Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "The Navy's Alternatives To The F-14 Tomcat Were A Fascinating Mix Of Good Ideas. Some Of Them French" video.

The F-111B was not for one second ever intended for BFM. It was to be purely a fleet defense missileer. This is why it had to go after the Navy realized it really needed an all-around fighter rather than a missileer. If the F-111B had been intended to dogfight the Navy would never have firmly insisted on the side-by-side cockpit seating over the objections of the USAF.
82
@KaoKacique And then it goes on to say the airplane lacked the BFM capabilities the Navy needed in the real world. This in conjunction with other comments can be interpreted as meaning the airplane was forced on the Navy by McNamara even though it didn't meet its needs. This is the common narrative, but it is not the case. The design did meet the stated needs of the Navy at the time, which were quite specific.
12
@christophmahler You are misinformed on the genesis behind the fleet defense doctrine. The F-111B didn't need a stronger engine to perform the design fleet defense role, which did not require high maneuverability. Connolly's statement to Congress was made after the Navy had decided it needed to dump the F-111 in favor of a more versatile air superiority fighter that could perform other roles as well as fleet defense. This was the result of combat experience in Vietnam. Connolly had been part of the Navy leadership (their 'fighter mafia') that never wanted a Fleet Defense Fighter in the first place. He had always wanted a true air superiority fighter, but more senior leadership overruled his faction and specified the fleet defense airplane. His statement about how all the thrust in the world wouldn't make the F-111 a fighter is tossed around as a proof that the F-111 design was a failure, but he conveniently failed to mention that the F-111B had never been intended to be the fighter he now said the Navy needed. It's the politics of procurement. The Navy changed its mind about what it really needed, and for decades its PR allies in Congress and the media have aided and abetted misrepresentation of that decision as being due to deficiencies in the F-111B design.
11
It was fast but did not have the loiter ability or load capability necessary. One thing the F-111B and the F-14 had in common was the VG wing necessary to meet those mission parameters. The A-5 wing was not capable, nor the fuselage for that matter.
6
@heatloss The F-15 was not better by accident, but by hard work.
5
@christophmahler I wrote a response to your question but YouTube seems to have eaten it. Here is an abridged last attempt. I don't have "a source" at my fingertips. I also know Washington's army spent a winter at Valley Forge but I don't have a specific source handy for that either. I've followed the F-111 since the beginning and have read multiple sources in books, magazines, and war college research papers, and all I can suggest is that you can do the same if interested.
3
@tararaboomdiay7442 The accounts I've read are that the F-111B handled well around the boat. That seem to have been just another myth that was crafted to support cancellation of the airplane. USAF did not change its mind about the F-111A, which was always intended to be a bomber. It was needed to replace the F-105, and also replaced the B-58. The F-15 was a completely separate program to develop the best possible air superiority fighter.
2
They have finally been forced to learn their lesson, and now the F-18 has replaced multiple single-purpose aircraft. There isn't enough room in the budget or a hanger deck for multiple types of single-role aircraft.
1
@christophmahler I get a chuckle when people ask for "a source" for any fact which is contrary to their already accept narrative even though what that narrative is often supported merely by internet chatter or undocumented YouTube videos. Sorry, but I can't recall "a source" to make your research easier and I'm not going to go search my library. I also know Washington's army spend a winter at Valley forge, but I don't recall a source for that either. I'm old and I've followed the F-111 since its development. There is plenty of documentation of these facts in books and war college research papers, so you'll have to do some reading.
1
@tararaboomdiay7442 No the F-111A was not going to be an air-to-air fighter, it was to be air to ground only. I did not say it was originally planned to replace the B-58, but it did also replace the B-58, just as I said. The F-111B handled well around the boat, which is the opposite of the story you hear on YouTube. Lack of carrier suitability was not the reason the plane was cancelled.
1
@tararaboomdiay7442 I've stated correct facts and I'm not going to keep repeating myself or arguing with you about irrelevant details that don't change those facts.
1
@paulholmes672 "The carrier trials of the Aardvark were after it's cancellation, and may have been done because the Navy knew if it flew/landed fine, it was moot." Yes, it did fly fine, but it seems the Navy tried to cover that up because it didn't support the decision to cancel. Today a myth survives that the airplane was not suitable for carrier landings, yet the accounts I read by actual Navy pilots such as Heatley indicate the airplane was well-mannered and was stable and responsive during approach and landing.
1