Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: F111 Message-ID: <1990Aug21.024236.186@cbnews.att.com> Date: 21 Aug 90 02:42:36 GMT References: <1990Jul27.015630.22235@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul31.023053.20098@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug15.032141.26086@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 32 Approved: military@att.att.com From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug15.032141.26086@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > >Actually, after strenuous efforts to improve its landing performance, it >passed its carrier-compatibility trials... after the Navy version had >already been cancelled (partly on grounds of carrier-compatibility >problems!). Admittedly, it would have been usable only from the larger >carriers. But the Navy did not want the F-111 and emphasized its problems >very heavily and its virtues not at all. (The F-111B's specs, which it >mostly met, were much more demanding than those of the F-14A that replaced >it in Navy plans.) > Why all the Navy bashing? The F-111 was not the plane the Navy wanted. Of course they will do everything possible to not have it forced on them. Any organization or person will do the same thing. Comparing the performance of the F-111 to almost any aircraft of the same generation would indicate it is not a fighter. Even the Air Force does not use them as fighters! As you point out in a later post the Air Force tried to avoid the F-4 but couldn't find a good reason. Although in that case there was not even any realistic alternatives on the drawing board at the time. Also depending upon wo you listen to, not everyone in the Air Force was displeased with the Phantom. With hindsight, looking at the record of the F-14, and the relative performance of the two airplanes, I think the Navy made a wise choice. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu