mick@tasis.eecs.utas.edu.au (Michael Purvis) (08/10/90)
From: mick@tasis.eecs.utas.edu.au (Michael Purvis) There was some talk a little while ago about the F111...to quote "Fighting Jets": "The genesis of these superplanes (F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, etc...) of the 1970's and 1980's went back nearly 20 years-to the emerging saga of Vietnam, and to an interim aircraft that was embroiled in controversy from its inception. The U.S. DoD wanted an all-purpose plane to outduel any jet that tried to shoot it down. It also had to deliver bombs as reliably as the F-105 but to take off in half the distance. It should have the latest in electronics to skim automatically a few hundred feet above mountainous terrain and find a target no matter how miserable the weather. The DD (Defence Department) seeking a long production run to lower the cost of each jet, decreed that this new wonderplane should be the frontline fighter for both the Navy and Air Force. The result-was the General Dynamics F111, a 50-ton monster that was promptly dubbed the Aardvark. Its most unusual feature was the variable-sweep wing...at high speeds they automatically swept back into a delta shape for optimum performance beyond Mach 1. From the start, the Aardvark had problems. It was too unwieldy for dogfighting and far too big and heavy for the Navy's carriers. Its engines tended to lose power suddenly, and its smart new terrain- following radar often went awry. Gradually the new plane's mechanical troubles were eliminated, and the Aardvark became a reasonably effective all-weather attack aircraft." Hope this was informative...
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/15/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: mick@tasis.eecs.utas.edu.au (Michael Purvis) > From the start, the Aardvark had problems. It was too unwieldy for > dogfighting and far too big and heavy for the Navy's carriers... Actually, after strenuous efforts to improve its landing performance, it passed its carrier-compatibility trials... after the Navy version had already been cancelled (partly on grounds of carrier-compatibility problems!). Admittedly, it would have been usable only from the larger carriers. But the Navy did not want the F-111 and emphasized its problems very heavily and its virtues not at all. (The F-111B's specs, which it mostly met, were much more demanding than those of the F-14A that replaced it in Navy plans.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/21/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug15.032141.26086@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > >Actually, after strenuous efforts to improve its landing performance, it >passed its carrier-compatibility trials... after the Navy version had >already been cancelled (partly on grounds of carrier-compatibility >problems!). Admittedly, it would have been usable only from the larger >carriers. But the Navy did not want the F-111 and emphasized its problems >very heavily and its virtues not at all. (The F-111B's specs, which it >mostly met, were much more demanding than those of the F-14A that replaced >it in Navy plans.) > Why all the Navy bashing? The F-111 was not the plane the Navy wanted. Of course they will do everything possible to not have it forced on them. Any organization or person will do the same thing. Comparing the performance of the F-111 to almost any aircraft of the same generation would indicate it is not a fighter. Even the Air Force does not use them as fighters! As you point out in a later post the Air Force tried to avoid the F-4 but couldn't find a good reason. Although in that case there was not even any realistic alternatives on the drawing board at the time. Also depending upon wo you listen to, not everyone in the Air Force was displeased with the Phantom. With hindsight, looking at the record of the F-14, and the relative performance of the two airplanes, I think the Navy made a wise choice. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/23/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) >Comparing the performance of the F-111 to almost any aircraft of the >same generation would indicate it is not a fighter... Neither was the Missileer, the Navy aircraft that the F-111B superseded. They were *interceptors*, explicitly relying on high-performance missiles in lieu of aircraft dogfighting. The notion that the F-111B had to be a "fighter" for some reason was part of the Navy's anti-F-111B campaign, and ended up being carried over into the F-14 specs. Incidentally, the F-14 with the original engines is not *much* of a fighter; this was supposed to be corrected by improved engines, which quietly got shelved and forgotten once the F-111B was safely dead and buried. (Re-engining the F-14 is only now being revived, after a decade and a half of complaints about its lousy dogfighting performance...) >... As you point out in a later post >the Air Force tried to avoid the F-4 but couldn't find a good reason. >Although in that case there was not even any realistic alternatives on >the drawing board at the time... Actually, the USAF wanted more F-105s instead. They didn't get their way because the F-105 was basically a nuclear bomber, and McNamara insisted that they do more for their conventional capabilities. (In the Cuba missile crisis, the USAF was so ill-prepared for non-nuclear war that they had to borrow conventional bombs from the Navy.) In any event, the USAF being unable to pull a not-invented-here scam doesn't excuse the Navy's success at it. >With hindsight, looking at the record of the F-14, and the relative >performance of the two airplanes, I think the Navy made a wise choice. For the abruptly-revised mission, now once again including maneuvering combat, you are probably right. For the original interceptor mission, no way: the F-111B's range, payload, and loiter time were much greater. (It failed to meet its specs, but the F-14 failed to meet *its* specs by a larger margin, despite less-demanding specs.) Of course the Navy made a wise choice, since it defines what is "wise". Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) (08/23/90)
From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
HS> would have been usable only from the larger carriers. But the
HS> Navy did not want the F-111 and emphasized its problems very
HS> heavily and its virtues not at all. (The F-111B's specs, which
HS> it mostly met, were much more demanding than those of the F-14A
HS> that replaced it in Navy plans.)
The F-111b was a DOG, don't let anybody tell you different. Its
trans/super sonic manuverability was so bad they were worried if you
could turn it at all. This was an attack aircraft, and trying to make
it a fighter was the biggest mistake Mr. Macnamara (sp?) ever made.
dave@interlan.interlan.com (Dave Goldblatt) (08/23/90)
From: Dave Goldblatt <dave@interlan.interlan.com> In article <1990Aug15.032141.26086@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Actually, after strenuous efforts to improve its landing performance, it >passed its carrier-compatibility trials... after the Navy version had >already been cancelled (partly on grounds of carrier-compatibility >problems!). Well, from what I recall, the F-111 went through _land_ carrier-compatibility trials. It did NOT go through full carrier-qualification, primarily because it only flew off a carrier once, and I'm almost positive it only took off; a carrier landing was never attempted. I assume the Navy managed to kill the program before they were forced into trying it. But it DID take off once! The F-111 has proved to be a very capable platform for the Air Force, especially in its varied configurations (the EF-111, for example). The aircraft is continuing to undergo modernization today, including new avionics and radars. One of my main concerns regarding the NATF (assuming it is ever built) is that it is primarily an Air Force design, which will then be modified for the Navy's use. Start to sound familiar? One quote I saw stated that carrier-qualifying the NATF would add approximately 10,000-15,000 lbs. of weight to the aircraft. Just like the F-111. :-) -dg- -- "You can twist perceptions * Dave Goldblatt dave@interlan.com Reality won't budge..." * Diagnostic Engineering - Rush * Racal InterLan * Boxborough MA (508) 263-9929
ged@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Ged) (08/28/90)
From: ged@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Ged) Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) writes: > The F-111b was a DOG, don't let anybody tell you different. Its > trans/super sonic manuverability was so bad they were worried if you > could turn it at all. This was an attack aircraft, and trying to make > it a fighter was the biggest mistake Mr. Macnamara (sp?) ever made. > I still like the FB-111. Though it's 'fighter' capabilities may be swiftly falling behind in todays world, it can still shoot 6 nukes in different directions from 250 miles away from it's target. -- ********************* *This space for rent* *********************
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/28/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) > HS> ... (The F-111B's specs, which > HS> it mostly met, were much more demanding than those of the F-14A > HS> that replaced it in Navy plans.) > > The F-111b was a DOG, don't let anybody tell you different. Its > trans/super sonic manuverability was so bad they were worried if you > could turn it at all... So what? Ever looked at the specs of the aircraft it replaced in Navy plans, the Vought (?) Missileer? The Missileer was basically a *subsonic transport*, somewhat along the lines of the S-3 Viking, with a big radar and a bunch of big long-range missiles. This was at the time when missiles were king and dogfighting was out of fashion. The Navy requirement was for a fleet air-defence interceptor, basically a missile platform. Maneuverability was explicitly *not* a consideration. For a missile-platform interceptor, the requirement is to carry a big radar and a heavy load of missiles out to a good long standoff distance, and loiter there for quite a while. The F-111B did this extremely well. The F-14A carries a smaller and lighter radar and a considerably lighter load of missiles out to a shorter distance for a rather shorter loiter. For the missile-platform-interceptor mission, it is seriously inferior to the F-111B in almost every way. (It does win, I think, on ability to operate from smaller carriers, something the F-111B was not good at. Of course, the USN doesn't operate any of those any more...) At the time (possibly still), the USN had two groups of combat pilots, basically the bomber ("attack") pilots and the fighter pilots. It is not at all clear that the fighter pilots would have been the ones to fly the Missileer, since it was not at all what they were trained for. However, they definitely were the ones assigned to evaluate the F-111B. Assigning a bunch of pilots trained for dogfighting and supersonic maneuvering to evaluate a missile-platform interceptor was almost guaranteed to produce highly negative reports, regardless of the merits of the aircraft. > ...trying to make > it a fighter was the biggest mistake Mr. Macnamara (sp?) ever made. The idea that the USAF's long-range tactical bomber might also make a good missile platform for the Navy wasn't inherently ridiculous. Both missions basically called for long range, heavy payload, and long endurance. However, it *was* a major mistake, because too many of the details in the specs were incompatible. (For example, the USAF's foolish demand for sustained supersonic speed at sea level, and the USN's equally foolish demand for an escape capsule, were badly incompatible in a plane that had to fit on Navy carrier elevators. The escape capsule demanded side-by-side seating, making the aircraft wide, while the really fierce supersonic requirement dictated a very slim aircraft. The importance of these requirements can be judged from the lack of escape capsules on all subsequent Navy aircraft, and the lack of sustained-sea-level-supersonic performance in all subsequent USAF bombers.) Worse, the two services had absolutely no incentive to cooperate on producing a plane they could both live with, and so they didn't. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
lag@uafhp.uark.edu (Adrian Griffis) (09/02/90)
From: lag@uafhp.uark.edu (Adrian Griffis) In article <1990Aug23.014440.1382@cbnews.att.com>, Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) writes: > > The F-111b was a DOG, don't let anybody tell you different. Its > trans/super sonic manuverability was so bad they were worried if you > could turn it at all. This was an attack aircraft, and trying to make > it a fighter was the biggest mistake Mr. Macnamara (sp?) ever made. > If I remember correctly, The Great Book of Modern Warplanes says that in a little over 4000 F-111 missions in Vietnam, only 6 F-111's were lost to enemy fire. Granted, the plane is big and clumsy in air combat, and there were embarasing accidents early in it's history, but not many aircraft have a record like that. To shoot a plane down, you have to find it first, and it is NOT easy to find an aircraft flying 200 feet off the ground in nice weather, much less nasty weather. Even a B-1 is hard to find when it's terrain following. Unless I'm mistaken, the F-111 that was shot down over Libya was an EF-111, and was probably downed by a missle that could "home on jamming". There's nothing like emitting jamming signals to call attention to yourself. The other F-111's did not need the EF-111 to complete their mission and get back out. I think there's little doubt that F-111's are better off staying out of dog fights, but they are well suited for doing exactly that. They have their nich and they seem to perform very well in it. -L. Adrian Griffis (lag@uafhp.uark.edu)
Scott.Johnson@gatech.edu (Scott Johnson) (09/02/90)
From: gatech!p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org!Scott.Johnson@gatech.edu (Scott Johnson)
G> I still like the FB-111. Though it's 'fighter' capabilities may
G> be swiftly falling behind in todays world, it can still shoot 6
I do too, it is one of the most capable ATTACK aircraft in the
world. But the F-111B was a very different bird than the other variants,
and was a serious woof-woof. A plane that can gross 100,000lbs is NOT a
fighter. But then, how many planes on inventory could circumnavigate
Europe, attack, and make it back with only _2_ aireal (sp?) refuelings.military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/13/90)
From: p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org!Scott.Johnson (Scott Johnson)
DT> I would probably call any craft that effectively fulfills the
DT> fighter role a fighter, in spite of it heaviness or lightness.
But when it fails to fulfill its role, as the F-111B did? Or if
ALL it ever does is attack?dvlssd@zeus.cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) (03/13/91)
From: dvlssd@zeus.cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund)
About F111.
First :
The USAF has a small number of designations of aircrafts :
F : true fighters, attack-fighters and attack-airplane.
B : Bombers.
C : Transport and Cargo.
T : Training
U : Utility. Unusual. A catch-all or thing about U2-A
R : Reconnaisance.
Prefix to the above mentioned type designatorsm
E : It means that this a/c is a electronic warfare version
of a common mainstream a/c.
S : Strategic.Usuall in this meaning : Strategic Reconnaisance.
SR-71 and and also SB52C I think.
SB52 was a B52 with a reconnaisance pod with a crew of 2 ( ca )
in the bomb bay.
T : Tactical. Usuall before a R => Tactical Reconnaisance.
PUH This is a FAQ.
F111A Prototypes to the F111 family and also the first production
run of the new aircraft. In other word : no XF-111 has ever
existed.
42 converted to the USAF version of the Navys EA6.
The rest are still flying except for crashes, slaughtered
bodies and so one. To repair some crashed FB-111A the AF took
the rear of some prototypes for example.
F111B Was supposed to become the succesor to the F4 Phantom
in the navy. Equipped with Phoenix missiles, AWG-9 and
MK-82 iron bombs for the ground attack role.
One prototype built. Got to heavy.
F111C Australian version of the F111. 24 built and ordered.
4 ca in that batch was in reconnaisance version while stile
retainning all the ground attack capabilities
ie a lot of cameras in the bomb bay.
F111D Cosmic Aardvark. F111 with a advances CRT presentation system
in the cockpit. Advanced functions for navigating and putting
the bombs at target. The system was to much before its time
ie a lot of problem with reliability. The AF has gotten it in
order now. Stationed at Cannon Air Base in New Mexico ( right ? ).
The only F111 using the M61 Vulcan today. Everbody else has
some better use for the bomb bay.
F111E Heavy simplified version of the F111D. No CRT.
F111F F111E with much stronger engines. Stationed at Upper Heyford.
Equipped with Pave-Tack FLIR and laser designation system.
FB111A Strategic version of F111A. Equipped with precision nav-system.
This F111 together with the B70 Valkyrie was intended to
take SAC into the 90's.
95 ca built. Astro-navigation system. Converted to F111G now and
allocated to TAC.
F111K British version. After the MoD saw how the TFX went they cancelled
the contract and built the Tornado instead.
EF111A Electronic warfare version of the F111A.
The AF took 42 low-time F111A, refreshed the whole airframe,
throw out all the stuff inside. Instruments radars and so on.
Strengthed the tail, Insatlled more power.
Put on a big scanner ( the big hump on the tail )
and six big and strong jammers in the bomb bay.
Built for selective jamming. Ie if you are going to jam radars
then you will only jam that radar. A small little mishap :
Under the testing it happened a small little mishap :
Due to wrong programming one a/c jammed the TV- and
telephone-network in Californien. Cal went silent.
The newspappers went mad and called that a major shortcomming
of the project. When you plan your mission you look at SigInt
for the mission area and decids that and who will not be allowed
to get any useful done with their radars.
With info about the frequency of the threats you program
the scanner with its search-pattern.
And then you go of at business doing what you were supposed to
do. Obviously they had programmed in the wrong search-patterns.
EF111A are stationed at Upper Heyford and at Mountain Home.
All the versions of the F111 will be flying for a long time to go.
About Sidewinders on F111 : Well they are all using them now.
----------------------------------------------------------------
dvlssd@cs.umu.se, Stefan Skoglund I Tel +46 90 19 65 29
Ume, Sweden I