Talk:General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Names

You can't locate this page under F-111 Raven. You can't locate this page under F-111 Aardvark. You can't locate this page under F-111 Pig. None of those names are universal or widely accepted. All of them have some application. By all means create redirects from those other locations which refer to a little-used name which did not become official until after the aircraft was retired by the USAF; a name that was applied to a handful of Grumman converted electronic warfare versions; or the never-official but most common name. Tannin

I changed the article minorly to note that the aircraft's name "Aardvark" is not its official name, (in fact just a nickname used in the past by its crews, referring to its long snout). Why was this reverted to make it seem as if its name is what the plane is universally and officially known as? This is wrong, IMO. Explain, please. Graham 22:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Aardvark name became official at the retirement ceremony of the type on 27 July 1996 according to [1] among others. It never bore that name officially in its USAF service life. —Morven 23:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was an Electronic Warfare Officer in the EF-111A in the late 1980s, and was then a program manager for the Raven at Headquarters, Air Combat Command at Langley AFB Virgina for several years.

F-111s were universally called 'Aardvarks' or 'Varks' by their crews for the entire life of the aircraft. This name became official on the F-111's retirement.

The EF-111A was offically given the name 'Raven' when it became operational and was refered to as 'The Raven' by those of us who flew it. We also called it the 'Spark Vark'. Prior to its official naming by the Air Force Grumman, the prime contractor, called it the 'Electric Fox' but I never heard anyone on the military side ever use this name.

I was stationed at Mt. Home AFB during 1979-1983, and worked in the weapons systems, and phased inspection sections (366 EMS). I also worked on the 4 aircraft sold to the Australian Government. Lastly, I did assisted with some of the conversions for the EF-111 program. Another nickname of the aircraft, and the off flightline cafeteria at Mountain Home AFB was "whispering death".

I can't recall any popular names for the F-111 here in Australia, but it was (and is) certainly well-regarded. Perhaps a bit long in the tooth now, but still one impressive aircraft! --Surgeonsmate 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading a post by one of the original Australian F-111 pilots, who claimed they nicknamed the F-111 the 'Pig' as an unflattering comparison to the aircraft it replaced, the F-4. Certainly it is less manoeuvrable with a lower thrust/weight ratio. Unfortunately I cannot locate the link anymore. --cabdude 00:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interceptor?

I think this place qualifies as an intercepter. (well, as well as it fits into any other category) It should be marked as such.

24.110.60.225 06:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any offical source for the claim that the EF-111 manuvered a Mirage F-1 into the ground? I'm a former EF-111A EWO who was (sadly) on the staff during the Gulf War. But I have to think that if an "offical" kill had been somehow credited to an EF-111 crew then we would have been aware of it at the time.


An EF-111 did indeed manuver an F-1 into the ground. It was on the first night of the air war (Jan 17). The pilot was Capt. Jim Denton (one reason I remember his name, it's similar to mine). As I recall him explaining afterwards, either RHAWS or Awacs alerted them, They rolled over and headed down, pulled out, the F-1 didn't. There's a footnote in the book The Fury of Desert Storm, by Bert Kinzey, on page 154 concerning this. "Oficially," it wasn't counted as a kill because the EF-111 was an un-armed aircraft. I was the 390th flight line expediter (assistant line chief) on the night in question. Jim Dent 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

F/B-111

I seem to recall seeing something on TV a few years ago that called it the F/B-111. Was I confusing it with something else? The Matt Feldman Experience! 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FB-111A was one of the F-111 variants. What's your question? - Emt147 Burninate! 02:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AGNTSA

I'm not going to edit war. But does anyone spot the problem with this statement? And I'm referring to the content, not the grammar.

The key missing requirement that had been decisive in every prior air war, but was thought to be obsolete by the missle age, was maneuverability in a dogfight.

--Mmx1 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd sort out the grammar first and see if a contentious phrase is still there at the end. GraemeLeggett 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to kick a hornet's nest here, but will the mediation process reduce the redundancy of the F-111B section and the Lessons of the F-111B Cancellation section? --Dual Freq 16:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This article reads a bit like a Robert McNamara hit piece. Does the M16 rifle or JSF page have this sort of criticism as well? Seems much of this is redundant, and some could be moved to his page. No need to spread controversy amongst the F-111, F-14 and McNamara articles. It seems that the F-111 failure as a fighter is overshadowed by its success as a strike aircraft. --Dual Freq 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after skimming the McNamara article, it speaks rather favorably about the TFX issue, using words like "ahead of its time" and comparing it to other multi-role aircraft in the future. Seems to sharply contrast what is in this article. Seems like some of the POV could be toned down a bit, duplicate material could be removed and more sources could be cited. For a 53k article to only have 4 references seems a bit out of balance. I'd consider editing some of the duplicate material out, but I wanted to mention it here first since there is an open mediation issue. --Dual Freq 23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh oh, I'd better check it out. It was supposed to sound like a hit piece. It was a miracle McNamara didn't mess up the F-111 worse than he did. --matador300 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

ARGHHHHH. DANG THAT MMX1! HE f_)*&)(*&d it up again! He HAD to get in his POV that there was nothing wrong with the maneuverability (F-14 is not a dogfighter madnesss). I'd go back there and restore my (wiarthurhu) version of that section that replace a section that was not written by an aircraft writer. I was a bit harsh, but McNamara really did screw up badly. Not to mention Sheridan, Cheyanne, MBT-70, shillelegh, did I forget anything?? He does have a point about the JSF though. Can't you guys do SOMETHING about MMX1 before he breaks anything else important while nobody is looking. He was going around deleting the weapons system (F-111) defence flop pages last I saw him. --matador300 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense, given the length of this article and the relatively tangential nature of some of the historical controversy to the design of the aircraft itself, to separate TFX Program as a separate entity, and allow the F-111 entry to remain about the resultant aircraft and its design? ArgentLA 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me in principle - could you be more exact on just what sections you think should be moved and what should remain here (and/or be summarised with a pointer to the main TFX article)? Cheers, Ian Rose 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Anything not relating to the operational F-111 aircraft. E.g. the F-111B controversy, and most of the development history. That would be taken down to a single paragraph with a
Main article: TFX
link. As a parallel, look at F/A-18 Hornet, YF-17 Cobra, and Light Weight Fighter. Information is segregated along the procured aircraft and its procurement history, the prototype, and the program that resulted in the prototype.--Mmx1 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with TFX split, maybe the EF-111 stuff could be split as well similar to A-6 Intruder and EA-6B Prowler. Dual Freq 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The general rule of thumb seems to be that as long as there's sufficient material to break out, go ahead and do it. Seeing as how you've already worked out a prototype; go ahead and implement it. --Mmx1 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, User:Dual Freq/EF-111 is the prototype, specs are 99% duplicated from F-111. I noticed that there was a bit of controversy on this talk page (above) regarding naming of this article, so I'd like to ask for a consensus on the new article's name. EF-111A Raven was as noted unacceptable above, so what about General Dynamics EF-111 or General Dynamics EF-111A? (Actually conversion was done by Grumman, original F-111A was done by General Dynamics, so I don't know if that would work.) I know it's only 42 aircraft vs the 100+ EA-6B's but there seems like enough material to split judging by the resulting example page. I'll copy the sample in if there is some agreement in article name.

Raven was unacceptable for the F-111, but it's the official name for the EF-111A and I see no problems with EF-111A Raven for the new article. By Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(aircraft), no manufacturer name is needed if a name is present.--Mmx1 01:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Split to EF-111A Raven. Someone may want to double check what I left in this article to see if it is adequate. --Dual Freq 01:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

F-111 Australian emergency landing

July 2006. An RAAF F-111 landed on its belly after the nose wheel fell off. There is some very good footage of the plane sparking to a halt.

This crash landing on July 18, 2006 should be deleted from the article. The F-111 dropped a hook and successfully snagged a line that quickly stopped the aircraft. Sleigh 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable, I can't imagine that an encyclopedia article should include a list of emergency landings made by any type of aircraft. There must be hundreds of emergency landings by 737, 757's etc. We certainly wouldn't list them unless we were trying to replace the NTSB database with wikipedia. --Dual Freq 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. I only added the link on the talk page for interests sake. Ozdaren 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a look back through the different versions of the article. As the last remaining examples of this aircrafft I believe it should be kept. It is only a minor footnote to a long service career, however it adds colour to the article and does not detract from its overall encylopædic quality. The information about causing a sonic boom is even less noteworthy and yet you left that in place. Ozdaren 13:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I tend to agree with Ozdaren above. If the emergency landing isn't noteworthy, the sonic boom breaking a few windows isn't either. Suggest both stay or both go. Also, whether or not we decide to include some text about the emergency landing, I don't see why we shouldn't keep the news footage as a link, it's a recent/decent bit of film. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, there must be dozens of incidents involving various aircraft breaking the sound barrier, especially in Europe during the cold war. It's probably not notable to list all of those either. Both should go, just because I didn't remove it doesn't mean that I endorese its inclusion. I still don't see how a landing gear incident is still not notable, just because there is video of an event doesn't make it noteworthy. That's what you-tube is for, this is an encyclopedia. There are many fatal accidents for different aircraft and only the most notable are listed. The EA-6B cable car incident for example, it is listed, but there are many more fatal accidents involving EA-6B's but they are not listed, only noted that many occurred. This is a single, non-fatal accident, unless it results in the decommissioning and replacement of the Australian F-111, I still don't think it is notable for inclusion in the article. Inclusion on the Talk page is fine with me. Dual Freq 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I find your comment on youtube to be very interesting. Does this mean if I had a still shot of this aeroplane sparking to a halt it would be included? It brings up a future avenue of debate. Still versus moving images. In any case I'm happy with the entry on the talk page. Ozdaren 05:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a video that is public domain, or not copyrighted, feel free to add it to Wikimedia commons commons:Category:Video. My comment about you-tube should not deter you from contributing free material to this project. As for notability, I find this page to be more notable. It contains a list of 115 names of contractor test pilots, USN, USAF and RAAF crews who lost their lives flying the F-111. Another page notes the 1999 loss of 2 RAAF airmen in an F-111G. I certainly don't mean to downplay the expert landing that the RAAF pilot made shown in the video. 115 dead flying F-111 and I don't think a single crash is listed on the main page of this article. This PDF from Jan 2001 shows 136 F-111's attritted how many of those were noteworthy? Only one crash is on the main page of this article. Maybe I'll look in to these oversights. Dual Freq 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Influence on Soviet engineers

"Its design was highly influential, particularly for Soviet engineers..." What is the evidence/source for this statement? What part of F-111's design was influential? Profhobby 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add that bit, but I always assumed there was some influence of the F-111 on the SU-24. Hunting for the “Rustling Death” talks of an alleged defection of F-111A s/n 66-0024 on 22 April 1968. The Pilot and WSO are officially listed MIA here I'm not sure if there is any other evidence of the defection outside this article and I have no idea of the credibility of the article. This also asserts that the a/c said to defect actually crashed. Anyway, I'm sure that the influential line was intended to reference the SU-24. Dual Freq 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't add the bit on influence either but concur that the obvious candidate is the SU-24. Unless we can find a quote from its designer that they were inspired by the F-111, perhaps the wording in the article is too strong but we can certainly say that there are strong parallels in the capability and designs, partic. the side-by-side seating. Bill Gunston in his book Modern Military Aircraft (1978) is at least one prominent commentator who noted the similarities and probable influence. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought that the wording was a little strong for an encyclopedia, since no evidence was supplied. I agree that there are parallels between the designs and capabilities of the two planes. I suggest that we limit the article to saying that, in the absence of credible information about the influence. The planes were developed at about the same time and had similar mission profiles (the SU-24 was already well formed by 1968, and the SU-17 with the variable-geometry wing was already flying by then). Some day, we may know what information spies have provided to the USSR and the US about the development of these planes, but for now I suggest that we just say that the planes are similar. Profhobby 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Profhobby. Although there has long been a tendency to ascribe imitation to the Soviets, this is usually unfair. Remember, each side was aggressively pushing the state-of-the-art in aviation technology, and the principles of physics to be discovered are the same. As any designer should know, if two aircraft are separately designed to perform essentially the same mission with similar performance parameters at a given stage in the development of technology, they can and will often result in designs with a lot of similarity in features. "Swing wing" was the latest and greatest and all the rage at one time. Now that both sides have built them, operated them, and learned the relative advantages and disadvantages, well ... how many new designs do you see with it? --Askari Mark | Talk 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Australia

"During the first Gulf War in 1991 the United States Government asked Australia to deploy RF-111 aircraft to the Persian Gulf. This request was denied as the Australian government judged that these aircraft were too important to Australia's security to risk in a distant war."

Actually, my recollection is that the request for RF-111C aircraft was specifically to provide battle damage assessment to aid decisions on re-visiting targets. I also recall that the "real" reason (discussed openly in the media) was that Prime Minister Hawke had earlier given a committment to the Left faction of the ALP (in Victoria, I think) to commit no further military resources to the Gulf. I'd have to track down references but I'm pretty sure that's how it played. --Mike Funnell 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard the same thing too and none of Australia's ground forces were known to have been deployed. It was a strictly Navy show, providing AAW escort for the USS Midway (CV-41) in the form of an FFG and an speedily upgraded DDG (fitted with CWIS), and also providing Mine Countermeasures in the form of the Navy Clearance Diving Team 3. NiceDoggie 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a friend who was an Australian RF 111 pilot at the time of the gulf war. He stated that the existing US Recon platforms were failing due to the smoke from oil fires and dust storm and it was thought they were the only aircraft in the world at the time that could have performed adequately. The decision not to go was based on the speed of Allied victory and the relatively small number of airframes available at short notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.103.253 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Added extra

Hi, Ill start by saying my online name is ElectroSoldier, and my preferred F-111 is the F model, but I also know details about the other models too. I spent a long time studying the F-111 and the F-111F in particular, for some time I lived in Mildenhall and spent a lot of y time talking to people from Lakenheath which is where the F-111F was based for the majority of its service life. I have various sources, none of which I can quote from, but they range from people who are just fans of the F-111 and people who flew them in their time in their USAF service. I've read this 'thread' from start to finish and have a couple of things to add, but I will take them in the order they appear on this page.

The F-111 series is unusual in USAF service because it didn’t receive an official name until its retirement ceremony on the 27th July 1996 at Fort Worth Texas, it received the official name of Aardvark, but during its service life it was known as “Whispering death” (given during its time in Vietnam), “Aardvark”, “Vark”, “Earth pig” and simply “One Eleven” (Which is the name by which I know it). The only type known as Raven was the EF-111A, the development aircraft was known as “Electric Fox”. Its official name was “Raven” but it was also known by the unofficial name “Spark vark”, or it was while it was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford.

Interceptor In the F-111B version it was to have been an interceptor and fleet defence fighter as a secondary roll, it failed to meet those criteria to the standards desired and the project was cancelled in favour of the fourth coming F-14 series jets. Part of the US Navy requirement was for a long loiter time, side by side seating, a crew escape/survival capsule and an internal weapons bay, unfortunately these requirements meant it was to heavy for an aircraft carrier. It is interesting to note at this point that the F-14 series fighter jet did not have any of the requirements mentioned above, opinions on the reason range from the Navy learnt they couldn’t successfully integrate all those features on a carrier aircraft to they didn’t want the F-111B and they made those requirements because they knew it would make it to heavy. The F-111B was equipped with the same AN/AWG-9 radar and carried the AIM-54 Phoenix missile during trials.

The FB-111A did not get to a conflict, but as it was a Strategic Air Command bomber it was never meant to, if it had saw active service it would have been a nuclear mission because that was its primary use, it was however capable of carrying conventional weapons such as the Mk-82 loaded on the BRU-3/A.

The name of Robert McNamara belongs in the development and design history of the F-111 program, but the failure of the F-111B lies at the feet of the US Navy as well as his, he had the idea of using one aircraft for all services but it was the US Navy who made the idea unworkable with its requirements list.

The point of view that there was nothing wrong with the F-111 maneuverability is quite correct. The maneuverability during a dog fight was never a design requirement so it doesn’t belong in the F-111 story at all.

The F-111 was a for runner for many design technologies and a “first” for a lot of things so it have a design influence is by default inevitable but if you are going to say it influenced Soviet designers you will need specific instances of its influence and have documented proof, otherwise it becomes nothing but here say.

Also relating to the published article of Wiki there are some points that need to be added or removed. Weapons bay The F-111A was fitted with the M61 cannon; it also carried AIM-9B Sidewinders on an AERO 3B launch rail on a trapeze in the left bay while the gun was in the right bay. Other types used the weapons bay to mount weapons but the only weapon that had a Technical Order for the crews to follow was for the fitting of nuclear weapons, those weapons were the AGM-69A SRAM, the B-43, B-61 and the B-57 free fall weapons. The M117 was never fitted to the aircraft and I can find no reference to show that it was ever done. The FB-111A normally had a fuel tank fitted in one bay and either an AGM-69A or B-61 weapon in the other, but two weapons fitted was also an option. The weapons bay of the F-111F was converted to allow the use of the AN/AVQ-26 PAVE Tack pod [PAVE is an acronym for Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment and Tack is the program name], The PAVE TACK pod was first fitted to F-111F 72-1441 (while it was in use by the 494thTFS ‘Panthers’) in January 1981, and the others followed at a rate of 2 per month until all had the conversion by the spring of 1984, the 494th TFS went on to make a speciality of using the PAVE Tack pod, it was used for Target recognition and tracking, target laser designation, post attack damage assessments and navigation, the system was almost completely integrated into the F-111F’s systems, the weapons bay doors were modified to accommodate the PAVE TACK pod, the inner most doors (the weapons bay has four doors) had holes cut into them and a fairing to cover the pod when it was in the stowed position, the fairing is a bulbous version of the pod with the head of the device rotated 90 degrees [pictures can be supplied that illustrate this but I have no idea haw to provide them or whether they are property], the weapons bay also has an external hard point to mount stores, this was used to carry ECM equipment (Electronic Counter Measures), The AN/ALQ-131 Shallow was fitted to this station when the aircraft was fitted with an AN/AXQ-14 Data link pod, this pod was used in conjunction with the GBU-15 EOGB, it was the method of remote controlling the TV guided bomb to its target, the AN/AXQ-14 could not be fitted to another station other than the rear stores station between the ventral strakes because there was no wiring to connect the pod to the aircrafts systems. A normal stores configuration for PAVE Tack use was PAVE Tack in weapons bay, ECM pod on rear fuselage station (AN/ALQ-119 or AN/ALQ-131 shallow) with Paveway bombs on the wing stations. The F-111F weapons bay also had the ability to have a crew luggage rack fitted to it, this was a very simple device and took the form of a board suspended from the stores suspension lugs [photo can be provided]. Once the F-111F was converted to use the PAVE Tack pod the pod was rarely if even removed from the bay. Its use was simple, it was rotated down out of the weapons bay when it was parked in its TAB-V HAS (Theatre Air Base-Vulnerability Hardened Aircraft Shelter), it was rotated into the bay for taxi, take off and flight, it was rotated out of the bay during the bomb run or for way point information and rotated away after use, it remained in the stowed position until after it taxied to its TAB-V HAS which is when it was rotated out of the bay during post flight checks.

Though there were no Technical Orders to tell weapons loaders how to fit the weapons the following weapons could be fitted to the bay Mk-80 series free fall bombs (with any fin kit available to the series) M117 (MAU-103A fin kit) free fall bomb B-43, B-57 or B-61 free fall nuclear weapons AGM-69A SRAM nuclear missile AIM-9B Sidewinder External weapons [I will not make any remark to this but there is a difference between the aircraft having used the weapon operationally and being technically capable of carrying and using the weapon, for instance the F-111F was pictured carrying live GBU-15 (V)-1 on the inboard stations with GBU-10’s on the outboard stations but it didn’t not fly into combat with this weapons configuration]

The AGM-88 HARM was tested for use by the RAAF but it was never adopted and the only F-111C to carry this weapon was the RAAF test aircraft.

It’s a misconception that the F-111C can carry a wider range of weapons than the F-111F, the F-111C can carry this list of weapons but the F-111F can not AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-142 Popeye and Karinga (an RAAF cluster bomb)

The F-111F can carry this list while the F-111C can not BLU-107 Durandal AGM-65 D/G GBU-8 B-43 B-61 B-57 SUU-64 SUU-65 SUU-30 Mk-20

The F-111 family has provision for up to 8 wing stations and two fuselage stations, the four outer most wing stations are fixed for carriage at 26 degrees of wing sweep while the four inner most wing stations move as the wings do so the stores suspended on them face forwards, the two outermost stations (1 and 8) have never been used for anything other than testing or publicity photographs so are not considered [the F-111C can not use this station any more after the removal of the weapons release wiring], stations 2 and 7 have only been used by the FB-111B and F-111C for carrying 600 gallon fuel tanks, all four outer wing stations can be jettisoned in flight after the stores suspended from them have been expended. Each wing station is stressed for the carriage of 6,000lbs in weight, but carrying 6,000lbs on each of the 8 stations puts the aircraft above its maximum take off weight so the largest load it can carry is forty eight Mk-82 bombs, six bombs per station mounted on BRU-3/A’s. The four innermost movable stations are the most important for the F-111F, its capable of carrying any of its stores on any of the pylons, in addition to its offensive weapons it is also capable of carrying 600 gallon fuel tanks on stations 3, 4, 5 and 6 but only stations 3 and 6 have the equipment to be able to use the fuel in the tanks, if the tank is fitted to stations 4 and 5 then a device known to the crews as a “coke bottle” is needed to use the fuel in the tanks. The only stores fitted to stations 3a and 6a are AIM-9P-3 Sidewinders or ACMI pods. An AIM-9L or M can be carried on the other stations on an AIM-9 launch adapter, this was seen during Operation Desert Storm. Practice bomb dispensers can be fitted to stations 3, 4, 5 and 6, they are SUU-20 for European based aircraft and RAAF and the SUU-21 for those based in the CONUS. And the crew baggage pod can be fitted to any of the wing stations. The F-111 type also has its own type of MER (multiple ejector rack) called the BRU-3/A (Bomb Release Unit), it is a more streamlined version of the standard USAF MER [a MER is a device for carrying more than one bomb per weapons pylon]. When the F-111F was not carrying any live weapons it was rare to see it without these fitted, even if empty, they were usually carried on stations 3 and 6 while the SUU-20 was on stations 4 and 5. Any of the F-111F cleared weapons can be mounted to a BRU-3/A except those that must be parent mounted [parent mounted means it must be mounted directly to the station].

Weapons cleared for use by the F-111F

  • each weapon has a live and inert type, only live are considered here, weapons can be mounted on the stations or a BRU-3/A unless stated
    • denotes it must be parent mounted

Entire Mk-80 series family, with any fin kit available to the family (Mk-83 and Mk-84 must be parent mounted) BLU-107 Durandal Entire Paveway family of Laser Guided Bombs** [nb only the F-117A carries the GBU-27, the only Paveway bomb that can be mounted to a BRU-3/A is the GBU-12] Entire GBU-15 family of weapons, in any configuration of fin kit, warhead and seeker** Entire inventory of USAF cluster bombs including MK-20, SUU-30, SUU-64**, SUU-65** B-43** B-57** and B-61** nuclear weapons AIM-9 P2/3** AIM-9L/M** AGM-65 D/G** AGM-130**

Various types of ECM pods have been use by the F-111 including the AN/ALQ-87 (Vietnam), AN/ALQ-119 (V)-17 Short (early 1980’s), AN/ALQ-131 shallow (Late 1980’s early 1990’s), AN/ALQ-184. (CONUS based aircraft only).

Original Reason for Australian F-111 purchase was for potential Nuclear Weapons use

There was a documentary on the ABC Channel 2 (Aussie TV) concerning Australia's desire to obtain Nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the Asian Communism threats up north. A reactor was supposed to be built at a site in Jervis Bay, in the state of New South Wales, that was to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. The Menzies Government ordered the F-111 because it wanted a delivery platform for Australia's nuclear weapons. In the end though, the reactor was never built and by the late 1960's-early 70's Australia had totally given up on acquiring an indigenous-developed nuclear weapons arsenal. But by that time the F-111 was already bought and paid for, since it was ordered in 1963-4. And since that was the case the deal to keep the 24 leased F-4E Phantoms, with the option to purchase more along with KC-135 Stratotankers, was dropped out of affordability and cost-effectiveness issues, though a lame excuse tended by some RAAF hierarchy at the time was that the F-4 was only marginally superior to the Mirage! This claim however was laughed at by other senior RAAF officers who liked the F-4 and wanted it in the Air Force order of battle. The Jervis Bay site foundations were excavated already before the project was cancelled and you can still see it by way of a purposely constructed access road.

Here's a link for further reading: [[2]]

From this article it's stated that the F-111's purpose was as a nuclear weapons delivery platform. Though Australia would not be able to get F-111's wired to use nuclear bombs, it could be modified in the future, according to the article. Yes the articles can be seen as "left-leaning" however, if you take a drive to the Jervis Bay site you realise the scope and significance of Australia's intentions to have an indigenous nuclear weapons program.

The likely target in those days was Jakarta, Indonesia. Back then at the time of the decision-making which yielded F-111 procurement Indonesia was run by Communists with Sukarno as their leader. A report was circulated in Australian government circles detailing that the Indonesians were possibly developing a nuclear capability. The projected combat radius (at the time) of the F-111 was sufficent to reach the Indonesian Capital.

Funny thing is though, even though Indonesia is not communist anymore (since the coup which brought Suharto to power in 1965) it is still in the Australian psyche that Indonesia is a threat. Certainly amongst military circles that kind of thinking is still the case today. NiceDoggie 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have no doubt the Australian government weighed pursuing the nuclear weapons option, this particular article is quite unconvincing. It seems to start from the premise "There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the Jervis Bay project was motivated, in part, by a desire to bring Australia closer to a weapons capability, ..." (said non-circumstantial evidence not being presented) to a state of unqualified certainty. Considering the tremendous expense of developing nuclear technologies and then actual, employable weapons themselves, it seems to me quite clear why Australia preferred to opt for harbouring under the American nuclear umbrella instead. There are a lot of misinformed assumptions and biased interpretations in the article, so the quality of the journalism is most suspect. I suspect the real reason for dropping the option on the F-4 (which could itself carry tac nukes, by the way), was financial – as it long has been in Australia. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bit late in the day to be replying to this but still... I'm also dubious about the claim that purchase of the F-111 was motivated by a desire for a nuclear weapons delivery platform. I've spent a lot of time writing or expanding articles on the senior RAAF commanders and according to one of the major sources, Alan Stephens' Royal Australian Air Force: A History, the Air Force investigated the purchase of nuclear weapons in the late 1950s for use with the Canberra bomber and also as ordnance for a potential V-bomber acquisition (Vulcan most likely) - neither of which ever came to fruition. The F-111 was indeed purchased for the purpose of strike against Indonesia if it ever came to that but by then the RAAF had effectively given up the idea of a nuclear arsenal. The F-111s were expected to carry convential ordnance, with simply an 'option' for nuclear weaponry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Australia did not proceed with Jervis Bay as a result of signingning the non-proliferation treaty in 1968 in order to appease the United States who subsequently agreed to bring Australia under the US nuclear Umbrella as a trade-off. Research into nuclear enrichment continued until the 1980's. It was thought by Sir Philip Baxter (project backer)that we would need them by the year 2000. It is unlikely that the F111 was purchased given the time frame involved. It was however purchased to bomb Jakarta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.103.253 (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Movies, Books & Models

Where in live is not far from Upper Heyford (and where the Raven infamously crashed on a car park) so I have a keen interest in this aircraft. Also, we saw the F-111Fs on their way to Tripoli one evening - three or four aircraft in formation with a KC-135. They were heading west at probably 10k feet but were clearly visible as several of these 'cells' passed over. We were confused by this sight and only when we read the newspapers the next day did we realise why they were going in the wrong direction.

Anyway, to some points for this entry. First, other planes on Wikipedia have mention of their starring role in the movies e.g. F16s in Iron Eagle etc., so does anyone know of use of F111s in films? I vaguely recall a sequence in an Australian movie in the 80s, it is the classic shot of the terrain following over a dam with the wings bending etc. Local TV in the UK did several programmes about the F111 or more particularly Mildenhall and Lakenheath.

The Vaark has also featured in a few novels particularly those by Dale Brown. These are very good and since he was a pilot in this machine probably worth a mention in a 'trivia' section perhaps.

Finally, perhaps there could be mention of plastic model kits? One Xmas I got as my 'big pressie' the Revell kit which could be made as either the USN or USAF version with interchangeable noses etc. I recall getting very frustrated with the undercarriage which was retractable. Oh yes, I was always puzzled by this design which featured a huge airbrake which had to open when the plane was taking off. Odd because you would think the drag would be problematic given the fact that it was underpowered. There was a lot of media worry about crashes around Upper Heyford owing to this and the proximity of the village. Not to mention the rows of bomb bunkers some of which may have contained 'special weapons'. UH is now a huge car park for Ford etc to temporarily store new-build cars prior to delivery.

The FB-111 was only rarely a visitor outside the CONUS I believe. I think of an amazing photo of one which visited the Paris Air Show in the early 70s in the mag Flying Review where an FB-111 had no less than three huge fuel tanks on each wing. It had flown non-stop from Carswell (?) without IFR and with an internal load. I saw one only once in the 80s at the Mildenhall Air Fete. Few in the crowd recognised the significance of this machine at the time I suspect as it hurtled past. 81.86.144.210 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Australian film you're referring to is probably "Turkey Shoot" aka "Escape 2000". The F-111 also makes an appearance in "Red Dawn". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.149.189 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I have a lot of shots of F-111C A8-129 I took at the RAAF Richmond Air Show last year if you care to use any of them on this page. I thought they would be more interesting than the usual RAAF publicity you've seen over and over again on the net.Adam1983 05:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My Pics (Page 3-4)

Movies

In regards to F-111s in movies, USAFE F-111s ('F's IIRC) play a major role in The Fourth Protocol. I don't know if you've seen it but it's based on the Frederick Forsyth book where a KGB agent is sent under deep cover into England to act as the Executive Officer for Operation Aurora, a plan to destabilise the UK and NATO by detonating a small-yield nuclear device near the fictional RAF Baywaters (In the book it was RAF Bentwaters. For reasons I could never understand, Forsyth kept mentioning that F-5 "strike planes" were based at Bentwaters and carried tactical nukes (?) and he revolved the plot of detonating the nuke near Bentwaters because of these "nuclear carrying" F-5s were based there. Considering the Upper Heyford and Lakenheath F-111s were tasked with theatre nuclear strike, this was a major mistake IMO, especially for an author renowned for his research, or perhaps there was a reason he used F-5s. I guess the producers of the film corrected his mistake!) making it look like an accidental detonation of an American weapon and capitalising on the strong anti-nuclear sentiment at the time. The F-111s in the movie are clearly F-111Fs from the 48th TFW at RAF Lakenheath. To the best of my memory, the movie features scenes of F-111s taxying, landing, taxing off, flying low over surrounding residential areas and numerous references to the 'Vark are made. It stars Pierce Brosnan as the KGB agent and Michael Caine as the MI5 Officer hunting him down.

IMDB [The Fourth Protocol Wiki Page] Adam1983 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actual Combat Radius with Payload

Some clown in the Artillery Corps in the Australian Army told me that you can pack 10 MK84's on the F-111 and can fly a combat mission over a combat radius of 3000 miles. Now I thought this was pure hog wash. As far as I knew, an F-111 with 4 2000lbs LGB's could fly at around 600 to 750 miles, without tanker support, and could fly over 1000 miles with a 4000 lbs bomb load. Now granted the bloke was from Artillery, but can someone with the knowledge set the record straight and provide information on actual combat radii with particular weapon configurations, please? Wikiphyte 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You did get the bloke to lay his money down on that bet while he was still snookered, didn't you? Even clean, the F-111 couldn't have made an unrefuelled radius of 3000 nm – which would have been 6000 nm total flight! Jane's gives the max range for a clean F-111A with max internal fuel as "over 2,750 n miles". I don't have a weapons config sheet handy, but only four of the hardpoints were ever normally used to carry weapons (the outboard hardpoints being a bad idea that had sounded like a good idea to someone at the time), and these were rated for 2000-lb-class loads. So its unrefuelled radius with 4x Mk 84's would be in the same range as you quote above for the LGBs. Um, your arty buddy isn't responsible for indirect fire adjustment, is he? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHA I bet him his entire year salary. I really don't think he's gonna pay up anytime soon. As for indirect fire adjustment, well, all I can say is I'm glad I left the Army, and got a real job:P. Thanks for the input. I hope he reads it when he gets online! Probably won't believe you too, LOL! Wikiphyte 09:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikiphyte, that clown is from the Artillery Corps. They're not the brightest people in the Army! The fact that he is from the army already means that what he said shouldn't have been taken seriously. That dude being in the Arty Corps reinforces it! What a clown to think the F-111 has that kind of range with bombs! Maybe he got his numbers mixed around, and if that's the case I wouldn't want to be in the Army and have to call in for some fire support! Unbelievable! Signal Buster (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

TFX Scandal

Article should make some mention of the 1963 Bobby Baker/LBJ scandal. Drutt 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Strategic bomber?

I am certainly no expert on air power, but our description of the F-111 as a strategic bomber seems rather odd to me. So far as I know there is no formal definition of a cut-off beyond which you can't be "strategic", but the strategic performance of the F-111 is rather pitiful in comparison to, say, the B-52 Stratofortress or B-1 Lancer. The B-52 can haul 60,000 lbs of bombs, and has a combat radius of 3,890 NM; the B-1 can carry two dozen 2,000 pounders, and has a combat radius of 2,993 NM. In comparison the F-111 has a maximum combat radius of only 1,160 NM, and so far as I can tell that's only carrying two bombs; with half a dozen, the range drops to around 600 NM (at that range, Australia's F-111s can't actually reach any foreign countries from their normal bases.) So, how, exactly, do we classify it as a strategic bomber? One possibility (that I can refer only to a military blog, alas) is that the USAF at some point designated any aircraft that was in-principle capable of carrying nuclear weapons, as a strategic bomber. If so, one should observe that a) that definition is not consistent with our strategic bomber article and b) since the deployment of the W54 in 1961, it is not a particularly useful definition since nearly any aircraft is in-principle capable of delivering nuclear weapons. -- Securiger (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is the the FB-111 was considered the 'strategic bomber' variant, not any of the others. I can probably locate a source on that if interested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
More like a medium bomber or fighter bomber. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Content arrangement comments

Currently this article has most of the history of the F-111 in the Variants section. I think more of that should be in the Development section so the Variants sections are focus more on describing the features of the variant. For now I'm going to try and add some summary info to the Development section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the Escape crew capsule?

I looked all over the article on the F-111 and there's nothing about the unique Escape crew capsule. At the e.c.c. article they have a link to the F-111 page but there's no metion of it on the actual F-111 page, and I think there should be since the F-111 is one of the few planes that use it.204.80.61.110 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Good catch. It should be mentioned somewhere, like the Design section. The extra weight of the capsule caused weight issues on the Navy F-111B variant. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

F111 Operational History

While the nuclear-oriented F-111 was not ever used in action its stablemates all saw action at one time or another. The earlier versions earned the nick-name Whispering Death when completing raids that other US aircraft could not. Sadly several were lost due to unknown causes. Later on in the 1980s, the F111s and EF111s from Lakenheath and Upper Heyford, UK, provided the USAF component of Operation Eldorado Canyon against Libya. In the 1990s, these and other F111s saw further action in the Middle East during the Desert Storm operations against Iraq. The Australian F111s have so far not seen military action. They may, however, have taken part in support patrols over the ocean from time to time. Losses of F111s have reached double figures over the plane's career. Though it is believed none have been shot down by enemy aircraft; in SE Asia there were losses which in some cases believed to be due to ground fire. There are few novels which include F111s. A notable exception is Dale Brown's Chains of Command.

"From 1968 to 1973, the F111 was grounded several months because of excess losses of aircraft. By 1969, there had been 15 F111s downed by malfunction or enemy fire. The major malfunctions involved engine problems and problems with the terrain following radar (TFR) 8 of the F111s downed during the war were flown by crews that were captured or declared missing". [See: http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c160.htm].

Conversely, during operation Desert Storm an EF-111 was responsible for one of the first kills of the conflict as a maneuvering Raven caused a pursuing Iraqi Mirage to crash into the ground.

On a personal note, I live not far from Upper Heyford and frequently saw these fine machines flying over and at the USAF Open House Days. I remember the UH F111 and EF111 which crashed nearby. I was driving home from Oxford when I saw the Hummers and Helo's racing to the flaming wreckage of the Raven. Earlier, in 1986 I had seen the F111Fs trailing their tankers as they headed to Tripoli.

There is a website dedicated to Upper Heyford: http://www.raf-upper-heyford.org/Mishaps.html which also details crashes - 11 in total (though a newspaper report on that site claims 13). It starts with an F111 in Scotland while on low level training (1973). Other crashes include an F-111E [Tail Number 68-024] which crashed on 11th January 1973 not far from where I live in North Crawley. It caused quite a stir because the escape pod smashed into someone's greenhouse.

Other losses include one in Cumberland, one in the North Sea, and also in Llangadfan, Wales. One crashed at RAF Fairford, [79th TFS F-111E 68-082 on 25 March 1981], one in Blandford, Dorset. In 1990 on Feb 5th aircraft 68-0001, or "Balls 1" as it was more commonly referred to, crashed on the Wainfleet Range off Lincolnshire, UK, when its wingtip hit water. Both crew were killed. The last F-111E to be lost from Upper Heyford was Tail Number 68-052, on 17th September, 1992, ironically on the UH Base Perimeter.

Upper Heyford suffered two losses of the EF-111 Raven. First, EF-111A Tail Number 66-0023, crashed on 14th February, 1991, while on deployment in Saudi Arabia, the crew were killed. Apparently, it crashed during combat maneuvering while being mistakenly targeted by F-15. On a better note the last plane to be lost from UH - EF-111A TN 66-0056 crashed near the former RAF Bomber Command Finmere airfield on 2nd April 1992 (29th TFW, 42nd ECS) due to fuel duct failure; the crew's escape pod ejected properly and they were OK. However, the plane crashed on a car park causing a huge fire. Another few yards shorter and it would have smashed through the roof of the largest building for miles occupied by dozens of people working for the Dalgety company. It seems the crew had to leave the aircraft so they had no control over where it crashed. The plane had left the base only a short while earlier and so was fully fuelled though it carried no weapons.

Another couple of points. Mentioned in the main text is a nickname 'Pig'. I am not sure of this, as far as I know the F111 was sometimes known as the 'Earthpig' which is another reference to its mission, appearance and Aardvark is Afrikaans for "Earth Pig". Second, the F111 may have originally been designed for the US Navy as an interceptor but when that service rejected the plane it was left to the USAF to take it up. Their designations are sometimes confusing but I doubt you could describe any of the USAF (or Australian) versions as anything other than a bomber or strike aircraft. Some recce is also carried out and Sidewinders have been carried but only for self-defence.

The EF-111 Ravens now reside among other classic types in the dusty rows of Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) formerly known as Military Aircraft and Storage Disposition Center (MASDC). AMARC is located in the Davis-Monthan AFB out in the Arizona desert.

As to its capabilities see: Future Of Airborne Tactical Jamming at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/AMW.htm

Nobody knows for sure just how fast the 'Vark could go. Its speed was limited by the windscreen which was made out of acrylic to save weight. At high speeds friction-generated heat becomes the limiting factor, and there's a warning light and 300 sec countdown if the temp sensor becomes unhappy. Officially the limit is mach 2.2 at altitude, and at sea level the sound barrier gets torn to shreds. Most missions were flown transonic though to maximise airframe life.

Yeah I seem to have an cultural memory of many regular F-111 crashes and failures here in Australia so much so that they seemed to be dropping out of the sky and were considered at one stage to be a bit of a joke here like junky old American planes that Australia got lumbered with. I think I remember constant problems/failures with the swing wing too but if I remember again it had one or tow outstanding benefits: an exceptionally long range (something surprisingly missing with the JSF and other purchases they are considering now) along multi-tasking multiple and large payloads. It surpirses me then that there is little mention of it operational problems in AU in the article... The phrase "flying coffin" comes to mind... 122.148.173.37 (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RAAF Deterrent Role Originally envisaged?

Can someone confirm if a driving factor behind Australia's purchase of the F-111 lay in the desire back in the 1950's and 60's for Australia to have nuclear weapons and a means of delivering it? Cat Balou 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If by deterrent role you mean a strategic deterrent and a strategic nuclear weapons carrier, then I would say the answer is no. US SAC used FB-111 aircraft for strategic nuclear weapons. The FB-111 is different from the F-111, which could have carried smaller tactical nuclear weapons. I would imagine any tactical aircraft could carry an appropriately sized tactical nuclear weapon. --Dual Freq 19:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard that Australia ever had plans to acquire nuclear weapons. Askari Mark | Talk 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Australia had very definite plans to acquire nuclear weapons in the early cold war period (after all, Australia didn't allow a foreign power, the UK, to detonate nuclear weapons on its soil without a quid pro quo ;-). The released cabinet papers of the time are very definite on this point. Australia has had the technical know-how (and possibly the components) to build Teller-Ullman type H-bombs since the mid 1950s, a fact well known by all our potential enemies; it's almost as good a deterrent as actually putting them together ;-)--Phil Wardle (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone cite the particular cabinet papers Mr Wardle refers to? And can it be shown that they establish that Australia's decision to order the F-111 was in some way connected with some desire to have the ability to deliver nuclear weapons? Markswan (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The RAAF was originally going to buy the TSR-2 and only changed to the F-111 when the TSR-2 was cancelled. The TSR-2 was developed as a nuclear strike/reconnaissance aircraft. BTW, the UK wasn't a 'foreign' power to Australia then - try reading some history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.94 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian F-111 Replacement, JSF Stop Gap

In late December, the RAAF asked the USN for pricings for a squadron of Super Hornets as a stop gap measure pending delivery of the JSF. They would be to replace its F111s. See:


http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/19/Navigation/190/211167/Australia+eyes+Boeing+FA-18F+Super+Hornet+squadron+as+JSF+stopgap.html

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20061224.aspx

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/12/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf/index.php

and

"So with the F-111s to be rolled out of their hangars for the last time in 2010, Australia will face a big capability gap, the duration of which no one can be sure". This discusses the RAAF opting for the F22.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/10/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated/index.php

There was also a special edition of Four Corners that discussed the replacement. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.53.199 (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi i was just wondering if anyone could tell me what will most likely happen to the f111's upon their retirement. Will they be taken to a boneyard or put on display. Also do you think any of them will be put up for sale for other air forces or for private use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xav 101 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The F-111s are being retired because they are running out of fatigue life. So probably put some on display, maybe store some in boneyard(s) and scrap some. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting fact about Gulf War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=RU&hl=ru&v=6ZmnVqkKapI. --Oleg Str (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More applicable to EF-111A Raven. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk 82 or BSU 49

There is a picture, on which the F-111 drops bombs with chutes. The subtext: "F-111F aircraft releasing its load of Mark 82 high-drag bombs over the Bardenas Reales range." If I'm rightly informed, the high-drag version of Mk 82 is called BSU 49. The same with Mk 84 - BSU 50. What do you say? --87.78.71.92 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

General Dynamics F-111 → F-111 Aardvark — As I recall, per WP:AIR, U.S. aircraft have a preferred page name format of (DESIGNATION+OFFICIALNAME). (MANUFACTURER+DESIGNATION) is only used when there isn't an official name to facilicate the former. Now, for many years the F-111 was known by the nickname "Aardvark", but it had no official name.

...until the date of its USAF retirement, at which point it was, in fact, officially given the name Aardvark.

Therefore, I do believe this page should be at F-111 Aardvark, not General Dynamics F-111. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Per nom. In fact, we have at least one aircraft, the SR-71 Blackbird, in which "Blackbird" was never, to my knowledge, ever made the official name. I've never quite understood the disparity here, though of course article names are generally approved on an individual basis, as they should be. However, General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B should probably remain at its current location, and the future F-111C article (when it ever gets made! hopefully in time for its RAAF retirement, perhaps as an FA) should be at General Dynamics F-111C. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ya on the SeaVark and the C. - The Bushranger (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Think it is fine as is. The popular name was given when it left US service. So it was never known as the "Aardvark" officially while in service. But all in all it does not matter much to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Past tense

Shouldn't the article's lead be in past tense now that this plane has been retired? Marcus Qwertyus 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There still are flight worthy F-111s. So the first sentence should say 'is' for now. The rest probably should be past tense. -fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Two SR-71s are maintained at Dryden. Should that article be changed to present tense?. Marcus Qwertyus 17:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've even heard of examples of operational WWI era tanks including one Renault FT-17 in operational service in the Kyrgyz military. Marcus Qwertyus 18:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review started

Hey, I started a Peer Review on WP:MilitaryHistory for this article. All editors are welcome to participate. Thanks for comments and any help here. -fnlayson (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

F-111F Combat Radius does not look right

With a load of 4 GBU-10s and 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders, plus an AN/ALQ-119, or 131 or 184 the combat radius of the aircraft was around 650-800 miles unrefuelled IIRC from an article written in a USAFE magazine published around or just after the 1991 Gulf War. The current figure that is in the specs part of the article must be a mistake! 121.217.237.190 (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Aardvark" Official?

Aardvark isn't the official name, is it?

Isn't this like "Warthog" for the A-10 or BUFF for the B-52: pilot slang?

The unofficial names the pilots use are often informative, so "Aardvark" should be somewhere in the article, but not with the implication that it's an official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello unsigned, I believe it was officially named when it retired as some sort of tribute, must be a ref somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That's right. The USAF made "Aardvark" the official name for the F-111 when they retired it. The reference article for the retirement sentence covers this if anyone wants to read more. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't find this Aircraft on any of the Four different F-111 articles

There is an F-111 along the north side of Interstate 30 (I-30) a few hundred yards west of mile marker 213, which is outside of Texarkana, Texas. I looked at it later (from our hotel) on Google Maps and Street View, but I was unable to determine the model. Does anyone know what model F-111 the aircraft is, and why it is not on the surviving aircraft list?

Thanks, Kevin 50.95.58.136 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dont think its a real F-111 but a former "test article" or engineering rig, see also http://www.f-111.net/museums/index.htm MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Operators of EF-111s

Mountain Home AFB had a squadron of EF-111A's operating there which is not shown. The "388th". I was there from 1981 when the preproduction model, either 66-041 0r 67-041 (not sure) was already delivered, untill 1989 when the last production model had already been delivered. I am not sure when it officially became the 388th, but it was during my time there. Hamsterbytes (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Leonard (Hamster) Hampton

The EF-111 has its own article at General Dynamics/Grumman EF-111A Raven. No reason to repeat EF-111 data here. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Later swing wing aircraft"

Why is this section even here? A cursory check of the wiki articles for a couple of the aircraft listed don't even mention the F-111 as preceding them as swing wing aircraft (which would make much more sense). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.12 (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The F-111 was featured in Tom Clancy's RED STORM RISING in 1986

He gave it some loving respect in the novel. :-) Anyway, I think this is worthy of inclusion under Popular Culture.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

From memory, the aircraft make only occasional appearances in the book, and aren't a significant element of the plot. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course they were. Without them, those parts of the story would be missing. Significance is sometimes a POV. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The F-111E is briefly featured in the 1983 James Bond movie Octopussy

The F-111E is briefly featured in the 1983 James Bond movie Octopussy. The mock German airbase is actually RAF Upper Heyford England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.135.1 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

F-111 retirements

retired:raaf:2010 usaf:1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.2.222 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that a question, comment, or what? The retirement dates are already in article. -fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FB-111A remained active with SAC until they were turned over to ACC in June 1992. Article originally showed 1990 retirement date from SAC. This conflicted with FB-111A/F-111G descriptions. I was stationed at Plattsburgh during this time frame. FB-111As were active during Desert Storm (not as part of the War but as part of SAC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.129.50 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

I worked on F-111's during the Vietnam War. The airplane took out a lot of SAM sites and provided cover for B-52 raids by flying close to the ground, keeping the MiG's down by flying low-level raids. The TFR could be set for as low as 200 feet, just enough clearance for telephone poles and such. It was pretty much designed with the Vietnam War in mind. We brought in pin-point accuracy with Laser guided bombs to finally take out hard-to-hit bridges. I think the Vietnam War section could be greatly increased. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:1CF1:28FC:5266:67DF (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the Vietnam War section could be greatly increased. <<<<------ So go for it! Just don't forget the reliable sources! Azx2 04:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Cambodia

The Case-Church Amendment ended US combat operations in Cambodia on 15 August 1973. The 347th Rescue Wing page states that: "On 30 July 1973 the 347th Tactical Fighter Wing which was reactivated at Takhli RTFB, Thailand replacing the 474th TFW which returned to the United States. The wing retained two squadrons of F-111As of the 474th, and for a brief two-week period the 347th flew combat operations into Cambodia until 15 August, when the last wartime mission of the Vietnam Era was flown into Cambodia for final mission of Constant Guard. After the cease-fire, the wing was maintained in a combat-ready status for possible contingency

After the end of combat missions in Indochina, the 347th moved to Korat RTAFB, Thailand in 1974 after the closure of Taklhi and remained in Southeast Asia through May 1975 to undertake strike missions in the event of further contingency operations. Participated in numerous exercises and firepower demonstrations, and, during Jan–May 1975, flew sea surveillance missions. Participated in the recovery of the American merchantman SS Mayaguez from the Khmer Rouge in May 1975."

The current wording which states that: "From July 1974 until June 1975, F-111As of the 347th Tactical Fighter Wing were stationed at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base; they performed missions primarily into Cambodia, and Laos against Communist forces attempting to oust Cambodia's government. F-111s provided air support in pursuing the hijacked SS Mayaguez in May 1975." citing Logan p284-5.

I changed this to the following which accurately reflcts the situation: "From 30 July 1973 until June 1975, F-111As of the 347th Tactical Fighter Wing were stationed at Takhli Air Base and later at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base. The 347th TFW conducted bombing missions in Cambodia in support of Khmer Republic forces until 15 August 1973 when US combat support ceased in accordance with the Case-Church Amendment. In May 1975 F-111s sank a gunboat escorting the hijacked SS Mayaguez'

however this was reverted by User:Fnlayson on the basis that I gave 0 references. Logan's 1974 date is clearly incorrect, he probably meant 1973. The references are contained in the the 347th TFW fact sheet on the 347th page and here it is: [3] Mztourist (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added the 347th TFW history, a reference for the Mayaguez incident and the Case-Church amendment. Logan is clearly incorrect and should be deleted. My wording should be reinstated. Mztourist (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, good that's the first source you actually provided on this. Changing cited text without providing another source for the changes violates WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:Verify states that content must be verifiable and that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be referenced with an inline citation. The USAF did not conduct combat operations anywhere in 1974 and limited operations in SE Asia in 1975. As an experienced aviation contributor I assumed that: 1) you would have known that and so wouldn't challenge it and 2) you would WP:AGF and act constructively by CN tagging my changes or discussing this rather than just reflexively reverting. My mistake Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You still did not provide any sources for your changes until this post for anyone to verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • yes for the reasons given i.e. it seemed unlikely to be challenged, particularly by someone like yourself...Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Parts of your changes were not supported by the existing reference (Logan footnote) then. So that violates WP:Verify. The text and refs all match now. Time to move on other things, huh? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Development & deployment problems

I watch a lot of war & aircraft documentaries, so I can't cite the specific sources that would allow me to edit the article. But I remember several interesting factoids related to the cost-overruns & delays mentioned in the article. The clearest one is about "suicide" losses of early aircraft during combat. IIRC, more than one pilot began a strafing dive, fired the cannon, gained speed during the dive, outran the bullets, pulled out at the bottom of the dive, the bullets caught up to the plane, and he shot himself down. Other problems related to the landing gear design, capsule (which sprouted wings, fired its own rocket engine, & could be "flown" by the crew), & TFR malfunctions are farther back in my foggy memory. But if anyone knows the sources, I think it would make the article more interesting & complete. Steve8394 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Without any concrete source, the "suicide" strafing sounds highly apocryphal.
20mm rounds fly at around Mach 2-3, lets say that the rounds are travelling Mach 2.5 when fired from a plane doing roughly Mach 0.6-0.8 (still pretty fast for a strafing run). So then the plane would have to accelerate from Mach 0.6/8 to somewhat close to Mach 2 (giving the 20mm rounds a geeeeenerous drop in speed over this period) and then slow down again so that the rounds could impact with enough energy to shoot the plane down. And that is all before the bullets have hit the ground! (which would take 5-10 seconds [again, Im being very generous, you'd never have a hope of hitting anything at 10-seconds out]).
The pilot is more likely to be killed by the described vicious acceleration/deceleration forces (as all of the above would have to occur in a space of a few seconds) than somehow managing the incredibly accurate task of hitting his own plane from behind!
I'd take it with a pinch of salt if I were you, until a harder source comes along (not everything you see in a documentary can be relied upon either - thats not a "the-media-man-they're-trying-to-control-our-minds!" type of gripe, but just that it is a hard subject to report on with total accuracy guaranteed.)
(This is usually where the chief design engineer comes along and tells me its a real phenomenon and I've offended hundreds of grieving families...)94.175.244.252 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Steve8394,The escape module does not sprout wings, so the pilots cannot steer it. The first stage is to guillotine the control cables, rods, and blast the skin, then rocket lift off, and finally parachute deployment. There are also floartation and sump pump in case of water landing. I know of a couple cases in which the pilots would have really wanted to be able to control where they landed. One was in Idaho when the capsule landed on the edge of a cliff and rolled to the bottom; the crew survived but the capsule was pretty beat up. The second was in the UK just of Cambridge on a long approach into RAF Lakenheath the pitch control failed, so the crew ejected. The plane crashed and was burning as the capsule drifted toward it. The capsule and crew narrowly avoided being toasted. If the crew even had the guidance a typical parachutist has, they could have easily avoided these close calls.
There were many TFR issues throughout its history. Some of them were found and solved which dropped the mortality rate, but others were not. While in the UK, about 1982, I was the one who placed the ladder up to the aircraft from which the pilot descended with shaky legs. He was pissed. They had almost been killed during the flight. Neither of them were paying much attention while on autopilot at about 300 feet going over a bay. The weapons officer happened to look up in time as they ran out of bay and were about to plow into a ridge. They both grabbed stick and dusted the ridge top. If it had been night time in bad weather; they wouldn't have stood a chance even if they were looking. There are two radars that control flight during autopilot. Over water, the downward looking one controls the height. When the forward-attack radar "sees" something approaching, it is supposed to and usually did take control. In this case it didn't. Neither the enlisted nor the civilians could duplicate the issue on the airplane. I even watched the civilians do things that were not allowed for safety, like holding damp sponges to circuit boards.
Alrich44 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f111fighter/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps as a bot you dont understand that tagging the article and the talk page is probably a bit over the top. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This has been quite thoroughly (and acrimoniously) discussed before. Considering links are blacklisted for a reason, it's really not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Operational ranges

The specifications section gives a combat radius of 1330 miles and a ferry range with drop tanks of 4200 miles (3,700 nmi). The RAAF (last operator) list a ferry range of 3000 nmi without drop tanks F-111 C. The Air Power Institute give the figures for the A model as dash radius 210 nmi, combat radius 800 nmi, ferry range 4180 nmi, again with no mention of drop tanks.

If someone has time, perhaps these figures can be worked out for the F model in the specifications section and be listed with and without drop tanks. The dash range is probably also noteworthy because it is remarkably different to the other figures and relates to the types failure to be accepted in the interceptor role which as originally part of the plan. Djapa Owen (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Air Power Institute is not a reliable source, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
In deed, I only gave them as an example and neither of my examples was talking about the F model which is the one used in the specifications. I was actually hoping someone with more time might do the necessary research to find out the accurate figures for the right model. Whoever tagged this in 2011 was right, it needs attention. Djapa Owen (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The Combat radius is the data tagged in the Specifications table. Range and combat radius are not the same but are related. Radius is for a back and forth mission with some time at the target; it is basically less than half of the range. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is what you expect as a one way operational mission is not a good thing (I am pretty sure I used radius and range appropriately here - I assumed anyone editing an aviation article would understand). However the figures here are more like a bit less than a fifth of the ferry range. That is what I think we should check on. I imagine the large difference between combat radius and ferry range is because an F-111 on a combat mission may be expected to be flying at high speed and low level (terrain following radar) and so be using fuel faster than one cruising at high altitude on a ferry run. Djapa Owen (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I read your original post before and mis-remembered on the range/radius wording. The Quest for Performance source primarily covers the ferry range, basic dimensions and such. I have the Miller book and some others at home. I'll check see what I can find any details on range or radius. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, I'd presume that "ferry range" would include a full load of four drop tanks, wouldn't it? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
That may explain the difference between the US and Aus ferry range figures - I was told that the RAAF did not use the second pair of tanks as apparently they considered the drag of tanks on the outer non-rotating pylons too great. I am not sure that makes sense, but we all know military intelligence is a contradiction in terms. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark/Archive_1&oldid=1089047297"