Printable View
The bomb is a bit like a jet motorQuote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Very simple when you look at a drawing or read an explanation of how it works, but in practice it is a lot more complicated than that.
In addition getting the materials to build a bomb is not quite the DIY thing.
But then again as you said the Basic theory. What was publish amounts to the same as saying, an airplane has 2 wings a motor and a pilot sits in the middle.
I am not saying it correct but!
No, but I know what you mean. Knowing how the bomb works, even in considerable detail does not really help very much - in 1945, the USA was probably the only country with the economic resources to actually implement the technology (something a bit different to theory!). The Manhattan Project, which produced exactly three bombs, was the largest single industrial project ever undertaken (it may still be!). There was no chance of anyone building a bomb without duplicating a lot of the technology that was invented in that project. Today it is much easier, as some cheaper technology has been developed, but it still represents many years of work and huge investments for countries such as China, India, Pakistan (Britain and to a lesser extent France got information from the USA that cut a lot of corners - and so did the USSR, albeit not by intention of the USA).Quote:
Originally Posted by 85 county
Just to give an example of a possible reason why the USA might not want any F-111s lying about - one of the key problems that delayed production was the wing carry-through structure. The problems were finally solved with some very special metallurgy. If one continues to exist, it is possible to analyse the steel it is made from to duplicate the alloy. Something that the USA probably would prefer to keep to themselves.
News item just now - an F-111 went through Dubbo today on a truck, headed to Point Cook for display.
John
when the seppos sold us the F-111s they were single seater aircraft, the australians made them into dual seaters and the eletronics were upgraded for RAAF use and a large majority of the aircraft was aussie engeneered and built, all we basily bought was the frame and chassis.
they should be spread around the country for display, whats 5 not even 1 for every state snd terratory, what a croc.
sorry getting carried away this is not 'the soapbox' section i was a loadmaster in the RAAF in the late 90s and i did a bit of work with them.
the F/A-18s are remarkable aircraft by any speck 20 years ago but as with the F-111 we bought 20yrs old at the time the aussies will make this aircraft truely our own.
All F111's have always been a pilot and nav with side by side seating, it was designed that way ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Galoop
General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Design phase
The F-111A and B variants used the same airframe structural components and TF30-P-1 turbofan engines. They featured side by side crew seating in escape capsule as required by the Navy
its special,,, ;)
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im.../2011/05/5.jpg
Poppycock !Quote:
Originally Posted by Galoop
The C's were delivered with the Nuclear consent panel. We had to cover the things for public display. They were later removed during an avionics update.Quote:
Originally Posted by VladTepes
There are far greater risks in the F111 than asbestos. They have depleted uranium and beriliumn (cant spell it) both these are very toxic to people.
They also have the dubious honor of killing more of its maintainers than enemies. I think the last thing the Govt wants is civilians crawling around inside the things poisoning themselves.
Mind you it was ok for them force RAAF techo's into them to be poisoned.
I spent to many years working on the Pig to miss it. I was helicopter man in an Airforce without helicopters and ended up back in the F111 World.
I would love the chance to drive a wrecking ball into one.
I hardly think there will be too much need for civilains to be crawling around inside an F1-11's fuel tanks in a static exhibit somewhere mate. I think you are overstating the risk. In published reasons as to why they were not going to release these aircraft for display the gov't highlighted asbestos risk but I haven;t see any mention of those others - depleted uranium etc.
+1 on the fact they didn't worry about the people they forced into those fuel tanks though. Poor bastards.
I was one of the poor bastards forced to work in the tanks.
People have been known to do some pretty silly things in the past and it isn't hard to open the fuel tanks. Do you honestly think the Govt would publicly talk about the depleted uranium?
There are a wide range of toxic products and metals in the F111 trust me when I say asbestos is the least of the potential hazards.
F-111s Out of Service