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.
3175375
Old Man with a Hat
The F-111 Aardvark landed safely After struck a pelican at very high speed.
The strike occurred during high-speed, low-level flight, The bird was an Australian pelican, one of the heaviest flying birds, The impact caused major damage to the aircraft’s nose/radome and structure, The crew maintained control and returned to base
At low level, an F-111 could be doing 500+ knots. Kinetic energy scales with mass × velocity², so a pelican at those speeds delivers impact energy comparable to: a small motorcycle hitting the jet head-on, or a cannon round made of meat and bone.
The strike occurred during high-speed, low-level flight, The bird was an Australian pelican, one of the heaviest flying birds, The impact caused major damage to the aircraft’s nose/radome and structure, The crew maintained control and returned to base
At low level, an F-111 could be doing 500+ knots. Kinetic energy scales with mass × velocity², so a pelican at those speeds delivers impact energy comparable to: a small motorcycle hitting the jet head-on, or a cannon round made of meat and bone.
yeah the big pelicans can weigh up to 40 lbs. and one thing about the f111 was fast. we all got a mass x acceleration lesson when a piece of foam took down the space shuttle. was there was also paint chip hitting the space station window - at 17,000 mph
Tiny Debris Chipped A Window On The Space Station Tiny Debris Chipped A Window On The Space Station
Tiny Debris Chipped A Window On The Space Station Tiny Debris Chipped A Window On The Space Station
Last edited:
first boat? U.S.S. Defiant. i have no comment on class naming kerfuffle. look at futuristic proposed armament and propulsion. these are bada**es,: over 800 feet long, over 30 knots ... wow. guess who's coming to diinner?
USS Defiant (BBG-1) - Wikipedia USS Defiant (BBG-1) - Wikipedia
USS Defiant (BBG-1) - Wikipedia USS Defiant (BBG-1) - Wikipedia
| Name | Trump class |
|---|---|
| Operators | 
|
| Preceded by |
|
| Planned | 10 to 25 |
| Type | Guided-missile battleship |
| Displacement | >35,000 t (34,000 long tons; 39,000 short tons) |
| Length | 840–880 ft (260–270 m) |
| Beam | 105–115 ft (32–35 m) |
| Draft | 24–30 ft (7.3–9.1 m) |
| Propulsion | IFEP Integrated Full Electric Propulsion |
| Speed | >30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph) |
| Crew | 650-850 personnel |
| Armament |
|
Last edited:
as soon as i get excited - this aint my "grandfathers battleship"(Iowa below-powerful but stilll obsolete) - the way this thing gets deployed/defended has got to change. aint sure we can afford one, let alone 25 of them (at $20 Billion a piece) we need diffent, better submarines (Columbia-class_submarine and we want to put people on Mars. When do we (the country) go over all that?
https://news.usni.org/2025/12/22/tr...l-be-largest-u-s-surface-combatant-since-wwii
Google AI Overview
Battleships became obsolete due to the rise of air power (aircraft carriers), guided missles, and submarines, which offered longer range, greater flexibility, and better cost-effectiveness, rendering massive, slow, gun-focused ships vulnerable and inefficient. While they remained symbols of power, technology proved smaller, faster vessels with missiles and aircraft could deliver more destructive force more cheaply and safely, making large armored battleships relics of a bygone era.
Key Reasons for Obsolescence:
** Sea Control:** Carriers need air superiority and struggle to control contested sea zones long-term; battleships can deny areas to enemies, acting as floating fortresses.
** Firepower:** Massive guns provide overwhelming firepower for coastal bombardment, a role difficult for air power to replicate with the same sustained force.
** Armor:** Thick armor makes them highly resistant to many modern threats, especially missiles designed for lighter ships, though vulnerability to specialized anti-ship missiles remains.
** Symbolism:** Battleships are potent symbols of national power, influencing morale and diplomacy.
The Final Era:
Why won't these things still be $20Billion apop sitting ducks to the adversaries subs/missiles?? i can't find a good answer or maybe I'm too stupid.
https://news.usni.org/2025/12/22/tr...l-be-largest-u-s-surface-combatant-since-wwii
Google AI Overview
Battleships became obsolete due to the rise of air power (aircraft carriers), guided missles, and submarines, which offered longer range, greater flexibility, and better cost-effectiveness, rendering massive, slow, gun-focused ships vulnerable and inefficient. While they remained symbols of power, technology proved smaller, faster vessels with missiles and aircraft could deliver more destructive force more cheaply and safely, making large armored battleships relics of a bygone era.
Key Reasons for Obsolescence:
- Rise of Air Power: Carrier-based aircraft could strike targets hundreds of miles away, far exceeding a battleship's gun range, and project power inland, making battleships less relevant for sea control.
- Guided Missiles: Missiles provided a way for smaller ships (destroyers, cruisers) to deliver devastating attacks from great distances, bypassing heavy armor and making battleships vulnerable targets.
- Submarine Threats: Advanced torpedoes and submarine technology made large surface ships highly susceptible to surprise attacks, as seen in WWII.
- Cost & Efficiency: Battleships required thousands of sailors and immense budgets, while smaller, modern ships with advanced electronics and missile systems could achieve more for less.
- Nuclear Age: The threat of nuclear weapons highlighted the danger of concentrating so much power in one large ship; it was better to disperse firepower across many smaller, more expendable platforms.
- Inaccurate Bombardment: Even in WWII, their large guns struggled to hit camouflaged, far-off targets effectively, a job better suited for precision-guided munitions from aircraft or missiles later on.
** Sea Control:** Carriers need air superiority and struggle to control contested sea zones long-term; battleships can deny areas to enemies, acting as floating fortresses.
** Firepower:** Massive guns provide overwhelming firepower for coastal bombardment, a role difficult for air power to replicate with the same sustained force.
** Armor:** Thick armor makes them highly resistant to many modern threats, especially missiles designed for lighter ships, though vulnerability to specialized anti-ship missiles remains.
** Symbolism:** Battleships are potent symbols of national power, influencing morale and diplomacy.
The Final Era:
- Even though obsolete in concept, the US Navy kept powerful Iowa-class battleships active until 1992, using them for shore bombardment and as powerful symbolic deterrents in conflicts like the Gulf War.
- Ultimately, technology made the battleship's core function—delivering massive firepower—achievable by other means, ending its reign as the dominant naval weapon.
Why won't these things still be $20Billion apop sitting ducks to the adversaries subs/missiles?? i can't find a good answer or maybe I'm too stupid.
Last edited:
3175375
Old Man with a Hat
This is the type of stuff that I worked on during the second half of my career. (But not this specific one)…
“Rivet Amber” was not this aircraft’s only nickname; she also went by “Lisa Ann”. She was a very special aircraft and was the most expensive aircraft in USAF inventory until the B-2. Her radar system alone cost $350M in today’s dollars.
The green ring around her fuselage is composite material, and houses a 7 megawatt phased array radar that weighed over 35,000 pounds. If you look closely under the wings, you’ll see what appear to be a 5th and 6th engine between the inboard engines and he fuselage. One of these is a Lycoming T55 jet engine that powers the radar; the other is a heat exchanger to cool the radar.
Boeing RC-135 - Wikipedia
“Rivet Amber” was not this aircraft’s only nickname; she also went by “Lisa Ann”. She was a very special aircraft and was the most expensive aircraft in USAF inventory until the B-2. Her radar system alone cost $350M in today’s dollars.
The green ring around her fuselage is composite material, and houses a 7 megawatt phased array radar that weighed over 35,000 pounds. If you look closely under the wings, you’ll see what appear to be a 5th and 6th engine between the inboard engines and he fuselage. One of these is a Lycoming T55 jet engine that powers the radar; the other is a heat exchanger to cool the radar.
Boeing RC-135 - Wikipedia
3175375
Old Man with a Hat
On the night of August 19, 1980, Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 163 lifted off from Riyadh under calm skies, carrying 287 passengers and 14 crew members. A routine short-haul journey quickly turned into a silent struggle when a fire erupted in the rear cargo hold. The blaze remained largely invisible at first, yet its smoke began to creep through the cabin, wrapping the passengers in a haze of toxic peril. Inside, there was confusion and fear, as ordinary conversations and laughter were slowly swallowed by the advancing smoke.
The captain executed a textbook return to Riyadh, landing the massive Lockheed L-1011 TriStar with precision. From the outside, the plane seemed unharmed, its wheels rolling along the runway as if nothing had gone wrong. But inside, the cabin had become a sealed chamber of peril. Smoke thickened, oxygen thinned, and the minutes stretched into a torturous silence. Rescue teams stood ready, unaware that evacuation was not being ordered. By the time the aircraft doors were opened, all 301 aboard had succumbed - not to impact, but to asphyxiation, a silent tragedy hidden behind the façade of a safe landing.
Flight 163 remains one of the most haunting reminders that safety in aviation extends far beyond landing. The incident prompted global reforms in fire detection, emergency evacuation protocols, and crew training, ensuring that no landing would ever again be futile. Survivors and industry experts alike reflect on the courage of the crew who maintained composure in the cockpit, the resilience of passengers who tried to adapt to the smoke-filled cabin, and the painful lessons learned about the limits of human endurance when critical procedures fail. It stands as a sobering testament to vigilance, preparation, and the silent dangers that can turn ordinary journeys into unimaginable tragedies.
Saudia Flight 163 - Wikipedia
The captain executed a textbook return to Riyadh, landing the massive Lockheed L-1011 TriStar with precision. From the outside, the plane seemed unharmed, its wheels rolling along the runway as if nothing had gone wrong. But inside, the cabin had become a sealed chamber of peril. Smoke thickened, oxygen thinned, and the minutes stretched into a torturous silence. Rescue teams stood ready, unaware that evacuation was not being ordered. By the time the aircraft doors were opened, all 301 aboard had succumbed - not to impact, but to asphyxiation, a silent tragedy hidden behind the façade of a safe landing.
Flight 163 remains one of the most haunting reminders that safety in aviation extends far beyond landing. The incident prompted global reforms in fire detection, emergency evacuation protocols, and crew training, ensuring that no landing would ever again be futile. Survivors and industry experts alike reflect on the courage of the crew who maintained composure in the cockpit, the resilience of passengers who tried to adapt to the smoke-filled cabin, and the painful lessons learned about the limits of human endurance when critical procedures fail. It stands as a sobering testament to vigilance, preparation, and the silent dangers that can turn ordinary journeys into unimaginable tragedies.
Saudia Flight 163 - Wikipedia
Similar threads
