Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F-111
Summary: I like it, too...
Message-ID: <5271@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 31 Mar 89 01:52:39 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert)

Just to make it clear, I didn't (and as far as i could tell nobody else did)
mean to complain about the F-111{A,(C),D,E,F}.  They are all fine planes,
very capable, and are still (~20yrs later) at or very near the top of the heap
for strike planes.  We all were bickering over the sensibility or lack thereof
of the F-111B (or, what can we do wrong in the name of 'effeciency of design   
cost' to paraphrase those who criticize ex defense secretary Macnamara.)

Of course, there are ways of doing it better... but that's another story.
An upengined Tornado would be neat, though they won't and can't due to design
(what i mean is boosting it into 111's thrust class...)

george william herbert
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu