Talk:General Dynamics–Grumman EF-111A Raven/Archive 1

Archive 1

F-1 claim

The claim that an EF-111 killed a Mirage is questionable. The footnoted source doesn't support this claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.188.6 (talk • contribs) .

Footnoted source says what this article says. "In Desert Storm an EF-111 was credited with one of the first kills of the conflict as a maneuvering Raven caused a pursuing Iraqi Mirage to crash into the ground."[1] F-111.net says s/n 66-0016 was "Credited for a Iraqi Mirage F1 kill on 17 January 1991, after flying at an altitude caused the chasing Mirage to impact the ground."[2]. There are several more, what is the problem with this? Dual Freq 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen at least two different sources that say that, while that EF-111 was almost certainly responsible for the crash of the F1, it was not officially credited as a kill for the aircrew, although it was acknowledged as an "unofficial" kill. ArgentLA 00:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

However, in both Citations for the Distinguished Flying Crosses for Captains Denton and Brandon (signed by LT GEN Charles Horner - CENTAF CC) "a low altitude air battle followed during which Capts Denton and Brandon eluded a missile attack, followed by the destruction of am attacking F-1 as as it impacted the ground."

In the OFFICIAL retirement remarks by Air Force Vice Chief of Staff LT GEN David L. Vesely recited the OFFICIAL history of the aircraft, pointing out the "downing of an Iraqi F-1 on the first wave attack by Capts Denton and Brandon." Source: Welcome to the Raven Farewell, 2 May 1998 - Cannon AFB, NM Official retirement orders of EF-111 66-016.

...and that is why they selected that airframe to represent the EF-111 on static display.

EF-111 vs EF-111A

There was never an EF-111, only the EF-111A. They were all F-111A conversions. --Dual Freq 23:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have noted the Air Force Museum fact sheet. It seemed pretty consistent about using EF-111A vs EF-111. GlobalSecurity.org is a bit less consistent, but their article name is EF-111A as well. --Dual Freq 03:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

EF-111 Raven → EF-111A Raven — The general naming convention says to "be precise" with the name. If there are no other variants of the EF-111, then the title should reflect that. This discussion should serve as a history to prevent future moves either way. Born2flie 14:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

Support - Article name should accurately reflect if the article only applies to a single variant or example. --Born2flie 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Simplicity; precedent with EA-6 and EA-18, among others. Will abide by consensus. - BillCJ 15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - simpler without the A, and if any further variants ever pop up, will be accomodated (admittedly not very likely). 132.205.44.134 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Technically there were only EF-111A since all a/c were converted F-111A. Outside articles seem to prefer the EF-111A designation [3] [4] [5]. The EA-6 article discusses at least 3 variants so it can not be named EA-6B as the article used to be named and the EA-18 article name probably should be EA-18G. Google even suggests EA-18G if EA-18 is input to the search engine. --Dual Freq 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the evidence presented here, there would seem to be a slight preference for EF-111A, but, taking into account the WP:AIR naming convention to "be named as generally as possible", I cannot see any clear consensus. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 13:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have requested a db-move, as I was one of the objectors. I can re-poll if necessary. - BillCJ (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Article was moved to EF-111A Raven without objection by moving admin. I have reconsidered my position on the model letter issue, and have had EA-6B, EA-18G, and AV-8B moved to those titles also. Thanks, and sorry for being contentious. - BillCJ (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(1)

The EF-111A aircrafts which deployed in Saudi Arabia are for RSAF use ? Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

number on display

I'm not sure why Dual Freq keeps objecting to there being four EF-111A's on display. The "Survivors" list clearly indicates four aircraft with BuNo's and their locations. The "Survivors" section was never intended to indicate that the aircraft is on permanent display, only that it is there right now. This site makes it possible to quickly update any changes in the aircraft's location or status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

66-0039 is not a "survivor" any more than the rest of the AMARC aircraft. It is an AMARC aircraft parked in a different section than the rest of the EF-111A's at AMARC. Photos of AMARC aircraft in 2004 show the aircraft is simply parked in no better shape than most of the other AMARC EF-111. 66-0047 is also "displayed" in a scrap pile near Mojave airport, you'd better add that to the list of "displayed" "survivors". Thanks for continuing to change the numbers so that they no longer adds up to the correct total of 42 aircraft. Keep up the good work. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

EF-111A parked in display row, which is basically the row they drive you down on the AMARG tour. The rest of the AMARG EF-111A's are parked in section 23 and 24. Davis-Monthan AFB, parent command of AMARG, has a display area, but that's not where the EF-111A is, it's in the AMARG section. When I wrote that section, I didn't want to confuse people with the numbers not adding up. I did think it was worth noting that 66-0039 was parked on display row, but it's really just another AMARC aircraft awaiting its ultimate fate. Frankly someone could easily call all of it original research and delete the whole section. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

successor in the USAF?

> EA-18G Growler now in production is expected to perform this role in the future, though for the Navy only.

Then, what's for the USAF? kinda F-16CJ+, F-35A+, or RQ-n? --218.217.25.44 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncited footnote removed

The entry for #66-0016 had this footnote:

In both Citations for the Distinguished Flying Crosses for Captains Denton and Brandon (signed by Lt Gen Charles Horner - CENTAF CC) "...a low altitude air battle followed during which Capts Denton and Brandon eluded a missile attack, followed by the destruction of an attacking Mirage F1 as it impacted the ground." In the official retirement remarks on 2 May 1998 by Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General David L. Vesely recited the OFFICIAL history of the aircraft 66-0016, pointing out the "downing of an Iraqi Mirage F1 on the first wave attack by Capts Brandon and Denton" and explaining that is why that airframe was chosen to represent the EF-111 on static display.

But that is unreferenced. So I moved it here in case someone can find a reference for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki page references

What was wrong with the sources i put on there? contribs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.146.152 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, other Wikipedia pages are not valid references per Wikipedia policy WP:Identifying reliable sources. See WP:Reliable source examples for more information/specifics. -fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Carrying?

This article states: "An EF-111A Raven in the foreground carrying a fixed tail pod for receiving and a fixed transmitting pod on underside, accompanied by an F-111F." Carrying tends to imply that the object isn't part of the aircraft but just transporting it - carrying bombs, carrying passengers, etc. - these pods are part of the aircraft itself. A person might carry a book, but you wouldn't normally describe them as carrying a leg or arm...- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.12 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Could not carry SEAD

Hello in the article it says that "It was not capable of firing anti-radiation missiles in the lethal SEAD role, which was a tactical limitation" In the German Wikipedia it says it could carry 2 Anti Rad Missiles. I looked for this in the web and i found the article on global security where it says the jammer was taken out and the anti rad missiles where added. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ef-111a.htm As the writer originaly did not write any sources for this information i dont really know whats true now. 213.185.172.60 (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org is a self-published source and does not really meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. The F-111 books I have do not mention any armament for the EF-111. An EF-111 crew in the Gulf War specifically say they were in an unarmed EF-111 in the History Channel's Dogfights of Desert Storm episode. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)