What if the F111K order isn't cancelled ?

[Blue cat]

What if the the UK doesn't cancel the F111K order and the RAF takes delivery of the aircraft in the early 1970's ? (Presumably the RAF would also have been able to arrange for a temporary replacement (F4's ?) in the same way the Australians did ?)

I'm thinking UK participation in the MRCA / Tornado program may be altered somewhat ? Perhaps the RAF has to choose between acquiring Buccaneers or more F111's at some point ?

Assuming the RAF acquired suitable refuelling air craft could the F111's have supplemented the Vulcans in the "Black Buck" missions in 1982 ?

 

[sdgottsch]

The F-111K order would have meant not needing the F-4 "rental/lease" and buying RN Blackburn Buccaneer. I think you still have the Tornado development at the same time period due to the joint-European need (German/Italian needs specifically) for an interceptor. Maybe the RAF could have focused their Tornado's as long-range interceptors rather than fighter-bomber tranche, that could have been a savings.

I don't believe the F-111K had the ability to conduct the same strategic NATO nuclear missions that the Vulcan's were designed for (payload too big and heavy). But it would have been great at tactical nuclear bombing like the USAFE ones.

Regarding the issue of Falkland's operations, the F-111 was simply a thirsty bird and they would have needed more tanker support to conduct those type of missions.

 

[Enakan]

10-4 on that, the Aardvark was a big thirsty BEAST!!!

Do you think a possible solution would be to piggyback with US tanker aircraft? They're compatible, but would the governments and militaries go along with that approach? For a NATO mission yes, Falklands though.......

 

[sdgottsch]

Regarding tankers, those Victor's tanker conversions held 91,000lbs of fuel while the KC-135's had 200,000lbs. I think the RAF would really need to rethink the refueling needs to meet their NATO missions if they bought the F-111K.

Now butterfly away the devaluing of the pound by the liberal gov't in 1967 and instead make the pound increase in value (somehow like the finding of oil reserves in the North Sea) and the F-111K program stays alive.

As for the ability for RAF aircraft to use USAF KC-135 tankers, the answer was no back then because the KC-135's used a boom while the rest of the world (and the USN/USMC) used the drogue. The KC-10 (1980 and after) had both a boom and a drogue.

 

[Blue cat]

Regarding tankers, those Victor's tanker conversions held 91,000lbs of fuel while the KC-135's had 200,000lbs. I think the RAF would really need to rethink the refueling needs to meet their NATO missions if they bought the F-111K.

Now butterfly away the devaluing of the pound by the liberal gov't in 1967 and instead make the pound increase in value (somehow like the finding of oil reserves in the North Sea) and the F-111K program stays alive.

As for the ability for RAF aircraft to use USAF KC-135 tankers, the answer was no back then because the KC-135's used a boom while the rest of the world (and the USN/USMC) used the drogue. The KC-10 (1980 and after) had both a boom and a drogue.

Do you know if the contemplated F111K's would have used probe and drouge or boom refuelling ?

 

[hms malta]

Good for the RAF but bad for the army and navy

 

[The Wooksta!]

F111K was to have standard RAF style probe and drogue IFR.

It certainly couldn't have carried out Falklands. Yes, you can refuel inflight but you can't refuel engine oil.

And it was Wilson's Labour government that bought F111K and then cancelled it by cancelling the need for it in the first place.

 

[Normal for Norfolk]

Now butterfly away the devaluing of the pound by the liberal gov't in 1967

What Liberal Government was this?

 

[hms malta]

They should of bought the cva 01

 

[Riain]

There would be significant differences between the RAAF F111C programme and the RAF F111K programme if they went ahead, primarily due to when the the development/production cycle these orders were placed. That meant that the 1964 ordered F111C had the F111A (18,000lbs) engines, avionics and intakes as well as the first wing carry-through box (with the long wing and heavy landing gear) which was the reason the F111C was delivered into storage while this was sorted out.

The F111K was ordered in 1966, after the FB111 by which time the Triple Plow II intakes had become standard to reduce the surge problems early models had, it was specified with the (troublesome) MkII avionics of the F111D. Wiki says it had the (25,000lbs) TF30-100 but given that engine didn't appear until the 1969 authorised F111F I'm dubious; the (20,000lbs) TF30-P7 was available and the almost identical P9 was due in the F111D. I haven't heard that the long wing FB111 had carry through box problems, so maybe the F111K won't.

So the F111K might not have the massive delivery delays and the 2 1/3 increase in price that the earlier F111C had, but there will be significant increases in price and some delays but will likely get their aircraft by 1970.

Do you know if the contemplated F111K's would have used probe and drouge or boom refuelling ?

Probe and drogue in a retractable probe immediately forward of the cockpit.

could the F111's have supplemented the Vulcans in the "Black Buck" missions in 1982 ?

The US F111F bombing of Libya in 1986 involved over 5500nm round trip of 13-14 hours, compared to the 6800nm 16 hour round trip black Buck missions. I think if the F111F can can do the former its not much of a stretch for the F111K to do the latter.

The F-111K order would have meant not needing the F-4 "rental/lease"

The RAF ordered 150 Phantoms as a Hunter replacement in 1964 and the first OCU achieved IOC in early 1968. The F111K was independent of this as it was a Canberra replacement.

Maybe, just maybe, a successful F111K order would mean the retention and Phantomisation of the HMS Eagle by the 1970 Conservative government. IOTL they decided to retain the carrier force after 1972 but decided against the Eagle because the RAF needed it's Buccaneer squadron.