Re: The F14 vs what we are doing now

[Scott Peterson]

Shmaryahu b. Chanoch > wrote:

>The History Channel recently had a piece on the F14. I did not realize that
>plane came out of the F111 program. Nor that it could track 24 enemy targets,
>engaging up to 6 at a time (and at long range).

Cynically wouldn't it be more correct to say that the US Navy would
have done anything to avoid buying the F-111B? They essentially
optioned it to death and then provide their own custom designed
replacement.

Scott Peterson

--
At least I have a positive attitude
about my destructive habits.

(147/689)

[Fred J. McCall]

Scott Peterson > wrote:

:Shmaryahu b. Chanoch > wrote:
:
:>The History Channel recently had a piece on the F14. I did not realize that
:>plane came out of the F111 program. Nor that it could track 24 enemy targets,
:>engaging up to 6 at a time (and at long range).
:
:Cynically wouldn't it be more correct to say that the US Navy would
:have done anything to avoid buying the F-111B? They essentially
:optioned it to death and then provide their own custom designed
:replacement.

No, it wouldn't. Compare the two airplanes.

What 'option' did the F-111B include that wasn't a mission for the
F-14?

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Pete Granzeau]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:10:36 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Scott Peterson > wrote:
>
>:Shmaryahu b. Chanoch > wrote:
>:
>:>The History Channel recently had a piece on the F14. I did not realize that
>:>plane came out of the F111 program. Nor that it could track 24 enemy targets,
>:>engaging up to 6 at a time (and at long range).
>:
>:Cynically wouldn't it be more correct to say that the US Navy would
>:have done anything to avoid buying the F-111B? They essentially
>:optioned it to death and then provide their own custom designed
>:replacement.
>
>No, it wouldn't. Compare the two airplanes.
>
>What 'option' did the F-111B include that wasn't a mission for the
>F-14?

The F-111B, as I understand it, never weighed less than 78,000 lbs,
whereas the USN insisted that the ships couldn't handle anything
greater than 55,000 lbs. It's interesting to note that the F-14
weighs about 40,000 lbs empty, and the F-18A less. Considering that
the F14 for a while did used the same engines as the F-111, it's easy
to see the complaint that the F-111B was grossly underpowered as
justified.

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, Pete Granzeau
> wrote:

> The F-111B, as I understand it, never weighed less than 78,000 lbs,
> whereas the USN insisted that the ships couldn't handle anything
> greater than 55,000 lbs. It's interesting to note that the F-14
> weighs about 40,000 lbs empty, and the F-18A less. Considering that

Where can one find definitive weights for these aircraft? And also
definitive weights for the "do not exceed" limits when the 111B was being
killed and the F-14 was being developed?

I've got a pretty good reference library with a number of books on the F-14,
but I've never found good comparisons of the weights issue. I have heard
that ultimately the F-14 exceeded the weight that was originally established
for the 111B. And I don't know how much the 111B's weight was reduced to.

There is a story that the F-14 broke the weight that the 111B was supposed
to meet and that this was "allowed" because the Navy wanted the F-14 but did
not want the F-111B. But I don't know if that is true. And it is also the
case that if the F-111B was still too fat, it was going to be way too heavy
for carrier acceptability whereas the F-14 was acceptable. But I cannot
find the numbers.




D