why wasn't the F-111 replaced?

>>33254394
It was

File: Dark Gray.jpg (7KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 275x183px

>>33254435

This does basically everything better than F-111.

>>33254486
>F-111
Range: 3,700 miles
Payload: 31,5000 pounds

>F-15E
Range: 2,400 miles
Payload: 23,000 pounds

Really makes you think

>>33254536

Probably the same kind of person who thinks F-4's fly with 24 bombs all the time.

F-111 rarely uses the wing pylons, because they don't pivot and essentially disable the swing wings.

Without those pylons the F-111 loses a considerable portion of it's payload and range from not being able to put tanks/bombs there.

>>33254786

The inner two pylons swiveled to align with the body as the wings swept. The outer ones did not.

>>33254394
B-52s, B-1Bs, and B-2s do long-haul, big loads of PGMs better.

Multi-role fighters are faster.

File: you.jpg (26KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x200px

>>33254786

File: F-111A-C.jpg (961KB, 3424x1386px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 3424x1386px

>>33254536

t. knows nothing.

>>33255062

Meant for >>33254786

>>33255024
That would be you.

File: f111 fuel dump.webm (1MB, 477x354px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 477x354px

>>33254394

BBRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPP

>>33255357
BBRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPP

>>33254486
spbp
F-15E can do deep strike (though not quite as large of range or payload) while being much better equipped to defend itself.

>>33255381
That and F-111's cannot carry as much as paper stats imply >>33254786

>>33255357
I thought this was going to be something else when the error popped up. Thats some shitty work though to say fuck it and not redo it.

>>33255357
I wonder if that broke any windows

>>33255518

Wrong.

>>33255547
>Carlo Copp

File: f111 fuel dump 1.webm (1MB, 475x350px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 475x350px

>>33255535
>>33255546

this is what i get for not checking webms before posting

It was a compromise aircraft that got to end of life.

The big bomb load configuration disabled it's ability to use variable geometry wings.
The F-111s took a lot more maintenance and and really did not do much more than the much easier to maintain F-15Es and did not have the load of the B-1B Lancers which filled the same niche with a more capable bombing aircraft.

Plus the F-15Es, once they dropped their loads, they were a real fighter again. The self escorting bomber is a good concept if the aircraft can actually act like a fighter. And the logistics of supporting F-15 air-frames is tremendously easier.

The F-111 was a capable strategic bomber but could not match the B-1Bs in capacity and avionics. And if the sources are correct the Lancer is easier to support. Reduced maintenance means more missions. If you have a super duper airplane that can do all kinds of good things it's still necessary to be able fly lots of missions with a short turn around. B1B 125,000 lb payload F-111 max without VG wings usable 36,000lb

>>33255546
its actually not going that fast, I think the pressure from the speed of the craft is what would break windows, not the heat and thrust of the fuel dump

File: F-111 Aardvark RAAF Rooftop.jpg (274KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1920x1080px

>>33256579
Though as much as I was impressed with reading the Aardvark's ability to fly REALLY LOW REALLY FAST, I have to agree it's getting a bit long in the tooth. Props to the Aussies for keeping it in service a little longer.

>>33255572
>>33255357
Whats the point of a fuel dump? Especially in these webms where the pilot is right over some city?

>>33254394

>tfw in wargame red ragon the f-111 is fucking terrifying

>>33256824
Australia

>>33257141
What?

>>33256824
The point is, It looks fukken sick as bro

>>33256855
>Nice column there Ivan be a shame if anything were to happen to it

File: image027.jpg (98KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1200x800px

>>33254486

F-15E wasn't meant to be 1-on-1 replacement for F-111. If Cold War hadn't ended F-111's would have remained in service well into 2000's.

>>33256824
>Whats the point of a fuel dump?

[know nothing intensifies]

Fuel has mass. In case of reasonably normal landing it is easier to stop lighter aircraft, might be relevant if a plane is diverted to airport with shorter runway What is emergency landing. If plane has to do emergency landing, it might end up being completely torn apart. In case of lot fuel in tanks it would be on fire as bonus. Lack burning inferno increases odds of survival for crew andl passengers.

A quite a lot of airliners can take off heavier than those can safely land.

>Especially in these webms where the pilot is right over some city?

Dump and burn is airshow trick.

File: F-111F_493_TFS_with_Pave_Tack_and_GBU-10s_1982.jpg (1MB, 2810x1850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2810x1850px

>>33254394

In the Cold War, it was meant to do what the F-105 was meant to do:

>Ivan Zergrushes with tanks and combined arms through Fulda Gap
>launch with tactical nuclear bomb
>supersonic at treetop level
>deliver ordinance on advancing armored divisions and mechanized infantry
>RTB, refuel, rearm, repeat

After the Cold War ended, there was no need for this. In the conventional role, PGMs and targeting pods got more and more sophisticated, so you didn't need Xbox-huge PAVE Tack to drop a smart bomb anymore, so a huge complicated aircraft like the F-111F was no longer needed to do what a couple F-16s could do with tanker support.

On the Navy side, it was useless because it just could not handle the vigor of carrier operations. So it was a dead duck before birth, and in the end we got the F-14.

>>33254394
I've long said the Air Force will finally replace the A-10 with a Tactical/Strike aircraft capable of penetrating strike missions behind the FEBA while also having the loiter ability and low stall speed that would make it decent for CAS.
It looks like the airforce is going to go with a jet trainer for COIN but they've always been fascinated with interdiction and strike missions, so I expect a semi-stealthy strike aircraft in the same vein as the Su-34 that can run guns

File: F-111-1.png (182KB, 492x643px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 492x643px

>>33257458
>>33256824

File: F-111-2.png (184KB, 502x619px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 502x619px

>>33257608

File: F-111-3.png (899KB, 705x1920px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 705x1920px

>>33257619

>>33257553
>FB:22 The plane

>>33254394
The long and short of it is that there's really no point to keeping around a low altitude penetration bomber, especially with how lethal SHORAD systems are getting.

>>33254394

What is the B-2/B-21? Alternatively, if you want a stealth ground-attack, the F-35 does the job better than anything else, while for air to air the B-21's escort fighter will be on the job.

>>33256824
Its one of many solutions implemented by Australia to kill as many spiders as possible.

>>33257206
>>33256855

Somone should make one of those "dude sprinkles salt on meat"-memes, exept its a f111 sprinkling cluster and 500 pounders on a bunch of bmp's

File: 071016-F-1234S-023.jpg (390KB, 1800x1193px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1800x1193px

The EF-111 Raven was the best EW plane we ever had. It could carry a larger and more capable EW package than two EA-6s and had the speed to keep up and provide support for a fighter unit. It also had the range to out fly the fighter unit.
It was truly an amazing and unappreciated aircraft.

The EF-111 was also the only EW aircraft to get a confirmed aerial kill. On a mig, no less.
They were on EW patrol at night during the Gulf war and got jumped by a mig. The pilot pointed the nose at the pitch black desert floor with full afterburner with the mig chasing. During the dive, the pilots set the autopilot to level the aircraft at 100 Ft above the ground and basically sat there with their hands in their lap. Autopilot was perfect, mig pilot was not.
If it weren't for Bill Clinton and the NAVY's misrepresentation of the EA-6 operating costs the EF-111 would still be in service.

>>33254786
>F-111 rarely uses the wing pylons, because they don't pivot and essentially disable the swing wings.
So what? Don't they mostly fly unswept anyways for fuel conservation?

>>33254536
>Compares paper stats from wiki
Way to sound like a complete retard on the internet.
http://www.f-111.net/models/weaponsloads/index.htm

>>33255357
SNNNNNNIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFF

>>33254394
About the closest is the B1B I guess, but they're a pricey animal compared to the F111

>>33257626
Just looked up an2. I knew of this plane but holy fucking shit I had no idea it could fly backwards

File: 800px-Krosno,_lotnisko_An-2_wnętrze.jpg (203KB, 800x909px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 800x909px

>>33260048

technically it's *moving* *downwind* - given the lack of control reversal it's still technically and physics-wise flying forwards even as the sum of it's forward velocity and the amount it's being blown backwards is actually negative 8 knots or so.

Also: imagine fucking in the back of one of these while it flys backwards through a moonlit snowstorm over an icy lake.

>>33259376
>On a mig, no less.
It was a Mirage F1.

>>33259378
>So what? Don't they mostly fly unswept anyways for fuel conservation?

But those pylons do pivot.

>>33260295
It's still fucking ridiculous and explains why north Korea invasion plans call for paratrooper jumping off the sides of these planes without parachutes

>>33260295
Airspeed vs Groundspeed, basically.

>>33262651
I wonder what Gliderfag would think of this

File: fairey Swordfish.jpg (55KB, 1024x698px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1024x698px

>>33257466

Tornado could ALSO do that role.

Why is Tornado best plane?

Is it true that the Boeing TFX proposal was better than GD's aside from being cheaper? I know the Boeing proposal had less in common between AF and Navy variants so that's why Mac picked GD, there's not too much info about Boeing's design out there that I can find.

File: aus shitposting o'clock.jpg (95KB, 819x516px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 819x516px

>>33257178
Sometimes they shitpost in real life by doing stupid stuff.

File: fb_22_1.jpg (58KB, 710x1162px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 710x1162px

Because we stopped believing in Yankee Space Magic

File: 1419921005008.jpg (1MB, 1280x1883px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1883px

1/

>>33254536
Varks were maintenance pigs and O&M costs matter in the real world. They were also ancient.

File: 1486038960055.png (97KB, 246x232px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 246x232px

>>33266145
t-this doesn't exist? r-right

>>33266974
It should.

>>33267015
No, it shouldn't.

>>33268294
You know you want it.
>you know you need it
>let me hear it

>>33266704
All the more reason why they should have replaced it tehn.

>>33256824
Emu feathers burn. It was our last effort to stop them.

>>33259376
This. This is the big thing everyone is missing ITT.

The USAF has a gaping EW fast mover hole in it's inventory right now. USN/USMC have Growlers, but nobody has thought to start configuring Mudhens into EF-15s like they should.

I like to think they'd call them Shriek Eagles or something.

>>33269507
The current plan is for the USN to handle the majority of stand-off jamming (Growlers) and the USAF to handle stand-in jamming (F-22s, F-35s).

>>33269562
How are the EW suites on the Lightnings? I've done a lot of reading about the program, but I've yet to hear anything about EW compared to other aircraft, probably because it isn't as sexy a concept as talking about things like stealth and sensor fusion.

>>33269562
>cover stories don't exist

Fun fact
The F-111 doesn't have a Vne speed listed in the flight manual.

The only speed limit imposed onto the plane is the temperature of the skin surface. With speed comes friction. And the limit is 465F for 5 min max. And don't exceed 470F. Anything more than 470 degrees, or 465 more than 5 min, you start getting delaminated panels. Or so the book says.

File: IMG_4767.png (99KB, 1080x607px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1080x607px

>>33269562
>growler
>F-35
>capable of filling in for the EF-111

I know times have changed and EW has advanced considerably since the EF-111 retirement.
But imagine a EF-111 with modern EW packages. How much more capable it would be.

>>33269570
As far as we know it can only do X-band jamming (against radar seekers, fire control radars, fighter radars, etc), but it's apparently very good at it. It's also supposed to have good cyber capabilities, whatever that means.

>>33269582
It's not really a cover; the EF-111 was a stand-in jammer as well and the USAF has been working conceptually on a Penetrating Electronic Attack program for about 5 years (it'll likely enter service with the Penetrating Counter Air in 10-15 years). Stand-off jamming is sitting back ~200km away and screwing with the enemy; stand-in jamming is flying in with a strike package and blinding everything.

>>33269623
It'd be good, but the EF-111 needed escorts; the EF-111 crew that got that air-to-air kill would probably have died if they hadn't had the guts to do what they did, or if the Mirage pilot had known better than to dive at the ground at night blindly after the other guy. At least with the Growler and the F-35 you have a native (and decent) air-to-air capability.

My father worked for GD in avionics for the F111. We traveled all over the world following that plane in my youth. I've always liked it.

>>33269570
EW is probably the most classified part of any military aircraft right now. That's why you haven't heard about it.

>>33259376
>Autopilot was perfect, mig pilot was not.
kek

>>33259268
That is an excellent idea. Quick poll, should the dude himself be the aardvark, or should the aardvark be where his hand is?

>>33259376
The A-6 and EA-6B also had a long range. Range was never an issue for the Intruder family; it as speed, which the EF-111A had plenty of.