Wow, labeling me as living in the 1950’s… priceless. Does that make you a real keyboard warrior due to being from the age of the internet? Seriously, trying to ad hominem me with an age label not only is against forum rules, it’s also a blatant deflection. T-6, which is the origin of the Su-24, began as an offshoot of Su-15 scaled up and adding in technologies for short field performance. It started with a quad lifter arrangement and evolved to its current shape. Su-24 had 2/3 the range and payload, but enjoyed a big speed advantage over F-111.
It wasn’t intended as a personal attack, it was meant to refer that you must have been reading 1970s or 80s era Cold War information. in this case incorrect information). Thus I assumed you must be around 50 years of age. it is regrettable you got offended over that. its something that should not have been said.
but it doesn’t change my content after that:
https://www.suchoj.com/ab1953/Su-19/home.shtml
Das Projekt Su-19 (intern T-58PS) stellt eine Su-15TM mit ogivalen Tragflächen, ähnlich der damals in der Entwicklung befindlichen T-10-1, dar. Das Projekt Su-19 wurde nicht realisiert.
Kurzzeitig wurden die T-6 Prototypen und die Su-24 irrtümlich von westlichen Experten als Su-19 bezeichnet, bis dann 1981 die wahre Bezeichnung Su-24 bekannt wurde
But for arguments sake, lets move beyond that and get back to the claim that the F-111 would be a good multi-role aircraft.
its ridiculous to assume that just because it was derived from a fighter, a bomber would make a good fighter.
Just like you can’t expect the A-7 to be a good fighter since its lineage stems from the F-8, or the Su-34 with its Su-27 connection.
Not with out substantial modifications at least. And this thread is more about actual planes, not a bunch of what ifs and experimental types
which you seem to keep pushing. If we went by that logic, possibilities become endless.
Sign In
