General Dynamics F-111 Projects

Was the FB-111A actually two feet longer than the F-111A? Both Jay Miller and Burt Kinzey in books on the F-111 (only sources I have available) claim this to be so.
I can't see any visual indications that the fuselage was actually stretched, and think the two feet claim likely came from misreading the various dimensioned drawings.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Charles Starface's Warpaint No.104 gives the length for all F-111 variants as 73ft 6.5in (except the F-111B at 66ft 9in and the EF-111A at 74ft).
He mentions no fuselage extension in the main text. The detailed scale drawings by Richard J. Caruana show no additional length either.

The 18th RDT&E F-111A was converted on the production line into the prototype FB-111A, which would seem to indicate the fuselages were not dissimilar. There were some rear fuselage changes though to accommodate the TF30-P-7 and the additional fuel capacity.

The FB-111B was to be longer, rebuilt from F-111As and Ds, they would have been 88ft long and powered by GE F101 engines. It seems a plug(s) would have been inserted behind the cockpit section to increase fuel capacity.
Likewise the FB-111H was to be lengthened.
 
The Putnam General Dynamics by John Wegg states the FB-111A had a 2ft plug, a line drawing shows a plug immediately ahead of the wing root. Will scan it later.
(edit) The Putnam United States Military Aircraft by Gordon Swanborough and Peter M Bowers gives 73ft 6in as the length of F-111A and FB-111A.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • FB-111A.jpg
    FB-111A.jpg
    270.8 KB · Views: 662
Last edited:
I think the problem is where the overall dimensions are measured from. The tip of the radome on all versions is at FS 5.5, and the furthest aft station is at FS 887.1.
That's 73.46 feet.

There is a small probe projecting ahead of the radome, again on all versions, from FS 5.5 to FS -18.59. FS -18.59 to FS 887.1 is 75.47 feet.

I guess not understanding where the measurements were taken lead to confusion over the length, and there is in fact no difference in length between F-111A and FB-111A.

Thank you all for all the input.
 
G'day all
Sometime ago on another forum, I was informed that the USAF/General Electric seriously committed some time and effort into the study of the USAF’s F-111’s being fitted with GE F101 DFE (F110’s), but the end of the Cold War prematurely put an end to the F-111 operational service. Add to this is the USN/Grumman/General Electric modifying and fitting of a number of Grumman F-14’s with GE F110, which they designated as F-14A(Plus)’s and later F-14B’s, I'd be intrigued to know more information/details of this/these USAF's studies to incorporate GE F101 DFE (F110’s) into it's F-111 fleet, which would have undoubtedly breed more life into an already exceptional strike platform.



Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
To the best of my knowledge, studies of using the F101DFE/F110 in the F-111 were in place in the Fall of 1982. I don't know if that would have run into the same headaches GE and Grumman dealt with in the production F110 installation in the F-14 (not that they were caused by either company, but rather by problems with certain GFE components for the F-14).
 
Pioneer said:
or a M61 Vulcan cannon in the weapons bay or has integrated in the fuselage main body?
Click to expand...

I am not 100% sure, but seeing the FB-111H was intended as a strategic platform, I would not envisage the likes of the M61 cannon being of a high concern consideration of SAC.
I cant see the FB-111H had it been put into production being used in air-to-air or ground attack!
I think it would have all been MK61 and SRAM`s

Some interesting stats though regarding fuels!!

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Well, what if someone was balls-out insane enough to crib a Vulcan into the FB-111H? Where'd they put the gun?
 
Does anyone know what sort of reconnaissance systems the proposed RF-111D would have had?

To what extent would they have been integrated with the Mark II Avionics system?
 
Scott noted in the FB-111 section of his wonderful book "US Supersonic Bomber Projects" that there was an interceptor option proposed/mentioned.... the FB-111B/C could carry up to 18 AIM-54 Phoenix. That's a lot of these big missiles. Is there any information on where these were attached/carried?
 
There was an (abortive) program to modernise the F-111 into a SCANA (Self Contained Adverse Weather Night Attack) configuration, agreed in 1971 but ultimately not fully funded.

This seems to have been aimed at an all-weather hunter-killer platform with PGMs (a specific model of GBU-15 was planned for SCANA), and would have involved fitting a sensor turret to the modified F-111. It's likely this would have featured a FLIR sensor and laser designator, based on the information avialable.

The obvious comparison, IMO, is the TRAM system fitted to the A-6E.


apps.dtic.mil

Effects of the SCANA Shape No. 1 Turret on Separation of Guided MK-84 Weapons and the SUU-30H/B Dispenser from the F-111E Aircraft at Transonic Speeds

A test was conducted in the Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel 4T to evaluate the effects of the SCANA shape No. 1 modification to the F-111 fuselage on store separation characteristics and to determine store aerodynamic coefficients when located at, or near, the inboard and outborad pivot pylons of the...
apps.dtic.mil

apps.dtic.mil

Air Interdiction: Models for Armed Reconnaissance in a Permissive Environment.

The report analyzes a munitions and time-limited hunt for targets of opportunity e.g., the hunt for truck convoys by a self-contained adverse-weathernight attack SCANA aircraft. Stochastic models are formulated for various situations in which one or more strikes are made on targets encountered...
apps.dtic.mil
 

Attachments

  • SCANA Turret.PNG
    SCANA Turret.PNG
    25.4 KB · Views: 271
Attached is a NACA/NASA report on variable sweep research leading to the F-111. I know its not a project but was not sure where to place it. The report is in chronological order from 1945 to 1962. I found it pretty interesting. If this is not the place for it, mods feel free to move.
 

Attachments

  • NASA_NTRS_Archive_20080013519.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 38
Was there ever an early stealth concept of the F-111 from the late 70s into early to mid 80's possibly taken on by the Navy?
 
Last edited:
Shockingly, posting this in the F-111 thread, rather than one of the eleventy squillion Alternative History threads about Canberra replacements....

www.agda.ae

Page 132: Papers 15-51

Arabian Gulf Digital Archive
www.agda.ae www.agda.ae

Interesting February 1966 memorandum from the UK Secretary of State for Defence on the arrangements for the purchase of fifty F-111Ks to provide a front-line strength of 36 aircraft, i.e. three squadrons of twelve; the previous plan, when 110 aircraft were to be bought, involved a front-line strength of 74 aircraft, down from the 106 TSR.2 of the Spotswood report. The annex is particularly interesting, detailing why the F-111, and only the F-111, and definitely not a developed Buccaneer would be needed to bridge the gap until AFVG came along.

Plus some nice maps of radii of action for the F-111 and Buccaneer. I'm not quite sure how an F-111 is supposed to do a 1,500nm radius of action with 10,000 lbs of bombs, but there we go.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Does anyone know what sort of reconnaissance systems the proposed RF-111D would have had?

To what extent would they have been integrated with the Mark II Avionics system?
Click to expand...
The RF-111A was to have been a tactical reconnaissance version of the F-111A with additional avionics and camera installations in the weapons bay. It was authorized on December 3, 1965.

One pre-production F-111A (63-9776) was converted as a prototype for the RF-111A and first flew on December 17, 1967. Imagery testing of the converted F-111A took place between December 1967 and October 1968 achieved fairly good results, indicating that the RF-111A might make a good reconnaissance aircraft.

The Defense Department had hoped that the conversion from F-111A to RF-111A configuration could be done in the field in only a few hours, with the reverse conversion being just as simple and straightforward. However, the conversion turned out to be much more cumbersome than expected, taking several days to complete rather than just a few hours. These difficulties caused the Air Force to cancel the whole RF-111A program. The sole prototype is now on display at Mountain Home AFB in Idaho.

The RF-111D was a proposed but unbuilt reconnaissance version of the F-111D with very sophisticated avionics. The program was abandoned in September of 1969 because of lack of funds.
Click to expand...

I don't know about what was supposed to go in the RF-111D, but here is info on a slightly later proposal for the RAAF which was actually implemented:
The RAAF had originally also ordered six reconnaissance versions known as the RF-111C. However, the USAF cancelled the entire RF-111A/RF-111D program in 1968, leaving the RAAF without the reconnaissance version it had ordered.

When the USAF then developed plans to fit some of its F-111s as reconnaissance aircraft with reconnaissance pallets, the RAAF agreed to accept all twenty-four as strike aircraft and later retrofit six with the pallets. In 1971 the USAF canceled its modification plan and sold the design of the reconnaissance pallet to Australia for $3 million.

A contract was signed with General Dynamics on December 31, 1974 for four of the original F-111Cs to be converted to the RF-111C reconnaissance role and delivered to Australia. The first of these (A8-126) was flown on April 17, 1979 and was redelivered in August of 1979. The remaining three aircraft were converted at Amberley using General Dynamics-supplied kits during 1980. The reconnaissance suite was mounted on a pack that fit inside the weapons bay. The reconnaissance "kit" comprised two CAI KS-87C split vertical framing cameras, a Fairchild KA-56E low-altitude and KA-93A4 high altitude panoramic camera, and a Honeywell AN/AAD-5 Infrared Linescanner. There was a TV viewfinder which assisted with line up for the photo run. The aircraft was also equipped to allow photography of the AN/APQ-113 attack radar display. The RF-111C retained full conventional attack capability. The four RF-111Cs bore the serials A8-126, -134, -143, and -146, and they served with No. 6 Squadron.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RF-111 was initially to have the same recce systems ( optical & radar ) as the RF-4C but palletised and with onboard real-time processing. The main advantage wasn't to be the sensors but in penetration speed / range and elimination of vibration at speed that limited the Phantom's use of its suite.

Later to receive whatever emerged from the Pave Onyx / Terec ( Tactical Electronic Recce ) ELINT research projects by IBM, Litton, AIL and Sylvania. Litton-Amercon got the Terec contract and it was eventually squeezed into the RF-4C as AN/ALQ-125, with undernose radome.
 
Last edited:
jstar said:
Was the FB-111A actually two feet longer than the F-111A? Both Jay Miller and Burt Kinzey in books on the F-111 (only sources I have available) claim this to be so.
I can't see any visual indications that the fuselage was actually stretched, and think the two feet claim likely came from misreading the various dimensioned drawings.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
You could visually see the difference in flight. Saw quite a few types visit Offutt. That 15' longer version would have destabilized Europe.
 
FB-111A had exactly the same fuselage length as the other Air Force models. The FB was to be interleaved between 111A and 111B production so got just the long wings, beefed-up undercarriage and SAC avionics.

Plus the USAF brass were content with forgoing a stretch as the range-limited FB covered the B-52C retirement without undermining AMSA.

Closest I could get to two orthographic side views, though the FB is angled slightly to port:
 

Attachments

  • FB-111A_F-111A_side_length.png
    FB-111A_F-111A_side_length.png
    760.6 KB · Views: 154
Last edited:
Yellow Palace said:
Shockingly, posting this in the F-111 thread, rather than one of the eleventy squillion Alternative History threads about Canberra replacements....

www.agda.ae

Page 132: Papers 15-51

Arabian Gulf Digital Archive
www.agda.ae www.agda.ae
Click to expand...
Just going to give a shout out as I discovered this site too the other week. The Arabian Gulf Digital Archive has a treasure trove of material from the National Archives, Kew (with their permission).
The PDFs are fully OCR searchable and on the website you even get a text transcription alongside the scanned images. This is impressive stuff and its slicker than TNA's own site.
The bonus is that most of this material is not even listed as being digitised on TNA's own Discovery catalogue. So if you are looking for UK government Middle Eastern related files, my advice is to go here first.
 
Hood said:
The bonus is that most of this material is not even listed as being digitised on TNA's own Discovery catalogue. So if you are looking for UK government Middle Eastern related files, my advice is to go here first.
Click to expand...
Along with a surprising amount of non-Middle Eastern related stuff that happened to be in the same files!
 
Yellow Palace said:
Shockingly, posting this in the F-111 thread, rather than one of the eleventy squillion Alternative History threads about Canberra replacements....

www.agda.ae

Page 132: Papers 15-51

Arabian Gulf Digital Archive
www.agda.ae www.agda.ae

Interesting February 1966 memorandum from the UK Secretary of State for Defence on the arrangements for the purchase of fifty F-111Ks to provide a front-line strength of 36 aircraft, i.e. three squadrons of twelve; the previous plan, when 110 aircraft were to be bought, involved a front-line strength of 74 aircraft, down from the 106 TSR.2 of the Spotswood report. The annex is particularly interesting, detailing why the F-111, and only the F-111, and definitely not a developed Buccaneer would be needed to bridge the gap until AFVG came along.

Plus some nice maps of radii of action for the F-111 and Buccaneer. I'm not quite sure how an F-111 is supposed to do a 1,500nm radius of action with 10,000 lbs of bombs, but there we go.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for the link and a fascinating read it is.
But one must bear in mind that certain statements are dependent on ministers not knowing what might have been 'fudged' in the presentation.
This looks like shaping the facts to get ministers to approve a certain course of action.
Hence what seems inconsistent to our eyes.
 
With the dissolution of the USSR and the pursuit of the peace dividend the F-111's career soon came to an end. But had that not occurred was there any possibility of modernizing some and continuing their use in the strike/interdiction role? I know the F-15E had been selected as something of a replacement but how many more flight hours might the airframe have been good for? After the flaws with the wing carry-through box and the measures put into place to test for structural failures it seems like they probably would have had a good idea of if the aircraft's service life could have been extended.

The biggest item on the to-do list would definitely be a standardized avionics package, but I'd imagine you probably could have upgraded them with F110 engines as was done with the F-14. I'm not sure how much of a performance difference that would make for the F-111 but it would probably make supporting the aircraft easier without a half-dozen different TF30 models in use. So either switching to the F110 or standardizing on the final TF30 model that was used on the F-111F would have probably been a good decision. That was still quite powerful and with the redesigned inlets it seems they didn't give the F-111 too much trouble with compressor stalls since it isn't exactly manuevering like a fighter.

There was also the EF-111A which was a very useful capability for the USAF to have. Considering that they were improving the avionics on them as late as the early 1990s I'd have to assume the USAF would have liked to keep them longer than they did historically.
 
Well, many of the F-111 airframes were timed out - meeting their economical life of 6000 hours. Even though the EF-111A was being upgraded, the Air Force did not set its priorities to maintain an orphan fleet of those aircraft. It took combat and several more years to appreciate that even stealth aircraft could benefit from offboard EW support. But by then, the EW forces and cadre had been eviscerated. Twenty years of lip-service has not materially corrected that stance.
 
Last edited:
An update/ upgrade program for the F-111 was in its initial stages when the decision was made by the USAF to retire its fleet.
My best recollection is that it was at least for the F-111E, D & F airframes and aimed at a common fleet-wide upgraded avionics package and other life extension measures.
It certainly didn’t include pie-in-the-sky idea like new F110 engines etc.

And as other contributors have mentioned the F-111 fleet was very maintenance heavy and expensive to keep operational, and that’s before considering the full cost of the intended upgrade program. Given the post-Cold War scenario (and the notable success of the F-117 fleet, the very new F-15E fleet, and the imminent proliferation of targeting pods in USAF fighters including on a significant portion of the F-16 fleet) it is understandable the axe fell (somewhat prematurely) on the F-111.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
With the dissolution of the USSR and the pursuit of the peace dividend the F-111's career soon came to an end. But had that not occurred was there any possibility of modernizing some and continuing their use in the strike/interdiction role? I know the F-15E had been selected as something of a replacement but how many more flight hours might the airframe have been good for? After the flaws with the wing carry-through box and the measures put into place to test for structural failures it seems like they probably would have had a good idea of if the aircraft's service life could have been extended.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure they would have been able to stretch much more than another 10 years out of the planes, and most of that at mid altitudes not down on the deck.

Low level penetration is HARD on the airframe and is even worse at high speeds, there's a reason the F111s only lasted 6000 hours.
 
Thanks for the information. Indeed I'm sure that sort of low altitude high speed flight takes its toll on the airframe. So even with a final upgrade they'd still likely see retirement by the late 2000s?

I figured the F110s would be a bit of a stretch, but fitting them all with the same 25,000 lbf thrust variant of TF30 that the F-111F had would probably make keeping the fleet operational a bit easier. Though I don't know if that would be possible since I assume P&W wasn't building any new ones by that time.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Thanks for the information. Indeed I'm sure that sort of low altitude high speed flight takes its toll on the airframe. So even with a final upgrade they'd still likely see retirement by the late 2000s?
Click to expand...
I was thinking more like early 2000s, but almost guaranteed out of service by 2010.


Colonial-Marine said:
I figured the F110s would be a bit of a stretch, but fitting them all with the same 25,000 lbf thrust variant of TF30 that the F-111F had would probably make keeping the fleet operational a bit easier. Though I don't know if that would be possible since I assume P&W wasn't building any new ones by that time.
Click to expand...
PW still had the tooling to make parts, so if you threw money at them you can get all the F111s using the same engine. Probably call it the F-111H or J for the rebuilds to common avionics and new engines.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom