Read the forum code of contact
By: - 5th June 2008 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know too much about the F-111 other than its extremely high costs of operating it, but Su-24 users seem to be pretty happy with their models and will be kept in service for a while, and because of this, there will be further upgrades for it adding more capabilities. I also think its probably cheaper to operate than the F-111.
Not that the F-111 isn't out of service yet (Australia still uses it), but it seems that its future will soon end.
why not add the Tornado IDS? Seems like another aircraft with lots of positive results (unlike say the ADV it seems)
By: - 5th June 2008 at 12:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well seems The 111 has double the radius with same or more payload.
Maybe better compare the Su with Tornado IDS,but im not sure if it has a better radius still
By: - 5th June 2008 at 13:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Inviting your opinion which one is better?The F-111 has 6-8 pylons under wing with a small bomb bay inside aeroframe, which is seemingly greater than Su-24 that has 7 pylons (3 under aeroframe + 4 under wing). one the other hand, while full load, the Su-24 still can changed swept angle of wing but F-111 only can do with half load under wing.
I fixed a 1/72 model which my nuncle in law bought from abroad. the model even show 3 kh-58 a2g missile under aeroframe and 2 under wing plus two 3000 liters tanks loaded by inside pylon. Such load with variable geometry wing is more impressive to me compare with the F-111 reluctant wing changeable.
The F-111 can carry more fuel and has a VG inlet system so it is faster and has longer range, the Su-24 is lighter has a less complex fixed geometry inlet and was built in larger numbers.
Both aircraft are the same concept, a side by side twin engined VG wing fighter bomber with TF radar, however the Russians made it more of a tactical bomber for closer to battelfield operations and the americans more of a strategic bomber for attacks deeper inside the enemy territory.
Both are designed for a 6-7Gs overloads, and both were designed as low altitude high speed strike aircraft
By: - 5th June 2008 at 15:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
do you mean the inlet on Su-24 is not a variable geometry?
“why not add the Tornado IDS? Seems like another aircraft with lots of positive results (unlike say the ADV it seems)”
just compare similar powerplant bomber, don't drag in two many lead to go mass.
By: - 5th June 2008 at 15:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
do you mean the inlet on Su-24 is not a variable geometry?just compare similar powerplant bomber, don't drag in two many lead to go mass.
The early Su-24 did have a variable goemetry inlet but later Sukhoi deleted the system from production aircraft, they considered the Su-24 did not need high speed at high altitudes since it was a low altitude intruder and the VG inlet system only added weight
By: - 5th June 2008 at 16:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If we're splitting hairs here, the F-111 also has an extra hardpoint between the ventrals for ECM pods. Also, the F-111 was never meant to be a strategic bomber, it was a tactical interdiction bomber. The FB-111 that was pressed into service in a strategic role was a stopgap measure until the B-1 or larger FB-111H was completed.
By: - 5th June 2008 at 22:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If we're splitting hairs here, the F-111 also has an extra hardpoint between the ventrals for ECM pods. Also, the F-111 was never meant to be a strategic bomber, it was a tactical interdiction bomber. The FB-111 that was pressed into service in a strategic role was a stopgap measure until the B-1 or larger FB-111H was completed.
The americans designed a fighter bomber with larger cross section, this allowed for a larger and heavier internal fuel capacity, since they did not delete the VG inlet system, their fighter was much faster, so the F-111 also ended up having a much longer range thanks to the fact it can carry more fuel tanks than the Su-24, add up the refueling probe and the F-111 has a range at least a 1/3 longer than the Su-24.
The aircraft is heavier, yes the F-111 has a MTOW heavier than the Su-24 and can carry more weapons, and still the F-111 is a Mach 2.5 aircraft, this shows the excellent aerodynamics it has.
This provoked that the F-111 was suitable (probably ill suited) for strategic missions.
The Su-24 was simplier making it a basic medium range tactical bomber that out produced the F-111 in an almost 2.5:1 rate or a 1400 Su-24 /563 F-111 units rate
By: - 6th June 2008 at 05:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The americans designed a fighter bomber with larger cross section, this allowed for a larger and heavier internal fuel capacity, since they did not delete the VG inlet system, their fighter was much faster, so the F-111 also ended up having a much longer range thanks to the fact it can carry more fuel tanks than the Su-24, add up the refueling probe and the F-111 has a range at least a 1/3 longer than the Su-24.The aircraft is heavier, yes the F-111 has a MTOW heavier than the Su-24 and can carry more weapons, and still the F-111 is a Mach 2.5 aircraft, this shows the excellent aerodynamics it has.
This provoked that the F-111 was suitable (probably ill suited) for strategic missions.
The Su-24 was simplier making it a basic medium range tactical bomber that out produced the F-111 in an almost 2.5:1 rate or a 1400 Su-24 /563 F-111 units rate
The speed of Fencer is over 2.2M. Three X-58 loading under fuselage means the cross section of Fencer would be larger than F-111, which also because the powerplant en Fencer is greater than Aardvark.
Considering internal fuel in both Fencer and Aardvark are roughly equal, so the vantage of range you mentioned basically depends on external fuel which carried by.
Let's presume that both Fencer and Aardvark carried two standard external fuel tanks, Fencer could load more weapon than F-111 if swept angle of wing is variable.
By: - 6th June 2008 at 06:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The speed of Fencer is over 2.2M. Three X-58 loading under fuselage means the cross section of Fencer would be larger than F-111, which also because the powerplant en Fencer is greater than Aardvark.Considering internal fuel in both Fencer and Aardvark are roughly equal, so the vantage of range you mentioned basically depends on external fuel which carried by.
Let's presume that both Fencer and Aardvark carried two standard external fuel tanks, Fencer could load more weapon than F-111 if swept angle of wing is variable.
Franc
The Fencer has a smaller cross section than the F-111, simply because its inlets are very narrow, also originally the Su-24 was able to reach Mach 2.1 but only in few test flights, later variants deleted the VG inlets, and the ramps are fixed, the aircraft is a Mach 1.6 aircraft .
Looks might be decieving, the fencer has a blunter radome and the inlets narrower giving the impression of having a bigger cross section however the reality both aircraft have roughly the same cross section from the cockpit to the radome, but after the cockpit towards the inlets, the F-111 has a larger cross section, also the F-111 has the fixed wing gloves starting from the cockpit and they run down to the wing, the Su-24 has very small fixed wing gloves.
The larger wing gloves and larger inlets increased the area behind the cockpit in the F-111 where fuel and its internal weapons bay are located.
Also the Fencer usually carries less external fuel tanks
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su24m.html
By: - 6th June 2008 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-111 never carried tanks, except for ferry flights, although the FB-111A always carried tanks on alert. In Vietnam, the F-111A cruised the with the wings forward, but then were swept back to 45 degrees in the combat area. The bomb bay was never used as a bomb bay, except when filled with nukes. The USAF put a canon in the F-111 bomb bay. The F-111F had a PAVE TACK laser designater stowed there later in its career. I can't say what the Australians did, but they have PAVE TACK now. The F-111 did have four pylons under each wing, but the outer two are fixed, so the wings can't be swept back when mounted, so they were never used, except on the FB-111A.
I don't think the Su-24 ever had anything like PAVE TACK. I have been told by an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot that the F-111F was a better bomber than the F-15E, which is quite a testament. I would say the F-111F is better than the Su-24.
By: - 6th June 2008 at 16:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Depends on version.
The F-111 is - despite being older - more sophisticated with turbofan engines and - depending on version - very sophisticated electronics. Its maturity however was always miserable.
The Su-24 looks apart from the engine as the more reasonable solution. it does not exceed Mach 2 and apparently stays clear of oversophistication, at least in the initial versions.
The payload was secondary for the originally intended role: it was always nuclear. The F-111 could drop the B61 with reasonable accuracy 300nm behind enemy lines in all weather without exceeding 500ft. For 1970 a respectable achievement.
The Tornado goes same direction and can do the basic job (delivering the bomb) equally good or even better. It does not have the enormous payload of the F-111, while those pictures of an F-111 carrying 24 Mk82 are pure fantasy. In 1991 Gulf War they normally carried 2 to 4 LGB plus one marker in the bomb bay.
By: - 6th June 2008 at 16:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think the Su-24 ever had anything like PAVE TACK. I have been told by an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot that the F-111F was a better bomber than the F-15E, which is quite a testament. I would say the F-111F is better than the Su-24.
When we look at the deep penetration mission into defended air space an F-111F with updated ECM is surely more capable than an F-15E due to the larger airframe and better low level flight characteristics.
Overall performance in a conventional war is probably better for the F-15E. Also consider that the F-111F is at least 8t heavier than the F-15E.
----------
The F-111 is first generation swing-wing with lots of design solutions that were changed on later swing-wingers. If the USAF had used a bit more conservative specifications (M0.95 low level, M1.8 top speed) the resulting aircraft would look better.
By: - 6th June 2008 at 21:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-111 never carried tanks, except for ferry flights, although the FB-111A always carried tanks on alert. In Vietnam, the F-111A cruised the with the wings forward, but then were swept back to 45 degrees in the combat area. The bomb bay was never used as a bomb bay, except when filled with nukes. The USAF put a canon in the F-111 bomb bay. The F-111F had a PAVE TACK laser designater stowed there later in its career. I can't say what the Australians did, but they have PAVE TACK now. The F-111 did have four pylons under each wing, but the outer two are fixed, so the wings can't be swept back when mounted, so they were never used, except on the FB-111A.I don't think the Su-24 ever had anything like PAVE TACK. I have been told by an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot that the F-111F was a better bomber than the F-15E, which is quite a testament. I would say the F-111F is better than the Su-24.
I think none of these two fighters is better than the other, they are equally good, both are excellent machines.
If you want max speed and long range the F-111 is the better of the two, but if you want producibility the Su-24 is better, but as low level high speed bombers both are equally good
By: - 7th June 2008 at 04:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Due to upper surface, МиГ-23МЛД, you are right, but when we count available section, please notice that no matter how the inlet on Su-24 narrow are, the section of inlet on F-111 is semicirclar so that bottom surface factually is narrower that Su-24.
According to some photos, I believe, only two 454kg bombs could be put in F-111's bomb bay abreast, but three same weight bombs under Su-24. Remember what the diameter of X-58 is.
Then if the fact in terms of somebody here taught me is true, only 2 pylons are usable under each wing for F-111, we can concieve that range of Su-24 while it carring 2 X 3000 liters tank, won't be smaller that F-111 which only internal fuel used, meanwhile more warloads that Su-24 can carry than F-111.
For max speed, that 2.5M is almost some sort of fantasy while F-111 have to fixed swept angle at inferior limit if both 4 or 6 pylons are fully used. I bet that speed of Su-24 with max swept wing must be faster much more than F-111 with mini swpet wing.
Concerning nuke bomb, yes F-111 can drop nuke, but Su-24 couldn't?
By: - 7th June 2008 at 08:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Due to upper surface, МиГ-23МЛД, you are right, but when we count available section, please notice that no matter how the inlet on Su-24 narrow are, the section of inlet on F-111 is semicirclar so that bottom surface factually is narrower that Su-24.According to some photos, I believe, only two 454kg bombs could be put in F-111's bomb bay abreast, but three same weight bombs under Su-24. Remember what the diameter of X-58 is.
Then if the fact in terms of somebody here taught me is true, only 2 pylons are usable under each wing for F-111, we can concieve that range of Su-24 while it carring 2 X 3000 liters tank, won't be smaller that F-111 which only internal fuel used, meanwhile more warloads that Su-24 can carry than F-111.
For max speed, that 2.5M is almost some sort of fantasy while F-111 have to fixed swept angle at inferior limit if both 4 or 6 pylons are fully used. I bet that speed of Su-24 with max swept wing must be faster much more than F-111 with mini swpet wing.
Concerning nuke bomb, yes F-111 can drop nuke, but Su-24 couldn't?
Franc
You do not need empirically made guesses to know the F-111 can carry more fuel if you read the Sukhoi webpage about the Su-24 you will confirm the Su-24 has less range and it is lighter, having therefore a lighter weapons load if you compare tht date from the official Australian air force
General Dynamics F-111 technical specifications Manufacturer General Dynamics
Role Long-range strike fighter
Crew Pilot and navigator, who also operates the weapons systems
Engine Two Pratt and Whitney TF-30 turbofans (9,500 kg thrust each)
Airframe Length: 23m, height: 5.3m
Wingspan 21.3m extended, 10.3m swept
Weight 24,000kg basic, 51,846kg fully loaded
Speed Supersonic at sea level, Mach 2.5 at altitude
Range Ferry range in excess of 5,500km
Ceiling Above 50,000 feet
Weapons Harpoon anti-ship missiles
Sidewinder air-to-air missiles
Laser-guided bombs
Conventional bombs
Avionics Digital flight controls
Terrain-following radar
Attack radar
Pave Tack target system
Inertial navigation and integrated weapons system
http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/f111.htm
Aircraft performance
Takeoff weight:
- normal, kg 38,040
- maximum, kg 43,755
Maximum landing weight, kg 27,900
Maximum internal fuel, kg 11,100
Normal ordnance load, kg 3,000
Maximum ordnance load, kg 8,000
Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), km 11
Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 1,315
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 1.35
G-limit (operational) 6
Operational radius of action at sea level in mixed mode (Vcr in the 200-km area, V=900 km/h in other areas) with PTB external fuel tanks and 6x FAB -500M-62 bombs, km 615
Ferry flight range with 2xPTB-3000 external fuel tanks, km:
- with PTB external fuel tanks dropped 2,775
- with one in-flight refuelling 5,000
Takeoff run at normal take-off weight, m 1,550
Landing run at normal landing weight (with braking parachute), m 1,100
Aeroplane dimensions:
- length, m 24.532
- wingspan, m 17.638 (10.366)
- height, m 6.193
Crew 2
In-flight refuelling system
Maximum flow rate (at entry pressure of 3.5 kg/cm 2), l/min 1,100
Powerplant
Number and type of engines 2 x AL-21FZA
Thrust:
- in afterburner, kgf 111,200
- at full power, kgf 11,200
Avionics
By: - 8th June 2008 at 07:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG:
The web data you show me didn't say what's condition cause F-111 approach over 5000km ferry range. what if max internal fuel with 4X2271 Liters external fuel tanks which Aardvark normally carry?
By: - 9th June 2008 at 00:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG:The web data you show me didn't say what's condition cause F-111 approach over 5000km ferry range. what if max internal fuel with 4X2271 Liters external fuel tanks which Aardvark normally carry?
it will carry a max of 6 external fuel tanks
By: - 9th June 2008 at 04:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now we turn back, when Aardvark carry 6X2271liter tanks, yes, no doubt it can even reach 6000 km ferry range, but is this compareable ? is it still a swing wing aircraft compare with Su-24 which can swing wing during full load?
Posts: 620
By: franc - 5th June 2008 at 10:29
Inviting your opinion which one is better?
The F-111 has 6-8 pylons under wing with a small bomb bay inside aeroframe, which is seemingly greater than Su-24 that has 7 pylons (3 under aeroframe + 4 under wing). one the other hand, while full load, the Su-24 still can changed swept angle of wing but F-111 only can do with half load under wing.
I fixed a 1/72 model which my nuncle in law bought from abroad. the model even show 3 kh-58 a2g missile under aeroframe and 2 under wing plus two 3000 liters tanks loaded by inside pylon. Such load with variable geometry wing is more impressive to me compare with the F-111 reluctant wing changeable.