THE A-10 IS NOT THE REAL TANK KILLER, IT’S FORGOTTEN F-111 AARDVARK || WARTHOG 2018

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lilly

Producer, Blogger, Television Host, Green building lover, Queen of the Forest. Pour yourself a drink, put on some lipstick, and pull yourself together.

( 32 )
  • David Frost

    Awesom

    Reply
  • James Horsey Walsh

    I was coming back from a holiday on the Norfolk coast with my dad and was sleeping in the car when he pulled over to have a break in a layby at the foot of an RAF airbase runway. Two of these buggars came over at about 50 feet to land and I nearly shit my pants as I awoke to the sound of the engines hahaha. Happy times.

    Reply
  • Randall Howell

    Ya, I spent a lot of time walking in front of F111 Alert Area, stood about 20 ft. from two trailered nukes, plane carried two, at upper heyford way back in 1973 July until Dec. 1975, Nov. 1975 sent
    to pakistan with the F 111 to kar, or capital then, Security Police E-4 at that time.

    Reply
  • DB Cooper

    It should have been name Goose or Mallard, because with the wings swept forward in landing position and large tires, it looked like a duck when landing. Although they were affectionately called "Pigs". The only time the F-111 (pronounced "F- one-eleven", not "one hundred eleven") looked cool was wings swept going Mach. It was also the last fun jet to maintain, since computer diagnostics were in the infancy and avionics techs still got to do real troubleshooting.

    Reply
  • Jared Thibodaux

    I have long been a fan of the F-111 but comparing it to the A10 is silly, entirely different roles. Long range strategic bomber vs a dedicated CAS aircraft. Yes both could make target practice of soviet tanks and APCs but for the A10 that was home while the F-111 did it as an afterthought since it's primary role had been taken over by fancy stealth aircraft.

    Reply
  • robert smith

    The truth is that the F-111 filled a very specific role as a deterrent against Russia during the cold war. Due to treaties we could not station bombers in the European theatre. Yet the F-111was not a bomber.. see it even has an F in it's name just like all the other fighters. Of course, it could operate as an intermediate bomber (and a really good one at that) but we meant to use it as a fighter and that is why we stationed it in Europe. Yup… just another fighter. The funny thing was that the avionics on the F-111s had undergone a large upgrade just prior to its retirement. They spent huge amounts of money on new test stations and test sets, and then just put it all in storage.

    Reply
  • Casey Bowman

    The MIG 31 would chase it down & eat it!

    Reply
  • Heyy Now

    GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!

    Reply
  • Exterminence

    Sounds like such an amazing aircraft. Too bad it never got the recognition it deserves.

    Reply
  • Jonathan Allen

    There was a shit ton more f111s and they could arive much faster when needed. They used cluster munitions and a single drop could mean over 20 kills

    Reply
  • Albert25012501

    Through A-10 don’t get highest tank kill counts, I still love it making sound the most, lol

    BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

    Reply
  • Gripen39C

    Not listed as a model were the four RF-111C's of the RAAF, these were standard F-111C's but with a recon package (still listed as secret today) inserted into the bomb bay.

    Reply
  • Federico Cresci

    the best tank killer EVER was the JU-87G

    Reply
  • tom pinto

    The F-111 was high-maintainance garbage, in the words of Franklin Spinney, noted Air Force analyst. There is no comparison to an A-10 for ground support.

    Reply
  • Radio Active

    5 minutes in to the video and only one mention of it killing tanks….dam clickbait……….

    Reply
  • Sifkaz. USA

    Why do A-10 prefer F111? Both are good. The air battle is either a launcher or an attack

    Reply
  • Charles Ingram

    Guess i missed the "dump & burn" example. Where was it?

    Reply
  • B A Ryan

    Don't get my Dad started on the TSR2…

    Reply
  • seoulkidd1

    Remember in the orginal Red Dawn a F111 was droping napalm on Soviet tanks. Fry'em was the line

    Reply
  • dugclrk

    Total click bait, while an Okay aircraft it doesn't come close to being as good as the A-10 for ground support.

    Reply
  • roi joi

    Well, first & foremost, "armored vehicle" is rarely a tank, so right off you're full of shit. Second, the F-111 did nothing well except fly low fast, so what else was it going to be used for? Its only other role was as an ECM platform to jam Iraqi radars, protected by a huge armada of other aircraft. Third, you're just plain WRONG about the A-10's performance.

    http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/90s/ns-puav-19920701.html

    The A-10s were used extensively to hunt SCUD missiles, and so were not available as an anti-tank (vs anti-armor) platform. The F-111 was a horrible flying pig so inept at A2A combat it had an inferior EM score to every other Soviet and Western aircraft flying. If not for John Boyd, the USAF would have made the F-15 the same kind of flying debacle the Tomcat was.

    Reply
  • Stinky McCheese

    The A-10 and F-111 survey different roles, as such how can they really be compared accurately.

    Reply
  • Steven Virden Rasmussen-Jones

    McClellan got the contract to turn the F-111 project around. They put together one, if not the, best fabrications shops on the planet. They also had one of the only x-ray hangers in the world. My late father ran Special projects in a facility on the SW portion of that base and was responsible for getting radar and electronics on expedite. He did that for over 30 years and I used to live out in Elverta and watch the F-111's and A-10's do test runs. It was quite the place back in the day. Like what has been said here, both planes had their missions. There is not a plane on this planet that is better than the A-10 for close in support, but if you wanted a plane that could fly fast and carry a big load, it was the F-111. It is my understanding that that is why it was chosen for the Libya mission.

    Reply
  • I don't accept Authority.

    Don't fuk with Russia. They are very dangerous.

    Reply
  • Max Richter

    ALL US Armed Forces members are a bunch of MURDERERS !!!

    Reply
  • kasra khatir

    Iran Was supposed to get them as medium bomber but congress declined it and sold them to Australia. As if Australia had saddam and Soviets to worry about. We ended up getting SU-24s during 90s. So I guess general Dynamics loss ?

    Reply
  • Tim Areskog

    The swing wing 'pivot pins' were also suffering from wear making them unserviceable, and apparently these pins were no longer stock inventory items.

    Reply
  • ToonandBBfan

    How far could the Vark fly with a 24 x 500lbs bomb load?

    Reply
  • chapter11247

    You're right about this awesome machine. It was grossly underrated, as was the A-5 Vigilante. But, I still think the A-10 is the cream of the crop. Goddam thing is a flying tank !!

    Reply
  • CRsVette II

    It is nonsense to call F-111 a tank killer. Yes, it did have terrain-following radar and killed a lot of tanks in Iraq, but that is more of a function of how the Air Force deployed various aircraft and how many A-10s remained in service. Can;t beat the Warthog for effectiveness and reliability.

    Reply
  • f lucifer

    STOP saying F one hundred eleven!!!!’

    Reply
  • John McLean

    Here is a question I have always wanted the answer to from a "tech" guy. The ejection system called for the cockpit pod to come off the aircraft as one piece and the crew ride it down. Presumably the cockpit have multiple hydraulic, electrical and maybe pnuematic lines, hoses and tubes running into it from various aircraft systems and components. How did they disconnect magically all within the same micro second of ejection initiation? Were they just designed to "snap?" If so – how?

    Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>