Forum: Technology

If you've ever tried to run down an F-111 in an F-4, it was a fairly obvious "no-brainer" that the F-111 did at least one thing "especially" well.

OL

F-16.net Sponsor

1st503rdsgt wrote:

johnwill wrote:

Care to explain why you think the F-111 did nothing well? I think most unbiased, knowledgeable people would say it's the best deep strike attack airplane ever built.

If it was so good, then why was the U.S. so eager to replace it in the early 1990s? Why did the F-4s purchased by the USAF as interim fighters until the TFX was finished end up being the mainstay fighter themselves? Fact is that the F-111 never "quite" lived up to its promise. Was pretty though :) Anyways, I'm getting tired of butthurt fanboys demanding explanations cited in the Chicago Style format every time someone criticizes one of their favorite planes. Get over it.

:ontopic: What I like about the J-20 concept is that its large size allows for the roles where a stealth fighter will be most useful: long range strike (land and maritime), and long range interception (especially against tankers and AWACS). As for air superiority, that remains to be seen since that mission does not necessarily require stealth when over one's own territory (although it helps). In any case, it will be several years before the J-20 reaches IOC, by which time the tactical picture could look very different.

Despite your attack on me ("butthurt fanboys"), you avoided answering the question. I'll continue to ask questions (not demand explanations) so long as you or anyone else make what I think are false statements. You made a claim, now justify it. If you can't or won't, just say so.

Now, to answer your question (didn't your teachers ever tell you answering a question with another question is bad form?), the F-111's service time of 43 years speaks for itself and is long enough to make your "eager to retire" claim ridiculous.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

johnwill wrote:

Care to explain why you think the F-111 did nothing well? I think most unbiased, knowledgeable people would say it's the best deep strike attack airplane ever built.

If it was so good, then why was the U.S. so eager to replace it in the early 1990s? Why did the F-4s purchased by the USAF as interim fighters until the TFX was finished end up being the mainstay fighter themselves? Fact is that the F-111 never "quite" lived up to its promise. Was pretty though Smile

Anyways, I'm getting tired of butthurt fanboys demanding explanations cited in the Chicago Style format every time someone criticizes one of their favorite planes. Get over it.

Airplanes get retired for various reasons many of them not necessarily tied to their capability.

I don’t think anyone doubts that the F-111 was NATO’s premier deep interdiction strike fighter. Its range, all weather capability, payload and speed were second to none. And it was probably the only aircraft that could go deep to find and strike the War Pac rear echelon targets. Notably, when it came time to resurrect the B-1 in the early 1980s, some within the Air Force, like SAC commander Gen Richard Ellis, preferred to update F-111s instead. Yes, politics and the B-2 were involved but the fact stands.

The trouble with the F-111 was that it was incredibly complex and expensive to maintain. It had been designed with a whole bunch of requirements in mind and a lot of built in capability. By the 1990s the AF was looking for savings in all sorts of places - multirole aircraft fitted its vision best. An F-15E could do a no fly zone over Iraq and strike targets on the ground with equal ease. An F-111, not so much.

Oh, and johnwill is one of the great assets that this forum has and even though he is too modest to say it, he’s had a hand in the design of many of the great aircraft we talk about here, including the F-111.

Anyway, here’s how I like to remember the switchblade…

Excellent post there, Skicountry.

Thanks for setting things straight on all points. Thumb

And while on the topic... I'm in the Vark fanboy camp for life, due to observing daily approaches into McClellan AFB as a youth. I won't conjecture on how it could have been evolved, or why I think it was replaced. It's not the proper thread to begin with - let's stick to J-20 related talk here, right? But I will add in general, that it is a rare quality found in daily life these days to be modest... so you caught my attention in that remark alone! Respects-

johnwill wrote:

Despite your attack on me ("butthurt fanboys"), you avoided answering the question. I'll continue to ask questions (not demand explanations) so long as you or anyone else make what I think are false statements. You made a claim, now justify it. If you can't or won't, just say so.

Now, to answer your question (didn't your teachers ever tell you answering a question with another question is bad form?), the F-111's service time of 43 years speaks for itself and is long enough to make your "eager to retire" claim ridiculous.

Rather than waxing sentimental about the plane's exploits and suitability as a medium bomber, I tend to look at what the F-111 was supposed to do (according to the original TFX goals as laid out by McMamara) and compare that to what its actual capabilities were.

It was supposed to be the be-all-end-all fighter design for decades to come, but the Navy and USAF both realized that despite its speed and impressive avionics, it was still too underpowered and overweight to be useful in most fighter missions (forcing the purchase of more Phantoms by both services and leading to the F-14 and F-15 respectively). All one has to do is look at the plane's service history to see that it was a failure in every one of its intended roles except the strike mission. As for the Sparkvark, the F-111 just happened to be an available large airframe that could keep up with any other aircraft in the inventory (dumb luck).

I suppose that 1960s tech wasn't up to the challenge of building a multi-role fighter/bomber, or maybe the lard-haired man didn't understand the differences between a naval fleet-defense interceptor, an USAF strike bomber, and a proper fighter plane (the types can look similar to the untrained observer). In any case, the F-111 was only useful as a semi-strategic bomber by the time it reached operational maturity. For me, that qualifies as a disappointment. Sad

The USAF might sing it praises, but to me it looks like a case of trying to eat a lemon with a straight face while claiming it's a peach.

Now, does anyone want to talk about the J-20 instead of a retired white elephant?

Comparing the F-111 to the ridiculous initial requirements (carrier-based high performance interceptor but also low-level penetrator) isn't really fair. It's a miracle based on its early history that it was very good at anything, much less the best interdictor of its day. Heck, look at what the Su-24 basically is...

As for the J-20, I'm not sure what we're looking at yet. I think the size might be an indicator that they expect less efficiency in the design and are compensating by making it bigger, similar to early Su-27 development.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

As for the J-20, I'm not sure what we're looking at yet. I think the size might be an indicator that they expect less efficiency in the design and are compensating by making it bigger, similar to early Su-27 development.

I hadn't thought of that. You might be right, but the spec I'm most interested in is its un-fueled combat radius. Even if it's less-stealthy, slower, less-maneuverable, and less advanced than the F-22 or F-35, a longer range could still even the playing field.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Anyways, I'm getting tired of butthurt fanboys demanding explanations cited in the Chicago Style format every time someone criticizes one of their favorite planes. Get over it.

...

As for the Sparkvark, the F-111 just happened to be an available large airframe that could keep up with any other aircraft in the inventory (dumb luck)

Yeah, and I'm tired of people who contribute little to the forums substituting insults for information.

I seriously doubt that the F-111's ability to go fast, go low, and go far was 'dumb luck'. The Spark Vark leveraged some of the intrinsically good qualities of the design.

I've learned a lot more from Johnwill than I have from you. If we took a poll, I would bet that that is a consensus opinion.

You have a point about the limitations of the F-111. I think you were fair to cite the limitations of the available technology. But few would also doubt that the F-111 matured into a solid strike platform.

Sourced from Wiki:

After 1972, 4,000 combat F-111A missions were flown over Vietnam with only six combat losses.

In Operation Desert Storm (1991), F-111Fs completed 3.2 successful strike missions for every unsuccessful one making it the leading strike aircraft. The group of 66 F-111Fs dropped almost 80% of the war's laser guided bombs, including the GBU-15 and the penetrating, bunker-buster GBU-28. Eighteen F-111Es were also deployed during the operation. The F-111s were credited with destroying more than 1,500 Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles.

Well said psychmike! That's a hell of a lot of 'dumb luck'!

The Aardvark software was upgraded such that it could toss a MK-82 bomb over ten miles with a CEP of less than 50 feet. Right after that was fielded they retired the fleet. Shame.

When I was a young weapons tester at Eglin, we used the F-111 to drop CEM clusters at supersonic speeds on the deck. Heck, the canister didn't even need to function...the sound of a supersonic 'Vark right over your head would be enough to force one to surrender.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

johnwill wrote:

Despite your attack on me ("butthurt fanboys"), you avoided answering the question. I'll continue to ask questions (not demand explanations) so long as you or anyone else make what I think are false statements. You made a claim, now justify it. If you can't or won't, just say so.

Now, to answer your question (didn't your teachers ever tell you answering a question with another question is bad form?), the F-111's service time of 43 years speaks for itself and is long enough to make your "eager to retire" claim ridiculous.

Rather than waxing sentimental about the plane's exploits and suitability as a medium bomber, I tend to look at what the F-111 was supposed to do (according to the original TFX goals as laid out by McMamara) and compare that to what its actual capabilities were.

It was supposed to be the be-all-end-all fighter design for decades to come, but the Navy and USAF both realized that despite its speed and impressive avionics, it was still too underpowered and overweight to be useful in most fighter missions (forcing the purchase of more Phantoms by both services and leading to the F-14 and F-15 respectively). All one has to do is look at the plane's service history to see that it was a failure in every one of its intended roles except the strike mission. As for the Sparkvark, the F-111 just happened to be an available large airframe that could keep up with any other aircraft in the inventory (dumb luck).

I suppose that 1960s tech wasn't up to the challenge of building a multi-role fighter/bomber, or maybe the lard-haired man didn't understand the differences between a naval fleet-defense interceptor, an USAF strike bomber, and a proper fighter plane (the types can look similar to the untrained observer). In any case, the F-111 was only useful as a semi-strategic bomber by the time it reached operational maturity. For me, that qualifies as a disappointment. Sad

The USAF might sing it praises, but to me it looks like a case of trying to eat a lemon with a straight face while claiming it's a peach.

Now, does anyone want to talk about the J-20 instead of a retired white elephant?

The USAF never intended to use the F-111 as anything but a strike aircraft(i.e. they didn't look at the F-111B, prior to designing the F-15), so there's no eating lemons occurring, and it didn't take the Navy long to cancel it, once it was apparent that it would be unsuitable, which led to the F-14. The F-111 also excelled in the EW role, in the EF-111 configuration.

Accidental post. See new thread for apology.

Here's the thing about the Chinese and the J-20.
It does not have to be as capable as the F-22.
It just has to be 1/2 or 2/3's as capable at 1/5 to 1/2 the cost.
So if it can field 5 to 6 times as many J-20's as the US can field F-22's then that's ok as far as they are concerned.

In my opinion I don't see this as an air dominance aircraft, but more of an aircraft with just enough LO and range to avoid our fighters, skirt around radar and get close enough to launch volleys of long range missiles at our Tankers, AWACS and ships. Take out our fuel and other support and our fighters and bombers will have shorter legs. This will result with many areas of the China Sea being out of our reach. I personally don't think China wants to rule the world, just their own back yard (including everything in the China Sea). To accomplish this the influence the US wields in this arena would have to be reduced. The J-20 along with anti-carrier ballistic missile systems are a means to help accomplish this goal.

good post, sirsink...

However I dont fully concur with the point about PRC necessarily wanting to 'rule' the entire China sea and extending regions. If that were the true intent and it was in fact accomplished for any short period of time, the reality would probably be that others in the region not fully accepting this particular hegemony rule would attempt to develop counter-balancing measures of their own, in order to further bolster sovereignty.

That would make sense and I don't think PRC leadership would attempt to stop it, unless they were going to implement some kind of new, radical and hostile policy position. That is uncertain at this time, but no evidence would speak for that I think.

And I guess with regards to masses of J-20 eventually being able to skirt, evade and avoid defenses and sensors just enough to take out all potentially challenging, non-PLA support assets in the area, that too would likely provoke a counter-measure being developed between now and when such a capability would exist.

So in part, one could argue that it mostly comes down to the intentions of a particular player in the game... but more so, that diplomacy must win out in order to contain runaway, perpetual arms races and newly inflamed battle grounds in the post-cold-war. imho..

Respects-

Forum: Technology

J-20 Chinese Stealth Fighter