![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() :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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() :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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
----------
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|