Nerei wrote:I'm just going to cover most of my research here. If you want to further adjust my suggestions that should make it easier.
That means another wall of text. ^_-
First off the F-111G was designed as a strategic bomber (labelled the FB-111A). It is basically an enlarged version of the F-111 intended to replace aircraft such as the B-58 Hustler.
Note that "designed" in this case means a quick modification to fill a role the US felt they where lacking in until proper designs could fill it properly (like the B1 ended up doing but we will get to that).
Until 1990 it actually served as a nuclear deterrence with the strategic air command after which it ended up as a trainer as it was deemed unnecessary after the introduction of the B1. It was here it was rebuilt as the F-111G (actually only about half the fleet of 76 was rebuilt and only about 1/3rd of the planned numbers where built in the first place).
I cannot really find any references to the US actually using it as a tactical bomber.
The other models of the F-111 did serve that role though mostly as interdictors, tactical attack aircraft and the like. Australia also used the F-111G and I am pretty sure they did use them as tactical bombers. They got them from surplus US stock to supplement to their ageing F-111C fleet.
One major changes made for the FB-111 I can find was increased range so change the 4800km there to around 5400km. If we assume it has had the planned engine upgrade it will be upwards of around 7200km
That said the actual maximum takeoff weight was not much higher than that of the E/F version and it was an enlarged airframe so I will assume most of that increased weight is the larger airframe and more fuel. That is also to say I have a hard time finding actual numbers for the payload of the G model. That is probably down to it being first and foremost a nuclear bomber (e.g. nuclear weapons and drop tanks is the important bit not how many 500 lb bombs it can carry) and after that it was just a trainer. Finding numbers from the Royal Australian Airforce is also proving difficult.
For the more subjective values I have tried to use planes such as the Panavia Tornado and Su-24 as well as the E/F reference. That is mainly the attack values as things like speed and range are fairly hard, non debatable numbers (note I am also suggesting changes to the E/F version).
For hard and soft the Tornado is 60/60 the Su-24 is 72/34 and the E/F is 82/60
The F-16C is also fairly comparable to the Tornado so unless I am just picking horrible the this reference for planes with a payload of around 8000kg is approx 60/60.
Not sure why the Su-24 is that low in soft attack though it is a general purpose bomber (at least the quick search I did did not turn up any noteworthy anti-armour weapons used on it). It should probably be comparable to the Tornado or F-16.
Looking at a plane with some other payload we have the SU-17C with a payload of around 4000kg at 42 soft and 50 hard and the A-4UK Skyhawk with 40 soft and 45 hard.
Hard to find anything directly comprable to the F-111 in terms of payload and age but we can also look at the Tu-22M that has a payload of 24000kg is roughly contemporary.
It has an attack rating of 170 soft and 144 hard.
Now the F-111 has a somewhat higher payload capacity than the other planes (other than th T-22m naturally) so it should arguable have higher attack stats (around 4000-5000kg and 8000-9000kg vs 14000kg).
As said the maximum takeoff weight between the F-111E/F and G versions are not that different and the F-111G has a larger airframe.
Now I admit I am not that great an expert on the typical mission carried out by the different US aircraft during the cold war but I cannot really find any reference for the F-111 being used in an anti-armour role. Interdiction appears to be important which I would say should be fortress attack and most weapons listed are for that role or general purpose bombs.
To me the significantly higher hard attack value is representative of planes like the A-10 thunderbolt or Su-25T which are both built as tank destroyers and given I cannot find any reference of the F-111 being used in that role I say we more or less equalize those values.
Using that we can probably say something like 75/75 would not be completely off for the E/F variant. We might want to increase the fort attack value up towards this for the E/F variant though. Again the F-111 was amongst other things intended as an interdictor.
The thing is it is the G variant was technically created when the US rebuilt their FB-111's in the late 1980's so should we rebrand it as a late 80's plane?
That is something that I will say is entirely down to how we implement it. BG kept it as an early 1970's plane so if we also do that the stat increase over the E/F variant should be marginal. Maybe 5 points or so if even that much. If we do that the fort attack value of 76 is probably good as is though.
If we consider the rebuilt extensive enough to be a late 80's plane we can probably bring it up somewhere in the mid, maybe even high 80's for both hard and soft attack. Fort attack would go up to similar values.
The close air attack of the F-111G is a bit high so it should probably be lowered own to a level comparble to that of the E/F version which is to say 60. It is also fitting with other aircraft like the Tornado and Su-25.
Values like air and ground defense does not appear crazy when compared to most other planes of that era so probably just keep that. Airspeed and the like are also within the acceptable. Being originally a nuclear bomber with several hardpoints and large possible payload weight I guess the missile carry capacity is also acceptable.
So for the E/F maybe give it roughly 75 in soft hard and fort attack instead of what it currently has.
For the G variant if we consider it a 70's plane give it again roughly 75 in fort, soft and hard attack. If we say late 80's maybe 85 in all of them.
If you want to argue that the main role of the F-111 in the tactical role is interdiction I guess we can cut a bit off soft and hard attack.
No matter that lower close combat attack to around 60 and set range up towards 5200-7200 depending on if you think it should have a significant engine upgrade or not.
I might have missed something and as mentioned cold war US aircraft like the F-111 is not what I know most about so I might have missed something. If anything looks crazy or you think there might still be something wrong let me know (ideally also with what stat you think it is) and I will try and dig a bit deeper.
Hmmmmm... many things here, will try to address them in a semi-orderly manner:
1) The F-111 was cancelled for political reasons. It was and is one of the worlds best bombers,. The australians only retired them because the airframes were beginning to fail, and because repairing them would be very expensive.
So they "replaced" them with F-18´s - a FAR less capable airframe for air-to-ground missions.
Just like the americans.
2) America stopped the F-111, because of the irrational and unintelligent concept of "Peace Dividend". As in after the cold war where all the idiots and turkeys agreed that THIS time war indeed WAS over. And thus significant reductions had to be made. A concept that sadly never made it to all the anti-democratic dictatorships across the world including China, North Korea and Iran.
3) The F-111 were a brilliant airframe as it combined the ability to carry huge amounts of ordnance very low and through enemy airdefences. And I do mean huge. Thus its ground attack values are fair as it packed a bigger punch than all other planes except the A-10. Which the same unintelligent, incompetent and insipid idiots who doomed the F-111 in its prime, for years have tried to get rid of. Despite the fact that the A-10 have NO replacements.
4) There really was not was a flying F-111G - or rather there was BUT: It was a conversion more of letters than content.
5) What the game ACTUALLY is trying the emulate with the current F-111G is the F-111G conversion... or rather what the conversion would have been like if it had been updated as proposed, but never realized.