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

FighterJock said:
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.
Click to expand...
The F-111A was heavier with a 46,172lb empty weight. Typically a navy aircraft would be heavier than a land-based counterpart due to the necessity of strengthening the aircraft for carrier landings and catapult shots.
 
sferrin said:
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.

View attachment 715473
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put too much "weight" on this chart from the 15 May 1968 F-111B Flight Manual. It was Preliminary and issued prior to the July 1968 at-sea trials (which weren't the cause of the program's cancellation: it had already been terminated and, by the way, were being accomplished with an F-111B without the final carrier-suitability changes and were not as unsatisfactory as has been alleged). The SAC (Standard Aircraft Characteristics) chart lists the maximum catapult and field takeoff weight as 77,724 lbs. My guess is that this was a preliminary and very conservative number based on the lack of single-engine capability "at certain gross weights and ambient temperatures" of the prototypes that lacked the P-12 engines with 8% more thrust.
 
 
One note that deserves emphasis: the Navy hated that DoD was dictating their airplane/contractor selection, particularly because the Air Force was in effect the lead customer and driving the requirements. They fought their participation at every turn, beginning with the insistence on a ridiculously low gross weight given the mission requirement (it was subsequently increased, but still not consistent with the requirement). In my opinion, however, the reason that they finally went all out to kill the program in March 1968 was that production F-111Bs with carrier-suitability improvements were about to be delivered without the Navy-furnished Hughes missile control systems, the F-111B's raison d'etre. Its qualification and production was at least a year or more in the future (it actually turned out to be much longer). Having airplanes on their ramps with only lead in the nose and no mission capability would have been very embarrassing and oddly enough, was not mentioned during the congressional hearings.
 
Would have F-111B be better ?
It would be the heaviest Fighter the US Navy ever had. (also the F-14 was heaviest Fighter they had)
but how look speed, range and Armament ?

Speed: the F-111B got to Mach 2.2, the F-14 got to Mach 2.34
Range combat: the F-111B - 1,830 nmi (3390 km) while F-14 - 500 nmi (930 km).
Armament:
F-111B - 6 × AIM-54 Phoenix long range air-air missiles with AN/AWG-9 Pulse-Doppler radar and 1× M61 Vulcan.
F-14 - 6 x AIM-54 Phoenix or AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-9 Sidewinder with Hughes AN/APG-71 radar and 1× M61A1 Vulcan.

Now that F-14 could use tree different air-air Missiles, the F-111B could that do also with right electronics.
now combat record
So far i know were all US Navy F-14 combat with AIM-54 and AIM-9 shooting down enemy aircraft
only one Iranian F-14 used it M61A1 Vulcan to shoot down a target, rest used AIM-54,
while the Iraq military try to figure out why they aircraft suddenly explode midair...

So why failed the F-111 ?

The F-111 was forced by Robert McNamara down USAF and US-Navy throat.
As cost saving measure and standardise the Weapon systems for Pentagon.
special the US Navy not take this well, USAF used it as Bomber and tactical electronic jamming.

The other point was the Dogfight fraction in Pentagon and Capitol Hill (the Fighter Mafia)
They insist on air battle with Vulcan gun to fight enemy aircraft.

CIA wrongly estimation of MIG-25 ability.
made the F-111 program looking doubtful and the Fighter Mafia start demands for new Fighters
What let to F-14 and F-15 program

Now under this Stand point of modern air combat, the F-111B would have be the best AIM-54 Phoenix platform.
 
sferrin said:
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.

View attachment 715473

View attachment 715478
Click to expand...
OK:)
 
Michel Van said:
Armament:
F-111B - 6 × AIM-54 Phoenix long range air-air missiles with AN/AWG-9 Pulse-Doppler radar and 1× M61 Vulcan.
F-14 - 6 x AIM-54 Phoenix or AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-9 Sidewinder with Hughes AN/APG-71 radar and 1× M61A1 Vulcan.
Click to expand...

"F-14 - 6 x AIM-54 Phoenix or AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-9 Sidewinder with AN/AWG-9 Pulse-Doppler radar and 1× M61A1 Vulcan" is correct for F-14A & F-14B. Same radar as F-111B.

"F-14 - 6 x AIM-54 Phoenix or AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-9 Sidewinder with Hughes AN/APG-71 radar and 1× M61A1 Vulcan" is only correct for the F-14D model. And the APG-71 was an improvement over the original radar.
 
Last edited:
Michel Van said:
Speed: the F-111B got to Mach 2.2, the F-14 got to Mach 2.34
Range combat: the F-111B - 1,830 nmi (3390 km) while F-14 - 500 nmi (930 km).
Click to expand...
I don't have F-111B data, but I can compare F-14 and F-111F
maximum speed 1980 km/h (F-14) and 2655 km/h (?, F-111F)
range 1040 km (F-14) and 1900 km (F-111F)
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
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
Click to expand...
Ordinarily I would have said the reinforcing necessary for carrier landings, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Was the AWG-9 that much heavier than the F-111A TFR etc?


Michel Van said:
Now under this Stand point of modern air combat, the F-111B would have be the best AIM-54 Phoenix platform.
Click to expand...
But would have been a worse fighter in general. Less maneuverable, worse engines (compressor stalls!)

Remember, the Fleet Air Defense mission is basically only if a full war versus Russia kicks off. You really want a more generally useful aircraft on carriers, since you're limited on what you have available to you.
 
About the AIM-54, what was the maximum theoretical load that the F-111B could carry? The F-14 could carry six Pheonix missiles by comparison.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But would have been a worse fighter in general. Less maneuverable, worse engines (compressor stalls!)
Click to expand...
From view point as Dogfighter, Yes
as Missile platform that operate 100 km from enemy aircaft , No
 
FighterJock said:
About the AIM-54, what was the maximum theoretical load that the F-111B could carry? The F-14 could carry six Pheonix missiles by comparison.
Click to expand...
Still only 6 as far as I know, unless the -B wings had the spots for the non-pivoting pylons like the rest of the F-111 fleet (probably does, the FB-111s used the -B wings).

But even then I think adding some 6000lbs of missiles and pylons would put the -B over catapult launch weight limits and definitely over bring-back weight limits.


Michel Van said:
From view point as Dogfighter, Yes
as Missile platform that operate 100 km from enemy aircaft , No
Click to expand...
Assuming that your plane will only ever operate 100km from enemy aircraft is what led to the deletion of the guns from planes in the early 1960s in the first place. Then Vietnam happened, when ROEs required getting close for a positive visual ID. Now you have to dogfight.
 
Scott, from one of the links that has been posted twice in this thread:

According to the F-111B SAC, when it was loaded with full internal fuel and six Phoenixes, it weighed 77,566 lbs and required 11 knots wind-over-deck on a tropical day for launch; the F-14A, not surprisingly, weighed almost 7,000 lbs less but, surprisingly, required 16 knots wind-over-deck, five knots more than the F-111B. Moreover, at its takeoff gross weight the F-111B was carrying 3,000 lbs more fuel than the F-14, making the difference in takeoff gross weight for the same amount of fuel and weapons carried only 3,866 lbs, or 5%, not exactly the amount or percentage difference that most would have guessed given all the negative publicity garnered by the “Sea Pig.” With that additional fuel, the F-111B could loiter on station for 1.5 hours with the combat fuel allowance assuming an acceleration to 1.5 Mach; the F-14A with the two external tanks of overload fuel, and with the same combat Mach number (one has to read the SACs very closely), could only loiter for 1.1 hours.

As for landing, they were both heavy. In fact, the maximum arrested-landing weight limit of the F-14A precluded it from landing back aboard with all six Phoenixes, whereas the F-111B had a 5,000 lb margin, all fuel, between its maximum landing weight and the landing weight with the standard landing fuel load of 2,417 lbs of fuel and six Phoenix (56,980 lbs). One does not need to be a Naval Aviator to appreciate being able to land with three times the required fuel. On a tropical day at the standard weight, the F-111B needed 15 knots wind-over-deck for landing; the F-14AA could only land with five Phoenix, and even then needed 17 knots wind-over-deck at its maximum landing weight of 51,830 lbs. The F-111B was also less of an handful following an engine failure since its engines were not as widely separated as the F-14A’s.
 
My answer to the original question: The F-111B was marginally better than the F-14A for its raison d'etre, fleet air defense accomplished by lugging around a lot of fuel; a humongous radar to spot incoming bombers and big cruise missiles; and six huge, long-range, air-to-air missiles that could close the deal at long range because they each had a radar for terminal guidance. Other than that, it was pretty much useless from the standpoint of the aircraft carrier's other assigned missions. The Admirals were right to cancel it in favor of a fighter (which the F-111B was not but there was no letter for the specific mission/performance requirement that it was to meet) that could, as an overload, do pretty much the same thing as well as the usual fighter stuff. In my opinion, they were wrong to vilify the F-111B in the process.
 
Tailspin Turtle said:
As for landing, they were both heavy. In fact, the maximum arrested-landing weight limit of the F-14A precluded it from landing back aboard with all six Phoenixes, whereas the F-111B had a 5,000 lb margin, all fuel, between its maximum landing weight and the landing weight with the standard landing fuel load of 2,417 lbs of fuel and six Phoenix (56,980 lbs). One does not need to be a Naval Aviator to appreciate being able to land with three times the required fuel. On a tropical day at the standard weight, the F-111B needed 15 knots wind-over-deck for landing; the F-14AA could only land with five Phoenix, and even then needed 17 knots wind-over-deck at its maximum landing weight of 51,830 lbs. The F-111B was also less of an handful following an engine failure since its engines were not as widely separated as the F-14A’s.
Click to expand...
Huh. It might actually have been possible for the F-111B to haul 10x Phoenix but would be stuck subsonic to do so. And more importantly, Bring back all 10 but with a very low margin, then...

Color me _very_ surprised!
 
It would have not got off the carriers had the F-111B been loaded with ten Phoenix missiles, the F-14 was held back at a maximum of six for the same reason.
 
For the anecdote: say what you want about the F6D Missileer conceptual flaws, the damn thing at only 50 000 pounds and subsonic could have flown out of an Essex class carrier. Makes one think.
 
I've have a document or a link somewhere in the depths of my HD, which makes clear there was a link between the two. Quick google search https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q="APQ-81""AWACS"

At the end of the day, it's all about early "pulse doppler" radar technology.
-BOMARC seeker (AN/DPN-53)
-Bendix Eagle seeker (AN/DPN-53)
-APQ-81 radar (Missileer)
-AWG-10 radar (upgraded Phantom)
-AWACS radar (1977 and beyond)

All of them are loosely related, spanning two decades: aproximately 1957-1977.

And pulse-doppler provides look-down / shoot-down capability.
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
Would you be so kind to double-check that F-111B combat range figure?
Click to expand...
Any distance in RANGE is a one-way trip.

That 500 nmi for the F-14 is for combat RADIUS - out, do the mission, come back.

I find 1,600 nmi range listed for the F-14.

I do find 2,100 nmi range with missiles listed for the F-111B... which fits with ~650-700 nmi combat radius (its around 1/3 to account for loitering on-station).
 
paralay said:
I don't have F-111B data, but I can compare F-14 and F-111F
maximum speed 1980 km/h (F-14) and 2655 km/h (?, F-111F)
range 1040 km (F-14) and 1900 km (F-111F)
Click to expand...
The F-111F had much more powerful engines than the F-111B. 25,100lbs vs 18,500lbs for the F-111B.
 
But and it is a big BUT would the F-111B be upgraded to the similar engines that the F-111F had it entered service with the navy?
 
Scott Kenny said:
At that point, you might as well be using it as your AEW plane in place of the E-1.
Click to expand...
You still need 360 degree coverage,
green.nova343 said:
Talk about a great way to defend your AEW platform...
Click to expand...
but with a squadron of 12 on each carrier you can send a pair out with each of the AEW anyway.
Scott Kenny said:
It'd still be dead as soon as it was out of missiles, but you'd have more aircraft since it was nominally a fighter.
Click to expand...
For the FAD role it would be out of range of MiGs, so it would only have to worry about bombers with air to air missiles. And once it's out of missiles, it turns to go home and lets the incoming bombers deal with F4s (or F8U-3s had they been chosen) doing deck launched intercept.

Here's a request though. I just recently read something about comparative loiter times for the three aircraft that put the F-14 at 1.1 hours and the F-111B at 1.5, which are the numbers quoted in this thread, but had the F6D at 4 hours. Which is enough time to fly a couple around with every E-1 or E-2 mission. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
 
FighterJock said:
But and it is a big BUT would the F-111B be upgraded to the similar engines that the F-111F had it entered service with the navy?
Click to expand...
I would expect not - as the F-14, for which the USN kept trying to get a more-powerful engine, never exchanged its TF30-P-412 (12,350 lb/20,900 lb) for the TF30-P-100 of the F-111F (15,000 lb/25,100 lb) as built in 1972 (or the TF30-P-111 {17,895 lb/25,111 lb} installed in the F-111s from 1985).

There was apparently not even consideration of a navalized version of either, as in the end, the only improved TF30 the F-14 got was the -414, which was simply an improved-reliability version of the -412 without any thrust increase.

Instead, the USN kept pushing for a new-built engine - P&W's F401 (navalized F100) in the 1970s (the sole original F-14B trialed this engine in 1973), and eventually installing the GE-built F110*-GE-400 (16,800 lb/27,000 lb) in the 1980s in the second iteration of the F-14B and in the F-14D.


* Originally designated the F101DFE, later designated F110.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It'd still be dead as soon as it was out of missiles, but you'd have more aircraft since it was nominally a fighter.
Click to expand...
True, although hopefully it would be heading back to the carrier after it runs out. Assuming that was the plan for the Missileer design...
 
BlackBat242 said:
I would expect not - as the F-14, for which the USN kept trying to get a more-powerful engine, never exchanged its TF30-P-412 (12,350 lb/20,900 lb) for the TF30-P-100 of the F-111F (15,000 lb/25,100 lb) as built in 1972 (or the TF30-P-111 {17,895 lb/25,111 lb} installed in the F-111s from 1985).

There was apparently not even consideration of a navalized version of either, as in the end, the only improved TF30 the F-14 got was the -414, which was simply an improved-reliability version of the -412 without any thrust increase.

Instead, the USN kept pushing for a new-built engine - P&W's F401 (navalized F100) in the 1970s (the sole original F-14B trialed this engine in 1973), and eventually installing the GE-built F110*-GE-400 (16,800 lb/27,000 lb) in the 1980s in the second iteration of the F-14B and in the F-14D.


* Originally designated the F101DFE, later designated F110.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of that was because they thought the later, more powerful TF30s were still unsuitable (i.e. did they still have compressor stall issues), if they weren't 100% sure how the modified engines would work with the F-14s inlets (although I feel like the F-14's inlets had less issues because they weren't as restricted in airflow compared to the F-111 designs, which IIRC had changes made with each model to deal with the engine airflow issues), & how much was simply out of spite because they were still mad about McNamara trying to force the USN to use a reworked USAF design?
 
green.nova343 said:
I wonder how much of that was because they thought the later, more powerful TF30s were still unsuitable (i.e. did they still have compressor stall issues), if they weren't 100% sure how the modified engines would work with the F-14s inlets (although I feel like the F-14's inlets had less issues because they weren't as restricted in airflow compared to the F-111 designs, which IIRC had changes made with each model to deal with the engine airflow issues), & how much was simply out of spite because they were still mad about McNamara trying to force the USN to use a reworked USAF design?
Click to expand...

More powerful TF30s still not addressing the compressor stalls might even make the problem worse, by augmenting the asymmetrical thrust and thus increasing the risk of flat spin. More Gooses...
 
Manuducati said:
More powerful TF30s still not addressing the compressor stalls might even make the problem worse, by augmenting the asymmetrical thrust and thus increasing the risk of flat spin. More Gooses...
Click to expand...
The USAF fixed that in later F-111s with inlet redesigns, so perhaps something could have been done for the TF30 in the F-14. And wasn't the P-412A variant supposed to help with those issues over the original P-412 variants?
 
green.nova343 said:
The USAF fixed that in later F-111s with inlet redesigns, so perhaps something could have been done for the TF30 in the F-14. And wasn't the P-412A variant supposed to help with those issues over the original P-412 variants?
Click to expand...
The F-111 had the benefit of being a somewhat cumbersome aircraft that won't be pulling the sort of maneuvers a F-14 could do so the redesigned inlets and improved TF30 variants fixed those problems. I don't think you could expect the same result on the F-14 because it was a true fighter and would be flown as such. So I think it made sense for the USN to push for completely new engines.

I just wonder why the Navy wasn't able to make a winning argument for those engines sooner. It seems to me like the F401 should have been considered crucial for the aircraft's future. And even with that having been cancelled the F-14 was tested with the F101 DFE (which became the F110) as early as 1981. But it took until early 1987 before they started series production of the F-14A+ and upgrades to that standard.

Other posters here like Archibald have brought up the possibility of an afterburning version of the Allison TF41 engine. I've read that the USAF had initially wanted their A-7D to have an engine with afterburner, but they evidently decided against this at some point. The Spey engines used by the F-4K and F-4M had afterburners but these late '60s era engines wouldn't have provided the level of performance the USN would have expected by the late '70s onwards so it would have to be a new variant.

In https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f-14-forced-on-the-usaf.38914/ there was a discussion about improved variations of the TF41 that Allison had worked on but by the time one was actually tested the problems with the F100 had been resolved and the F110 had already been selected for the Block 30 F-16C/D and F-14A+. Maybe if there was more interest an improved TF41 could have been ready sooner but maybe not. I don't know what sort of deal Allison had with Rolls-Royce regarding the TF41/Spey but I can understand why the DoD would be more favorable to P&W and GE turbofans. The use of the TF41 on the A-7D/E was really a case of an alternative engine being ready at the right time and right moment when the alternative options were all facing difficulties in one form or another. I don't think it had much of a chance for US service beyond that specific case. Perhaps the F-14A could have been designed initially to use a TF41 variant but the original plan was only for 70 or so aircraft to be built to this standard before the switch to the F401-powered F-14B. Since the F-14 had some of its basis in the extensive redesigns (Colossal Weight Improvement Program) that Grumman/General Dynamics were proposing for the F-111B the TF30 being the interim engine made sense.
 
The ridiculous idea I had was an afterburning straight-through Pegasus. ~28,000lbs in MIL, probably 42klbs in afterburner.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The ridiculous idea I had was an afterburning straight-through Pegasus. ~28,000lbs in MIL, probably 42klbs in afterburner.
Click to expand...
For the tomcat or the f-111? Either way, talking about a very big bird. I’m guessing it would make for an extremely impress zoom climb, though.
 
The case for the Missileer and F111B assumes the only role of a US carrier is to defend against strikes by Soviet bombers.
But as Korea and then Vietnam underscored a US carrier might have to go close to a hostile country with modern fighter aircraft.
In service F14s flew cover for the US exodus from S E Asia and then shot down Libyan and Iraqi aircraft.
 
MrTopaz said:
For the tomcat or the f-111? Either way, talking about a very big bird. I’m guessing it would make for an extremely impress zoom climb, though.
Click to expand...
Tomcat, though they'd fit in an F-111 with major inlet enlargements.

And if you think the engines on a Tomcat are big, wait till you see how much air those Pegasus engines need (~420lbs/sec, when F110s need ~280lb/sec!)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom