Talk:General Dynamics F-111
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments) |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
[edit] Names
You can't locate this page under F-111 Raven. You can't locate this page under F-111 Aardvark. You can't locate this page under F-111 Pig. None of those names are universal or widely accepted. All of them have some application. By all means create redirects from those other locations which refer to a little-used name which did not become official until after the aircraft was retired by the USAF; a name that was applied to a handful of Grumman converted electronic warfare versions; or the never-official but most common name. Tannin
I changed the article minorly to note that the aircraft's name "Aardvark" is not its official name, (in fact just a nickname used in the past by its crews, referring to its long snout). Why was this reverted to make it seem as if its name is what the plane is universally and officially known as? This is wrong, IMO. Explain, please. Graham 22:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The Aardvark name became official at the retirement ceremony of the type on 27 July 1996 according to [1] among others. It never bore that name officially in its USAF service life. —Morven 23:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was an Electronic Warfare Officer in the EF-111A in the late 1980s, and was then a program manager for the Raven at Headquarters, Air Combat Command at Langley AFB Virgina for several years.
F-111s were universally called 'Aardvarks' or 'Varks' by their crews for the entire life of the aircraft. This name became official on the F-111's retirement.
The EF-111A was offically given the name 'Raven' when it became operational and was refered to as 'The Raven' by those of us who flew it. We also called it the 'Spark Vark'. Prior to its official naming by the Air Force Grumman, the prime contractor, called it the 'Electric Fox' but I never heard anyone on the military side ever use this name.
I was stationed at Mt. Home AFB during 1979-1983, and worked in the weapons systems, and phased inspection sections (366 EMS). I also worked on the 4 aircraft sold to the Australian Government. Lastly, I did assisted with some of the conversions for the EF-111 program. Another nickname of the aircraft, and the off flightline cafeteria at Mountain Home AFB was "whispering death".
- I can't recall any popular names for the F-111 here in Australia, but it was (and is) certainly well-regarded. Perhaps a bit long in the tooth now, but still one impressive aircraft! --Surgeonsmate 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I recall reading a post by one of the original Australian F-111 pilots, who claimed they nicknamed the F-111 the 'Pig' as an unflattering comparison to the aircraft it replaced, the F-4. Certainly it is less manoeuvrable with a lower thrust/weight ratio. Unfortunately I cannot locate the link anymore. --cabdude 00:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Interceptor?
I think this place qualifies as an intercepter. (well, as well as it fits into any other category) It should be marked as such.
24.110.60.225 06:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any offical source for the claim that the EF-111 manuvered a Mirage F-1 into the ground? I'm a former EF-111A EWO who was (sadly) on the staff during the Gulf War. But I have to think that if an "offical" kill had been somehow credited to an EF-111 crew then we would have been aware of it at the time.
An EF-111 did indeed manuver an F-1 into the ground. It was on the first night of the air war (Jan 17). The pilot was Capt. Jim Denton (one reason I remember his name, it's similar to mine). As I recall him explaining afterwards, either RHAWS or Awacs alerted them, They rolled over and headed down, pulled out, the F-1 didn't. There's a footnote in the book The Fury of Desert Storm, by Bert Kinzey, on page 154 concerning this. "Oficially," it wasn't counted as a kill because the EF-111 was an un-armed aircraft. I was the 390th flight line expediter (assistant line chief) on the night in question. Jim Dent 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] F111 Operational History
While the nuclear-oriented F-111 was not ever used in action its stablemates all saw action at one time or another. The earlier versions earned the nick-name Whispering Death when completing raids that other US aircraft could not. Sadly several were lost due to unknown causes. Later on in the 1980s, the F111s and EF111s from Lakenheath and Upper Heyford, UK, provided the USAF component of Operation Eldorado Canyon against Libya. In the 1990s, these and other F111s saw further action in the Middle East during the Desert Storm operations against Iraq. The Australian F111s have so far not seen military action. They may, however, have taken part in support patrols over the ocean from time to time. Losses of F111s have reached double figures over the plane's career. Though it is believed none have been shot down by enemy aircraft; in SE Asia there were losses which in some cases believed to be due to ground fire. There are few novels which include F111s. A notable exception is Dale Brown's Chains of Command.
"From 1968 to 1973, the F111 was grounded several months because of excess losses of aircraft. By 1969, there had been 15 F111s downed by malfunction or enemy fire. The major malfunctions involved engine problems and problems with the terrain following radar (TFR) 8 of the F111s downed during the war were flown by crews that were captured or declared missing". [See: http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c160.htm].
Conversely, during operation Desert Storm an EF-111 was responsible for one of the first kills of the conflict as a maneuvering Raven caused a pursuing Iraqi Mirage to crash into the ground.
On a personal note, I live not far from Upper Heyford and frequently saw these fine machines flying over and at the USAF Open House Days. I remember the UH F111 and EF111 which crashed nearby. I was driving home from Oxford when I saw the Hummers and Helo's racing to the flaming wreckage of the Raven. Earlier, in 1986 I had seen the F111Fs trailing their tankers as they headed to Tripoli.
There is a website dedicated to Upper Heyford: http://www.raf-upper-heyford.org/Mishaps.html which also details crashes - 11 in total (though a newspaper report on that site claims 13). It starts with an F111 in Scotland while on low level training (1973). Other crashes include an F-111E [Tail Number 68-024] which crashed on 11th January 1973 not far from where I live in North Crawley. It caused quite a stir because the escape pod smashed into someone's greenhouse.
Other losses include one in Cumberland, one in the North Sea, and also in Llangadfan, Wales. One crashed at RAF Fairford, [79th TFS F-111E 68-082 on 25 March 1981], one in Blandford, Dorset. In 1990 on Feb 5th aircraft 68-0001, or "Balls 1" as it was more commonly referred to, crashed on the Wainfleet Range off Lincolnshire, UK, when its wingtip hit water. Both crew were killed. The last F-111E to be lost from Upper Heyford was Tail Number 68-052, on 17th September, 1992, ironically on the UH Base Perimeter.
Upper Heyford suffered two losses of the EF-111 Raven. First, EF-111A Tail Number 66-0023, crashed on 14th February, 1991, while on deployment in Saudi Arabia, the crew were killed. Apparently, it crashed during combat maneuvering while being mistakenly targeted by F-15. On a better note the last plane to be lost from UH - EF-111A TN 66-0056 crashed near the former RAF Bomber Command Finmere airfield on 2nd April 1992 (29th TFW, 42nd ECS) due to fuel duct failure; the crew's escape pod ejected properly and they were OK. However, the plane crashed on a car park causing a huge fire. Another few yards shorter and it would have smashed through the roof of the largest building for miles occupied by dozens of people working for the Dalgety company. It seems the crew had to leave the aircraft so they had no control over where it crashed. The plane had left the base only a short while earlier and so was fully fuelled though it carried no weapons.
Another couple of points. Mentioned in the main text is a nickname 'Pig'. I am not sure of this, as far as I know the F111 was sometimes known as the 'Earthpig' which is another reference to its mission, appearance and Aardvark is Afrikaans for "Earth Pig". Second, the F111 may have originally been designed for the US Navy as an interceptor but when that service rejected the plane it was left to the USAF to take it up. Their designations are sometimes confusing but I doubt you could describe any of the USAF (or Australian) versions as anything other than a bomber or strike aircraft. Some recce is also carried out and Sidewinders have been carried but only for self-defence.
The EF-111 Ravens now reside among other classic types in the dusty rows of Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) formerly known as Military Aircraft and Storage Disposition Center (MASDC). AMARC is located in the Davis-Monthan AFB out in the Arizona desert.
As to its capabilities see: Future Of Airborne Tactical Jamming at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/AMW.htm
Nobody knows for sure just how fast the 'Vark could go. Its speed was limited by the windscreen which was made out of acrylic to save weight. At high speeds friction-generated heat becomes the limiting factor, and there's a warning light and 300 sec countdown if the temp sensor becomes unhappy. Officially the limit is mach 2.2 at altitude, and at sea level the sound barrier gets torn to shreds. Most missions were flown transonic though to maximise airframe life.
[edit] F/B-111
I seem to recall seeing something on TV a few years ago that called it the F/B-111. Was I confusing it with something else? The Matt Feldman Experience! 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- FB-111A was one of the F-111 variants. What's your question? - Emt147 Burninate! 02:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AGNTSA
I'm not going to edit war. But does anyone spot the problem with this statement? And I'm referring to the content, not the grammar.
The key missing requirement that had been decisive in every prior air war, but was thought to be obsolete by the missle age, was maneuverability in a dogfight.
--Mmx1 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd sort out the grammar first and see if a contentious phrase is still there at the end. GraemeLeggett 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to kick a hornet's nest here, but will the mediation process reduce the redundancy of the F-111B section and the Lessons of the F-111B Cancellation section? --Dual Freq 16:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- This article reads a bit like a Robert McNamara hit piece. Does the M16 rifle or JSF page have this sort of criticism as well? Seems much of this is redundant, and some could be moved to his page. No need to spread controversy amongst the F-111, F-14 and McNamara articles. It seems that the F-111 failure as a fighter is overshadowed by its success as a strike aircraft. --Dual Freq 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, after skimming the McNamara article, it speaks rather favorably about the TFX issue, using words like "ahead of its time" and comparing it to other multi-role aircraft in the future. Seems to sharply contrast what is in this article. Seems like some of the POV could be toned down a bit, duplicate material could be removed and more sources could be cited. For a 53k article to only have 4 references seems a bit out of balance. I'd consider editing some of the duplicate material out, but I wanted to mention it here first since there is an open mediation issue. --Dual Freq 23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Uh oh, I'd better check it out. It was supposed to sound like a hit piece. It was a miracle McNamara didn't mess up the F-111 worse than he did. --matador300 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
ARGHHHHH. DANG THAT MMX1! HE f_)*&)(*&d it up again! He HAD to get in his POV that there was nothing wrong with the maneuverability (F-14 is not a dogfighter madnesss). I'd go back there and restore my (wiarthurhu) version of that section that replace a section that was not written by an aircraft writer. I was a bit harsh, but McNamara really did screw up badly. Not to mention Sheridan, Cheyanne, MBT-70, shillelegh, did I forget anything?? He does have a point about the JSF though. Can't you guys do SOMETHING about MMX1 before he breaks anything else important while nobody is looking. He was going around deleting the weapons system (F-111) defence flop pages last I saw him. --matador300 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it make sense, given the length of this article and the relatively tangential nature of some of the historical controversy to the design of the aircraft itself, to separate TFX Program as a separate entity, and allow the F-111 entry to remain about the resultant aircraft and its design? ArgentLA 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me in principle - could you be more exact on just what sections you think should be moved and what should remain here (and/or be summarised with a pointer to the main TFX article)? Cheers, Ian Rose 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Anything not relating to the operational F-111 aircraft. E.g. the F-111B controversy, and most of the development history. That would be taken down to a single paragraph with a
- link. As a parallel, look at F/A-18 Hornet, YF-17 Cobra, and Light Weight Fighter. Information is segregated along the procured aircraft and its procurement history, the prototype, and the program that resulted in the prototype.--Mmx1 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with TFX split, maybe the EF-111 stuff could be split as well similar to A-6 Intruder and EA-6B Prowler. Dual Freq 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. The general rule of thumb seems to be that as long as there's sufficient material to break out, go ahead and do it. Seeing as how you've already worked out a prototype; go ahead and implement it. --Mmx1 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, User:Dual Freq/EF-111 is the prototype, specs are 99% duplicated from F-111. I noticed that there was a bit of controversy on this talk page (above) regarding naming of this article, so I'd like to ask for a consensus on the new article's name. EF-111A Raven was as noted unacceptable above, so what about General Dynamics EF-111 or General Dynamics EF-111A? (Actually conversion was done by Grumman, original F-111A was done by General Dynamics, so I don't know if that would work.) I know it's only 42 aircraft vs the 100+ EA-6B's but there seems like enough material to split judging by the resulting example page. I'll copy the sample in if there is some agreement in article name.
- Raven was unacceptable for the F-111, but it's the official name for the EF-111A and I see no problems with EF-111A Raven for the new article. By Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(aircraft), no manufacturer name is needed if a name is present.--Mmx1 01:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Split to EF-111A Raven. Someone may want to double check what I left in this article to see if it is adequate. --Dual Freq 01:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Australia
"During the first Gulf War in 1991 the United States Government asked Australia to deploy RF-111 aircraft to the Persian Gulf. This request was denied as the Australian government judged that these aircraft were too important to Australia's security to risk in a distant war."
Actually, my recollection is that the request for RF-111C aircraft was specifically to provide battle damage assessment to aid decisions on re-visiting targets. I also recall that the "real" reason (discussed openly in the media) was that Prime Minister Hawke had earlier given a committment to the Left faction of the ALP (in Victoria, I think) to commit no further military resources to the Gulf. I'd have to track down references but I'm pretty sure that's how it played. --Mike Funnell 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I heard the same thing too and none of Australia's ground forces were known to have been deployed. It was a strictly Navy show, providing AAW escort for the USS Midway (CV-41) in the form of an FFG and an speedily upgraded DDG (fitted with CWIS), and also providing Mine Countermeasures in the form of the Navy Clearance Diving Team 3. NiceDoggie 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] F-111 Australian emergency landing
July 2006. An RAAF F-111 landed on its belly after the nose wheel fell off. There is some very good footage of the plane sparking to a halt.
This crash landing on July 18, 2006 should be deleted from the article. The F-111 dropped a hook and successfully snagged a line that quickly stopped the aircraft. Sleigh 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem notable, I can't imagine that an encyclopedia article should include a list of emergency landings made by any type of aircraft. There must be hundreds of emergency landings by 737, 757's etc. We certainly wouldn't list them unless we were trying to replace the NTSB database with wikipedia. --Dual Freq 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that. I only added the link on the talk page for interests sake. Ozdaren 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just had a look back through the different versions of the article. As the last remaining examples of this aircrafft I believe it should be kept. It is only a minor footnote to a long service career, however it adds colour to the article and does not detract from its overall encylopædic quality. The information about causing a sonic boom is even less noteworthy and yet you left that in place. Ozdaren 13:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Guys, I tend to agree with Ozdaren above. If the emergency landing isn't noteworthy, the sonic boom breaking a few windows isn't either. Suggest both stay or both go. Also, whether or not we decide to include some text about the emergency landing, I don't see why we shouldn't keep the news footage as a link, it's a recent/decent bit of film. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree, there must be dozens of incidents involving various aircraft breaking the sound barrier, especially in Europe during the cold war. It's probably not notable to list all of those either. Both should go, just because I didn't remove it doesn't mean that I endorese its inclusion. I still don't see how a landing gear incident is still not notable, just because there is video of an event doesn't make it noteworthy. That's what you-tube is for, this is an encyclopedia. There are many fatal accidents for different aircraft and only the most notable are listed. The EA-6B cable car incident for example, it is listed, but there are many more fatal accidents involving EA-6B's but they are not listed, only noted that many occurred. This is a single, non-fatal accident, unless it results in the decommissioning and replacement of the Australian F-111, I still don't think it is notable for inclusion in the article. Inclusion on the Talk page is fine with me. Dual Freq 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I find your comment on youtube to be very interesting. Does this mean if I had a still shot of this aeroplane sparking to a halt it would be included? It brings up a future avenue of debate. Still versus moving images. In any case I'm happy with the entry on the talk page. Ozdaren 05:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you have a video that is public domain, or not copyrighted, feel free to add it to Wikimedia commons commons:Category:Video. My comment about you-tube should not deter you from contributing free material to this project. As for notability, I find this page to be more notable. It contains a list of 115 names of contractor test pilots, USN, USAF and RAAF crews who lost their lives flying the F-111. Another page notes the 1999 loss of 2 RAAF airmen in an F-111G. I certainly don't mean to downplay the expert landing that the RAAF pilot made shown in the video. 115 dead flying F-111 and I don't think a single crash is listed on the main page of this article. This PDF from Jan 2001 shows 136 F-111's attritted how many of those were noteworthy? Only one crash is on the main page of this article. Maybe I'll look in to these oversights. Dual Freq 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Influence on Soviet engineers
"Its design was highly influential, particularly for Soviet engineers..." What is the evidence/source for this statement? What part of F-111's design was influential? Profhobby 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't add that bit, but I always assumed there was some influence of the F-111 on the SU-24. Hunting for the “Rustling Death” talks of an alleged defection of F-111A s/n 66-0024 on 22 April 1968. The Pilot and WSO are officially listed MIA here I'm not sure if there is any other evidence of the defection outside this article and I have no idea of the credibility of the article. This also asserts that the a/c said to defect actually crashed. Anyway, I'm sure that the influential line was intended to reference the SU-24. Dual Freq 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't add the bit on influence either but concur that the obvious candidate is the SU-24. Unless we can find a quote from its designer that they were inspired by the F-111, perhaps the wording in the article is too strong but we can certainly say that there are strong parallels in the capability and designs, partic. the side-by-side seating. Bill Gunston in his book Modern Military Aircraft (1978) is at least one prominent commentator who noted the similarities and probable influence. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that the wording was a little strong for an encyclopedia, since no evidence was supplied. I agree that there are parallels between the designs and capabilities of the two planes. I suggest that we limit the article to saying that, in the absence of credible information about the influence. The planes were developed at about the same time and had similar mission profiles (the SU-24 was already well formed by 1968, and the SU-17 with the variable-geometry wing was already flying by then). Some day, we may know what information spies have provided to the USSR and the US about the development of these planes, but for now I suggest that we just say that the planes are similar. Profhobby 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with Profhobby. Although there has long been a tendency to ascribe imitation to the Soviets, this is usually unfair. Remember, each side was aggressively pushing the state-of-the-art in aviation technology, and the principles of physics to be discovered are the same. As any designer should know, if two aircraft are separately designed to perform essentially the same mission with similar performance parameters at a given stage in the development of technology, they can and will often result in designs with a lot of similarity in features. "Swing wing" was the latest and greatest and all the rage at one time. Now that both sides have built them, operated them, and learned the relative advantages and disadvantages, well ... how many new designs do you see with it? --Askari Mark | Talk 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Added extra
Hi, Ill start by saying my online name is ElectroSoldier, and my preferred F-111 is the F model, but I also know details about the other models too. I spent a long time studying the F-111 and the F-111F in particular, for some time I lived in Mildenhall and spent a lot of y time talking to people from Lakenheath which is where the F-111F was based for the majority of its service life. I have various sources, none of which I can quote from, but they range from people who are just fans of the F-111 and people who flew them in their time in their USAF service. I've read this 'thread' from start to finish and have a couple of things to add, but I will take them in the order they appear on this page.
The F-111 series is unusual in USAF service because it didn’t receive an official name until its retirement ceremony on the 27th July 1996 at Fort Worth Texas, it received the official name of Aardvark, but during its service life it was known as “Whispering death” (given during its time in Vietnam), “Aardvark”, “Vark”, “Earth pig” and simply “One Eleven” (Which is the name by which I know it). The only type known as Raven was the EF-111A, the development aircraft was known as “Electric Fox”. Its official name was “Raven” but it was also known by the unofficial name “Spark vark”, or it was while it was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford.
Interceptor In the F-111B version it was to have been an interceptor and fleet defence fighter as a secondary roll, it failed to meet those criteria to the standards desired and the project was cancelled in favour of the fourth coming F-14 series jets. Part of the US Navy requirement was for a long loiter time, side by side seating, a crew escape/survival capsule and an internal weapons bay, unfortunately these requirements meant it was to heavy for an aircraft carrier. It is interesting to note at this point that the F-14 series fighter jet did not have any of the requirements mentioned above, opinions on the reason range from the Navy learnt they couldn’t successfully integrate all those features on a carrier aircraft to they didn’t want the F-111B and they made those requirements because they knew it would make it to heavy. The F-111B was equipped with the same AN/AWG-9 radar and carried the AIM-54 Phoenix missile during trials.
The FB-111A did not get to a conflict, but as it was a Strategic Air Command bomber it was never meant to, if it had saw active service it would have been a nuclear mission because that was its primary use, it was however capable of carrying conventional weapons such as the Mk-82 loaded on the BRU-3/A.
The name of Robert McNamara belongs in the development and design history of the F-111 program, but the failure of the F-111B lies at the feet of the US Navy as well as his, he had the idea of using one aircraft for all services but it was the US Navy who made the idea unworkable with its requirements list.
The point of view that there was nothing wrong with the F-111 maneuverability is quite correct. The maneuverability during a dog fight was never a design requirement so it doesn’t belong in the F-111 story at all.
The F-111 was a for runner for many design technologies and a “first” for a lot of things so it have a design influence is by default inevitable but if you are going to say it influenced Soviet designers you will need specific instances of its influence and have documented proof, otherwise it becomes nothing but here say.
Also relating to the published article of Wiki there are some points that need to be added or removed. Weapons bay The F-111A was fitted with the M61 cannon; it also carried AIM-9B Sidewinders on an AERO 3B launch rail on a trapeze in the left bay while the gun was in the right bay. Other types used the weapons bay to mount weapons but the only weapon that had a Technical Order for the crews to follow was for the fitting of nuclear weapons, those weapons were the AGM-69A SRAM, the B-43, B-61 and the B-57 free fall weapons. The M117 was never fitted to the aircraft and I can find no reference to show that it was ever done. The FB-111A normally had a fuel tank fitted in one bay and either an AGM-69A or B-61 weapon in the other, but two weapons fitted was also an option. The weapons bay of the F-111F was converted to allow the use of the AN/AVQ-26 PAVE Tack pod [PAVE is an acronym for Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment and Tack is the program name], The PAVE TACK pod was first fitted to F-111F 72-1441 (while it was in use by the 494thTFS ‘Panthers’) in January 1981, and the others followed at a rate of 2 per month until all had the conversion by the spring of 1984, the 494th TFS went on to make a speciality of using the PAVE Tack pod, it was used for Target recognition and tracking, target laser designation, post attack damage assessments and navigation, the system was almost completely integrated into the F-111F’s systems, the weapons bay doors were modified to accommodate the PAVE TACK pod, the inner most doors (the weapons bay has four doors) had holes cut into them and a fairing to cover the pod when it was in the stowed position, the fairing is a bulbous version of the pod with the head of the device rotated 90 degrees [pictures can be supplied that illustrate this but I have no idea haw to provide them or whether they are property], the weapons bay also has an external hard point to mount stores, this was used to carry ECM equipment (Electronic Counter Measures), The AN/ALQ-131 Shallow was fitted to this station when the aircraft was fitted with an AN/AXQ-14 Data link pod, this pod was used in conjunction with the GBU-15 EOGB, it was the method of remote controlling the TV guided bomb to its target, the AN/AXQ-14 could not be fitted to another station other than the rear stores station between the ventral strakes because there was no wiring to connect the pod to the aircrafts systems. A normal stores configuration for PAVE Tack use was PAVE Tack in weapons bay, ECM pod on rear fuselage station (AN/ALQ-119 or AN/ALQ-131 shallow) with Paveway bombs on the wing stations. The F-111F weapons bay also had the ability to have a crew luggage rack fitted to it, this was a very simple device and took the form of a board suspended from the stores suspension lugs [photo can be provided]. Once the F-111F was converted to use the PAVE Tack pod the pod was rarely if even removed from the bay. Its use was simple, it was rotated down out of the weapons bay when it was parked in its TAB-V HAS (Theatre Air Base-Vulnerability Hardened Aircraft Shelter), it was rotated into the bay for taxi, take off and flight, it was rotated out of the bay during the bomb run or for way point information and rotated away after use, it remained in the stowed position until after it taxied to its TAB-V HAS which is when it was rotated out of the bay during post flight checks.
Though there were no Technical Orders to tell weapons loaders how to fit the weapons the following weapons could be fitted to the bay Mk-80 series free fall bombs (with any fin kit available to the series) M117 (MAU-103A fin kit) free fall bomb B-43, B-57 or B-61 free fall nuclear weapons AGM-69A SRAM nuclear missile AIM-9B Sidewinder External weapons [I will not make any remark to this but there is a difference between the aircraft having used the weapon operationally and being technically capable of carrying and using the weapon, for instance the F-111F was pictured carrying live GBU-15 (V)-1 on the inboard stations with GBU-10’s on the outboard stations but it didn’t not fly into combat with this weapons configuration]
The AGM-88 HARM was tested for use by the RAAF but it was never adopted and the only F-111C to carry this weapon was the RAAF test aircraft.
It’s a misconception that the F-111C can carry a wider range of weapons than the F-111F, the F-111C can carry this list of weapons but the F-111F can not AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-142 Popeye and Karinga (an RAAF cluster bomb)
The F-111F can carry this list while the F-111C can not BLU-107 Durandal AGM-65 D/G GBU-8 B-43 B-61 B-57 SUU-64 SUU-65 SUU-30 Mk-20
The F-111 family has provision for up to 8 wing stations and two fuselage stations, the four outer most wing stations are fixed for carriage at 26 degrees of wing sweep while the four inner most wing stations move as the wings do so the stores suspended on them face forwards, the two outermost stations (1 and 8) have never been used for anything other than testing or publicity photographs so are not considered [the F-111C can not use this station any more after the removal of the weapons release wiring], stations 2 and 7 have only been used by the FB-111B and F-111C for carrying 600 gallon fuel tanks, all four outer wing stations can be jettisoned in flight after the stores suspended from them have been expended. Each wing station is stressed for the carriage of 6,000lbs in weight, but carrying 6,000lbs on each of the 8 stations puts the aircraft above its maximum take off weight so the largest load it can carry is forty eight Mk-82 bombs, six bombs per station mounted on BRU-3/A’s. The four innermost movable stations are the most important for the F-111F, its capable of carrying any of its stores on any of the pylons, in addition to its offensive weapons it is also capable of carrying 600 gallon fuel tanks on stations 3, 4, 5 and 6 but only stations 3 and 6 have the equipment to be able to use the fuel in the tanks, if the tank is fitted to stations 4 and 5 then a device known to the crews as a “coke bottle” is needed to use the fuel in the tanks. The only stores fitted to stations 3a and 6a are AIM-9P-3 Sidewinders or ACMI pods. An AIM-9L or M can be carried on the other stations on an AIM-9 launch adapter, this was seen during Operation Desert Storm. Practice bomb dispensers can be fitted to stations 3, 4, 5 and 6, they are SUU-20 for European based aircraft and RAAF and the SUU-21 for those based in the CONUS. And the crew baggage pod can be fitted to any of the wing stations. The F-111 type also has its own type of MER (multiple ejector rack) called the BRU-3/A (Bomb Release Unit), it is a more streamlined version of the standard USAF MER [a MER is a device for carrying more than one bomb per weapons pylon]. When the F-111F was not carrying any live weapons it was rare to see it without these fitted, even if empty, they were usually carried on stations 3 and 6 while the SUU-20 was on stations 4 and 5. Any of the F-111F cleared weapons can be mounted to a BRU-3/A except those that must be parent mounted [parent mounted means it must be mounted directly to the station].
Weapons cleared for use by the F-111F
- each weapon has a live and inert type, only live are considered here, weapons can be mounted on the stations or a BRU-3/A unless stated
- denotes it must be parent mounted
Entire Mk-80 series family, with any fin kit available to the family (Mk-83 and Mk-84 must be parent mounted) BLU-107 Durandal Entire Paveway family of Laser Guided Bombs** [nb only the F-117A carries the GBU-27, the only Paveway bomb that can be mounted to a BRU-3/A is the GBU-12] Entire GBU-15 family of weapons, in any configuration of fin kit, warhead and seeker** Entire inventory of USAF cluster bombs including MK-20, SUU-30, SUU-64**, SUU-65** B-43** B-57** and B-61** nuclear weapons AIM-9 P2/3** AIM-9L/M** AGM-65 D/G** AGM-130**
Various types of ECM pods have been use by the F-111 including the AN/ALQ-87 (Vietnam), AN/ALQ-119 (V)-17 Short (early 1980’s), AN/ALQ-131 shallow (Late 1980’s early 1990’s), AN/ALQ-184. (CONUS based aircraft only).
[edit] RAAF Deterrent Role Originally envisaged?
Can someone confirm if a driving factor behind Australia's purchase of the F-111 lay in the desire back in the 1950's and 60's for Australia to have nuclear weapons and a means of delivering it? Cat Balou 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- If by deterrent role you mean a strategic deterrent and a strategic nuclear weapons carrier, then I would say the answer is no. US SAC used FB-111 aircraft for strategic nuclear weapons. The FB-111 is different from the F-111, which could have carried smaller tactical nuclear weapons. I would imagine any tactical aircraft could carry an appropriately sized tactical nuclear weapon. --Dual Freq 19:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have never heard that Australia ever had plans to acquire nuclear weapons. Askari Mark | Talk 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original Reason for Australian F-111 purchase was for potential Nuclear Weapons use
There was a documentary on the ABC Channel 2 (Aussie TV) concerning Australia's desire to obtain Nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the Asian Communism threats up north. A reactor was supposed to be built at a site in Jervis Bay, in the state of New South Wales, that was to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. The Menzies Government ordered the F-111 because it wanted a delivery platform for Australia's nuclear weapons. In the end though, the reactor was never built and by the late 1960's-early 70's Australia had totally given up on acquiring an indigenous-developed nuclear weapons arsenal. But by that time the F-111 was already bought and paid for, since it was ordered in 1963-4. And since that was the case the deal to keep the 24 leased F-4E Phantoms, with the option to purchase more along with KC-135 Stratotankers, was dropped out of affordability and cost-effectiveness issues, though a lame excuse tended by some RAAF hierarchy at the time was that the F-4 was only marginally superior to the Mirage! This claim however was laughed at by other senior RAAF officers who liked the F-4 and wanted it in the Air Force order of battle. The Jervis Bay site foundations were excavated already before the project was cancelled and you can still see it by way of a purposely constructed access road.
Here's a link for further reading: [[2]]
From this article it's stated that the F-111's purpose was as a nuclear weapons delivery platform. Though Australia would not be able to get F-111's wired to use nuclear bombs, it could be modified in the future, according to the article. Yes the articles can be seen as "left-leaning" however, if you take a drive to the Jervis Bay site you realise the scope and significance of Australia's intentions to have an indigenous nuclear weapons program.
The likely target in those days was Jakarta, Indonesia. Back then at the time of the decision-making which yielded F-111 procurement Indonesia was run by Communists with Sukarno as their leader. A report was circulated in Australian government circles detailing that the Indonesians were possibly developing a nuclear capability. The projected combat radius (at the time) of the F-111 was sufficent to reach the Indonesian Capital.
Funny thing is though, even though Indonesia is not communist anymore (since the coup which brought Suharto to power in 1965) it is still in the Australian psyche that Indonesia is a threat. Certainly amongst military circles that kind of thinking is still the case today.
NiceDoggie 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Australian F111 Replacement, JSF Stop Gap
In late December, the RAAF asked the USN for pricings for a squadron of Super Hornets as a stop gap measure pending delivery of the JSF. They would be to replace its F111s. See:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20061224.aspx
and
"So with the F-111s to be rolled out of their hangars for the last time in 2010, Australia will face a big capability gap, the duration of which no one can be sure". This discusses the RAAF opting for the F22.
[edit] Movies, Books & Models
Where in live is not far from Upper Heyford (and where the Raven infamously crashed on a car park) so I have a keen interest in this aircraft. Also, we saw the F-111Fs on their way to Tripoli one evening - three or four aircraft in formation with a KC-135. They were heading west at probably 10k feet but were clearly visible as several of these 'cells' passed over. We were confused by this sight and only when we read the newspapers the next day did we realise why they were going in the wrong direction.
Anyway, to some points for this entry. First, other planes on Wikipedia have mention of their starring role in the movies e.g. F16s in Iron Eagle etc., so does anyone know of use of F111s in films? I vaguely recall a sequence in an Australian movie in the 80s, it is the classic shot of the terrain following over a dam with the wings bending etc. Local TV in the UK did several programmes about the F111 or more particularly Mildenhall and Lakenheath.
The Vaark has also featured in a few novels particularly those by Dale Brown. These are very good and since he was a pilot in this machine probably worth a mention in a 'trivia' section perhaps.
Finally, perhaps there could be mention of plastic model kits? One Xmas I got as my 'big pressie' the Revell kit which could be made as either the USN or USAF version with interchangeable noses etc. I recall getting very frustrated with the undercarriage which was retractable. Oh yes, I was always puzzled by this design which featured a huge airbrake which had to open when the plane was taking off. Odd because you would think the drag would be problematic given the fact that it was underpowered. There was a lot of media worry about crashes around Upper Heyford owing to this and the proximity of the village. Not to mention the rows of bomb bunkers some of which may have contained 'special weapons'. UH is now a huge car park for Ford etc to temporarily store new-build cars prior to delivery.
The FB-111 was only rarely a visitor outside the CONUS I believe. I think of an amazing photo of one which visited the Paris Air Show in the early 70s in the mag Flying Review where an FB-111 had no less than three huge fuel tanks on each wing. It had flown non-stop from Carswell (?) without IFR and with an internal load. I saw one only once in the 80s at the Mildenhall Air Fete. Few in the crowd recognised the significance of this machine at the time I suspect as it hurtled past. 81.86.144.210 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
I have a lot of shots of F-111C A8-129 I took at the RAAF Richmond Air Show last year if you care to use any of them on this page. I thought they would be more interesting than the usual RAAF publicity you've seen over and over again on the net.Adam1983 05:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
My Pics (Page 3-4)
[edit] Movies
In regards to F-111s in movies, USAFE F-111s ('F's IIRC) play a major role in The Fourth Protocol. I don't know if you've seen it but it's based on the Frederick Forsyth book where a KGB agent is sent under deep cover into England to act as the Executive Officer for Operation Aurora, a plan to destabilise the UK and NATO by detonating a small-yield nuclear device near the fictional RAF Baywaters (In the book it was RAF Bentwaters. For reasons I could never understand, Forsyth kept mentioning that F-5 "strike planes" were based at Bentwaters and carried tactical nukes (?) and he revolved the plot of detonating the nuke near Bentwaters because of these "nuclear carrying" F-5s were based there. Considering the Upper Heyford and Lakenheath F-111s were tasked with theatre nuclear strike, this was a major mistake IMO, especially for an author renowned for his research, or perhaps there was a reason he used F-5s. I guess the producers of the film corrected his mistake!) making it look like an accidental detonation of an American weapon and capitalising on the strong anti-nuclear sentiment at the time. The F-111s in the movie are clearly F-111Fs from the 48th TFW at RAF Lakenheath. To the best of my memory, the movie features scenes of F-111s taxying, landing, taxing off, flying low over surrounding residential areas and numerous references to the 'Vark are made. It stars Pierce Brosnan as the KGB agent and Michael Caine as the MI5 Officer hunting him down.
IMDB [The Fourth Protocol Wiki Page] Adam1983 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class military aviation articles | Military aviation task force articles | B-Class Australian military history articles | Australian military history task force articles | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles | B-Class aviation articles needing review | B-Class aircraft articles | B-Class aviation articles
