Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F-111B - a victim of the air war over Vietnam
Flight Global ^ | December 8, 2010 | Greg Waldron

Posted on 12/08/2010 12:19:05 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki

F-111B - a victim of the air war over Vietnam

By Greg Waldron on December 8, 2010

The retirement of Australia's F-111Cs last week ended the long story of a successful, and iconic, long range bomber. Many forget, however, that US Navy's version of the aircraft, the F-111B, was a failure.

The F-111B was big like the F-111C, though it had a stubbier nose to make carrier landings easier. Conceived as pure fighter (the naval version of the Tactical Fighter Experimental) in the early sixties, it would not need a gun. The F-111B's AWG-9 pulse doppler radar and Phoenix missiles (120lb warhead, 100 mile + range) would ensure that nothing could get near it - ever.

The air war over Southeast Asia, however, ended all hope for the F-111B. In that war nimble (and cheap) Migs and their guns proved a serious problem for big American fighters and their advanced missiles - which, to be fair, often failed to work properly in the humid and hot combat conditions. The best performing US fighter of the war was probably the old F-8 Crusader with super manoeuvrability, ample power, and four 20mm cannons.

Extensive trials showed the F-111B's manoeuvrability to be inferior to that of the F-4 Phantom, the plane it was designed to replace on carrier decks. It proved to be yet another peacetime weapons system condemned by the unforgiving realities of war.

The F-14 Tomcat was eventually adopted as the premiere carrier fighter, reigning on carrier decks for three decades, before finally being retired in 2006.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; f111b; navair; usn; vietnamwar

1 posted on 12/08/2010 12:19:08 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pFfni3gJ_0&feature=player_embedded

Video of F-111B trials


2 posted on 12/08/2010 12:19:42 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

F14 = Same engines as F111 - Just a purpose designed airframe
JSF = another cookie cutter aircraft using 1 engine fromm the F-22 development. ( And not the best part )


3 posted on 12/08/2010 1:24:33 AM PST by Waverunner (I'd like to welcome our new overlords, say hello to my little friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner
Royal Australian Air Force Retires Its F-111 Fleet

yitbos

4 posted on 12/08/2010 1:38:07 AM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner

Another of McNamara’s gifts to the US military.

TC


5 posted on 12/08/2010 2:02:48 AM PST by Pentagon Leatherneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Any time, Baby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74dhPkpNkIw&feature=related


6 posted on 12/08/2010 2:05:12 AM PST by ryan71 (Dear spell check - No, I will not capitalize the "m" in moslem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck

Amen to that. One of his other gifts was the DDG of that era. In heavy seas a DDG had problems keeping up with the carriers it was supposed to protect.


7 posted on 12/08/2010 3:03:21 AM PST by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Ask Ghaddafi what he thinks of the FB-111’s


8 posted on 12/08/2010 3:17:35 AM PST by onona (dbada)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck

The goes on and on:
- Scrapped Naval list for ships & aircraft,
- Replaced service numbers with Social Security numbers,
- Imposed F-111, DDG, M-16 and missiles that failed,
- Forced common uniform buying down to underwear & socks,
and the biggest sin of all,
- Stopped manufacture of Kiwi Marine Brown shoe polish!


9 posted on 12/08/2010 3:34:21 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck
Conceived as pure fighter (the naval version of the Tactical Fighter Experimental) in the early sixties, it would not need a gun. The F-111B's AWG-9 pulse doppler radar and Phoenix missiles (120lb warhead, 100 mile + range) would ensure that nothing could get near it - ever.

That is definitely McNamara "best and the brightest" "thinking"; much along the same lines as not needing conventional forces since we'd have plenty of ICBMs. Leave it to an academic to be theoretically correct and in reality dead wrong.

10 posted on 12/08/2010 3:39:56 AM PST by 6SJ7 (atlasShruggedInd = TRUE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner
Those ‘same engines’ were very problematic in the F-14A.

Missile technology and ROE did not support the missileer concept. The previous design was for a straight wing loitering aircraft that would simply fire the Phoenix missiles from afar and never engage in close combat. Vietnam experience killed that.

In fact, the F-14’s capability as a fighter was greatly limited by the design requirement to carry six Phoenix missiles.

The trouble in a sense is that no distinction is made between a fighter and an interceptor. The F-14 was an interceptor that could be forced into a fighter role.

11 posted on 12/08/2010 3:47:04 AM PST by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
It was designed to be a fighter/bomber - which was not a good idea at the time given technology.

Hitler thought the ME-262 should have been a bomber too.

Clueless people should leave engineering to the engineers.

12 posted on 12/08/2010 3:53:08 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck; NTHockey; 6SJ7
Another of McNamara’s gifts to the US military ...

... which was why one of the F-111's nicknames was the "Flying Edsel" after one of McNamara's gifts to Ford Motor.

13 posted on 12/08/2010 4:12:31 AM PST by Zakeet (Always trust in the five G's: God, Gold, Guns, Grub, and the Government screwing up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

The F-14 was designed to operate w/ the GE 110 engine. The P & W TF-30 (which the military had lots of thank to the F-111) was foisted upon the US Navy by politics. The TF-20 was a true POS!


14 posted on 12/08/2010 5:00:36 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

I mean TF-30.


15 posted on 12/08/2010 5:10:34 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: onona
Ask Ghaddafi what he thinks of the FB-111’s

He wouldn't have any opinion about the FB-111s, because he was only visited by F-111Fs.

16 posted on 12/08/2010 5:52:45 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; investigateworld; lowbuck; ...
SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

17 posted on 12/08/2010 7:04:23 AM PST by magslinger ('This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7
Conceived as pure fighter (the naval version of the Tactical Fighter Experimental) in the early sixties, it would not need a gun.

That was also the thinking behind the F-4 Phantom II. It didn't have an internal gun either, only an optional external gun pod. Then the 366 TFW "The Gunfighters" showed how effective and necessary a gun was in Vietnam. (See How the Gunfighers Got Their Name) After that, the later models of the F-4 had an internal gun.

The F-111 did in fact have a gun, at least the USAF versions did. It was the good old M61A1 that could optionally be mounted in the weapons bay in place of one of the weapons bay doors. Ironically, even though the 366th TFW later flew the F-111F, then the F-111A, (and continued to be known as "The Gunfighters,") they never used the gun in combat. It was later dropped altogether from all F-111s.

Fast forward about 50 years, and today's F-35B and F-35C (the STOVL and Naval variants) do not have an internal gun, only an optional extertnal gun pod. The USAF F-35A does have an internal gun. History repeats itself?


18 posted on 12/08/2010 7:04:44 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck

In a former life I did a seven month Med Cruise on the USS Inchon(LPH-12), last of the LPH class. It was a McNamara special, built of the hull, boilers and elevator of the former USS Boxer. Around the 15 kt range, one could always know how fast we were going based on how much it vibrated. The more vib the faster we were going.


19 posted on 12/08/2010 7:15:39 AM PST by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Ah yes the nugget killer, followed by it’s brother the Harrier, smaller nugget killer.


20 posted on 12/08/2010 7:20:51 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (V for Vendetta.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onona

Those were not the B version.


21 posted on 12/08/2010 7:21:46 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (V for Vendetta.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
It is idiotic to make ANY fighter platform without a built in gun.
22 posted on 12/08/2010 7:24:26 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (V for Vendetta.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The F-111 was another McNamara brain fart. It was to force the Navy and Air Force to use the same airplane for missions that couldn’t have been foreseen. Had many advanced features, all of which proved of no help in Vietnam.


23 posted on 12/08/2010 7:59:15 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

That pic was taken on the flight deck of the USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) in July, 1968.

As one of the (roughly) 23 AIRPAC LSOs crowding the platform during that memorable event, I can testify the the Navy version of McNamara’s Folly was a pig! To wit:

1. It was too big, too heavy and waaaaaay underpowered.

2. The Jet Blast Deflectors could not be raised on launch because the back pressure would blow out the afterburners.

3. Because of the JBD/burner blowout issue, only the port catapult could be used to launch the F-111. The resulting wind (and heat) howling down the flight deck was incredible!

4. The TF-30 took a long time to spool up and the F-111 required almost military power to trap at high gross landing weights — in fact, on one memorable approach, when called by the LSO for power, the pilot responded that he was at military power already. The LSO’s immediate response was “Burner! Burner! Burner! Waveoff! Waveoff! Waveoff!” That wave off was perhaps the most spectacular wave off I ever witnessed! There were a lot of “puckers” on that one!

HSAT, the F-111 did pave the way for the F-14 Tomcat. My SiL, a former Tomcat driver, will tell you today that it was the best fighter/interceptor ever built. Too bad that Grumman shot the Navy such a high price when asked what it would cost to resume F-14 production. F-18 is a good fighter, but my fighter pilot FRiends swear that the Tomcat is better all-around.

Carrier Qualifying the F-111B was a very costly exercise in futility, but it was one exciting evolution!

Thanks for the memories!


24 posted on 12/08/2010 8:20:08 AM PST by Taxman (So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
I took the father of a friend to the SAC museum up near Omaha. They had a F-111 up there. In this museum you can get "up close and personal" with many of the exhibits. (They have a full battle ready B-36 up there!)

He gave me a COMPLETE (but not classified!) run through of all its avionics, flight controls, engine specs and airframe. I tested him too, he could have told me anything. Well, he was spot on each time. He was assigned to the team in Australia that worked on the aircraft.

Very cool!

25 posted on 12/08/2010 8:27:42 AM PST by China Clipper (My favorite animals usually are found next to the rice on my plate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Had many advanced features, all of which proved of no help in Vietnam.

I very much disagree with you. The F-111A in Vietnam proved very useful using it's cutting edge Texas Instruments APQ-110 Terrain Following Radar in night/adverse weather low level attacks on suspected truck parks.

26 posted on 12/08/2010 9:11:05 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
The F-111A in Vietnam proved very useful using it's cutting edge Texas Instruments APQ-110 Terrain Following Radar in night/adverse weather low level attacks on suspected truck parks.

Do you mean the suspected truck parks that gave no secondaries when bombed?

27 posted on 12/08/2010 9:35:43 AM PST by magslinger ('This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
I believe the F-4 Phantom also did not have guns, relying on missiles only.
28 posted on 12/08/2010 9:44:41 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

True at the beginning but some guys added them in the field until the Pentagon saw the error of it’s ways and adopted a pod for it.


29 posted on 12/08/2010 9:58:17 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (V for Vendetta.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
The F-14 was designed to operate w/ the GE 110 engine. The P & W TF-30 (which the military had lots of thank to the F-111) was foisted upon the US Navy by politics. The TF-30 was a true POS!
The Navy was in parternership with the AF to develop the engine which went into the F-15, with a Navy version slated for the F-14. The F-14 was slated to fly its test flights, basically, with the TF-30 with the expectation that the new engine would be available for about the 17th bird, IIRC.

But Pratt's progress in developing the new engine did not live up to its billing, and the Navy dropped out of the program. There was, IIRC, one attempt to test the AF P&W engine in the F-14, with unsatisfactory results. One problem being that the idle thrust of the engine was unmanageably high. Even with the TF-30 the F-14A was a successful design, at least in terms of combat capability. Maintainability was an issue, tho.

And when the GE F-101 DFE (derivitive fighter engine) was tested in the F-14 the improvement was incredible. Not only in performance, but especially in operability - the first Navy pilot to fly it balked at conducting the tests as recommended by Grumman, and wanted to be more conservative since the suggested test would have produced a double engine stall in the TF-30s. In production, the 101 DFE was redesignated the F-110. But that was painfully late (mid-1980s) in a program that needed that over a decade sooner.

By all accounts the F-14 airframe capabilities were such that it could hold its own with the F-15 even with the clunky old TF-30; there is no telling how much more of a market there would have been for the plane if its propulsion had been in the F-110's class from the start. Apropos the F-111B, the test pilot whose demo flight was credited with selling the F-14 to the Shah of Iran - saving Grumman's bacon in the process - was asked if he had flown the F111B, and how he liked it. He said the F-111B was a fine airplane - as long as you didn't get in it thinking it was a fighter!


30 posted on 12/08/2010 9:58:55 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Thank You for the background. Tailhook ‘91 killed the F-14 and A-6 Community.


31 posted on 12/08/2010 10:22:16 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: magslinger
Do you mean the suspected truck parks that gave no secondaries when bombed?

YES! Them's the ones!

32 posted on 12/08/2010 11:14:41 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Now that was a mess . . .
33 posted on 12/08/2010 11:42:41 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

McNamara wanted the Navy to get out of the air superiority business. He thought that “fighters” on carriers should do one thing: fleet air defense against Soviet bombers. So the B was basically a much faster F6D Missileer. Navy jocks insisted that Vietnam was proof that fighters still need to be able to dogfight. And they were right.


34 posted on 12/08/2010 2:18:15 PM PST by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

At least the F-35 is starting out with a gun pod ready for deployment!


35 posted on 12/08/2010 2:25:54 PM PST by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson