F-111 Aardvark. General Dynamics supersonic, medium-range, multirole combat aircraft. Upscaled video

Подписаться 352 тыс.

Просмотров 241 тыс.

50% 1

The General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark is a retired supersonic, medium-range, multirole combat aircraft. Production variants of the F-111 had roles that included ground attack (e.g. interdiction), strategic bombing (including nuclear weapons capabilities), reconnaissance and electronic warfare. Developed in the 1960s by General Dynamics, the F-111 entered service in 1967 with the United States Air Force (USAF). The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) also ordered the type and began operating the F-111C variant in 1973.
The F-111 pioneered several technologies for production aircraft, including variable-sweep wings, afterburning turbofan engines, and automated terrain-following radar for low-level, high-speed flight. Its design influenced later variable-sweep wing aircraft, and some of its advanced features have since become commonplace. The F-111 suffered a variety of problems during initial development.
A fighter variant, the F-111B, was not accepted for production. The F-111B was intended to perform aircraft carrier-based roles with the US Navy, including long-range interception.
USAF F-111s were retired during the 1990s with the F-111Fs in 1996 and EF-111s in 1998. The F-111 was replaced in USAF service by the F-15E Strike Eagle for medium-range precision strike missions, while the supersonic bomber role has been assumed by the B-1B Lancer.
The name Aardvark was derived from perceived similarities of the aircraft to the animal of the same name: a long nose and low-level, terrain-following capabilities.
The May 1960 U-2 incident, in which an American CIA U-2 reconnaissance plane was shot down over the USSR, stunned the United States government. Besides greatly damaging US-Soviet relations, the incident showed that the Soviet Union had developed a surface-to-air missile that could reach aircraft above 60,000 feet (18,000 meters).
By 1960, SAC had begun moving to low-level penetration, which greatly reduced radar detection distances. At the time, SAMs were ineffective against low-flying aircraft, and interceptor aircraft had less of a speed advantage at low altitudes. The Air Force's Tactical Air Command (TAC) was largely concerned with the fighter-bomber and deep strike/interdiction roles. TAC was in the process of receiving its latest design, the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, which was designed to deliver nuclear weapons fast and far, but required long runways. A simpler variable geometry wing configuration with the pivot points farther out from the aircraft's centerline was reported by NASA in 1958, which made swing-wings viable. This led Air Force leaders to encourage its use. In June 1960, the USAF issued specification SOR 183 for a long-range interdiction/strike aircraft able to penetrate Soviet air defenses at very low altitudes and high speeds. The specification also called for the aircraft to operate from short, unprepared airstrips.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 73 ft 6 in (22.40 m)
Wingspan: 63 ft (19 m)
Swept wingspan: 32 ft (9.8 m) swept
Height: 17 ft 1.5 in (5.220 m)
Wing area: 657.4 sq ft (61.07 m2) spread, 525 sq ft (48.8 m2) swept
Aspect ratio: 7.56 spread
1.95 swept
Airfoil: root: NACA 64-210.68; tip: NACA 64-209.80
Empty weight: 47,200 lb (21,410 kg)
Gross weight: 82,800 lb (37,557 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 100,000 lb (45,359 kg)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0186
Zero-lift drag coefficient area: 9.36 sq ft (0.87 m2)
Aspect ratio: spread:
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 afterburning turbofan engines, 17,900 lbf (80 kN) thrust each dry, 25,100 lbf (112 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: 1,434 kn (1,650 mph, 2,656 km/h) at altitude
795 kn (915 mph; 1,472 km/h) / Mach 1.2 at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 2.5
Range: 3,210 nmi (3,690 mi, 5,940 km)
Ferry range: 3,210 nmi (3,690 mi, 5,940 km) with external drop tanks
Service ceiling: 66,000 ft (20,000 m)
g limits: +7.33
Rate of climb: 25,890 ft/min (131.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 126 lb/sq ft (620 kg/m2) spread
158 lb/sq ft (771 kg/m2) wings swept
Thrust/weight: 0.61
Armament
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon in weapons bay (seldom fitted)
Hardpoints: 9 in total (8× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage between engines) plus 2 attach points in weapons bay with a capacity of 31,500 lb (14,300 kg), with provisions to carry combinations of:
Missiles:
AGM-69 SRAM thermonuclear air-to-surface missile (FB-111A only)
AGM-130 stand-off bomb
Bombs:
Free-fall general-purpose bombs including Mk 82 (500 lb/227 kg), Mk 83 (1,000 lb/454 kg), Mk 84 (2,000 lb/907 kg), and Mk 117 (750 lb/340 kg)
Cluster bombs
BLU-109 (2,000 lb/907 kg) hardened penetration bomb
Paveway laser-guided bombs, including 2,000 lb (907 kg) GBU-10, 500 lb (227 kg) GBU-12, and 4,800 lb (2,200 kg) GBU-28 penetration bomb
BLU-107 Durandal runway-cratering bomb
GBU-15 electro-optical bomb
B61 or B43 nuclear bombs
Avionics
GMR and TFR
#F111 #aardvark #combataircraft

Наука

Опубликовано:

11 сен 2022

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 163

@Dronescapes Год назад

Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes and their stories, missions: ru-vid.com/group/PLBI4gRjPKfnNx3Mp4xzYTtVARDWEr6nrT

@56jimmyg Год назад

😅 pm

@timopkokko Год назад

@@56jimmyg Alright, I get it. The number of aerial innovations made by the US is just staggering. I surely love it 🙂 I hope you will win every war in the future, no matter who you will be up against. I know, baby. It is a curse laid upon us. But then, do we soldiers and pilots really have a choice? I do not think so. As a Finnish Combat Engineer Sergeant, I know that against the Russian assault on Finland my life expectancy is about 15 minutes. I do not mind. I am just another soldier. Soldiers die in the war. To me the American soldiers are heroes. I am in love with them, males and females alike, ground and carrier personnel alike. The best of the best. Do you know how much infrastructure and people it takes just to maintain on US carrier? I am happy to pay a tiny little portion of the tax money required, for the United States of America.

@j-nish3570 Год назад

@@56jimmyg sx

@rvrrunner 6 месяцев назад

I was an Electronic Warfare technician on the FB-111 when it first entered USAF SAC. I went from working on B-52Ds to the FB-111 and what a change in technology. Lots of good memories of that aircraft!

@jamescraft7509 Год назад

As a young airman stationed at RAF Upper Heyford from 1980-1983 I was a crew chief on the F-111E for about a year before being assigned to Transient Alert, my previous aircraft was the Cessna O-2A, talk about culture shock. The F-111 was a beast and I loved it.

@brownedward93 Год назад

Thank you for your service sir

@brutusvonmanhammer Год назад

Also very ground crew friendly, or so I've heard. A pleasant aircraft to work on.

@glenngriffon8203 Год назад

Has to be one of the greatest Aircraft ever built. I remember them well from Vietnam. Flew so fast & so low. Those Pilots had guts. The Aircraft’s Terrain Following Radar used to give us goosebumps. They would swoop in over a hill and saved my ass on many occasions. I don’t know why Australia was not allowed to keep a few for Special Shows. To hear & see them coming in so low and then pull up and go to After Burners was a experience those of us that experienced it will never forget!

@davidclemens1578 Год назад

I served as a Weapons Systems maintenance/loader on the F-111A model from 1982 to 1986 at Mountain Home Air Force Base. By the time I left many of the A models had been converted into EF 111s.

@brownedward93 Год назад

Thank you for your service .

@jnbfrancisco Год назад

I was an instrument/autopilot technician and instructor on the F111D and F for nearly all of my 10 years with the USAF. I was puzzled by complaints from a few supervisors about the reliability of the F111 compared to other planes they had worked on. The reliability problems were mostly due to systems that were not on the aircraft they were compared to. The systems I'm referring to were vital for pennitrating enemy defense systems and accurately navigating to and hitting a target, the whole reason for an airplane of this type. Just boring holes in the sky is not much use. If the systems required for a certain kind of training were not not working the training mission would be stopped. It made the aircraft appear unreliable when it was due to the very new, very complicated and very required systems for pennitrating and accurate bombing a sofistacated enemy. It was attacked by the news media for over 20 years and the USN top brass ,ADM Tom Connally for one, for reasons that I could only guess about . Every time one crashed it made national news. No other military aircraft were given that attention and harsh scrutiny. ADM Connally got the USN's replacement named after him. I don't know if he got a cushie job with Grumman after retirement but it was common for those in positions who could select a weapons system to get a reward job from companys they supported. Pretty low down thing to do when you consider the huge cost savings that could have been used by our military for more and better weapons. Most of the cost of these type of weapons are not buying them but in the training of people and overhaul/repair of the components over twenty to thirty years of operation. The empty weight of an F111 was about 49000 lbs and the empty weight of the USN replacement (F14) was about 41000 lbs. I find it hard to believe that 8000 lbs extra was a show stopper. The F111B did successfully complete trials on the USS Coral Sea.

@marksadler4457 Год назад

I was WCIN on the FB-111A and was on the AMP (Avionics Modernization Program) team in 1985-1986.

@orestes1984 Год назад

@@thethirdman225 the early complaints of lack of equipment was an issue... The general size of the F-111 (much like Russia aircraft such as the SU-30) meant we could fill all that empty space from outdated avionics with off the shelf components from Raytheon.... America never fully understood what the F-111 could do at the time. The F-111 was never a fighter... It was a bomber with some suitability built into it. The fanciful idea that it would compete with other 4/4.5 generation fighters such as the F-14, or F-15 is utterly fanciful and nonsensical. The Australian F-111Cs were a completely different class of plane, much like the Israeli F-15s and F-16s due to the off the shelf upgrades we could fit in an absurdly over built plane. The only thing it lacked that the F-14 had was speed and maneuverability due to extra speed and maneuverability of the F-16. But we chose a bunch of Australia specific features such as the longer wings, and trap and catch features to arrest them on shorter or more rudimentary airstrips. The Australia case is the real answer to what the F-111 could have done with half a chance. The US didn't understand that they had a multi-role bomber on their hands though. Its true designation should have been FB-111. It should have never been put in the air without an escort until the airspace was cleared... Much like today... You don't send a B1 or B2, or even a B-52 into airspace until you know it won't be shot down. The US never realised the full versatility of the F-111. Yes it was underpowered, yes it had rudimentary avionics when it was built. But if the time was spent developing a new engine platform for it, and avionics, it could have realistically been in service today instead of trying to reconfigure the F-15 (an air to air superiority fighter) into something that is completely unrecognisable in an effort to put something cheaper into the air in dangerous scenarios than a B1 Lancer or B2 Spirit. This plane like the F-14 was simply not given enough of a chance... As to the "night regime" the pod upgrades we did in Australia were truly impressive, and it was one of the most hated planes in South East Asia for what it could do... completely unparalleled.... The real issue for the F-111 is that its weapons pods/pylons aged out.... We ran out of missile/bomb upgrades we could fit to such an old air frame, because no other western country was still thinking for the F-111. You should read up on the Popeye issue.

@marksadler4457 Год назад

@@thethirdman225 Yes, the FB became a G when sold out of country.

@moonshiner5412 Год назад

7:44 - is one of the F111s I worked with out of Mountain Home AFB, ID! I was a BB Stacker (Munitions Maintenance) I moved the munitions from the bomb dump to the flight line and back. Got to sit at takeoff end of the runway during night operations in case there were any issues if they came back in with munitions. We also brought the chaff and flares out to the planes. Had special small bombs to imitate full sized ones since they were more expensive. The nuclear shaped full size dummies were REALLY expensive! I loved the F111 from first sight at night between the hangars my first night at Mountain Home in 1973! Loved how the after burners would be turned off at exactly the same point after takeoff. Afterburner flames as long as the aircraft - totally awesome! Thanks for showing this!

@Dronescapes Год назад

👍🙏🇺🇸

@kiwidiesel Год назад

Having seen one of these things pop up over the tree line coming right at me followed by a steep pull up followed by a massive fuel dump and flames longer than 3 aircraft is an experience I will never forget.

@Dragon-Slay3r Год назад

Dove wings

@dgarcia0rivera Год назад

Probably the only supersonic bomber I’d ever consider using the word “trundling down the runway” for. It was a truly surprising jet.

@londonladjeff3575 Год назад

i am a plane lover and this plane plus the SR71 was my favourite planes, what a lovely plane this was for me

@Dronescapes Год назад

👍❤

@Yuki_Ika7 Год назад

I LOVE the 'Vark! the underappreciated hero airplane of Desert Storm!!! Deadlier and faster than the A-10!

@cattaraugustonawanda4426 Год назад

As a USAF photographer I took many pictures of the F111-F usually pieces of them after crash or damaged engines. Most amazing was a F111-F that managed to land with rudder and vertical stabilizer missing and shreds of honeycomb where the vertical stabilizer attached.

@Dronescapes Год назад

😯😯

@gort8203 Год назад

The reason the Air Force wanted the F-111 to have a swing wing was not for maneuverability, it was to couple efficiency with high top speed. It could lift a heavier load from a given runway, cruise more efficiently, and also fly very fast at low level when needed.

@slickstrings Год назад

It wasnt that the airforce wanted that. It wasnt a design requirement. It resulted in a swing wing because the designers established that was the way to achieve the requirements of high speed and acceptable take off and landing speeds and distances.

@gort8203 Год назад

@@slickstrings The Air Force wanted the requirements that drove the design. Like I said, the swing wing was not for maneuverability, it was for load carrying capacity, range at cruise, and high speed, all in one airplane. USAF did not ask for swing wing just to have one, they wanted it because it turned out to deliver the required performance. You are quibbling over semantics that do not affect my point at all.

@minirock000 Год назад

@@slickstrings It is what is said in the advert. Given it is just an advert information is always going to be hyperbolic in nature.

@chuckselvage3157 Год назад

I saw one years ago at RAAF Richmond in Australia I was blown away by it such a capable and lethal warbird.

@AvengerII Год назад

As an American, I have to think that aside from USAF aircrews who flew the planes and a FEW knowledgeable campaigners (generals who appreciated the capabilities the F-111), the F-111 was more appreciated by the Australian Air Force! The F-111 is virtually forgotten in the US aside from people old enough to remember when they were flying and a few aviation enthusiasts. Honestly, I HAVE seen them in museums but I don't think I ever SAW an F-111 fly overhead. I have seen all the Teen Fighters, F-4, and A-7 fly overhead in the Midwest (Ohio). The Australian planes were operated a few years longer in total than the American F-111 force. The US Air Force started some upgrades of the more useful variants of the F-111 (the E, F, and EF-111) but they stopped the upgrades soon after the Gulf War ended when they moved up (by about a decade?) the retirement of the American F-111 fleet. The FB-111A/F-111G and F-111A models had already been mostly retired by the end of the 1980s. The F-model was really the only version of the F-111 that met most of the USAF requirements. It was the best combination of performance, avionics, and engine performance. The Australian C-model was virtually upgraded to F-model standards but had the longer wing from the FB-111 version and stronger landing gear of the FB-111 as well; the C-model was refit with the engines of the F-model. At least one source I read suggested the C-model was based more on the proposed K-model (the version the RAF was going to buy) which got canceled more than the American A-model. At any rate, the C-model was better than the A-model and almost identical to the F-model in the end. Heck, the C-model fleet received spare wings from the F-model fleet when it was retired! The USAF NEVER intended to reactivate the F-111 fleet and most of the surviving Aardvarks were scrapped with 5 years of retirement. The F-111 was a VERY expensive plane to support. It took up 25% of the maintenance budget of THE ENTIRE USAF tactical inventory to keep the American F-111 fleet operating! As I read somewhere, it took upwards of 150 maintenance man hour per FLIGHT HOUR to keep the Australian F-111Cs operational! That's the 3 times the maintenance load for the F-14D and the US Navy thought that maintenance requirement was unsupportable!

@blackknight8560 Год назад

I worked on the F111c nice A/C 🇦🇺

@zacharyradford5552 Год назад

Those variable sweep wings while cool as hell where expensive. You talk about the F-111 being forgotten the F-14 is legendary and yet no flying examples exist in the US and are a dying breed in foreign countries today.

@AvengerII Год назад

@@zacharyradford5552 F-14s only flew with the US Navy and Iranian Air Force. The Iranian F-14s are on average over 45 years old, nowhere near fully operational, and are kept flying with baling wire. They have MAYBE 9-10 operational F-14s. They just do not have the technicians and manufacturing industry to keep the specialized systems of the Tomcat fully operational. The Tornado and B-1 are the last swing wing planes being flown in numbers -- by air forces that know how to maintain these planes! The Tornado will probably be gone by the mid-2030s at the latest. Tornado (the IDS strike model) is only in service with the Italian, German, and Saudi air forces. All UK Tornados are already retired including the ADV Interceptor version which was retired over a decade ago now. The B-1's retirement depends on how quickly they put the B-21 into service.

@steveb2915 Год назад

i live in NSW AUSTRALIA and im 34 now but when i was in grade 3/4/5/6 i used to see the F111 fly over our school wings swept back super low you would see it go past then hear the engines. it was amazing. we had BIG wheat silo's and i was told they would use them as a practice target. now we have the F35 and FA 18 super hornet and F/A 18 growler. but the F111 was something else

@johnskipper432 Год назад

I always had a fondness for the F-111 as a kid I had several models of this plane. It sparked my interest with the swing wings and I read about every magazine article about it. Now that I am older it still peaks my interest. I envy the men who got to fly this awesome aircraft. Having the knowledge and the finesse to fly above the clouds would be a exciting experience. I thank God for the men and the women who fly such an awesome aircraft and protected our country!!!

@rogerhudson2814 Год назад

I was once driving across Dartmoor and saw 2 F-111s (American not RAF) practicing low level flying, a few hours later one of them crashed. Terrain following is very hard,it's not just autopilot.

@elijahhodges4405 Год назад

We had one F-111 Aardvark aboard the USS Ranger CV-61 from the time I arrived in 1973 until I left the ship in 1976. I only saw it fly one time. I don't know what happened to the aircraft after 1976. This video answered the question. The F-111 Aardvark from the USS Ranger went to that mission over Iraq.

@timopkokko Год назад

Well, whatever others say, in my opinion, this is beautiful. Thank you for your service, darlings!

@ianando9459 Год назад

Forgotten history on the F111 for our American friends . Australia was the first order for F111. Not the USAF or the Marines. Little Australia. This order for 75 aircraft kept the production open. Tiny problem however . The wings kept falling off. The original swing wing pivot design was faulty. Us Aussies used to building clothes hoists . Yep. Got the Commonwealth Aircraft Laboratories ( now closed for over 35yrs) to fixed the design issue and we mailed the blueprints and engineering specs to our American friends free of charge so we could get long awaited delivery . It worked. We got the best aircraft in the world for a generation for Aust to use in the RAAF and kept them in service longer than anyone . Our brilliance in common sense engineering solutions is only outweighed by our stupidity in commercial negotiations . From one of your 25 Million friends Down Under .

@timf2279 Год назад

I wasn't aware the Marines ordered or operated the F-111.

@zacharyradford5552 Год назад

America has a history of sending its newest planes to its allies for “advanced testing”. Most famous was the P51 and the F4U Corsair to the British in WW2

@PrivateWalker Год назад

Time & again I've seen former senior NATO commanders state categorically that with stationing this aircraft in the UK, it seriously threatened all of Moscow's plans for successfully invading West Europe. I believe we owe this plane some serious dept of gratitude. Because Warsaw pact forces would of had great difficulty in preventing it striking deep & hard, even delivering both tactical or strategic nukes if required.

@kraut4676 Год назад

I think it was the best jet of its time. I like this bird! Have it with all the others within my flight simulator. This ist a very good documentary. Thanks for uploading .Subscribed your channel .

@BudFunOne Год назад

What a great piece!

@Dronescapes Год назад

👍👍

@stephenpage-murray7226 Год назад

68 F-111F’s destroyed 70% of the hard targets during Desert Storm. On one night mission 20 F-111’s destroyed 77 tanks with 80 GBU-12D/B’s.

@jasonmajere2165 Год назад

Which is awesome, but it’s not like their tanks did much anyways.

@stephenpage-murray7226 Год назад

@@jasonmajere2165 They couldn’t, this was before the army went in. 1,500 tanks and artillery pieces taken out. At the end one F-111 crew had destroyed 31 tanks and 252 artillery pieces.

@jasonmajere2165 Год назад

It was a reference to their tanks couldn’t do shit to ours. We lost 19 tanks most of which was from them breaking down.

@gort8203 Год назад

There is more to the story of why the F-111B was cancelled. The lessons of the TFX program are commonly misinterpreted, but if you repeat a narrative for decades it becomes "truth". The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not incompatible, but the requirements of the Navy later changed. Initially the TFX program was reasonable because both USAF and USN were asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. Twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with some variations could do both jobs. The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because the original USN requirement was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash capability. The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and USN want side by side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy, but MacNamara’s DOD thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy cancelled its version USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which had also ironically contributed to the airplane being too ungainly for a dogfighter. The original idea wasn’t dumb -- what happened was that needs changed. USN revised its requirements as result of combat experience in Vietnam, and realized they also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4, but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper of the Navy to recognize that its needs had evolved. This was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the heavy airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.

@RB-bd5tz Год назад

Not only was the multi-service plane idea not dumb, they had already achieved it long prior: the F-4. And nevermind that, in WW2 there were plenty of aircraft that operated from land or sea. And isn't the SU-27 both an air force and navy plane?

@gort8203 Год назад

@@RB-bd5tz Absolutely. How about the Dh Mosquito? For even more irony, many of the fan boys who decry the original F-111 concept probably admire the Panavia Tornado, a fan favorite that fulfilled both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. But too many people hear an unenlightened comment and simply parrot it for the rest of their days.

@PlumSack79 Год назад

I spent 6 months surveying in Silent Grove Northern NSW in 2001, it's where F-111 from Amberly practiced low level and mock strikes. I got around in a bright orange ute, they buzzed me many times. So low once I could smell burnt kerosene.

@snapdragon6601 Год назад

I love the name. Surprised the Chinese haven't harassed you yet.. 😆

@noelpura4223 Год назад

Amazing 🤯

@ronjon7942 Год назад

Supernonic? I loved the develpment of this craft. So many lessons learned in VietNam were applied to the F-111, and the fact it was used in the same conflict says a lot of General Dynamics, leadership and the Air Force. Would still be dominant if still on the assembly line, like a lot of our gems.

@brealistic3542 8 месяцев назад

After all the controversy the F-111 turned out to be excellent at the missions it performed.

@gort8203 Год назад

Guzzling fuel does not necessitate flight at low altitudes. The video reverses cause and effect. Low altitude flight is what guzzles fuel and decreases range. Also, flight at low altitudes didn't make the F-105 more vulnerable to SAMs. The reason for flight at low altitude was to defend against SAMs. Most F-105s were shot down by AAA because they were exposed to more of it when flying low to avoid SAMs.

@AvengerII Год назад

AAA was why they started flying the Allied fighter-bombers at higher altitudes (above 20,000 ft) during the first Gulf War, too. As I recall, more planes were initially shot down by AAA than SAM's in the opening days of the air campaign. They operated the attack planes at low altitude initially. A few F-15Es, F-16s, and Tornadoes were lost early in the war due to the Iraqi defense network. The F-16 in particular had TERRIBLE accuracy in the First Gulf War. The targeting pods the Falcons used then were set for low-altitude and were virtually useless when the planes were moved higher; later after the war, the USAF bought more advanced LANTIRN pods that could operate well from medium altitude (20,000+ ft). The F-111 with the older PAVE TACK system was at least 10 times more accurate than the F-16. F-111s actually destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the A-10 did as well.

@larryayres7412 Год назад

They where AWESOME!!!!!!!!!

@rexallen5193 Год назад

I remember this stack base baby beautiful airplane

@Brad-S Год назад

Really liked the Survival Capsule. Never knew about this till now. Makes me wonder how many other War Birds had or have this if any?

@arturoeugster7228 Год назад

B-70 does have an escape crew capsule for each pilot

@lawrencehubbard2985 Год назад

I used to see the F/B-111 every day when I was stationed in Izmir Turkey.

@matthornton44 Год назад

Comb-overs all round in this one.

@Dronescapes Год назад

🙂

@stuartwilkinson8570 Год назад

Cool sound track (synth) at around 08:00 minute mark, anyone know what that song is?

@robertborglund1384 Год назад

Side by side supersonic, fun fun.

@ljrlimited9490 Год назад

Ghaddafi's favorite plane

@tommissouri4871 Год назад

The last part is not complete without remembering U.S. Air Force captains Fernando L. Ribas-Dominicci and Paul F. Lorence, who were lost as part of this operation over Libya when shot down over the Gulf of Sidra.

@philkelly8031 Год назад

One of the greats that was fast carry a large bomb load & long range ground hugging radar that during the Middle East war done more damage than any other aircraft shame it was retired as it would still have a use even today.

@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 Год назад

McNamara’s idea of same aircraft for all branches made about as much sense as using Preparation H as toothpaste.

@bBersZ Год назад

I didnt know you can use preparation H as toothpaste. Got to try it

@Dronescapes Год назад

😂

@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 Год назад

@@bBersZ let us know

@bBersZ Год назад

@@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 It was super refreshing but tastes like sht

@gort8203 Год назад

Not actually true. See my own comment elsewhere here.

@mightymoyan4788 Год назад

I always loved the way the Sparkvark would make my hair stand up.......a shame we didn't test the long term effects more. The speed was just nuts.

@BobbyFigliola Год назад

or developed her further

@mightymoyan4788 Год назад

@@BobbyFigliola Just wait.......what once was old will be new again.......and really really shiny.

@umami0247 Год назад

Am a huge fan of this airplane and think it should have had a bigger role in bombing raids.

@WizzRacing Год назад

No other plane can go as fast as us. As low as us...And carry as much ordnance... B1B.. Hold my beer...

@jasonanalco542 Год назад

My favorite? The F-111 "Sparkvark" jammer. Needed a gold lined canopy to protect the the crew from the jam pod.. The canopy would literally come alive. Jam your stuff or microwave the crew.. Hold ma beer..

@rexallen5193 Год назад

Great airplane that day I hope you’re still flying I wonder if these are the ones that blew over Cuba

@randykelso4079 Год назад

The Cuban Missile Crisis photo missions were flown exclusively by the U.S. Navy's F-8 Crusader aircraft.

@johnks6733 Год назад

At 10.33 there is a F111 flying low & over a Dam. I am sure that is Somerset Dam near Brisbane Australia that would make it an Aussie F111 out of Amberly

@s.kirtivasen15699 10 месяцев назад

Thumbnail comment. Now that's a fiery fart

@mrwhatever9025 8 месяцев назад

We will never see the swing-wing again unfortunately due to high maintenance and stealth requirements. Mcnamara would have loved the F35 variants because they share so many parts.

@Awesomes007 2 месяца назад

I think commonality was unattainable until the F35’s era.

@johnteets2921 Год назад

The Aardvark digs a hole in the ground faster than any other animal. McNamara wanted another explanation for the nickname it got.

@pauljirinec2772 Год назад

10 years @ RAF Upper Heyford with the 111E. There is not an E I didn't touch.

@Dronescapes Год назад

👍👍👍

@kralikkral5560 Год назад

What is better - F111 or Tornado?

@RavingFan 8 месяцев назад

looked cool, even if welds fell apart

@moonbaby6134 Год назад

And the US wanted the UK to have this over a TSR2. 🤣🤣. Should have kept the programme going. Would have worked in the end and been an absolute beast.

@adamfrazer5150 Год назад

I remember the Aardvark was 'strongly' suggested to 🇬🇧 and a part of the reason for the abandonment and destruction of all airframes of the TSR-2

@stephenpage-murray7226 Год назад

F-111K were half built. Would have been a game changer for the RAF

@CakePrincessCelestia Год назад

Well, all of that eventually lead to the Tornado, probably the finest of its class. Just not as fast as the F-111... :D

@stephenpage-murray7226 Год назад

@@CakePrincessCelestia And without the range and payload. Oh and a single channel version of the F-111’s TFR

@CakePrincessCelestia Год назад

@@stephenpage-murray7226 True.

@mamarussellthepie3995 Год назад

They say the B never saw "service" but i watched a vid on the B being used in vietnam and scoring multiple air to air kills xd

@jollyjohnthepirate3168 Год назад

Remember that Robert McNamara tried to force this airforce bomb truck on the navy to use as a carrier based fighter. It's doubtful that this under powered, over weight plane could ever be made carrier ready. The one good thing that came from this debacle was Grumman who was tasked with making G.D.s overpriced monster fleet ready, designed the F 14. Grumman made the F 14 Tomcat as an air superiority fighter. Something the F 111 would never be able to do.

@RNicknackpaddywhack Год назад

With that range there had to be a lot of pilots pooping their pants in the air.

@Anthropomorph Год назад

🙀The F-14's parents were hot.😻

@micstonemic696stone Год назад

2:00mins in, bollocks was it the best the F4 Phantom was in every way maybe at one time, but you said in Vietnam ...

@damien5748 Год назад

It amazes me to this day if the Air Force chiefs knew the F-105 had poor manuverability why did the let the "Thunderbirds" use it in the 1st place?

@jerrycarver5469 Год назад

Between 1982 and 1983 I saw 7 F-111 get destroyed, 4 at once. They were on the " trin pad" getting trimmed out so they could be put on allert status. They were all loaded with 4, 500 lbs bombs one cought fire, set the another and set some of the bombs off. The ejection system was not much there were air bags that was supposed to deploy for land and water. The base commander lost the use of his legs when the land bag didn't deploy and it hit with only the water bag. 2 others crashed landed with no main landing gear. And I got the hell shocked out of me by a EF-111.

@williammooney8499 Год назад

What base did the 4 destroyed happen at?

@AirForceMike1981 Год назад

Never heard of this--am checking with the Vark experts.

@minirock000 Год назад

It's an advert. McNamara is a war-criminal, to say you benefitted from him is incredible. Still haven't seen any videos about bees yet, even though the station name clearly is about bees.

@timf2279 Год назад

The Col. was sugar coating the Operation Eldorado Canyon mission. It was not overly successful as far as the F-111. One aircraft and crew was lost. Primarily targets were not heavily damaged, although the IL-76's at the International Airport was a success with 4 desstroyed and 1 damqged. The Navy had much more success.

@gtpits Год назад

Watch out for giged missiles, the can be exiging….

@philliplopez8745 Год назад

Probably should have named it the " Lancer "

@Dronescapes Год назад

🙂

@vls0001 Год назад

Nice, a 'supernonic' aircraft??

@Awesomes007 2 месяца назад

Super aviation fan here. I just don’t get the praise for this aircraft. Not yet at least. Seems complex, expensive, unreliable, and never really proven in combat. I guess the F22 kinda fits that description too. And, other than it being a forerunner of the F35, the F22 - as beautiful as it is - seems like a bit of an unnecessary aircraft too. Hmmm. What’s its legacy? Is it on par with the F14? Was the F111 a deterrent like I believe the F14 was? Did it help develop future aircraft? Why do all three aforementioned aircraft sort make me think we could have gotten by without them? Shout out to anyone stationed at Mountain Home AFB! I’m from Boise and you guys and gals were out in the middle of nowhere - especially before Boise got so large. Edit: ok - it appears that it had an exceptional safety record. And, I underestimated their combat record.

@shaunmootoo1613 Год назад

'Supernonic'? Really?

@timopkokko Год назад

Remember darlings, this is a technology from decades ago. I reckon we - Americans - have something better available now. A lot better, baby. Just watch us. I love the United States of America way too much 🙂 I cannot help it either. That is way too beautiful.

@Robert-qk7hb Год назад

This is the plane that Ukraine needs.

@Byzmax Год назад

I'm sure this would have been a very interesting video but the music is so intrusive, repetitive and high in the audio mix it drove me mad within a minute or two. I did skip the first bit but the music kept returning. Just my view but I found it detracted from the video and made it unwatchable.

@thomasharroun8068 Год назад

Crews described their flying in F-111 as "speed is life", "one pass, haul ass", and "you do more than one pass in a target area you die". The F-111 was a very complex airplane without a defining role. It could not operate from an aircraft carrier and thus cancelled by the Navy. It was not a great bomber and thus the Airforce bought the B-1. It was not a dogfighter thus the F-15 & F-16 was produced. In summary an airplane without purpose

@dukecraig2402 Год назад

Yea, but didn't they put a real good shellacin' on Momar in 1986? I guess they did have a purpose.

@ryanmccann2539 Год назад

It became a long-serving electronics warfare platform. I saw the last of the EF-111s retired at Cannon AFB.

@jollyjohnthepirate3168 Год назад

Welcome to the Military Industrial Complex. Giant cost overruns. Graft, corruption, self dealing and lots and lots of pure, sweet bull shit. We've got contracts and spare parts deals. Sales to friendly countries opens up room for more graft. Generals get nice high paying jobs when they retire. Who cares if it works as advertised. Who cares if it's safe. Gotta get that sweet, sweet government money. The crews who have to fly this thing into a hot combat zone care.

@Lightning_studios437 Год назад

They were good at precise strikes though, it is said that the Aircraft being operated by the Australian Air Force deterred the Indonesians from escalating the crisis in East Timor, as one of the Indonesian cabinet ministers said, “The Australians have an aircraft that can drop a bomb right on this meeting table through a window.”

@codeysimmons790 Год назад

I disagree. The aircraft excelled in the role it found itself primarily serving. That was medium range bombing, ground attack, reconnaissance and strategic deterrence. It's swing wings allowed it to take off from austere or makeshift runways. It's range far exceeded that of it's replacement in the F-15E Strike eagle. It played a very important role in attacking key ground targets deep inside enemy territory during desert storm and destroyed more armour than the A-10 did in the same conflict. Plus it's payload to cost ratio was incredible compared to most other attack or medium fighters at the time. It was no dog fighter, and didn't meet the requirements for the navy that the F-14 exceeded in, but it was extremely important for SAC in filling the gap between the long range but vulnerable B-52s and the relatively limited numbers of the B-1B and later F-117.

@SpawnofChaos2010 Год назад

I heard in a pilot interview that the Air Force sent out a survey to its F-111 crews in regards to a name and the overwhelming majority voted for Boaty McBoatface. Not sure how true that is.

@smartiecooper4702 10 месяцев назад

TSR2 was a better aircraft scrapped & cut up by the British goverment for reasons unknown ?. could'nt possibly be, because, when the Americans say jump we say how high.

@thehomer5913 Год назад

"Supernonic." Edit much?

@dennis9695 Год назад

When do the jets go electric so we can really start saving the planet? 😂🙄

@kiwidiesel Год назад

lol that one tipped me off my chair.🤣🤣

@chuckselvage3157 Год назад

Lol

@RivetGardener Год назад

Robert McNamara might have been a whizz kid in the WRONG idea of the massive daylight bombing of Germany during ww2 but he was a genuis with Ford and the Falcon and Mustang Cars. He tanked as Secretary Of Defense and completely wasted the vietnam war and so many people with it. Where do you stand?

@SeedOfElijah Год назад

I'm a Camaro kind of guy.

@zacharyradford5552 Год назад

The wasted money on the F-111B is why you don’t let politicians with NO military experience in flying and landing jets on runways and carriers dictate standardization.

@imhimdk1785 Год назад

This aircraft is fake I never seen it in person so it’s not real

@ronjones-6977 6 месяцев назад

I saw enough of them for both of us. Tell us about the fake moon landings now.

@jimwalsh8520 Год назад

Heap of junk! Fast in straight lines, G restricted because thee wings fall off. Another real time failed in the USA aircraft

@gort8203 Год назад

You are obviously a low information commenter, because it was a very successful airplane in combat. It became a maintenance hog in later years, but that is not unusual for aircraft that were highly innovative when introduced.

@jimwalsh8520 Год назад

@@gort8203 Commenter? What word is that, is it English?? It most certainly was not successfull in combat, with no CAP to intercept them, they did a job but as in Vietnam, they were so dire they were withdrawn

@gort8203 Год назад

@@jimwalsh8520 I don't know where you get your misinformation, but even this video points out that the F-111 had a lower combat loss rate than other tactical bombers in Vietnam. So yes, you are a low-information commenter peddling misinformation. My only hope is to inspire a few readers to discount your disinformation and do their own research. And by the way, commenter is indeed a word, and you are obviously too stupid to even check that before making an ass of yourself: Com·ment·er /ˈkäˌmen(t)ər/ noun 1. a person who expresses an opinion or engages in discussion of an issue or event, especially online in response to an article or blog post: "the first commenter suggested that the story is a hoax"

@jimwalsh8520 Год назад

@@gort8203 Sorry laddie, it had a low loss because it was wihdrwn because the wings under high acceleration fall off. The information I gave you is avaiable freely in histoyr books and not bloody google

@gort8203 Год назад

@@jimwalsh8520 You must have a low information history book, or more likely a low information memory. The airplane was not withdrawn from combat, and the wings didn't fall off. You might be thinking of the F-105, which was withdrawn from combat when the shrinking fleet lacked the numbers to withstand the combat loss rate. Also, one of them did break up during a Thunderbirds demonstration flight. The F-111 was withdrawn from SEA when the 1968 Combat Lancer combat test program was terminated. It was a test program with 6 aircraft, not a combat deployment of a fully operational aircraft, and the wings did not pull off. There is no evidence that any of them were brought down by enemy action. The aircraft crashed due to failure of a stabilator control rod that caused full airplane nose down deflection. This fault was corrected throughout the fleet before the airplane went operational in 1971. This has all been fully reported in the history books for many years, and I knew of it long before the internet and RU-vid with its low information commenters even existed. Whatever is filling your brain cells is not knowledge.

@ThreeWheelTherapy Год назад

1977 to 79. 111d at cannon afb. 79 to 81 111e at upper hetyford UK.. c shop avionics. comm nav and ecm on both was launch and recovery for a year on the e.