niels Bohr, Danish Scientist
emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) (03/13/91)
From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) I'd suspect it was an EF-111 Raven, an EW bird that doesn't carry any missiles, because it's loaded to the gills with EW stuff. Normally, EF-111's are supposed to be escorted by aircraft that CAN kill things. dave
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/13/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower) > True the B2 is very, very expensive. However the prices I am aware of make > it about 4 times the cost of a commercial Boeing 747... Be careful in such comparisons. The price of a 747 is known to include a *large* profit margin; it would fall sharply if there were some competition. (There is no other airliner anywhere near that size.) -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (03/13/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1991Mar7.013506.834@cbnews.att.com>, swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes... >F-111 is no longer a fighter plane; almost all F-111s have been converted >into FB-111A, which is a strategic bomber version. There may also be I'm afriad you have that backwards. The FB-111's are being rebuilt into tactical versions designated F-111G. Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (03/22/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >In article <1991Mar7.013506.834@cbnews.att.com>, swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil >(St eve Williams) writes... >>F-111 is no longer a fighter plane; almost all F-111s have been converted >>into FB-111A, which is a strategic bomber version. I take back what I said. There are other versions of F-111s beside the FB-111A version today. Steve Williams "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." -- Niels Bohr, Danish Scientist P.S. Looks like I must be on my way to being an expert!