MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: valkyrian on July 29, 2009, 11:28:47 AM
-
It is always interesting to get to read real stories about fighters. Since we have the luck to have among us an "insider" (F-111 C/C are you around?) i start this thread on purpose.
I am sure that F-111 C/C has heard stories from pilots of how good or bad was the F-111. I would like to ask if an F-15 or F-14 could follow the 111 either on high altitude or in low level chase. Or, could the F-111 defend itself against other fighters?
F-111 C/C i am looking forward for your interesting reply.....
-
F-111 guys have always had the pleasure of bragging about the -111's ONLY defensive capability....it's speed. It has the distiction of being the fastest Combat aircraft in the world at any altitude (it is generally accepted that the MiG-25's Mach 3.2 run is unconfirmed). I have personally flown at 900KIAS at 5000' AGL in the last FB-111A made serial# 69-6514. I have personally 'recovered' aircraft that have flown Mach 2.8 with no problems (other than the melted paint and charred decals) and have worked on F-111G 67-7194 that flew 3.1 during testing for the B-83 Thermo-nuclear bomb. -111 pilots used to love to brag how at Red Flag they would outrun F-15s 'on the deck' no problem. When you combine a huge fuel load, 50,000lbs of thrust, the aerodynamics of a dart and Automatic TFR, nothing has the speed, fuel or balls to chase an F-111!
-
Speed wasn't the only thing the F-111 had going for it. It had the distiction of being able to do it's job (deep Strike Interdiction) alone. It could accurately deliver weapons on target in any weather, at night without needing Foward air control, tanker support, Combat air patrol, or radar jamming and ECM. The plane carried a built-in ECM suite and RHAW system (radar homing and warning), without the need of an external pod, to alert them of threats. Most other jets have these systems attached externally and/or fly with other aircraft to perform these functions. The F-111s were always restricted to Sub-sonic range egress at Red Flag after the first couple of days because they were causing damage to the range equipment due to their low-level speed. One memorable excercise we had was an 'infiltration' excercise we flew 'against' the F-15s at Otis AFB, MA. The base is on the North East Coast of the U.S. and was a Fighter-Interceptor Squadron to intercept any enemy aircraft that would try to approach our airspace. 2 of our F-111s were told to fly out over the Atlantic and approach the base whereupon they would be detected, the F-15s would scramble and intercept the 'enemy' aircraft. According to our pilots, they not only flew into our airspace but flew right over the base undetected. They were told they were flying too low, too fast to be detected, and to go around and approach again only slower and higher!
-
Theres also a fabulous story of how a jammer 111 scored a kill against a Mirage F-1 in the war against the iranians, are you familiar with it?
-
Excuse me coming over the top of you Suck, but I'd like to ask a question too.
If the F-111 is as good as you say, Aard, why not just make new ones and incorporate stealth technology. Sure would save heaps of money.
With the RAAF we don't have those commercial pressures where different aircraft companies are competing for orders. The best will do.
-
Yeah, I posted it here back in January...here it is again:
An EF-111A Raven was credited with a "kill" during Desert Storm in the same manner. On the night of January 17, 1991, an Iraqi Mirage F.1 flew into the ground while chasing EF-111A serial number 66-0016. Even though the Raven is unarmed and has no air-to-air capability, the Raven crew was given credit for the kill.
-
Excuse me coming over the top of you Suck, but I'd like to ask a question too.
If the F-111 is as good as you say, Aard, why not just make new ones and incorporate stelth technology. Sure would save heaps of money.
With the RAAF we don't have those commercial pressures where different aircraft companies are competing for orders. The best will do.
Well the decision to not keep the -111s in service was mostly political, not due to their capability (The F-111s had the highest bombing successes during the Gulf war by a huge margin out of all our aircraft including the F-117A). They had all just received a Billion dollar Avionics Modernization which included all digital flight control computers and Dual Ring-laser gyro navigation and GPS as well as state of the art targeting/bombing equipment. I think everybody's biggest fear was the age of the airframe. -111s were built from '66 thru '76 (the last F-models were '74 models completed in '76) and even the newest airframes were approaching 6000 hours. In the end though, companies to not make as much money and Politicians do not get re-elected by keeping old planes around, sad to say. Dr. Carlo Kopp proved that it made more sense for Australia to keep the F-111s than to spend the money for F-18Fs and eventually F-35s but that wasn't the 'popular' choice.
-
Excuse me coming over the top of you Suck, but I'd like to ask a question too.
If the F-111 is as good as you say, Aard, why not just make new ones and incorporate stelth technology. Sure would save heaps of money.
With the RAAF we don't have those commercial pressures where different aircraft companies are competing for orders. The best will do.
Well the decision to not keep the -111s in service was mostly political, not due to their capability (The F-111s had the highest bombing successes during the Gulf war by a huge margin out of all our aircraft including the F-117A). They had all just received a Billion dollar Avionics Modernization which included all digital flight control computers and Dual Ring-laser gyro navigation and GPS as well as state of the art targeting/bombing equipment. I think everybody's biggest fear was the age of the airframe. -111s were built from '66 thru '76 (the last F-models were '74 models completed in '76) and even the newest airframes were approaching 6000 hours. In the end though, companies to not make as much money and Politicians do not get re-elected by keeping old planes around, sad to say. Dr. Carlo Kopp proved that it made more sense for Australia to keep the F-111s than to spend the money for F-18Fs and eventually F-35s but that wasn't the 'popular' choice.
More on that matter: http://www.ausairpower.net/pig.html#mozTocId205192
-
Wow, i see that our friend F-111 C/C "hit the afterburners".......thank you for sharing these stories with us...
I don't know what to ask first. F-111 C/C you said so many so interesting things....I guess that speed issue...2.8 to 3.1 Mach, it really amazes me, becauze even a Mig-25 will wreck its engines if it has to fly at 3.1. And the combination of TF30/inlets wasn't the best (surge problems). Why we never heard this before? I mean such a speed for sure makes a great speed record...
-
........and i forgot, the age issue..The B-52's are far more older, many countries operate F-4 Phantoms, so i guess the age wasn't really an issue...
-
Wow, i see that our friend F-111 C/C "hit the afterburners".......thank you for sharing these stories with us...
I don't know what to ask first. F-111 C/C you said so many so interesting things....I guess that speed issue...2.8 to 3.1 Mach, it really amazes me, becauze even a Mig-25 will wreck its engines if it has to fly at 3.1. And the combination of TF30/inlets wasn't the best (surge problems). Why we never heard this before? I mean such a speed for sure makes a great speed record...
The original intake design on the 'A' and 'C' models utilized a Triple Plow I with splitter plate and translating cowl design. This initially was to blame for the compressor stall problems you are referring to. All the rest of the models utilized the Triple-plow II design which moved the inlets away from the fuselage 4 more inches, deleted the splitter plates and used 3 'blow-in' doors instead of the translating cowl. This rectified the early intake stall problems and, with a well designed inlet spike system, allowed for very high Mach numbers. Anyone from the F-111 community with attest to Mach 2.6-2.8 with regularity.
-
Thanks F-111 C/C, very interesting posts. Keep posting them please. Can you share anything on the maintenance hours per flight hour? I think it was about 40hrs per flight hour on the F-14 Tomcat before it retired, I would think the F-111 required just as much attention in its final days.
-
I can believe the F-14 maintenance hours. I don't know if it was a Navy thing or what, but whenever we had excercises with the Tomcat guys, those planes were RAGGED. We had a lot of pride in our aircraft to the point where any downtime was spent cleaning and polishing even repainting items as need be. Every Tomcat I've seen up close looked like shit. They were always dirty and grimey and had hydraulic fluid leaks and fuel leaks and brake dust on the rims, etc. I love F-14s but they just looked like they were never cared for that well. Our jets would fly about 3-4 times a week, 3-4 hour sorties, so I'd say our maintenance time was less than 40 hours per flight hour. Our jets were in pretty good shape when retired (most only had about 5500 hrs on them). Remember, Australia bought a couple dozen of our 'G' models and flew them for several more years. They also had an excellent Safety record with one of the lowest loss totals. We had a billion dollar Avionics Modernization Program in the late 80s/early 90s that really improved MTBR (Mean Time Between Repairs).
-
I was thinking about the design and age of the engines, mechanical, electrical stuff. You are right, I forgot about the different operating conditions between the services. For the F-14, deck landings, catapult launches and exposure to salt water spray all the time.
5500 hrs, what was their life expectancy? You mention the G models, they got 15, only 7 were in service at any one time, they were not intended as operational aircraft and served only to reduce the flying hours on the C models, which were planned to soldier on till 2020. Last G model was retired in 2007. Nevertheless, job well done for the G model.
I suppose you also refer to the G model on the satefy record. The Australians lost four F-111Cs earlier before upgrading them under their own Avionics Upgrade Program, similar to the AMP.
With all respect the age of the jets, their amazing capabilities, and the 111 community in Australia, I still think the retirement in favor of the Super Hornet / F-35 is the right decision. And as I said before, especially the Super Hornet interim solution is a good decision, and we can expect much from it as we know from the USN experiences and the Block II improvements. Not only will it do a much better job in today's wars, it also fills the fighter gap until the F-35 arrives. Dr. Carlo Kopp is in love with the F-111 and wants F-22s, can't blame him for that, but it's not happening is it.
-
I think that the SH vs F-111 is an unfair comparison for both types. No one expects the air to air potential of the F-111 to much that of the F/A-18 E/F and ofcourse, the latter lucks the sub strategic range of the -111.
Sinve Australia is a huge country and all the potential threats are far away, i can't see how the S.H. can handle this.
Anyway, after what F-111 C/C has said, it seems that the -111 was a very potential bomber and a remarkable aircraft. Personally i thought it was another big, unmaneuvrable useless monster but now i changed my mind.
-
I grew up a stone's throw away from NAS Oceana in Virginia Beach, Virginia, about 35 minutes from Langley AFB. The F-14 was the local favorite of all of the aircraft we'd see flying every day and, at least where I was, I believe that contributed to the less than sterling reputation that the F-111 got in certain circles. Since the F-111 was rejected by the Navy and the F-14 was selected, many aviation enthusiasts I knew assumed that the F-111 wasn't "any good." This was backed up by the initial failures of the F-111 in Vietnam.
I can remember when I was younger wondering why the Air Force would want a plane the Navy had no use for. Simple: it was much better suited for different missions. As I got older and did more reading I began to understand why the Air Force could use a smallerish (think B-52 or B-1)) long range strike aircraft that could haul a good sized payload at extremely low altitude and deliver it with great accuracy. Sure, the F-111 had some teething problems, but it became a critical part of the US Air Force's strike capabilities and later an excellent ECM/jamming platform. I was sorry when they were retired, and they certainly earned my respect as great planes. Not too bad to look at either!
-
All good points guys! Personally I think the F-15E/B-1B package was a more than capable solution to retireing the F-111. The F-15E assumed the deep Strike/Interdiction role and the B-1B assumed the medium-range bombing role. It just makes me feel old to have worked an aircraft that is now retired! :-[ :-[
-
Just thought I'd re-activate this old topic, with a little update.
The last F-111 to undergo Deeper Maintenance (R3 servicing) by Boeing Defence Australia was returned to 6 Squadron on Nov 4th, AFM reports. The F-111C will retire at the end of this year. A total of 19 F-111Cs (incl. 3 RF-111Cs) are on strength since this last one returned, but this will decrease as other aircraft come up for major service. The RAAF retains a good F-111 strike capability up to its retirement.
-
As I mentioned before, the Australians have had a greater love for the F-111 than the U.S. ever did (I mean the U.S. never even gave it an official name initially!). Of course, the people who flew and maintained the -111 have always had a genuine love for the -111 too but the rest of the people outside that community were always more critical. Most sensible people could appreciate it's capabilities, but in the U.S., it was never the 'Golden Child' that it was in Australia. Those Aussies love their 'Pig' and I respect and admire them for that. It will truly be missed.
-
I suppose its troubled start is the reason for that. Plus it became a tactical bomber, a category that never gets much love from outside its own community. You can count almost all "early" multi-rolers to that category as well. It's the same for the Tornado, Mirage F1, Su-17/20/22, Su-24, even the A-6/A-7 hardly got out of the shadow of the F-14. Perhaps is even applies to the Hornet. And the MiG-27's success was hardly recognized until the Indians/Sri Lankans started proudly speaking about it. If you want become popular, be a fighter, and then add some bombs later on.
-
Yeah, "Tactical Bomber" or "Fighter-Bomber" just doesn't have the panache that "Fighter plane" got. It wasn't until much later when they began calling them "Strike" aircraft, that they started getting some respect. Sadly, the F-111, arguably one of the greatest "Deep Interdiction, Strike aircraft" ever, was on it's way out when the term "Strike aircraft" came into vogue. Fighter planes will always be the Hollywood stars but as It says in my posts, "Wars are won by carrying the Heavy Iron downtown". :D :D