Most Beautiful Aircraft

The F-111 was meant to be capable of acting as a fighter, strategic bombing, tactical attack, and it was intended to be carrier based as well. In practice it was to big and heavy for carrier use, too short legged for strategic roles, and too unmaneuverable for the fighter role.

Has any aircraft with two crew members side by side ever been successful in air combat maneuvering exercises?

No strategic role. Riiiiiight.

Military Deterrence of International Terrorism: An Evaluation of Operation El Dorado Canyon | Office of Justice Programs



So much so, that the USAF (that well known bunch of idiots when it comes to strategic strike) operated 340 of the things.
 
No strategic role. Riiiiiight.

Military Deterrence of International Terrorism: An Evaluation of Operation El Dorado Canyon | Office of Justice Programs

...snip...
So much so, that the USAF (that well known bunch of idiots when it comes to strategic strike) operated 340 of the things.
So, the TSR2 was royally screwed over not a missile ?
 
Of course

So, the TSR2 was royally screwed over not a missile ?
1655661745047.png
 

Yokel

LE
No strategic role. Riiiiiight.

Military Deterrence of International Terrorism: An Evaluation of Operation El Dorado Canyon | Office of Justice Programs



So much so, that the USAF (that well known bunch of idiots when it comes to strategic strike) operated 340 of the things.

I was paraphrasing the (American I presume) author of a book called Deep Black, about US air and space reconnaissance and intelligence gathering projects and system. How many tankings did the F-111 need for El Darado Canyon? How did its range compare with SAC's stalwart, the B-52?

It was something I remembered from a YouTube video about the V bombers. The shooting down of the U2 caused a rethink in how to deliver nuclear weapons. Possibly a load of tosh, but there you go.

Yes it made the planners rethink putting bombers over Soviet territory - which caused Britain to see the Skybolt air launched ballistic missile.
 
I was paraphrasing the (American I presume) author of a book called Deep Black, about US air and space reconnaissance and intelligence gathering projects and system. How many tankings did the F-111 need for El Darado Canyon? How did its range compare with SAC's stalwart, the B-52?



Yes it made the planners rethink putting bombers over Soviet territory - which caused Britain to see the Skybolt air launched ballistic missile.
Are you seriously suggesting that they could’ve done El Dorado Canyon with B52s?

And the number of AAR brackets is relevant why?
 

Yokel

LE
Are you seriously suggesting that they could’ve done El Dorado Canyon with B52s?

And the number of AAR brackets is relevant why?

We are using similar words, but possibly not the same language. I am not suggesting that the B-52 could done the same - no targeting system such Pave Tack.

By 'strategic' the author implied that it was intended to stand on alert at airfields in the continental United States ready to scramble and launch a strike against Warsaw Pact targets.
 
It was something I remembered from a YouTube video about the V bombers. The shooting down of the U2 caused a rethink in how to deliver nuclear weapons. Possibly a load of tosh, but there you go.

Which was the whole premise of the maximum altitude of missiles. The US could have spent a few more $ on research and as few less $ on covering up their own findings.

The Canberra was still in service not long ago, there are many reasons why NASA chose to fund the programe.
 

chrismcd

Old-Salt
Duncan Sandys was the Secretary of State for Defence in 1957 who decided that the future would all be missiles, not manned aircraft. Perhaps nobody told him that a fighter has a greater range than a SAM?

Labour were in power from 1964 onwards.
Sandys was Winston Churchill's son-in-law and was head of the V2 'Crossbow' committee. RV Jones thought he was an idiot who was bonkers on missiles.

Subsequent events show Jones knew of whom he spoke.


 

Yokel

LE
Finally dredged one more with side by side seating from my memory, the Douglas Skyknight:


View attachment 671710

Alright - nobody disputes that jets with the two crew members side by side have been built and successfully used. Nobody disputes that they have been used as night righters. However, has a side by side arrangement ever been used with an aircraft that has been expected to dogfight with the bandit being acquired visually?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Alright - nobody disputes that jets with the two crew members side by side have been built and successfully used. Nobody disputes that they have been used as night righters. However, has a side by side arrangement ever been used with an aircraft that has been expected to dogfight with the bandit being acquired visually?
Alternatively, have aerodynamics pushed designers towards an inline configuration?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Jet Provost
View attachment 671728

Also sold as BAC Strikemaster.
View attachment 671729
This one in Sultan of Oman Air Force colours.

Used in Dhofar War proving close air support in the Battle of Mirbat no less.

Trainer and CAS respectively, though. Not fighters (although the Provost was used to train fighter pilots; I've recounted how I used to lie on my school field as a kid and watch them far, far above me...).
 

Latest Threads

Top