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 always had the plane on my list of worst ever. i sm sure smart people work on it/ specified it but sancwuched between the f-4 and the F -14, it left much to be desired.
every thing i ever read about it, the plane was more a bureaucratic failure as it was a technical failure. one plane for the Air Force and Navy good idea ---- on paper. th y just couldnt build it.
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.
..
every thing i ever read about it, the plane was more a bureaucratic failure as it was a technical failure. one plane for the Air Force and Navy good idea ---- on paper. th y just couldnt build it.
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.
..Similar threads
