Biggest mistakes in aviation history? Which projects should have been built?

[V8Interceptor]

McDonnell Douglas' proposed shortened twinjet version of the DC-10 would have given them the ability to compete with Airbus and a jump on the widebody twin market well before the 767. Ditto the similiar Lockheed "Bistar" L10-11 derivative..

 

[norseman]

Considering all the engine problems the F14 and F111 had it would have nice to seen the Spey option taken up with 17,500/27,000lb version that was available and running reliably on bench trials in the late 60's. Also the Viggen with the RR engine option (either the Medway or reheat Conway option) which would have worked round some of the export issues this great aircraft had. A pity cost got in the way of uprating the Speys in the UK Phantoms as the extra drag problem would have been pretty moot with these engines (seemingly also more economical).

I would have also liked to have seen the UK governemt stump up for the hi temp Pegasus versions which were tested for the Harrier giving 26/27,000lb dry thrust, certainly would have eased those hot and hi issues that arose. I suppose as a side note of that as well is the RR RB.422 for the HS.1216 giving approx 32,000lb dry and 45,000lb reheat way back in the day! (who needs the F135/136 engines!) B)

The design study of the stealth Harrier was interesting as well with it's faceted nose, angled out V tail and lots of low observable features along with the uprated Pegasus. Not sure how far it ever got as a JSF fall back plan but it was certainly interesting looking and comparitively low risk. I also don't know far the project got that looked at using modified RB.422's in the Harrier got but with no plenum AB but pitched in the 32-35,000lb dry thrust area. Now this engine in the stealth Harrier would have been something!

 

[norseman]

Should have also mentioned the Pegasus 16-01 engine as well which had the new 4 stage fan which was also 4 inches bigger, was good for 35,500lb thrust, in fact even the standard Pegasus modified with new LP turbine, tweaked aerodynamics and higher operating temp was running reliably on bench at just under 25,000lb in 1972. Even in 1966 these was the 2 inch bigger fan variant the Pegasus 9 which could give 26,00lb dry. Not bad for an engine that has been running since 1956 in one form or another!

 

[NERVA]

The Boeing Sonic Cruiser. Any of the American SST concepts.

 

[dan_inbox]

SEPECAT Jaguar M - looks fabulous (why didn't this enter service? I don't know)......

It failed the Aéronavale's carrier trials. One-engine-out handling was unacceptable, among other things.

 

[airman]

About Piaggio 108B there was mistake of 163 prototypes built : in real was built only 24 !

 

[Madurai]

SEPECAT Jaguar M - looks fabulous (why didn't this enter service? I don't know)......

It failed the Aéronavale's carrier trials. One-engine-out handling was unacceptable, among other things.

So... how was the Super Etendard's engine-out handling?

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Mirage G8 and Mirage III V - because they are Mirages and look wonderful?

Terry (Caravellarella)

I love Mirages too, but G8 (and G4) got too expensive and complex while in prototype form; as someone else has written, it would have been better if France stayed in the project that became Tornado while selling Mirage 2000 and 4000 as pure fighters to other Tornado members. Mirage III V Balzac had an awkward/complex solution to get VTOL-capacity, with the several small engines creating dead weight when not used; not as elegant and functional as Harrier's single Pegasus engine.

 

[PMN1]

The Supermarine Type 313 is an interesting one.

Proposed for the F37/35 spec that Westland won with the Whirlwind - two Goshawk apparently giving 390mph at 15,000ft, 7.5 minutes to 20,000ft and a ceiling of 34,000ft. Aero-engines (Hispano) 12Y engines were an alternative and if fitted then a 20mm cannon could be fired through each hub.

The design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two of the 20mm cannon removed and max weight increased from 8,200lb to 10,700lb. (The Whirlwind’s max weight was 10,377lb).

Interestingly with a wingspan of 48ft, a length of 37ft and wing area 325 square foot, this makes the Type 313 bigger than the Merlin/Taurus engined Types 324 (and the similar 325, 326 and 327) so replacing the Goshawks with Merlins or Taurus shouldn't be too much of a problem. It is also a bit smaller than the Fulmar and the Barracuda, would be interesting to see what it could fold down to and whether it could carry a torpedo under the fuselage.

According to BSP, the Design Conference originally recommended the Type 313 as this was most experts' preference but the types delivery date of 27 months was considered to be excessive.

 

[McColm]

I know this might have come up before, but what about;

a naval version of the Eurofighter

a wide-bodied Nimrod with carbon fibre materials and fly-by-wire. Say a 20ft plug in the forward section and a 10 ft at the rear for a cargo door to be fitted. This could have been used in the bomber role, ELINT or J-STARS. Tanker or AWACS with a E-2 or E-3 rotordome. Could have been the basis of the MK4 MRA.

The Canberra fitted with an in-flight refuelling probe and the American styled two seater canopy.

 

[PMN1]

a wide-bodied Nimrod with carbon fibre materials and fly-by-wire. Say a 20ft plug in the forward section and a 10 ft at the rear for a cargo door to be fitted. This could have been used in the bomber role, ELINT or J-STARS. Tanker or AWACS with a E-2 or E-3 rotordome. Could have been the basis of the MK4 MRA.

Its a pity the VC-10 variants offered were not chosen for the MR role, the extra fuselage volume might have helped later on with the AEW mission.

 

[The Artist]

I've just skimmed through this thread and saw that a few had brushed up against it but no one actually suggested it - the N/AW (2 seat) A-10. I remember reading somewhere that the Army would have loved to have seen the 2 seat warthogs being used for FAC. Also, I can't help thinking about the Skyraiders that grew those lumps and bumps then thinking about possibilities for A-10s equipped with a second pair of eyes and hands to operate added equipment.

 

[McColm]

The proposed F-117B/C earmarked for the Royal Air Force as a competitor to the Tornado GR4.
Supersonic Buccaneer.
The thin winged Javalin.

 

[sagallacci]

In space stuff, the X-20 Dyna-Soar, which would have gotten an aero-space plane going in the '60s.
In aviation, an American SST, even as a prototype, as flying hardware is so much more educational than theory, and as the various proposals were substainial bigger and faster than Concord or the Tu144, would provide an extra level of experiance.
For, "it would have been really cool if" stuff, a few more Horton IXs (Ho299) built and flown, just to see if it would really work.

 

[airman]

Most people here seem to be posting about post-war and jets.

How about these to consider...

The He 112B, or, even better, the He 100D

Martin-Baker MB.5

Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke

Yes, Focke-Wulf 187 Falke was an good airplane more than Bf-110 , Fw190 was better than Me-109, but probably Kurt Tank hadn't more influence like Willy Messerschmitt !

 

[airman]

Cancel of development of Dornier 19 and Junkers 89 ( part of Ural Bomber Program) was a big mistake
Other big mistake was the deveploment of Heinkel 177 with two engines ( DB610) instead four engines as proposed by Heinkel !

 

[OM]

...Allowing Cheney to control the decision to choose the F-22 (c)Raptor over the F-23 Black Widow II. Ditto for the scuttling of the Avenger II simply because none of his puppet companies had any of their collective fingers in that particular pie.

 

[Pioneer]

Cancel of development of Dornier 19 and Junkers 89 ( part of Ural Bomber Program) was a big mistake
Other big mistake was the deveploment of Heinkel 177 with two engines ( DB610) instead four engines as proposed by Heinkel !

I second your sentiments airman!!

 

[Pioneer]

Yes airman
I to think the Focke-Wulf 187 Falke was a missed opportunity for the Luftwaffe!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[SOC]

...Allowing Cheney to control the decision to choose the F-22 (c)Raptor over the F-23 Black Widow II. Ditto for the scuttling of the Avenger II simply because none of his puppet companies had any of their collective fingers in that particular pie.

I thought the A-12 had serious weight and cost issues? If you change A-12 to F-14D, then I agree with you entirely!

 

[Pioneer]

From what I have read the Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke was faster and just as maneuverable as the Bf-109, and far better in all respects to the Bf-110.
I think the Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke would have made a huge difference to the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Have we mentioned the Grumman A-6F Intruder?

This would have offered a capability the USN still lacks to this day (even after the A-12 Avenger II cancellation decision)

The F/A-18E/F still lacks the A-6F's range and offensive payload capability


Regards
Pioneer

 

[delta alpha foxtrot]

CFE this is the 'Biggest mistakes in aviation? Which projects should have been built?" thread, I don't think its possible to go off topic!

Now I really hate historical comparisions of aircraft (looking at you Robunos ;-). Because they tend to leave out very important differences in capability and just focus on rough alignment. A stealthy, high field of regard, long range radar, rapid accleration missile armed subsonic aircraft is NOT a Douglas Missileer. The Missileer did not have the kind of situational awareness and LO surviability you would expect in a contemporary fighter, fast or slow. The Missileer was not built with 21st century technology and no one is going to build an aircraft today with 1960s technology (except Iran).

It is also not a single-role weapon system. The aircraft we are talking about using as a fighter are strike platforms like the A-12, Boeing 988-123, Northrop ATA offer, etc. To give them a name these ATA/F (Advanced Tactical Aircraft/Fighter) are around ~70,000lb aircraft with 0.3 fuel fraction, -30 to -40 dB RCS, 0.3 TW for a >1,000 NM radius with 8,000 lbs of weapons crusing at Mach 0.8-0.9. The concept for making them fighters is to use a two or more stage high accleration missile (for example the General Dynamics A3M or AIM-152 offer) combined with AESA radars for long range and potentially 360 deg. field of regard.

Back to the topic, OT or not. Rules of engagement may hamper long range missile engagement but they would equally hamper the ATA/F and the high speed fighter (eg F-22). The high accleration missile launched by the ATA/F would not outrange the Mach 1.6/AIM-120 combination just enable it to be equaled from a Mach 0.6-0.9 launch. Because the ATA/F has big and deep bays with the weight margins it can carry up to 16 x 500lb missiles internally (GD A3M was only 380lb).

The real capability sacrifice is the high speed dash to engagement for DCA and use of high speed for surviability in other areas. While a ATA/F is very much a work of alternate history at the moment this kind of capability argument is very relevant to the use of F-35 and UCAS as air to air platforms in place of supercruisers. With massive increases in data linking and situational awareness capability since ODS in '91 we should be less constrained by visual idenfication for ROE. Or even worse visual identification awaiting upon AWACS approval the failure of which lead directly to the loss of L.Cdr. Scott Speicher.

I think one could take this a step further! I do believe the era of a sophisticated, long range missile platform is here. Just take Boeing's proposal with the existing B-1B. Put in an AESA radar, AIM-152 type AAMs and F119s with the original B-1A inlets. Here is a Mach 2.2 CRUISE capable, low RCS aircraft with outstanding BVR and combat persistence potential. If an attacker happens to get close and inside its significant missile umbrella, well, try to catch it! Not to mention it is no slouch in defensive ECM either.

 

[taildragger]

Have we mentioned the Grumman A-6F Intruder?

This would have offered a capability the USN still lacks to this day (even after the A-12 Avenger II cancellation decision)

The F/A-18E/F still lacks the A-6F's range and offensive payload capability


Regards
Pioneer

With all the advances in smart weapons, I'm not sure the A-6's payload would be as useful in the naval attack mission as it seemed when the A-6F was cancelled. I wonder how many strike missions flown in the last 15 years have been constrained by payload. I limit my comment to payload - to the degree that payload translates to fuel capacity/range, the A-6 is surely missed.

 

[pathology_doc]

The proposed F-117B/C earmarked for the Royal Air Force as a competitor to the Tornado GR4.
Supersonic Buccaneer.
The thin winged Javelin.

F-117K, surely? Yes, I know that misses a lot of letters, but F-111K and F-4K are the precedents.

Supersonic Buccaneer is interesting, but there is the problem of accurate bomb delivery - not such an issue with nukes, but perhaps with conventional weapons, although by the time it entered service in numbers, laser and EO guidance might have helped.

Thin-winged Javelin definitely, especially since the bloody thing was already the subject of a pre-production order. It could have become the high-end interceptor in terms of computerised fire-control systems, radar-guided missiles for head-on interception* and extended endurance, leaving the Lightning as the rapid-reaction interceptor to pick off the leakers with Firestreak and Red Top as they got closer to the UK.


* Given that some marks of Javelin as built had an American radar anyway, one can always imagine a willingness to bite the bullet and buy a set with illuminator capability for Sparrow until Vickers, Fairey or deHavilland could come up with something that worked.

 

[AAAdrone]

I'm pretty sure my choices have all been said several times before but here are my $0.02

The Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III: It was single purposed and had only one crew member which gave it a large workload per crew member but it was more capable in the interceptor role than anything else. It had a track while scan capable radar AFAIK and considering it ate Phantoms for breakfast I consider it a waste how the US simply scrapped the thing without finding some role for it to fill.

F-23: Needs no introduction. An incredible aircraft and with a well upgraded and perfected F-120 engine along with the improved weapons bay demonstrated in the EMD images this fighter would have been amazing for the USAF if a lot riskier in design.

 

[pathology_doc]

I'm pretty sure my choices have all been said several times before but here are my $0.02

The Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III: It was single purposed and had only one crew member which gave it a large workload per crew member but it was more capable in the interceptor role than anything else. It had a track while scan capable radar AFAIK and considering it ate Phantoms for breakfast I consider it a waste how the US simply scrapped the thing without finding some role for it to fill.

It's not as if the USN didn't want it. IIRC they got down on their knees and begged Congress for both fighters. Given the war the US ended up fighting, it's probably better that the Phantom II won. That multi-purpose ability the F-4 had probably translated better into overseas sales, too; the US could afford pure interceptors, but most other nations could not - and the Phantom had up to eight pulls of the trigger in an era when AAMs were distinguished by their unreliability.

I'm not denying that it's a fantastic airplane and I agree it should have been built, even at the cost of half the Phantoms (if they'd known what was coming, and the huge amounts of money they'd eventually be spending on an actual high-tech air war and how good a seller the Phantom was going to be overseas, they might have bitten the bullet and done it). Just saying that if you could only have one, there are good reasons for the F-4 to have been it. OTOH, how does the Crusader III stack up against, say, the F-106 as an interceptor? Perhaps there's a saving to be made there, though there the F-106 would have the advantage of already being fitted with the integrated air defence system and three engagements with two missiles (or one nuclear rocket) apiece. (Yes, I know some of them traded in two missiles for a gun, but you know what I mean.)

F-23: Needs no introduction. An incredible aircraft and with a well upgraded and perfected F-120 engine along with the improved weapons bay demonstrated in the EMD images this fighter would have been amazing for the USAF if a lot riskier in design.

Why didn't it win? Because the risk/cost was judged too great? Or politics/favoured contractors? Or something else?

 

[AAAdrone]

Probably a bit of both. The Yf-22 held the edge in maneuverability from what I can understand and was judged as being less risky of a design based off of its dogfighting performance and more "conventional" of a design with its control surfaces and similarities to the F-15 vs. the YF-23 with its exhaust troughs being insulated by potentially expensive tiles, the fighter's variable geometry V-tail rudders, the odd wing planform design, the internal volume issues with the YF-23 model, etc.

Apparently according to this FAS article Lockheed maintained a philosophy that dogfighting was still a necessity in the event the fight goes WVR while Northrop believed WVR engagements were a thing of the past so that also contributed to the F-23 losing. That explains why Northrop made their a/c as stealthy as possible and as fast as possible yet didn't care for the TVC nozzles. TVC nozzles were an extant and proven technology at that time so Lockheed's proposal was favored in that regard.

http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part06.htm

According to some pictures found on this very website as well as YF-23.net the weapons bay on the YF-23 could only hold 3 AIM-120As. It may not have killed Northrop's chances of winning but considering the requirement was 4 AIM-120As, we can't rule that out. The F-23 EMD had a heavily redesigned internal bay that could have worked but again, politics may have helped in that regard with ensuring the YF-22's victory.

http://yf-23.net/Pics/Plans/PAV1%20weapons%20bay%20schematic%201023.gif

Given all of this, and coupled with the stigma of the B-2 and its cost overruns, led the government to believe that Lockheed was more capable of delivering what was promised. Hence, the YF-22 was chosen. The YF-23 was predicted to be plagued with even more cost issues than the F-22 would ever experience due to all of the exotic features it had.

Still, those said exotic features would have made the Black Widow II into one heck of a fighter. It's top speed is still classified with the YF-120 engines and even with a relaxed area ruled fuselage in accordance with the better internal volume capacity for more missiles (as demonstrated in the EMD blueprints) the F-23 would have been one stealthy and incredibly powerful aircraft. As such I believe it to be a shame it wasn't selected.

 

[pathology_doc]

Sounds a little like Phantom II and Crusader III all over again, then, doesn't it? Even down to the four versus three missile main armament...

I think the technical reasons you give are good enough (on a "your mileage may vary" basis) to prefer the F-22. Naturally I thoroughly disagree that the WVR dogfight is dead - they've thought that before, and they were wrong.

ISTR reading someone's opinion that the YF-23 was too good, and had been siphoned quietly off to be part of covert operations etc. To what extent this is true or even reasonable, I offer no opinion - but it sounds like it would make a pretty good ace-in-the-hole interceptor for use when that incoming rogue state nuclear bomber absolutely HAS to be stopped. In that case what you want is the ability to whizz past the fighter screen without being spotted, outrun them (and dodge all their missiles) if you are, squirt your three AIM-120s at the bomber and run like hell in case the nuke is salvage-fused. Dale Brown, Larry Bond and Tom Clancy, take note.

 

[AAAdrone]

Sounds a little like Phantom II and Crusader III all over again, then, doesn't it? Even down to the four versus three missile main armament...

I think the technical reasons you give are good enough (on a "your mileage may vary" basis) to prefer the F-22. Naturally I thoroughly disagree that the WVR dogfight is dead - they've thought that before, and they were wrong.

ISTR reading someone's opinion that the YF-23 was too good, and had been siphoned quietly off to be part of covert operations etc. To what extent this is true or even reasonable, I offer no opinion - but it sounds like it would make a pretty good ace-in-the-hole interceptor for use when that incoming rogue state nuclear bomber absolutely HAS to be stopped. In that case what you want is the ability to whizz past the fighter screen without being spotted, outrun them (and dodge all their missiles) if you are, squirt your three AIM-120s at the bomber and run like hell in case the nuke is salvage-fused. Dale Brown, Larry Bond and Tom Clancy, take note.

Again, there's evidence that Northrop could have made their aircraft carry more missiles especially in their final EMD submission. Also there's the fact that the 3 missiles were A model AIM-120s. I would imagine the payload issues could have been better solved once the C variants (just like the F-22) were put into service, but those were classified at the time.

Politics really did play a part here as like sealordlawrence said Lockheed is hardly "innocent" went it comes to these things. I'm guessing the politicians felt Northrop already had their hands full with the B-2 and the problems with developing the ATB being a lot more fresh in everyone's memories than the C-5A. In the end it just looked like the YF-22 would have been easier to actually develop and mass produce thanks to its conservative technologies and overall design even if the YF-23 was faster, stealthier (in both all aspect RCS and IR), and had better high altitude performance. I can only imagine how F-23A development could have panned out.

I guess I just love the F-23 so much that I am willing to look past all of that though. In defense of the F-23 its weapons bay could probably be more adaptable for carrying A/G payloads so had the cold war ended earlier that may have been good enough to give the F-23 the victory after all.

 

[Jd_Sec]

The B-70 (from the XB-70), the F-23 (from the YF-23), Project Pluto, and a successor to the SR-71 (with armament). And let's not forget the BAC TSR-2. And I'm not going to forget the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.
And I should also mention the Soviet RSR.

 

[Byeman]

The B-70 (from the XB-70), the F-23 (from the YF-23), Project Pluto, and a successor to the SR-71 (with armament). And let's not forget the BAC TSR-2. And I'm not going to forget the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.
And I should also mention the Soviet RSR.

You can't be serious. B-70? Pluto?

 

[Pioneer]

I cannot recall if I have already posted these sentiments, but here goes -

The Douglas C-132 / KC-132 Strategic long-range transport aircraft (I think it would have been wise both commercially and operationally for the USAF and aero-engine industry to have persisted further to developed further the Pratt & Whitney XT57 (PT5) turboprop!!!)

The Douglas A2D Skyshark
(Again I think the USN and and U.S aero-engine industry, should have persisted further with the development of the Allison XT-40-A-2 turboprop or substituted it for the likes of a workable Rolls Royce Dart turboprop engine!!)

I think it would have been wise for the United States to develop the proposed LTV V-1000 - a lighten and simplified land-based derivative of the Vought F-8 Crusader, equipped with a General Electric J79-GE-17 in place of the heavier and less powerful J57. After all the Vought Crusader was (and still is) regarded as one of the best and most cost effective jet dogfighter in the world!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[AAAdrone]

F-12B and F-108

These two were mentioned before as well but I thought I'd bring them back up as I find it a complete waste for them to spend huge amounts of money on R&D for this "elusive mach 3 class interceptor" and then build a whopping 3 F-12Bs and then cancel it outright. Such aircraft were needed to keep our forces viable against the soviets in the event that they sent over massive supersonic bombers. When coupled with SAGE and the mighty ASG-18 FCR the possibilities could only be imagined when defending the US from attack and maybe the Russians would have been too intimidated to challenge us if those two aircraft were built.

 

[royabulgaf]

Uh, Triple A? The Soviets never built massive supersonic bombers in the timeframe we are looking at.

"And I'm not going to forget the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.
."

Unless you are one of the Mackenzie brothers crying into your Molson's, forget the CF-105. It was the F-35B of its day. New airframe, new engine, new electronics. This was a late, over budget, hangar queen waiting to happen. It was already gobbling more and more of the Canadian defense budget with no end in sight. Also, the export prospects were a lot less than the fanboys like to say.

 

[aam641]

Unless you are one of the Mackenzie brothers crying into your Molson's, forget the CF-105. It was the F-35B of its day. New airframe, new engine, new electronics. This was a late, over budget, hangar queen waiting to happen. It was already gobbling more and more of the Canadian defense budget with no end in sight. Also, the export prospects were a lot less than the fanboys like to say.

Lets be blunt here. There were no export prospects whatsoever. Both US Air Force and the British were quite firm on this. Also, sentiments aside, CF-105 was quite obsolete before it even took off. Its nearest competitor was probably F-106, which had first flight in 1956, while the Arrow was only getting ready in 1959. When you consider that Phantom II took of in late 1960 and it was a generation ahead of the Arrow, the cancellation was money well saved.

Now the F-23, that would have been a beautiful plane.

 

[AAAdrone]

Uh, Triple A? The Soviets never built massive supersonic bombers in the timeframe we are looking at.

"And I'm not going to forget the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.
."

Unless you are one of the Mackenzie brothers crying into your Molson's, forget the CF-105. It was the F-35B of its day. New airframe, new engine, new electronics. This was a late, over budget, hangar queen waiting to happen. It was already gobbling more and more of the Canadian defense budget with no end in sight. Also, the export prospects were a lot less than the fanboys like to say.

I know that the ICBM was phasing out the bomber but how could one be certain that the Soviets would never even attempt to make a supersonic bomber? I guess my stance on the Mach 3 interceptors is that it is an asset that would be better to have and not need than need and not have. At least with something like the F-12 the USAF would have had something that could replace the F-106 and give America the defense it needed to remain viable in the event the Soviets ever did create something that could be a threat.

 

[Pioneer]

'Triple A' As much as love the F-12B Interceptor as a marvel of aerospace technology and it's potential.
I have to recognise the fact that it's performance was at an extreme cost per unit (let alone it's operating costs over it's life time!). I guess we will never know if the concerns and anxiety of the USAF to Soviet long-range supersonic bombers was a stimulus for designing and fielding new advanced bombers and interceptors.

I for one would have loved to have seen the USAF and U.S government support the development and acquisition of the CF-105 - but then, as we are well aware the 'All American' lobby was and still is more powerful than common and operational sense

Regards
Pioneer

 

[AAAdrone]

Maybe it wouldn't cost so much if production wasn't cancelled at three aircraft. If say 200 or so were built the developmental costs would be much more highly spread out over a larger number of aircraft. McNamoron's control over the fate of the F-12B and the government in general are the problem, not the aircraft. Even if we didn't need them for Interceptors I think F-14D has a good idea when he said it might have been a good MiGCAP or TARCAP fighter for Vietnam. With its performance characteristics it would be unstoppable.

Also with the F-108 or F-12B one could use them as gap fillers for SAGE or any other Early Warning radar system to provide optimum coverage and enhance the security of the USA.

These different roles would help us find more uses for them so as to ensure a bit more of a need for them.

 

[royabulgaf]

I guess my stance on the Mach 3 interceptors is that it is an asset that would be better to have and not need than need and not have.

Certainly. However we can't have everything.

Even if we didn't need them for Interceptors I think F-14D has a good idea when he said it might have been a good MiGCAP or TARCAP fighter for Vietnam.

????? It couldn't dogfight. Heck, you would get more mileage out of hooking up an AA radar to B-52s and hang a bunch of Sidewinders off the pylons.