Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

arkadyrenko wrote:

johnwill - what can you not understand about Vietnam? The Vietnam experience blew the idea of a purely missile armed long range interceptor out of water. (Remember how magnificently successful the AIM-7 was? And how missile combat blew all the North Vietnamese MIGs out of the sky?)

If you can credibly argue that the F-111B was as maneuverable as the F-14A, you have a point. Otherwise, yes, F-111B made the Navy's original requirements. Those requirements changed, and the Navy, acting in its own best interest, went with an airplane that fit the requirements.

As for the F-111 and the JSF, they're both joint programs designed to be a smart solution to a fighter gap. They will be compared and with reason. Only a success on the JSF's part will end such comparisons. Sorry about that, but its a fact of life (and/or sensationalist journalism...)

The JSF's job is simple: succeed. If it can't, the program will go down in history as one of the worst acquisition failures in DoD history.

Not exactly, it blew that concept out of the water when not given adequate IFF interrogation equipment, constrained by terrible RoE, stuck in 100% humidity conditions that were WONDERFUL for the reliability of the AIM-7F, etc etc etc. Most missiles at that time weren't exactly useful. I'd look at the Gulf War as an example of what happens when a well-supported BVR fighter-missile combo is sicced on a fairly competent foe. AIM-7F+F-4+EC-121<AIM-7M+F-15+E-3.

F-16.net Sponsor

southernphantom wrote:

Not exactly, it blew that concept out of the water when not given adequate IFF interrogation equipment, constrained by terrible RoE, stuck in 100% humidity conditions that were WONDERFUL for the reliability of the AIM-7F, etc etc etc. Most missiles at that time weren't exactly useful. I'd look at the Gulf War as an example of what happens when a well-supported BVR fighter-missile combo is sicced on a fairly competent foe. AIM-7F+F-4+EC-121<AIM-7M+F-15+E-3.

Missile performance and reliability, combined with far better situational awareness, makes a big difference in outcomes. Just one correction though, the AIM-7F wasn't in service, during Vietnam(the E model was the best version available at the time). The AIM-7M was a very good missile.

arkadyrenko wrote:

johnwill - what can you not understand about Vietnam? The Vietnam experience blew the idea of a purely missile armed long range interceptor out of water. (Remember how magnificently successful the AIM-7 was? And how missile combat blew all the North Vietnamese MIGs out of the sky?)

If you can credibly argue that the F-111B was as maneuverable as the F-14A, you have a point. Otherwise, yes, F-111B made the Navy's original requirements. Those requirements changed, and the Navy, acting in its own best interest, went with an airplane that fit the requirements.

As for the F-111 and the JSF, they're both joint programs designed to be a smart solution to a fighter gap. They will be compared and with reason. Only a success on the JSF's part will end such comparisons. Sorry about that, but its a fact of life (and/or sensationalist journalism...)

The JSF's job is simple: succeed. If it can't, the program will go down in history as one of the worst acquisition failures in DoD history.

If someone can argue the F-111 was as good at turning fight as an F-14, then that someone could make a viable argument for fitting the Bones with a 20mm cannon and the -9x. (The ability to make a 8g turn and simultaneously bleed away so much speed and altitude that you're a big fat slow target, doesn't a fighter make)

This entire thread takes the cake! The F-111 and the -35 are apples and condors.

Edit: About 30 years ago, I recall a story about an F-111 scoring a victory against an F-106, So maybe it wasn't all bad.

apple and condors...

RAN FAA A4Gs aboard HMAS Melbourne - exercising 'Fleet Defence' with RAAF F-111s - used to be vectored by pickets ships or carrier from CAP station at high level, to almost directly above Pigs at Low Level, to then invert and pull through on their tail with simulated AIM-9Ls (bought late in their A4G life but never carried - only original inert AIM-9Bs carried). A4G pilots said that maneuver was almost as good as cat shot! Very Happy

johnwill wrote:

maus92 wrote:

IDK, the F-111B still had serious issues with weight and throttle response behind the boat, serious enough to risk failing CQ and justify cancellation (or further redesign) even without refreshed requirements:

"The F-111B, due primarily to its lack of adequate engine thrust response and great weight, exhibited unsatisfactory waveoff performance. The waveoff technique itself was unsatisfactory (a rapid rotation to 24 units) because it causes the aircraft’s nose to block the pilot’s view of the horizon and ship’s island structure."

Table 13: Flight Test Waveoff Performance Results (Historical)
"REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT –PHASE I; FINAL REPORT"
NAWCADPAX/TR-2002/71

Other aircraft exhibiting similar behavior from the same report were the F-8J, RA-5C, and T-45, none of which were cancelled.

Yes, but in the case of the RA-5C, the second batch of aircraft [after suffering severe combat losses the production line was reopened] added leading edge slats which improved carrier landing performance. The RA-5C was also a derivative aircraft developed from an existing accepted aircraft - not the case as in the F-111B. But in any case, the A-5 series were challenging to bring onboard.

The T-45A went into LRIP before carrier testing was started [high degree of concurrency].... sound familiar? It was only then that major deficiencies were discovered, and eventually corrected with a new wing and engine, among other changes.

The F-8J was another derivative model of a successful aircraft that was overweight and underpowered - not desirable qualities when trying to stick an aircraft in a certain place on the deck. Several modifications and workarounds were employed, including a re-engining, finally resulting in a satisfactory aircraft.

Good for the Navy for persevering with the three airplanes, as they should have. That further reinforces my point - the Navy cancelled the -111B because it was AF based, not because it was lacking in some areas.

johnwill wrote:

Good for the Navy for persevering with the three airplanes, as they should have. That further reinforces my point - the Navy cancelled the -111B because it was AF based, not because it was lacking in some areas.

I never worked on the -111 but I talked with some of the ones who survived the layoffs after the program ended and they all said it was Navy's increasingly restrictive requirements that killed the program.

One in particular that I remember was that Navy added a sea level high speed requirement which drove an increase in structural strength which drove the weight to an unacceptable (for Navy) level.

I did have the unfortunate experience of working with the Navy on the A-12 program with similar results.
fisk

johnwill wrote:

Good for the Navy for persevering with the three airplanes, as they should have. That further reinforces my point - the Navy cancelled the -111B because it was AF based, not because it was lacking in some areas.

Another way to look at the situation is by the time it came to fixing F-111B deficiencies, new information about the combat performance of the F-4 and its missile systems were coming to light. Rather than further developing an aircraft that could not possibly meet new mission requirements driven by combat experience, the Navy wisely chose to cancel the aircraft. Mission requirements for the other aircraft did not change appreciably, so it made sense to fix their shortcomings rather than develop a new aircraft.

Finally, there was a great deal of interservice and civilian politics involved with the TFX which distorted the program and the final configuration of the F-111. However, to say that the Navy killed the F-111B because it was a USAF run program is simply incorrect, but certainly fuels conspiracy theories.

No conspiracy theory involved. I worked the -111 program for ten years, was lead engineer on the -111B structural flight test program, was GD lead structures engineer on the -111B carrier suitability tests at Pax, was lead engineer on the A-12 structural flight test program, and participated in the P-3C structural flight test program (1999) in Australia. I am well-acquainted with Navy methods.

The Navy never "wisely" chose to do anything. They do things because they want to. Remember, "Three ways to do things - the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way".

I see you are located in Annapolis. If you are Navy, no personal criticism intended. Just the facts as I remember them.

I'm with johnwill (Your resume is impressive, I would enjoy a chance to discuss your time at GD/LM).

Even the Fighter Mafia, who hate the F-111 ("rip the wings off, hang some seats in the weapons bay, paint it yellow and use it as a high speed taxi"), could read the writing on the wall that the Navy hated the idea of flying a USAF plane, just as much as USAF hated the idea of flying another Navy plane (F-4 being the first and F-14 the potential second), so they let the Fighter Mafia fix the F-15 program to prevent the F-14 from being forced on them.

Sufa Viper

Salute!

F-35 looks a lot like the A-7 to this old curmudgeon, and a lot less than the 'vaark comparisons.

Decent design for our mission requirements ( except for that HMD with no backup HUD), LO characteristics, lottsa gas for range, not a lot of differences with the USN "C" model, etc.

The "B" is the fly in the ointment, but I see no big problems with the "A" and the "C". In fact, the "B" seems a great replacement/upgrade to the Harrier.

USN and USAF requirements for the new medium pig iron hauler are close for this plane compared to the 'vaark. My personal view after watching the 'vaark go thru the process was how big/heavy that sucker was. Most of us thot it was gonna be about the size of a Thud, and maybe a bit larger than the F-100 or F-4.

I look at the "fleet defense interceptor" requirements of those days and don't have a big problem. Then we saw the 'nam experience and realized we needed something with a decent turning fight capability and not just fire Phenix missiles from 30 miles away. USAF also realized we needed something that could turn and burn or use BVR missiles if the ROE allowed.

Apparently, we did a good job, as the Eagle and Viper A2A score seems pretty incredible.

Gums sends...

Gums wrote:

Salute!

F-35 looks a lot like the A-7 to this old curmudgeon, and a lot less than the 'vaark comparisons.

I'd agree that the F-35 is hardly filling the F-111 role, but it's much more akin to an F-16, than an A-7.

johnwill wrote:

No conspiracy theory involved. I worked the -111 program for ten years, was lead engineer on the -111B structural flight test program, was GD lead structures engineer on the -111B carrier suitability tests at Pax, was lead engineer on the A-12 structural flight test program, and participated in the P-3C structural flight test program (1999) in Australia. I am well-acquainted with Navy methods.

The Navy never "wisely" chose to do anything. They do things because they want to. Remember, "Three ways to do things - the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way".

I see you are located in Annapolis. If you are Navy, no personal criticism intended. Just the facts as I remember them.

No problem, I didn't take anything personally. You have direct experience with the program, I have only source materials to shape my outlook. Have you read George Spangenberg's [NAVAIR Evaluation Division Director] oral history and related notes? His version of the TFX development is a bit different than the tales I've been reading here, and since I do have a bias towards the Navy, my default position leans in his direction. Curiously, the authors of two most commonly referenced works written about the TFX (Art and Coulam) never interviewed Spangenberg about his professional evaluation of the TFX/F-111B program. Not surprisingly, Spangenberg does not have a high opinion about the viewpoints and conclusions contained within those works, particularly Art's. He recommends the final report of the McClellan committee as the most accurate record of the TFX program.

sufaviper wrote:

I'm with johnwill (Your resume is impressive, I would enjoy a chance to discuss your time at GD/LM).

Even the Fighter Mafia, who hate the F-111 ("rip the wings off, hang some seats in the weapons bay, paint it yellow and use it as a high speed taxi"), could read the writing on the wall that the Navy hated the idea of flying a USAF plane, just as much as USAF hated the idea of flying another Navy plane (F-4 being the first and F-14 the potential second), so they let the Fighter Mafia fix the F-15 program to prevent the F-14 from being forced on them.

Sufa Viper

Quick note and comment: Don't forget the A-7, which [ironically perhaps] was developed by the Navy after the attack/CAS requirement was removed from the TFX program.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35 compared to TFX (F-111)