Jump to content

RF-111C and F-111G loadouts and colours


Anatol Pigwa

Recommended Posts

I am currently gathering documentation for my F-111 build for the ANZAC GB. I intend to build a late aircraft, either a F-111G or, RF-111C (if I get the Recce pack in time).

 

I understand that the following weapons where cleared for the RAAF F-111C:

- MK-82 and MK-84 Free-fall bombs,

- GBU-10, GBU-12 LGBs

- GBU-15 IR/TV guided glide bomb (cleared but not purchased)

- AGM-84 Harpoon

- AGM-142 Popeye

- AGM-88 Harm (cleared but not purchased)

 

The PGM and Harpoon capability arrived with the  Pave Tack upgrade, while the Popeye came with a proprietary designator pod. The RF-111C retained some strike capability initially with free fall bombs, and later recieved at least the Harpoon strike capability during the Avionics Update Program (AUP). 

 

There are still some questions left though:

 

1. Could the post-AUP RF-111C use the AGM-84 Harpoon as well as the AGM-142 and the AIM-9L/M Sidewinder?

2. Is it correct that the F-111G was more or less a glorified trainer/air show performer and could only be used operationally as a dumb bomb trucks?

3. Did the RAAF use any other wepons or ECM Pods on any of these aircraft (anti-radar cluster bombs or runway denail ammunition)?

 

TIA

 

Edited by Anatol Pigwa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Hook said:

The RAAF never fitted external ECM pods to their Varks.

 

Towards the end, the 8222 pod was integrated with the ‘Pig’. I forget the station number, but it was on the fuselage centreline, behind the main undercarriage bay.

Airliners.net (plus others, I’m sure) have pictures showing it. Once the sun hits Australia this morning, someone with some better info will doubtless clarify this!

 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia-Air-Force/General-Dynamics-F-111C-Aardvark/1769467/L?qsp=eJxtjbEOgkAQRP9lawpBSch10lhq4Q9s9ka9BOGytwWE8O%2BeR2JlN3lvMrOSTKNhtvsSQY4SWOVFFUVWfidyK3FQUX5YzynIXmu75lj9xAUj9L8i17T1IYM0qfVLPvBsOIsgGjzt/Koe%2BlVIUp6feafOAXormbpT5j6kOHDZgHEYaNs%2B6qo%2BnA%3D%3D


https://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia-Air-Force/General-Dynamics-F-111C-Aardvark/1764847/L?qsp=eJxtjbEOgkAQRP9lawpBSch10lhq4Q9s9ka9BOGytwWE8O%2BeR2JlN3lvMrOSTKNhtvsSQY4SWOVFFUVWfidyK3FQUX5YzynIXmu75lj9xAUj9L8i17T1IYM0qfVLPvBsOIsgGjzt/Koe%2BlVIUp6feafOAXormbpT5j6kOHDZgHEYaNs%2B6qo%2BnA%3D%3D

 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia-Air-Force/General-Dynamics-F-111C-Aardvark/1524552/L?qsp=eJxtjrEOwjAMRP/FcwcIVKqy0YURBn7AcgxEKm1ke2hV9d9JGomJ7e6edecVaBqNZ3ssicGDMgq9oYGEgh8FvwJGIcGn9aiR6lnbuVPzA1ceWf4j8K49HnKgk1i/5IGAxhciTsYBan6TwFIQK%2B3Lr/KJK5LlXl13zjZETQPuLWwYB9i2L1sgPuE%3D
 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia-Air-Force/General-Dynamics-F-111C-Aardvark/1503736/L?qsp=eJxtjrEOwjAMRP/FcwcIVKqy0YURBn7AcgxEKm1ke2hV9d9JGomJ7e6edecVaBqNZ3ssicGDMgq9oYGEgh8FvwJGIcGn9aiR6lnbuVPzA1ceWf4j8K49HnKgk1i/5IGAxhciTsYBan6TwFIQK%2B3Lr/KJK5LlXl13zjZETQPuLWwYB9i2L1sgPuE%3D
 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia-Air-Force/General-Dynamics-F-111C-Aardvark/1501217/L?qsp=eJxtjrEOwjAMRP/FcwcIVKqy0YURBn7AcgxEKm1ke2hV9d9JGomJ7e6edecVaBqNZ3ssicGDMgq9oYGEgh8FvwJGIcGn9aiR6lnbuVPzA1ceWf4j8K49HnKgk1i/5IGAxhciTsYBan6TwFIQK%2B3Lr/KJK5LlXl13zjZETQPuLWwYB9i2L1sgPuE%3D

 

 

 

Interestingly, The ALQ-131 may have been considered or trialled at one point early on:
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-RWR-ECM.html

and

http://www.ausairpower.net/USAF/ALQ-131+F-111C-1-S.jpg

 

 

 

As for weapons:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/502307-f-111c-the-pig-from-down-under/

and

 

 

 

A bonus - here’s a quaint guide on the ‘correct’ pronunciation:

https://qam.com.au/qam-content/aircraft/f-111/how-to-say-F-111C.htm

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G’Day, Anatol 

 

You are correct in that the RAAF G model was used primarily in the training role, it was used for conversion onto the Jet before the crews started the tactical phases of course requiring the sensors of the C Models.
 

In a nutshell Having the G models allowed them to save fatigue and wear on the C fleet and also free up more of those airframes for operations whilst the training activity continued concurrently. That said the G’s were used for bombing quite often with MK82 and MK84 generally, I believe they did drop GBU-12 occasionally (possibly others but no only saw -12’s) but they obviously required another platform (Generally a C model) to designate. 
 

The Recce jets definitely carried the AGM-142, the usual config was a missile on the outboard station of one wing with the Data link pod on the outboard station of the opposite wing with an inert MK82 inboard of the DLP as a counterweight. Some times a pair of missiles could be carried but the DLP would be fitted to at least one jet in the formation to control the missiles. AIM-9 was also good to go on the Recce jets and I am pretty sure they could use Harpoon too. Same deal as the G with regard to GBU-12/10/24 they could carry them if required but needed somebody with a laser to designate for them.

 

The most common load outs on C and G day to day was 1 or 2 SUU-20 practice bomb carrier with BDU-33 practice bombs. The C’s also seemed to Carry a pair of BRU’s even if empty a fair bit but that seemed to be less common on the G’s

 

As for ECM pods as previously mentioned there were some trialled over the years but the Elta 8222 was pretty common on the C models in the last decade or so of use. They could put them on the wing stations but under the backside, aft of the main wheel well was the most common position. Don’t think they ever bothered putting them on G’s

 

Hopefully that is of some help to you, I have the HB C model and a Recce  pack waiting for me to get around to myself, and it looks like Reskit might be swooping in to save the day with regard to the funky shaped cockpit/canopy area so it might even get to the bench after that is released.

 

If there is anything else I can help with sing out and I will see what I can do.

 

cheers

 

Cairnsy

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries, it’s an easy thing to miss!

 

As usual, the EW fit seemed quite a low key capability addition in the press - plus, it seemed to be rarely fitted (until needed). Even subsequent integration with the Hornet was reasonably quiet!

 

I guess when you’re better known for your dump-n-burn capability, who cares about ECM!
IMG_0324-640.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @Cairnsy for the comprehensive information provided.

 

While I based most of my research on this thesis ("Australia's strategic Weapon: How the F-111 changed the Royal Australian Air Force And Australian Defence Policy" by Mr. Mark R. Lax, University College University of NSW, Australian Defence Force Academy. 2011), it lack some of the finer points which are interesting for a modeller.

 

I have a question regarding the PopEye loadout.  I found this picture:

 

 agm142raaffw.jpg

 

Then I  found your post on Aussie Modeller re the PopEye Loadout, and that two PopEye's + DLP was not cleared by the ARDU. So the picture above would show most likely the A8-132 of the ARDU. Right?

 

Also I am confused about the shoulder pylon for the Sidewinder provided by Hasegawa.W here they used operationally? If so with which Sidewinder variants? Most of the later pictures of the Pigs seem to show Sidewinders on the inboard pylon only.

 

Finally the Vulcan Cannon. This was removed on the F-111C's in order to make way for the Pave Tack. Could it be installed on the F-111G's though by any chance?

 

TIA

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Keith T said:

Who makes the Recce pack in 1:48 ?

G’Day Keith,

 

I sourced mine through a local garage company here in Australia by the name of “Hamilton’s Hobbies” he’s a one man band that casts primarily subjects with an Australian flavour but it’s an informal release schedule usually available through some of the modelling forums and increasingly more on eBay but he’s not a “store” with a constant catalogue but keep an eye out. It’s obviously not the casting quality of the big resin brands but it’s a terrific starting point for the price and he does subjects that aren’t covered by any other manufacturers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anatol Pigwa said:

Thanks @Cairnsy for the comprehensive information provided.

 

While I based most of my research on this thesis ("Australia's strategic Weapon: How the F-111 changed the Royal Australian Air Force And Australian Defence Policy" by Mr. Mark R. Lax, University College University of NSW, Australian Defence Force Academy. 2011), it lack some of the finer points which are interesting for a modeller.

 

I have a question regarding the PopEye loadout.  I found this picture:

 

 agm142raaffw.jpg

 

Then I  found your post on Aussie Modeller re the PopEye Loadout, and that two PopEye's + DLP was not cleared by the ARDU. So the picture above would show most likely the A8-132 of the ARDU. Right?

 

Also I am confused about the shoulder pylon for the Sidewinder provided by Hasegawa.W here they used operationally? If so with which Sidewinder variants? Most of the later pictures of the Pigs seem to show Sidewinders on the inboard pylon only.

 

Finally the Vulcan Cannon. This was removed on the F-111C's in order to make way for the Pave Tack. Could it be installed on the F-111G's though by any chance?

 

TIA

 

 

Happy to help mate, The photo of that flight crops up quite often and without looking too close I believe that was 140 or 144 off the top of my head but was still part of ARDU’s clearance activities. 132 used to be “their” airframe but around the mid 2000’s it was assessed it was better used back at the Squadrons and then ARDU would just “borrow” other jets as required to support trials so it isn’t uncommon to see other jets with orange bits stuck on besides 132.

 

As for the gun that did come out to make room for the pave tack, the G model did not receive the guns and operated right to the end with a weapons bay although other than perhaps a ferry tank and I saw images of ARDU doing stuff with ASRAAM and SDB in the bay.

 

I believe we used AIM-9M on the jet at the end however we usually had the LAU-7 launcher fitted under the pylon as opposed to the shoulder, I have seen a few pics of them up there but was usually carried under the inboard pylons. The shoulder seemed to be more common on the USAF aircraft, I have seen plenty of photos of F-111D/F using them and perhaps if we had a genuine need to carry 4 stations worth of weapons maybe that’s where the shoulders would become a more popular choice but at a guess I’d say it was probably less stuffing around to use the pylon if it wasn’t need for a bomb so that was the preferred option. 
 

Hope that helps and I look forward to seeing some progress soon

 

Cheers

 

Cairnsy

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LAU-9 rails attached to the bottom of the pylon were required because the AIM-9L had bigger canards than the AIM-9P's which were fitted to the shoulder pylons in USAF service.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2021 at 10:01 PM, Cairnsy said:

G’Day Keith,

 

I sourced mine through a local garage company here in Australia by the name of “Hamilton’s Hobbies” he’s a one man band that casts primarily subjects with an Australian flavour but it’s an informal release schedule usually available through some of the modelling forums and increasingly more on eBay but he’s not a “store” with a constant catalogue but keep an eye out. It’s obviously not the casting quality of the big resin brands but it’s a terrific starting point for the price and he does subjects that aren’t covered by any other manufacturers.

 

Thanks for that info.  I'll try to find/contact him to buy recce pack for a future build.

Cheers !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more question about those additional fixed hardpoints on the wing that were never used. I have not found any information if they HAD to be attached at an angle for the 26 degree sweep or COULD be attached at that angle, but also in a "straight" position?

 

I intend do reenact the infamous "48 bombs loadout" photo at some point and wondered how much pain that would be? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anatol Pigwa said:

One more question about those additional fixed hardpoints on the wing that were never used. I have not found any information if they HAD to be attached at an angle for the 26 degree sweep or COULD be attached at that angle, but also in a "straight" position?

 

I intend do reenact the infamous "48 bombs loadout" photo at some point and wondered how much pain that would be? 

 

"The wing sweep varied between 16 degrees and 72.5 degrees"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark

 

this looks full forward to me

pizxuuk07m051.jpg

https://i.redd.it/pizxuuk07m051.jpg

 

16°:

A4db4OP.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/A4db4OP.jpg

 

 

this was the set cruising config for tanks: is this 26° ? looks more to me

avf111_09.jpg

http://www.airvectors.net/avf111_09.jpg

 

there is a photo out there showing the outer most tanks toeed in on take of.... (I assume for having optimized cruesing config later on!)

 

more probably here at F-111.net

http://f-111.net/Page-1.html

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok found the answer myself:

 

By all accounts the both outermost pylons were fixed and would jettison at a sweep angle over 26 degrees. Also, they were apparently fuel pylons only, so no connections for any weapons. I suppose you could jettison , say a MK-84 with the pylon attached, but the accuracy would be terrible (assuming it would arm) .

I found a claim that the wings were swept back to 26 degrees for the 48 bomb shot which makes a lot of sense in light of the aforementioned.

 

 

I will probably revise my plan then, since adjusting the Hasegawwa Kit to have a 26 degrees wingsweep for better presentation is an exercise I don't want to make (yet).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Anatol Pigwa said:

Ok found the answer myself:

 

By all accounts the both outermost pylons were fixed and would jettison at a sweep angle over 26 degrees. Also, they were apparently fuel pylons only, so no connections for any weapons. I suppose you could jettison , say a MK-84 with the pylon attached, but the accuracy would be terrible (assuming it would arm) .

I found a claim that the wings were swept back to 26 degrees for the 48 bomb shot which makes a lot of sense in light of the aforementioned.

 

interesting!

but then if the outer pylons do not move you have to either limit wing sweep or get rid of your load there .. you can't have them canted outwards AND high speed flight (aerodynamic loading limits ), can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exdraken said:

interesting!

but then if the outer pylons do not move you have to either limit wing sweep or get rid of your load there .. you can't have them canted outwards AND high speed flight (aerodynamic loading limits ), can you?

Indeed. The outer pylons were intended to improve range only.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2021 at 10:01 PM, Cairnsy said:

G’Day Keith,

 

I sourced mine through a local garage company here in Australia by the name of “Hamilton’s Hobbies” he’s a one man band that casts primarily subjects with an Australian flavour but it’s an informal release schedule usually available through some of the modelling forums and increasingly more on eBay but he’s not a “store” with a constant catalogue but keep an eye out. It’s obviously not the casting quality of the big resin brands but it’s a terrific starting point for the price and he does subjects that aren’t covered by any other manufacturers.

 

I've been unable to find a contact for Hamilton Hobbies... do you have a link you could share, please ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Anatol Pigwa changed the title to RF-111C and F-111G loadouts and colours

THe internet has a way of teaching you things.

 

I alwazs thiough there were only two paint schemesof RAAF F-111s (bar the  ARDU machine): SEA camo with a black underside, or overall gunship grey.

 

And then I find this picture:

 

17(TN).jpg

 

The wing is clearly brighter (white?) than theoverall scheme. Why would that be? Was the machine loanedto ARDU or is there another explanation?

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just a reflection from the ground/trick of the light(/weathering?) rather than a change in paint scheme, although I'd be very interested to be told otherwise. My photos of A8-138 at RNZAF Ohakea, March 2008:

dsc06042_34843118734_o dsc06036_34874860023_o dsc06044_35683939995_o dsc06043_35644620856_o dsc06041_34874861553_o

 

Edited by k5054nz
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...