@@raafdocumentaries Then why not remove this one? I've just spent 10 minutes watching this only to scroll down and be told it has errors and to watch the updated version.
@@Shaun.Stephens Image errors might make a difference, but frankly I'm not spending another 10 minutes watching a revamped video just for the subtitles to change "floor" to "flaw".
In the early 1980's I was working on the development of a 65 kilometre pipeline project between Gladstone's Awoonga dam and the Callide dam in Central Queensland. The RAAF was tasked or commissioned to do photogrammetric flyovers. Will never forget standing on a hilltop one morning, turning around to see an F111 coming at me from below. Thought I was a goner. They were on the terrain radar and basically jumped up and then down the other side of the hill. Awesome example of how stealthy these beasties were. I still have scrape marks on my forehead😂
I began my MILITARY career with RAF Bomber Command in the 1960s The RAF AVRO VULCAN ALSO used terrain following Radar so it could fly low. After serving 30 years of MILITARY service - mostly in AU and 2 years on exchange to the USAF - I am now happily retired --- I surrendered my pilot's license in 2012 as a result of failing eyesight. It took a while to get over it - since I learned to fly at age 13 - lessons paid for by an aunt who served with the RAF towards the end of WW II. Her - like my mother is/was Russian and was born in Ukraine
I attended high school in Penang, Malaysia. We routinely saw Royal Malaysian Air Force Hornets and MiG 29s, as well as Hercules and Sea Kings. The most exciting, by far, were RAAF F-111s flying out of Butterworth. They flew low and fast, and were a real treat to see.
My friend Wayne who was in the air league with a guy called Bill Pike who did RAAF service told me about Bill & Mark Fallon & Tenterfield who both perished in anF111 back in the mid 1980s ! May they both rest in peace!!!
I noticed that. Kept shifting back and forth between a standard North American accent to what sounded to me more like a subtle British accent, but then I have trouble telling the difference between some Aussie accents and some British ones, especially when there's only a hint of them coming through. Makes me wonder if either the narrator was suppressing his natural accent, or if it's an AI. Edit: It's an AI. The video creator confirms it in a reply to another post.
Thanks so much for this. The random accent movements between generic Australlian, generic North American, and generic Southern English was super distracting....
1:01 that is one bizarre mid-word accent flip from Australian to US American right there. Is this a computer-generated narration and somehow the settings changed?
@@HarryVoyager Indeed. The Tomcat was an F-111 without the flaws of the F-111 for fighter / interceptor work. Deleting the bomb bay, and going with twin tails did a lot.
@@DBravo29er I mean, it was intended to be powered by the F401. The TF-30 was only to get it flying while they finished the real engine. It seemed like a good plan at the time...
one point missed is one of the losses was believed to be caused by improper tool handling and not a flaw in the manufacturing process. The cause of one of the cracked D6AC pivots was believed to be due to a tool dropped on it causing a microscopic dent that grew into a crack. Also, two of the Vietnam losses were cause by the failure of the rear stabilisers control valve, causing a violent pitch-up maneuver followed by an uncontrolled roll. The faulty valves were replaced by a different valve in every model and the fault never occurred again
These types of steel have special handling requirements to begin with. A similar steel used in oil pipe manufacturing cracked simply because it was left too close to the door overnight, in a shop, during a cold spring. Therefore, I say it should still be considered a manufacturing error.
@@SerbanOprescu That is a lame excuse for steel, its more likely manufacturing errors, out of tolerance dimensions, bad tolerances., and bad deburring or radiuses.
@@joefish6091 How can you say it's a lame excuse for steel?! Clearly you know nothing of special steels. I've met steels which need turning in stages, with pauses, simply because they hardened due to compression (not heat). That one I've mentioned was also special steel - and I've personally encountered two such cases They are simply brittle, and in use it doesn't matter because they don't receive shocks. In manufacturing/processing, it does.
. Wise designers design for the established reality of aircraft overhauls and maintenance, because they know nearly all combat aircraft are disassembled multiple times over their service life. Maintenance, repair, inspection etc often require component removal and not every design is maintainer-friendly nor is every supplied component handling fixture ideal. Many parts will be cannibalized from one jet to another over their lives to generate as many combat sorties as practical. One Viet Nam war era repair program got around buying new aircraft by rebuilding severely damaged birds which would have been written off after discarding major components. (One of the 'Vark maintainers ITT may remember it.) F-111s were not nearly as inexpensive as Phantoms so creativity was called for.
It's the same issue that got Boeing.. As they used a Fork Lift to replace the Engines. As it was faster. Only to stress fracture the engine mounting holes when installing them. The engine flew off on takeoff killing everybody. When they seen what caused it. They found several other aircraft with the same stress fracture.
Qld Air Museum has a couple of interesting interviews with survivors of F-111 ejections on their podcast. They received spinal injuries from the initial rocket blast of the pod escaping the aircraft and then the speed at which it hit the water under parachute.
Not a surprise. Most pilots who've had to "Bang-Out" end up physically shorter from the process. The odd compressed/ruptured disc in the spinal column is preferred over riding the plane in to the accident site. Sure, you might live a life with near constant back pain, but at least you have a life to live...
I was at the inaugural Australia 500cc Grand Prix at Phillip Island. The flyover of an F111 and a FA18 will always be remembered, not so much the F18, but the F111 will always have a special place in my memory. I grew up in the 70's and remember the drama's about the aircraft but I would never want to be on the receiving end of one. I still think it's the most amazing aircraft the RAAF has had.
I well remember the RAAF F-111s. During a joint exercise with Australia during the '70s when I was in the US Navy, my ship was watching Aussie F-111s (the adversaries) on our SCANFAR radar system at over 300 miles away and these had our complete attention. What we missed was four Aussie F-4s coming at us, at wave-top height and at 500 knots, coming undetected from the opposite direction to "kill" us. The were finally seen by a top-side enlisted man lookout aft using his Mark I, Mod 0 eyeballs just before loudly buzzing the ship. Quite a sight to see!
@@basilpunton5702 RAAF operated 24 F-4E Phantom II fighter-bomber aircraft in the ground attack role between 1970 and 1973. The F111C was inducted into RAAF service in 1973 and retired in 2010 rather than 2020 as originally planned.
My sister, who was stationed at Nellis AFB when the A models were there, said that there were so many problems with them, that the aircrews went on "strike" several times; every single one of them would show up "sick" at the Flight Surgeon's office. One major problem? The engines would flame out at the first hint of a rain cloud; also, like the F-14 A Tomcats, they were very prone to compressor stalls. The USAF finally swapped them with the recon RF-4C's at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho - just before I got stationed there. One of the more unpleasant parts of my career field was Aircraft Crash Survey/Recovery. Sadly, those A model's kept me much busier making crash site maps, and picking up stuff - both metallic and organic - than I would have liked... The Air Force finally wised up; shipped all the remaining A's to Grumman, who took them totally apart; threw about half of them away; and turned them - at the cost of $27 million apiece (in 1976 dollars) - into EF-111 Ravens. In which guise, they performed a whole lot better - and much safer. The rest of the time I was stationed there? Never once had to pick through the remains of a Raven....
I was at Mt. Home from 81-82, right at the beginning of the EF program. You undersell the A model. After the initial problems were sorted out, the aircraft performed admirably in SEA. Suffered the least losses of any combat aircraft and dropped more bombs on target. The converted A's into EF's retained the original mechanical parts, WCTB, engines, cockpit, etc. After the war in Vietnam was over, the AF basically relegated the "A" to training only.
They didn't send "all the remaining A models to Grumman...." I was at MHAFB in 1981, and there would ultimately be 42 EF-111As at two bases (MHAFB and Upper Hayford), and enough A models remaining at MHAFB to fill out 3 other units within 366 TFW--Green, Blue, and Yellow sections. I don't recall their numbers, but between 20-30ish each. That being said, I only recall 2 A model crashes, neither related to the wing issue.
Does anyone else notice that the narrator's accent gradually goes from Australian to American? Duh fuh? Also, it always rubs me the wrong way when a doc about a fighter jet never mentions its nickname.
I was in the army a bit back and F 11-C's would buz us some times, we would look up when we heard them and would not see them, 'cause they had been going away by then. HOWEVER, the F11 - C is better specked up than MOST aircraft of even today when you check them out AND as to the vibration of the wings during (mostly) transition in flight, NASA could not fix this BUT Newcaslte University (Australia) did solve it and I met the Professor who was in charge of this.
Me too! I was just reminiscing about it, it has the detachable front nose, the Cockpit could separate too. I loved, it, I think it was the Revell 1:72 kit
Back in the early 2000's, when I worked on copiers, I was driving down Broadway in Louisville, and between the builds, I was looking straight on at the cockpit of this ginormous swing wing aircraft flying over the river. It was sporting the old Vietnam era camouflage, like a refugee from the 1970's, so it wasn't something I expected to see. I immediately thought of the MiG 23 and several Sukhoi designs and then I realized that the USAF still hadn't retired the F-111. That Saturday, we had the annual pre-Derby airshow and fireworks display. Only rich people pay attention to the horse race.
I was working at Amberley when F-111 A8-143 lost a main wheel on take off. The wheel rolled for a considerable distance and came to rest after striking a car in the car park which coincidentally was parked mere meters from my own car. Not sure the insurance would've covered that one. Also remember growing up in north east victoria when F-111's would routinely fly past at very low level no doubt on TFR exercises.
@@andrewroutley it was after my time but I heard from a mate who was still serving at the time that a pin sheared, it wasnt maintenance error, just fatigue
I was stationed at cannon afb nm with the F111D in crash recovery and aero repair The ejection pod never worked well at low altitude especially if the aircraft wasnt upright during ejection .There were 2 crashes in the early 80s when I was there and both crews died on impact.
I can hardly begin to describe the powerful negative emotions I felt when I realised I'd been listening to a computer-synthesized voice so perfect that it was only given away by a smooth transition from Australian to American accent.
I thought it kept wanderig between the two. The "a"s and the rising sentence intonation were very Australian, but there was also the full American "r" on display throughout (Australian is a very non-rhotic accent, even more than English ones). A really weird and unnatural sound, at least to these Aussie ears.
The F-111 after its teething problems with the WCTB became the finest strike aircraft in the world and remained so for 37 years. For all the TSR2 lovers out there, I understand the emotion - I have been fascinated with TSR2 for years and travelled halfway around the world to see the two beautiful examples at Duxford and Cosford (so much for the government conspiracy to destroy all traces of them...) but the facts are Britain could not afford it, there was no export market and it was inferior in every measurable way to the smaller but longer legged and faster F-111. I recommend Damien Burke''s exhaustive coverage in his definitive book 'TSR2-Brtiain's Lost Bomber.' For reference- here are comparative stats Performance F-111C Maximum speed: 1,434 kn (1,650 mph, 2,656 km/h) Maximum speed: Mach 2.5 (M 1.23 at sea level) Combat range: 1,160 nmi (1,330 mi, 2,150 km) Ferry range: 3,700 nmi (4,300 mi, 6,900 km) Service ceiling: 66,000 ft (20,000 m) Rate of climb: 25,890 ft/min (131.5 m/s) Lift-to-drag: 15.8 Wing loading: 126 lb/sq ft (620 kg/m2) wings spread 158 lb/sq ft (771.4 kg/m2) wings swept Thrust/weight: 0.61 Armament Guns: 1× M61 Vulcan 20 mm (0.787 in) Gatling cannon with 2,050 rounds (seldom fitted) Hardpoints: 9 in total (8× under-wing, 1× underfuselage between engines) with a capacity of 31,500 lb (14,288 kg) ordnance mounted externally on hardpoints and internally in fuselage weapons bay Performance TSR2 (projected) Maximum speed: Mach 2.15 at 40,000 ft (12,192 m) (this was later reduced to M 1.5) M1.1 at sea level Ferry Range: 2,500 nmi (2,900 mi, 4,600 km) Combat range: 750 nmi (860 mi, 1,390 km) Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,000 m) Rate of climb: 15,000 ft/min (76 m/s) Thrust/weight: 0.59 Armament: Total weapons load of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg); 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) internal and 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) external
Unlike aerodynamics problems tracing to the design F-104 had, these failures were caused by manufacturing. Then again, designers should not overestimate the capabilities of manufacturing process...
The narration of this was spooky. Part American, Part Australian, never quite each. Part way through it would lapse into full American and then switch back again. Was this an AI voiceover? If so, it needs some developer feedback....
at 8:17 the picture is of the Mercury 7 astronauts Scott Carpenter (R), Gordon Cooper and Alan Shepard (centre) looking at the construction of their Mercury spacecraft, nothing to do with the F-111 !
McNamara's Folly. ""Pull the wings off, paint it yellow and install benches in the bomb bays;" at least that way it could serve some purpose as a high speed taxi." John Boyd
@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 The F-111 was originally to have been a fleet air defense fighter. I think Colonel Boyd was correct, there's no way it could have fulfilled it's original design brief. Trying to force one aircraft into multiple roles and services always seems to result in mediocre aircraft. Asking a dump truck to be a sports car is stupid. As a fast dump truck the F-111 was ok, as a sports car it was a total failure.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus The fleet defense fighter aspect was always an afterthought, that's why it was never able to fulfil the role. The F-111B was essentially a bomber awkwardly forced into the CAP role. To be fair, the Navy didn't have the Tomcat in mind as the goal, they basically wanted a fast Missileer. The F-111B fulfilled that role, it just wasn't a viable role in the first place. As you say, the F-111B was never going to be a sports car and eventually the Navy realized they needed a sports car.
My father worked at McClellan AFB back then, and that base was assigned the job of completely remanufacturing that aircraft. They put together one if not the largest machine shops, fabrication, and testing facilities in the USAF. My Dad was in charge of all of the radar and recon equipment installed on that aircraft and the "Wild Weasel" craft. During open house days, I would tour that place and it was indeed impressive. They even had a specially built hanger that had equipment that could do a comprehensive structural analysis of a craft. It also was a one-of-a-kind. He ran a special team of expeditors who had their own building. If you need a component yesterday, he was the one that you called.
Actually, McClellan was the depot for the F-111. When a plane needed major repairs, it was sent there. All F-111's went to McClellan at one time or other. They actually didn't "completely remanufacture" the airplane
@@dukeford I too saw it. I was there for the ARC-190 HF radio TCTO proofing. I was TDY from Pease AFB. It was right behind the revetments the F-111's were in for TCTO's.
Awesome video, just one question: the narrator, what the hell is up with the accent? American, Canadian, Australian, English, I heard parts of all of them. I am so confuzzled.
There is one F111C at the William Town Air Museum near Newcastle NSW. I had the pleasure of seeing it up close and was surprised at just how big it was.
I heard that each state that had Air Force museum, got one, and then the remainder had to be "terminated", and were subsequently interred in an undisclosed site, in an undisclosed state, in an undisclosed part of a very disclosed Australia. Actually got to see the "parts" of the one, lost in the Hauraki Gulf, when they brought them to "Hobby" for the initial investigation.
I lived in Bullsbrook (RAAF Pearce) on the final approach path, during the 70's. My father was in the RAAF. The F-111 was always the plane we wanted to see, especially fast at low-level. Also we had Aermacchi MB-326, Mirage 3, F4, Skyhawk, Caribou, Bell Iroquois UH1, Neptune, Hercules, Chinook.
I was stationed at a US Air Force base that had FB-111's when I enlisted in the military in the early 80's. That base has been closed for a very long time now but the F111/FB-111 is still one of my favorite aircrafts. In the early 80's we were told that no other plane could fly as fast as the F-111 in proximity to its low ground flying ability. I don't know how accurate that was/is at the time but it was something the aircraft mechanics, pilots, etc. seemed very proud of. The F-111 is an iconic aircraft.
I was trained on them, but never operated on them. It was a fascinating aircraft; born out of the intersection of several new technologies that came together at just the right time. Later on, much of this would become "standard equipment", but the F-111 (and FB variants) was one of GD's better innovative designs - perhaps eclipsed only by the astonishing F-16. It is kind of unfortunate they got absorbed into the increasingly large "Borg-type" mass of contractor conglomerates. I firmly believe competition breeds innovation, and reducing competition to a bare handful of contractors (all with deep pockets to "donate" to multiple Congress members) harms our defense capability significantly.
Crazy isn't it as a former military brat I always wanted to go see the military hospital I was born in Asia hopefully someday miss seeing F-14s buzz by
Without ignoring the fact that the F111 eventually proved a success, it would be interesting to examine the thinking of politicians in the UK who scrapped (literally) the TSR2, and planned to replace it with the F111. But being politicians we will likely never really find out. Yes, it involved financial considerations but the technical reasoning?
The F-111 was also design to meet GOR 339. The F-111 was always the more capable aircraft with almost double the range. The British economy was a basket case in the 1960s after a dozen years of economic mismanagement by the Conservative Party whose policies encouraged overmanning to keep the unemployment figures down. Couple this to a failure of business owners yo invest in new techniques and machinery and union intransigence by failing to allow modernised methods of working made that productivity levels in the UK were falling. In 1964, just after the Labour Party became the government trade deficit figures were announced that were double what had been expected at £800 million. The foreign currency traders saw this and the business as usual budget of the new government as worrying and so started to sell off their Sterling investments (Sterling and the US$ were the 2 international trading currencies at the time). The government tried to prop up Sterling and over the next 3 years there were repeated runs on Sterling which resulted in the UK spending all its foreign currency reserves, almost all of its bullion reserves and the taking out of loans from the other major central banks and the IMF. These loans came with no strings attached beyond getting our economy in order. The TSR-2 was one of several military projects that ended up being scrapped during this period, but we had cancelled around a dozen military programmes between the mid-1960s and the end of the 1960s. The financial crises also led to the closure of many parts of the UK rail network. The fact that the TSR-2 was intended for East of Suez operations and we were slowly getting rid of these didn't help this aircraft's case for retention. There were technical difficulties to overcome with the airframe and systems that time and money overcame, well for the systems they did.
It isnt really a mystery. The project was behind schedule, overbudget and plagued with issues which were a LONG way from being resolved. i think it had only flown a couple of times and it had no real development of actual capabilities. It was all in theory. There is a lot of people that blame the USA for offering the f111 and the TSR would have been far superior etc etc... there's no real evidence to believe that would be true. Its easy to say it would have been amazing but up to the time it was cancelled it didnt do anything spectacular and was costing a bomb. The f111 remains the fastest jet down low and performed brilliantly in vietnam, el dorado canyon, desert storm and kept the russians scared enough to insist it was included in arms talks.
@@slickstrings That is the conventional wisdom - I was brought up with that. But a recent doc about TSR2, involving the people concerned with it, including the one of the pilots, paints a different picture. (It is on youtube). It was definitely ahead of the F111 when it was cancelled, and there is the curious point that all materials, even the prototypes themselves, were destroyed - not even retained for future development or usefulness to other projects. All the politicians interviewed claimed they did not order that - but someone did. And permission was refused to be allowed to let the workforce know about the cancellation before they heard it on the news - curious. The reasons the politicians offered ("no one in the RAF wanted it") do not stand up to scrutiny. Problems were being hammered out and people involved were quite optimistic about its future - the main worry being the politicians. The recently installed Labour government had promised, before the election, not to cancel it, but that´s what they did. It was the politicians who pushed the "rearranging" of the British Aero companies and their oversight of the project was inefficient, time-wasting, and resulted in much higher costs. (Check out how the committees worked, and the allocation of the work). Yes, postwar Britain did need to tighten its belt but for politicians that normally means, "Okay, we´ll cut that out, and don´t bother me with the consequences" - just like every reduction in the Armed Forces is an "improvement". The F111 had many, some very serious , problems with its initial development, but they were eventually hammered out, as with the development of many aircraft. The TSR2, at the time of cancellation, was the leader in its field, (though it could have been overtaken in the future), but "We can´t afford it!" was the political decision. There are loads of similar examples, in many countries. Although the TSR2 never saw action I believe a quote from "Duke" Cunningham (apologies for a probable mistake with the spelling) one of the notable pilots in the Vietnam War, I believe one of his dogfights was long used as teaching material, but he did say "Stupid people start wars, and stupid people run wars, rarely do they talk to the people doing the fighting". He was referring to the jets being armed only with (often unreliable) missiles at the beginning of the war. ( A mistake being made in other countries too). The Aussies had placed an order for the TSR2, but then someone talked them out of it, and they agreed to take the F111, only to put that on hold for several years, until the problems were ironed out. The TSR2 - "We have cancelled it because it´s no good, costing too much, and we can get a better aircraft elsewhere". "Psst, is it really no good". "I have no idea, but the decision has been made". The usual story.
The Aus Navy were very wize in avoiding this aircraft. I knew there were problems with the Jesus pins the wings used but I didn't know how many people were killed in the development
@@lanceduke3522 You were nuts. lol. Having flown a simulated Skyhawk in Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) from a simulated Melbourne gives me a much greater appreciation for your comment. My own conclusion is that the Melbourne was just too small. The FN's Clemenceau was a much more reasonable size. An F-111 operating from Melbourne? Absolutely no way. lol
I think the Dassault Mirage had an equal impact on Australia for its superlative design and high performance and lot of controversy with the F-111 put the Mirage out of the picture. Certainly there has never been a better looking jet fighter in my opinion.
I remember talking to 2 commercial pilots and an RAAF pilot in Darwin in the 1970's. They all held the same opinion about the Mirage. Basically it was if you put a big enough engine on something you can even make a brick fly.
@@anthonyxuereb792 Yes, the mirage was over engined to achieve flight capability. it was a flying brick and a big projectile with wings and flight surfaces to make it work.
@@anthonyxuereb792 Well, it wasn't my idea. These were pilots talking about the mirage. They were so concerned about the fuel consumption and cost of running the Mirage.
I worked on those in the U.S.A.F. and in lees than a year at 1 base they lost 7. 4 on the trim pad loaded with 4 500 lbs. bombs each, 1 crashed landed without main landing gear, 1 crashed landed without the nose gear, and 1 started cartwheel right after taking off causing the base commander and WSO to eject. When their capsule hit the ground they both suffered back injurys
I worked on the electronic warfare models as their time in the USAF was coming to an end. The RAAF avionics specialists should be supremely happy that they never had to deal with translating cowls as part of the air inlet systems. That was a true nightmare of a system.
I can tell you as an ex RAAF maintainer that worked on our F-111Cs that they did indeed have the translating cowls, it was the RAAF Gs that did not have translating cowls, they had the triple plow set up
@@andrewb5957 The translating cowls had nothing to do with avionics, other than the fact that they were on the early models (A's and C's), and the early models had rather primitive (by today's standards) avionics.
Does anyone wonder, as I do, if the people who pay for the advertising on these videos ever actually pay attention to where their advertising dollar is aimed. I mean, why when I watch military, automotive or historical videos, am I subject to multiple adds for women's make-up and hair care products, and household cleaning products. I'm sure there are women who watch these videos but I'd doubt they comprise more than 10% of the viewing audience. Or am I completely off base?
I was stationed at Nellis AFB in 1969/70 when these were still being tested. An awesome plane with many problems to be worked out. The avionics alone pushed the limits for the time. It was a first in so many ways. I'm glad they finally achieved success.
I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford (20th TFW) from 1971-75. I roomed with a couple of flight simulator jockeys who cited avionics as one of the problems with this aircraft. I was flying from Toronto to Chicago on April 14, 1986 when I learned that Muammar Gaddafi (in Libya) was bombed by F-111's that flew out of RAF Upper Heyford. France and Spain did not want the F-111's lying over them so they had to approach Libya by flying southwest over the Atlantic Ocean.
I'm guessing you were with 474th TFW. When I graduated high school in 1975, I enlisted in the USAF and was trained as a 32630A. In July, 1976, I was assigned to the 474th AMS. I got my 5 level quickly and watched as the last of the 474th's F-111As lit the burners, trundled down the Nellis runway, and turned northward to Mountain Home. In August, 1977, I left Nellis AFB for Travis AFB, California. When I saw the title of this video, I thought the producers left off an "s" on the word "flaw". One of the things I learned was that the Aardvark was a maintenance hog, soaking up people and money for two primary systems: the wing pivots, and the TF-30 engines. Did I mention that I learned to HATE the TF-30s? I should probably mention that.
@@johndemeritt3460 I trained briefly on an F-111 at Chanute. The aircraft we had there had cracks in the pivot assembly and was decommisioned as soon as it landed. It was practically a new aircraft. All the classified electronics were removed before we students were able to train on it. None of us liked that aircraft, so our training moved to the F-4D and B-52B and D models.
They took these to the US and took on the bestgear the yanks had in the annual head to head bombing comps and absolutely smashed the yanks long after the yanks stopped using the F111
They were skint as usual That said ordering the plane scrapped not preserved was *sabbotage* Politicians - Great for ballast, poor decisions and trough clearing.
Unfortunately you have bought into a myth. The F-111 surpassed the TSR2 in every performance criteria. Though smaller, it was faster, had a much larger payload which it could carry further. There is no meaningful area where TSR2 matched the F-1111. I recommend reading Damien Burke's excellent and definitive book on the TSR2. It will debunk all of the emotional nonsense that has sprung up over the years.
@@Completeaerogeek TSR-2 was certainly not perfect and you are right, it has become mythical. However, comparing it in the way you have to the F-111 is also flawed. You are comparing a single prototype that only flew 24 test flights to an aircraft that took 7 years from the first flight to become fully operational with thousands of hours of testing and trials - and the major wing root flaw wasn't solved for another 2 years after that. By the time it got to the F variant, it had engines with 35% more thrust than the A. What might the TSR-2 might have evolved into, 10 years after its first flight? And yes I have Burke's book and it is excellent!
@@FinsburyPhil Hi Phil, unfortunately we don't have any data regarding how the TSR2 might have turned out, so I'm not sure how that is unfair, but if you have read Burke's book, you would know it was not on a good trajectory. It was getting heavier, had its maximum speed reduced to M 1.5, the Olympus 22R had 'Bell mode' issues (it should never have taken to the air until these were solved,. Beamont really was risking his life.) and with its small highly loaded wing it would never be able to carry the load the F-111 could, did not have the range or speed of the F-111 and the requirement to take off from marginal quality runways was never met, where the F-111s high flotation landing gear and large tyres mean it was capable of this. (XR-219 in fact suffered severe undercarriage oscillations during test flights.) Not sure where you got 7 years for the F-111's development - It first flew in 1964 and was flying combat mission over Vietnam in 1968. Some problems with faulty subcontractor manufacturing of the stabilator caused a couple of losses but by the time it left in 72, it had the lowest loss rate of any aircraft in theatre while carrying out the most hazardous missions at night and in bad weather, Our F-111Cs (basically an A with the FB-111 wing and undercarriage) did not have WCTB failures and were not modified but we Cold Proof Load Tested them for their entire life with no failures.. They stayed in precautionary storage from 68-73 when they were flown home and made operational. We later upgraded them with all digital avionics, Pave Tack (and PGMs, Harpoon, Sidewinder) a digital flight control system, upgraded radar/ECM/RHWR and new engines (P-108) For 37 years, they were the most potent low level strike aircraft in the world and let us punch way above our weight in the SEA region
I was stationed at Cannon 70-73 when the D models first arrived. There were lots of growing pains with the new planes both for us crew chiefs as well as the boxes in the nose.
The fatal flaw was the pivot point on the wings. The wing fell off of at least one aircraft. The video would have been great if they didn't tease about the flaw and wait to tell us. The video took on a tabloid quality because it buried the lead so deep.
@@raafdocumentaries That is *one* way to tell a story, but there are both better and worse methods. If I hadn't had this video recommended by another aviation enthusiast, I'd skipped it as there's too much click-bait on this platform to shift through and see what actually delivers.
@@BPo75 Actually we never constructed this as click bait. We just told the story. I totally disagree with the first comment that this is tabloid quality - that's not at all what we are doing here. So just out of interest, what exactly are we doing that you think is click bait and prompts you to move away from our channel/content?
The aliens probably think we're F-111s. 😂 The golden rule of engineering is, make it twice as strong, because you just can't know everything. 😢 This all follows common sense solutions though. Steel comes to mind, and steel they used - a weighty decision.
This video needs editing to acknowledge the other fatal flaw of the F111 the fuel tank leaks that cause deaths of many maintainers from the F111 Deseal Reseal Programs.
As Chief of Propulsion Systems (RAF senior engineering officer seconded to HQ ACC LGMP) within a few weeks of my arrival at Langley AFB I was asked to lead an Integrated Process Team (IPT) to resolve (get well program) the F111 TF30-P111 afterburner failures at a time when the aircraft of 48th Wing at Lakenheath was relocating to 27th Fighter Wing Cannon AFB and many ABs were missing from the inventory. The F111F fleet had a dramatically reduced operational capbility with so many "holes in aircraft" (engines out). The ACC supercruise operations was seriously reduced not just by the TF30-P111 problems but the only other supercruise aircraft the B-1B having major engine (F101-GE-102) issues with fan blade failures. The F111F "Get well program" had a potentially swifter recovery program from my mechanical engineering perspective and recommendations as the AB was a basic 2-position iris eyelid "slamming" mechanical linkage, which OC-ALC LPA management, F111F SPO, Bristols of Canada (R-R Canada), Pratt& Whitney (United Technologies, and of course ACC executives LG 2-Star and 4-Star Commander agreed with. The TF30 -P111 engine had effectively been designed on-wing starting from a mere 20 hours MOT and had reached 2,200 hours MOT. The F111F Get Well program to reach an effective ACC super-cruise operational role took just under 12 months when the 27th FW reported that it was achieving this with an increasing number of QTR engines. While the B-1B F101-102 engines problems continued limiting its operational role for another 2 years. We managed to extend the operational life of the F111F by 2 years saving it from the boneyard at 2 successive ACC annual POMs.
Wing-box failure for swept wing aircraft is not isolated to F-111 - Tornado suffered a similar fatigue issue - on the only major structural component of Tornado manufactured in Germany. Ironic huh?
@@rearspeaker6364 because they didn't get the right orders at the right time. Realistically, the whole TSR2 project requirement drafting & revision was a complete F-up. In fact the same can be said re: F111 being supposedly a dual-role, for both USN & USAAF but USN fell away. Ultimately USA had much bigger pockets to bail out the whole F-up thing. Maybe it became "too big to fail", no matter how many pilots were "for the high jump" early on 😞
I love how the two commentators have such similar timbres to their voices, but hugely distinct accents. Great story though, first time I've seen your content. Subscribed!
Had lunch with one of the original crew who went over to bring the F-111 back to Australia, This didn't happen straight away because of the problems with the plane, but he did get to do a stint at Top Gun when he was there before the planes were brought back. One of the few qualified to sit in both seats.
That's funny because here in the USA the F-111 is remembered as a product that was over-budget, over-promised, and under-performing. It was supposed to be a fighter, an interceptor, a strike bomber, a nuclear bomber, a reconnaissance aircraft, and an electronic warfare aircraft. Ultimately the F-111 saw service in limited numbers as a supplementary aircraft, and while the F-111 no longer is in service with any country, both of it's foreign competitors the Tornado and SU-24 are still in service. "Maximum Commonality" was a very stupid idea that was reversed as soon as McNamara was ousted as SecDef, it was intended to save money but ended up wasting huge piles of it trying to make a jack of all trades aircraft.
At an RAAF Pearce airshow in the late nineties, they had a couple of F18's start their take off runs with a single F111 either in front or behind them (my vision was blocked). The F18's were still on the ground when they came into view from behind the control tower. Then only seconds later the F111 flew over the top of the control tower straight at the crowd. Very impressive. My first RAAF airshow was in 1971 when the RAAF had Mirages and Phantoms. One party trick back then was for a Caribou to take off behind one of the hangers after a very short take off run. Another was destroying old Holdens with the Phantoms rotary cannon.
I know this is not particularly relevant to the content, however it made the documentary information fall in the background because of the narrator changing his accent back and forth from Britt/US or European to US midwestern.
Thank you Lord. "F One Eleven", most computer voices get that wrong, although this still sounds like a computer. And why is an American accent computer voice saying "aluminium"? We say "aluminum" here.
It is a computer simulation, and we are working on making it more Australian and not falling into an American accent. The basis of the AI is American so it's difficult and sometimes seems to vacillate between US and Australia accents. But still better than me trying to narrate! There's still a lot of editing and manipulation to make it sound OK, we don't just chuck the words into an AI voice generator and that's that - we tweak and tweak until it passable - it takes a lot of time and energy to produce these videos - Hope you enjoyed it.
Undefined Accent Disorder (UAD) - a rare disorder where the narrator occasionally forgets what country he's from and will often oscillate between two distinct accents. The disorder may be recognized in the next DSM. Intriguing isn't it?
Real sad they are all gone now I lived at Boscombe Down in the 1980's and they would come in every few years for a bit. Met some REAL nice crews and other when I was in the ATC.
this is interesting yet hard to watch as i kept getting distracted by the constant flicking between accents, i cant tell if the narrator is australian or american
CORRECTED TEXT: ; Delivery of the F-111 to the ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE was held up ; until GENERAL DYNAMICS could iron out a fatal flaw. "Pay attention to the difference' Learn that ALL CORPORATE {legal} names are always in the ALL CAPS iteration. Make sure the brain sees exactly what the eyes are looking at.
This is "interesting." What he never says, is that America couldn't get rid of them fast enough. I say this from experience: I worked on *BOTH* F-4s (Cs, Ds & Es) and F-111s (As & Bs) when I was in the Air Force as a Crew Chief (on BOTH) during my stint in 1969 through 1973 --- first on F-4s through Vietnam, and then later on F-111s on Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, Nevada from 1972-1973. *My personal assessment:* 1) The F-4s were the most reliable planes to not just fly (the pilots, of course), but also to service/repair (Me). 2) The F-111s were the most complicated and UN-reliable aircraft in the Air Force's inventory. BOTH the Avionics and Electronics were so complicated and unreliable that they stayed grounded more than flying. Example: Their ejection system was the *ENTIRE COCKPIT,* not just both (but separate) seats as in all the other jet fighters/bombers. So the electronics were so complicated, it made them unreliable for "quick turnarounds" that the F-4s didn't experience nearly as much. That's just one reason the F-4s were the "angels in the skies" over S. Vietnam (and I'll recognize that war was terrible for everyone --- I know this from being there for one full year). Anyway, pretty much as soon as we were asked to provide the F-111s to Australia (and a couple of other countries), we couldn't get rid of them fast enough. [Plus, their electronics and avionics quickly became obsolete as well.] *Comparison:* The F-4s were very much like the 1955-57 Chevy Bel Airs for durability and reliability, even today where they're still flown. The F-111s were more like the most expensive 1970s Cadillacs with every option available that kept breaking down and were too expensive to repair because of their frequency. *ONE MORE THING:* It was the F-4E's that were selected and used for several years as the planes for the Air Force *Thunderbirds* for their acrobatics in all their shows. Their home station was Nellis AFB. I was stationed at Nellis AFB for 1.5 years working on BOTH F-4s and F-111s _so, I think I know what I'm talking about._
My readings indicate that the Tom Cat was severely under powered and resulted in the death of multiple Navy Pilots. The F111 was severely overweight Manufacturers and Military swept a lot of stuff "under the rug" At 75, I will never stop wondering, If this was a 1960's design, what's on the computerized "drawing board" today. More; What is actually flying now that we will be told about in 20 years?
The F111-F was my first aircraft crush as a kid. Living near RAF Lakenheath, and seeing the Aardvarks of the 48 TFW flying over almost daily. Back in the day when Lakenheath and Mildenhall had their air shows, going down to see them. Lakenheath was a lot smaller air show, but you could get up real close to the aircraft.
As a Brit, I have a rather different perspective on the F111; As the Labour (left wing - no pivot!) government of Harold Wilson had sought to bankrupt the UK by ideological industrial nationalisation there was a need for an international loan. This was obtained with the help of the USA but on condition that the UK scrap the development of the supersonic, hedge-hopping military fighter TSR2 and instead buy the F111. The UK obediently scrapped the TSR2 having built the 1st 2 prototypes (only one of which had flown). We paid a £60 million deposit on the F111 but in the end cancelled the order due to the poor reliability/crashes. We didn't get the deposit back !! The technology from the TSR2 was shared with France resulting in the Concord(e), another world beating aircrapft but again effectively killed by the USA when the Boeing SST proved to be uncompetative. (I will be honest, that I agree that the sonic boom over land every day on fixed routes is unacceptable but this would not have been a problem with the TSR2.) The UK went on to develop the Typhoon in another joint venture with France instead of buying the F111.
Still remembered the fire trailing of the F111 in an Airshow in Singapore during the 2000s ... 🙏 Thank You So Much for this professionally produced & enjoyable to watch mini documentary! 🌷🌿🌏💜🕊
McNamara's folly, when you have a person who's experience was in automobile manufacturing being placed in a position he was not qualified for. The F-4 just happened to work for multiple services and this guy thought it should work for any aircraft. The F-111 worked for the Air Force but was to big and blind to operate off the carriers in service. Grumman had worked with General Dynamics in developing the wing sweep since they had built a test project earlier and realized the F-111 was not good, they developed the F-14 to fill a fighter role with allowances to haul bombs. The bomb hauling didn't happen until late in its career.
Updated version here th-cam.com/video/jbMqAJLmTn0/w-d-xo.html
What has been updated in the linked version?
@@bnwww some images changed that were in error, spelling corrected, narration smoothed out somewhat.
"Only" 77 losses? That's a LOT for an aircraft that never saw combat with the RAAF!
@@raafdocumentaries Then why not remove this one? I've just spent 10 minutes watching this only to scroll down and be told it has errors and to watch the updated version.
@@Shaun.Stephens Image errors might make a difference, but frankly I'm not spending another 10 minutes watching a revamped video just for the subtitles to change "floor" to "flaw".
The (AI?) narrator's accent keeps changing from Australian to American. Very strange :)
As a Aussie with American parents, I do the same thing. 🙂🇦🇺
Perfect for an Australian/US story!
That really threw me off too!
I came here to say the same thing! Ha ha, yeah I really enjoyed the video but was intrigued by the accent shifting.
It's an AI, the guy who runs the channel commented on that. They're training it to sound Australian consistently.
The swapping between narrators with Australian and US accents is very distracting.
In the early 1980's I was working on the development of a 65 kilometre pipeline project between Gladstone's Awoonga dam and the Callide dam in Central Queensland. The RAAF was tasked or commissioned to do photogrammetric flyovers. Will never forget standing on a hilltop one morning, turning around to see an F111 coming at me from below. Thought I was a goner. They were on the terrain radar and basically jumped up and then down the other side of the hill. Awesome example of how stealthy these beasties were. I still have scrape marks on my forehead😂
I began my MILITARY career with RAF Bomber Command in the 1960s
The RAF AVRO VULCAN ALSO used terrain following Radar so it could fly low.
After serving 30 years of MILITARY service - mostly in AU and 2 years on
exchange to the USAF - I am now happily retired ---
I surrendered my pilot's license in 2012 as a result of failing eyesight.
It took a while to get over it - since I learned to fly at age 13 -
lessons paid for by an aunt who served with the RAF towards the end of WW II.
Her - like my mother is/was Russian and was born in Ukraine
British technology developed with the TSR2 then given away for peanuts. Some special relationship.
I attended high school in Penang, Malaysia. We routinely saw Royal Malaysian Air Force Hornets and MiG 29s, as well as Hercules and Sea Kings. The most exciting, by far, were RAAF F-111s flying out of Butterworth. They flew low and fast, and were a real treat to see.
I was based at Butterworth in '97 with The Australian Army mate, I totally agree!
Yes a multi-billion dollar entertainment for fools.
@@johnsmith1474 It is better to be taken for a fool, than to open one's mouth and prove it!
th-cam.com/video/9vAT1JduSGw/w-d-xo.html
My friend Wayne who was in the air league with a guy called Bill Pike who did RAAF service told me about Bill & Mark Fallon & Tenterfield who both perished in anF111 back in the mid 1980s ! May they both rest in peace!!!
I was there too as a kid...1960 to 1963
Interesting that the commentator keeps switching between American and Australian accents
I miss the Pig . Payload|range is still unbeaten today
The narrator's variable sweep between Australian and American accents may well be a fatal flaw in what is otherwise a well informed documentary.
Loool I was wondering if anyone else noticed that
I noticed that. Kept shifting back and forth between a standard North American accent to what sounded to me more like a subtle British accent, but then I have trouble telling the difference between some Aussie accents and some British ones, especially when there's only a hint of them coming through.
Makes me wonder if either the narrator was suppressing his natural accent, or if it's an AI.
Edit: It's an AI. The video creator confirms it in a reply to another post.
Thanks so much for this. The random accent movements between generic Australlian, generic North American, and generic Southern English was super distracting....
I noticed that too. Were there two different narrators or did his accent just keep changing?
I thought I might have been going crazy, so good to know it wasn't just me!
1:01 that is one bizarre mid-word accent flip from Australian to US American right there. Is this a computer-generated narration and somehow the settings changed?
And this is why the F-14 had an electron beam welded titanium wing box.
Which is fucking cool as fuck... As if the Tomcat needed more street-cred... 😋
@@smk6469 Grumman learned a lot from the F-111 effort, and applied all of it to the F-14.
@@HarryVoyager Indeed. The Tomcat was an F-111 without the flaws of the F-111 for fighter / interceptor work. Deleting the bomb bay, and going with twin tails did a lot.
If only the Tomcat wasn't stuck with the TF30.
@@DBravo29er I mean, it was intended to be powered by the F401. The TF-30 was only to get it flying while they finished the real engine. It seemed like a good plan at the time...
one point missed is one of the losses was believed to be caused by improper tool handling and not a flaw in the manufacturing process. The cause of one of the cracked D6AC pivots was believed to be due to a tool dropped on it causing a microscopic dent that grew into a crack. Also, two of the Vietnam losses were cause by the failure of the rear stabilisers control valve, causing a violent pitch-up maneuver followed by an uncontrolled roll. The faulty valves were replaced by a different valve in every model and the fault never occurred again
These types of steel have special handling requirements to begin with. A similar steel used in oil pipe manufacturing cracked simply because it was left too close to the door overnight, in a shop, during a cold spring. Therefore, I say it should still be considered a manufacturing error.
@@SerbanOprescu That is a lame excuse for steel, its more likely manufacturing errors, out of tolerance dimensions, bad tolerances., and bad deburring or radiuses.
@@joefish6091 How can you say it's a lame excuse for steel?! Clearly you know nothing of special steels. I've met steels which need turning in stages, with pauses, simply because they hardened due to compression (not heat). That one I've mentioned was also special steel - and I've personally encountered two such cases They are simply brittle, and in use it doesn't matter because they don't receive shocks. In manufacturing/processing, it does.
. Wise designers design for the established reality of aircraft overhauls and maintenance, because they know nearly all combat aircraft are disassembled multiple times over their service life. Maintenance, repair, inspection etc often require component removal and not every design is maintainer-friendly nor is every supplied component handling fixture ideal. Many parts will be cannibalized from one jet to another over their lives to generate as many combat sorties as practical.
One Viet Nam war era repair program got around buying new aircraft by rebuilding severely damaged birds which would have been written off after discarding major components. (One of the 'Vark maintainers ITT may remember it.) F-111s were not nearly as inexpensive as Phantoms so creativity was called for.
It's the same issue that got Boeing.. As they used a Fork Lift to replace the Engines. As it was faster. Only to stress fracture the engine mounting holes when installing them. The engine flew off on takeoff killing everybody. When they seen what caused it. They found several other aircraft with the same stress fracture.
Qld Air Museum has a couple of interesting interviews with survivors of F-111 ejections on their podcast. They received spinal injuries from the initial rocket blast of the pod escaping the aircraft and then the speed at which it hit the water under parachute.
Not a surprise. Most pilots who've had to "Bang-Out" end up physically shorter from the process. The odd compressed/ruptured disc in the spinal column is preferred over riding the plane in to the accident site. Sure, you might live a life with near constant back pain, but at least you have a life to live...
I was at the inaugural Australia 500cc Grand Prix at Phillip Island. The flyover of an F111 and a FA18 will always be remembered, not so much the F18, but the F111 will always have a special place in my memory. I grew up in the 70's and remember the drama's about the aircraft but I would never want to be on the receiving end of one. I still think it's the most amazing aircraft the RAAF has had.
I well remember the RAAF F-111s. During a joint exercise with Australia during the '70s when I was in the US Navy, my ship was watching Aussie F-111s (the adversaries) on our SCANFAR radar system at over 300 miles away and these had our complete attention. What we missed was four Aussie F-4s coming at us, at wave-top height and at 500 knots, coming undetected from the opposite direction to "kill" us. The were finally seen by a top-side enlisted man lookout aft using his Mark I, Mod 0 eyeballs just before loudly buzzing the ship. Quite a sight to see!
Are you sure that the F4 and F111 were in RAAF service at the same time.
@@basilpunton5702 RAAF operated 24 F-4E Phantom II fighter-bomber aircraft in the ground attack role between 1970 and 1973. The F111C was inducted into RAAF service in 1973 and retired in 2010 rather than 2020 as originally planned.
Thats why US navy has to use E2 hawkeye.
Great yarn!
USN Sailor: "Um, Sir...."
RAAF Pilots: "G'day! Ya dead! Cheers!"
Thanks for sharing the story, best wishes from Sydney. ;)
@@Franz.Isler497 seems likely the sneak attack was actually A4s.
My sister, who was stationed at Nellis AFB when the A models were there, said that there were so many problems with them, that the aircrews went on "strike" several times; every single one of them would show up "sick" at the Flight Surgeon's office. One major problem? The engines would flame out at the first hint of a rain cloud; also, like the F-14 A Tomcats, they were very prone to compressor stalls. The USAF finally swapped them with the recon RF-4C's at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho - just before I got stationed there. One of the more unpleasant parts of my career field was Aircraft Crash Survey/Recovery. Sadly, those A model's kept me much busier making crash site maps, and picking up stuff - both metallic and organic - than I would have liked... The Air Force finally wised up; shipped all the remaining A's to Grumman, who took them totally apart; threw about half of them away; and turned them - at the cost of $27 million apiece (in 1976 dollars) - into EF-111 Ravens. In which guise, they performed a whole lot better - and much safer. The rest of the time I was stationed there? Never once had to pick through the remains of a Raven....
I was at Mt. Home from 81-82, right at the beginning of the EF program. You undersell the A model. After the initial problems were sorted out, the aircraft performed admirably in SEA. Suffered the least losses of any combat aircraft and dropped more bombs on target. The converted A's into EF's retained the original mechanical parts, WCTB, engines, cockpit, etc. After the war in Vietnam was over, the AF basically relegated the "A" to training only.
They didn't send "all the remaining A models to Grumman...." I was at MHAFB in 1981, and there would ultimately be 42 EF-111As at two bases (MHAFB and Upper Hayford), and enough A models remaining at MHAFB to fill out 3 other units within 366 TFW--Green, Blue, and Yellow sections. I don't recall their numbers, but between 20-30ish each.
That being said, I only recall 2 A model crashes, neither related to the wing issue.
I was stationed at Mt Home in 1985, and the F-111 was there.
Great summary. It's interesting to see the importance between platform and mission fit in determining the success of the aircraft.
Thanks for your service and this report.
Does anyone else notice that the narrator's accent gradually goes from Australian to American? Duh fuh? Also, it always rubs me the wrong way when a doc about a fighter jet never mentions its nickname.
I was in the army a bit back and F 11-C's would buz us some times, we would look up when we heard them and would not see them, 'cause they had been going away by then. HOWEVER, the F11 - C is better specked up than MOST aircraft of even today when you check them out AND as to the vibration of the wings during (mostly) transition in flight, NASA could not fix this BUT Newcaslte University (Australia) did solve it and I met the Professor who was in charge of this.
When I was a kid, I built a large-ish model of one of these. It was the first time I painted camouflage. One of my favorite models ever.
Even in 1:72 a model of one of these is pretty big.
Me too! I was just reminiscing about it, it has the detachable front nose, the Cockpit could separate too. I loved, it, I think it was the Revell 1:72 kit
Back in the early 2000's, when I worked on copiers, I was driving down Broadway in Louisville, and between the builds, I was looking straight on at the cockpit of this ginormous swing wing aircraft flying over the river. It was sporting the old Vietnam era camouflage, like a refugee from the 1970's, so it wasn't something I expected to see. I immediately thought of the MiG 23 and several Sukhoi designs and then I realized that the USAF still hadn't retired the F-111. That Saturday, we had the annual pre-Derby airshow and fireworks display. Only rich people pay attention to the horse race.
Why does the narrator's accent keep changing between American and British?
I was working at Amberley when F-111 A8-143 lost a main wheel on take off. The wheel rolled for a considerable distance and came to rest after striking a car in the car park which coincidentally was parked mere meters from my own car. Not sure the insurance would've covered that one. Also remember growing up in north east victoria when F-111's would routinely fly past at very low level no doubt on TFR exercises.
what car park was that? the big one near the tower and engine workshop?
It was the carpark just east of the Boeing DLM hanger. The aircraft was departing to the south when the wheel detached and did a big right hand arc.
@@AllThingsOutdoors yeah I know the one, I worked in Hangar 410 (what became the Boeing DLM) when I was in 501WG and before that in 3AD
@@andrewroutley it was after my time but I heard from a mate who was still serving at the time that a pin sheared, it wasnt maintenance error, just fatigue
I was stationed at cannon afb nm with the F111D in crash recovery and aero repair The ejection pod never worked well at low altitude especially if the aircraft wasnt upright during ejection .There were 2 crashes in the early 80s when I was there and both crews died on impact.
I love this aircraft. Who said pigs can't fly?
I can hardly begin to describe the powerful negative emotions I felt when I realised I'd been listening to a computer-synthesized voice so perfect that it was only given away by a smooth transition from Australian to American accent.
I thought it kept wanderig between the two. The "a"s and the rising sentence intonation were very Australian, but there was also the full American "r" on display throughout (Australian is a very non-rhotic accent, even more than English ones). A really weird and unnatural sound, at least to these Aussie ears.
@@kenoliver8913It may have. I just didn't watch beyond the first transition.
The F-111 after its teething problems with the WCTB became the finest strike aircraft in the world and remained so for 37 years. For all the TSR2 lovers out there, I understand the emotion - I have been fascinated with TSR2 for years and travelled halfway around the world to see the two beautiful examples at Duxford and Cosford (so much for the government conspiracy to destroy all traces of them...) but the facts are Britain could not afford it, there was no export market and it was inferior in every measurable way to the smaller but longer legged and faster F-111. I recommend Damien Burke''s exhaustive coverage in his definitive book 'TSR2-Brtiain's Lost Bomber.'
For reference- here are comparative stats
Performance F-111C
Maximum speed: 1,434 kn (1,650 mph, 2,656 km/h)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.5 (M 1.23 at sea level)
Combat range: 1,160 nmi (1,330 mi, 2,150 km)
Ferry range: 3,700 nmi (4,300 mi, 6,900 km)
Service ceiling: 66,000 ft (20,000 m)
Rate of climb: 25,890 ft/min (131.5 m/s)
Lift-to-drag: 15.8
Wing loading: 126 lb/sq ft (620 kg/m2) wings spread
158 lb/sq ft (771.4 kg/m2) wings swept
Thrust/weight: 0.61
Armament
Guns: 1× M61 Vulcan 20 mm (0.787 in) Gatling cannon with 2,050 rounds (seldom fitted)
Hardpoints: 9 in total (8× under-wing, 1× underfuselage between engines) with a capacity of 31,500 lb (14,288 kg) ordnance mounted externally on hardpoints and internally in fuselage weapons bay
Performance TSR2 (projected)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.15 at 40,000 ft (12,192 m) (this was later reduced to M 1.5) M1.1 at sea level
Ferry Range: 2,500 nmi (2,900 mi, 4,600 km)
Combat range: 750 nmi (860 mi, 1,390 km)
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 15,000 ft/min (76 m/s)
Thrust/weight: 0.59
Armament: Total weapons load of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg); 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) internal and 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) external
Unlike aerodynamics problems tracing to the design F-104 had, these failures were caused by manufacturing. Then again, designers should not overestimate the capabilities of manufacturing process...
The F-111's design was inherently bad and had nothing to do with the manufacturing process. You need to do some more research.
The narration of this was spooky. Part American, Part Australian, never quite each. Part way through it would lapse into full American and then switch back again. Was this an AI voiceover? If so, it needs some developer feedback....
at 8:17 the picture is of the Mercury 7 astronauts Scott Carpenter (R), Gordon Cooper and Alan Shepard (centre) looking at the construction of their Mercury spacecraft, nothing to do with the F-111 !
McNamara's Folly. ""Pull the wings off, paint it yellow and install benches in the bomb bays;" at least that way it could serve some purpose as a high speed taxi." John Boyd
Funny, they did great in the air-to-ground role. You haven't been sipping the Pierre Sprey tea, have you?
@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 The F-111 was originally to have been a fleet air defense fighter. I think Colonel Boyd was correct, there's no way it could have fulfilled it's original design brief.
Trying to force one aircraft into multiple roles and services always seems to result in mediocre aircraft. Asking a dump truck to be a sports car is stupid. As a fast dump truck the F-111 was ok, as a sports car it was a total failure.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus The fleet defense fighter aspect was always an afterthought, that's why it was never able to fulfil the role.
The F-111B was essentially a bomber awkwardly forced into the CAP role. To be fair, the Navy didn't have the Tomcat in mind as the goal, they basically wanted a fast Missileer. The F-111B fulfilled that role, it just wasn't a viable role in the first place.
As you say, the F-111B was never going to be a sports car and eventually the Navy realized they needed a sports car.
My father worked at McClellan AFB back then, and that base was assigned the job of completely remanufacturing that aircraft. They put together one if not the largest machine shops, fabrication, and testing facilities in the USAF. My Dad was in charge of all of the radar and recon equipment installed on that aircraft and the "Wild Weasel" craft. During open house days, I would tour that place and it was indeed impressive. They even had a specially built hanger that had equipment that could do a comprehensive structural analysis of a craft. It also was a one-of-a-kind. He ran a special team of expeditors who had their own building. If you need a component yesterday, he was the one that you called.
Actually, McClellan was the depot for the F-111. When a plane needed major repairs, it was sent there. All F-111's went to McClellan at one time or other. They actually didn't "completely remanufacture" the airplane
Wow what an interesting job!
I remember seeing a well-worn Navy F-111B on the west side of McClellan in the mid-1980's. Somebody was using it for battle damage repair practice.
@@dukeford I too saw it. I was there for the ARC-190 HF radio TCTO proofing. I was TDY from Pease AFB. It was right behind the revetments the F-111's were in for TCTO's.
its incredibly weird how the narrators accent keeps switching from australian to american
Awesome video, just one question: the narrator, what the hell is up with the accent? American, Canadian, Australian, English, I heard parts of all of them. I am so confuzzled.
There is one F111C at the William Town Air Museum near Newcastle NSW. I had the pleasure of seeing it up close and was surprised at just how big it was.
If youre interested there is another at illawarra.
Yeah Fighter World at Williamtown RAAF has one, struck me how big an airframe it is. The same Museum now has an F/A-18A, well worth a look!
Yep same it is massive.
Another one at Evans Head. Australia paid for storage while OEM got their act together; very costly & poor contract oversight.
I heard that each state that had Air Force museum, got one, and then the remainder had to be "terminated", and were subsequently interred in an undisclosed site, in an undisclosed state, in an undisclosed part of a very disclosed Australia. Actually got to see the "parts" of the one, lost in the Hauraki Gulf, when they brought them to "Hobby" for the initial investigation.
The Vulcan was hardly obsolete. It was still bombing people in 1982.
How does the narrator switch between BBC, ABC, and NBC accents? Pick a country mate, and stick with it for the whole video!
Why does the narrator's voice keep changing from Australian to American?
The narrator's accent keeps shifting and it's throwing me off. Is it two different narrators who sound very similar or one guy shifting his voice?
What's with the shifting accent? I'm spending more time listening to the accent than the info. You're an Aussie. Own it.
Fortunately much progress has been made with the F35 🤓🇺🇸🤡
7:00 "in favour of another aircraft"
He means the F-14 Tomcat, baby 😎
What happened to his accent?
Only 77 losses.
Keep paying the warmongers citizen.
I lived in Bullsbrook (RAAF Pearce) on the final approach path, during the 70's. My father was in the RAAF. The F-111 was always the plane we wanted to see, especially fast at low-level. Also we had Aermacchi MB-326, Mirage 3, F4, Skyhawk, Caribou, Bell Iroquois UH1, Neptune, Hercules, Chinook.
The terrain following radar was the first of its kind as far as I know.
I was stationed at a US Air Force base that had FB-111's when I enlisted in the military in the early 80's. That base has been closed for a very long time now but the F111/FB-111 is still one of my favorite aircrafts. In the early 80's we were told that no other plane could fly as fast as the F-111 in proximity to its low ground flying ability. I don't know how accurate that was/is at the time but it was something the aircraft mechanics, pilots, etc. seemed very proud of. The F-111 is an iconic aircraft.
I was trained on them, but never operated on them. It was a fascinating aircraft; born out of the intersection of several new technologies that came together at just the right time. Later on, much of this would become "standard equipment", but the F-111 (and FB variants) was one of GD's better innovative designs - perhaps eclipsed only by the astonishing F-16. It is kind of unfortunate they got absorbed into the increasingly large "Borg-type" mass of contractor conglomerates. I firmly believe competition breeds innovation, and reducing competition to a bare handful of contractors (all with deep pockets to "donate" to multiple Congress members) harms our defense capability significantly.
Crazy isn't it as a former military brat I always wanted to go see the military hospital I was born in Asia hopefully someday miss seeing F-14s buzz by
@@MrJest2
Well said. 👍
@@firesupport162
👍
Without ignoring the fact that the F111 eventually proved a success, it would be interesting to examine the thinking of politicians in the UK who scrapped (literally) the TSR2, and planned to replace it with the F111. But being politicians we will likely never really find out. Yes, it involved financial considerations but the technical reasoning?
More likely pressure from the US government was behind it, bedfellows the two of them and still are when it comes to the military.
The F-111 was also design to meet GOR 339. The F-111 was always the more capable aircraft with almost double the range.
The British economy was a basket case in the 1960s after a dozen years of economic mismanagement by the Conservative Party whose policies encouraged overmanning to keep the unemployment figures down. Couple this to a failure of business owners yo invest in new techniques and machinery and union intransigence by failing to allow modernised methods of working made that productivity levels in the UK were falling. In 1964, just after the Labour Party became the government trade deficit figures were announced that were double what had been expected at £800 million. The foreign currency traders saw this and the business as usual budget of the new government as worrying and so started to sell off their Sterling investments (Sterling and the US$ were the 2 international trading currencies at the time). The government tried to prop up Sterling and over the next 3 years there were repeated runs on Sterling which resulted in the UK spending all its foreign currency reserves, almost all of its bullion reserves and the taking out of loans from the other major central banks and the IMF. These loans came with no strings attached beyond getting our economy in order. The TSR-2 was one of several military projects that ended up being scrapped during this period, but we had cancelled around a dozen military programmes between the mid-1960s and the end of the 1960s. The financial crises also led to the closure of many parts of the UK rail network.
The fact that the TSR-2 was intended for East of Suez operations and we were slowly getting rid of these didn't help this aircraft's case for retention.
There were technical difficulties to overcome with the airframe and systems that time and money overcame, well for the systems they did.
It isnt really a mystery.
The project was behind schedule, overbudget and plagued with issues which were a LONG way from being resolved. i think it had only flown a couple of times and it had no real development of actual capabilities. It was all in theory.
There is a lot of people that blame the USA for offering the f111 and the TSR would have been far superior etc etc... there's no real evidence to believe that would be true. Its easy to say it would have been amazing but up to the time it was cancelled it didnt do anything spectacular and was costing a bomb. The f111 remains the fastest jet down low and performed brilliantly in vietnam, el dorado canyon, desert storm and kept the russians scared enough to insist it was included in arms talks.
a success?? silly Alan
@@slickstrings That is the conventional wisdom - I was brought up with that. But a recent doc about TSR2, involving the people concerned with it, including the one of the pilots, paints a different picture. (It is on youtube). It was definitely ahead of the F111 when it was cancelled, and there is the curious point that all materials, even the prototypes themselves, were destroyed - not even retained for future development or usefulness to other projects. All the politicians interviewed claimed they did not order that - but someone did. And permission was refused to be allowed to let the workforce know about the cancellation before they heard it on the news - curious. The reasons the politicians offered ("no one in the RAF wanted it") do not stand up to scrutiny. Problems were being hammered out and people involved were quite optimistic about its future - the main worry being the politicians. The recently installed Labour government had promised, before the election, not to cancel it, but that´s what they did. It was the politicians who pushed the "rearranging" of the British Aero companies and their oversight of the project was inefficient, time-wasting, and resulted in much higher costs. (Check out how the committees worked, and the allocation of the work). Yes, postwar Britain did need to tighten its belt but for politicians that normally means, "Okay, we´ll cut that out, and don´t bother me with the consequences" - just like every reduction in the Armed Forces is an "improvement". The F111 had many, some very serious , problems with its initial development, but they were eventually hammered out, as with the development of many aircraft. The TSR2, at the time of cancellation, was the leader in its field, (though it could have been overtaken in the future), but "We can´t afford it!" was the political decision. There are loads of similar examples, in many countries. Although the TSR2 never saw action I believe a quote from "Duke" Cunningham (apologies for a probable mistake with the spelling) one of the notable pilots in the Vietnam War, I believe one of his dogfights was long used as teaching material, but he did say "Stupid people start wars, and stupid people run wars, rarely do they talk to the people doing the fighting". He was referring to the jets being armed only with (often unreliable) missiles at the beginning of the war. ( A mistake being made in other countries too). The Aussies had placed an order for the TSR2, but then someone talked them out of it, and they agreed to take the F111, only to put that on hold for several years, until the problems were ironed out. The TSR2 - "We have cancelled it because it´s no good, costing too much, and we can get a better aircraft elsewhere". "Psst, is it really no good". "I have no idea, but the decision has been made". The usual story.
The Aus Navy were very wize in avoiding this aircraft. I knew there were problems with the Jesus pins the wings used but I didn't know how many people were killed in the development
yep, they had to fix it faster than the narrator changes accents at 7:52
@@discovolante6624 lmao good catch, fucking bot channel 😂
The RAN never had a carrier big enough to launch them from, the yanks and brits thought we were nuts launching Skyhawks off Melbourne
@@lanceduke3522 You were nuts. lol. Having flown a simulated Skyhawk in Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) from a simulated Melbourne gives me a much greater appreciation for your comment. My own conclusion is that the Melbourne was just too small. The FN's Clemenceau was a much more reasonable size. An F-111 operating from Melbourne? Absolutely no way. lol
wize?
Why did the narrator start off in an Australian accent and then switch to an American accent 1 minute in?
What a strange accent!
It keeps morphing Yank to Aussie.
I think the Dassault Mirage had an equal impact on Australia for its superlative design and high performance and lot of controversy with the F-111 put the Mirage out of the picture.
Certainly there has never been a better looking jet fighter in my opinion.
I remember talking to 2 commercial pilots and an RAAF pilot in Darwin in the 1970's. They all held the same opinion about the Mirage. Basically it was if you put a big enough engine on something you can even make a brick fly.
@@geradkavanagh8240Are you comparing a brick to the Mirage? Where's the logic? A brick wouldn't fly, it would just be a projectile anyways.
@@anthonyxuereb792 Yes, the mirage was over engined to achieve flight capability. it was a flying brick and a big projectile with wings and flight surfaces to make it work.
@@geradkavanagh8240 I'm gobsmacked
@@anthonyxuereb792 Well, it wasn't my idea. These were pilots talking about the mirage. They were so concerned about the fuel consumption and cost of running the Mirage.
I worked on those in the U.S.A.F. and in lees than a year at 1 base they lost 7. 4 on the trim pad loaded with 4 500 lbs. bombs each, 1 crashed landed without main landing gear, 1 crashed landed without the nose gear, and 1 started cartwheel right after taking off causing the base commander and WSO to eject. When their capsule hit the ground they both suffered back injurys
Is that two different narrators or is he having an identity crisis? Weird on and off accent
The robot voice, with its changing accent, is very jarring.
I worked on the electronic warfare models as their time in the USAF was coming to an end. The RAAF avionics specialists should be supremely happy that they never had to deal with translating cowls as part of the air inlet systems. That was a true nightmare of a system.
The C model had translating cowls.
I can tell you as an ex RAAF maintainer that worked on our F-111Cs that they did indeed have the translating cowls, it was the RAAF Gs that did not have translating cowls, they had the triple plow set up
I, and I am sure others would be pleased if you could expand on this point regarding translating cowls and their impact on avionics and anything else.
@@andrewb5957 The translating cowls had nothing to do with avionics, other than the fact that they were on the early models (A's and C's), and the early models had rather primitive (by today's standards) avionics.
Andrew I worked on avionics A and EF models and can’t remember working on translating cowls lol
Does anyone wonder, as I do, if the people who pay for the advertising on these videos ever actually pay attention to where their advertising dollar is aimed. I mean, why when I watch military, automotive or historical videos, am I subject to multiple adds for women's make-up and hair care products, and household cleaning products. I'm sure there are women who watch these videos but I'd doubt they comprise more than 10% of the viewing audience. Or am I completely off base?
@Max Wedge YEAH, truly AWOL . . . lol
I was stationed at Nellis AFB in 1969/70 when these were still being tested. An awesome plane with many problems to be worked out. The avionics alone pushed the limits for the time. It was a first in so many ways. I'm glad they finally achieved success.
I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford (20th TFW) from 1971-75. I roomed with a couple of flight simulator jockeys who cited avionics as one of the problems with this aircraft. I was flying from Toronto to Chicago on April 14, 1986 when I learned that Muammar Gaddafi (in Libya) was bombed by F-111's that flew out of RAF Upper Heyford. France and Spain did not want the F-111's lying over them so they had to approach Libya by flying southwest over the Atlantic Ocean.
I'm guessing you were with 474th TFW. When I graduated high school in 1975, I enlisted in the USAF and was trained as a 32630A. In July, 1976, I was assigned to the 474th AMS. I got my 5 level quickly and watched as the last of the 474th's F-111As lit the burners, trundled down the Nellis runway, and turned northward to Mountain Home. In August, 1977, I left Nellis AFB for Travis AFB, California.
When I saw the title of this video, I thought the producers left off an "s" on the word "flaw". One of the things I learned was that the Aardvark was a maintenance hog, soaking up people and money for two primary systems: the wing pivots, and the TF-30 engines. Did I mention that I learned to HATE the TF-30s? I should probably mention that.
@@johndemeritt3460 I trained briefly on an F-111 at Chanute. The aircraft we had there had cracks in the pivot assembly and was decommisioned as soon as it landed. It was practically a new aircraft. All the classified electronics were removed before we students were able to train on it. None of us liked that aircraft, so our training moved to the F-4D and B-52B and D models.
Yes but why the fake American accent? Why not just go with your native Oz? 🤷♂
Because ai
The changes in the narrator's accent are weirding me out.
They took these to the US and took on the bestgear the yanks had in the annual head to head bombing comps and absolutely smashed the yanks long after the yanks stopped using the F111
Ew
Basically a piloted cruise missile in tfr mode.
Your flashing scene change is not good, will not watch
Thank you for covering the F111 's development problems.
Other variable sweep winged aircraft: F-14 and B-1. Both had low MC rates and cost a fortune to fly specifically because of the variable wings.
Swept wing aircraft are unsafe and should never be used.
Good plane but unfortunately our stupid short-sighted Government cancelled our TSR-2 a much better aeroplane. 👍🏻🏴
They were skint as usual
That said ordering the plane scrapped not preserved was *sabbotage*
Politicians - Great for ballast, poor decisions and trough clearing.
Unfortunately you have bought into a myth. The F-111 surpassed the TSR2 in every performance criteria. Though smaller, it was faster, had a much larger payload which it could carry further. There is no meaningful area where TSR2 matched the F-1111. I recommend reading Damien Burke's excellent and definitive book on the TSR2. It will debunk all of the emotional nonsense that has sprung up over the years.
@@Completeaerogeek You're not counting the ability of the crew to eject safely as an important performance criterion?
@@Completeaerogeek TSR-2 was certainly not perfect and you are right, it has become mythical. However, comparing it in the way you have to the F-111 is also flawed. You are comparing a single prototype that only flew 24 test flights to an aircraft that took 7 years from the first flight to become fully operational with thousands of hours of testing and trials - and the major wing root flaw wasn't solved for another 2 years after that. By the time it got to the F variant, it had engines with 35% more thrust than the A. What might the TSR-2 might have evolved into, 10 years after its first flight? And yes I have Burke's book and it is excellent!
@@FinsburyPhil Hi Phil, unfortunately we don't have any data regarding how the TSR2 might have turned out, so I'm not sure how that is unfair, but if you have read Burke's book, you would know it was not on a good trajectory.
It was getting heavier, had its maximum speed reduced to M 1.5, the Olympus 22R had 'Bell mode' issues (it should never have taken to the air until these were solved,. Beamont really was risking his life.) and with its small highly loaded wing it would never be able to carry the load the F-111 could, did not have the range or speed of the F-111 and the requirement to take off from marginal quality runways was never met, where the F-111s high flotation landing gear and large tyres mean it was capable of this. (XR-219 in fact suffered severe undercarriage oscillations during test flights.)
Not sure where you got 7 years for the F-111's development - It first flew in 1964 and was flying combat mission over Vietnam in 1968. Some problems with faulty subcontractor manufacturing of the stabilator caused a couple of losses but by the time it left in 72, it had the lowest loss rate of any aircraft in theatre while carrying out the most hazardous missions at night and in bad weather,
Our F-111Cs (basically an A with the FB-111 wing and undercarriage) did not have WCTB failures and were not modified but we Cold Proof Load Tested them for their entire life with no failures..
They stayed in precautionary storage from 68-73 when they were flown home and made operational. We later upgraded them with all digital avionics, Pave Tack (and PGMs, Harpoon, Sidewinder) a digital flight control system, upgraded radar/ECM/RHWR and new engines (P-108)
For 37 years, they were the most potent low level strike aircraft in the world and let us punch way above our weight in the SEA region
I worked on the F-111D’s at Cannon AFB. Remarkable aircraft!
I was there from 76 to 81.
I was stationed at Cannon 70-73 when the D models first arrived. There were lots of growing pains with the new planes both for us crew chiefs as well as the boxes in the nose.
I was stationed at Cannon 27th CES Power Lineman & Airfield Power and Lighting in 1973-1974. Beautiful and Loud Aircraft.
TSR2 was the best in the world at that time.
The fatal flaw was the pivot point on the wings. The wing fell off of at least one aircraft. The video would have been great if they didn't tease about the flaw and wait to tell us. The video took on a tabloid quality because it buried the lead so deep.
that's how you tell a story.
Buried the lede, you meant.
Some people just have to find something to complain about.
@@raafdocumentaries That is *one* way to tell a story, but there are both better and worse methods.
If I hadn't had this video recommended by another aviation enthusiast, I'd skipped it as there's too much click-bait on this platform to shift through and see what actually delivers.
@@BPo75 Actually we never constructed this as click bait. We just told the story. I totally disagree with the first comment that this is tabloid quality - that's not at all what we are doing here. So just out of interest, what exactly are we doing that you think is click bait and prompts you to move away from our channel/content?
Both Australia and UK ought to get a squadron of B-21 Raider if the want to show strengh towards Russia and China
they are already there, along with a few others, and some A-10's as well.
SATAN2 BEST.
Start with the "F" for fighter, designation. It was a "B" for bomber.
It should probably "A" for Attack really because that's what it was really good at.
There were FB-111s. They were a tactical bomber, not quite a ground attack aircraft. But they could drop guided bombs on enemy tanks really good.
@@pops55650 Really, really good!
This story makes me wonder if this is how the USA built up the knowledge bases FMV tapped into when the wing-balks of the 37 Viggen had issues?
The aliens probably think we're F-111s. 😂 The golden rule of engineering is, make it twice as strong, because you just can't know everything. 😢 This all follows common sense solutions though. Steel comes to mind, and steel they used - a weighty decision.
This video needs editing to acknowledge the other fatal flaw of the F111 the fuel tank leaks that cause deaths of many maintainers from the F111 Deseal Reseal Programs.
My roommate did that. Our shower would always turn dark gray/ black when he was done
As Chief of Propulsion Systems (RAF senior engineering officer seconded to HQ ACC LGMP) within a few weeks of my arrival at Langley AFB I was asked to lead an Integrated Process Team (IPT) to resolve (get well program) the F111 TF30-P111 afterburner failures at a time when the aircraft of 48th Wing at Lakenheath was relocating to 27th Fighter Wing Cannon AFB and many ABs were missing from the inventory. The F111F fleet had a dramatically reduced operational capbility with so many "holes in aircraft" (engines out). The ACC supercruise operations was seriously reduced not just by the TF30-P111 problems but the only other supercruise aircraft the B-1B having major engine (F101-GE-102) issues with fan blade failures. The F111F "Get well program" had a potentially swifter recovery program from my mechanical engineering perspective and recommendations as the AB was a basic 2-position iris eyelid "slamming" mechanical linkage, which OC-ALC LPA management, F111F SPO, Bristols of Canada (R-R Canada), Pratt& Whitney (United Technologies, and of course ACC executives LG 2-Star and 4-Star Commander agreed with. The TF30 -P111 engine had effectively been designed on-wing starting from a mere 20 hours MOT and had reached 2,200 hours MOT. The F111F Get Well program to reach an effective ACC super-cruise operational role took just under 12 months when the 27th FW reported that it was achieving this with an increasing number of QTR engines. While the B-1B F101-102 engines problems continued limiting its operational role for another 2 years. We managed to extend the operational life of the F111F by 2 years saving it from the boneyard at 2 successive ACC annual POMs.
What's with the two accents?
Wing-box failure for swept wing aircraft is not isolated to F-111 - Tornado suffered a similar fatigue issue - on the only major structural component of Tornado manufactured in Germany. Ironic huh?
Should have chosen TSR2 back in 63/64 & got a safer aircraft sooner 🙂
brits ran out of money.
@@rearspeaker6364 because they didn't get the right orders at the right time. Realistically, the whole TSR2 project requirement drafting & revision was a complete F-up. In fact the same can be said re: F111 being supposedly a dual-role, for both USN & USAAF but USN fell away. Ultimately USA had much bigger pockets to bail out the whole F-up thing. Maybe it became "too big to fail", no matter how many pilots were "for the high jump" early on 😞
I love how the two commentators have such similar timbres to their voices, but hugely distinct accents. Great story though, first time I've seen your content. Subscribed!
It sounds like one person trying to speak with 2 different accents.
Had lunch with one of the original crew who went over to bring the F-111 back to Australia, This didn't happen straight away because of the problems with the plane, but he did get to do a stint at Top Gun when he was there before the planes were brought back. One of the few qualified to sit in both seats.
That's funny because here in the USA the F-111 is remembered as a product that was over-budget, over-promised, and under-performing. It was supposed to be a fighter, an interceptor, a strike bomber, a nuclear bomber, a reconnaissance aircraft, and an electronic warfare aircraft. Ultimately the F-111 saw service in limited numbers as a supplementary aircraft, and while the F-111 no longer is in service with any country, both of it's foreign competitors the Tornado and SU-24 are still in service.
"Maximum Commonality" was a very stupid idea that was reversed as soon as McNamara was ousted as SecDef, it was intended to save money but ended up wasting huge piles of it trying to make a jack of all trades aircraft.
No comments on the switch between an English accent and 'murican?
At an RAAF Pearce airshow in the late nineties, they had a couple of F18's start their take off runs with a single F111 either in front or behind them (my vision was blocked). The F18's were still on the ground when they came into view from behind the control tower. Then only seconds later the F111 flew over the top of the control tower straight at the crowd. Very impressive. My first RAAF airshow was in 1971 when the RAAF had Mirages and Phantoms. One party trick back then was for a Caribou to take off behind one of the hangers after a very short take off run. Another was destroying old Holdens with the Phantoms rotary cannon.
Dunno anything about aircraft, but the F-111 looks just gorgeous. What a shape!
Muito bom, eu não sabia dessas falhas na asa do F111. Obrigado por compartilhar!
I know this is not particularly relevant to the content, however it made the documentary information fall in the background because of the narrator changing his accent back and forth from Britt/US or European to US midwestern.
Thank you Lord. "F One Eleven", most computer voices get that wrong, although this still sounds like a computer. And why is an American accent computer voice saying "aluminium"? We say "aluminum" here.
It is a computer simulation, and we are working on making it more Australian and not falling into an American accent. The basis of the AI is American so it's difficult and sometimes seems to vacillate between US and Australia accents. But still better than me trying to narrate! There's still a lot of editing and manipulation to make it sound OK, we don't just chuck the words into an AI voice generator and that's that - we tweak and tweak until it passable - it takes a lot of time and energy to produce these videos - Hope you enjoyed it.
@@raafdocumentaries Thanks for the explanation, I was wondering why the voice over seemed to be swapping every other sentence.
@@JohnDoe-vr9gm We will get better!
@@raafdocumentaries Or, you could just hire an Australian guy to do the narration. How much could it cost?
This was interesting, but what was going on with his accent?!
Undefined Accent Disorder (UAD) - a rare disorder where the narrator occasionally forgets what country he's from and will often oscillate between two distinct accents. The disorder may be recognized in the next DSM. Intriguing isn't it?
@@raafdocumentaries - nonsense. I wonder why he's doing it?
I've never encountered it before unless it was deliberate.
Real sad they are all gone now I lived at Boscombe Down in the 1980's and they would come in every few years for a bit. Met some REAL nice crews and other when I was in the ATC.
this is interesting yet hard to watch as i kept getting distracted by the constant flicking between accents, i cant tell if the narrator is australian or american
Its an ai
@@mattinasa2595 wack
I was privileged enough to fly it. What a machine!
Same
CORRECTED TEXT:
; Delivery of the F-111 to the ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE was held up
; until GENERAL DYNAMICS could iron out a fatal flaw.
"Pay attention to the difference'
Learn that ALL CORPORATE {legal} names are always in the ALL CAPS iteration.
Make sure the brain sees exactly what the eyes are looking at.
This is very interesting Because of the design it looks between the TSR2 and the Canadian CF-105 interesting though.
This is truly a Great Plane, and no wonder, it was conceived the year I was born.
The Tomcat won TFX and had a titanium wing box, which is much more durable than the steel of the 111, and lighter for its size.
This is "interesting." What he never says, is that America couldn't get rid of them fast enough. I say this from experience: I worked on *BOTH* F-4s (Cs, Ds & Es) and F-111s (As & Bs) when I was in the Air Force as a Crew Chief (on BOTH) during my stint in 1969 through 1973 --- first on F-4s through Vietnam, and then later on F-111s on Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, Nevada from 1972-1973.
*My personal assessment:* 1) The F-4s were the most reliable planes to not just fly (the pilots, of course), but also to service/repair (Me). 2) The F-111s were the most complicated and UN-reliable aircraft in the Air Force's inventory. BOTH the Avionics and Electronics were so complicated and unreliable that they stayed grounded more than flying. Example: Their ejection system was the *ENTIRE COCKPIT,* not just both (but separate) seats as in all the other jet fighters/bombers. So the electronics were so complicated, it made them unreliable for "quick turnarounds" that the F-4s didn't experience nearly as much. That's just one reason the F-4s were the "angels in the skies" over S. Vietnam (and I'll recognize that war was terrible for everyone --- I know this from being there for one full year). Anyway, pretty much as soon as we were asked to provide the F-111s to Australia (and a couple of other countries), we couldn't get rid of them fast enough. [Plus, their electronics and avionics quickly became obsolete as well.]
*Comparison:* The F-4s were very much like the 1955-57 Chevy Bel Airs for durability and reliability, even today where they're still flown. The F-111s were more like the most expensive 1970s Cadillacs with every option available that kept breaking down and were too expensive to repair because of their frequency.
*ONE MORE THING:* It was the F-4E's that were selected and used for several years as the planes for the Air Force *Thunderbirds* for their acrobatics in all their shows. Their home station was Nellis AFB. I was stationed at Nellis AFB for 1.5 years working on BOTH F-4s and F-111s _so, I think I know what I'm talking about._
Is there two people narrating this? Sounds like one guy flipping between a US and Australian accent.
My readings indicate that the Tom Cat was severely under powered and resulted in the death of multiple Navy Pilots. The F111 was severely overweight Manufacturers and Military swept a lot of stuff "under the rug" At 75, I will never stop wondering, If this was a 1960's design, what's on the computerized "drawing board" today. More; What is actually flying now that we will be told about in 20 years?
The F111-F was my first aircraft crush as a kid. Living near RAF Lakenheath, and seeing the Aardvarks of the 48 TFW flying over almost daily. Back in the day when Lakenheath and Mildenhall had their air shows, going down to see them. Lakenheath was a lot smaller air show, but you could get up real close to the aircraft.
As a Brit, I have a rather different perspective on the F111; As the Labour (left wing - no pivot!) government of Harold Wilson had sought to bankrupt the UK by ideological industrial nationalisation there was a need for an international loan. This was obtained with the help of the USA but on condition that the UK scrap the development of the supersonic, hedge-hopping military fighter TSR2 and instead buy the F111. The UK obediently scrapped the TSR2 having built the 1st 2 prototypes (only one of which had flown). We paid a £60 million deposit on the F111 but in the end cancelled the order due to the poor reliability/crashes. We didn't get the deposit back !!
The technology from the TSR2 was shared with France resulting in the Concord(e), another world beating aircrapft but again effectively killed by the USA when the Boeing SST proved to be uncompetative. (I will be honest, that I agree that the sonic boom over land every day on fixed routes is unacceptable but this would not have been a problem with the TSR2.)
The UK went on to develop the Typhoon in another joint venture with France instead of buying the F111.
Still remembered the fire trailing of the F111 in an Airshow in Singapore during the 2000s ... 🙏 Thank You So Much for this professionally produced & enjoyable to watch mini documentary! 🌷🌿🌏💜🕊
The aussie F111s were an icon. And a sight to behold when they zoom up from uncontrolled airspace after their TFR flights west of amberley
Ordnance not ordinance.
McNamara's folly, when you have a person who's experience was in automobile manufacturing being placed in a position he was not qualified for. The F-4 just happened to work for multiple services and this guy thought it should work for any aircraft. The F-111 worked for the Air Force but was to big and blind to operate off the carriers in service. Grumman had worked with General Dynamics in developing the wing sweep since they had built a test project earlier and realized the F-111 was not good, they developed the F-14 to fill a fighter role with allowances to haul bombs. The bomb hauling didn't happen until late in its career.