Different kind of aircraft wank: Airplanes that should have not entered service

[Jukra]

Usually the planewanks are connected with planes that did not enter service at all or did not enter service in particular country. What about the other way?

Here's some candidates:

USN:

F-14: This ugly plane would be unnecessary if F-4 was modernized, fitted with better radar, lower fuel consumption engines and AIM-54. This kind of Super Phantom could have served USN magnificently and might have even gained a number of foreign sales.

Sweden:

Viggen: The improvement potential of Draken was not fully used.
Gripen: Fine plane, but way too costly even for a scenario in which Cold War was to continue. F-18 (as proposed OTL) would serve Flygvapnet just fine.

RAF:

Hawker Siddeley Nimrod: Excellent ASW aircraft, but as the numbers were low one is hard pressed to find just why not produce Canadair's CL-28 based on British airframe and already made instead? Other candidate might be P-3 on licence. About current MRA4 disaster one does not need to mention.

SEPECAT Jaquar: I've always wondered what was the business logic for this?

[The Dean]

The Panavia Tornado, second rate at everything it does.

Fairy Battle, a deathtrap for it's crews.

Boulton Paul Defiant, ditto.

Short Stirling, a compromise made to fit the existing hangers, screw the performance.

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by The Dean

The Panavia Tornado, second rate at everything it does.

But how to spend the pork instead? Tornado was started in 1968 and entered service in 1979. If European option is preferred, how about updated Mirage IV?

[Just Leo]

Blackburn Roc, Skua, Botha, Firebrand.

[Just Leo]

English Elecric Lightning. Built because it was lean pork.

[The Kiat]

Another candidate: the F-105. I think it had some problems at first, called the Thunder Thud.

Now the F-103 should have been.

[EAF602Whizz]

Every fighter Supermarine built after the Spitfire but especially the Attacker. What an embarrasment compared to the likes of the Grumman Panther.

Fairey Fulmar (a 2 seat, single engine fighter with no rear armament and no role for the 'observer').

Me163. Big waste of resources for little return. Would have made a useful x-plane in peacetime though.

Sukhoi SU7. Or as one Indian test pilot put it; 'why?'

Also I 2nd the Battle and the Stirling and the Blackburn products.

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

Another candidate: the F-105. I think it had some problems at first, called the Thunder Thud.

But what plane instead of Thud? More F-104's? They would suit the nuclear strike role probably about as fine, but for conventional strike they would have less payload, range and durability. Of course they would be much cheaper too.

[Onkel Willie]

The Ju-87 Stuka. Sure, it performed well in the Spanish Civil War but was already outdated by 1940 as it was not manoeuvrable enough, didn't pack enough punch and was too lightly armed to fend off other planes. A much better candidate would have been the Henschel Hs 129 'panzerknacker'.

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

Bf 110, even though I think for some reason its a cute little thing and a mediocre night fighter its overall capabilities were a tad poor. The resources would of been better spent elsewhere.

[MacCaulay]

This is a really cool idea, Jukra.

Originally Posted by Jukra

F-14: This ugly plane would be unnecessary if F-4 was modernized, fitted with better radar, lower fuel consumption engines and AIM-54. This kind of Super Phantom could have served USN magnificently and might have even gained a number of foreign sales.

Gotta disagree, there. I dig the F-4 way more, but the F-14 just had more capabilities with the engines. Especially after they replaced them in the early '80s.

Gripen: Fine plane, but way too costly even for a scenario in which Cold War was to continue. F-18 (as proposed OTL) would serve Flygvapnet just fine.

I think the Swedes just wanted to keep an in country aerospace industry going. Once that leaves it doesn't come back.



As for mine...Just about everything Sukhoi made up until the Flanker series. Everytime they built something as a fighter, they'd put it up against MiG, it'd lose, and the Soviets would have them build it anyway as a ground attack plane. That's a really bad way to run a company. The only one that was built for that specifically was the Frogfoot.

[Kevin Renner]

The B-32 Dominator. after all it did enter service in small numbers

Curtis's SB2C Helldiver

Any naturally aspirated Allison engined fighter.

PBM Mariner. Far too many fuel system problems

The F-104s with the downward firing ejection seat duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vought's Cutlass

[Chris Oakley]

The Tu-22 Blinder. Worst bomber of the jet age.

[Markus]

First I´m going to pre-empt CalBear and say: "Don´t build the F2A!"

Second, there was nothing wrong with the Ju-87 or the Battle. Any small, single engine bomber is toast without fighter cover, any.
The Me-110 did very well as a fighter-bomber and even better as a night fighter.
The SB2C was first delayed and than rushed into service but once they got the bugs out of it she was clearly superior to the SBD.
And last but not least without the P-40 and P-39 the USA would have had not one mass produced fighter on Dec 7th 1941. That would have sucked more than Brewster´s quality control.

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by Markus

Second, there was nothing wrong with the Ju-87 or the Battle. Any small, single engine bomber is toast without fighter cover

Really? Ask any Typhoon or Thunderbolt pilot about that.

Originally Posted by Markus

The Me-110 did very well as a fighter-bomber and even better as a night fighter.

Until it met a fighter. What sort of fighter needs fighter cover?

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by Markus

First I´m going to pre-empt CalBear and say: "Don´t build the F2A!"

As a Finn, I must write that keep building F2A-1's, but dont't build F2A-2 or F2A-3 and have some mechanists who have imagination... F2A-1 (B-239) when used with modern fighter tactics and properly maintained was good enough fighter for either Eastern Front or for the Pacific circa 1941-1943.

[Markus]

Originally Posted by The Dean

Really? Ask any Typhoon or Thunderbolt pilot about that.

Those are fighters that carry bombs, not light bombers like the Avanger(got pwned at Midway). And they are one or two generations ahead of the above mentioned bombers.

Until it met a fighter. What sort of fighter needs fighter cover?

Which were rare in enough places to make her efficient for some time even in daylight and all the time in the dark.

Originally Posted by Jukra

As a Finn, I must write that keep building F2A-1's, but dont't build F2A-2 or F2A-3 and have some mechanists who have imagination... F2A-1 (B-239) when used with modern fighter tactics and properly maintained was good enough fighter for either Eastern Front or for the Pacific circa 1941-1943.

Not so sure about the -2 and -3. Armour and protected fuel tanks are a must IMO. Unlike the Soviet pilots the Japanese could shoot straight. So let´s re-phrase that: "Don´t let Brewster build the Buffalo!"(or any other plane for that matter!) That way she will still be overweight but well made, delivered on time and in much larger numbers.

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

Gotta disagree, there. I dig the F-4 way more, but the F-14 just had more capabilities with the engines. Especially after they replaced them in the early '80s.

Yes, but they had to produce a whole new airframe which had practically no export markets and was hideously expensive. Super Phantom would have been good enough fleet defense fighter and moreover, would have been multi-role capable from the outset.

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

I think the Swedes just wanted to keep an in country aerospace industry going. Once that leaves it doesn't come back.

Quite true, but when the maintenance of industry is preoccupation over equipping armed forces and using taxpayer money wisely it's a time for a judgement call. How about Canada's example? The Unmentionable was cancelled in 1959, no domestic combat aircraft project since then but Canadian aerospace industry is very strong, employing more than 83 000 people.

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by Markus

Those are fighters that carry bombs, not light bombers like the Avanger(got pwned at Midway). And they are one or two generations ahead of the above mentioned bombers.

The Typhoon was specifically deployed as a bomber and could carry more ordinance than the light bombers, so could the Jug. OK same generation the Hurricane and P 40 could carry more bombs than a Battle or Stuka and then defend themselves.

Originally Posted by Markus

Which were rare in enough places to make her efficient for some time even in daylight and all the time in the dark.

Not once it met contemporary fighters, it was OK in Poland but once it met the Western Allies it was screwed. At night the RAF deployed first Beaufighters then Mosquitoes and shot any German night fighters out of the sky.

[Markus]

Originally Posted by The Dean

At night the RAF deployed first Beaufighters then Mosquitoes and shot any German night fighters out of the sky.

That must have been after March of 1944 which gives the Me-110 almost five years of successful service.