Would the F-111B have really been superior to the F-14?

Musashi311

Musashi311

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
1 July 2023
Messages
4
Reaction score
7
Hello everyone this is my first post on here :) I was recommended this video by the "glorious" YouTube algorithm while watching some of Ward Carroll's videos. The person who did said video mentioned some things about the F-111B...how much better would it have been than the F-14 as an interceptor? Apparently, everything i've learned over the past decade and a half is for lack of a better term out of date so I'd like a different perspective from those who know more than I do.
 
F.L. said:
The F-111B is a special interceptor variant of the F-111 armed with Phoenix missiles !
Click to expand...
Wonders. And what is the rest of the avionics? Fighter or bomber? There was almost no universal then. Are there other types of "air-to-air" missiles? Then yes. Something like the Su-15 turns out.
 
The F-111B wasn't really an interceptor, either. It was a fleet air defence aircraft, which isn't quite the same thing.

For the fleet air defence role, it would probably have been better than the F-14, providing that it was got down to an acceptable weight for carrier operations. For everything else the US Navy wanted from a fighter, it would have been inferior.

This wouldn't have been a surprise to them. They'd been planning to combine the fighter and light attack roles since before the TFX program got started - the earlier F6D Missileer presented the same problem.
 
GregoryUSSR said:
Are there other types of "air-to-air" missiles ?
Click to expand...
The F-111B prototypes carried only Phoenix, but I think the production aircraft probably could have carried Sidewinders and maybe Sparrows.
From Wiki :
The F-111 offered a platform with the range, payload, and Mach-2 performance to intercept targets quickly, but with swing wings and turbofan engines, it could also loiter on station for long periods. The F-111B would carry six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, its main armament. Four of the Phoenix missiles mounted on wing pylons and two in the weapons bay. The missile pylons added significant drag when used.
Click to expand...
 
The interceptor is designed to intercept and destroy all types of NON-maneuvering aerial targets. This is what makes it different from a conventional fighter. Usually interceptors are bigger and heavier than fighters. Often faster than them. And they carry longer-range weapons. Typical representatives of interceptors: P-47, P-38, Tu-128, F-101, F-106, Su-15, MiG-25, MiG-31. But with maneuvering targets (enemy fighters) they are coping badly. Therefore, (and also because of the universality of modern avionics), such aircraft are gradually being abandoned. So yes - the best recipe is to take a powerful high-speed bomber, equip it with heavy long-range air-to-air missiles and turn it into an interceptor.
 
GregoryUSSR said:
The interceptor is designed to intercept and destroy all types of NON-maneuvering aerial targets.
Click to expand...
The interceptor is designed to intercept and destroy all types of aerial targets.
But compared with air superiority fighters, they are generally faster, to the detriment of maneuverability.
But these days, most fighters are multi-role.
GregoryUSSR said:
P-47
Click to expand...
The Thunderbolt is note an interceptor, but a fighter-bomber.
 
F.L. said:
The interceptor is designed to intercept and destroy all types of aerial targets.
But compared with air superiority fighters, they are generally faster, to the detriment of maneuverability.
But these days, most fighters are multi-role.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Modern fighters can do everything the same as interceptors, but plus they can still conduct maneuverable dogfight. So interceptors are essentially no longer needed. So in this historical confrontation, the F-14 fighter naturally won.
 
The F-14 was a program initiated because the US Navy didn't like what the F-111B was turning out to be - too big, too heavy, and not maneuverable enough for the lessons that the first years of the Vietnam War were teaching.

The F-111 program had been initiated in 1960 for a interdiction/strike aircraft - in 1961 the US Secretary of Defense ordered the Navy to drop its subsonic long-endurance fleet defense fighter program and make a variant of the F-111 to do the job. When the US entered the Vietnam War in 1965, they quickly learned that fighters still had to be maneuverable to survive - speed and missile load were not enough, especially since missiles were missing far more often than their testing had indicated they would.

As the F-111 (all variants) were not designed for high maneuverability, the USN felt it was no longer a viable fighter type (note that the USAF never tried to use it as a fighter - just as a strike aircraft). In 1966 the USN directed Grumman to begin design work on a lighter, more maneuverable "Fleet Defense Fighter" (but Congress didn't formally cancel the F-111B until May 1968).

The F-14 took the engines, radar, missiles, and other avionics of the F-111B and put them in an airframe that was lighter, smaller, and more maneuverable than the F-111B.

So there really was no way the F-111B could ever be considered "better" - other than in maximum range/flight duration (part of the F-111's size was greater fuel capacity).
 
Yellow Palace said:
The F-111B wasn't really an interceptor, either. It was a fleet air defence aircraft, which isn't quite the same thing.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree on this. In my view, the Tornado ADV, once airborne, performed much the same mission - long range patrol? - as the F-111B was designed for. To me, the Tornado ADV was an interceptor.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The F-111B wasn't really an interceptor, either. It was a fleet air defence aircraft, which isn't quite the same thing.
Click to expand...
Arjen said:
Not sure I agree on this. In my view, the Tornado ADV, once airborne, performed much the same mission - long range patrol? - as the F-111B was designed for. To me, the Tornado ADV was an interceptor.
Click to expand...
There are subtle differences between "fleet defence fighter" and "interceptor" ! :)
I believe that the mission of a fleet defence aircraft is to intercept and destroy enemy "anti-ship aircraft" before they can use their weapons. (bombs, torpedoes, missiles...)
The mission of a "pure interceptor" is to do the same thing, but to protect a static location.
 
The F-111B as far as I recall from reading books about it was far too heavy for the US Navy the navy cancled it because of the problems encountered after sea trials, they went back to the drawing boards and came up with the F-14 which was far superior.
 
F.L. said:
There are subtle differences between "fleet defence fighter" and "interceptor" ! :)
I believe that the mission of a fleet defence aircraft is to intercept and destroy enemy "anti-ship aircraft" before they can use their weapons. (bombs, torpedoes, missiles...)
The mission of a "pure interceptor" is to do the same thing, but to protect a static location.
Click to expand...
And in the case of the F-14 also be able to maneuver, right?
 
It depends on what you mean by "better?" Better at what? The fleet defense roll, where it's just a missileer like the USN originally wanted? Yes, it probably would have had better loiter capability. But, the question in and of itself is sort of nonsense, nothing personal. I say that, because without the F-111B, the F-14 wouldn't have been what it turned out to be. Grumman learned a lot about building variable geometry wing aircraft from the F-111B program. As a result, they knew how to make the structure lighter without all of the drawbacks of the F-111s design when they began work on the F-14. The weight wasn't as big of an issue, since even latter versions of the Tomcat were close in weight to the F-111B. Here's some good references for you.

tailspintopics.blogspot.com

The Complete F-111B

Updated 28 December 2020 When you combine my F-111B monograph ( http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/05/grumman-f-111b.html ) with the erra...
tailspintopics.blogspot.com tailspintopics.blogspot.com

 
F.L. said:
There are subtle differences between "fleet defence fighter" and "interceptor" ! :)
I believe that the mission of a fleet defence aircraft is to intercept and destroy enemy "anti-ship aircraft" before they can use their weapons. (bombs, torpedoes, missiles...)
The mission of a "pure interceptor" is to do the same thing, but to protect a static location.
Click to expand...
Both did the BARCAP mission. The F-111B (and F6D, and Tomcat) in the fleet air defense role protecting the fleet against long range anti-shipping bombers, and the ADV in the GIUK gap against the same targets. All the aircraft had other missions as well, some overlapping and some not, but "sit out over the ocean at long range waiting for bombers to show up and if they do, kill them" is something all were designed for. The only real difference is the range of the missiles on the USN platforms.
 
Arjen said:
Not sure I agree on this. In my view, the Tornado ADV, once airborne, performed much the same mission - long range patrol? - as the F-111B was designed for. To me, the Tornado ADV was an interceptor.
Click to expand...
At least to the US mind, the word "interceptor" implies high speed and very fast climb rate, usually at the expense of range and often at the expense of maneuverability. Compare the MiG31 (interceptor) with the Su27 (fighter).

Of course, technology developments have made it so that having a pair of fighters/interceptors sitting ready on the catapults and launching within 30 seconds of an alert, just too slow to get to the intruding aircraft before the intruding aircraft could launch missiles at the carrier/airbase.

Means you need a plane with good range/loiter capability, so you don't have to get the interceptor moving towards the intruders and spend a lot of time/fuel climbing up to altitude.
 
I hadn't considered the climb rate criterion. On the other hand, the Soviet Yak-28P and Tu-128 were interceptors, as was the US F-101B, but not particularly fast climbers.

You get fast-climbing interceptors and dedicated long-range interceptors. The early Mirage III (mixed-power) and EE Lightning were clear examples of the former, F-101B, Tornado ADV and Tu-128 of the latter. I would classify the F-111B with the latter.

MiG-31 and F-106 can possibly be classed as both.

Lately, the line between air-superiority fighter and interceptor seems to have blurred: F-22 and Typhoon have all the attributes needed for an interceptor, including high climb rate, but will double as air-superiority fighters.
Then there's their ability in ground attack.

In the end, there's always some shoehorning involved in assigning aircraft to categories.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
I hadn't considered the climb rate criterion. On the other hand, the Soviet Yak-28P and Tu-128 were interceptors, as was the US F-101B, but not particularly fast climbers.

You get fast-climbing interceptors and dedicated long-range interceptors. The early Mirage III (mixed-power) and EE Lightning were clear examples of the former, F-101B, Tornado ADV and Tu-128 of the latter. I would classify the F-111B with the latter.

MiG-31 and F-106 can possibly be classed as both.

Lately, the line between air-superiority fighter and interceptor seems to have blurred: F-22 and Typhoon have all the attributes needed for an interceptor, including high climb rate, but will double as air-superiority fighters.
Then there's their ability in ground attack.

In the end, there's always some shoehorning involved in assigning aircraft to categories.
Click to expand...
Climb rate is definitely one of the older criteria for an interceptor, though I suspect that the MiG-31 still climbs pretty fast.

The US hasn't built a dedicated interceptor since the F-14, and arguably since the F-106 if we include "fast climbing" in the definition of interceptor.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Climb rate is definitely one of the older criteria for an interceptor, though I suspect that the MiG-31 still climbs pretty fast.

The US hasn't built a dedicated interceptor since the F-14, and arguably since the F-106 if we include "fast climbing" in the definition of interceptor.
Click to expand...
I thought the F-15 had very good vertical acceleration capabilities.
Isn't that the case ?
 
The F-15 can be, and is used as an interceptor. Same goes for F-4, Typhoon, Rafale, F-22. None of them are pure interceptors. The F-111B would have struggled to act as anything else than an interceptor / fleet defence fighter.
 
F.L. said:
I thought the F-15 had very good vertical acceleration capabilities.
Isn't that the case ?
Click to expand...
It does, particularly when below half fuel.

But it was made as an air superiority fighter, if not outright air dominance. Highly maneuverable for the time, with big wings to make big turns and big engines to add energy back into the plane after a big turn.

The F-106s were replaced by F-16s in the 1980s, not F-4s or F-15s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The F-106s were replaced by F-16s in the 1980s, not F-4s or F-15s.
Click to expand...
In US service, yes. UK F-4s were used as interceptors, Japanese F-15s are being used as interceptors. As well as other duties, for both countries.

Scott Kenny said:
But it [the F-15] was made as an air superiority fighter, if not outright air dominance.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The F-106s were replaced by F-16s in the 1980s, not F-4s or F-15s.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Three active duty ADTAC squadrons, the 318th FIS at McChord, 5th FIS at Minot, and 48th FIS at Langley, converted to F-15A/B. This was in advance of the 318th and 48th gaining F-15/ASAT capability (which eventually never happened). The other active duty squadrons (from memory) were shut down (although the 49th and 87th FIS has been reborn as T-38 FTS. 2nd FITS at Tyndall converted from F-106 to F-15C/D. )

Some of the earlier F-106 squadron swapouts did go to the F-4C (thinking of the 171st FIS/Michigan ANG in particular). The ANG F-101Bs that were retired in the early 80s were replaced by F-4Ds (that were replaced in active duty by F-16A/B).

Edit: Just remembered the 5th & 49th FIS.
 
Last edited:
F.L. said:
Yes, of course !!!
Click to expand...
Amazing. When chose the composition of the air group for the strike aircraft carrier 1143.5 "Admiral Kuznetsov", we also thought what to choose. MiG-29K or Su-33. As a result, for some reason they chose the Su-33 (a deck modification of the Su-27), and it is as large as a strategic bomber of World War 2. Naturally, the air group turned out to be not very numerous, despite the gigantic size of the aircraft carrier (length more than 300 meters).
 
Musashi311 said:
Hello everyone this is my first post on here :) I was recommended this video by the "glorious" YouTube algorithm while watching some of Ward Carroll's videos. The person who did said video mentioned some things about the F-111B...how much better would it have been than the F-14 as an interceptor? Apparently, everything i've learned over the past decade and a half is for lack of a better term out of date so I'd like a different perspective from those who know more than I do.
Click to expand...
Short answer, no. Especially seeing as SNA formations would not have supported employing six phoenix loadouts, The F-111b would have had longer loiter time in exchange for underperforming in every other area.

also, that video is flaming hot garbage. It's like Lazer pig with even less credibility and somehow worse humor. Who can't pronounce Ignatius?

Below is a decent document that counters a good deal of it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/...D0ufDN4aJmaS3oHzE9ZsIVmvA2YzHgewi1gaEC0MW/pub
 
VF-1 Taco said:
Short answer, no. Especially seeing as SNA formations would not have supported employing six phoenix loadouts, The F-111b would have had longer loiter time in exchange for underperforming in every other area.

also, that video is flaming hot garbage. It's like Lazer pig with even less credibility and somehow worse humor. Who can't pronounce Ignatius?

Below is a decent document that counters a good deal of it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQlLvL7ZlhKeQW8g98CpdbBu_Zkb16FSKpPsc_D0ufDN4aJmaS3oHzE9ZsIVmvA2YzHgewi1gaEC0MW/
Click to expand...

Just read through the document and it's pretty impressive. Lazerpig is also a story for another day, he's kind of poisoned the well for discussion on vehicles like the A-10 and the whole T-14 thing.


I guess because of the Top Gun fame the F-14 has kind of become the Nissan Skyline of aircraft if you're into cars due to the latter's fame within the Fast and Furious franchise.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The F-111B wasn't really an interceptor, either. It was a fleet air defence aircraft, which isn't quite the same thing.

For the fleet air defence role, it would probably have been better than the F-14,
Click to expand...
In what way?
 
sferrin said:
In what way?
Click to expand...
Could always carry 6x Phoenix, which Tomcats couldn't do without some serious planning on the ordnance load. Like minimum 20mm and one chance at a landing before you gotta hit the tanker.

Edit: I believe the F-111B may have had better loiter time, too, but it couldn't dogfight and lessons from Vietnam was that every "fighter" needed to be able to dogfight.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion the F-111B would have been a better interceptor than the Tomcat, but the defense of an aircraft carrier in the 1970s also required lighter fighters capable of dog-fighting, and the carrier's capability is limited. To stop a massive attack by Tom Clancy-style Backfires would have taken at least two squadrons of F-111s and that takes up too much hangar space. The Tomcat was a middle-of-the-road solution and did its job well.
 

Attachments

  • AuroraF-111BModel.jpg
    AuroraF-111BModel.jpg
    334.4 KB · Views: 33
  • F-111B_arte.jpg
    F-111B_arte.jpg
    121.3 KB · Views: 35
  • unnamed (1)P.jpg
    unnamed (1)P.jpg
    65 KB · Views: 35
Justo Miranda said:
Long range, endurance and crew confort.
Click to expand...
Do we know it actually would have had more range? It had to lose a lot of weight to make it onto a carrier. Looks like it had about 9,000 more pounds of internal fuel. Looks like it's maximum catapult takeoff weight was 60,000lbs. Given an empty weight of 46,100lbs that's only 14,000lbs available for both fuel AND weapons. The Tomcat had a lower empty weight and a max catapult weight of 76,000lbs. About the only way an F-111B has a chance of getting more range would be to hit a couple tankers right after launch. And if we have tankers in the air, well, F-14s can hit the tanker too. Sounds like it comes down to who had the more comfortable chair. And you're giving up a LOT for that chair.

1704206745970.png

1704207269948.png
 
Scott Kenny said:
Could always carry 6x Phoenix, which Tomcats couldn't do without some serious planning on the ordnance load. Like minimum 20mm and one chance at a landing before you gotta hit the tanker.

Edit: I believe the F-111B may have had better loiter time, too, but it couldn't dogfight and lessons from Vietnam was that every "fighter" needed to be able to dogfight.
Click to expand...
But there’s an unreality to saying the F-111B could “always carry” 6x Phoenix versus a Tomcat that couldn’t “always” do so. Given the F-111Bs well documented weight and other issues what really suggests it’s was more, not equally or less, able than a Tomcat to readily landing on an average carrier deck while carrying 6 Phoenix in a real world scenario?

And on the off-chance the F-111B was theoretically capable of this what does that really matter in a real world scenario? How often could the F-111B have actually carried 6 Phoenix in real-world carrier operations? Wouldn’t the F-14s higher performance have meant that additional Phoenix launchers would come much quicker to support the initial CAP and alert fighters than would be the case if we were talking about F-111Bs instead of F-14s?
And given F-111Bs weight and other issues is there hard evidence re: how real life and really usable any theoretical loitering performance superiority over the F-14 was?

And that’s before even considering the F-14s clearly superiority in other fighter roles.
Or consider the likely real world impact of the F-111Bs escape capsules likely worse performance than the F-14s ejection seats in very low speed low altitude carrier landing scenarios.
 
My favorite part in the tragically hilarious F-111B story is when a very desperate GD starts using the word "colossal" in the weight reduction program.
 
The weight reduction was anything but colossal for the F-111B GD had failed in that part. I wonder what caused the weight to increase in the first place? Compared to the lighter Air Force F-111A model.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom