Us Navy F111B?

[Stratos 3,192]

IIRC our current F111 have a hook, maybe adding a US NAVY skin and some ini changes can give the F111B? With all those Bears coming, is time for something with a long punch!! ( and yes I know about the Tomcat ;) )

 

 

 

From Wiki:

 

The F-111B was to be a fleet air defense (FAD) fighter for the U.S. Navy, fulfilling a long-standing naval requirement for a fighter capable of carrying heavy, long-range missiles to defend carriers and their battle groups from Soviet bombers and fighter-bombers equipped with anti-ship missiles. The Navy had just cancelled the F6D Missileer, a concept for a slow, straight-winged jet with the advanced Hughes AN/AWG-9 pulse-Doppler radar, which could detect low flying targets among ground clutter, and lift eight new AIM-54 Phoenix long range, air-to-air missiles, which could attack multiple aircraft simultaneously at ranges out to 100 miles (160 km). The concept was soon cancelled, but the F-111 offered a platform with the range, payload, and Mach 2 performance of a fighter to intercept targets quickly, but with swing wings and turbofan engines, it could also loiter on station for long periods. The F-111B would carry six Phoenix missiles, but have no gun or other short range armament. General Dynamics, having no experience with carrier-based aviation, partnered with Grumman for this version.

 

The F-111B was a compromise that attempted to reconcile the Navy's very different needs with an aircraft whose basic configuration was largely set by the USAF need for a supersonic strike aircraft. These compromises would harm both USAF and USN versions. The side-by-side seating was preferred by the Navy from the Missileer. The F-111B was shorter than the F-111A, in order to enable it to fit on aircraft carrier deck edge elevators between the flight deck and the hangar deck. The F-111B also had a longer wingspan than its USAF counterpart (70 ft/21.3 m compared to 63 ft/19.2 m) for increased range and cruising endurance. Although the Navy had wanted a 48-inch (122 cm) radar dish for long range, they were forced to accept a 36-inch (91.4 cm) dish for compatibility. The Navy had requested a maximum takeoff weight of 50,000 lb (22,686 kg), but then-Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara forced the Navy to compromise at 55,000 lb (24,955 kg). This weight goal proved to be overly optimistic.

 

Excessive weight plagued the F-111B throughout its development. Not only were prototypes far over the 55,000 lb (24,955 kg) limit, efforts to redesign the airframe only made matters worse. The excessive weight made the aircraft seriously underpowered. In landing configuration at carrier weights, the F-111B could not maintain level flight on one engine, which would be a major problem once committed to the approach.[citation needed] Worse, its visibility for carrier approach and landing were abysmal.

 

Requirements for the F-111B had been formulated before air combat over Vietnam in 1965 showed the Navy still had a need for an aircraft which could engage MiG fighters at close range. The Navy desired a fighter with more performance than the F-4 Phantom II, yet in trials, the maneuverability and performance of the F-111B, especially in the crucial medium-altitude regimen, was decidedly inferior to the Phantom. During the congressional hearings for the aircraft, Vice Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, famously responded to a question from Senator John C. Stennis as to whether a more powerful engine would cure the aircraft's woes with "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"[18]

 

By October 1967, the Navy was finally convinced that the F-111B program was a lost cause and recommended its cancellation, which occurred in 1968 after seven had been delivered,[19] two of which had crashed. The swing-wing configuration, TF-30 engines, Phoenix missiles and radar developed for this aircraft (and the earlier, canceled F6D Missileer) were used on its replacement, the F-14 Tomcat, also designed by Grumman. The Tomcat would be large enough to carry the AWG-9 and Phoenix weapons system while exceeding the agility and speed of the F-4 Phantom.

[column5 63]

Nose of the F-111B (spit) is completely different from the USAF F-111.

[FastCargo 412]

Nose of the F-111B (spit) is completely different from the USAF F-111.

 

Not to say someone hasn't considered the possibility for the Thirdwire series.

 

FastCargo

[Stratos 3,192]

Column do you have any pic or diagram of the different noses?

[Fubar512 1,350]

Column do you have any pic or diagram of the different noses?

 

 

Best I could find showing both the TFX, and the F-111

 

[+Typhoid 231]

there are some nice shots of the F-111b (spit) on this link;

 

http://www.f-111.net/t_no_B.htm

 

some short clips of the carrier suitability trials on it too.

 

definitely a much shorter nose so that the unlucky pilot flying that overweight beast could see the landing area.

[+suhsjake 11]

If you wanted to make one you could use the F-111A and Pappy's Early SAC scheme as a base.

[+drdoyo 2]

definitely a much shorter nose so that the unlucky pilot flying that overweight beast could see the landing area.

 

Pardon my twisted humor, but where the overweight Navy F-111 project is concerned would it be considered 'landing area' or would it more properly be called a 'crash pad'?

[gbnavy61 1]

Ick. Why would you use that hunk of crap when you could take a Tomcat?

 

Anytime, Baby!

[kct 5]

Because of this: "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"

Edited October 15, 2008 by kct

[column5 63]

Because of this: "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"

 

Of course all the USAF has to do is put an 'F' in the designation of any aircraft to make it a fighter.

 

F-105???? F-111???? etc...

 

Does make one wonder why they eschewed the A for attack designation that would have been perfectly appropriate.

[kct 5]

Probably because having the BIG F is something cool. Mindset of the 60s, perhaps?

[charlielima 328]

I love the Vark.

Bean counter types like McNamara? Yah Priceless.

The F-4 Phantom was originally designed as a supersonic attack / strike aircraft (AH ?) and I believe cancelled by congress. Hey McDonald, how about a fleet intercepter? Wait a few. Here you go. The Phabulous Phantom. Any Navy F-4 was superior to the F-111b as any sort of bomber / strike / attack A2G platform. Any honest to God Varks flying off the boat as a one time launch off a carrier as Dolittle's B-25s off the Hornet or the P-47s off the Natoma Bay in WW2, or wearing Navy warpaint would be not out of line the least bit. We flew AD-3 whales off the Coral Sea, Midway, and even the Oriskany. There is room enough for a real Vark on an aircraft carrier. Whether there is room enough to displace F-4s, F-14s, and A-6s, I won't touch that one.

:ph34r: CL

Edited October 15, 2008 by charlielima

[column5 63]

The F-4 Phantom was originally designed as a supersonic attack / strike aircraft (AH ?) and I believe cancelled by congress. Hey McDonald, how about a fleet intercepter? Wait a few. Here you go.

 

Not to nitpick but the F4H was never cancelled, although it did morph from an attack aircraft based on the Demon (F3H-3G) into the AH-1 and finally into the F4H interceptor as the Navy's requirements changed.

[charlielima 328]

Not to nitpick but the F4H was never cancelled, although it did morph from an attack aircraft based on the Demon (F3H-3G) into the AH-1 and finally into the F4H interceptor as the Navy's requirements changed.

 

Mutual Nitpicking to sort out the history / timelines ?

:ph34r: CL

[+Spectre_USA 7]

Back when I was working the ol' `Vark, I used to pass by one of the very few "B" models made, tucked away in a corner at the

former McClellan AFB, in Sacramento, CA.

 

I wonder what happened to that poor old relic.

 

It didn't make it to the "Aerospace Museum of California," at what was McClellan...

 

[WarlordATF 1]

If you wanted to make one you could use the F-111A and Pappy's Early SAC scheme as a base.

 

I took your idea and ran with it, Still have some more work to do, but heres how she looks so far...

 

Edited October 15, 2008 by WarlordATF

[+Julhelm 266]

The F-111B is basically an F-111A with the longer wings of the FB-111A and the early intakes. Shouldn't be hard to modify from the original max file.

[Vampyre 24]

Back when I was working the ol' `Vark, I used to pass by one of the very few "B" models made, tucked away in a corner at the

former McClellan AFB, in Sacramento, CA.

 

I wonder what happened to that poor old relic.

 

It didn't make it to the "Aerospace Museum of California," at what was McClellan...

 

 

Evidently, this airframe (BuNo152714) is in Mojave and was being used to try to restore an EF-111A. I understand that at one point the Pima Air Museum was trying to get a hold of it to display in their collection.

 

I pass by the last complete -111B (BuNo152715) every day on my way to work. She still looks complete, badly in need of a paint job and still needs tires, but complete.

[JediMaster 451]

I can't remember if the Vigilante was bigger than the 111B or not. Certainly the Whale was bigger.

[+streakeagle 871]

Why is the F-111 an F-111 instead of an A-?

Simple: the mindset of the USAF was centered on strategic nuclear warfare and divided itself into two combat groups: SAC and TAC.

Large, long range, subsonic, heavy payload aircraft were strategic bombers.

Smaller, short to medium range, supersonic aircraft were tactical fighters.

 

The F-111 was born of the tactical fighter experimental program (TFX) to produce a long range high speed nuclear strike fighter for the USAF to replace the F-105 and (thanks to McNamara) merged with the Navy's need for an advanced fleet defense interceptor. The resulting USAF F-111A was technically a dual-role fighter, a precursor to the F/A-18 and F-15E. In addition to its long range strike capability, it was intended to carry AIM-7s and act as a stand-off interceptor.

 

While the F-111B was a design failure, I think it was somewhat unfair to General Dynamics for its subcontractor, Grumman, to take advantage of its inside information on the strengths and weaknesses of the F-111 design to produce a substitute (the F-14). General Dynamics did not create the specification for the F-111, they were merely doing their best to provide what the US government requested. The Navy had never asked for agility (they only wanted a 6g airframe not the 7.33g airframe that the USAF wanted) and were the driving force behind the side-by-side seating arrangement. Rejection of the F-111B while subsequently purchasing the Grumman F-14 was a slap in the face to General Dyanmics. The key to rejecting the F-111B was its weight and the F-14 was still extremely heavy for a carrier based fighter. Grumman was able to shed some weight because they didn't have to meet the USAF range specifications and they were able to re-engineer the variable geometry wing to be both lighter and stronger. The VFX competition for the F-14 contract heavily favored Grumman since the Navy had already been working together with them in secret for years, while the other key bidders had a lot less time to throw a proposal together without being able to recycle F-111B knowledge.

 

On the bright side, every time General Dynamics lost a US military aircraft contract, it was a victory for the US military. GD designs almost never met the specifications, went through years of delays, and were way over budget. In addition to the F-111 fiasco, the whole F-102/F-106 program was even more of a disaster. The F-102 was such a failure that the necessary fixes resulted in the new F-106 designation. Even the plan to deploy the F-102 until the F-106 was ready failed, resulting in the F-101B being used as a stopgap interceptor. In some ways, the F-16 was a less than satisfactory product, but its high production numbers and resulting low price made it a pretty good deal if you didn't need a BVR missile. But high performance and production for a low price is not always better... the B-24 (made by GD before it was called GD) was faster, could fly farther, carry more bombs, and be produced more quickly and easily than the B-17, but it needed the faster production rate to match its higher loss rate. Pilots who flew both will tell you the B-17 was much safer and easier to fly. At the highest levels of the Army Air Corps/Army Air Force, the B-17 was much preferred over the B-24, but politics and wartime needs ensured both aircraft were produced and employed in tremendous numbers.

 

The Navy should quite rightfully see the cancellation of the F-111B was one of their great political and financial victories. The F-14 clearly was a much better fit for Navy carriers providing everything the F-111B was to provide and so much more. Of course, the Grumman F-14 was never built in large numbers and is now retired, while General Dynamics F-16s have been built in tremendous numbers and will be serving for a long time to come... as a product of Lockheed. It is amazing how the aerospace industry in the United States has collapsed between WW2 and the present. Republic, North American, Chance-Vought, McDonnell, Douglas, General Dynamics (Convair), Grumman, Martin, Northrop, Curtiss... all gone from the design and production of military aircraft or absorbed into Boeing and Lockheed. From 1940 to 1980 was an amazing era of US aerospace engineering development that will probably never be equaled. I am glad that I was born early enough to see many of the aircraft produced in the era while they were still flyable and in many cases still in service.

[DWCAce 19]

Well said!

[charlielima 328]

I'll bet dollars to donuts TFX is a dirty word in any household that has gold or silverwings on a uniform. Mention F-111s in service you will think you invented the Vark chearleaders. Your Navy Vark looks bitchin Warlord. Switchblades flying off the beach in Navy warpaint? Many navys outside USAnia have land based bombers. Anyway a sea vark (not the F-111b) to replace my tired viggie, or the A-3 and AP-2h I still don't have would be splendid.

:ph34r: CL

Edited October 15, 2008 by charlielima

[FastCargo 412]

The F-111B is basically an F-111A with the longer wings of the FB-111A and the early intakes. Shouldn't be hard to modify from the original max file.

 

Shouldn't...unless other modifications of the MAX file are being done. Certain other things are being accomplished (slowly) to update the F-111 for the TW series.

 

FastCargo

[FastCargo 412]

Also, some interesting things about the F-111/F-14.

 

By pure specification numbers, the aircraft were not that much different:

 

F-111B (at cancellation)

 

46500 lbs empty / 72421 lbs loaded / 86563 lbs max gross

 

Length - 68 feet

Span (extended) - 70 feet

Height - 16 feet 8 inches

 

Thrust (per engine) - 12290 lbs dry / 20250 lbs wet

 

F-14A (initial production)

 

40104 lbs empty / 70764 lbs loaded / 74349 lbs max gross

 

Length - 62 feet

Span (extended) - 64 feet

Height - 16 feet

 

Thrust (per engine) - 12350 lbs dry / 20900 lbs wet

 

The F-111B was certainly larger and heavier overall (one may in fact be argued to have contributed to the other). However, mid altitude turn performance on the F-111B was inferior to the aircraft it was designed to replace (the F-4). One only has to look at the overall planform to figure out why...practically no wing compared to it's F-4/F-14 counterparts. Frontal drag due to the side by side seating (preferred by the USN coming from the cancelled Missiler-which looked a lot like a straight wing A-6) certainly didn't help matters.

 

In the end, a 'one size fits all' concept simply resulted in an aircraft that fit neither requirement well. The USAF got lucky getting an aircraft that worked well as a low level, high speed striker (with performance rarely matched down low)...the USN had to wait a bit longer (which, along with Grumman's knowledge gained on the F-111B) resulted in the Tomcat.

 

FastCargo