F 111 F Hardpoint adjusting
-
Nope, only 2-2 HP under each wing.
I never saw and heard about multiple LGB on a single HP for F-111. 1 LGB/HP. -
Thank you so much for the answer and the documentation .
I never saw and heard about multiple LGB on a single HP for F-111
Do you know if it was by operationnal constraint ? By economy ? Other reasons ?
I thought that a HP carrying 6 Mk82 could carry 3 GBU-12 … that’s the last thing hard to understand for me .
-
Thank you so much for the answer and the documentation .
Do you know if it was by operationnal constraint ? By economy ? Other reasons ?
I thought that a HP carrying 6 Mk82 could carry 3 GBU-12 … that’s the last thing hard to understand for me .
I guess conception. If you check the operations of the Cold War regardless of being PGM 2000 lb was preferred to have real punch power. Against hardened shelters, hangars, CCC bunkers, etc. 2000 lb + PEN was needed.
During the El Dorado Canyon against single targets 4x2000 GBU were used.The smaller GBU-12 was simply not the main weapon of the F-111F. During ODS for tank busting was an “off design” use. The F-111 targets in Europe would be much more important than some sitting tanks…
…which needed 2000 lb.You also should not forget that above defended targets you can perform a single pass. —> Many smaller bombs has no use. You have one chance to deliver. You all of what you have. —> 2x2000 lb pr 4x2000 lb.
There was simply not such target where anybody expected to make so many approaches where many smaller LGBs could be used.
-
All right ; I perfectly see your point but … That means a double or triple GBU-12/HP could , technically, have been in use ? Or you think that other concerns such aerodynamical issues prevented the militaries to use such a setting ?
In ODS, when the F 111 were striking tanks , they only shot 4 GBU-12/flight ? It doesn’t look very cost efficient .
-
Kind of off your query topic but…Most if not all the F-111’s I worked had tail hooks. And there, for a short time there was a naval variant of the F-111. We had one on the far side of the AFB and occasionally we went out there and stripped parts from it to use on the aircraft we worked on. Finally, on the EF-111 my father designed the jamming system. I worked in depot level maintainance so I don’t know much about Bomb capacity.
-
All right ; I perfectly see your point but … That means a double or triple GBU-12/HP could , technically, have been in use ? Or you think that other concerns such aerodynamical issues prevented the militaries to use such a setting ?
In ODS, when the F 111 were striking tanks , they only shot 4 GBU-12/flight ? It doesn’t look very cost efficient .
I guess was not because it was not needed. Because nobody ever imagined that the plane would use it.
-
Yeah, I was wondering if Fieldmod could have been in use ; With all I learned today, I’m simply incredibly surprised that such a monster could have been used to destroy 4 T-72/sorties (if the pilots were lucky) . Whereas , with only 8 GBU-12 … it’s much more efficient . That’s why I’m asking . It’s really surprising .
nobody ever imagined that the plane would use it.
Probably yeah … And indeed , they didn’t need(double LGB rack) .
-
I guess conception. If you check the operations of the Cold War regardless of being PGM 2000 lb was preferred to have real punch power. Against hardened shelters, hangars, CCC bunkers, etc. 2000 lb + PEN was needed.
During the El Dorado Canyon against single targets 4x2000 GBU were used.The smaller GBU-12 was simply not the main weapon of the F-111F. During ODS for tank busting was an “off design” use. The F-111 targets in Europe would be much more important than some sitting tanks…
…which needed 2000 lb.Reading you, I’m now realizing that this plane was finally more used as a kind of “light”, bi-sonic strategic bomber …. Besides, it was optimized for very high speed, low-alt penetration … A kind of Super Jaguar A …
Thanks again for all thoses explanations .
Regards,
Laurent
-
Reading you, I’m now realizing that this plane was finally more used as a kind of “light”, bi-sonic strategic bomber …. Besides, it was optimized for very high speed, low-alt penetration … A kind of Super Jaguar A …
Thanks again for all thoses explanations .
Regards,
Laurent
Jaguar was a only good weather plane while the F-111s had TFR.
The penetration distance to WPAC of F-111s would be higher from flying UK than Tornados from Germany. -
Kind of off your query topic but…Most if not all the F-111’s I worked had tail hooks. And there, for a short time there was a naval variant of the F-111. We had one on the far side of the AFB and occasionally we went out there and stripped parts from it to use on the aircraft we worked on. Finally, on the EF-111 my father designed the jamming system. I worked in depot level maintainance so I don’t know much about Bomb capacity.
Naval F-111 never entered production but it gave birth to F-14 if im not mistaken . There was 1 or 2 prototypes for US navy but they quickly abandoned. The Hook is probably as in many other Airforce jets laste resort for emergency landings only. You can see in airbases theres a system with wire in the tarmac very similar to what the carriers have for that reason. Other bases have that other bases have the “net” (if im not mistaken) So basically the pilot if he is unsure of his jet or have a hydraulics failure that probably will end up with dead brakes, lowers the hook and catches the wire on landing.
-
Jaguar was a only good weather plane while the F-111s had TFR
Oh yeah ! That’s why I was calling him a Super Jaguar . -EDIT :And of course, because the F111 packs about 4 times the firepower of the Jag ….) -
It’s a kind of over-testosteronized Jaguar , if you prefer .
But in fact , in the French doctrine, the Jaguar A had 90% the same purpose of the F-111 F .
It may seem surprising , but until late 90’s , the Jaguar A was one of the main vector for delivery of tactical nuclear weapon (as the F111) . As such, some Jaguar Sqn were training for low alt, high speed(about 500kts at this era) penetration in all weather , day or night operations .
And you are 100% right : they didn’t have a TFR to do it . Nor they had ground radar .
They did it only with a map , a chronometer, and an ackward system called “Deplinav” , basically a map cut out in several pieces , and re-sticked to form a kind of “paper moving map” …
They also carried a calculator, but it wasn’t very efficient so the pilots were to rely mostly on the map, and learn their flightplan, by heart .
And of course, they carried The Bomb …
The other purpose of the Jag was mainly CAS , or any kind of ground attack with conventionnal or laser guided weapon(AS 30 missiles, then later “french GBUs” ).
Just as same as the F 111, really Molni ! Although I admit it seems a bit crazy (specially for the nuclear purpose !!!)
I should add what I describe is the French use of the JAGUAR A . I don’t know how the others countries were used to use this plane .
In other word, if the French have had the money and the industrial basis the US had, the Jaguar would have been very close to the F111 …
Here is a pic of a Jaguar with its Nuclear Bomb , training at low alt .
-
I know , for an American , Jaguar probably means this
But don’t forget it carried this :