'Vark tummy.
It was never called that during its lifetime.
>>64935584Vark vark vark
>>64935584Don't care.
>>64935584I find that claim dubious because the use of the nickname "Spark-Vark" for the Raven is well documented.
>>64935590Brutal. Worse than Falaise.
>>64935600'111' (One eleven) was often times what it was called. Much in the same vein with the M113.
>>64935584This, and neither was the F-111A/D/E/F in USAF service>>64935600>sparksince the EF-111 variant didn't enter service until the latter 1980s the nickname "aardvark" didn't get any traction among crews in USAF until that era, and no publication or book until after 1985 used that name in reference to any variant of the F-111. (Supposedly ?? it came from Australia, or ? RAAF crews, referring to the C as that) As regards the specific EF-111A air and ground crews referring to it as that, the only source is Desert Storm you'd have to ask a vet if during the 1986-1989 timeframe they were calling it that.
>>64935606Correct, during both EF- and F-'s USAF service that is what all were referred to as.One-Elevenpic is a SAC FB-111A
>>64935584fuselage
DUMP AND BURNDUMP AND BURN
>>64935601I’m sorry.
>>64935775>BRRRRAPPPPPP
>>64935612>Supposedly ?? it came from Australia, or ? RAAF crews, referring to the C as thatAustralian crews either called it the "f one-eleven" much like >>64935606 and >>64935628 say or "the pig".Interestingly Australians never called the M113 an "m one-thirteen" in the same fashion, only ever "m one-one-three" or a "bucket" (later variant just "A-S-4").
>>64936168Sure, and it seems that "aardvark" being 'popularized' as a moniker may ? have then come from a few aviation journalists that began using it after the mid-1980s.The airplane was called One Eleven or F-111 (its name) by most crews for the bulk of its frontline cold war service.Any way you look at it, it's odd that posthumous-to-its-active-service the USAF chose to ceremoniously dub it 'Aardvark'. Some sort of 'everything has to have a name' mindset
>>64935573Hnnmmg
>>64935573Mandatory air intake posting
Viper, not Falcon
>>64936257Everything else did, and "aardvark" is pretty widely reported to have dated to the 60s. How extensive the use was idk, but there's no question it was in at least some use. As for "vark", sounds lame, idk.
>>64936292MOODDDDDDS
>>64936306>'pretty widely reported to have dated to the 60s'May we see the (any) evidence?
>>64935584Somebody stop me im varking out
>>64936292Lewd.
>>64935573>>64936291>>64936292BLUE BOARD BLUE BOARD BLUE BOARD
>>64936292They chose the F-15E over THIS????>hur dur the f-111 is too expensive to maintain>also we're going to give $2B/year to a tiny country in the middle east for no reason
>>64935606>a hundred and eleventy
We should bring back swing wings, not because they're practical, but because they're cool.
>>64942449as a cold war kid it was my favorite military combat aircraft
>>64942449They were very practical and cool.Having incredible range, while maintaining a higher speed obviously has many benefits.
>>64935590war crime )))
>>64935606>Much in the same vein with the M113.nobody calls the Gavin that
>>64943817Also being designed with TFR for nap of the earth topography flighthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSyDslyADv4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzmf0skrAkcand the escape capsulehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SS6aFtgd8U
>>64944512>escape capsuleColor corrected versionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7O5lL8gPw0
My dad was an F-111 maintainer and got a radar lock on the Phoenix lights with a 'vark radar from Luke. they apparently went from hovering to max trackable altitude in a split second before it lost lock. This info has never been made public.
>>64944512>>64943817>>64942449The B1 is the logical conclusion to this paradigm because bigger is better.
>>64935573open up
>>64946750>>64947029ok dude but these are off topic
>>64946778>logical conclusionB model isn't.B-1A is the original with doublesonic nacelle intakes.
is it even fast. doesn't look that fast.
Could the Vigilante have been turned into a fleet defense interceptor?It seems like that would have been easier than trying to make the F-111B work, both are fuck huge but the Vigilante would not have had to deal with all the trouble related to the swing wings & ejection pod. Was the Vigilante not more maneuverable?Just add the F-111B radar+Phoenixs and remove the BS for the anal bomb dropper.Also a navalized Delta Dart I think also would have worked better than the F-111B.
>>64947206>>64947206>>64947206
>>64947206Mach 2.5
>>64949598The only problem with the navalized delta dart is the extreme aoa needed to approach the carrier. The vigilante would have worked as fleet defense, but macnamera wanted to kill everything that wasn't the F-111 and would only accept the f-4 as a interim solution. Still, note that compared to the f14 it has a lot less useful load (7000 kg fuel + missiles vs 14 000 kg) a lot less thrust and thus a lot less climb rate, even though range, speed and combat ceiling are actually pretty close. North americans interceptor proposal added another engine.
proposedas a B-1 alternative (the Rockwell B-1 was a hugely controversial program in 1976-78 due to its cost)
>>64959339
>>64946778Realistically, what is stopping us from filling this with 30+ SM-6 for A2A missile spam?
>>64959362Nothing?
>>64946778Much as I hate to give vatniks credit for anything, some of their machines do look alright.
>>64959362Realistically? The lack of a target rich environment that would justify it, unless China does the funni.
>>64959392The ones they ripped off, sure. Their original shit always looks like a retarded kid making a clay ashtray at school for their mom.
>>64959785Funny you mention that, here's the original winner for the bomber program that resulted in the Tu-160. It's a Sukhoi design, but they were busy with the T-10 program at the time, so the VVS tell Tupolev to build it, and Tupolev instead builds their own entry for that program anyway.
>>64936257>Some sort of 'everything has to have a name' mindsetWestern forces do it both out of tradition and out of the fact it simply makes it way easier to keep track of everything in your head. It's the same reason that NATO reporting names exist, not just designations but actual names for foreign equipment likely to be encountered. It also helps remove ambiguity when dealing with similar designations between allies or variants.You're much more likely to mix up an F/A-18D, F/A-18F and EA-18G than you are a Hornet, a Super Hornet and a Growler. Or any of their less official nicknames.Unless of course you just meant specifically the idea they'd give it a name only after leaving service, in which case, I dunno, guess they could've felt it needed one.>>64936168>Interestingly Australians never called the M113 an "m one-thirteen" in the same fashion, only ever "m one-one-three" or a "bucket"I wonder why that is. I'm a neverserved from Australia and I've always just instinctively said it one-one-three, not one-thirteen.Funny how culture and language shifts wire people's brains just a little bit differently.
>>64937607Can people like you not even use a search engine for yourselves? This is even discussed in the Wikipedia article for the F111. For a piece of plane trivia, it's not even particularly obscure or esoteric.
>>64959392they look alright, but the payload...
>>64949598>>64954279The killer for both is endurance (both also by payload/hardpoint availability in combination with endurance). One of the key drivers for swing wings on the F14 was to have very high endurance on a fleet defence station. With similar stores weights for the Vigilante (4xGARs, 1xMB1, 2x230 gal tanks for the Delta Dart) and the required station distance the endurance time for the Vigilante or Delta Dagger is well less than an hour, and the F14 (admittedly I only looked at bingo and loiter tables for the B model) is about 2 hours, and that's before we expand the hardpoints of the others, expand their noses and cram an AWG-9 into them or factor in the drag from the stores (because their references don't do this for you the way the F14's does).Anyway, tldr at max efficiency on a fleet defence mission it looks to me like an A5 would be using around one and a half to two times as much fuel per unit time (roughly similar difference to get on station).
>>64949598>>64954279Pic related
>>64961252The F106 has 3 hours of endurance on internal fuel alone, and over 4 hours with the supersonic fuel tanks. 1 hour is estimated flight time for an intercept mission that includes a supersonic dash. Besides AoA/visibility concerns, the main limitation for the F106 would be payload; i don't see it carrying more than 2 or 3 phoenix missiles and still be light enough for carrier operations. As for the A-3J, it would need the extra power for a quick response.
>>64961482btw this was convair's initial proposal for a naval F106, before they started considering canards.
same idea
>>64959392>>64959785>>64960250Soviet designs are at their best when they say "there's nothing that can't be overcome by Soviet engineering blyat" instead of "we have western technology at home" and you get shit like the Caspian Sea Monster, the Su-47 and Korobov's menagerie of abominations - outdated, expensive, overly complex complicated and/or designed to address a problem that never existed but one glance at them tells you that they couldn't have been designed anywhere else.
>>64961495>>64961482The F106 endurance listed there isn't really applicable to the fleet defence mission. For starters, you need to use the B model so the pilot has someone to keep him company when the single engine fails and they have to wait in the ocean for a helicopter. With 4x GAR + 1xMB:On internal fuel (9425lb):3000lb used to get to station (200nm @35k ft)1500lb for combat allocation of 5-10 minutes at mil power1100lb for optimum return from 200nm @35k ft2000lb minimum for holding, landing, bolter, without flameouts= 1825lb, about 40 minutes on stationThe problem with fixing this using external tanks is that I don't think it can takeoff from a carrier with tanks unless it has a pretty strong strong headwind, and it would definitely need afterburners. The lift coefficient looks really bad and the takeoff speed so laden is 190 knots. The minimum control speed clean is 165 knots, 155 knots on landing. Idk what the rotation speed actually is though.. The catapult should get it to 100 knots, the engines would add 15 knots dry or 22kn on AB, but it would still launch at only 2/3 of its stall speed and it wouldn't become controllable at all for another 1.5-2 seconds at least.Without a headwind, it leaves the deck 65 feet from the ocean and accelerating towards it at 11 knots per second, giving it 2.7 seconds to not do that, and it can't alter its AOA for at least half that time. It needs to make up 68 knots of speed over those 2.7 seconds (25 per second), but it can only accelerate at 11 knots per second.So without doing any hard mafs, at the end of the 2.7 seconds it will only be accelerating towards the ocean at 6.84 kn/s. If it had started at that speed then it would only have taken 3.4 seconds to hit the water anyway, its downwards acceleration 3.4 seconds would still be 5.5kn/s, so I'm pretty comfortably in saying it's going to hit the water.With a 30kn headwind, it might be doable.
>>64964439In an interesting aside, the F106's engine is very, very inefficient at sea level compared to either of the F14's engines. I also never realised the F14's original engine was so much more efficient dry than the replacement until I calculated what a combat allowance might look like for them when doing this post. The F14 numbers here are also probably a little pessimistic (eg 12000pph is the absolute max permissible fuel flow during startup on the F14b, and during operation at sea level it's meant to be 9000-10500 per the check flight instructions, but the engine reference I checked listed 12203, so I just rolled with it).
Both the F-106 and A-5 engines were antiquated by the mid-1960s.
>>64964439>>64964462Yet somehow the navy pilots had no issue with the single seat f4d skyrays, a4 skyhawks, a7 corsairs and f8 crusaders, but i'll humor you.Allowing the 3000lbs for climb + 1100 lbs for return + 2000 lbs reserve. Assuming station is 35k feet, the j75 at full mil power consumes 5500 lbs/hour, so you need 458-916 lbs for 5-10 minutes, not 1500. To maintain altitude with an 31000 pounds F106, the j75 consumes about 2750 lb/hour, so depending on combat time, that's between 62 to 52 minutes on station. The twin tanks change this to 14079 lbs of gross fuel, 3300 lbs for climb + 1200 lbs return + 2000 lbs reserve + 916 lbs 10 min combat, leaving 6663 lbs for loiter. A 34000 lbs f106 with tanks needs about 3300 lbs/h to maintain station, so that's about your 2 hours on station. You specific fuel consumption at sea level is also completely off; the the most conservative quoted value is an installed staticsfc of 0,85 lbs/lbf.h, or 24.1 g/(kn.s), or 87 kg/(kNh) for dry thrust, and 2.15 lbs/lbf.h or 60,9 g/(kn.s) or 219.4 kg/(kNh) for afterburner.As for takeoff/landing speed, a 36500 lbs/empty full load B model with gear down and speed brakes opened has 155 knots stall speed, and 180 knot minimum sink rake speed. Adjusting for 42720 lbs full load, that's 168 knot stall speed and 195 minimum sink/takeoff. For a 122 knot AB takeoff, it needs 33 knots clean and 46 knots with tanks to not hit the water, so clean configuration might just barely make it on it's own (and with no safety margin), but tank configuration definitely needs a strong headwind. Addin external phoenix missiles into the mix does complicates things, even though the awg-9 is actually lighter and smaller than the ma-1.>>64964746mid 60's? They were near state of the art between the twin spool and the variable geometry compressors. The tf30, rm8b and F100 were really problematic engines early on, military turbofans only became practical with the introduction of FADEC in the early 80's.
>>64965002>military turbofans 'near state of the art' illiterate videogamestreamerairsoftLarpTard slop(You) Brainlet have zero idea or knowledge of what you're posting about. None
>>649650021000 is 10 minutes at 35k ft. 1500 is 5 minutes on the deck. Fights don't happen the way you want them to, especially when you're a plane armed with 4 AIM-4 Falcons that will never be fitted with a look-down shoot-down radar in your service career. The other figures, like this one in picrel, are also more or less directly from the same flight manual as in your last post, and the specific consumption is worked backwards from fuel flow figures in it.Anyway, we're quibbling, and I'm not an air guy at all. I think we both agree that the F106 could never have been the loitering heavy-missile fleet defence boat that, over the years, might have been the Missileer or the F111 and eventually became the F14, because it couldn't have taken off from a boat with the missiles in question and enough fuel to do the mission.
>>64965063Ease up turbo.
>>64960766>still Zero evidencechecked
>>64965111People like you, at the junction of demanding, petulant, rude, stupid and lazy, are extremely annoying. No one likes you and everyone, IRL and on the internet, loathes your presence and tries to avoid having contact with you. You bring no or negative value to practically every technical and social situation. The fact that you post "cope" memes is no surprise at all. It is, unironically, your only way of trying to cope with your own social and intellectual difficulties.Anyway, here. Let us all know how your research into this very widely reported thing that no one else thinks is worth much doubt goes.
>>64965068We are both using the same manual then, which has an example of a full patrol mission that shows that a f106 with tanks on a patrol mission 300 nautical miles away from airfield has a loiter time of 1h 45 minutes before needing to return or refuel, so which seems pretty close to 200 nautical miles/2 hours loiter.I do not find your full flow figures anywhere though. Were you multiplying the 1500 lbs/5 minutes from the military thrust chart? It's the only way i can reach 18000 lbs/h, but that value a) has a clear safety margin compared to the 14800 on the sea level chart (which would change the value to 93 kg/(kNh))b) is given for a plane flying at mach 0,95, and at that speed ram air pressure increases the thrust considerably compared to the plane while it's standing still, the 72kn thrust does not apply...c)As an example, afterburner fuel consumption at sea level ranges from 5500 lbs/h at mach 0.9 to 7500 lbs/h at mach 1.2.And yes the main constraint of the 106 was the takeoff/stall/landing speeds, so at least it would have needed more wing area, canards or something to that effect. Fights not happening the way you want them to is the reason why the f-14a with tf-30 was so disappointing, looks good on paper but with a full load military thrust was so anemic that they were using more afterburner and thus getting much shorter ranges than expected, leaving aside the compressor stall issues - which is why in real world conditions the extra military thrust of the f110 more than made up for the slight loss of efficiency in terms of range and loiter time.Honestly I think the F-111B might have the same problem, it would have a bigger payload/range margin than the F-14 but the lower thrust to weight means more afterburner usage to keep up with other planes.
>>64965197from 55000 lbs/h to 75000lbs/h
>>64965154>Wikipedia>""""""""""___V_E_R_Y___ widely reported"""""""""">"instructor pilot">"""""might remind one"""""">""""""has been attributed to""""">[86] Thornborough, Anthony M. (1989). 'F-111 Aardvark. London, UK: Arms and Armour Press. ISBN 0-85368-935-0(unlike (You)) I own a copy of ^this book, which is a photographic journal in the 'Warbirds Fotofax' series, written text of the thin 50-pg book is minimal and consists mostly of captions for pictures. Published in 1989 ****---NINETEEN EIGHTY-NINE---****, the "reference' [86] in the Wikipedia entry is absolutely meaningless and irrelevant.There is **********ZERO********** reference to or naming of the General Dynamics F-111 airplane by anyone in the military services (USAF, RAAF) During The Time that the airplane was purchased by or in active flight operations with. *NOBODY* used that name, not flight crews commanders or pilots to refer to the F-111 airplane during its 1970s and 1980s front line active service.ZERO published history exists of that name being used in journalism, news reports, or books until 1982 (title of the Bert Kinzey Detail & Scale series 72-pg book<--in which the dictionary entry from International Wildlife Encyclopedia is referred to on pgs. 62-63 **BECAUSE THAT IS A 'Pilot's Report' from Capt. Jim Miklasevich**, he uses it as a zoological metaphor to describe the airplane's physical appearance **nowhere in which does he say**: 'That is our commonly-used nickname for the plane' <--or anything resembling such, nor is that word 'aardvark' used anywhere in the 1982 book except on its front cover + pp. 62-63)(You) fucking goddamned Brainlet tranny airsoftvideogamestreamLarpTard faggot incel basement dwelling neet dickless 35-IQ twat.
>>64965417may we see it?
>>64965611checked, Yes may we see all of the F-111 air and ground crews 1970s-1980s that named the airplane 'aardvark' instead of using it as a zoological literary metaphor in a geek hobbyist's publication that sold less than 20,000 copies and no one knows aboutPlease let us see them.
>>64965417I bet you fucking love it when the F-16 gets called the Viper too
>>64965675difference is that the F-16 was given a name moniker on entry into operational serviceF-111 was not(dgaf what people call the F-16, A-10)
>be so fast you deliver a heart to a patient in need before it expired>destroys more tanks than your competitorWhy did the Dogshit10 replace it?
