Why Heatblur should do the F-111 next!

[Bearfoot]

F-111 would be a superb aircraft to model.

[Eldur]

I'd very much love to see a HB Tornado as well in DCS. But as this is a 111 thread, I'll give my 2¢ on that one, as it's probably the thing that comes closest to the Tornado IDS and as always, it has some pros and cons when compared.

 

One big pro that I haven't seen mentioned is the massive fuel capacity. IIRC it's somewhere around 33-35k lb and with the same engines the F-14A has, which should be able to do zone 5 for somewhere around 10-11 minutes if I'm not completely mistaken - the 110s do guzzle a lot more on gate, the F-111 would be going to be the stay-in-afterburner king on top of all aircraft in DCS. With a deck speed of M 1.4 it will probably run away from anything with ease and IIRC at 2km it would do 1.7 already and 2.0 at 4km. This is insane - and will get you out of trouble at a much higher chance than anything else. Especially with the rather limited maps in DCS, the fuel amount will cause the thing to be driven fast, giving it an edge where other planes might end up in massive trouble. I guess it's known that the plane was rated for M 2.5+ at altitude, but was able to reach M 3.0 easily, risking the engines though, as in kiss them goodbye after the sortie. Also important is the fact that it can deliver ordnance with a totally clean airframe within its bomb bay. The Tornado is a drag hell already even without any stores that you'd drop on your enemy - well, usually as you might get the impression those tanks and CMS/ELINT pods are bolted to them for eternity. When taking the Pave Tack TGP, it's loaded into the bomb bay as a retractable thing so you can at least clean the thing up after dropping your 10Es - how cool is that? Or, if I'm not completely mistaken, you can put a Vulcan gunpod with over 2k rounds in there.

 

Now don't get me wrong, but I don't get why people want to get the A-6, literally based on a novel / movie. That thing is slow, it can't turn, it can't climb, it can't shoot, it can't fox 2, so basically it has even less capabilities to fend off an aerial thread than the F-117 which at least is able to hide with its low radar and IR signature. As cool as that plane might be, it's gonna be shot down a lot in DCS, even more than A-10s and Su-25s. And everything it did and made her famous, the F-111 can do better, except from being operated from a carrier, which is just the Navy's fault for not taking the thing even as a strike aircraft back then as it initially was built to be carrier capable even. And we do get the A-7E which can almost carry as much as the A-6E would, having more options on top of that while being more capable in defending against other planes. Just my honest opinion on the Intruder...

[Bananabrai]

To start with the F-111, I would actually prefer it over an A-6. I can understand people who like to see a whole Carrier Deck mix of flyable airframes from the same period in history.

But I personally see more value in the F-111.

 

 

Yes a lot of people do seem to like the Tornado. But the Tornado is an aircraft that was really designed to be a multi-role fighter/bomber. We already have a number of these planes in the game. Why not a dedicated bomber, one that can carry a huge amount of ordnance and do interdiction/strike missions and one that fought in iconic wars? Also, Look at it. Look at it? :)

 

I'm not a fan of the Tornado, not really. It's a multi-role airplane that is not really the master of any of it's roles. It's small, and over-engineered. But I guess Im in a small minority. :(

 

However, I want to react to your OP, you're missing some knowledge about the Tornado here, and its historical background.

The Tornado was a european design, not a US design. So the understanding of 'Multi Role' differs from US.

It was about Multi-Role Tasking, whereas the US tended to design multi role loadouts.

 

The F-4 Phantom for example, being a Gen 3 Fighter, already could carry a very wide variety of weapons, A-A and A-G.

 

The Tornado is multi role capable in terms of doing for example: pin point strikes, RECON, ELINT, SIGINT, SEAD, DEAD, RWY attack, etc.

Those are all A-G tasks still, and conducted with a lot smaller variety of weapons than in the US.

And the main focus was on strike, the IDS ( -> Interdiction Strike) was the most produced variant.

Panavia tried to advertise it as multi role in the US way by selling different sub variants, which were different planes though (e.g.: ADV)

All in all maybe Europe did not understand multi role itself. The Typhoon was not able to carry any A-G munitions for quite some time.

 

Europe had quite a different approach to things, also in an historical context. So I would not say that the Tornado is a multi role airplane, not like a 21 century F/A-18C or F-16C.

Maybe like a 1980s F-16A and F/A-18A. And if it is, the F-111 is one as well. I see the F-111 as a Tornado with long legs and less focus on side A-G tasks of the cold war time.

The Viggen really shows how planes were designed here. Do you see that as multi role?

 

And to be honest, that is also a reason for me to have the Tornado as a favorite. We have quite a few US planes already.

[Lurker]

I'd very much love to see a HB Tornado as well in DCS. But as this is a 111 thread, I'll give my 2¢ on that one, as it's probably the thing that comes closest to the Tornado IDS and as always, it has some pros and cons when compared.

 

One big pro that I haven't seen mentioned is the massive fuel capacity. IIRC it's somewhere around 33-35k lb and with the same engines the F-14A has, which should be able to do zone 5 for somewhere around 10-11 minutes if I'm not completely mistaken - the 110s do guzzle a lot more on gate, the F-111 would be going to be the stay-in-afterburner king on top of all aircraft in DCS. With a deck speed of M 1.4 it will probably run away from anything with ease and IIRC at 2km it would do 1.7 already and 2.0 at 4km. This is insane - and will get you out of trouble at a much higher chance than anything else. Especially with the rather limited maps in DCS, the fuel amount will cause the thing to be driven fast, giving it an edge where other planes might end up in massive trouble. I guess it's known that the plane was rated for M 2.5+ at altitude, but was able to reach M 3.0 easily, risking the engines though, as in kiss them goodbye after the sortie. Also important is the fact that it can deliver ordnance with a totally clean airframe within its bomb bay. The Tornado is a drag hell already even without any stores that you'd drop on your enemy - well, usually as you might get the impression those tanks and CMS/ELINT pods are bolted to them for eternity. When taking the Pave Tack TGP, it's loaded into the bomb bay as a retractable thing so you can at least clean the thing up after dropping your 10Es - how cool is that? Or, if I'm not completely mistaken, you can put a Vulcan gunpod with over 2k rounds in there.

 

Now don't get me wrong, but I don't get why people want to get the A-6, literally based on a novel / movie. That thing is slow, it can't turn, it can't climb, it can't shoot, it can't fox 2, so basically it has even less capabilities to fend off an aerial thread than the F-117 which at least is able to hide with its low radar and IR signature. As cool as that plane might be, it's gonna be shot down a lot in DCS, even more than A-10s and Su-25s. And everything it did and made her famous, the F-111 can do better, except from being operated from a carrier, which is just the Navy's fault for not taking the thing even as a strike aircraft back then as it initially was built to be carrier capable even. And we do get the A-7E which can almost carry as much as the A-6E would, having more options on top of that while being more capable in defending against other planes. Just my honest opinion on the Intruder...

 

This is a great post. Especially the last part which illustrates the A6's capabilities in comparison to the F-111. People are hung up on the flight of the Intruder, but if this aircraft is ever released into the "wild" of DCS World I think they would be very, very disappointed with how it performs within our DCS constraints. I mean even in a Vietnam scenario, (or a "fantasy" equivalent) facing Mig-17s, 19s and 21s it would be at a huge disadvantage, unless it was flying in a no-fly zone, enforced by a superior CAP or something along those lines. The F-111 on the other hand, can fly high or low, it's fast at any altitude, and if it ever gets into real trouble can just Zone5 all the way back to safety from pretty much every single opponent it can possibly face in DCS World. If it's running an internal weapons load, it might not even need to jettison it's weapons to do that.

[Dudikoff]

This is a great post. Especially the last part which illustrates the A6's capabilities in comparison to the F-111. People are hung up on the flight of the Intruder, but if this aircraft is ever released into the "wild" of DCS World I think they would be very, very disappointed with how it performs within our DCS constraints. I mean even in a Vietnam scenario, (or a "fantasy" equivalent) facing Mig-17s, 19s and 21s it would be at a huge disadvantage, unless it was flying in a no-fly zone, enforced by a superior CAP or something along those lines. The F-111 on the other hand, can fly low and fast, and if it ever gets into real trouble can just Zone5 all the way back to safety from pretty much every single opponent it can possibly face in DCS World. If it's running an internal weapons load, it might not even need to jettison it's weapons to do that.

 

It theory yes, in practice it's not that simple perhaps as the F-111 was pretty unreliable in general. In the bombing of Libya in 1986, of the nine F-111s assigned to strike one of the targets, only three made the strike, one of them actually attacking some wrong target a mile off by mistake (and causing significant collateral damage). Of the other six, one went the wrong way after hitting the tanker, 4 aborted due to malfunctions and one crashed (or was shot down). The other two strike groups (of 3 and 6 F-111s respectfully) did better with only one aborting due to TFR malfunction. On the other hand, the two strike groups of six A-6Es each struck their assigned targets (one of which was a military airport) without any losses or malfunctions apparently.

[Expert]

We need a Tornado and we will get it soon.

[Lurker]

 

It theory yes, in practice it's not that simple perhaps as the F-111 was pretty unreliable in general. In the bombing of Libya in 1986, of the nine F-111s assigned to strike one of the targets, only three made the strike, one of them actually attacking some wrong target a mile off by mistake (and causing significant collateral damage). Of the other six, one went the wrong way after hitting the tanker, 4 aborted due to malfunctions and one crashed (or was shot down). The other two strike groups (of 3 and 6 F-111s respectfully) did better with only one aborting due to TFR malfunction. On the other hand, the two strike groups of six A-6Es each struck their assigned targets (one of which was a military airport) without any losses or malfunctions apparently.

 

Using one single mission as an example of the reliability and capability of an aircraft especially one where the A-6Es were launched from a carrier in the area, while the F-111s were launched from England and had to do over a dozen aerial refuels (because they had to go around Europe for a 6000 miles round trip) is disengenious at best.

 

The F-111 was anything but unreliable if you look at it's entire service record (especially in Vietnam and Desert Storm) and not just one mission where pilot fatigue and error probably played more of a role than the actual aircraft reliability.

 

[Bananabrai]

I really can imagine that the F-111 was pretty heavy on maintenance.

Supposedly it took 20++ % of the AF budget of maintenance for being something like 6% of the AF's force.

Wasn't it even heavier on cost and maintenance than the B-1B? Maybe that, combined for all types together.

 

Strike aircraft operate low, in dense air, at high speeds and are stuffed with high tech to keep their crews safe at that speed and altitude.

Tornado was pretty maintenance heavy as well and performed similar in the Gulf war. 4% of the sorties for 20% of the losses within the first week or something.

Read the book on GR.1's operational history.

 

They could do their job, and they did, but at a rather high cost.

Maybe you are mistaking reliabilty for 'how reliable could the perfect working airframe and aircrew do their mission"

[Lurker]

Ok here is just one example I dug up from the 1972-73 campaign over Vietnam which reflects on the F-111A service record in that time period: "By the end of hostilities the 474th TFW had chalked up well over 4000 missions, dropping 74,000 bombs, mainly 500 lb but also 2000 lb and cluster munitions. Eight aircraft were lost (seven crews), mainly in the initial phases of the deployment, resulting in an overall loss rate of 0.2%. A typical mission would involve a low level high subsonic run in with a payload of twelve 500 lb bombs, the whole mission lasting 2.5 hours and flown in pitch black darkness. Significantly all missions were flown without the support of tankers, ECM platforms, Wild Weasel SAM suppression aircraft and fighter cover. Each F-111A could carry twice the payload of an F-4 Phantom over 2.5 times the range and the USAF acknowledged the aircraft as being the most cost effective employed throughout the conflict."

 

I'd hardly call that a poor reliability record. On its own it might have been expensive to operate and maintain, but when you take into account it's low loss rate, and no need for tanker, fighter or other supporting assets that cost goes down significantly. In any case thankfully that is something that we don't have to deal with in DCS.

[Lurker]

10. Things that make you go BOOM: F-111 and an insane amount of ordnance.

 

[Adler Blau]

NAVY aviator needs F-4B or F-4J for Vietnam war against Mig-21!!!

[jared9191]

As much as I absolutely love the A-6, the F-111 is an absolute beast. Please, please, F-111!

[draconus]

I'll just stir the pot a bit, sorry ;)

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...corrected-list

So, 3rd place... and not even close.

[Lurker]

I'll just stir the pot a bit, sorry ;)

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...corrected-list

So, 3rd place... and not even close.

 

Oh I didn't know Heatblur chose projects based on what people Vote for? Silly me....:shifty:

[stuart666]

Whilst I love the F111 as much as any sane man, there is a problem that rather limits its potential in DCS. I dont believe we have a map big enough to make it worthwhile. This was an intermediate range bomber, that out of the UK could go all the way to Moscow if necessary. Im not seeing any maps (just maybe the Persian Gulf Map) that can use something with that kind of range halfway plausibly.

 

The Tornado would be a better fit. At least till we get maps large enough to warrant it, then im all for someone having a bash at it.

[Lurker]

Whilst I love the F111 as much as any sane man, there is a problem that rather limits its potential in DCS. I dont believe we have a map big enough to make it worthwhile. This was an intermediate range bomber, that out of the UK could go all the way to Moscow if necessary. Im not seeing any maps (just maybe the Persian Gulf Map) that can use something with that kind of range halfway plausibly.

 

The Tornado would be a better fit. At least till we get maps large enough to warrant it, then im all for someone having a bash at it.

 

Well yeah, I mean some people enjoy hours of flying to and from combat missions, and yes the F-111 had great legs. However that's not exactly an issue that prevents it from being used within DCS World. Indeed it's an advantage, load it up with 50% fuel and go nuts with as many bombs as it can carry.

[draconus]

Whilst I love the F111 as much as any sane man, there is a problem that rather limits its potential in DCS. I dont believe we have a map big enough to make it worthwhile. This was an intermediate range bomber, that out of the UK could go all the way to Moscow if necessary. Im not seeing any maps (just maybe the Persian Gulf Map) that can use something with that kind of range halfway plausibly.

 

The Tornado would be a better fit. At least till we get maps large enough to warrant it, then im all for someone having a bash at it.

 

I don't agree. While it'd be cool to have large size maps (or whole world) the current sizes are more than enough to enjoy the missions with any aircraft. There is no lower limit on range for aircraft to fly. RL (even transport, passenger and other utility) aircraft fly short ranges too. Problem with long range is that less than 1% of DCS users fly sorties longer than 2h. That's why users cry for Gulf War simulation (me including) but no one would care to fly real 4h or longer sorties there flying from Gulf of Oman to Kuwait and back to mother.

[Northstar98]

Whilst I love the F111 as much as any sane man, there is a problem that rather limits its potential in DCS. I dont believe we have a map big enough to make it worthwhile. This was an intermediate range bomber, that out of the UK could go all the way to Moscow if necessary. Im not seeing any maps (just maybe the Persian Gulf Map) that can use something with that kind of range halfway plausibly.

 

Meh, nothing that can't be solved with a liberal application of throttle, and we already have the AI Su-24 and even longer ranged aircraft present.

 

The Tornado would be a better fit. At least till we get maps large enough to warrant it, then im all for someone having a bash at it.

 

While I agree purely from the range perspective (plus when Cyprus gets developed, hopefully we'll see RAF Akrotiri, which had Tornadoes based their IRL).

 

 

I don't agree. While it'd be cool to have large size maps (or whole world) the current sizes are more than enough to enjoy the missions with any aircraft. There is no lower limit on range for aircraft to fly. RL (even transport, passenger and other utility) aircraft fly short ranges too. Problem with long range is that less than 1% of DCS users fly sorties longer than 2h. That's why users cry for Gulf War simulation (me including) but no one would care to fly real 4h or longer sorties there flying from Gulf of Oman to Kuwait and back to mother.

 

This.

 

[Lurker]

Yeah, why don't we make it's huge range another "plus" for this aircraft:

 

11. Range: A combat radius (F-111F) of 1330 nautical miles, or an insane 3634 nautical miles ferry range with external drop tanks.

[Spurts]

Yeah, why don't we make it's huge range another "plus" for this aircraft:

 

11. Range: A combat radius (F-111F) of 1330 nautical miles, or an insane 3634 nautical miles ferry range with external drop tanks.

 

Which on DCS maps means running the whole mission on AB.

[Northstar98]

 

Which on DCS maps means running the whole mission on AB.

 

I see no problem here...

 

There are plenty of aircraft (even if AI) that have even longer range; B-52H, B-1B, Tu-160, Il-76/78. Plus we already have the perfect REDFOR analogue to the F-111 in the Su-24 (very similar design, less range, but more mission flexibility)

[bies]

I wouldn't be surprised if F-111 is a "module to be announced later this year by ED"

 

But yes, after what Heatblur shown with kind of similar Tomcat (TF-30 engines, multicrew, variable geometry wing) if i had to chose in a perfect world i would prefer Heatblur to make this particular plane.

[Pmedic548]

I'd love to see the F model implemented with the awesome Pave Tac pod. I worked Es, Gs, Fs and EFs during my 4 years at Cannon AFB and the sheer power of those TF30 engines was always impressive and set every car alarm off in the parking lots during the morning and afternoon goes. Plus the modeling of the egress system would really be some cool eye candy. Annual egress training always showed vids of the egress system in operation and its various modes depending on speed and altitude. The modeling of the system itself just boggles my mind. Plus would the flotation devices be modeled, so the cockpit floats, and FYI there was a way of using the control stick as a water pump during an over the water ejection. A pilot friend of mine talked about being in Nellis one year flying the Thud, and the F111A was the new kid on the block. He said that he was moving fast and low, and an Aardvark just went cruising by like he was standing still!! I'm just starting out playing multiplayer when I get some free time, but the mission development with the addition of the Aardvark, especially if the EF is modeled, the possibilities are endless. Hey Heatblur I'm 58, hurry up!!! :))

[YSIAD_RIP]

I am all for efficiency! :thumbup:

[oreste]

Without a doubt, it is a module that I would like to have, I spent many hours of flight on FSX with a model of F111 ... of course the simulation level was much lower than that of the F 14 on dcs. hands on all those buttons, power, engines, navigation system and indicators for altitude, speed etc all in front of you..wow.Maybe a dream is coming true, I cross my fingers !!