Why did america retire this GOAT airplane it even killed a mirage. Should have just modernized it

Why did america retire this GOAT airplane it even killed a mirage. Should have just modernized it

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    flexible strike fighters are just better

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >flexible strike fighters are just better
      It's the Raven not the 'Vark

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Best aesthetics ever

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why was the F-111 retired
    Hangar queen of hangar queens, they required a ridiculous amount of man hours and resources to maintain, and IIRC the F-111 fleet alone took up a double-digit percentage of the USAF budget and time for maintenance
    >Why was the EF-111A never replaced
    Not a damn clue, especially since the USN got Growlers to replace the EA-6B.
    If I had to guess, it might be because they thought multiroles (especially the F-35A nowadays) could perform a lot of the same electronic warfare missions so they wouldn't lose that much capability

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jamming was supposed to be pod-based, require little or no specialized training, modular, and cheaper. None of that really worked out, at least not until the F-35's sensor fusion code finally got (mostly) written. Now? No idea.
      The Vark--and Raven--were casualties of the Peace Dividend. Thank the Clintons for that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >not a damn clue
      In the 90s, there was a big push for controlling military spending. They were assessing EW platforms and some moron asked why the Navy and USAF should have EW capabilities.
      They asked for a 15-year cost analysis from both branches.
      Navy just gave them fuel consumption for expected flight hours during that time frame.
      Airforce calculated fuel, consumables, parts, future engine upgrades, future avionics upgrades, maintenance, training, etc etc.

      So our government decided to handicap our EW arm by giving it to a airframe designed in the 1950s that had a fraction of the payload, range, speed, and capabilities. In the end, the EA-6 upgrades and airframe rebuilds ended up costing more than the F-111's prediction.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        USAF went the jammer pod route, anything of higher import means longer range and is covered by COTS airframes like 737.
        The Navy doesn't have the same luxury when it comes to carrier borne EW.

        F-111 was unfortunately a maintenance hog and retired in lieu of the Strike Eagle and the B-1B in the tactical/interdiction role

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The Navy doesn't have the same luxury when it comes to carrier borne EW.
          How is the Growler that much different from F/A-18F besides carrying EW pods?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This was kinda like our deluxe Su-24 / Su-34, right?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Su-24 is similar to the F-111 but the Soviets/Russians never had an equivalent to the Raven. The Su-34 is a moronic cousin to the Strike Eagle. 8t222

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Su-24 is similar to the F-111 but the Soviets/Russians never had an equivalent to the Raven. The Su-34 is a moronic cousin to the Strike Eagle. 8t222

      The Su-24 and F-111 are pure sex.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The absolute state of that taxiway, you could at least put weedkiller down.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          frick it we ball

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          they try, but a man can only piss so much.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Su-24 is similar to the F-111 but the Soviets/Russians never had an equivalent to the Raven. The Su-34 is a moronic cousin to the Strike Eagle. 8t222

      https://i.imgur.com/8p8vys1.jpg

      [...]
      The Su-24 and F-111 are pure sex.

      Don't you Black folk ever confuse my waifu for that fat cellulose b***h SU-24.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't know. She has her charm.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Su-24 was designed as a bomber/strike craft

      The F111 supposed to be a fighter, and was Robeet McNamara's moronic idea to have one fighter for both the USAF and USN to save money.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Australia got them to scare off the Indonesians from invading us

    They have them in museums here. Look like ww2 planes in the wienerpit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      IIRC they used them to sink some NK and Chinese "fishing boats" as well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Among other things I think the recon variants we had were used to monitor greenies in the Gordon River area in Tas during their protests (as note I’m happy the greenies succeeded since the Gordon River is a very nice river and it would be a shame to dam it up).
        I also remember reading that during the Timor frickfest of 99 that the F-111’s were armed with pgm concrete bombs in case the Indo’s decided to do a
        >“Frick it we ball”
        Why they didn’t use normal pgm’s is beyond me but it would of been kino to see.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Very high cost airframe at a time of shrinking budgets and shifting priorities. USAF needs a follwup EA/Sead platform like the Navy's growler. But in the 90's they didn't and had to fund the F-22 so the raven and F-4G were cut.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Swing wing aircraft suck up tons of money and maintenance hours. When the USSR collapsed and budgets got slashed the Ravens we're probably at the top of the list of things to get rid of because of those factors. Still a great looking aircraft though.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Factory tooling missing, same thing that is killing the F-22.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    reminder that they fried the iraqi pilot's face off with ECM in the Mirage F1 kill.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >fried the iraqi pilot's face
      Got an article or source?

      • 1 month ago
        Cohort

        I'm 90% sure it was a maneuvering kill and anon made that up.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's because the F-111 update program was an hindrance (like many others) to McDonnell israelite F-15 project, and also because Grumman was in charge of updating the F-111 with modern electronics and other tech and there it was a certain lobby against Grumman and Northrop so they had to oy vey it and shut down them.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The F111 was an piece of shit before it ever took flight, cooked up by McNamara and his accountants, not anyone who knew anything about airplanes, and had worse flight performance at every altitude than every Soviet aircraft of its day

    It's only redeeming qualities were that it was such a fat frick it made a decent ewar platform, and it was so bad at being a fighter it spured the development of the F-15 & F-16

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't get your shitheaps jumbled up now. The Mig-25 is what gave us the glorious F-15 to drop trou and mushroom stamp all the other countries for so many years.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sorry F-18 & F-16*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why was the F-111 retired
      Hangar queen of hangar queens, they required a ridiculous amount of man hours and resources to maintain, and IIRC the F-111 fleet alone took up a double-digit percentage of the USAF budget and time for maintenance
      >Why was the EF-111A never replaced
      Not a damn clue, especially since the USN got Growlers to replace the EA-6B.
      If I had to guess, it might be because they thought multiroles (especially the F-35A nowadays) could perform a lot of the same electronic warfare missions so they wouldn't lose that much capability

      The F-111 scored more tank kills than any other aircraft during the gulf war, despite flying 1/2 of the sorties the A-10 flew, and a 1/3 of the sorties the F-16 flew.
      It also had the highest percentage of successful missions over ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT.
      One wing commander reported that his unit flew 2100 sorties without a single maintenance non-deliver.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's great, but it was designed to be a fighter, not a ground attack aircraft

        It was so bad in its intended role they turned it into a bomb truck

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The fighter war the F-111B, the proto-tomcat, you dumb moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >designed as a fighter
          >to follow terrain at the speed of sound so it can penetrate soviet defences to fight russian airplanes instead of nuking Moscow

          I can't tell if you're baiting hard, or genuinely moronic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFX_Program

            It was supposed to be a fighter, until John Boyd convinced the Pentagon of what a piece of shit aircraft it was for that, so they found other uses for it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >John Boyd
              dumb Black person

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              But it was still designed as an attack/bomber aircraft.
              Proposals for contracts are just drawings on paper and estimates.

              And knowing what we know with the F-15E, the F-111 would have been a superior fighter because basically all we needed was a AIM120 missile truck with speed and range.
              Adjusting the wing racks and internal bay to accommodate 20+ AIM 120s wouldn't have been that hard.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Did you even read the article? It was a multirole from the beginning - the USAF requirement was for a low-level strike/interdictor.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Its almost as if a bomber that can carry a bunch of laser guided bombs can be extremely successful in uncontested airspace. Yeah the F-111 cleaned up in ODS but that would not have been its job had WW3 actually happened. Its also a poor use of such an expensive high end asset. I would hope a sophisticated Mach 2 strike bomber with FLIR and PGMs would have an easy time of popping tanks. Its real job was penetrating soviet air defense and hitting high value targets. Hunting tanks in the desert is cake in comparison. And saying you did it better than a CAS aircraft that cost a fraction isn't exactly a flex. I sure as hell hope it would.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >uncontested airspace
          moronic vatBlack person is moronic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Su-24 was designed as a bomber/strike craft

      The F111 supposed to be a fighter, and was Robeet McNamara's moronic idea to have one fighter for both the USAF and USN to save money.

      The USAF specifications that led to the F-111 were always for a tactical interdiction/strike aircraft. Throughout the Cold War the USAF always used F codes for any tactical aircraft, regardless of whether the mission profile actually involved engaging enemy aircraft - see the F-100 and F-105 as other examples of aircraft designed for the *tactical* nuclear strike/interdiction role. (as opposed to B for *strategic* strike role).

      TFX came after, when McNamara pushed for commonality between the USAF's strike interdictor and the Navy's proposed carrier-based interceptor.

      It's not like the concept was completely off-base either - the F-4 had been perfectly good at both - in USAF service the F-4 was far more of a strike aircraft that had the bonus of being able to run some of the squadron clean as escorts, while in the USN service the F-4 was far more skewed towards the interceptor mission - and if the F-4 could do it, why not the F-111? What made the TFX concept untenable was more the shifting realization post-Vietnam that some level of flexibility was needed and that you couldn't simply build aircraft for a thermonuclear WW3 scenario only.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >why not the F-111

        Because it had terrible flight characteristics, worse than every contemporary Soviet aircraft it would have faced, at every altitude and speed, and the pilot can't even see to his right

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, this was the USN's assessment, but that was the conceptual thinking behind TFX - it was a thinking grounded previous proved projects like the F-4 - but real world experience in Vietnam was illustrating that the air superiority mission was going to require a lot more than simply flying high and fast and slinging missiles.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why have a few vulnerable EW airframes when you can slap EW pods on a bunch of airframes?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I reccomend reading pic related.

    He flew the EF-111 right up to it's retirement before going over to the F-117.
    Goes into great detail about the EF-111. Both technically and politically.

    Also, he flew F-117s during Operation Allied Force, and talks about the whole operation, the missions, the bombing runs, the security leaks, etc. including the details of how that F-117 was shot down.

    I actually knew the author IRL for a couple years before I found out he was a F-111 and F-117 pilot. He gave me my copy when he got his book printed.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cumulative microcracking in aluminum is a physical fact like water being wet OP. Not optional even for America

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    multirole everything
    purpose-built bad because it just is, okay?
    think of the logistics troops and bean counters, kindly do the needful

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    literally red-DIT the plane
    VARK VARK VARK killyourself

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The F-111 was out of production and about at the furthest end of what you could do with the airframe when you could literally make a new plane that's far more effective at a fraction of the cost of "modernisation".

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *