Talk:General Dynamics F-111C

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGeneral Dynamics F-111C has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 2, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a General Dynamics F-111C bomber (RF-111C pictured) of the Royal Australian Air Force sank the North Korean freighter Pong Su in 2006?

Specs[edit]

We need to find a good source for specs on the F-111C. Currently the specs ae for the F-111F. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RAAF museum has stats here Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff for the article to cover[edit]

Here's a brain dump for stuff this article should cover

  • Procurement of the aircraft, including political debates
  • Australian involvement in development of the C variant
  • The RF-111C modifications
  • Use of a RF-111C to spy on the Tasmanian Government during the Franklin Dam debate
  • The Australian government turning down a US request for RF-111s during the 1991 Gulf War
  • Procurement of additional F-111Cs by modifying US aircraft to replace attrition losses
  • Procurement of F-111Gs to free the F-111Cs from some training tasks
  • Modifications in the 1990s, including the resulting low availability rates
  • The role played by F-111s during the intervention in East Timor in 1999 (in short, several were forward deployed to RAAF Base Tindal and kept in a high state of readiness in case fighting broke out with Indonesia)
  • Why F/A-18s rather than F-111s took part in the 2003 Iraq War
  • The much-delayed AGM-142 Have Nap integration during the late 1990s and 2000s
  • The seal-reseal scandal (in which the RAAF knowing exposed dozens (hundreds?) of F-111 maintainence workers to dangerous chemicals)
  • Debates over retiring the aircraft
  • The impact the aircraft have had on the RAAF (they've been called the most important aircraft its ever operated) Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor[edit]

Article has While the F-111 has not seen combat in Australian service, it is known that F-111 aircraft were placed on high alert during the initial phase of the Australian-lead intervention (INTERFET) into East Timor in 1999. In an article in Air Forces Monthly in October 2006 it says they flew their first operational sorties after 26 years service when they flew operational recon sorties over East Timor between 6 November and 9 December 99. Sounds like it should be added when that bit is revised but could do with an Australian view on it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background info?[edit]

How much background is needed on before Australia got involved? I'm thinking briefly mentioning the combining of US Air Force & Navy requirements, RFP release and the selection of General Dynamics. Looks like Australia's order in 1963 was its first real involvement with the F-111. Is there anything before this that should be mentioned? -Fnlayson (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's consideration of acquiring nuclear weapons in the 1950s, the near war with Indonesia during the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation and the limitations of the RAAF's Canberra force influenced the decision to go with the F-111. The Canberras' problems were quite important as they demonstrated that buying a smallish number (48) of OK quality aircraft couldn't meet Australia's needs, and that it was worth buying very high performance aircraft so that Australia had a credible strike capability, even if it meant that fewer aircraft could be afforded. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does not seem strictly F-111 specific. Maybe the BAC TSR-2 could have filled the nuke strike role instead. Anyway, I don't have the sources for that. So I'll have to leave that you and/or others. I'll try to do a summary as outlined in the 2nd sentence of my original post above then. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to trim back the F-111 background to the basics. It still repeats a lot from General Dynamics F-111‎#Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

How much more work do we need to do to get this ready for live status? I'd like to get into mainspace before the F-111C's scheduled RAAF retirement. (I thinks it's Dec 10, 2010?) - BilCat (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that the 'Development' and 'Design' sections need to be made specific to this variant. We also need to decide how to cover the F-111Gs as it's a bit odd to have them listed as a variant of the 'C' variant. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have any info left I can add to this one. I could help trim info covered in main F-111 article, like on F-111A, and FB-111/F-111G, but need some input/guidance on how much to keep here. -fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the G- model, I believe the C used the same wing as the FB/G, so if we can confirm that, it should be added. My usual approach on Variants is to cover the prose in the main text sections, and have the Variants section be a list with short details, and numbers produiced, etc. This would put the G info in the main text, probably under Oper. history, and just detail the minumum about the RAAF purchases. As far as background, one or two paragraphs on the program itself, including the Britisk F-111K, but not details, then go straight into the RAAF procurement. I'll look at it in the next few days, and see what I can do on that. As to the main article, bascially remove most info on the C ecept for a link/shourt prose in the Variants, and possibly one pic there, pus the appropirate links in Infobox and see also. - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think covering the G as a variant is confusing and should just be a mentioned in the operation history section. This is really an article on the C not an article on Australian use of the F-111, or am I wrong? MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a little of both, but the focus is on the C-models (F and RF). - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed the FB-111A/G subsection and linked the first mention. Also, trimmed some general F-111 info from the Design section. I can add some info on the wing attach points that delayed acceptance. Parts of the article needs cites, such as in the Op. history section. The F-111B/C/K and FB-111A had the long wings and the other variants had the short wings. The FB-111A/G had longer fuselage and higher MTOW. -fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple cite needed tags in the article now that should be addressed in some manner. -fnlayson (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am almost out of Australian content I can add. One of my books mentions Pig as its nickname, but not really why. In any event the article seems good enough to move to main space, if someone wants to do so. -fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable appearances in media[edit]

I have removed the "Notable appearances in media" section, for two reasons:

  1. There is no indication, either in the single source that was provided or in the articles that were linked, that the songs "F-111" (by Cold Chisel) and "Love Missile F1-11" (by Sigue Sigue Sputnik) reference the F-111C, and not the F-111 Aardvark, F-111B or EF-111.
  2. No sources were provided to support the assertion that these songs are "notable appearances" of the aircraft in media, or the implication that the connection between the aircraft and the songs' titles/lyrics is a significant or noteworthy one.

In the absence of reliable sources that make a connection between the aircraft and the songs, the section seems to consist wholly of original research. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Dynamics F-111C. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on General Dynamics F-111C. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Dynamics_F-111C&oldid=1207380699"