Heavy Metal
- Thread starter amazinblue82
- Start date
3175375
Old Man with a Hat
The missing link between the General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B and Grumman F-14 Tomcat.
As previously discussed, the F-14 Tomcat was developed in the wake of the F-111B 'Sea-Vark' failure using largely the same concepts but packaged better.
In between, there were other contenders from the US Navy's VFX programme. One of those was the Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) V-507 Vagabond. This was in effect an Americanized Dassault Mirage G, which was France's swing-wing fighter prototype.
The aircraft was designed to French specifications and needed major modifications to meet US Navy standards and requirements. By far, the biggest hurdle was perhaps the need to shoehorn the F-111B's Hughes AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 Phoenix BVRAAM combination into an airframe originally designed for smaller Cyrano series radars from what was then Thomson-CSF.
As previously discussed, the F-14 Tomcat was developed in the wake of the F-111B 'Sea-Vark' failure using largely the same concepts but packaged better.
In between, there were other contenders from the US Navy's VFX programme. One of those was the Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) V-507 Vagabond. This was in effect an Americanized Dassault Mirage G, which was France's swing-wing fighter prototype.
The aircraft was designed to French specifications and needed major modifications to meet US Navy standards and requirements. By far, the biggest hurdle was perhaps the need to shoehorn the F-111B's Hughes AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 Phoenix BVRAAM combination into an airframe originally designed for smaller Cyrano series radars from what was then Thomson-CSF.
i have a list had the f111b as worse fighter bomber (McNamara trying to make armed fores commonize a fighter bomber design to save money) ever. i am sure smart people worked on it/, specified it but sandwiched between the f-4 and the F -14, (both bada****) it left much to be desired in comparison..
everything i ever read about it, the plane was more a bureaucratic failure as much much as it was a technical failure. one plane for the Air Force and Navy good idea ---- on paper. they just couldn't build it. perfect example of the cliche a camel is the result of a committee design of a horse.
maybe others with expert knowledge read it different. to me, it was a poorly executed "aardvark". i wasnt a taxpayer then, but im sure i would have ben torqued over it.
..
Last edited:
3175375
Old Man with a Hat
I worked with guys (Hughes Aircraft Company) that had worked on the A-12 (fighter version of the ST-71) and F-106. I didn’t hear one way or the other regarding how the F-111B worked or not. However, they had a certain affinity towards the F-14, but that’s probably because they had spent so much time working in developing the weapons systems.i have alyea had the f111b as worth fighter bober (McNamara trying to make armed fores commonize a fighter bomber design to save money) ever. i am sure smart people worked on it/, specified it but sandwiched between the f-4 and the F -14, (both bada****) it left much to be desired in comparison..
every thing i ever read about it, the plane was more a bureaucratic failure as much much as it was a technical failure. one plane for the Air Force and Navy good idea ---- on paper. they just couldn't build it. perfect example of the cliche a camel is the result of a committee design of a horse.
maybe others with expert knowledge read it different. to me, it was a poorly executed "aardvark". i wasnt a taxpayer then, but im sure i would have ben torqued over it.
I think the adaptation for the Air Force and Navy created almost two separate platforms.
Similar threads
