By: Schorsch
- 17th June 2008 at 17:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would characterize flying actual combat mission into the toughest airspace at that time (North Vietnam) as "operational". No doubt the F-111A (but also other versions) had design deficiencies, some the result of over-specification of the TFX, some of the very ambitious avionics suite, some just because the F-111 stretched the state-of-the-art.
By: Sens
- 17th June 2008 at 17:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
67-0068 is a loss from December 22 1972, Linebacker, North Vietnam.
First flight of F-111A at December 21 1964.
First combat use of F-111A over North Vietnam was: Combat Lancer (March 15, 1968 to November 22,1968)
First operational use of the basic Su-24 in 1973. In 1975 it was introduced into the inventory.
The Su-24MK flew for the first time in 1987.
The Su-24M July 24 in 1977.
Did enter inventory from 1983.
Iraq got its Su-24s end of 80s after first Gulf War. Desert Storm 1991 saw that in Iran to be out of the harms way.
By: Sens
- 17th June 2008 at 21:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah really? It is larger. . . yet doesn't have the rough field useful capability of the Su-24.
It's like Backfire? F-111? Range comparison? Pointless.
Not to mention, compare how many of each aircraft were built - compare their cost of production.
The Su-24 has to cope with the rough Russian airfields. It has to withstand the harsh-climates of Russia without a protective shelter most of the time.
In Iraq, Syria and Algeria that is no issue as it was not for most NATO-ABs and F-111.
The Backfire is unique and has nothing comparable in the West.
The main role of the Backfire was to carry the huge Russian ASM and to replace the outdated Tu-16.
When it comes to the cost of production, the winner is China for obvious reasons.
When that is a yardstick, the J/F-6 was a very effective fighter, when the production of the MiG-19 did stop in Russia in the 50s already.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 17th June 2008 at 22:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would characterize flying actual combat mission into the toughest airspace at that time (North Vietnam) as "operational". No doubt the F-111A (but also other versions) had design deficiencies, some the result of over-specification of the TFX, some of the very ambitious avionics suite, some just because the F-111 stretched the state-of-the-art.
So gulf war I was a walk in the park? easy for the Su-24 let us analize the situation.
Vietnam: Less than 100 MiG-21s, MiG-21 second generation fighter no long range missiles niether look down shoot down capability so Basically the F-111 had no problem flying at low altitude against a MiG-21, the MiG-19 and MiG-17 were basically useless, early generation SAMs and AWACS however no AWACS used by the Vietnamese against the F-111, war duration more than a decade several lost according to the US none to enemy action
Afghanistan: no Su-24 lost to enemy action only one or two lost due to accidents , less than 50 american F-16s with no AIM-7, mostly MANPAD SAMs against Su-24s, a few AWACs, war duration a decade
Libya: F-111 versus MiG-25s, Mirage F1, MiG-23s supported by F-14s and F-18s, surprise attack only one loss according to US, war duration few days, there were some advanced SAMs and AWACS.
Iraq desert storm: few Su-24, less than 40 supported by less then 40 MiG-29s and very few Iraqi AWACS, versus at least 200 F-15 and F-16s and at least 200 F-14s, F-18s and Mirage 2000.
all the western fighters had look down shot down capability capability armed with AIM-7s and AIM-54s supported by AWACs
Advanced SAMs
no Su-24 lost niether in accidents or due to enemy action
F-111 supported by F-117 stealth fighters and EF-111 and Panavia Tornado in the anti-SAM role defended by F-15, F-16, Tornados ADV, Mirage 2000, F-14s and F-18s.
Several F-111 and Tornados lost to enemy action during operations, western sources claim only a single EF-111 lost and seven Tornados.
War duration a month
So as you can see the Iraqi war had more advanced weapons and no Su-24 was destroyed even considering the US patrols were using F-14s and F-15s to patrol NO fly zones.
See that we are using mostly western accounts for the F-111 losses in Vietnam and Iraq
By: Schorsch
- 18th June 2008 at 07:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not to mention, compare how many of each aircraft were built - compare their cost of production.
I think in relative terms (cost per unit in relation to domestic gross product), the F-111 was cheaper, not because it was so economical but because the USA was so much more wealthy. It was by the way a huge technology program and introduced turbo-fan engines and swing wings.
Not to be misunderstood: I think the F-111 was a failure in the beginning due to the USAF's tendency to oversophisticate the aircraft (esp. in terms of Mach number/Airspeed requirements). Electronics were unreliable (not an F-111 specific or an USA specific or a West specific problem), some lessons on the production and material section were learned the hard way (again: that happened in Soviet development programs, too).
But: when the biggest problems were finally ironed out, the F-111 evolved as the superior aircraft due to better design and better technology.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 18th June 2008 at 09:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think in relative terms (cost per unit in relation to domestic gross product), the F-111 was cheaper, not because it was so economical but because the USA was so much more wealthy. It was by the way a huge technology program and introduced turbo-fan engines and swing wings.
Not to be misunderstood: I think the F-111 was a failure in the beginning due to the USAF's tendency to oversophisticate the aircraft (esp. in terms of Mach number/Airspeed requirements). Electronics were unreliable (not an F-111 specific or an USA specific or a West specific problem), some lessons on the production and material section were learned the hard way (again: that happened in Soviet development programs, too).
But: when the biggest problems were finally ironed out, the F-111 evolved as the superior aircraft due to better design and better technology.
You seem to be so sure the Su-24 was either equally expensive or more expensive in PPP US dollars in 1980.
It is possible but without data you are just speculating and basicly giving information based upon personal preferences.
Now that theory that the F-111 was superior is not a reality.
Example WWII
When the Luftwaffe operated over the Soviet skies, the early soviet aircraft were no match for the BF-109, however as the soviets started building fairly good fighters numbers were more important than a slight edge in technology.
The same was in Vietnam, or for the matter of fact any war, cheaper more affordable weaponry with almost the same qualities will always prove superior.
If the F-111 and Su-24 would had found themselves involved in european operations the F-111 and Su-24 were going to suffer almost equally in losses however the Soviets always had more aircraft.
proof in 1991 the ratio of losses of the western coallition and the Iraqies was 1:1 according to western sources, against the Soviets would had been the same but larger numbers would had been the decisive factor if nuclear war would not happened in few words having a 2.4:1 production ratio advantage over the F-111, the Su-24 was far more survivable in real operations
now the only real advantage the F-111 had was longer range for semi-startegic missions but the Soviets had Tu-22Ms to fill the gap and the Su-24 were fitted with refuelling probes so basically there was no superiority since the soviets had Su-24s and Tu-22Ms doing better than the F-111 the missions they had to do
By: dionis
- 18th June 2008 at 09:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-24 has to cope with the rough Russian airfields. It has to withstand the harsh-climates of Russia without a protective shelter most of the time.
In Iraq, Syria and Algeria that is no issue as it was not for most NATO-ABs and F-111.
The Backfire is unique and has nothing comparable in the West.
The main role of the Backfire was to carry the huge Russian ASM and to replace the outdated Tu-16.
When it comes to the cost of production, the winner is China for obvious reasons.
When that is a yardstick, the J/F-6 was a very effective fighter, when the production of the MiG-19 did stop in Russia in the 50s already.
The Su-24 was designed, like any Soviet aircraft, for all-out war.
It was designed to be stationed closer to the enemy, on whatever kind of air strip it could get, running continuous bombing missions. At least that's the impression the design gives us.
By: Pioneer
- 18th June 2008 at 10:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aircraft are best compared by operating empty weight or by maximum take-off weight. In these terms the Suchoi 24 fails miserably against the older F-111, in terms of
- range
- radius
- war load.
Any claims about smaller fuel volume are academic. One rather has to ask why the similarly heavy (in terms of OEW) has substantially less fuel volume.
I further doubt that a 1991 Suchoi 24M/MF can have the punch the F-111F displayed during GW#1. Or that a Suchoi 24M/MF can fly the mission the 48th TFW flew in 1986.
In short: the Suchoi 24 falls short in technology and capability despite being younger. it still was a major capability improvement for the Soviet forces, as it represented the first all-weather capable fighter bomber with useful payload-range characteristics and useful defensive electronics. It filled a gap between the smallest bomber and the largest fighter-bomber.
I tend too agree with Schorsch about this F-111 vs. Su-24
I would like to add that the Su-24 has greater thrust and PWR than the older (and original design concept) F-111.
Then again the Soviets had the advantage of learning from the mistakes the United States had made from the TFX program, in requiring a so called one aircraft does all, too the detriment of the entire TFX program some what!.
Instead the Soviet’s wanted and built a dedicated Strike aircraft that became the ‘Fencer’
The thing I do like with the Su-24 over that of the F-111 design is the more versatile designed main landing gear that allowed for the under fuselage to be utilized to carry the majority of weapons (this was attempted by General Dynamics in their FB-111H proposal).
The Su-24 had a built in gun/cannon.
The Su-24 saved weight and complexity of using ejector-seats and not an Escape Module’
I also like the Su-24’s more conventional and practical air break arrangement, over that of the F-111’s large and under fuselage space-consuming air brake arrangement.
At the end of the day the Soviet learned much from the efforts – both good and bad, that the United States had too experience first hand with the cutting edge technology that was the TFX program.
For if the United States (USAF and USN) had the advantage of 10-years grace, I think the F-111 would have been a very different aircraft as to what we know!
For a start it would have been designated A-111 and built in far greater numbers than the F-111 we know today
By: Schorsch
- 18th June 2008 at 11:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For if the United States (USAF and USN) had the advantage of 10-years grace, I think the F-111 would have been a very different aircraft as to what we know!
For a start it would have been designated A-111 and built in far greater numbers than the F-111 we know today
I guess it would be smaller and without internal weapons bay (which is great, but only useful for nuclear strike) and more reliance on external fuel. On the end of the day, it would look like a Tornado (tandem seating) with a bit more length& volume, possibly with fixed conical inlets. And hopefully someone had corrected the afterbody engine exhaust integration.
The key advantage of the F-111 is its engine and the higher internal fuel volume (which comes with a price in complexity).
Aerodynamic shortcomings on the Suchoi 24 (wing fences, no leading edge devices) surely had its share, too.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 18th June 2008 at 12:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess it would be smaller and without internal weapons bay (which is great, but only useful for nuclear strike) and more reliance on external fuel. On the end of the day, it would look like a Tornado (tandem seating) with a bit more length& volume, possibly with fixed conical inlets. And hopefully someone had corrected the afterbody engine exhaust integration.
The key advantage of the F-111 is its engine and the higher internal fuel volume (which comes with a price in complexity).
Aerodynamic shortcomings on the Suchoi 24 (wing fences, no leading edge devices) surely had its share, too.
It has leading edge devices, see them
some variants had no wing fences
The Tornado was not a design better than the F-111, probably equal to the Su-24 in some flight envelopes and in performance parameters slightly superior, but in producibility still not as good as the Su-24, the Su-24 still outproduced the Tornado 2:1
in fact besides range and speed these three aircraft are basicly the same concept without any real advantage over each other beyond range and payload
If you want a superior design only the Su-34 is a generation ahead followed by the Su-30 and F-15E, but only the Su-34 is a superior machine.
in fact the Europeans made the same mistake the american did with the F-111 they made a strike aircraft a fighter in the Tornado ADV, it was not a Su-30 niether a F-15E it is just a strike aircraft with air to air missiles, in fact a MiG-23/MiG-27 concept with better payload but less agility
By: franc
- 18th June 2008 at 14:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After the assessments I did I find the ~2800km ferry range with two drop tanks quite realistic. The mission radius for lo-lo-lo seems very realistic, too. Data-wise, the Wikipedia article on the Su-24MK looks as one of the better ones.
The most unreliable information source is normally the operator of an aircraft.
Most reliable are normally "merged" information sources, like Wikipedia and some other web resources (quite OK is vectorsite). In general, most "sources" copy from each other. Some include wishful thinking. Sometimes people cannot see the difference between a mission radius and a range, and often the values given are "best" values. A real mission includes lots of reserves and allowances. The 330nm for the Suchoi 24MK in a lo-lo-lo mission profile are not a bad figure, by the way.
Since most "sources" copied from each other, the ~2800km ferry range more seems to be such copy so the reliability didn't increase any little.
There will be no result if we insist own data.
I am pretty convinced an F-111F can beat the 330nm mission radius with 4 2000lbs bombs. That is actually the payload the F-111F of the 48th TFW carried in 1986.
I can't see any vantage of the F-111F from the combat radius data you given compare with the Su-24. The 42000lbs bombs comes from that famous photo all we have seen ever before, but what the base will tell us F-111 can load 42000lbs bombs and achieve 330nm combat radius simultaneously?
By: Levsha
- 18th June 2008 at 14:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah really? It is larger. . . yet doesn't have the rough field useful capability of the Su-24.
Are you sure? how often did the Su-24 fly from a rough field?
How often did any Warsaw Pact type operate or train away from conventional surfaced runways? I think it's a capability that's well past its sell by date.
You seem to be so sure the Su-24 was either equally expensive or more expensive in PPP US dollars in 1980.
It is possible but without data you are just speculating and basicly giving information based upon personal preferences.
MiG-23MLD, you're the one who is always referring to Soviet built aircraft as been 'cheaper' than western aircraft, without coming up with hard figures to back it up.
The Su-24 was designed, like any Soviet aircraft, for all-out war.
By: franc
- 18th June 2008 at 15:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think in relative terms (cost per unit in relation to domestic gross product), the F-111 was cheaper, not because it was so economical but because the USA was so much more wealthy. It was by the way a huge technology program and introduced turbo-fan engines and swing wings.
Arh yes, F-111 is cheaper, compare with the speciality of US is to produce some aircraft like B-2 which only US wealthy enough to buy.:D
The cheaper price of F-111 was mentioned here not because it would spend less money on any aspect, but we took away the too large advantage somebody wrongly conceived from it:cool:
By: Schorsch
- 18th June 2008 at 15:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't see any vantage of F-111F from the combat radius data you given compare with Su-24. The 42000lbs bombs comes from that famous photo all we have seen ever before, but what the base will tell us F-111 can load 42000lbs bombs and achieve 330nm combat radius simultaneously?
It is not 42000lbs but 4 times 2000lbs, typical F-111F load-out.
And with 8000lbs (or roughly 3500kg) it will achieve 330nm and more.
Honestly, to carry 8000lbs of payload over 330nm in lo-lo-lo one can aim for a smaller aircraft.
By: Schorsch
- 18th June 2008 at 15:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Arh yes, F-111 is cheaper, compare with the speciality of US is to produce some aircraft like B-2 which only US wealthy enough to buy.:D
The cheaper price of F-111 was mentioned here not because it would spend less money on any aspect, but we took away the too large advantage somebody wrongly conceived from it:cool:
"Relative" means an absolute value (price-tag in USD) divided by a basis, in this case the domestic gross product of a country. As the USA's domestic gross product was always roughly 3 to 6 times that of the Soviet Union, the price tag (in USD) for one single F-111 can be up to 3 times higher before the aircraft is more expensive in relative terms.
As no one ever saw a true price for any Soviet aircraft, including development costs, the claims about the cheap aircraft are without basis.
The earlier aircraft like MiG-21 surely were easier to produce, but with technology increasing the Soviets ran into exactly the same problems like the West did, with spiraling costs.
Guess why the Soviet Union never really got foothold on the global market with its products, because they were either cheap or high-tech.
By: Sens
- 18th June 2008 at 15:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-24 was designed, like any Soviet aircraft, for all-out war.
It was designed to be stationed closer to the enemy, on whatever kind of air strip it could get, running continuous bombing missions. At least that's the impression the design gives us.
Nonsense. It was not designed to operate from every kind of strip. But it has to survive the hardship from ordinary Russian runways. There is a reason, why Russian designs have a limited MTOW compared to their size.
F.e. MiG-29A with 18,5 tons and similar size F-18A with 25,4 tons.
It was not till the end of the 80s, the electronics of the Su-24 has matured to the level of continuous missions at all. The intended full scale replacement with Su-32 in the 90s was delayed through the economic collapse of the SU.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 18th June 2008 at 15:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you sure? how often did the Su-24 fly from a rough field?
How often did any Warsaw Pact type operate or train away from conventional surfaced runways? I think it's a capability that's well past its sell by date.
MiG-23MLD, you're the one who is always referring to Soviet built aircraft as been 'cheaper' than western aircraft, without coming up with hard figures to back it up.
As if the F-111 and Tornado weren't?:rolleyes:
prices are difficult to determine if you do not get the rpice and the year of that price
see a modern Su-30MKA cost around 52 million dollars
see System
Su-30MKA fighter
Producer and Design Engineer
Sukhoi Corporation, Irkut Corporation
Number
28
Cost
$1.5 billion
Notes
Design based on Indian Su-30MKI and Malaysian Su-30MKM
See that the MiG-29 according to this webpage costed the same but algeria wanted 34
Greece's top brass had opted for the F-15 which had the best test reviews but its high price, about $75 million each, rendered the purchase prohibitive. The F-16 cost about $45 million and the Mirage about $58 million. The officials said a combination of all three types of planes being purchased was also being examined.
See the MiG-23 in 1997 costed the same that a F-111 costed only after 23 years the same price, however in 1998 an F-111 costed 75 million dollars
See thet Su-30 costed only the same of an F-15E after 14 years. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E1DE163FF934A35754C0A962958260
The announcement comes six weeks after a Lockheed rival, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, proposed building up to 36 Air Force F-15E's for $50 million each. The F-15 is a larger, longer-range fighter aircraft that can carry a heavier weapons payload but is less maneuverable than the F-16. The Northrop Grumman Corporation is also proposing to build an additional 20 B-2 Stealth bombers at its Los Angeles-area plant for $12 billion, or $600 million each.
see the price of the Su-24 was merely USD $ 5.5 million dollars in 2001 of course these were used ones but still a bargain
NAPO is a state-owned unitary enterprise with personnel of about 10,000. It specializes in the production of Su-24 frontline bombers and is preparing to launch the serial production of fighter-bombers of a new generation Su-27IB (Su-24, export version Su-32FN). The plant has no orders for such aircraft at the moment. Its financial difficulties lasted throughout the 1990s and only in 1999 the $12 mln contract with Algeria for three Su-24 bombers somewhat improved the situation. A new $120 mln contract for 22 such aircraft was signed with Algeria in 2000. Besides, NAPO is preparing to launch the serial production of the An-38 medium range aircraft http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2001/di/sgpst/
By: dionis
- 18th June 2008 at 16:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you sure? how often did the Su-24 fly from a rough field?
How often did any Warsaw Pact type operate or train away from conventional surfaced runways? I think it's a capability that's well past its sell by date.
MiG-23MLD, you're the one who is always referring to Soviet built aircraft as been 'cheaper' than western aircraft, without coming up with hard figures to back it up.
As if the F-111 and Tornado weren't?:rolleyes:
You can call Sukhoi and ask them how many times they tested the Su-24 on rough runways if you like, I don't have that data, but the aircraft was designed to do so.
Considering you likely wouldn't be operating from your main base (cause it would likely be in ruins) in case the Cold War went hot, no, I think the F-111 was designed for an all-out war with the USSR, and if it was, it has clear shortcomings.
By: Sens
- 18th June 2008 at 18:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can call Sukhoi and ask them how many times they tested the Su-24 on rough runways if you like, I don't have that data, but the aircraft was designed to do so.
Considering you likely wouldn't be operating from your main base (cause it would likely be in ruins) in case the Cold War went hot, no, I think the F-111 was designed for an all-out war with the USSR, and if it was, it has clear shortcomings.
Since the late 70s none did plan for an all-out war any longer. Otherwise the prime mission of the F-111 had been atomar. After one week of atomar warfare not much was left on both sides worth to be conquered at all. All the western strikers had air-refuelling capability to disperse to the whole of Europe. Compared to the Su-24, range was no real issue.
The Su-24 was the first all-weather low level striker of the SU and a new quality for the Russians by that. The Su-24 could be airborne, when the MiGs and other Sukhois were unable to fly such a mission or even take-off.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 17th June 2008 at 17:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would characterize flying actual combat mission into the toughest airspace at that time (North Vietnam) as "operational". No doubt the F-111A (but also other versions) had design deficiencies, some the result of over-specification of the TFX, some of the very ambitious avionics suite, some just because the F-111 stretched the state-of-the-art.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 17th June 2008 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
67-0068 is a loss from December 22 1972, Linebacker, North Vietnam.
First flight of F-111A at December 21 1964.
First combat use of F-111A over North Vietnam was: Combat Lancer (March 15, 1968 to November 22,1968)
First operational use of the basic Su-24 in 1973. In 1975 it was introduced into the inventory.
The Su-24MK flew for the first time in 1987.
The Su-24M July 24 in 1977.
Did enter inventory from 1983.
Iraq got its Su-24s end of 80s after first Gulf War. Desert Storm 1991 saw that in Iran to be out of the harms way.
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 17th June 2008 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah really? It is larger. . . yet doesn't have the rough field useful capability of the Su-24.
It's like Backfire? F-111? Range comparison? Pointless.
Not to mention, compare how many of each aircraft were built - compare their cost of production.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 17th June 2008 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-24 has to cope with the rough Russian airfields. It has to withstand the harsh-climates of Russia without a protective shelter most of the time.
In Iraq, Syria and Algeria that is no issue as it was not for most NATO-ABs and F-111.
The Backfire is unique and has nothing comparable in the West.
The main role of the Backfire was to carry the huge Russian ASM and to replace the outdated Tu-16.
When it comes to the cost of production, the winner is China for obvious reasons.
When that is a yardstick, the J/F-6 was a very effective fighter, when the production of the MiG-19 did stop in Russia in the 50s already.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 17th June 2008 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So gulf war I was a walk in the park? easy for the Su-24 let us analize the situation.
Vietnam: Less than 100 MiG-21s, MiG-21 second generation fighter no long range missiles niether look down shoot down capability so Basically the F-111 had no problem flying at low altitude against a MiG-21, the MiG-19 and MiG-17 were basically useless, early generation SAMs and AWACS however no AWACS used by the Vietnamese against the F-111, war duration more than a decade several lost according to the US none to enemy action
Afghanistan: no Su-24 lost to enemy action only one or two lost due to accidents , less than 50 american F-16s with no AIM-7, mostly MANPAD SAMs against Su-24s, a few AWACs, war duration a decade
Libya: F-111 versus MiG-25s, Mirage F1, MiG-23s supported by F-14s and F-18s, surprise attack only one loss according to US, war duration few days, there were some advanced SAMs and AWACS.
Iraq desert storm: few Su-24, less than 40 supported by less then 40 MiG-29s and very few Iraqi AWACS, versus at least 200 F-15 and F-16s and at least 200 F-14s, F-18s and Mirage 2000.
all the western fighters had look down shot down capability capability armed with AIM-7s and AIM-54s supported by AWACs
Advanced SAMs
no Su-24 lost niether in accidents or due to enemy action
F-111 supported by F-117 stealth fighters and EF-111 and Panavia Tornado in the anti-SAM role defended by F-15, F-16, Tornados ADV, Mirage 2000, F-14s and F-18s.
Several F-111 and Tornados lost to enemy action during operations, western sources claim only a single EF-111 lost and seven Tornados.
War duration a month
So as you can see the Iraqi war had more advanced weapons and no Su-24 was destroyed even considering the US patrols were using F-14s and F-15s to patrol NO fly zones.
See that we are using mostly western accounts for the F-111 losses in Vietnam and Iraq
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 18th June 2008 at 07:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think in relative terms (cost per unit in relation to domestic gross product), the F-111 was cheaper, not because it was so economical but because the USA was so much more wealthy. It was by the way a huge technology program and introduced turbo-fan engines and swing wings.
Not to be misunderstood: I think the F-111 was a failure in the beginning due to the USAF's tendency to oversophisticate the aircraft (esp. in terms of Mach number/Airspeed requirements). Electronics were unreliable (not an F-111 specific or an USA specific or a West specific problem), some lessons on the production and material section were learned the hard way (again: that happened in Soviet development programs, too).
But: when the biggest problems were finally ironed out, the F-111 evolved as the superior aircraft due to better design and better technology.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 18th June 2008 at 09:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You seem to be so sure the Su-24 was either equally expensive or more expensive in PPP US dollars in 1980.
It is possible but without data you are just speculating and basicly giving information based upon personal preferences.
Now that theory that the F-111 was superior is not a reality.
Example WWII
When the Luftwaffe operated over the Soviet skies, the early soviet aircraft were no match for the BF-109, however as the soviets started building fairly good fighters numbers were more important than a slight edge in technology.
The same was in Vietnam, or for the matter of fact any war, cheaper more affordable weaponry with almost the same qualities will always prove superior.
If the F-111 and Su-24 would had found themselves involved in european operations the F-111 and Su-24 were going to suffer almost equally in losses however the Soviets always had more aircraft.
proof in 1991 the ratio of losses of the western coallition and the Iraqies was 1:1 according to western sources, against the Soviets would had been the same but larger numbers would had been the decisive factor if nuclear war would not happened in few words having a 2.4:1 production ratio advantage over the F-111, the Su-24 was far more survivable in real operations
now the only real advantage the F-111 had was longer range for semi-startegic missions but the Soviets had Tu-22Ms to fill the gap and the Su-24 were fitted with refuelling probes so basically there was no superiority since the soviets had Su-24s and Tu-22Ms doing better than the F-111 the missions they had to do
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 18th June 2008 at 09:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-24 was designed, like any Soviet aircraft, for all-out war.
It was designed to be stationed closer to the enemy, on whatever kind of air strip it could get, running continuous bombing missions. At least that's the impression the design gives us.
Posts: 719
By: Pioneer - 18th June 2008 at 10:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I tend too agree with Schorsch about this F-111 vs. Su-24
I would like to add that the Su-24 has greater thrust and PWR than the older (and original design concept) F-111.
Then again the Soviets had the advantage of learning from the mistakes the United States had made from the TFX program, in requiring a so called one aircraft does all, too the detriment of the entire TFX program some what!.
Instead the Soviet’s wanted and built a dedicated Strike aircraft that became the ‘Fencer’
The thing I do like with the Su-24 over that of the F-111 design is the more versatile designed main landing gear that allowed for the under fuselage to be utilized to carry the majority of weapons (this was attempted by General Dynamics in their FB-111H proposal).
The Su-24 had a built in gun/cannon.
The Su-24 saved weight and complexity of using ejector-seats and not an Escape Module’
I also like the Su-24’s more conventional and practical air break arrangement, over that of the F-111’s large and under fuselage space-consuming air brake arrangement.
At the end of the day the Soviet learned much from the efforts – both good and bad, that the United States had too experience first hand with the cutting edge technology that was the TFX program.
For if the United States (USAF and USN) had the advantage of 10-years grace, I think the F-111 would have been a very different aircraft as to what we know!
For a start it would have been designated A-111 and built in far greater numbers than the F-111 we know today
But that just me!
Regards
Pioneer
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 18th June 2008 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess it would be smaller and without internal weapons bay (which is great, but only useful for nuclear strike) and more reliance on external fuel. On the end of the day, it would look like a Tornado (tandem seating) with a bit more length& volume, possibly with fixed conical inlets. And hopefully someone had corrected the afterbody engine exhaust integration.
The key advantage of the F-111 is its engine and the higher internal fuel volume (which comes with a price in complexity).
Aerodynamic shortcomings on the Suchoi 24 (wing fences, no leading edge devices) surely had its share, too.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 18th June 2008 at 12:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It has leading edge devices, see them
some variants had no wing fences
The Tornado was not a design better than the F-111, probably equal to the Su-24 in some flight envelopes and in performance parameters slightly superior, but in producibility still not as good as the Su-24, the Su-24 still outproduced the Tornado 2:1
in fact besides range and speed these three aircraft are basicly the same concept without any real advantage over each other beyond range and payload
If you want a superior design only the Su-34 is a generation ahead followed by the Su-30 and F-15E, but only the Su-34 is a superior machine.
in fact the Europeans made the same mistake the american did with the F-111 they made a strike aircraft a fighter in the Tornado ADV, it was not a Su-30 niether a F-15E it is just a strike aircraft with air to air missiles, in fact a MiG-23/MiG-27 concept with better payload but less agility
Posts: 620
By: franc - 18th June 2008 at 14:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since most "sources" copied from each other, the ~2800km ferry range more seems to be such copy so the reliability didn't increase any little.
There will be no result if we insist own data.
I can't see any vantage of the F-111F from the combat radius data you given compare with the Su-24. The 42000lbs bombs comes from that famous photo all we have seen ever before, but what the base will tell us F-111 can load 42000lbs bombs and achieve 330nm combat radius simultaneously?
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 18th June 2008 at 14:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you sure? how often did the Su-24 fly from a rough field?
How often did any Warsaw Pact type operate or train away from conventional surfaced runways? I think it's a capability that's well past its sell by date.
MiG-23MLD, you're the one who is always referring to Soviet built aircraft as been 'cheaper' than western aircraft, without coming up with hard figures to back it up.
As if the F-111 and Tornado weren't?:rolleyes:
Posts: 620
By: franc - 18th June 2008 at 15:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Arh yes, F-111 is cheaper, compare with the speciality of US is to produce some aircraft like B-2 which only US wealthy enough to buy.:D
The cheaper price of F-111 was mentioned here not because it would spend less money on any aspect, but we took away the too large advantage somebody wrongly conceived from it:cool:
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 18th June 2008 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not 42000lbs but 4 times 2000lbs, typical F-111F load-out.
And with 8000lbs (or roughly 3500kg) it will achieve 330nm and more.
Honestly, to carry 8000lbs of payload over 330nm in lo-lo-lo one can aim for a smaller aircraft.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 18th June 2008 at 15:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Relative" means an absolute value (price-tag in USD) divided by a basis, in this case the domestic gross product of a country. As the USA's domestic gross product was always roughly 3 to 6 times that of the Soviet Union, the price tag (in USD) for one single F-111 can be up to 3 times higher before the aircraft is more expensive in relative terms.
As no one ever saw a true price for any Soviet aircraft, including development costs, the claims about the cheap aircraft are without basis.
The earlier aircraft like MiG-21 surely were easier to produce, but with technology increasing the Soviets ran into exactly the same problems like the West did, with spiraling costs.
Guess why the Soviet Union never really got foothold on the global market with its products, because they were either cheap or high-tech.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 18th June 2008 at 15:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nonsense. It was not designed to operate from every kind of strip. But it has to survive the hardship from ordinary Russian runways. There is a reason, why Russian designs have a limited MTOW compared to their size.
F.e. MiG-29A with 18,5 tons and similar size F-18A with 25,4 tons.
It was not till the end of the 80s, the electronics of the Su-24 has matured to the level of continuous missions at all. The intended full scale replacement with Su-32 in the 90s was delayed through the economic collapse of the SU.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 18th June 2008 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
prices are difficult to determine if you do not get the rpice and the year of that price
see a modern Su-30MKA cost around 52 million dollars
see System
Su-30MKA fighter
Producer and Design Engineer
Sukhoi Corporation, Irkut Corporation
Number
28
Cost
$1.5 billion
Notes
Design based on Indian Su-30MKI and Malaysian Su-30MKM
See that the MiG-29 according to this webpage costed the same but algeria wanted 34
http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2007/item3/item1/
however see a F-14D Tomcat in 1991 costed 71.9.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/military_aircraft_prices.htm
Greece's top brass had opted for the F-15 which had the best test reviews but its high price, about $75 million each, rendered the purchase prohibitive. The F-16 cost about $45 million and the Mirage about $58 million. The officials said a combination of all three types of planes being purchased was also being examined.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article5.html
this are current prices but let us see in the past
Su-24 Fencer 1997 approx. 24-25
Panavia Tornado ECR 1997 38
F-111 1973 14.6
MiG-23/MiG-27 Flogger 1996 approx. 15
F-111 Unit cost $FY98
[Total Program] $75 million
See the Su-24 was plainly cheap it costed almost 60% less than an F-111 in 1997
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-111.htm
See the MiG-23 in 1997 costed the same that a F-111 costed only after 23 years the same price, however in 1998 an F-111 costed 75 million dollars
See thet Su-30 costed only the same of an F-15E after 14 years.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E1DE163FF934A35754C0A962958260
The announcement comes six weeks after a Lockheed rival, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, proposed building up to 36 Air Force F-15E's for $50 million each. The F-15 is a larger, longer-range fighter aircraft that can carry a heavier weapons payload but is less maneuverable than the F-16. The Northrop Grumman Corporation is also proposing to build an additional 20 B-2 Stealth bombers at its Los Angeles-area plant for $12 billion, or $600 million each.
see the price of the Su-24 was merely USD $ 5.5 million dollars in 2001 of course these were used ones but still a bargain
NAPO is a state-owned unitary enterprise with personnel of about 10,000. It specializes in the production of Su-24 frontline bombers and is preparing to launch the serial production of fighter-bombers of a new generation Su-27IB (Su-24, export version Su-32FN). The plant has no orders for such aircraft at the moment. Its financial difficulties lasted throughout the 1990s and only in 1999 the $12 mln contract with Algeria for three Su-24 bombers somewhat improved the situation. A new $120 mln contract for 22 such aircraft was signed with Algeria in 2000. Besides, NAPO is preparing to launch the serial production of the An-38 medium range aircraft
http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2001/di/sgpst/
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 18th June 2008 at 16:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can call Sukhoi and ask them how many times they tested the Su-24 on rough runways if you like, I don't have that data, but the aircraft was designed to do so.
Considering you likely wouldn't be operating from your main base (cause it would likely be in ruins) in case the Cold War went hot, no, I think the F-111 was designed for an all-out war with the USSR, and if it was, it has clear shortcomings.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 18th June 2008 at 18:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since the late 70s none did plan for an all-out war any longer. Otherwise the prime mission of the F-111 had been atomar. After one week of atomar warfare not much was left on both sides worth to be conquered at all. All the western strikers had air-refuelling capability to disperse to the whole of Europe. Compared to the Su-24, range was no real issue.
The Su-24 was the first all-weather low level striker of the SU and a new quality for the Russians by that. The Su-24 could be airborne, when the MiGs and other Sukhois were unable to fly such a mission or even take-off.