RAAF to retire its F111.

IMHO it is standard behaviour for any military - they want the newest and shiniest toys

 

and a great justification to the bureaucracy as to why they should get their latest toys

 

Good job Terry,

The Vark is just too kewl !

I read that Boeing/McD was working on a big wing F-15E a few years ago. I guess the USAF, does not want anything but stealth for the tactical mission. The conceptual FB-22 would have been a good starting point, to replace the long legged Vark. Gates does not want to spend the money. In fact, USAF does not even want to buy new build F-15's, for the domestic air defense mission perform today, by a few ANG units. I have no idea why you would need any stealth, if you are going to deploy those units in the CONUS, during both peacetime or war.

Another good reason to consider new build F-15's, it should keep Boeing/old McD in the tactical airplane business.

 

Robert- The name is Terry, by the way, not Terence. It cost nearly three times the amount to run an F-111 wing than it did to run an F-16 wing, and that is why the F-111 was retired. The F-15E was the aircraft designated as the F-111 successor, but production was limited to ~ 200 aircraft for budget reasons, making it difficult to replace some 450 F-111s. The F-15E had air to air capabilities the F-111 lacked, however, and could be rolled into an air defense role if required. It was designed from the start for the laser and data-link PGMs of the early 90s, using a LANTIRN pod. Only the F-111F was PGM capable when the fleet was retired in 1996, and this had a bearing in the decision, as well. The fleet could have been upgraded, but it would have been another expense, just like the RAAF did not upgrade its entire fleet of aircraft to carry the Pave Tack pod.

But basically, Robert, it was a money decision. The AF retires aircraft when the bean-counters and flags decide they cost more to operate than their benefit. USAF owns hundreds of tankers, and these tankers can be used to extend the range of fighters and bombers in most scenarios.

When it retired, the F-111F was the best interdiction aircraft in the world, as proven in Desert Storm. The commander of Air Combat Command saved it from retirement twice, but finally gave up because he could no longer afford the annual trades required to do so.

USAF had more options than Australia, and many more aircraft at bases worldwide, so retiring the F-111 has not had any long-term affect. Just like the F-4 Phantom, another great fighter we retired about the same time, the F-111 earned its keep and came through when it was really needed in Desert Storm.

Ralph- Boeing has been shopping around an updated F-15E with some low observables technologies. Remains to be seen if anyone is interested. DoD has been ripping up USAF modernization plans for nearly two decades now. Here is hoping we do not get into a near-peer conflict, because the USAF is decimated compared to the forces we could deploy in 1990.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

BJ,

Last warning.

Terry, Taz, both ok, but clearly calling him Terence is poking the bear with a stick and constitutes trolling as he had madit it clear that is not ok.

Know you know we all love you, but this behavior needs to end now.

Thx,

Dave M.

 

Robbie- Not in a war personally, so I leave that to the professionals who still are active duty. Really positive you do not care what I think about the wars, at any rate.

In case you have not noticed, since you have no military experience, decisions are made all the time on which assets to fund, and which not to fund. Since Australia spends $24B on defense vs the US at $607B, your choices are much more limited. Hence the stretching of your F-111s through 2010 or later, 14 years after we retired our fleet.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

BlackJag- I think you could pose the same questions to the UK MOD. It's all about the money and the politics. A great example is the EF2000. When the Saudi's chose it, they didn't have to wait in line like all the rest of the countries with outstanding orders. They got some of the Tranche 2 production aircraft that were designated for the UK. Why...... because money talks, and EADS would love to get a foothold on the emerging Middle-Eastern Air Forces market. They missed out big with UAE buying the Block 60 F-16's, so Saudi was their big Chance.

I'm not sure I can piggy back on Terry very much, since he's the resident F-111 expert, but the USAF walks a very thin line with operational aircraft. We obviously want to fly and employ the latest and greatest technology, but just becasue we do it, doesn't mean it always makes sense. Case in point the F-111. That aircraft did the mission it was designed for exceptionally well. I personally don't think we have been able to cover that mission as effectively since it was retired. It takes 2-3 different airframes working together to fulfill that mission now. The F-15E's do a fairly good job, but i think they are task saturated in that role and don't have the legs. Just my $.02

 

Robert- If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

10B- All good points. We were supposed to have a much larger fleet of F-15Es, too. Did not work out for us. Good aircraft, and capable in roles the F-111 could not perform.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Taz,

some tiptoeing might be advisable at this juncture.

Walking a fine line.

DM

 

and for those of you who are completely ignorant of the work done to make the TFR capabilty WORK, as intended, you will not find the R&D done by GD, because I was part of the team in the RAAF that made this 'pig' actually do what it was designed to do and we would send the data back to GD for it to be added to the specs.

At the time we did the R&D in '80 the USAF were using terrain avoidance mode as the "ballooning and penetration" happening with TFR mode on was so bad that there were many 3G pull ups occuring and for an aircraft that is skiing in to avoid radar detection this is not good.

We actually had the TFR working so well that the pilots and navs were getting sick (as well as a little apprehensive) as the aircraft would ski over the gentle mountain range we were using for the testing as the aircraft electronics (yes, the old analogue type) would wait until the absolute last second to pull up to go over the mountain range and then the push over was so violent that even the most experienced crew would feel ill at best or part with their meal at worst.

We eventualy got it to a level where the performance was acceptable for pull up and push over but still comfortable for the crew.

Was it a rubbish aircraft ?

no, did it perform as sold ?

fighter, no

bomber, yes

why the "F" designation then ???


this plane couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag, but then it would rarely be seen ,to be attacked

the wing carry thru box although made from D6AC steel still generated cracks and many mods were made to correct design flaws like most aircraft, the tyres were redesigned to prevent water from the runway being sprayed into the engines snuffing them out , this happened to a RAAF F111 in NZ in the late 70s, the windscreens were changed to perspex to prevent birdstrikes coming into the cockpit

all can be forgiven for such an advanced aircraft of it's time but if it were built today most of the ordinance would not be placed on the wings which greatly reduce it's range , which brings up the point of the drop tanks used for long range ... what a laugh, with the drop tanks on, the range was no longer than without them due to the extra drag of the tanks so all you really did with the tanks was increase the fuel used and reduce the maneuverability of the aircraft.

The deal struck in '63 between the Menzies govt and GD was originally $90M with a delivery date of mid '68 and although the aircraft were delivered on time the RAAF put them into storage at Carswell AFB until the structural issues were fixed and all the while the ceiling price of $90M had grown to $320M by '70 !!

The tests for the wing box weren't completed until mid 1970 and at one stage there were so many problems with the aircraft even the US secretary , Laird, suggested scrapping the plane. The aircraft were re-assembled for delivery and when the then PM Fraser went over with his DOD staff he found that the aircraft was still in a state of unacceptability to the RAAF so the aircraft were again disassembled and put back into storage and a "deal" was struck whereby the Aussies could cancel the contract and sell the aircraft back to the US for $120M, thereby LOSING $200M, ... like I said , that's a deal ??

The upshot of this was that the contract was not cancelled but to appease the Aussies the US govt leased 24 F-4E to us for 2 years and the Liberal PM was even bagging his own past party leaders for the "open-ended and willy nilly" nature of the original agreement (for the uneducated in AUS the Liberal party are equivalent to the Republicans).

Completely new wing boxes were manufactured for the aircraft following all the testing and it was eventually delivered in 1973 following another 40,000 hours of testing the boxes.

We later went onto to send the aircraft back to the US to have them tested again in 'deep freeze' program to re-rate the airframe life

 

John- Welcome to the fight, with a very small amount of ammunition, I see. I was flying both the analog and digital versions of the TFR in the F-111A, F-111D, and F-111F in 1979/1980 when you "fixed" the Terrain Following Radar (TFR).

Again, for all you non-F-111 types, the original analog F-111A/E/C had a TFR system with a fixed to the fuselage pedestal for the TFR radar system. What that meant was that the system was limited to 10° of bank while flying TFR because there was no lead into turn capability, and steeper bank angles could result in terrain impact (not good) because the TFR was not looking where the aircraft was going.

For the digital FB-111A/F-111D/F, the TFR from the start was on an INS stabilized pedestal where bank angles of 30° provided look into turn. GD and the USAF developed an upgraded pedestal for the analog F-111A/E/C, and the entire USAF analog F-111 fleet was upgraded to the 30° bank TFR systems by the summer of 1979, when I flew F-111As at Mountain Home AFB in August-December 1979. Even the very early Harvest Reaper Viet-Nam aircraft had been upgraded by August 1979. I assume by "fixing" the TFR, you mean this updated system was installed on the F-111C, because the ones we flew with in Sacramento had the system in 1984/85, when I helped the RAAF crews with the installation of Pave Tack.

I have no idea what you are trying to describe with your "pilots and navs were getting sick" comment because all F-111s had a ride selector switch giving exactly what you described for anyone who knew how to use it. TFR ride was Hard, Medium or Soft and this determined how late the aircraft pulled up and how hard it pulled down. Hard ride on the back side of hills or mountains gave enough negative "g" to float any unsecured items, including the crew, that were not firmly strapped down. Your description is obviously made by someone who never flew the F-111 or employed it operationally. The system worked perfectly, by the way.

It was tactically unsound (stupid) to use hard ride approaching a mountain or ridge-line, because it would 100% of the time cause the ballooning you describe. In Hard ride, the aircraft closely followed the ridge or mountain upwards and the upslope would then launch the aircraft like a ski-jumper upwards until the system yanked it back down. The correct way to cross a ridge line or mountain was to approach the front side on Soft or Medium ride and then select Hard ride as the ridge or mountain was crested. This created the least amount of radar signature at ridge crossing. Your RAAF F-111C aircrews were very good, and they knew this even if you did not.

Have no idea whether you are trying to describe TFR fly-ups caused by penetration of the TFR ride line or by a Low Altitude Radar Altimeter (LARA) fly-up, by the way. Get your terminology straight and maybe I can explain to you what was happening. I have over 1000 hours of night and TFR time in analog and digital F-111s, so can explain most of how it works to a layman.

Sounds like you had a few teething problems, just like we did. As an example, the F-111Ds, which had the most advanced avionics suite of any aircraft, bar none in the early 70s, were 1968 contract airframes. The avionics suite, however, took several years to debug and the first aircraft were not delivered to Cannon AFB until 1972/73. I started flying them in 1974. The F-111F, with the 25 Klbst engines, had simplified digital avionics proving to be just right. Once upgraded to Pave Tack standard, they proved to be the best of all the F-111 aircraft, as proven in Desert Storm.

As for your contractual problems, just wait. As the first confirmed export buyer of F-35 Lightning IIs, keep your fingers crossed.

The "F" designation was McNamara's choice, and influenced by the Navy's planned F-111B. This aircraft, and its Phoenix fire control system, were scrapped when weight and costs exceeded USN requirements. Or so they said. In reality they wanted their own airframe, which turned out to be the very capable F-14 Tomcat.

Thanks for your insights into the F-111 weapon system from a hands-on F-111C maintainer. I have the highest respect for the maintainers who kept these very sophisticated aircraft flying.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

don't start Terry because you are talking from an uninformed viewpoint and dribbling in this instance, you have NO idea about what I am talking about and as a RH seat dribbler you were just along for the ride, the PILOT flew the thing and as for you explaining the intricate weapons and AFCS to me , PLEASE get a clue !!

I maintained and helped the engineering team in Amberley 1SQN develop the TFR which did not work as described when we flew the C analogue models, if you are so sure of yourself, go ask GD where they got the data to get TFR working correctly, the gain controls and PWM were adjusted at great length by our engineering team that was set up to see if we could improve the TFR ballooning and penetration issues with the early models.

2000 hours is **** all, I spent 16,000 hours inside the technical aspects of the aircraft, not 2000 hours reading some map and putting in IP weypoints.

I have NO respect for the USAF as I spent way too much time seeing the morons of SAC and TAC stuff up doing stupid things and the Mt Home crew were particularly hopeless even with the 96 aircraft that were stationed there when I visited in '80 and '82 for the Giant Voice competitions.

I distinctly remember asking the maintanence staff sergeant how many were serviceable of the 96 and he said SIX!!, and that whenever the base commander was going to have a snap inspection of either the red, green or yellow squadron there would be furious activity swapping parts from one sqn to the other in order to get as many in a serviceable state as possible.

Mt Home was also home of the Raven that was in the hangar we used to work out of and although it seemed an impressive aircraft , was still based on the A model with all that entails.

Nellis AFB saw a classic case of SAC stupidity where a SAC 111 returning from a mission was taxiing back to their flightline when the pilot , with cowboy hat on (how appropriate that was !!) saw the RAAF 111s and decided, all on his lonesome, no approval from the tower, to divert over and drive down our flightline for a gawk, but unfortunately for this idiot there was a canal at the end of the flightline and with NO reverse gear had to shut down and get us to TOW him back to his flightline ... was that you ???!! oh no, you're just a nav so the dumb decision would have been the driver

Then there was the ultmate humility for the world's largest air farce of having the Mt Home team of F111s that turned up with 3 KC147s load of spares borrowing spares from the SMALLEST air farce in the world after just 3 days in Nellis due to poor maintenance and workmanship.

They tried to give us 2 for one in the spares dept but upon inspection of the soldering of the inertial nav systems and AFRS and LCOSS units this was refused and request for our spares to be returned requested.

The amount of IFEs we saw in the 6 weeks we spent in Mt Home was abominable with an aircraft a week going down while we were there and in case your memory needs jogging the Giant Voice comp was won by us and we didn't need to send 4-6 aircraft to the entry IP with the "most" serviceable going for the comp run, we sent ONE aircraft and it would complete the run, we didn't have astral navigation to correct for the INS, ours were totally INS dependant and we still beat your lot, oh except for the time one of our aircraft was called "out of track" (you know what that is right ??!!)

Look, you want to know a bit more than you do if you think you can explain the workings of the F111 flight systems to me, 2000 hours doesn't even scratch the surface of what I know.. I use to play on the simulator when there was free time (very rarely) and bomb the buggery out of San Francisco (the only program loaded while I was there)

BTW if you were in Mt Home when the RAAF were there in '82 you may remember one of the MH aircrew reporting that one of the RAAF ground crew helping them avoid an IFE ejection due to feel and trim issues with the aircraft when they were returning from an exercise mission. The pilot and Nav were sh!tting themselves due to what happened the previous week following an ejection where the floatation bags that are suppose to cushion the impact of the landing failed and the force of the impact left one or both of the crewmen paralysed so naturally they were terrified about ejecting.

Knowing this and understanding the problem they were having I broke the air traffic rules by contacting the pilot and asking them to pull down the circuit breaker panel and try some tests which would prove whether the F&T was at fault .

He did the test, knowing the ramifications if he hit the wrong buttons and proved the F&T was fine so proceeded to land the aircraft, I received a reprimand from the ATC tower and was asked to front the base commander.

The base commander issued the official statutory warning and then proceeded to thank me for "doing the morally right thing" as he was a pilot himself and understood the situation and the fear the aircrew had.

At the end of the day I cared more about a fellow humans life than where they came from or who they 'thought' they were, I was not one of your 6 week wonder maintenance crew that kiss the arse of the pilot/nav brigade (it use to always amuse us that the crew chief would salute the captain before they took off , our mob would have suspected we were taking the mickey and returned fire with the finger for us being smart alecs )

We do 2 years intensive electronic training in generic terms at an engineering school dedicated to aircraft technology and then do 6 months of in-depth aircraft specific training BEFORE we are allowed near an aircraft.

Some of the things I saw crew chiefs do who had little to NO training on individual systems on the aircraft made us cringe and await the inevitable IFE that would ensue such as opening the engine cowling of a running aircraft , grab a LARGE "C" spanner from Big "D" (you know what that is right ?? ) and then proceed to tighten the aluminium locking nut on an hydraulic line that would BREAK the lockwire holding it so he could stop a leak from the hydraulic system !!!

If we saw a leak ( never did in operational aircraft) the plane would be shut down and have a FULL test done.

here's another one for you , the week before I was reprimanded for callignt he pilot with the IFE one of the A models had an hydraulic rpoblem with the landing gear so the maintenance guys took it to the hangar, put it up on jacks and did ONE retraction and extension and then towed it back to the flightline !!!

Guess what happened, IFE next mission , pilot tried to land the aircraft with the main undercarriage still up and the front nosegear turned at 90 degrees to where it should be, the plane lands, the pilot/nav eject in the capsule and the palne explodes and the base is locked down for 24 hours to allow the fine metal slivers to settle before anyone was allowed outside.

We did 24 hours of continuous extensions and retractions of the undercarriage IF any part was replaced let alone if there was a problem !!

 

John- What a silly post. We are already aware of your rampant anti-Americanism, which comes through in spades in your post. I am very happy to say I have many Australian friends so do not feel that way about Australians. You actually should confine your anti-American comments to the Australian forum, where someone will protect you.

You seem fascinated by my only having 2000 hours of F-111 time compared to your hours working on the aircraft. What do you think was happening during 18 years of flying these aircraft, we stayed home and then were whisked into the aircraft for our sortie? I lived F-111s for 18 years, 50-60 hours per week, so my experience vastly outweighs yours. I was one of the guys who wrote the aircrew manuals and the weapons loading manuals for the aircraft. Nice attitude on right seaters, too, showing how uneducated you are on how an F-111 works, especially in the dark, when real F-111 work is done.

Your account of your involvement in TFR development sounds highly fictionilized, since I was flying them at the time you claim to be fixing them. Since all USAF aircraft had upgraded their TFRs before the 1979-1980 timeframe when you claim to have fixed them, sounds like an F-111C, not an F-111, story. If it makes you feel better to tell people you "fixed" the TFR for the F-111 fleet, go ahead, just do not expect someone who knows F-111s like the back of his hand to believe you.

Nice stories on maintenance practices and I am happy you F-111C technicians were highly trained in what you were doing. We Yanks just muddled along, but somehow always seemed to get the job done. Especially when the heat is on during a war. 90%+ MC rate on the most sophisticated F-111 is extremely good, as you know.

I flew in Giant Voice in 1978 in F-111Ds. We came in second to the FB-111As that year and the F-111Ds won it a few years later. No idea where your fantasy of multiple aircraft flying and the best one competing originated. That was clearly against the rules. We flew one aircraft at a time. There was a running ground spare, but that was it. Interesting story you might appreciate. We had information the best IRU in the digital fleet was in an F-111F going through cold weather testing in the chamber at Eglin AFB. So, with TAC permission, my pilot and I flew to Eglin with all necessary tools where I (yes, the WSO) removed the IRU from the F-111F and swapped it for the one in our F-111D. This IRU eventually flew in the final Giant Voice sortie and came back after a five hour mission with only 825' of present position error. Pretty impressive. Incidentally, my time is all in the F-111A/E/D/F. No FB-111A time, since they belonged to SAC.

I know you do not know much about the digital F-111s, but only the FB-111A had an astro-tracker, not the tactical AF versions. The astro-tracker was little help on a Giant Voice mission and was only really helpful on very high or very low latitude flights, where the magnetic compass system was unreliable. Also, you probably did not know the WSO in the digital 111s could access octals from the digital computer complex and tell the maintenance crew what was wrong with the aircraft's avionics. Quite handy, actually, and it helped WSOs better understand how their systems worked. Obviously could not do that in the analog aircraft.

One of your crews was busted for being outside a tanker track or for being off a low level track, which was it? Kind of a very basic navigation error or bad planning, at any rate.

Nice technician save on the Feel and Trim Assembly, but the SOF should have been able to do the same thing. I know I could have. We used the circuit breaker panel for various emergencies in flight, so it was not as if it were going to bite you. Did require being careful, though. Why were you in the tower in the first place? There were procedures for inflight controllability checks in the checklists and dampers off approaches were routinely practiced. I assume the aircrew made a dampers off approach and landing?

The only time I worked with the F-111C was at McClellan AFB when they were integrating Pave Tack. The aircrews and maintenance crews were very professional, equivalent to the aircrews and maintainers of the test and evaluation squadron I was in. Our maintenance troops helped them while they were there and provided spare parts when they were needed. It was faster than going through the ALC for the parts, and we were happy to help. The two aircraft were colocated with us. Our pod and weapons shop also helped them with the Pave Tack pod and weapons integration. The folks most involved in helping them were me and another WSO, since the WSOs are the systems experts in an F-111 crew. Unfortunately, on a coin toss, I missed the opportunity to fly the F-111C, their way of saying thank you for the help besides the plaques we received. It also gave them feedback on how the pod worked compared to an F-111F from a WSO with several hundred hours of Pave Tack experience.

Nice chatting with you John. hopefully you have some more war stories. I know I do.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Rob- Just so every one understands it, your reason for starting this thread was to see if you could get a rise out of me because you and John both knew I was a career F-111 WSO. You similarly started one in the Australia section, where we interacted earlier. Since you got a rise or two out of me, I guess this thread has been a success. Plus we are educating some people about F-111s.

You and I were both banned for your and my comments in a Ft Hood thread and mine in a thread and poll you started titled Is North America finished as a world economic power? Me for calling you out and you for not letting it die.

So now that everyone understands the basis for this thread, let me answer your question.

In my opinion, the war in Iraq is pretty much finished and won. This is thanks to the efforts of special forces getting the Sunnis to fight, rather than help, the foreigners causing most of the problems. The Sunnis and Shiites still hate each other's guts, and the Kurds hate them both, but that is normal. As long as there is a functioning government, we can pull out with grace.

Afghanistan was different when the Paki government was allowing a Taliban sanctuary in their border region. Nearly impossible to win under that status quo. The Taliban made a major error, however, when they started terrorist activity in other regions of Pakistan. Now the Pakistani goverment and army had no choice but to go after the Taliban where they live. With them pushing from one direction and us from the other direction, I now think this war can be won too.

Incidentally, we did not militarily lose Viet-Nam. After the Christmas raids of 1972/73, NVN was prepared to capitulate. The Viet-Cong were completely eliminated in 1968 and the only reason NVN could prosecute the war was because the political idiots in the administration had given their airfields, ports, and cities complete sanctuary status. That ended during those raids and all airfields, ports, and strategic targets were open season and hit. By the end of the two week raids, NVN had no SAMs, no AAA rounds, and no way to replenish because Haiphong harbor was unusable. But we wanted out and left, a political decision, not a military one.

So there you have it, have fun with responses. These are my opinions only. One of our most trusted allies in the Viet-Nam war was Australia, by the way. Several special forces friends of mine worked very closely with the "diggers" and had a very high opinion of their toughness and ability to fight. For its size, Australia spends more than 2.4% of its GDP on defense, and ranks 13th in overall defense spending. Something about which you can be proud. Your country, as always, is ensuring you can defend yourself if need be.

You never can tell who or where you may need to fight. The Brits never forecast a war over the Falklands, for sure, but they sure learned fast how to pull it off.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Cheers Rob- I will buy you a beer if you get here. A poll on Viet-Nam will do no good. We lost, for whatever reason. We backed ethnic Chinese against ethnic Viet-Namese in Viet-Nam. Bad choice.

I went through a string of Corvettes and early Ferraris I would like to have back. 61, 63 FI Roadster, 67 427 roadster, 5 Z06s, 72 Dino 246 GT, 70 Daytona. Could not afford any of them, including the current 575M, but what the heck. Did not mention my first car, a 57 356A. Slow, but fun. Never fear oversteer again after owning one.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Rob- The Arab Coalition, who bankrolled a good portion of the war, put very heavy pressure on Bush not to invade because they did not want a democracy started in Iraq. The Arab royal families are insular and protect themselves vehemently against either democracy or an Iranian style theocracy. So far they have been pretty successful, pretending to be pious to prevent Muslim fundamentalist uprisings. Iraq scares them now, especially if their democracy works.

Incidentally, I had $15,649.95 in the Daytona when I took delivery, a deal unlikely to be repeated. They were the world's fastest truck, and no fun in a parking lot. Made glorious noises, though, and were very quick by 1970s standards. Pretty, too.

Taz
Terry Phillips