Talk:General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

F-111 retirements

retired:raaf:2010 usaf:1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.2.222 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that a question, comment, or what? The retirement dates are already in article. -fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FB-111A remained active with SAC until they were turned over to ACC in June 1992. Article originally showed 1990 retirement date from SAC. This conflicted with FB-111A/F-111G descriptions. I was stationed at Plattsburgh during this time frame. FB-111As were active during Desert Storm (not as part of the War but as part of SAC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.129.50 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

I worked on F-111's during the Vietnam War. The airplane took out a lot of SAM sites and provided cover for B-52 raids by flying close to the ground, keeping the MiG's down by flying low-level raids. The TFR could be set for as low as 200 feet, just enough clearance for telephone poles and such. It was pretty much designed with the Vietnam War in mind. We brought in pin-point accuracy with Laser guided bombs to finally take out hard-to-hit bridges. I think the Vietnam War section could be greatly increased. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:1CF1:28FC:5266:67DF (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the Vietnam War section could be greatly increased. <<<<------ So go for it! Just don't forget the reliable sources! Azx2 04:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Cambodia

The Case-Church Amendment ended US combat operations in Cambodia on 15 August 1973. The 347th Rescue Wing page states that: "On 30 July 1973 the 347th Tactical Fighter Wing which was reactivated at Takhli RTFB, Thailand replacing the 474th TFW which returned to the United States. The wing retained two squadrons of F-111As of the 474th, and for a brief two-week period the 347th flew combat operations into Cambodia until 15 August, when the last wartime mission of the Vietnam Era was flown into Cambodia for final mission of Constant Guard. After the cease-fire, the wing was maintained in a combat-ready status for possible contingency

After the end of combat missions in Indochina, the 347th moved to Korat RTAFB, Thailand in 1974 after the closure of Taklhi and remained in Southeast Asia through May 1975 to undertake strike missions in the event of further contingency operations. Participated in numerous exercises and firepower demonstrations, and, during Jan–May 1975, flew sea surveillance missions. Participated in the recovery of the American merchantman SS Mayaguez from the Khmer Rouge in May 1975."

The current wording which states that: "From July 1974 until June 1975, F-111As of the 347th Tactical Fighter Wing were stationed at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base; they performed missions primarily into Cambodia, and Laos against Communist forces attempting to oust Cambodia's government. F-111s provided air support in pursuing the hijacked SS Mayaguez in May 1975." citing Logan p284-5.

I changed this to the following which accurately reflcts the situation: "From 30 July 1973 until June 1975, F-111As of the 347th Tactical Fighter Wing were stationed at Takhli Air Base and later at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base. The 347th TFW conducted bombing missions in Cambodia in support of Khmer Republic forces until 15 August 1973 when US combat support ceased in accordance with the Case-Church Amendment. In May 1975 F-111s sank a gunboat escorting the hijacked SS Mayaguez'

however this was reverted by User:Fnlayson on the basis that I gave 0 references. Logan's 1974 date is clearly incorrect, he probably meant 1973. The references are contained in the the 347th TFW fact sheet on the 347th page and here it is: [1] Mztourist (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added the 347th TFW history, a reference for the Mayaguez incident and the Case-Church amendment. Logan is clearly incorrect and should be deleted. My wording should be reinstated. Mztourist (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK, good that's the first source you actually provided on this. Changing cited text without providing another source for the changes violates WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Verify states that content must be verifiable and that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be referenced with an inline citation. The USAF did not conduct combat operations anywhere in 1974 and limited operations in SE Asia in 1975. As an experienced aviation contributor I assumed that: 1) you would have known that and so wouldn't challenge it and 2) you would WP:AGF and act constructively by CN tagging my changes or discussing this rather than just reflexively reverting. My mistake Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• You still did not provide any sources for your changes until this post for anyone to verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• yes for the reasons given i.e. it seemed unlikely to be challenged, particularly by someone like yourself...Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Parts of your changes were not supported by the existing reference (Logan footnote) then. So that violates WP:Verify. The text and refs all match now. Time to move on other things, huh? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Development & deployment problems

I watch a lot of war & aircraft documentaries, so I can't cite the specific sources that would allow me to edit the article. But I remember several interesting factoids related to the cost-overruns & delays mentioned in the article. The clearest one is about "suicide" losses of early aircraft during combat. IIRC, more than one pilot began a strafing dive, fired the cannon, gained speed during the dive, outran the bullets, pulled out at the bottom of the dive, the bullets caught up to the plane, and he shot himself down. Other problems related to the landing gear design, capsule (which sprouted wings, fired its own rocket engine, & could be "flown" by the crew), & TFR malfunctions are farther back in my foggy memory. But if anyone knows the sources, I think it would make the article more interesting & complete. Steve8394 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Without any concrete source, the "suicide" strafing sounds highly apocryphal.

20mm rounds fly at around Mach 2-3, lets say that the rounds are travelling Mach 2.5 when fired from a plane doing roughly Mach 0.6-0.8 (still pretty fast for a strafing run). So then the plane would have to accelerate from Mach 0.6/8 to somewhat close to Mach 2 (giving the 20mm rounds a geeeeenerous drop in speed over this period) and then slow down again so that the rounds could impact with enough energy to shoot the plane down. And that is all before the bullets have hit the ground! (which would take 5-10 seconds [again, Im being very generous, you'd never have a hope of hitting anything at 10-seconds out]).

The pilot is more likely to be killed by the described vicious acceleration/deceleration forces (as all of the above would have to occur in a space of a few seconds) than somehow managing the incredibly accurate task of hitting his own plane from behind!

I'd take it with a pinch of salt if I were you, until a harder source comes along (not everything you see in a documentary can be relied upon either - thats not a "the-media-man-they're-trying-to-control-our-minds!" type of gripe, but just that it is a hard subject to report on with total accuracy guaranteed.)

(This is usually where the chief design engineer comes along and tells me its a real phenomenon and I've offended hundreds of grieving families...)94.175.244.252 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Steve8394,The escape module does not sprout wings, so the pilots cannot steer it. The first stage is to guillotine the control cables, rods, and blast the skin, then rocket lift off, and finally parachute deployment. There are also floartation and sump pump in case of water landing. I know of a couple cases in which the pilots would have really wanted to be able to control where they landed. One was in Idaho when the capsule landed on the edge of a cliff and rolled to the bottom; the crew survived but the capsule was pretty beat up. The second was in the UK just of Cambridge on a long approach into RAF Lakenheath the pitch control failed, so the crew ejected. The plane crashed and was burning as the capsule drifted toward it. The capsule and crew narrowly avoided being toasted. If the crew even had the guidance a typical parachutist has, they could have easily avoided these close calls.

There were many TFR issues throughout its history. Some of them were found and solved which dropped the mortality rate, but others were not. While in the UK, about 1982, I was the one who placed the ladder up to the aircraft from which the pilot descended with shaky legs. He was pissed. They had almost been killed during the flight. Neither of them were paying much attention while on autopilot at about 300 feet going over a bay. The weapons officer happened to look up in time as they ran out of bay and were about to plow into a ridge. They both grabbed stick and dusted the ridge top. If it had been night time in bad weather; they wouldn't have stood a chance even if they were looking. There are two radars that control flight during autopilot. Over water, the downward looking one controls the height. When the forward-attack radar "sees" something approaching, it is supposed to and usually did take control. In this case it didn't. Neither the enlisted nor the civilians could duplicate the issue on the airplane. I even watched the civilians do things that were not allowed for safety, like holding damp sponges to circuit boards.

Alrich44 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f111fighter/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps as a bot you dont understand that tagging the article and the talk page is probably a bit over the top. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been quite thoroughly (and acrimoniously) discussed before. Considering links are blacklisted for a reason, it's really not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Operational ranges

The specifications section gives a combat radius of 1330 miles and a ferry range with drop tanks of 4200 miles (3,700 nmi). The RAAF (last operator) list a ferry range of 3000 nmi without drop tanks F-111 C. The Air Power Institute give the figures for the A model as dash radius 210 nmi, combat radius 800 nmi, ferry range 4180 nmi, again with no mention of drop tanks.

If someone has time, perhaps these figures can be worked out for the F model in the specifications section and be listed with and without drop tanks. The dash range is probably also noteworthy because it is remarkably different to the other figures and relates to the types failure to be accepted in the interceptor role which as originally part of the plan. Djapa Owen (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Air Power Institute is not a reliable source, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In deed, I only gave them as an example and neither of my examples was talking about the F model which is the one used in the specifications. I was actually hoping someone with more time might do the necessary research to find out the accurate figures for the right model. Whoever tagged this in 2011 was right, it needs attention. Djapa Owen (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Combat radius is the data tagged in the Specifications table. Range and combat radius are not the same but are related. Radius is for a back and forth mission with some time at the target; it is basically less than half of the range. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what you expect as a one way operational mission is not a good thing (I am pretty sure I used radius and range appropriately here - I assumed anyone editing an aviation article would understand). However the figures here are more like a bit less than a fifth of the ferry range. That is what I think we should check on. I imagine the large difference between combat radius and ferry range is because an F-111 on a combat mission may be expected to be flying at high speed and low level (terrain following radar) and so be using fuel faster than one cruising at high altitude on a ferry run. Djapa Owen (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I read your original post before and mis-remembered on the range/radius wording. The Quest for Performance source primarily covers the ferry range, basic dimensions and such. I have the Miller book and some others at home. I'll check see what I can find any details on range or radius. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I'd presume that "ferry range" would include a full load of four drop tanks, wouldn't it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That may explain the difference between the US and Aus ferry range figures - I was told that the RAAF did not use the second pair of tanks as apparently they considered the drag of tanks on the outer non-rotating pylons too great. I am not sure that makes sense, but we all know military intelligence is a contradiction in terms. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

THE FB-111A IS THE SAME LENGTH AS ALL OTHER F-111S

I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO SOME EDIT WAR WITH SOME IDIOT WHO REVERTED MY CHANGES AND CALLED THEM 'ORIGINAL RESEARCH' EVEN THOUGH I DOCUMENTED THEM. PLEASE PEOPLE - DO A BIT OF RESEARCH AND SEE THAT THE FB-111A IS THE *SAME LENGTH* AS ALL OTHER FB-111As. THE LONGER LENGTH WAS BASED ON A PROPOSAL THAT NEVER HAPPEEND. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY BOOKS REPEAT THE "LONGER LENGTH" MYTH AND BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA STUPIDLY FAVORS WHAT SOME IDIOT GOT PRINTED IN PAPER OVER ELECTRONIC REFERENCES, THIS ERROR NOW PERSISTS AND HAS BEEN ENSHRINED IN THIS PAGE.

FIX IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.245.96 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE WP:V AND PROVIDE A SOURCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT! (also, please stop shouting!). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. It does look very likely that Boeing 818 should be transformed into a general article on TFX and the competitors thereof, but this merge proposal has ceased to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---

No metal was cut, mention in the TFX section of this article is sufficient--Petebutt (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Petebutt: so.... are you proposing that Boeing 818 be merged with this article? VQuakr (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes!--Petebutt (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I weakly oppose this one. The source article meets WP:GNG and is related (but not super-related) to this article. This article is already on the big side per WP:SIZERULE so adding three more paragraphs (even if the Boeing 818 article could never be expanded, which is doubtful) is a step in the wrong direction. Metal being cut is not a criterion for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It might be better to create a separate article for TFX, and put the Boeing 818 info there. As it is, this article is very weak, and not really likely to be expandable. Also, Pete, please try to be more clear when making merge proposals. People should not have to ask what's being proposed. - BilCat (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the merger, there is nothing wrong with the Boeing 818 article remaining a stub forever. Having said that, BilCat's idea for a new article has merit. YSSYguy (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merger but like the idea of a TFX program article which can include the Boeing stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above - the sourcing for the Boeing 818 article indicates that this is an independently notable topic, though I agree that it might work best if it were to be rolled into a broader article in the future. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merging it to this article as this it not the proper place competitor details. I'd rather it be covered in a TFX article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The F-111 article is not the place for information on another aircraft. I agree with YSSYguy. There is nothing wrong with an article on a proposed design remaining a stub forever. I also agree with BilCat and talk. The Boeing 818 could be merged into a TFX article.2001:44B8:21B:8F00:AC04:32A7:B8AB:2DD7 (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the merge but Support a separate TFX article per BilCatand Fnlayson The TFX project itself was notable in that it lead to a widely fielded military aircraft, but I do not see how merging the content of the Boeing aircraft into an article about a craft made by General Dynamics makes much sense. Abovethestorm (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050427163959/http://www.boeing.com:80/global/Australia/BAL/DIVAerospaceSupport/f111.html to http://www.boeing.com/global/Australia/BAL/DIVAerospaceSupport/f111.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)