What shouldn't have been built?

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I think some people are confusing the role of "Interceptor" with that of "Fighter". Interceptors aren't intended to engage in ACM. They are intended to be able to fly, very, very, fast and usually in pretty much straight lines to destroy an attacking bomber before it can drop/launch its weapons. The F-111 would have made a pretty reasonable interceptor. It would have been pretty hopeless as a fighter though.

Disagree. Rate of climb, effective speed and ceiling of the F-111 are all suboptimal for the interceptor role.

 

[Rickshaw]

I think some people are confusing the role of "Interceptor" with that of "Fighter". Interceptors aren't intended to engage in ACM. They are intended to be able to fly, very, very, fast and usually in pretty much straight lines to destroy an attacking bomber before it can drop/launch its weapons. The F-111 would have made a pretty reasonable interceptor. It would have been pretty hopeless as a fighter though.

Disagree. Rate of climb, effective speed and ceiling of the F-111 are all suboptimal for the interceptor role.

I think it that rather depends upon definitional issues, rather than the actual ability of the aircraft. I believe against most Soviet bombers it would have been more than adequate.

 

[Rickshaw]

True, but F-14D's point still stands about how quickly the F-111 could get to the high altitude and speed.

Depends upon what that altitude was, what that speed was and what it was intended to intercept. Remember, we're talking about Mya-4, Tu-16 or Tu-20s, not Tu-122/Tu-160s.

I think also is highly dependent upon at what range the target is detected.

The F-12 would have been so much better since it was actually built for the role of long range high speed super interceptor.

I think the YF-12 would have been an excellent interceptor - if the US had been faced by B-70s. Was it though?

 

[AAAdrone]

The thing is it would have been a step down compared to the F-106 in the interceptor role. The F-111 had an inferior rate of climb and thrust to weight ratio compared to the -6. That and the 6 had the necessary avionics already in place to perform its duty. The YF-12 already existed as a prototype while the F-111 ADV variant would have required extensive amounts of modifications to actually be a viable interceptor and even then it wouldn't be to the level that say, the YF-12 was since the F-12 was optimized from the outset to be a high altitude and high speed interceptor.

Yes, the B-70 was on the west's side but the US needed to be ahead of the curve. Why make the F-15 if you could still use the F-4 against the MiG-23 or MiG-21bis? It would have been so much better to invest in something that could benefit the United States' security in the long run than some pipe dream that only existed in McNamara's mind.

Someday, the Soviets probably could have made something that could threaten the Americans like a supersonic bomber so they needed something to stand against it. Why wait until it's too late to develop the technology to fight off the threats of the future?

 

[Rickshaw]

Lord Beaverbrook once suggested that "then enemy of the good enough is the excellent". The YF-12 was an extremely exotic bird, it cost an absolute fortune to build and run. So, the USAF would have had the biggest, the brightest and the best interceptor in the world and what would it have been intercepting again? Oh, that's right, sub-sonic bombers such as the ones I've already mentioned. They might built the YF-12 but I'd expect it to have a very short service life compared to that the F-106. Of the two, the F-106 had much greater utility and of course, was considerably cheaper to manufacture and maintain. Then we have the F-111 - as a fighter it had little point. As a strike aircraft it was superb. As an interceptor again, it would have been adequate and had considerably more utility than either the YF-12 or the F-106.

 

[Pioneer]

I think the Lockheed C-5A Galaxy shouldn't have been winner of the 'CX-HLS' competition put into production or operational service with the USAF!

Instead the more capable (and I believe the actual preferred design of the actual USAF!!), the Boeing CX-HLS (C-5A) design(Model ???) should have been the winner and workhorse of the USAF heavy lift!


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Forscher]

I haven't yet gone over the previous posts so I'm not sure whether these have been mentioned before. Ones that come to mind are the the Beechcraft Starship, Boeing XB-15, Convair F2Y Sea Dart, Saunders-Roe SR.A/1, Saunders-Roe SR.53, SNCASO SO.9000 Trident, SNCASE SE-212 Durandal, Nord 1500 Griffon, Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor, De Havilland Comet, Hughes H-4 Hercules "Spruce Goose," and the Polish World War II LWS-4 Zubr.


Forscher

 

[Forscher]

I'd like to add the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee to the above.

Forscher

 

[AAAdrone]

I'll second that Pawnee. It seemed like a good idea until you get shot by AAA....or a guy with his carbine.

 

[Firebee]

I think the Lockheed C-5A Galaxy shouldn't have been winner of the 'CX-HLS' competition...

Pioneer, I don't know if you've read it, but there is a book (now out of print, but not scarce) about the C-5A aquisition. It is called "The C-5A Scandal: A $5Billion Boondoggle of the Military-Industrial Complex" by Berkeley Rice, published by Houghton Mifflin in 1971, the ISBN is 0395121035. I got myself a copy for a couple US$, but havn't read it yet.

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks for the 'heads-up' Firebee! Your a gentleman

Does it include technical data and drawings of the submissions to the 'CX-HLS' RFP?


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Hey Firebee, I just ordered my copy of that book! AUD$18.95!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[pathology_doc]

I haven't yet gone over the previous posts so I'm not sure whether these have been mentioned before. Ones that come to mind are the the Beechcraft Starship, Boeing XB-15, Convair F2Y Sea Dart, Saunders-Roe SR.A/1, Saunders-Roe SR.53, SNCASO SO.9000 Trident, SNCASE SE-212 Durandal, Nord 1500 Griffon, Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor, De Havilland Comet, Hughes H-4 Hercules "Spruce Goose," and the Polish World War II LWS-4 Zubr.


Forscher

I think one can defend the SR.53 as the proof-of-concept aircraft for the SR.177 rocket/jet fighter. The failure of the latter to enter service had everything to do with politics and very little to do with the technical insufficiencies of the airplane. I do feel dreadfully sorry for all those projects which were cancelled unflown with multiple production examples actually on the assembly line. That is the cruellest cut of all.

 

[royabulgaf]

I haven't yet gone over the previous posts so I'm not sure whether these have been mentioned before. Ones that come to mind are the the Beechcraft Starship, Boeing XB-15, Convair F2Y Sea Dart, Saunders-Roe SR.A/1, Saunders-Roe SR.53, SNCASO SO.9000 Trident, SNCASE SE-212 Durandal, Nord 1500 Griffon, Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor, De Havilland Comet, Hughes H-4 Hercules "Spruce Goose," and the Polish World War II LWS-4 Zubr.

All of the listed aircraft were prototypes except for the Starship and Zubr. The Zubr was OK for its time, it was just obsolete when WWII started. You go to war with the air force you have...

The Starship seems to be in a catagory all of its own. Technically it was a darn good aircraft, and I think what Beech wanted to do was break away from their warmed over Model 18 reputation in aircraft that size. However, airplane buyers want their airplanes to look like airplanes. Look at Boeing with the Dreamliner. It couldn't draw flies. So, Boeing went and extruded a tube, stick the tail on the back, stuck a couple swept wings in the middle and hung a couple engines underneath. They have an order book stretching what, five or six years?

 

[unclejim]

The Starship's failure was more in the catagory of the Rockwell XFV-12, though the Starship flew, and flew well. Just not as well as advertised. Now had they built the smaller Rutan proof of concept, there might have been a different story.

 

[Jd_Sec]

Several aircraft projects come to mind:


The V-22 Osprey, the F-35 JSF, and the F-22. All of which had more cost-effective (and design-effective) alternatives.

 

[AAAdrone]

Like what? It would have been pretty hard to try and build a completely unique replacement for every fighter cued to be replaced by the F-35 and the X-32 had issues with its STOVL capabilities while Lockheed delivered in that respect. The F-22 was likely the smarter choice cost-wise than F-23 with its more conservative design. I love the Yf-23, but it had its problems too such as the doubts raised about Northrop's ability to successfully develop and mass produce their design. Our legacy airframes are falling apart and won't last forever (The Eagles and Vipers just don't have the growth potential in them and the Super Hornet is not exactly ideal for solving every one of the Navy's needs) as well.

 

[Jd_Sec]

AAADrone -- It would be another topic entirely to get into the "cost-effectiveness" of the F-22 but suffice to say the YF-23 would have been the better, cheaper solution. Northrop had the ability to deliver, but politics played its cards and Lockheed was deemed the winner.


As to the F-35, it tries to replace too many different types of aircraft in an end-all be-all package. Again there, politics played a major part.


The growth potential for the F-15, F-16, and F-18 is still there but, alas, Cold-War politics played its part. Unfortunately, politics plays more of a part in aircraft design and selection then it should.

 

[Prototypical]

Surprised no one has mentioned the Convair 880/990 jetliners. Direct, but several years late, competitors to the Boeing 707 and DC-8, the aircraft devastated Convair financially. For that extra helping of bizarreness, Howard Hughes (!) was the lead customer and had a major influence in the development process. Most of the problems revolved around Hughes' demand (whim) that the aircraft fly 50-60 miles faster than Boeing/Douglas planes serving competitors to his TWA. To achieve this, Convair added ugly "speed fairings" and sourced fuel-loving, barely civilianized versions of the GE J79 engine to dash across the country before being stacked up over airports like every other airplane. Protracted development, dubious design fixes, and pushing cruising speed did operating costs no favors, and only about 65 reached customers, who eventually included Elvis Presley. As an aside, I noticed that a number of the aircraft mentioned in this thread were X-planes and prototypes. The 880/990 is in that special class of very bad airplane that made it into production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_880

 

[royabulgaf]

In addition, the 880/990 series had a narrower cabin than its competitors, and had five abreast seating.

 

[Steve Pace]

Spruce Goose - what a waste of good wood. -SP

 

[aam641]

I think that US Air Force should have seriously redefined their priorities after 1991 - particularly the ATF program. Now they are stuck with very expensive F-22 that has no mission and equally expensive F-35 which has far too many missions.

 

[uk 75]

From the taxpayer's point of view some would see the Anglo French Concorde airliner as the worst aircraft mistake in history.
Right up until 1973 politicians hoped Concordes would fly with all the West's major airlines.
Instead Air France and British Airways were given the few aircraft built and operated them for a privileged few at the taxpayers' continued expense.
Boeing meanwhile had been saved from the SST albatross and went on to build the 747, 777 and 787. All three were beyond the reach of British industry.
After producing the BAe146 feederliner the UK abandoned even this area of civil air transport. Embraer have been only too happy to step in.

 

[uk 75]

The P1127 RAF Harrier was a waste of resources for the RAF.
Money spent on the Harrier force could have gone to improving the Jaguar and Tornado.
The Sea Harrier allowed the Royal Navy to build Command Cruisers when what it really needed for its key North Atlantic role was more Type 22 ASW ships with Seaking/EH101.
Oh and SSNs with Sub Harpoon earlier to blockade Argentina in 1982.

 

[pathology_doc]

The P1127 RAF Harrier was a waste of resources for the RAF.
Money spent on the Harrier force could have gone to improving the Jaguar and Tornado.
The Sea Harrier allowed the Royal Navy to build Command Cruisers when what it really needed for its key North Atlantic role was more Type 22 ASW ships with Seaking/EH101.
Oh and SSNs with Sub Harpoon earlier to blockade Argentina in 1982.

How are you supposed to run a sea blockade of a nation with extensive land borders?
And how are you supposed to retake the islands without air cover?

 

[uk 75]

Political incompetence.
The blockade should have been in place before the invasion. Even if we had just indicated SSNs were off the Argentine coast it would have stopped the invasion fleet.
Then no need to retake the islands.

 

[Kiltonge]

The P1127 RAF Harrier was a waste of resources for the RAF.
Money spent on the Harrier force could have gone to improving the Jaguar and Tornado.

I'd completely invert that.

The RAF Jag was an airframe looking for a purpose. There was nothing it could do that wasn't already covered by the Harrier and Phantom. Shouldn't have been built once it outgrew its original trainer concept.

The Tornado IDS was too small and short-ranged for RAF missions, too big and complex for the Luftwaffe missions and not agile enough for the Italians. A true committee design that satisfied nobody.

The Harrier, on the other hand, fitted its CAS role like a glove.

A 1970/80s RAF with Phantom, Buccaneer and Harrier would have been much more efficient.

 

[Archibald]

Same on the french side. Mirage III and F1 countless variants covered the Jaguar mission very well. Africa included. Cost of the Jaguar was a major burden at a difficult moment: the turn of the 1960's.

 

[zen]

True but what France wanted was the F2.....which would have blown the Jaguar away in terms of MRI, Attack, Recce etc....

 

[uk 75]

The Jaguar was a much better ground attack aircraft than either the Phantom or the Harrier. It evolved pretty much into the aircraft the RAF needed to replace the Hunter.
Tornado based in W Germany fulfilled the UK's NATO role of striking into East Germany and Poland.

 

[1635yankee]

Political incompetence.
The blockade should have been in place before the invasion. Even if we had just indicated SSNs were off the Argentine coast it would have stopped the invasion fleet.
Then no need to retake the islands.

Are you implying that the UK should initiate hostilities by blockading Argentina? This could be perilous as support for the UK after Argentina invaded the Falklands was not universal in the upper echelons of the US executive branch. How would Thatcher respond to a stiffly worded note from Reagan's desk? Or a US ship trying to break the blockade?

 

[Archibald]

True but what France wanted was the F2.....which would have blown the Jaguar away in terms of MRI, Attack, Recce etc....

The AdA did not knew what it truly wanted, between 1961 and 1976. And you thought TSR-2 was hell ?

1962 VSTOL (Mirage IIIV)
1964 STOL, attack (F2)
1965 A F-111, take 1 (AFVG)
1966 An interceptor F2 (F3)
1967 A subscale F3 (F1)
1968 A F-111, take 2 (G4)
1969 A F-111, take 3 (G8)
1972 A F-15, take 1 (ACF)
1973 A F-16 competitor, take 1 (F1-M53)
1975 A F-16 competitor, take 2 (Mirage 2000)
...
1978 How about a F-15, take 2, also a F-111, take 4, to replace the Mirage IV (4000)
1982 A Hornet class fighter (Rafale)

 

[1635yankee]

There are copious posts about what should have been built but wasn't, I wondered what people would nominate as aircraft that were built, but shouldn't have been?

For me, the supermarine attacker springs to mind, a jet-powered taildragger with an out-of-date wing.

Any thoughts?

For the USN, the F6U and F7U. For the USAAC/USAAF/USAF, the FM-1 is the poster child for both bad specs and poor design.

 

[uk 75]

Political incompetence.
The blockade should have been in place before the invasion. Even if we had just indicated SSNs were off the Argentine coast it would have stopped the invasion fleet.
Then no need to retake the islands.

Are you implying that the UK should initiate hostilities by blockading Argentina? This could be perilous as support for the UK after Argentina invaded the Falklands was not universal in the upper echelons of the US executive branch. How would Thatcher respond to a stiffly worded note from Reagan's desk? Or a US ship trying to break the blockade?

Sorry I was only refering to blockading Argentine naval movements.
The Callaghan government had sent an SSN south in 1977 and this detered the Argentines.
A wider blockade of Argentina would as you say be difficult to say the least.
An airborne assault by Argentina on the Falklands might have been attempted of course, but without control of the sea it would have been impossible to reinforce.

 

[Desertfox]

Some that come to mind in recent times: F-22 for killing off the YF-23, F/A-18E/F, and F-15E for killing off the F-16XL

 

[Siberia]

Political incompetence.

Slight digression but was the government actually given any concrete warnings by the Foreign Office or intelligence agencies that Argentina was heading towards invasion?

The Harrier, on the other hand, fitted its CAS role like a glove.

I'd be curious to see how the purchase and running costs of the two aircraft compared.

 

[uk 75]

Siberia Wont answer you directly but if you read the ref below you will see why

Franks Report (1983) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[apparition13]

There are copious posts about what should have been built but wasn't, I wondered what people would nominate as aircraft that were built, but shouldn't have been?

For me, the supermarine attacker springs to mind, a jet-powered taildragger with an out-of-date wing.

Any thoughts?

For the USN, the F6U and F7U. For the USAAC/USAAF/USAF, the FM-1 is the poster child for both bad specs and poor design.

The Voughts don't really bug me since the are part of the 40s-50s explosion of aircraft and engines that explored the engineering space to find what worked and what didn't. Even the failures helped progress the state of the art.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Several aircraft projects come to mind:


The V-22 Osprey, the F-35 JSF, and the F-22. All of which had more cost-effective (and design-effective) alternatives.

What competitor was there to the V-22?

As to the JSF in general, it really needed to be split into "the F16/F-18 replacement" and "the Harrier replacement", though the weight reductions demanded by the F-35B have ended up greatly improving the F-35A.

F-22, we can argue that one, but it's not the first time the USAF went with the less radical design. In fact, the F-15 went the same way with the NAA design being technically much superior and likely even more maneuverable than the MDD version.

 

[Yellow Palace]

In fact, the F-15 went the same way with the NAA design being technically much superior and likely even more maneuverable than the MDD version.

That wasn't the view of the proposal analysis committee:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fairchild-fx-fighter-project-rival-to-the-mcdonnell-douglas-f-15.15663/post-270818

Not only was the McDonnell Douglas proposal superior in all categories, but the Fairchild Hiller proposal was ahead of the North American Rockwell proposal in every area except logicstics - which probably means production.