Talk:General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has had a project peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force United States military history task force

RAAF Deterrent Role Originally envisaged?

Can someone confirm if a driving factor behind Australia's purchase of the F-111 lay in the desire back in the 1950's and 60's for Australia to have nuclear weapons and a means of delivering it? Cat Balou 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If by deterrent role you mean a strategic deterrent and a strategic nuclear weapons carrier, then I would say the answer is no. US SAC used FB-111 aircraft for strategic nuclear weapons. The FB-111 is different from the F-111, which could have carried smaller tactical nuclear weapons. I would imagine any tactical aircraft could carry an appropriately sized tactical nuclear weapon. --Dual Freq 19:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard that Australia ever had plans to acquire nuclear weapons. Askari Mark | Talk 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Australia had very definite plans to acquire nuclear weapons in the early cold war period (after all, Australia didn't allow a foreign power, the UK, to detonate nuclear weapons on its soil without a quid pro quo ;-). The released cabinet papers of the time are very definite on this point. Australia has had the technical know-how (and possibly the components) to build Teller-Ullman type H-bombs since the mid 1950s, a fact well known by all our potential enemies; it's almost as good a deterrent as actually putting them together ;-)--Phil Wardle (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone cite the particular cabinet papers Mr Wardle refers to? And can it be shown that they establish that Australia's decision to order the F-111 was in some way connected with some desire to have the ability to deliver nuclear weapons? Markswan (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The RAAF was originally going to buy the TSR-2 and only changed to the F-111 when the TSR-2 was cancelled. The TSR-2 was developed as a nuclear strike/reconnaissance aircraft. BTW, the UK wasn't a 'foreign' power to Australia then - try reading some history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.94 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian F111 Replacement, JSF Stop Gap

In late December, the RAAF asked the USN for pricings for a squadron of Super Hornets as a stop gap measure pending delivery of the JSF. They would be to replace its F111s. See:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/19/Navigation/190/211167/Australia+eyes+Boeing+FA-18F+Super+Hornet+squadron+as+JSF+stopgap.html

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20061224.aspx

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/12/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf/index.php

and

"So with the F-111s to be rolled out of their hangars for the last time in 2010, Australia will face a big capability gap, the duration of which no one can be sure". This discusses the RAAF opting for the F22.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/10/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated/index.php

There was also a special edition of Four Corners that discussed the replacement. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.53.199 (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi i was just wondering if anyone could tell me what will most likely happen to the f111's upon their retirement. Will they be taken to a boneyard or put on display. Also do you think any of them will be put up for sale for other air forces or for private use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xav 101 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The F-111s are being retired because they are running out of fatigue life. So probably put some on display, maybe store some in boneyard(s) and scrap some. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting fact about Gulf War.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=RU&hl=ru&v=6ZmnVqkKapI. --Oleg Str (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More applicable to EF-111A Raven. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk 82 or BSU 49

There is a picture, on which the F-111 drops bombs with chutes. The subtext: "F-111F aircraft releasing its load of Mark 82 high-drag bombs over the Bardenas Reales range." If I'm rightly informed, the high-drag version of Mk 82 is called BSU 49. The same with Mk 84 - BSU 50. What do you say? --87.78.71.92 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

---

General Dynamics F-111 → F-111 Aardvark — As I recall, per WP:AIR, U.S. aircraft have a preferred page name format of (DESIGNATION+OFFICIALNAME). (MANUFACTURER+DESIGNATION) is only used when there isn't an official name to facilicate the former. Now, for many years the F-111 was known by the nickname "Aardvark", but it had no official name.

...until the date of its USAF retirement, at which point it was, in fact, officially given the name Aardvark.

Therefore, I do believe this page should be at F-111 Aardvark, not General Dynamics F-111. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems to make sense. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. In fact, we have at least one aircraft, the SR-71 Blackbird, in which "Blackbird" was never, to my knowledge, ever made the official name. I've never quite understood the disparity here, though of course article names are generally approved on an individual basis, as they should be. However, General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B should probably remain at its current location, and the future F-111C article (when it ever gets made! hopefully in time for its RAAF retirement, perhaps as an FA) should be at General Dynamics F-111C. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ya on the SeaVark and the C. - The Bushranger (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral - Think it is fine as is. The popular name was given when it left US service. So it was never known as the "Aardvark" officially while in service. But all in all it does not matter much to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

F-111 retirements

retired:raaf:2010 usaf:1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.2.222 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that a question, comment, or what? The retirement dates are already in article. -fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Past tense

Shouldn't the article's lead be in past tense now that this plane has been retired? Marcus Qwertyus 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There still are flight worthy F-111s. So the first sentence should say 'is' for now. The rest probably should be past tense. -fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Two SR-71s are maintained at Dryden. Should that article be changed to present tense?. Marcus Qwertyus 17:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've even heard of examples of operational WWI era tanks including one Renault FT-17 in operational service in the Kyrgyz military. Marcus Qwertyus 18:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review started

Hey, I started a Peer Review on WP:MilitaryHistory for this article. All editors are welcome to participate. Thanks for comments and any help here. -fnlayson (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

F-111F Combat Radius does not look right

With a load of 4 GBU-10s and 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders, plus an AN/ALQ-119, or 131 or 184 the combat radius of the aircraft was around 650-800 miles unrefuelled IIRC from an article written in a USAFE magazine published around or just after the 1991 Gulf War. The current figure that is in the specs part of the article must be a mistake! 121.217.237.190 (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)