• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

F-111 the Modular Approach

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
489
Under F-111 program the USAF and NAVY were in dispute what they need
Tandem and Parallel Cockpit are small dispute in Program compare to rest.

But What if
Someone in Pentagon or Contractors comme up with Modular concept ?
means one Airframe were build different for USAF and NAVY needs.
USAF - Tandem or single pilot Cockpit, more powerful engines
NAVY - Parallel Cockpit, reenforce airframe, standard engines the NAVY use.

Under Modular could be also build for needed purpose.
Interceptor
interdictor/strike
Bomber
ECM/Reconnaissance

although to use one Airframe for all those need is problematic
could stretching the Airframe help ?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
408
For me the old adage of "More pounds in airframe means more pounds to carry", bigger airframe = more fuel etc. Depending on the power unit of course.
 

iverson

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
296
Reaction score
94
I don't think that divergent Navy and Air Force "fighter" requirements were really the problem. After all, the F-4 worked fine for both. The problem was that the Navy wanted a fighter/interceptor, and the Air Force/TAC wanted a medium bomber but had to call it a fighter because of SAC.
 
Top