Was The Grumman F-111B A Bad Aircraft Or A Missed Opportunity?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- TFX and particularly the Navy's F-111B Fleet Defence Fighter has gone down in history as an example of defence procurement gone wrong. This video dives into the details of the F-111B and tries to understand whether it could ever have been a success. Although seemingly a little niche, understanding F-111B is important to understand the eventual Grumman F-14 Tomcat, so this video is hopefully worth your time!
Sources:
The only book specifically on the F-111B is the great Tommy Thomason's "Naval Fighters 41: Grumman Navy F-111B Swing Wing". Sadly it is long out of print and costs an arm and a leg. Having got myself a copy, I'd say that it is a great read and typically brilliantly researched, but not worth the $300 it costs in the UK!
"Grumman Aircraft Since 1929" by Rene Francillon is more widely available and contains a decent section on the F-111B
As a former F-4 and EF-111 EWO, I really enjoyed this video. Not being a squid, I can’t really comment on Navy requirements, but I have two comments.
1) Those floating airports the squids use look really small. The F-111 is a huge airplane, even the B model with the stubby nose. I have to think having a bunch of these on a boat might be a Tetris nightmare.
2) Unlike the F-4, the Aardvark was capable of sustained flight above Mach 1. Ejecting at speeds like on seats is highly dangerous. I know the F-15 community has lost some guys in high speed ejections, even though they have excellent seats. The capsule is way more safe.
Plus a capsule gives the crew a chance to get their story straight on the way down.
The capsule was a horrible boat, but better than being shark bait.
One thing we used to argue about is who was ‘captain’ of the ship once you are in the water.
Was the Aircraft Commander still a commander once we jettisoned the aircraft? Or should the senior officer take command, even if he were a mere nav?
Is best of 3 rock-scissors-paper an option for the boat captain spot method?
@@JohnnyWishbone85 Except often enough the backseater is the mission commander for a formation! So what happens if that one goes in the drink?
Always think it was a mistake for Australia to bury their F111C & Gs in a dump after they spent a fortune cleaning out toxic treatments & upgrading them
Huger than a RF 5 Vigi or huger than a A3 skywarrior?
@@alan-sk7ky Yes. Bigger than either.
A quick Wiki search could have easily told you that.
They didn't want this heavy, compressor stall prone, swept wing plane so instead they bought a heavy, compressor stall prone, swept wing plane.
They should have gone with the f103 core engine. Very stall resistant.
To be fair , swing wing is not a short coming.
@@ohredhk In retrospect it is, which is why no one uses it anymore. It was a solution to a problem that was fix better by fly-by-wire and more advanced lifting body designs in late 1970's/early 80's.
@TK199999 I really wouldn't say "use anymore", more like "manufacture anymore". We still operate the B-1, Russia with Tu-160 and Su-24(also being used by other countries], some countries still using the MiG-23 and Su-22, Italy, Germany, and the Saudi's using the Tornado, and the F-14 still in use by the Iranians albeit very sparingly. I'm not saying you're wrong since no one is buying swing wings because no one else is making them anymore.
This channel is quickly becoming one of my favorites. Actual in depth research on these often obscure topics. Really enlightening.
Honestly no idea where you’re finding all these sources but sharing your methods could be awesome for the community.
Couldn't agree with you more
Yes
+1 vote
The thing that continues to impress me about this channel is how he has a picture or video to show every single thing he is talking about.
Defense spending is sometimes wasteful, but consider what it has to deal with: shifting mission requirements, inter-service rivalries, rapidly-advancing technology, small production runs, security and documentation requirements, home-state politics, decision-makers opaque to others' opinions, and annual budget cycles that make long-term planning a Sisyphean task.
Australia has just trumped the lot: $368 billion for submarines and we specifically removed any performance or guaranteed delivery clauses whatsoever. It is clear having people on the government (taxpayer) side who are willing to be hard-headed is necessary.
You understand well
Add to that often changing political parties across programs. SECDEF during early stage might not be the same in later stages, and could kill something at will.
Also add various self-interests, often at odds with each other. Several at the top vying to get in the good graces of (insert contractor here) in order to have their next job.
But, other than all this, easy peasy.
You can pretty safely blame scope creep or objective shift on the navy. The air force, while still being difficult to please and tending to push things over budget by fussing over designs, does tend to still stay within their original objective requirements unless something severe crops up that requires them to make changes.
For decades I have viewed the F111 as an aircraft the absolutely failed in its originally intended role (as an interceptor), but became a superb, outstanding success in an unplanned role of a heavy tactical bomber.
I don't think it was originally designed as an interceptor at all, I think it was originally designed as a jobs program for general Dynamics to feed both the Navy and the Air Force.
When I think of the term interceptor that reminds me of the Spitfire something on the field warmed up ready to go and the F-111 was far from that
It was originally designed as a tactical bomber, McNamara forced the Navy to use it as an interceptor and the Navy didn’t ever like it
@@christophergagliano2051 The US and UK have always had a different take on interceptors. Remember the P-38 Lightning?
It was certainly sold to the Australians as a survivable heavy bomber, though not even a tactical one - at the time they asked for a plane that could deter Indonesia by bombing Jakarta.
On the issue of calling it an interceptor.
The phoenix missile was originally developed for the F111b.
And no one for an instant thought the F111 was going to be any good at dogfights.
It was a high speed high altitude aircraft missile truck meant to kill other aircraft.
Interceptor.
(A job at which it failed to be good at, but it did find excellent use as a heavy tactical bomber. And that let it easily pinch hit as a passably good strategic bomber too).
The top air intakes on the Boeing TFX were to keep gravel from being ingested when using highway in the United States as landing strips for bombing missions in Europe.
Yes, the Air Force concept of the future fighter was bughouse nuts.
Easily as bad as the LCS.
Mig-29 has top intakes that close after takeoff, and screens on their other intakes also to protect against FOD from unprepared runways
Thank you so much for doing this! I've have run-ins with so many aviation "enthusiasts" who have only heard the TLDR version and just base their opinions off that instead of taking the time to understand the nuances of the situation.
…
That’s what an Enthusiast is
Entity of Enthuse
"aviation 'enthusiasts'"
Often nothing more but: _'equipment porn'_ .
BUT ITZ BETTAAAA !!!
What a phenomenal history of the F-111B that gets into so many details, majority of which I'd not read before. Thanks!!!
The common thing people especially McNamara didnt appreciate was the Phantom was developed for the navy first you can modify it to operate from an airbase easier than making an Air Force operate from a carrier
"(...) you can modify it to operate from an airbase easier than making an Air Force operate from a carrier (...)"
Which held true for the Iranian F-14A and the Australian F/A-18E/F.
McNamara was an actual imbecile if he only took statistics of '80 percent shared parts' into account for contracting the General Electrics design - versus the possibility of having to issue additional contracts to have an operational navy at all...
The yada yada yada about why GD was awarded the contract was because Howard Hughes had driven the company into near bankruptcy which would effect several other military contracts very negatively. So they threw the bone to General Dynamics and gave them Carte blanch to pull themselves away from the crevasse. I worked on the sling wing center line box refit to rectify cracking issues. To remove the wing box hundred specially designed “rivet bolts” that had to be removed. These “rivet bolts” (called hi-locs) were saved in a five gallon bucket and shipped back to General Dynamics, who would clean any sealant residue (swing box was also one of the many fuel tanks in the bird). Once cleaned GD would then SELL them back to the military.
It wasn’t so much that the Aardvark was a bad aircraft as much as it was a boondoggle to bail a poorly run company to produce a “one size fits all” pipe dream of a bean counter who was in a position way over his head. Robert McNamara was without a doubt the poorest excuse for a Secdef this country has ever had.
@@larrymcgill5508 bean counters like the group that McNamara ran with develop nothing Innovative. They are strictly lean specialists.
There would be no R&D or Innovation in a world of bean counters
Not a missed opportunity because it pave the way for more successful designs such as F-14A Tomcat and later F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
the F-18 came about from an entirely separate set of requirements. F-16 vs F-17.
F-14 was in direct response to the failure of the F-111 as a naval fighter..
@@SoloRenegadeagreed- the Hornet programme was the complete opposite of being “paved into” by the F111. It emerged from the diametrically opposed lightweight fighter program seeking a cheap, modest-capability daylight-only fighter-bomber, with no radar and armed only with IR Sidewinders for self defence.
@@SoloRenegade The legacy Hornet was part of the Lightweight Fighter program, but the Super Hornet was the direct F-14 replacement.
@@kilianortmann9979 doesn't change the fact the F-18 has nothing to do with the F-111.
Also, the F-18 was Not the F-14's direct replacement. The F-14 and F-18 served side by side. The F-18 ended up more a replacement of aircraft like the A-7 and EA-6B, etc. The F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet served alongside the F-14 for decades performing different roles. And only a few years after the F-14 retirement (2006), the F-18 are already being replaced by the F-35 (2015). The first flight of the F-18 was 1983, 23yrs before the F-14 was finally retired.
@@SoloRenegade The F/A-18 A/B, C/D and the F/A-18E/F are not the same aircraft. They have the same aerodynamic layout and initially shared avionics components, but they are structurally completely different.
After the cancellation of the A-12, the Super Hornet was chosen (Tailhook scandal) over Tomcat Quickstrike and after cancellation of NATF, it won again in the bid to replace Tomcat in the Air to Air role, this time against AST-21.
Looking forward to the Early Warning aircraft videos.😊
I kinda miss seeing them on what seemed to be a fairly regular basis now that Millington NAS isn't doing aircraft stuff anymore.
I've been collecting background material for the carrier AEW videos for a while now. It's a bit of a tricky task as there aren't any good books solely on the Avenger and Skyraider-based platforms. But I'll get there. Soviet AEW will start in the Fall :).
@@notapound Cool deal!😎👍🏻
@@notapoundAWESOME
So many milvlog channels feature bad editing, shortcut research, and no proofreading. This channel stands above all of them with impeccable integrity!
Due to this post, I'm seriously considering building my vintage Revell F-111(B) in 1/72nd scale as the USN version featured here, rather than the USAF version which I already have in the FB-111 from Hasegawa, physically the same as the Australian F-111 (I think).
The Revell version is one of the only F-111 kits which features fairly accurate retractable landing gear, movable speed-brake, movable wings, stabs, and a removable crew escape module!
The thumbnail used for this video is of the 1/48th scale F-111B put out by Aurora back in the 1970s. It can be found via on-line sales, but I bet your smaller Revell kit is more accurate and has better detail than the Aurora model as their model kits usually left a little more to be desired.
Love how specifications and service politics leed to the aircraft form, capabilities and deficiencies. Covering that in detail was very valuable.
Just in case anybody was wondering how Stennis got an aircraft carrier, or how Admiral Connolly got a Grumman fighter named after him as Tom('s )Cat.
Grumman has named its fighters after felines since WWII.
The big irony was that the F-14B and D versions ended up being just as heavy as the F-111B! But by 1970, the US Navy was phasing out their carriers smaller than the _Forrestal_ class and that made the whole "too heavy" plane argument moot.
But, the F14B and D had better engines than the F-111B
Better engines, and better manoverability.
@@gbonkers666 Quite so, but still heavy.
It's not moot that fighters can be too heavy just because an aircraft carrier can handle them. Too heavy means too expensive and less maneuverable and too easy for the enemy to see visually and on radar.
@@MaxPalmer-1
There is no correlation between RCS and weight...
34:20 That F-4 Phantom variant with the swing wing is a cursed image lol.
The new F-23 Phantom (Flogger N)
I couldve gone the rest of my life not seeing that concept and been happy
pass me the mind bleach (3L of Kirkland bourbon)
Cannot be unseen!😂
@@cirian75 Liter??? Oh you mean a French quart.
My dad worked on Thuds and Phantoms in Thailand on several tours during that war. I grew up loving both aircraft. I used to memorize each year of Jane's. Great documentary, well done
Incredible examples
Great presentation
Good work
Amazing explanation
The F 111 was my fav in my youth but clearly other platforms could do more but the F111 Fb is still my all time fav. It just is
I hope you do more follow ups on the F-111. With all the varieties operated by the USAF and RAAF, there is a lot of content be covered!
"I hope you do more follow ups on the F-111."
Especially looking into their performance during the Iraq War air campaigns, compared to other platforms.
Were they obsolete, were they ?...
Excellent video. As a kid plastic model maker, I always had a fondness for the F-111B. It just *looked* cool (although I remember thinking "WTF" when it came to the main landing gear assembly!) But you've done a great job going through the history and laying out the key reasons for and against the F-111B.
In the USAF we absolutely LOVED our F 111A. My cousin flew them out of Thailand at Takhli AFB.
From its inauspicious start, I'm sure that not many could foresee that the F-111 would turn out to be one of the best low-level strike aircraft of all time.(almost as good as our Buccaneer and Tornado!).
Not the first time that a plane blossomed when finding its true role. Take the Hawker Typhoon. Designed as a replacement for the Hawker Hurricane but ended up as the RAF best Ground Attack planes providing Cab Rank formations of Planes alongside P47 Thunderbolts in Western Europre ready to stream in on German forces.
That was a very thoughtful presentation. I remember building an F-111 model back in about 1975 and thinking it must be an amazing aircraft, but everything I read about it was confusing, contradictory, and disappointingly vague. I didn’t understand politics back then, but even since then no one talked about this aircraft much at all. You’ve cleared up some mysteries for me.
Great video man, love hearing about these wacky aircraft projects. I gotta ask though, is you mic ok? it seems like its struggling to pick you up at the end of your sentences. Figured I'd mention since I didn't see anyone else saying it.
Thanks for the comment - I think I might have set the gain a bit too low on this one. Appreciate you letting me know!
Do U apply a compressor to your signal path by any chance? Should fix everything regarding vocal dynamics
Yeah, the vids always sound like the beginning and end of sentences are compressed with a fade-in/fade-out effect. Harder to hear the ends. I expect it's an audio recording setting somewhere.
The Pratt & Whitney Engines had issues with compressor stalls mostly due to Inlet Ducting of the F-111.
More importantly the engines were subject to catastrophic turbine blade failure.
I remember my Father talking about the F-111 at diner. He had just come back from P&W after solving the problems with manufacturing Turbine Blades, he was pissed with P&W and their manufacturing methods.
Dad ran Grummann's Flight Test Department.
IIRC, the F-111 'Aardvark', was not produced by Grumman Aerospace, but rather General Dynamics.
Well yes, but also no.
For the B model, Grumman was brought on to help with the navalization part of the whole deal. Grumman having extensive naval fighter experience and GD/Convair having.... uh.... The Sea Dart. They also built the B models and as part of the whole procurement package became a contractor for major structural components for all of them. I sort of bet if it had gone ahead, series B model assembly would've been at Bethpage.
Somewhat similarly, EF-111s are sometimes mentioned as 'Grumman' because they did the conversion.
@@warphammerGrumman was the subcontractor. The prime contractor was GD. This happens all the time with defense contracts with multiple aerospace companies producing various subassemblies, but the final assembly is always performed by the prime contractor.
As far as i can remember the RAAF F111 C used the landing gear of the F111b and had the longer wing as well.
These were still flying in 2010
They were an amazing aircraft.
man, there really are some bizarre looking craft nestled in the era of transition between the piston/prop and jet age.
I feel that we often take for granted the "Multi-role" aspect of modern fighters. We went from needing a myriad selection of aircraft to fill the needs of the Navy, to only needing a single aircraft to handle every combat role except EW and AWACS
This was an outstanding video. Now I finally understand what the real issues were with this plane. It is still one of my favorite US military planes.
This is very interesting. I think this channel is going to grow to over 100K subs. The presentation is very well done, and the narrator has a good voice and speaks well.
Best ever report on the F-111B. Thanks!
The "B" models were very rare (only 7 produced) and rather notorious. Apparently there's only one left, at China Lake NWC. So actually seeing one in the flesh was kind of a Big Deal. F-111B tail number 152714 was parked on the west side of McClellan AFB when I was stationed there in the early 1980's (McAFB was the main depot repair facility for the F-111). Some entity was using it for battle damage repair practice. Later it wound up in a junkyard in Mojave, CA.
The A-10 was built around a gun, the F-14 around the Phoenix missile.
And the radar, like the F-15. Those Phoenix's would be useless without it.
Interesting to see the resemblance of the aircraft at 10:00 and the current introduction of the aim-174 on F/A-18’s
Thanks for an incredibly well researched video that showed how many competing interests went into the F-111B program. Many other treatments are extremely simplistic and treat the whole thing like something any moron could expect to fail. You have shown that changing and competing requirements often make a decision that seemed ok initially, change into something that doesn't work. Also, when a strong bureaucratic entity like the Navy is forced to do something they don't really want to do, they have many means of sabotaging it.
Democracy is ugly, but long term things turned out OK. All of the best technology of the F-111B went into the F-14 and made it appear much quicker. So the Navy got their Phoenix missiles on a more agile fighter. The AF got one hell of a long range precision strike fighter that had a long career with American AF and the Australian AF.
Thanks again.
Excellent and balanced coverage. This is the best coverage of the -111 I've seen since Anthony Thornburough's book.
And, though not stated directly, I think the F-111 saga demonstrates that the USN could be every bit as myopically parochial as USAF is often portrayed to be. Concur both the F-4 and A-7 were foisted on an unwilling USAF by the commonality obsessed McNamara. TAC sorta liked the Phantom but felt the Thud generally superior. ADC absolutely loathed the Phantom compared to the glorious Six, and the supposed flyoff was a setup. So, generally, USAF did not want the F-4 and saw no use whatsoever with the A-7, passing them on to ANG as fast as possible, often even direct from the factory.
But the thing is, the F-111 was the"trade. " USAF would take aircraft it didn't generally prefer, and Fly Navy would take the -111. But the Admirals had another hissy-fit, their fourth in 20 years, and with help from Vinson, got to drop the Pig.
So I agree there was little technically"wrong" with the F-111B that precluded its ability to perform the Fleet Air Defense mission. USN didn't want it, because of its origin, and refused to take it, period.
Thank you for making such in depth, well sourced, well written content. So hard to find videos that tick all the boxes AND have a great narrator.
The F-111B was built by General Dynamics with only Grumman helping for Navalization of the aircraft, calling it a Grumman aircraft is a misnomer.
Obligatory VARK VARK VARK
VARK VARK VARK
Hey Lord HT - the ‘vark thing didn’t come into common parlance until the ‘80s when the F111 was nearing the end of its service life, and certainly wasn’t around when the B model was under development
Thanks for the deep dive into the story. I forgot about the F-111 navy version being cancelled altogether instead of being used in a fighter-bomber role. I thought about the Aardvark being used in Operation El Dorado Canyon. In reality, the planes were of course land-based and had to come from the U.K. (for political/diplomatic reasons).
I've watched every one of your videos over the past 6 or 8 months. I like watching the early jets, but I really love seeing some "newer" jets!
Outstanding presentation, Sir. Excellent coverage and relevant visuals, no background calamity to distract from your narration, and seeing the Subs count distressed me.
And to follow on, the low IQ of the public today is starting to show.
Thank you.
My dad told me he designed landing gear for Navy Planes.
So I wondered why the guy that made the airplane didn't do that?
7G landings, baby! (Not exactly greasing that landing pilot!)
But the ship hurls vertically up to 80 feet.
At 160kts you are lucky to survive the landing.
Another excellent presentation mate 👍 In my ignorance I had bought into the ‘it was too heavy’ myth.
Every day’s a school day, I guess…
Awesome, thanks for covering the Navy variant in detail.
One more divergent term is: F117 Stealth "Fighter".
To a degree that was more a case of nomative camoflage.
I first became aware of Navy F-111 in middle-school, when I saw the opening credits for "Yours, Mine, and Ours."
None of my aircraft books mentioned anything about the program and it would be another couple years before internet resources appeared at school. I combed through nearly one hundred pounds of library materials until a teacher/pilot confirmed the veracity of an Aardvark on a carrier.
So many parallels between F-111 and Tornado. The Americans at least had the sense that the same aircraft that made a great low level strike bomber would not make a good Air Superiority Fighter. We Brits sadly persevered and battled to make the F-3 a good fighter to no avail..
F-111B though was (imho) the best looking version of the Aardvark!
That depends on what you mean by 'fighter'.
If you want a very long-loiter, big radar, multi long range missile carrier then Tornado F3 made a lot of sense - & particularly given the need to maintain the UKs' technological base (within reasonable costs), something that would likely have dissolved away & been lost forever had the UK not gone for the Tornado F3.
Opting for a different fighter (usually solely because of an imagined 'need' for dog-fighting abilities) would have entailed a huge 'tail-end' cost in supporting new missiles, radars, engines etc etc, which are vastly expensive & long-term aspects of aircraft procurement often forgotten.
Tornado F3 might not have been a very 'sexy' plane but it did the job required & was suited to the budgetary constraints the UK always faces.
@@mcal27 Nah, F-111C was.
I believe that the Tornado F-3 was designed (or redesigned, to be more accurate) to be an interceptor and not a pure fighter per se, and in that role it was more than adequate.
@@aegeanphantom yeah I hear this alot. But when I listen to ex pilots if that machine talk about it in mock combat against any US fighter (f14/15/16) it’s clear that due to things like manual wing sweep change (auto on the f14) and low thrust to weight and horrendous high wing load (an advantage for a low level bomber) it’s obvious that it was wanting in many areas! Indeed when Italy loaned a squadrons worth they weee very eager to get rid of them and not continue the loan. IMHO it was a turkey
A5 Vigilante is my pick.
Wouldn’t mind coverage of the actually successful Air Force versions. I do understand this would require expenditure of a pound or two for air-to-ground. (As a compromise we could call it “air-to-mud” and save a bit.)
Well, considering the fact that quite a few pounds have been allowed for air-to-ground on the channel as of late, I'd say it's not out of the question
Is that the C?
I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Mach 3 stories are total nonsense. But great video!
While the A-6 wasnt as high tech as the F-111 it didn’t fall out of the sky over Indochina. For years the A-6 was the only all weather bomber troops in need in bad weather could call on. The A-6 saved lives
Ah. My Friday night begins now
The visual production value is outstanding for this video! Where do you get all of this footage? I'm especially impressed with the continuity of the images and film clips to the narration. Great work, what a fascinating airplane.
Very well researched! I've read/watched this story many times and I think you've told it best and I've learnt a bit too. Some footage and photos I've never seen too...
The F-111 came from the old school that fighters would no longer dog fight and only be used to shoot down enemy bombers. The F-14, along with the F-15 and 16 were designed to be fighters first, and everything else second.
"The F-14, along with the F-15 and 16 were designed to be fighters first, and everything else second."
True - yet, everybody appears to stress BEYOND VISUAL RANGE combat, mocking Soviet Flanker and Fulcrum designs...
The primary role of F-14 was long range interception of Soviet maritime bombers, hence its radar and AIM-54 missile setup.
That the aircraft was designed to be able to dogfight was a result of Vietnam experience - guns and dogfighting, and more specifically IMO the need to focus beyond superpower conflict and the reality of asymmetric wars. That’s why the F-14 ultimately was replaced by the F/A-18 - the USN did not need the stand off capability of the Tomcat.
@@Getoffmycloud53
"(...) the USN did not need the stand off capability of the Tomcat."
If that were to be correct, neither would the US need aircraft carriers as submarines and guided missile cruisers can deliver stand off strikes...
It is more likely that budget concerns led to the missed modernization and retirement of a crucial airframe - while at the same time increasing the size of the Hornet into the Super Hornet with still less combat range, less speed, less capable payload and less capable RADAR.
From the perspective of Beyond Visual Range combat doctrine, a procurement failure like the Littoral Combat Ship class (shutdown of all Super Hornet production was pushed from 2025 to 2027 - knowing that it is a last ditch platform)...
@@christophmahler in a real conflict against a capable enemy it is the submarine that is much more important, including as part of the US nuclear triad. Carriers and much of the surface fleet are used for gunboat diplomacy, to intimidate weaker countries that get out line, to intimidate and to fight in neocolonial style police actions.
The US does not need carriers to protect itself, it uses carriers to project power and expand empire. Although it still has to be proven, it is likely that carriers will have a hard time surviving against modern anti ship weapons, which now include subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles and even hypersonic missiles - not to mention unconventional warheads. Those big ships are high value targets, easily tracked by ISR when facing a peer or near peer opponent, as in Russia or China.
Just an opinion, feel free to disagree.
@@Getoffmycloud53
"The US does not need carriers to protect itself, it uses carriers to project power (...)"
If so - and it would require some documents to prove - then it is too costly as demonstrated by the British Royal Navy that ended up, stretched thin against the Japanese in the Pacific, after recalling warships to contain the emergent German navy.
The British remote blockade against Germany, however was successful - as was the German submarine campaign in the Atlantic in WW I (less so in WW II).
I do agree about the risks of carrier warfare against near peers, but would argue that being able to strike from outside the range of coastal batteries and squadrons - within a perimeter against submarines - is a a strategic asset of more than just symbolic power projection.
The issue now is - in my impression - that none of the US naval airframes have that necessary range - and the F/A XX would only be meaningful if it had.
So in that regard, we agree that most assets of the US Navy have become de facto ceremonial.
Please do a video on the history of us EWAR aircraft, they aren't talked about enough
"Please do a video on the history of us EWAR aircraft, they aren't talked about enough"
Seconded.
The brilliance of the Phantom and its success being adapted for land based use fooled several generations of uninformed bean counters into thinking that designed commonality was a good idea, instead of the source of endless controversy, compromise, and cost overruns that common sense and history tells us that forcing incompatible requirements into "one" airframe must necessarily result in.
It was more that a Navy plane would work for the airforce...... But a Airforce plane will not work for the Navy..,
If you think about it, a land-based A5 Vigilante probably could have been adapted to the deep strike/EW escort mission the F111 ended up serving in the USAF for a fraction of the cost. It was a platform that had huge potential and would have shined in delivering PGMs in low level strike missions.
@@paulfrantizek102 I like that idea. Not because I know what I'm talking about, but because the A-5 is so beautiful and the world could do with seeing more of them around.
@@RCAvhstape There is some wisdom to what he said, but the A-5 was deeply hindered by its weapon's delivery system. Bespoke versions of the A-5 were shopped to both the UK and Australia, however both chose the F-111 over the A-5 (although only one went through with the buy). I deeply love the Vigi as well, but the fact of the matter is that it was uniquely unsuitable for conventional weapons and interdiction. The F-111 was designed from the outset for a targeting pod, which paid dividends in the Gulf War of 1991.
Jet aircraft design was still new, so everyone was still thinking they could engineer a single optimum design to do everything. It made sense to the bean counters and aircraft manufacturers. One plane to rule them all, and whoever won that contract wouldn't have to design another aircraft ever again!
The laws of physics, however, rather rudely dispelled them of that notion.
Brilliant Documentary work and presentation -- very well done
Missed opportunity to standardize spare parts. It was a concept adhead of its time.
Great video.
"Mr. Chairman, all the thrust in Christiandom would not turn it (the F-111B) into a fighter..." ADM Tom Connolly to Senator Stennis, 1968...
Man your sound setup is amazing. Audio book perfect
Timely research question.
Wonder the same, despite the fact that the F-14 with it's advanced construction methods (e.g. titanium welding) and sophisticated airframe couldn't have been developed without the Grumman's experiences around the F-111B.
In fact, the F-14, itself wasn't fully developed until it reached the B - or even D variant (mere 50 samples) - almost two decades into it's commission...
Could the funding that was sunk into a cancelled A-12 not better be used by fully upgrading the F-14 to the ASF-14 and then possibly trying to rework the F-111B (with even longer range and larger internal bays, enabling a lower RADAR cross section) into a long range, supersonic interceptor and deep strike platform - than being stuck with a 'light' F-35C that is less 'stealth' than the F-22 and lacks range in fleet operations ?
The same question may come to mind when looking then at the Air Force F-108 that never was due to budget concerns (ahead of a war of attrition in Vietnam), but resembles strikingly current requirements for unmanned platforms and standoff-strike weapons...
Thanks for the comment. In about a fortnight I'm going to release a video on VFAX and VFX, and then an F-14 deep dive in early September. All of this actually started from wanting to do a good job on the Tomcat, but it turns out that meant going back in time to the Jaguar and working forwards from there.
@@notapoundthats how true historical projects work. There's always something else before that's vital to understand the after. Stellar work thus far in this
The A-12 was developed for an entirely different role than the F-14, to fill a slot where stealth was considered critical (penetration light bomber), to replace a platform.that was clearly.coming to the end of its credible service life (the A-6). At the time development started, Navy CVWs were still part of the SIOP, and thus the A-12 needed to be capable of penetrating *future* Soviet air defenses protected vital strategic targets (i.e., *heavily* protected with the very best).
According to then current planning and beliefs, a Super Tomcat couldn't do that. A Super Vark couldn't do that. The mission *required* stealth.
By the time the program was clearly in trouble, the threat set had entirely changed, they weren't as worried about penetrating the very best Soviet air defences, and budgets needed to be trimmed.
The Flying Dorito may have been a failure, but it wasn't an *obvious* failure in time to really save much money, and the mission it was designed for was considered a very credible requirement.
And a Super Vark, in the numbers required to handle the missions A-12 and A-6 was intended for (even if you disregard the stealth requirement of the A-12), simply *was not supportable* on the carrier. Heck, the F-14 was a large bird, and the Navy got rid of the A-5 Vigilante in large part because it was a net loss to the air wing, given the large footprint (both the aircraft and it's logistics) displaced significantly more smaller aircraft than the number of A-5s aboard.
@@notapound
"(...) a video on VFAX and VFX, and then an F-14 (...)"
That sounds promising.
The F-14 - as well as the briefly proposed ASF-14 - have received quite some attention in the blogging-sphere and it can't be just due to a 'Top Gun' movie sequel.
In any case, 3-4th generation fighter development is a case study in procurement - from ever more complex technology and diminishing returns to 'resort egotism' politics that helps to understand the 'friction' of warfare beyond mere glorification.
"(...) it turns out that meant going back in time to the Jaguar and working forwards from there."
It will be worth it as the imagined sequence of procured equipment grants insight into doctrinal requirements from which an airframe can be assessed, factually - including it's upgrade potential - instead of just staring at a stats contest.
Imagining what could have been, informs to some degree, what should be - at lest in regard to procurement procedure...
You did therefore well by structuring this video around the requirement to intercept supersonic naval bombers along large, powerful RADARs and bulky, very long range guided missiles - there is a lesson to be learned, here when F/A-18E/F and EA-18G production will be shutdown in 2027, yet the F/A XX is still largely a postulate of something, something 'stealth' and 'modular'.
A look into the fast A-12 (Lockheed), low observable YF-23 and the light and attritable X-32 may also be of interest to the channel's mantra (I'm almost picturing a three sided dice between supersonic/hypersonic speed, low observability and mass production - could the X-32 have been scaled up to approximate the other ends of the spectrum - instead of opting for a less performant F-22: F-35 ?)...
@@geodkyt
"(...) the A-12 [McDonnell Douglas] needed to be capable of penetrating future Soviet air defenses protected vital strategic targets (...)"
Yes - but an early F-117 Seahawk could have been in serial production within a year - rather than freezing assets in two decades of lawfare...
Granted, technologies for the A-12 upgraded other platforms, including the B-21, I take it, but still...
"By the time the program was clearly in trouble, the threat set had entirely changed (...)"
Valid point that is easily ignored, yet again the F-117 was already fully operational and considering the production shutdown of the F-22 in 2011 and the development of a less capable F-35 appears like a series of failed investments.
Eurasian bastion airspace hasn't become less defended, but much more so, with an F-35C not even being able to reach firing range from a carrier, outside coastal defenses.
With the F-14D, the single airframe that could race the gap was lost, especially when further upgraded to the F-21 or ASF-14 standard.
Variable Cycle Engines can potentially shift the balance - but that is a story, much like the upgrade of the F-14A in 1970 to B in 1987...
To be fair to the US Nazy the F111 was a monsorously HUGE aircraft for any carrier!!!!
Her place was always to be a TNW carrier platform and that she did well(skoot and shoot).....
I always loved the Aardvark and remember in the late 70's watching them TRYING to practice low alt bombing runs - my most vivid recollection is. The size, THE NOISE AND THE SMOKE from these beasts.....
Wasnt the A-5 Vigilante more or less the same size?
@@prowlus couldn't sau, but I can say that the F111 was HUGE and would have been a nightmare to utilise on an aircraft carrier - 30tons, huge wingspan.....
@@prowlus The Vigilante and the Tomcat were about the same size. The F-111B was 10-12 tons bigger.
Gonna need you to do a deep dive on the F-106 soon. And maybe an appetizer on the F-108.
in my opinion if the Navy was serious about defending the fleet back then the F-111B would have won the competition. One of the big issues with the F-14 and then to a later extent the F/A-18: the navy really damaged its relationship with Congress, who became increasingly skeptical of their claims and less willing to do its bidding as a result. because they saw what happened afterwards and realized that they were bullshitted about how bad the F-111 was and what the F-14 would be. the F-14 is a symbol of the contentious relationship navair and the Navy had with Congress and OSD, stemming from issues arising with the 1947 NSA, as well as issues with program management and acquisitions that were increasingly endemic in the 1960s, that really affected a lot of programs that were frankly having issues surrounding reliability/sustainability and operational effectiveness. The original plan to have a F-111B + a VFX program to replace the F-4, rather than what occurred. Aircraft of the 60s were overly ambitious - the F-14 was likely the epitome of that issue. Would recommend Fighters over the Fleet by Norman Friedman for further reading :)
One of the issues that the F-111B would have most definitely had was that was shown up with experience of early gunless Phantoms over Vietnam. Phantoms typically had to engage in Air to Air Combat with the Vietnamese Air Force and the F-111B would have been caught seriously short there. Not through any fault of the plane but again simply due to the fact that not intended that the F-111B would be engaging in short range Air to Air Combat. Yes it could have had fitted a Vulcan Cannon in the BombBay but going to struggle with the sheer weight and lack of dogfighting capability,
The Navy and AIrforce got caught short with the early gunless Phantoms. The airforce getting the E model with the double slat and internal cannon and then later the F-15 in response to the supposed super fighter Mig-25.
Navy and Airforce had to implement new Schools for teaching Dog Fighting which helped redress but is very unlikely that could have got the F-111B into that.
However at the time of the start of the TFX program then such requirement for actual air combat not seen and so the lack of ACM on the F-111B not seen as an issue when the requirements laid out,
That is the problem with a lot of plane programs, start out as one thing and then gets changed what want whilst development goes on.
@@michaelmcnally2331 F-15 was in development before they knew about the MiG-25
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex Whilst the F-X program did indeed start before the knowledge of the Mig-25 what the F-X program requirement was changed after the unveiling of the Mig-25 to a more capable and higher performance platform dedicated to air to air instead of multi role plane.
Early designs were same sort of size and weight as F-111 including VG wings and certainly would not have gained a 104-0 kill ratio like the Eagle has.
So is one of those rare cases where both people can be correct in what they said.
@@michaelmcnally2331the hoax of gunless Phantom being bad again… Navy did way better than Air Force with their Phantoms later on, despite the fact that Navy Phantoms never got a gun, and the Air Force Phantoms did worse after getting the gun
The opinion of combat pilots must never be taken into account when designing an airplane when they contradict hard stats, because pilots are humans and can be biased, while numbers cannot
I just love the idea of a bomber that flys like a fighter jet and has two pilots sitting next to each other like it’s a sci-fi movie.
Hardly a new idea though. De Havilland Mosquito anyone?
You remind me of Greg's A&A... if he were British... and covered any military aviation after 1950... a sincere compliment. Based.
During Congressional hearings, a navy admiral was asked about the concerns about the thrust to weight ratio of the FB-111 the admiral responded, "There's not enough thrust in all of Christendom to make it a fighter."
The F111A and B both look fantastic. Some of the best looking aircraft ever made
How versatile was the F-111, aside from being a Common Airframe?
I also don't see it carrying as many Phoenix missiles as the F-14 along with self-defense missiles and an ac, even though those loads had the pilot screaming for an KA-6 for fuel after every cat shot.
The Phoenix DEFINED THE DOCTRINE, NOT SPARROWS, and the Phoenix defined the truck carrying it to the loiter point.
And, let's next talk about escape pods and the like that unnecessarily complicated deployed maintenance schemes.
Good ol John Stennis. There’s a reason there’s a super carrier named after a random senator from Mississippi.
When the F111 was in development a problem was GD developed the A model for the USAF 1st. Then they started on the changes for the B model for the Navy. This led to a problem: the A placed the engines next to each other with a vertical piece of sheet metal in-between. This worked well for the USAF, but it left no place for attaching a standard arresting hook. The B development was delayed while GD figured out how to attach the tail hook. This was just one of many problems of trying to adapt a USAF design for carrier operations. Another was GD's management.
"(...) many problems of trying to adapt a USAF design for carrier operations."
The core requirement of *streamlining industrial mass production and maintenance logistics across services* is hardly mentioned.
@@christophmahler since I worked at Northrop, we were smug about building aircraft that were maintainable. The Navy still didn't trust us to build the Navalized F17, so we partnered to build the F/A-18.
@@saltyroe3179
"The Navy still didn't trust us to build the Navalized F17, so we partnered to build the F/A-18."
I argued elsewhere, that contracting the other way around for cross-service branch procurement would have been a more realistic procedure - as the naval F-14A did prove itself well in Iranian Air Force service and the Australians seem to be very satisfied with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, despite shore based operations.
One can wonder whether there was a golden optimum somewhere, e.g. when the Vought Model 1600 was considered or whether General Dynamics F-16XL could be adapted for carrier operation (possibly being less expensive in procurement and operation than any possible navalized F-15).
In the end, the F-14 and the F/A-18 - but also the F-22A - were shutdown due to maintenance/procurement cost arguments (the Super Hornet production end in 2027 related to lack of export, surpassed by the F-35 which is a rather different set of mission role) from which begs the question, how the F/A XX is supposed to make a difference with larger trade deficits, national debt service, subsequent tighter budgets and a weaker currency...
@@christophmahler now I am onto the YF-23 which was better than the F-22 , in part because it had Northrop maintainability built in and lower operating costs
@@saltyroe3179
"lower operating costs"
It was my understanding that the YF-22 was slightly more maneuverable, but overall more conservative, with comparable low observability - but if *maintenance costs* really were a significant factor - and maybe offering also greater upgradeability within the airframe - then it may hold true as a superior design choice...
Pretty sure the short nose on the -B was to allow the pilot to see the deck at landing AOA.
"Pretty sure the short nose on the -B was to allow the pilot to see the deck at landing (...)"
It was.
The all-around F-14 'bubble canopy' was one of the revolutionary developments of the 4th 'generation'.
That said, it's probably one of the easiest upgrades of an F-11B in development if letting go of the capsule, anyway (which was arguably an innovation in regard to maritime operation, especially in Atlantic and Arctic waters).
Since I have encountered here several 'Navy princesses' who 'hold their skirts tight' and cry out: 'IT'S TOO BIG', I mean to share the fact the A-5 Vigilante operated from carriers until 1979 which was even larger than the F-111B - and that if one looks into aerodynamics, one will find the REYNOLDS NUMBER from which follows that maximum flight range is related to an aircraft's size and speed - benefiting larger and faster airframes with higher and further lift.
It doesn't hurt to look into the scientific basics of aviation and to compare airframes not just by performance stats - as most 'keyboard warriors' prefer as if playing a card game - but by physical parameters that can begin to speak for themselves as a repeating pattern.
The F-111B, the F-14B and the F/A-18F all approximate another in sheer size, because combat range and speed is a desirable, major requirement for all naval aviation.
Max takeoff weight of the F-111B was 25,000 pounds greater than the RA-5. Or about the same as the A3D Skywarrior.
@@dukeford8893
*"Max takeoff weight* of the F-111B was 25,000 pounds greater than the RA-5."
What does that suppose to mean when talking about size ?
The RA-5 is fitted for a reconnaissance mission, not carrying 6 very long range missiles...
The F35 proved that huge amounts of money can do anything
F-14 was even more expensive
Your videos are amazing. Thank you. It’s my favorite channel
Again, you are just awesome. My high expectations of your content are, once again, surpassed 😉
The F-111B can’t actually loiter longer than F-14A. The Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheets show their loiter times at 150nmi with six Phoenixes to be roughly identical.
You can see just by the massive size of the thing that the F-111 was in no way suitable as an aircraft carrier based interceptor. Not only that, but I can't ever imagine seeing that giant elephant doing fast moving turns in dogfights. Despite its perplexing "F" designation, it really is only suitable as a ground attack aircraft.
Again, an excellent video!
Many thanks for this!
The landing gear and wing pivot were under heavy load. Australia's CSIRO created a stress sensor array and monitoring system that logged data for this type of thing. When Australia got its F-111's, the RAAF just smothered these very expensive aircraft with sensors. The US DoD immediately sent buy orders to use on their aircraft. This system is now incorporated in nearly all military aircraft.
I enlisted in the Navy in 1975. MacNamera was essentially a curse word even then. By the 1990’s no one in service was still around when MacNamera was defense secretary. So the cursing was over
I'm a relatively new subscriber and dang, your videos are amazingly good. Thank you.
G'day,
Yay Team !
Great stuff... I'm very much enjoying this.
I always assumed that the F-111b would've probably worked out well enough, in the end (after sufficient money was thrown at rectifying it's manifold problems...?), as did the F-111c, eventually - which I used to see while growing up in Glen Innes, northern NSW - so long ago as to be able to remember a Flight of 4 Vampires for the ANZAC Day Flypast in 1966 (76 Sq...., honouring Peter Turnbull's hometown - their C.O. who was killed at Milne Bay...), and an English Electric Canberra beating up the local Aero-Club's weekend Airshow..., that
Long ago.
The F-111c
Was a bit tricky
To get to see, actually,
On their way to & from
Going to practice bomb,
The Training Range at
Evans Head, down at the
Coast.
One learned to detect the subtle slight
"...ssssSSSibilent Hissssing..." sort of a noise ;
Made by an approaching
Aardvark, inbound at
350 to 450 knots and 200 ft, while still
Below one's Tree-horizon -
Which afforded perhaps 3 full seconds of
Audible warning that if one wanted to lay Eyes on it, then the time to
Look UP, and (generally) to the West..., was
NOW !
If one was already outside at the time, one could often see it
45° highabove the Horizon, still incoming, climbing the Sky, shortly before it
ROARRRRED Overhead, and then
Disappeared towards the opposite Horizon.
In hindsight, perhaps the Wattie-Pict Frozen Produce Processing-Factory was being used as a Target, for a Dummy Run (?).
As a little Biggles Freak, I was the type to leap up and run out if the House to look at EVERY passing Aeroplane, and the F-111c was the very most rewarding to catch a glimpse of.
They crashed 3 of them, over about 22 years, within 60 miles of me, Armidale, Guyra, and Tenterfield....; so I reckon it was worth the effort of running.
The one at Tenterfield in '86 killed the Crew, they'd used the old Tenterfield Abatoir as a Dummy Target, clipped a Tree when not quite clearing the Hills in the way inbound - and gone to full Afterburner to get enough Airspeed as to hold the nose far-enough up that they flew entirely
Over
Tenterfield Township,
Crashing into the Hilltop on the other side of the Valley - before having time to trigger the Capsule's Rockets.
I was at Emmaville.
I heard 2 go over, west to East, and then half an hour later only one of them came back...; whereas normally they ingressed and outgressed going on roughly parallel Ground-Tracks, one down one Valley & the other in the adjoining one ; and coming out they'd be either a few miles north or south of their inward Route. Tactical. Not over flying the same spot, twice in one night, quite, kinda thing.
I never did watch an Aardvark actually plough in, but I did watch one go overhead at 450 knots, and it then punched in, about 50 miles and 6 minutes later...
At about 21:24 & 21:29 I heard them inbound, and at 21:45 - I heard the first one going home, but nobody followed them at 21:50, and then in the 22:00 News the Crash was announced on the Radio.
They were ALWAYS Exciting to see, and one could compete with oneself to lay Eyes on them before they arrived overhead...; and, well - sometimes they actually fuctup, and ploughed the Mountain..., and who wanted to be the bloke who could have been able to say what they saw, as it went over - but hadn't bothered to lift up their head to have a look, when it might have mattered...?
Not quite a ghoulish fascination, more a hunger for ever more data...
Back when they were new, we never knew, that part of the Purchase Agreement with Unkle Spam required all but 2 of the Oz Fleet to be used for Landfill, once they were taken out of Operational service.
The two surviving relics went into Museums, and the Cockpit/Escape Capsules from the ones which ejected at Guyra & Armidale were mounted on Trucks, taken around Airshows and Regional Country AggroKultural Shows by the RAAF, as Recruiting Props., to patriotically inspire the impressionable Tweenagers.
Grooming them..., to want
To experience the
Thrill (of the kill)
Of it all ;
Planting the seeds of
Desire.
The "Killer Application" though, when the Menzies Government committed Oz to the Aardvark, was to,
"Bomb Jakarta,
Bomb Jakarta,
Bomb Jakarta
To the ground...;
Bomb Jakarta
Bomb Jakarta
F'r 'Straya(!)'s
SuckYou'reATitty...,
To be sound...!"
Or, words to that effect.
Menzies had an ingrained
Fixation
Deeply stuck upon
"The
Yellow Peril,
Lurking...;
To the North...!"
He apparently never quite got over having sold Pig-Iron to Japan in the late 1930s, from which they duly cast the Bomb Casings which (filled with Explosives) then rained down onto Darwin, in February 1942...
So, Yeah -
That was what the
Aardvark was
Supposed to be
"Good for..." ;
Bombing the
Yellow Peril (back) into (proper)
Submission, y'see...!
Olde Colonial Imperial Bean,
Eh,
What (say) ?
And, then, there was also the matter of every Aircraftsman who was ordered into the RAAF Aardvark Fueltanks to de-seal/reseal them (every Aircraft, every 10 years)..., subsequently dying of multiple horrible Cancers - all attributed to unprotected exposure the wildly toxic Carcinogenic Solvents, used during the two processes.
Quite the Curate's Egg,
Of
Stuporsonic Jet-Bummer
Hairygoplanes...,
ACTUARIALLY squeaking.
But, they were bloody
Great FUN to watch...!
In 1982 I was sitting atop a Ridge in the Mann River Valley, on the property known as
Lingeralong, about 250 ft above the Riverbed - which lay 45° below me, and which made a 110° Bend from coming out of the Escarpment to go around the Ridge, whereupon I was playing Pan-Flutes for the fun of it...
(In a Cheesecloth Shirt and Drawstring Trousers ;
Yippie Hippie, Yee-Haaah !).
"ssssSSSS...!
Came THE Sound,
coming from behind my right shoulder ; and as I turned to watch, the Aeroplane appeared in the Valley, uphill from me, descending at 250 - 350 Knots, and it rolled into a Wings-Vertical
Left-Turn with me as the
"Pylon" - looking DOWN at the Cockpit as they went roaring around me, with their Right Wingtip passing at about my
Eye-level...(!).
They were fully into their
Terrain Following Radar's
Hard-Ride Mode,
Apparently.
The Cockpit was indeed 200 ft above the River Water..., but the Aeroplane was always below Ridgetop Level, even during the Descending Vertical Turn.
It was VERY
Impressive to watch, from maybe
300 ft from their Canopy-Top.
My Tax Dollars at work,
Burning...,
Turning
Up the Heat...,on the
Bloody
Global Warming !
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Very well written dude. Top draw.
His paragraphs are so well written and so dense with information. Sometimes I back up to hear it again or watch the whole thing twice. 🎉
TF30 continued to give problems on the F-14 but did well in the A-7 until replaced by the TF41. The F-111B powered by afterburner TF41s could have been something.
With respect to the "Mach 3 F-111'. The only other reference I have to that is a mid-1970's edition of JANES POCKET BOOK OF MAJOR COMBAT AIRCRAFT which lists the top speed of the plane as 1983 mph
Pilot Notes for the F-111A are on the internet. Mach 2.5 Max Chat.
@@richardvernon317 This video was talking about the B and JANE'S did not specify. However this vid tells us it would wreck the plane
I have two references of the SR-71 doing M5, one from the fianl flight and the other from a personal friend quoting pilots. Now we do know that it brok 2300 once but that did a job on the plane. The only way I can reconcile the two is that M1 varies with altitute, being much less at 65,000 ft than at sea level. The service ceiling of the SR-71 is "over 80,000 ft" Now, just how far over 80 grand is not specified. I would think that what is M3 at 70,000 could be M5 at 90 grand. The F-15 and MiG-24 were pushed over 105,000 so just what they pushed the SR-71 up to, I have no idea
@@SpacePatrollerLaser
"The F-15 and -MiG-24- [MiG-25] were pushed over 105,000 [feet] so just what they pushed the SR-71 up to, I have no idea (...)"
It's arguably just a question of further development of the engine potential than practical feasibility - in this case, it refutes Admiral Thomas Francis Connolly's argument of the supersonic F-111B being 'underpowered' - although the Vietnam War would prove him right in regard to an additional desirable requirement of 'super-maneuverability' - usually achieved by a weight-thrust ratio of 1:1 or better.
The SR-71, MiG-25 and MiG-31 have _probably_ the sustained thrust to leave atmosphere as the medium to grant lift, and thus turn into accelerated orbiting satellites as defined by the Karman Line at relaative 100 km.
Neither air breathing engines can operate without oxygen nor would conventional airframes survive the heat build up of increasingly orbital acceleration or the friction at re-entry...
The German Saenger orbital bomber was developed around these principles in the 1940s (envisioned as taking off, rocket-powered from high speed rails), but never evolved beyond this conceptual stage and early ramjet trials.
I'll never get used to seeing an F-111 land on a carrier after serving at RAF Lakenheath in the late 80s early 90s
Its funny the USN Missileer in concept would make a good drone concept. A large drone capable of being launched from a carrier, which deploys AIM-174B's with its own radar folded into AEGS system.
F-111B could potentially have been used to complement an existing land based F-111/EF-111 force. It could have been used as part of a partial dispersion strategy to operate from austere airstrips and roads. This would provide a survivable counter strike in the event that primary air bases are destroyed. It therefore could increase the overall deterrent value of the total F-111 force. It wouldn't need bar or hook but the reinforced structure and gear of a naval variant could be useful for dispersed austere operations. Could potentially load a chute instead of a hook for shorter landings when needed.
Great research and presentation, enjoyed the story
34:21 let’s see we have
A Variable geometry F-4
The Basis for the F-14
And what looks a lot like a tornado
Excellent, accurate look at the F-111B, minus the political spin that has propagated myth for many decades. Bravo!
Jam-packed with info that I rather have an article so I can think about it as I read. But great video nevertheless! I also think the Soviets could really complicate the problem by building themselves a genuine aircraft carrier.
Very good episode, keep up the good work!
The best part of the F-111B was that the navy had to come back to earth and write a spec for the F-14 for a cost effective fleet defender and forced the shrinking of the AN/AWG-9 to something reasonable. Right or Wrong the phoenix missile and early Aim 7s were tasked at keeping soviet bombers out of the fleets battle space and the F-14 could drag the missle to the launch envelope.
I see elements of the Intruder in the Missileer.