Rare silent film of carrier trials of the F-111 B. This variant never went into production. The F-14 was developed based on the F-111 swept wing design and eventually put into production. The F-111 was there first, though.
My dad worked on this aircraft at Grumman Aerospace until they cancelled the project. He spent many years at Calverton in the F-14. He also worked on the Lunar Module and the a-6 INTRUDER. Wonderful footage, thanks.
I was at Mountain Home with our sister base at Cannon during 1984- 1987. This is an Air Force fighter bomber at it best. This aircraft has USAF written all over it. Loved this aircraft.
What squadron were you with at MHAFB, Mississippi Slab? I was at Mountain Home from 77 to 81 and again from 86 to 91. Loved the F version when we had it for a short time until they transferred to England during Operation Ready Switch!
@@scottbarron611 I was with the DCM staff ( Aircraft System Analyst/ Schedulers). Work with the 389th and 390th Aircraft Maintenance Units while I was there.
I was at Cannon AFB (523rd) from 1984-1986 when they had the "D" model. The F-111 and F-14 are roughly the same size, but the 111 is definitely NOT a dog fighter. They pretty much just dropped to the deck and opened the throttle if they got jumped. Nothing could catch a F-111 on the deck at night or bad weather when it was hauling. Anyone landing a F-111 on a carrier is pretty ballsy.
I was at Cannon AFB during that time frame also. I went to FTD to teach from 84 to 88. Left Cannon AFB in 89. Very familiar with the F-111D. Big acft to land on an aircraft carrier that's for sure
It actually did pretty well, landing on a carrier / performing its carrier trials. The F-111 is bigger than an F-14, but the Navy F-111B wasn’t as long as the Air Force versions. -the nose was shorter. The mid & aft body were just as big. The fuselage was the same size on all USAF TAC & SAC aircraft, as well as the RAAF F-111C. The wings however, were longer on the SAC FB-111A, RAAF F-111C, & US Navy F-111B. Wings were the same length for all USAF tactical aircraft. They were the same amongst the 3 types of long wing aircraft. That long wing gave the F-111B exceptional loiter capability for fleet defense / Phoenix Missile duties. The F-14 couldn’t beat that, but was still pretty good. Something that a lot of people don’t realize or remember, is that dogfighting was not part of the F-111B requirements.
I did my ABDR training on this F111 B aircraft in California in the 1980’s. This was first time I’ve seen footage of it flying. Thanks for posting. F111’s were great to work on. Hated to see them retired. The Aussie F111’s were some of the best maintained
@@bassbob42 The standard F-111 had 4 avionics bays in front of the cockpit, the B, to shorten it, put two of the avionics bays behind the capsule. Just one of the many things that made the B a much different animal.
Chris, worked F-111D at Cannon as a Blue Suiter mid 70s. Then was the GD Tech Rep at McClellan for the FB AMP program, then caught the first F-16s coming into Singapore. After Singapore McClellan requested I come back to work the Digital Flight Control Upgrade. Worked with your Dad for about four years since he was the Chief Engineer for the program. Followed the DFCS jets to Cannon for OT&E then when the F-111 was being retired headed to Turkey back on the F-16 program. Finished my 35 year career with LM as a Senior Program Manager for F-22 and F-16 Korean programs among others. I believe I have the test logs for the trials on the carrier if you are interested. With 8x10 pics. Hopefully they are still in my file cabinet at home.
Louie, Sounds like you were involved with a lot of good programs. I have a bunch of F-111 related materials - including an original flight test patch. I also have a custom model that was part of the F-111 LO evaluation program. I'm planning to one day gather all of that up and get it to a museum. I can include your items as well if you'd like.
Hi Louie, You and I spoke a few years back, and I was going to give some photos to you. I lost track of you, but if you can get your contact information to me….
Great video! I love starting 01:54 you can clearly see the 5 afterburner "zones" of the TF30. Starts with zone 1, then 2, 3, 4, and finally 5 right before the cat launch.
Yeah note no Jet Blast Deflectors (JBDs) raised. The existing USN carriers had to be modified prior to embarking the F-14s in the mid/late 1970s to have resistance to the head of the TF-30s in full afterburner. I believe the USS Enterprise was the first that used water cooled system. The USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) was the first to use composite ceramic tiles, like the Space Shuttle used on its leading edge surfaces. But that was after the Tomcats were gone, now its the F-35C with its monster Pratt& Whitney F135 engine.
Interesting tidbit. The Navy mandated a side by side cockpit, which is why the F-111, all variants, had side by side seating, and added to the width of the plane. After they turned the B model down, the Navy reverted to front/rear seating for the F-14.
@@doabarrellroll69 "The Air Force wanted a tandem-seat aircraft for low-level penetration ground-attack, while the Navy wanted a shorter, high altitude interceptor with side-by-side seating to allow the pilot and radar operator to share the radar display.[15]" -Gunston 1978, pp. 8-17.
@@IgnoredAdviceProductionsThe vark was a great Strike aircraft for its time and had a long succesful career with the USAF and RAAF but the Tomcat was better suited to the Navys needs as a fighter and interceptor the B-111 and F-14 have been obsolete for a long time get over it
After you watch B-52s take off all day, the F-111 looked like a drag racer. Unlike the B-52s that had plenty of escorts, the F-111 usually had some pretty lonely missions.
My father told me the stories about this aircraft, how it would shake the whole ship every time it landed. Great video! I know my father is somewhere on that ship in this video hoping to caught a glimpse of him
Ah, yes. The rare & silent F111. Great vid, not kidding. Nice job with not messing with the audio! I for one really appreciate that. Adding music is hit or miss depending the listener. Knowing from the start that the audio is not there puts me into an extra dimension of watching for some reason. Like that.
I had no idea the 111-B was tested on the Coral Sea. I'm guessing it had absolute minimum fuel load and, apparently, no ordnance. Considering that the Midways were not rated to operate the (slightly lighter) F-14, it's quite a sight to see the 'vark there
@@patrickflohe7427 I've seen pictures of it. Airman magazine maybe. I worked on F-111's at McClellan for a decade after Navy. F-4s, A-10s, a few F106's also. The F-111 would have seemed huge on the Coral Sea's deck. But we had three A-3's when we deployed. In comparison, 2 squadrons of 12 F-4s. F-14's were bigger footprint than F-4's also but I never saw them onboard. Coral sea stayed in service for a long time, all 3 of them actually. Coral Sea would vibrate like an SOB at flight ops speeds. Bent prop shaft from hitting a whale was the scuttlebutt, IDK, but I worked on F-4's.
@@x-man5056 When were you at McClellan AFB? I was there too, in the mid-late ‘80s! There was one F-111B there, and I went to check it out a number of times. Best part is, it was one of the last two, which were the only production models that were completed / flown. Worst part is, it was nearly picked clean, which was a shame. I believe it was tail #152714.
Thank you for posting this film. The only previous F-111B videos I've seen have generally been very short (only 30-60 seconds long) and usually just repeats of the same three or four clips.
The F-111B was a HUGE aircraft by carrier standards of the time, though the eventually produced F-14A/B/A+/D, not a tiny aircraft in itself, is said to the largest and heaviest fighter ever operated from the carrier. NAVAIR/NAVSHIPS did find the way to park & operate 2 squadrons of F-14s during deployments, and that's where we parked 'em. Of course, the Air Wing at times did include larger aircraft during deployments, in smaller complements, such as the A-3 Skywarrior (AKA The Whale) and the RA-5C Vigilante, to carry out specific special missions. The Skywarrior had a surprising number of roles throughout its history, while the Vigi was used primarily to conduct reconnaissance. Also, with no other aircraft on the flight deck, even much larger aircraft can be operated from the carrier, as Jimmy Flatley III was to prove. Admiral Flatley made 21 full stop landings and 21 takeoffs in the KC-130F during testing in 1963!
Interesting that they still went through with the trials after the B-model was basically turned down. Probably gained a lot of useful information going through with the testing that ended up on future aircraft like the Tomcat.
Bragging, I got a ride on an EF-111, less than 30 min BUT, I saw 690kts at 90' on the radar alt. Pilot was a LtCol who'd jumped out of an F-111 and an F-4 on fire and lived! He gave me an excellent ride I'll never forget.
I worked on the F111D from 1971 to 1974 at Cannon AFB, an instrument / autopilot instructor at Chanute AFB from 1974 to 1977 and an FTD instructor at Mt Home AFB from 1977 to 1980. I had students at Mt Home AFB that got a ride in an F111 as a reward for airman of the year or something like that. I never got a ride. I'm still pissed off about that. You are one fortunate person to get a ride. That was a very expensive ride that only a few got to enjoy.
@@jnbfrancisco Wow, you got royally screwed!!! I was the honor grad at the on base leadership school and got a ride with a real loser, he got lost in the tiny MUO range, ultra crappy ride, it's a friggin 111 and he didn't do any low level!! I was a tower weenie and I was down to something like 6 days left on base for a pcs. Sitting there one morning talking to a SOF supervisor of flying, a pilot and he found out I was leaving and asked me if I'd ever had a ride. I told him who with and he said, thats not a ride! I remember there were fridays where one sqn would be launching almost all incentive rides for a few hours. Maybe they started that when I go there in 80, left in 85. Dude you have every reason to be pissed!! Did your people push to get you a ride? For my honor grad I had to push it through, no one would do anything to help. That last minute ride a LtCol put that together in about 30 mins on the phone. Yes sir I was out of this world lucky. 90' speed of heat!
@@royal9848 boy would I love to be able to brag about getting to ride in an F111. The only ride I got in 10 years in the USAF was in a T29. The ride was from Cannon AFB to Nellis AFB with a stop over at Kirtland AFB. It was broke down at Kirtland for a few hours. I did get to sit in the Flight Engineer's seat for a while and during some of the approach to Nellis at night in 1973. I wanted to be a pilot nearly all of my life but sadly didn't have the eyesight or the savey to be one. Working on the top of the line A/C was next best thing. I was an instrument and autopilot tech. Best job in the world for me.
@@jnbfrancisco Ya, well you got something far better, you got "Best job in the world for me." Most people will die never knowing what they even wanted to do.
@@royal9848 you stated that you were a tower wennie. Is that a term for air traffic control? If so, that would have been my idea of the most nerve wrecking job in the world. I wouldn't have lasted a day.
Roger Wilco im sure you know this but to anyone who doesnt: Planes who have just caught the landing cables have to go full throttle at the last moment incase the landing cable snaps
@Iranian Bob Both answers are correct BOB. I'll better you one, upon laning Navy aviators apply max power in case they arent able to stop on deck. Being at max power increases the chances the jet can accelerate off the end of the carrier deck and regain controlled flight.
@Iranian Bob Dont be such a moron, a bolter and a broken wire are 2 different things. I wrote the answer to include BOTH answers. Pot calling the kettle black. Too bad you cant see passed your own ego.
I'm not an airdale, , . I'm a snipe, ... BUT. I DID serve aboard the Coral SEA. this the best footage of The ships smokestacks. I've ever seen . way up in that antenna tower was my watch duty ., I had the best seat in the house.
Charles Wiesner- I served aboard the Coral Sea with VF-111. Your seat was great but I hope you were never up there when they blew the stacks. I was working on a F-4 near the fantail one night and about died from that chocking nasty sulfur stench that burnt my eyes and lungs before I could get below deck. One of a handful of terrible experiences aboard her for WestPac 72-73. How about the JP5 coming out of drinking fountains? Hard to believe she stayed in service until about 85 I think.
@@x-man5056 I was in the Navy from 88-92. I was stationed in Naples, Italy for my first duty station. The Coral Sea did a Med cruise in 88 so she was still going at that point though I think she was decommed pretty soon after.
@@pandax75 Ahoy Pandex75. Naples sounds like pretty sweet duty. I did my 4 years on the west coast and West Pac cruise 72-73. The Coral Sea was decommissioned on 26 April 1990. I can't imagine her going that long. When I was on her the ammonia stench coming from the heads would knock down a horse. You almost had to hold your breath to go in and do your business. She was a very capable fighting machine though. Peace Brother.
it wouldnt surprise me if they are still using those tow tractors in the navy, they look the same as what we used in the 80s and 90s. Navy carriers dont change much, the planes maybe. The inside of the carriers from 50s look about the same as the newest nukes, I always thought the kitty hawk from the 60s was roomier than the stennis from the 90s. Watching these videos feels like I been there, I could smell the jet fumes. The oldest carrier I was on was the ranger (built in the 50s) even in the 90s it was just as capable as the nukes.
There's been a rebuilt program for the tractors in the (mid ?) 80s When they went from old yellow to white (rebuilt) USN uses a different tractor now, more squarish, but with the corners chopped off - google Shipboard Tow Tractor (STT)
This plane sat on the tarmac at McClellan (Air Force Fighter Depot, Sacramento) in the 80's and was there when I left in 87. It had long been rejected by the Navy by the time it showed up. BTW- I served aboard the Coral Sea with VF-111 in early 70's.
Simple explanation -- "Couldn't be bothered!" The Navy hated the plane. It gobbled up precious funds and wasted a lot of time. On the other hand, the delays caused by the F-111B meant they could get feedback from how well the F-4 was doing in Vietnam and know EXACTLY what they wanted in its replacement which was NOT the F-111B! I'm amused the Navy would leave an unwanted plane at an AIR FORCE BASE...! I guess they didn't want to pay the fuel bill for a C-5 to come and transport it off the base! The F-111B is considered "valuable" again only because the one left is one of a kind. They used to throw away planes like that without a second thought!
@@AvengerII I assume it went to McClellan because it was the depot repair center for Air Force F-111's. I didn't see it arrive but assume it flew in. I was told that it had cracked long spars (Longerons) but not officially. Probably came for in depth inspection, McClellan also had a neutron beam inspection facility. This was around 77-79 time period so the Navy has already long ago rejected it. I would have just sent it to Davis Monthan for disposition also but maybe they thought they could save it for some other purpose, I don't know. The Navy definitely made the right choice for their purpose, but the F-111 was an excellent land based tactical bomber. Introduced TFR and later F models with Pave Tack did a number on Libya during Reagan admin
Tarmac…it sat in the dirt, and it’s such a shame. It was practically picked clean when I found it in ‘87, and I found that very sad. This thing should’ve been in a museum. I was there in ‘87 too! I left in ‘88.
A lot of the delays were due to the Phoenix missile, but there were other things too. One of the things the Navy complained about the aircraft, was a visibility issue on landing. In response, the engineers raised the cockpit, so pilots could see down the nose a little better. I think one or two aircraft were modified, I believe on the production line, but I don’t know that either of them actually flew before the last F-111B flight was made. There were several F-111Bs that were actually completed and flew. A couple of them had the improved engine inlets that were developed to alleviate compressor stalls & improve low speed performance.
I had just gone on the ship and was in the mess cooking, We couldn't take pictures. We were on sea trials prior to WestPack 68 69, I only got to see it in the hangar bay.
f-14 was a better fighter, air force never used it as a fighter. The cannon on the plane never worked and the ejection seat or capsule was known for causing back problems. Imagine goose in that scene, would have been kinda weird.
Not saying they didn't do competitions with the cannon. It was mounted on the underside of the plane and stored behind doors so the plane could do supersonic flight without drag. Most of the time this was a complex system that was simply left broken and closed. That was my understanding
Ironically the TF-30 P&W engines accounted for problems with the F-111B and those same engines were initially installed on the F-14's. That led to numerous incidents of stalling. One was death of Kara Hultgreen (Raven) on final.
This aircraft is now at China Lake Naval Weapons Station. It is sitting in the sand, engines gutted, faded and tattered. It's a piece of history and should be in an air museum. I'd love to take a picture but photography is strictly forbidden. Next to it is an RA-5 and F-8. About a dozen other aircraft were parked near it and they were all fenced off but are now gone.
About the only role I could see for the 111 on a carrier would be reconnaissance. RF-111B. Although, I don’t know if it would have been any better than the RF-4B.
It would have saved the US military a lot of money in total operating costs if they US Navy had accepted it. Operation cost over twenty to thirty years are huge even when compared to procurement costs. I believe it was rejected by top Navy brass because they didn't want a trend of weapons procurement decisions to be made by the pentagon politicians to get started and more importantly they hope to get a cushie high payed job with the company that they were most familiar with as payback for selecting them, ie Grumman. Assholes for wasting our money like that.
@@jnbfrancisco It could only complete the Fleet Air Defense mission. F-14 covered the Phoenix FAD mission AND fighter escort, deck launched intercepts etc.
Vice Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, responded to a question from Senator John C. Stennis as to whether a more powerful engine would cure the aircraft's woes, saying, "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"
This is the fastest plane in the US inventory lol. WHILE it was carrying twice the payload of the warthog. So.. thats some horse-shit. The navy didnt want it, because Macnamara was forcing it on them, with his "80% commonality".. meaning the A (what later became the Raven) and the B are practically the same variant. All Aardvarks have arresting gear. because that was part of the 80%. this thing has a max takeoff weight of 100,000lbs. the navy wanted something between 40-70. and it was expensive and took alot of maintenance hours. The only thing wrong with the F111 was weight and maintenance. and anyone who says thats wrong. The F111 ALONE.. destroyed 1/3rd of ALL the iraqi armour in 91. As in.. 1/3rd of the entire armies materiel. twice that of the a10 warthog. The F111 was the best aircraft ever built.
Give it some F135s from the F-35 then, would just about DOUBLE the power of the F-111, turning it into an SR-71 without the heat protection....basically you would hit mach 4 super quick then explode from intense heat and pressure!
@@bartacomuskidd775 yes and no. If it had been designed in 1985 instead of 20 years prior we would probably have a much easier to maintain design that would still be in the inventory, alas, it has gone the way of F-14 - maintenance of 60's era tactical aircraft designs is just too much of a burden for a large fleet that flies modern aircraft. It was as they say before it's time, The accidents in Vietnam show this. Iraq also showed the potency of the Sparrow missile too but nobody will ever call that stick "good" for many maligned reasons. The F-111 needed either a bigger brother halfway to the size of the B-1 to fulfill that role or a same-sized new generation replacement. Going for the B-2 was potentially a bad idea as all the money spent on that tiny fleet could have funded a massive actual fleet of low vis standoff weapon equipped F-111 MK2. Imagine giving the Vark super cruise with more modern powerplants, would be hard to touch especially for IADS that are BVR/LOS
I think people need to remember on this it was not designed to be a dogfighter and was one of the first ill fated attempts to make a multi service aircraft and have it forced on the services by McNamara. For the Navy it was intended for really one purpose, launch, go really fast and attack Soviet bombers at extreme range with Phoenix missiles. A missile that had been originally intended for the Lockheed "F-12" which never really happened, we know it as the SR-71. So yea that missile system was looking for a home and it only ever was outfitted to the Tomcat in active service. Only Iran ever shot anything down in combat with them according to sources.
syorukel, you're right. If you can't raise the JBD because the aircraft is too long, the whole configuration of the flight deck will change. We wouldn't be able to park turning aircraft behind the cats like we did in the 90's
I love this footage! I bet you could feel the deck tremble when it landed. I heard it was more of a bomber than a fighter that's why they scrapped it. Sea trials were done as a formality even though it was already decided to cancel the project
One of the few times the military (navy) has told a WH (Sec. of Defense/macnamara); this system is crap for carrier use and we ain't taking it......so he foisted it on the air force (who were already quiet happy following the navy with the F-4) that struggled for a long time and finally made it into an EXEMPLARY bombing machine by the end of its service. Yet macnamara got his revenge by forcing the navy to keep the same original crap tf-30 engines in the F-14 for far too long (the m.i.c. has got to be fed).
TF30 in the A7A&B worked fine, but in the D&E models the TF41 was nicer to fly with more power. The TF30 got much better range though. It had a higher bypass ratio. When our squadron (VA146) first got E models, in a side by side full power race, the TF41 pulled ahead of the TF30 like the TF30 had not pushed the throttle up. A7s did not have afterburners at all whereas F111s had them on their TF30s. Early F14s likewise.
Where did you find this Chris? im trying to generate interest in the F111 for a flight simulator that take realism to heart. and any material to help is appreciated
It was in a box belonging to my father. He retired as Program Director for the F-111. I was able to convert the VHS to digital and uploaded it here. This is the complete tape.
My uncle's company worked on the Chaff dispenser for the F-111 - Never heard a good word about General Dynamics from him. He prefaced most comments by using the company initials twice if you get my drift.
Never got what the Navy needed that for. They had the A-3 A-5... What would you need a long range bomber for...The Navy didn't need a Nuclear Bomber either. Why they A-3 A5 were used for recon jobs.
Go watch some Crusader and Phantom videos, it looks pretty docile compared to those and they were the state of the art in 1968. Crusaders look very sketchy to bring aboard. Compared to F-18s yea probably a lot more sketchy but you ask these old guys to compare and they don't think F18s should even count compared to EA-6B's and some of the other earlier stuff.
The Russians were so scared of it they developed the Mig 23 to take it down. The Tupolev engine on that thing was a solute to the ingenuity of the Aardvark, though the A models were an electronic nightmare and it had some bad political history.
+streettrace442 The "fighter" designation for the F-111 was all about politics. Politicians don't want to fund bombers which why we only call the really big planes bombers (B-1, B-2, B-52). Smaller planes get called attack planes or fighters because it sounds less offensive, less dirty. I think they're lying when they call a plane meant for bombing an "A" or "F" type but that's reality. The majority of so-called fighters built during the 1950s were really bombers... They weren't very long-ranged, yes, but they were built to strike targets with bombs and rockets. There were very few planes built mainly for interception and almost nothing designed that could dogfight credibly between the advent of the F-100 and the F-14... That's just how it happened.
What people don't know is that the F-111B outperformed the initial F-14's. But, because the F-111 was forced on the Navy, even if it was the perfect aircraft, the Admirals would not want it. Tragic, as the plane is a beautiful and very capable fighter.
The F-111B was far from 'perfect'. It was too heavy for the arresting gear, too large to fit in the hangar deck, pilots couldn't see over the nose during final, and it couldn't dogfight. It was a mistake to try to fit a land based attack plane and a carrier based air superiority fighter in the same airframe.
@@downix If it *were* perfect (a big if), then the Navy wouldn't reject it. They happily accepted the FJ Fury (a navalized F-86 Sabre) and the F-35. It's just rare for a land- based airframe to make the transition to carriers due to structural and corrosion problems. The F-111 was one of the worse examples of trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.
@@GoSlash27 no arguments here. My point was that it had an uphill battle from the start, due to the airframe basically being forced onto them long into the development process rather than they being there from the beginning of development. As we see with the F-35, it began life as an A-7 replacement from the get go, with the Navy and Marines dominating the development. This was smart as the USAF is a lot more flexible in their airframe demands. It is far easier to modify a Navy plane to serve the Air Forces needs than the other way around.
It wasn't a failure. Just do a little research. It will do you some good. It will help you throughout the rest of your life when you realize how much you can be fooled by people with agendas , people who just repeat things they have heard and people who compare apples with oranges.
@@jnbfrancisco dude thank you so much for the life advice, I will now go forward with the rest of my life enlightened. How could I ever repay you. Are you like a motivational speaker or something, WOW you are so awesome. Bingo.
It was supposed to be a joint venture between the Navy and the AF. The Navy and AF variants were supposed to be more than 70% commonality in parts, but by the time the Navy was done with weight reduction and other mods, it was less than 30%, and it still wasn't light enough for the Navy (They really didn't want it to begin with). So, it was cancelled.
@@harrystone8847 I was an instrument/ autopilot instructor and technician on this airplane for ten years. I know quite a bit about it's abilities, problems and history. I came to believe that there were a lot of people with a lot of reasons to not want it procured and most of them had nothing to do with the airplane. The most powerful one was Admiral Tom Connally. I think his reasons for saying it was no good was he didn't want the DOD to determine what a/c the Navy would have because once it is allowed it will continue and the other reason is that it was customary for retired top brass to get cushie jobs as favors for selecting a company's airplane. The Navy was in bed with Grumman. Tom's buds were probably already working there. The stated weight issues were nonsense. If the ac was adopted by the Navy it would have saved billions of dollars for the DOD. Saving billions or cushie job, Tom went for the job.
Way too heavy for a carrier. Would have put too much load on catapults, arrester wires, etc. 10% bigger than a Tomcat (although smaller with the wings swept) and about 30% heavier.
You must have learned that new math I did not learn... F-14 cat limit 37 ton vs F-111B cat limit of 44 tons. That weight only 19% heavier, but it also included more weapons them the F-14. 10 Phoenix verse 6 on the Tomcat was part of the max weight launch. The USAF F-111's had a much larger fuel load. The bulk of the B models avionic is behind the cockpit, displacing a large amount of fuel. And the F-111 passed carrier quals with flying colors. Go and read the F-14s acceptance report, you will find an odd line in the report: "Inferior carrier handling qualities to the F-111"
TheThirdMan The F-111B actually outperformed the F-14A in carrier trials. In comparison, with both carrying the same amount of fuel and weapons the F-111B was only 3,800lbs heavier. The F-111B had many advantages over the F-14A.
' come on america... american general dynamics company can make it many more rebuilding F-111 / F-111sa jetplanes with better fast speeding up, more mile ranges, great update systems... american air force and navy needs that F-111 planes... F-111 can use both on the ground landing and aircraft carrier ship, too
@@KB4QAA There is an F111 and an EF111a on display at The Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195968/general-dynamics-ef-111a-raven/ www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Press-Room/News/Article-Display/Article/579892/museums-f-111-exhibit-selected-for-air-force-heritage-award/
The Navy should have kept this, retired the A-6, and still had the F-14. They would have had the Mach two bomber they never had with the A-5, with greater flexibility.
Except the Navy DIDN'T accept the F-111B for some very good reasons! A) The pilots couldn't see over the nose very well as they were approaching the carrier! It had horrible glint on the canopy as well and bad approach angles. B) The plane was already very overweight and that would have created substantial issues with the carrier deck (strengthening of the deck necessary unless you want to retire the carriers earlier OR risk a collapsed flight deck and bent planes) and stronger arresting gear (cables) which is not a cheap solution -- especially if you have to modify EVERY carrier you want to use the plane on! C) The Navy wanted -- REQUIRED -- a Mach 2 fighter, not a Mach 2 attack plane! The F-111, no matter what the Air Force called it, was a bomber. The F-111B was inferior to the F-4 (which was the plane it was supposed to replace) in EVERY major aspect of fighter performance that made a difference in interception and dogfighting. There was no way the F-111B would ever be turned into a credible fighter... The airframe wasn't designed for that! D) The F-111 was a plane designed for land bases, NOT carriers, otherwise it would have been a very different-looking beast. The insistence on commonality and turning a land-based bomber into a fleet air defense fighter was not one of the brighter political or economic moves in DoD history! History is repeating itself again with the F-35 ("Super Harrier" -- face it, that's what it was INTENDED to be; it was adapted for the Navy and Air Force from a Marine Corps design) and trying to force the plane into a medium attack bomber (Navy) and multi-role F-16 replacement (Air Force). The Navy has gotten its act together and is trying to go its own way again (to finally replace the F-18 with a new FIGHTER/VFAX) after repeating the F-111 debacle with the F-35 which ironically this time was led by the Marines to everybody's displeasure! A service has to lead its own requirements with its own engineers who UNDERSTAND mission requirements and what a plane actually needs to do! It's a disaster when they let another service take charge and they have to adapt that other service's machines for their purposes. It rarely works out! In the history of US fighter and attack designs, only the F-4 AND A-7 have been successfully adopted multi-service -- and they started out as Navy projects. The land-to-carrier adaptation has never worked out particularly well. Even the T-45 Goshawk was delayed by years and went over-budget because, you guessed it, they turned a land-based design (the BAe Hawk) into a carrier plane.
I agree the F in F111 is silent. to heavy, no air search radar, and not enough room for missles and bombs on the same sortie. also, the plane managed 0.5 sorties a day with 80 hours of maintenance for every operational flight hour.
Avengerll wrote: "The F-111, no matter what the Air Force called it, was a bomber. " No, Robert McNamara called it a fighter/bomber. Air Force and Navy pilots knew better. The concept was a single airplane that would do everything. The accountants McNamara hired to run the DoD calculated that the cost efficiencies of one airplane to do nearly everything was the most cost effective way to get the most for their money. Except an aircraft that could fight and win an air war. So it was imposed on the two services by somebody who had only ever flown a desk in an office. My father worked at Boeing, and was part of the design team that competed for the FB-111 contract. He said after it was awarded to General Dynamics, a lot of engineers heaved a big sigh of relief. There were lots of detail design problems they didn't know how they were going to solve. The development delays and cost overruns clearly showed General Dynamics had problems solving them, too. I'm aware of only one example of a fighter jet used in common by both the Navy and the Air Force, the F-4 Phantom II. I don't know if the services went in together or if the Navy joined the Air Force after the project had begun.
Ferndalien The F-4 was originally a Navy airplane. It turned out pretty well, so the Air Force got some. Eventually the F-4 was in use all over the world and I think Iran still flies some.
The Navy should’ve accepted the aircraft and turned it into a fighter bomber which it ultimately ended up being in the Air Force. It would’ve been a nice complement to the F-14.
