Talk:General Dynamics–Grumman F-111B/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources?

I have some books (Gunston, Logan & Miller) on the F-111 that will of help here if needed. To me the combination of AF and Navy requirements led to F-111B weight issues. Mainly the Navy wanting the side by side cockpit & escape capsule plus the Air Force wanting supersonic speed at low altitude. Also, Miller suggests the Navy did not give any relief on its performance requirements so the plane would either get redesigned or canceled. Anyway, I'll let you work on it and all. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right. We probably need to make clear (with sources) that the "weight issues" were not so much that it was too heavy for the supercarriers, but too heavy to take-off/land safely at the speeds necessary and still carry a useful load. I mention this because every so often, someone removed similar info from the F-111 or F-14 pages with the comment that the A-3 or A-5 were heavier. The Great Book of Modern Warplanes may have someting on this; I'll have to check it out later. Work on it as much as you like, as always. - BillCJ (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, aircraft weight relative to its engine power and performance required. I'll help some, but I need to let you play in your sand box. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As I recall the Great Book provides some F-111 related content as a background for the F-14. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

During the F111 development I read one of my Dad's journals that talked about problems with adapting the F111A (USAF) design to the F111B (Navy) design. In order to save money GD was to design the F111A and then handd over the design to Grumman to desin the changes and add ons for carrier operations. This was a big mistake as adapting an USAF design to carrier operations is very difficult. The example given was that of the landing hook interface with the fuselage. GD had designed the air frame so that the two engines were separated by a piece of vertical sheet metal. This was an excellent design as the engines were close to the center line and the sheet metal helped with air flow. Unfortunately this design left no place to attach the landing hook! Even so the fact was that the Navy didn't want an Air Force designed fighter.

Hello, General Dynamics–Grumman F-111B. You have new messages at Saltysailor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saltysailor (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for???

This article is fantastic. Why isn't it out of your sandbox and linked from the regular F-111 page? The doomed B variant was unique enough to warrant its own page, just as the EF-111 is. DesScorp (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! However, all the material on this page is a duplicate of what's in the main F-111 article. The general F-111 info needs to be trimmed or removed, and the F-111B info needs to be expanded. That means a lot of writing of text based on sources, something that is not my strong suit. I will get to it eventually, but it's a sandbox because I can't spend much time on it right now. You are free to jump in and help if you have a desire to. - BillCJ (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The main F-111 article could use some help. There are parts of that article that need to be cited. Taking care of that will give good material for expanding here on the B-model. I'm going to work on the F-111A and B variant sections over the next few weeks. F-111B numbers 6 and 7 were done to [near] production standard. They had noses 2 feet longer. Not sure why though. Maybe to improve aerodynamics or to make room for avionics(??). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, the longer nose to improve balance on the main gear when moving around the deck. I've redone most of the Variant subsections in F-111 article. I saved the F-111B section for last since it is the most complicated. That should give you some text to work with. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Flight performance

Bill, I can't get a consistent story on the flight performance of the F-111B from the books I have. The Gunston book and a F-14 book says it was poor, the Miller book says it was OK and my Logan book does not get into that. I found a used book that focuses on the B-model and have ordered it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Was the context overall flight performance, or combat manuvering or carrier interaction? It could have fair, or even good overall flight performance, but be bad at the other two. It certianly wasn't designed for close combat, and its carrier performance was poor, both being leading reasons (esp the latter) the Navy wanted to cancel it. The fact the that F-111 performed well as a tactical bobmer for the USAF seem to bear both points out. Give it a long runway and a straight flight path, and it's fine! We'll see what the F-111B book says. we may jsut have to include all the variaous views with citations, as we usually do with conflicting info from reasonalbly reliable sources. And thanks for working on this - I'd sorta forgotten it was even here! - BillCJ (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainly basic handling and around a carrier. The F-14 book is comparing the F-111B to the F-14 about dogfighting, which the -111 was not intended for. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Miller and Thomason (F-111B book ISBN 0-942612-41-8) say the pre-production F-111B(s) used in the carrier testing in 1968 were compatible with carrier operations. Basically the Navy wanted a FAD with dogfighting capability due to experiences in Vietnam. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Convert B to attacker

Recently I thought about the Navy switching the F-111B to an AF-111B near the end instead of canceling it. But I guess the Navy had the attack role covered by A-6s and A-7s in the late '60s. It would have been a good strike aircraft to have on the carrier in the 1980s. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, intersting question. I really don't know. I don't know how its range would have compared with the A-6, which was pretty long-legged, and designed for carrier ops from the start. Since most supersonic strike aircraft don't fly supersonic during their strike missions (ingress anyway), that probably wouldn't have been much of an advantage. From my point of view, the A-6F would have been good to have during the initial Afghan invasion, due to their long legs. IIRC AN A-5 (and F-14) would only need to refuel once (twice?) on missions from the carriers to Afghanistan, while the Hornets needed to be refueled twice (thrice?). Even now, I don't think the SH has the range of either the A-6 or F-14. Of course, I would have rather seen a new-build F-14 modified the way the SH was, with completely new systems, and possibly new engines. Grumman had some good proposals, but McDD seemed to have better lobbyists in the Clinton years! - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The 1980s thing I had in mind was carrier-based AF-111Bs for Operation El Dorado Canyon instead of the UK-based F-111Fs to save time and refuelings. Was probably easier to sell a derivative of the cheaper Hornet with the tight budgets of the 1990s. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason F-111s were used, IIRC, was because the USAF wanted in on the job, and the F-111s were the best suited planes then in inventory. I don't think the A-6s would have had any problem hitting t all the targets the the F-111s did, though the Navy might haveneeded antoher carrier or two to have the needed numbers of A-16s. And I understand about budgets, but that had more to do with that admin's priorities than with the budget in general, just like we're going through again today. The 2018 Bomber is going to be dead soon, and several other projects too. As long as we have dumb, weak, and samll numbers of enemies, I wouldn't worry! - BilCat (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

True, bringing in another carrier or two to the Med. would have given things away. I was busy in college and graduate school through much of the '90s and not following aviation and defense like now. I thought getting the budget balanced then was pretty good. But the DoD suffered without the funding to replace older aircraft and other equipment. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization?

Bill, do you have a plan or something on organizing this article? Anything in particular to use the F-14 text for? Parts of that might be good for a Legacy type section. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Iusually just follow the WP:AIR page content guidelines for the general outline. The F-14 text is basically there for background on the F-111. As I used to do when writing term papers, I just dump anything that contains useful material, and once I get enough to work with, I just start removing anything that doesn'e belong. I the arrenge the rest in some kind of order (rewriting if it needs it, esp if it's copyrighted text), and add connective text where needed. If it cover the subject well, I go with it, if not, the gaps are usually apparent at this time. I'm not in a big hurry on this one, so I'll get to it eventually. As to legacy, it might be useful, and can p[robably be summarized in one paragraph at the end of the Op Hist section. - BilCat (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have combined some text from the F-111 article and cut out some unrelated F-14 text. The AF parts need to be summarized and Navy details added. Comments/suggestions are always welcome. I guess I will update the specs to B-model data and leave your sandbox be for a bit. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The specs are updated. Most sources list 15 ft 9 in for the (tail) height, but some list 16 ft 8 in. Maybe the taller height is with the nose radome folded up to fit on carrier elevators(??). I'm going to leave this alone and work on EF-111A Raven & Advanced Medium STOL Transport for a little while. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting close

I think this article is close to being ready for main space. What do you think Bill? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything? ;) No rush really. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed (or procastinated then forgot) the earlier post. Yes, it'd close to being ready. Is there anything that you know of that needs to be addressed? I'm taking a look at it now. The captions do need to be cut back - I posted the entire content of the image files' captions for convinience. I think you're better at summarizing than I am, if you want to do that. - BilCat (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, where did you intend to put the aircraft list? At the end of Variants is usually where such a list goes. - BilCat (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Some of the caption info is covered in the Aircraft list table. I'm not sure where the table should go. End of the Variants section works. The prototype/pre-production changes can go there as well, I suppose. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to spread out the pics a bit. Is there anything else that's needs to be done, or can we move it to mainspace now? Thanks for you hard work on this. I'm going to keep the article history so you're contributions are credited. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to reword some Design text about the radar to fit the B-model. Maybe move it tomorrow? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, no prob. You can move it when you're done, if you want. I think it will overwrite the existing redirect, but if not, I'll ask an admin to move it. - BilCat (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Finished the stuff I mentioned and trimmed some Dev text repeated from F-111 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to have the target page deleted, then the page can be moved. I'll strat trimming the F-111 page in the meantime. - BilCat (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Number not built

It appears that 152716 and 152717 may have started build but were not completed, mentioned in Baugher but probably needs a better ref. Do we need to mention that a further order for 28 (152623/153642 and 156971/156978) was cancelled. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The next two were supposed to be production versions with all the design fixes/changes. I don't think my books mention an order for 28, just the total numbers the Navy planned to get. Like one says 705 in 1964, and dropped to 50 in 1966. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hornet and Super Hornet comparison

The following was deleted as "unneccesary and unreferenced", but the information is easily confirmed, and puts the F-111B legacy into a modern perspective for which there are few contemporary sources to note this. The AAMRAM fufills a role first introduced by the Phoenix, and the original F-111B mission capability survives in the Super Hornet, though I believe with a slightly shorter effective range. The F-111B was heavily criticized for being over its 50,000 lb target weight, but even the original Hornet exceeded this target. I will not contest the deletion but leave it here for future possible re-use and review. I did add mention of the F-111B's predecessor (F-4 Phantom) and successor (F-14) which are needed to put the F-111B into its historical context.

While the original F-18 Hornet was close to the original 50,000 lb F-111 take-off weight specification, the Tomcat's replacement, the multi-role Super Hornet exceeds the original F-111B weight specifications at 66,000 lbs. It uses a smaller radar and it is fitted with the AIM-120 AMRAAM to provide an fire-and-forget missle capability somewhat like the Phoenix

Redhanker (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The comparison above reads more like trivia since the F/A-18A first flew over 10 years later and the F/A-18E/F some 25 years later. Also, a newer and larger class of carriers entered service during the interim in the 1970s. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well here's a possible reference that ties the F-111's original weapons concept to the Super Hornet:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avhorn_2.html SUPER HORNET ORIGINS The F/A-18E/F was seen as a true multirole aircraft, replacing the F-14 Tomcat and the F/A-18A/C in the air superiority, strike, and reconnaissance roles; the Lockheed S-3B Viking in the tanker role; and (as it would turn out later) the EA-6B Prowler in the electronic warfare mode. In another irony of the situation, the AIM-155 long-range AAM was also given the axe, so the F/A-18E/F would have to rely on the AIM-120 AMRAAM for fleet defense. AMRAAM was certainly more modern than the big Phoenix AAMs used by the Tomcat, but AMRAAM's range was significantly shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhanker (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the basics can be referenced with available sources. Since the F-14 was heavier than the spec 55,000 lb max weight for the F-111B, everything afterwards that was heavier does not matter much. Like nobody remembers second person to break a long standing record. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Vectorsite, while based on reliable sources, is full of personal observations like that, and they aren't usabe here, as Vectorsite is not a reliable source on it's own. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

George Spangerberg Oral History F-111B and F-14

An excellent account by a civilian analyst directly involved in F-111 and F-14 management. Evidently some of this account has already made it into the F-14 history, but much of it details what happened before the F-111B. For example, the F-111B had just half the range of the radar and missles that were to be used in the Missleer proposal, and there was originaly a proposal to produce a complementary dogfighter and attack aircraft before the F-14 came out of simply adding AWG-9/Phoenix to a Phantom-sized fighter which could haul sidewinder, sparrow, gun and bombs. The single-role configuration of the F-111B which could not handle any of the F-4 Phantoms roles besides BVR missle shooting doomed it. For all intents and purposes it was about as useless as the original Missleer against MiGs (in fact, the Missleer might be MORE effective against Mig-17s...). It could not fire close-in missles, had no gun, could not maneuver for ACM, and could not drop bombs, and this was precisely why the Phantom could perform so many roles across so many services and nations, and prove that you actually could produce a fighter for all roles for all services. McNamara never realized that Phantom would precisely achieve the goals of commonality he had intended for its "replacement". Redhanker (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf2.htm (F-111 was originally air superiority fighter to replace F-4 and F-105 if you can believe that "By memorandum dated 7 June 1961, SecDef indicated that the Air Force would be authorized to develop a new air superiority aircraft to be used by both services to replace the F4 and F105")

http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm (F-14 VFAX) "The AWG-9 fire control system included a radar with a 36 inch diameter antenna while the system retained the multishot capability of the cancelled EAGLE-MISSILEER. The missile, PHOENIX, was reduced to a single stage semi-active design with a terminal seeker. Overall, the new system had about half the range capability of the original EAGLE-MISSILEER."

There's a lot of things McNamara never realized, starting with the low limits of his own intelligence, and the folloy of micro-management. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to General Dynamics–Grumman F-111B, i.e. to the endash version. Note that there are still some other articles that use the slash to separate these two companies. I assume that per the arguments here, those articles should also be moved to the endash punctuation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

---

General Dynamics-Grumman F-111B → General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B – Not sure why the forward slash was removed or why the lede wasn't updated to reflect the move but that should either be an en dash or a forward slash, preferably whichever is more common. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Changed probably due to the reasons at MOS:SLASH. Either way, I don't think it is worth it to change article name back to "General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B". -Fnlayson (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose MOS:SLASH -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• En dash would be the more logical styling for this union of two names. It is found in multiple books that way. The hyphen makes no sense. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support en dash, I agree with User:Dicklyon. Especially as it refers to 2 distinct companies working in collaboration and not the name of a single company. WPGA2345 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.