aircraft that should have been built

Status
Not open for further replies.
The F-107 lost to the F-105. Scott Crossfield damaged #3 in an aborted takeoff. A/C #1 is at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tuscon, AZ (I've seen it, and no, I'm not sure I would've wanted to fly it with that intake right above and behind the cockpit). Number two is at the USAF Museum.

It's strange because (according to wiki, at any rate) they were planning on having a chin intake at first, but moved it to the top of the plane. I mean, really.

Now, aircraft I would have liked to see fly--how about the Space Shuttle Booster "Aircraft" from the original TSTO Shuttle proposals? They had transatlantic ferry capabilities, IIRC (had to, so that they could get back from the TAL sites they would have landed at to Kennedy), which I should think allows them to count as an aircraft as opposed to just a rocket with some incidental flight capabilities.

Or maybe the X-24C hypersonic research aircraft that was proposed but not built in the late '70s? It would have explored an interesting flight regime. Of course, it might have as a black project, considering the circumstances of its cancellation.
 
Never heard of the V-1000 before. Now that I have, I can only say that it should never have been cancelled.

Oh, new entry: The Lockheed L-133. The USA could have had a jet fighter seeing combat in World War 2!
 
Is this post about aircraft that really should have been put in production because they were actually better than the alternatives, or aircraft that are just completely cool, regardless of reality or airworthiness?

Taking the last group first, here's the fun stuff (P6Ms, Flying wing passenger planes, ZRCV airships, B-70, etc). These are just cool - and sometimes very advanced - concepts, but they would almost certainly have been a major waste of money and effort if put into service. Take, for example, the B-70. The B-70 was intended to replace all other US manned strategic bombers (such as the B-52)with a super high speed, high altitude plane capable of penetrating heavily defended Soviet airspace to drop a few nukes. More than likely the thing would have been retired from service less than 10 years (like the B-58) and then there might be no B-52's. Can you imagine imagine B-70's trundling over Vietnam, Iraq and wherever unloading tons of dumb bombs.

Regarding the others, normally aviation engineers and air ministries are pretty reasonable and realistic. I would argue that there are really few examples of rejected designs or prototypes that clearly should have been put in service, but there are a few possible candidates that warrant at least some consideration, some of which have been mentioned:

Pre-1945:

Martin-Baker MB-3 and MB-5 (undeveloped British WW2 fighters)
Republic P-69 (advanced development of P-47)
Blohm und Voss Bv-141 (assymetrical recon cooperation plane)
Focke Wulf Fw-187 (single seat, twin engine fighter)
Martin B-42 (twin engines bomber w/ engine driving single contrarotating prop at tail)
Savoia-Marchetti SM 91 and 92 (twin boom fighters)
 
Regarding the others, normally aviation engineers and air ministries are pretty reasonable and realistic. I would argue that there are really few examples of rejected designs or prototypes that clearly should have been put in service, but there are a few possible candidates that warrant at least some consideration, some of which have been mentioned:

Normally, true, but sometimes they don't make the decisions. That's responsible for things like the many failed British aircraft projects (well, a lot of those at least), the CF-105, or the Cheney decisions at the end of the Cold War--I mean Peace Dividend sure, but killing the A-6F or Bombcat in favor of F/A-18s and/or the A-12? Really?
 
Useful

Is this post about aircraft that really should have been put in production because they were actually better than the alternatives, or aircraft that are just completely cool, regardless of reality or airworthiness?


Pre-1945:

Martin-Baker MB-3 and MB-5 (undeveloped British WW2 fighters)
Republic P-69 (advanced development of P-47)
Blohm und Voss Bv-141 (assymetrical recon cooperation plane)
Focke Wulf Fw-187 (single seat, twin engine fighter)
Martin B-42 (twin engines bomber w/ engine driving single contrarotating prop at tail)
Savoia-Marchetti SM 91 and 92 (twin boom fighters)

About aircraft that should have been built, meaning they had a job to do, that they could do bettet than existing alternatives, and the technology was viable.

The FW187 is a case in point. I would say that the concept was validated when DH built the nearly identical Hornet five years later. The Hornet proves just how good the FW187 could have been.

The B70 is another case. Once the MiG25+AA6 combo had been tested and validated, there was no mission left for a highspeed, high altitude bomber. So canceling it was a good call.
Imagine an alternative Luftwaffe, with the He100D replacing the Bf109E from early 1940 and the Fw187 replacing the Bf110. Maybe if General Wever hadn't died he would have been able to counter Willy Messerchmit political conections...

DH Hornet.jpg
 

Commissar

Banned
The B70 is another case. Once the MiG25+AA6 combo had been tested and validated, there was no mission left for a highspeed, high altitude bomber. So canceling it was a good call.

Wrong, the MiG-25 would have had a hard time trying to keep up with the B-70 at high altitude and production models would have been flying high in the stratosphere where their big wings would have easily outmaneuvered the MiG-25 and AA6, nor would even the modern S-300 would have had a good chance of even touching it.

And thats not considering the fact the B-70 would be shooting back and specialized Wild Weasel Versions would be jamming the shit out of Soviet RADAR.

Even if the Soviets did a good job at defense and downed 20% of the B-70s, their country would have still been utterly devastated.

As for the B-52, that should have been scrapped in favor of a pure bomb truck F-111, which we'll rename the B-111. At Mach 2.5 and with a 31,500 lbs bombload, it will suffice for missions the B-52 does.
 
Wrong, the MiG-25 would have had a hard time trying to keep up with the B-70 at high altitude and production models would have been flying high in the stratosphere where their big wings would have easily outmaneuvered the MiG-25 and AA6, nor would even the modern S-300 would have had a good chance of even touching it.

And thats not considering the fact the B-70 would be shooting back and specialized Wild Weasel Versions would be jamming the shit out of Soviet RADAR.

Even if the Soviets did a good job at defense and downed 20% of the B-70s, their country would have still been utterly devastated.

As for the B-52, that should have been scrapped in favor of a pure bomb truck F-111, which we'll rename the B-111. At Mach 2.5 and with a 31,500 lbs bombload, it will suffice for missions the B-52 does.

1. The MiG25P was only built after an extensive test program showed it could shoot simulated B70 and SR71 type targets. Go to Yefim Gordon book for detail. If you don't belive russian sources and you think the SR71 stayed out of anyplace that had MiG25s just out of a good sporting attitude you have a point, the point being that you see the world throught US built lenses. (Ray Bans most likely). No matter how optimistic the URSS test program was, a few years latter both the US and the URSS were testing antisatellite aircraft launched missiles. The B70 would have to climb very high by then...
And the intercept profiles against high flying bombers are not of the manouvering kind. The MiG25 would climb, fire two pairs of AA6 at each target on a head on collision course mission. The MiG25/AA6 combo was designed from the onset to be optimised against jamming, not for range, and the idea of a B70 outmanouvering a few missiles is very strange. Was it stressed for 9g+ manouvers?

A F111 with 15 tons of boms doing Mach 2,5? what would that get in terms of range. Bombing Ireland from bases in England and refuelling from a KC135 to get back?
 
.

Even if the Soviets did a good job at defense and downed 20% of the B-70s, their country would have still been utterly devastated.

If it came to that (all out nuclear war) Trident SLBM would make more sense, no?

The only role left for nuclear bombers when the Missiles got accurate was for a first strike, and that can only be done with stealth...
That's why the B70 got axed, and the even more expensive B2 got built.
 
I think they should have picked the Grumman F11F instead of the F104, maybe less performance in 1 or 2 areas, but a much better allround fighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F_Super_Tiger

The F8 was the ONLY fighter the U.S. designed and put into service after the F-86 until the advent of the F-15. Everything else was an interceptor or a fighter-bomber. That isn't a bad thing, fighter bombers are damned handy, and the U.S. needed interceptors to kill the Bears, but when you list the actual fighters the U.S. built in the Jet era its a damned short list.

F-86
F8
F-15A/C
F-22

Everything else was meant to do something besides kill enemy fighters.

I always wonder if the Fighter Mafia's idea was adopted much eariler, Super Tiger would have been Western Bloc's air superiority fighter of choice between F-86 and F-15.

http://combatace.com/files/file/5076-grumman-f11f-1f-super-tiger/
index.php
 
Last edited:
I'm going to come out against the FW-187

Considering the ME-110 served competently in the scout, fighter bomber, night fighter (most successful night fighter of the war in terms of kill ratio) the Germans got their money's worth out of the design

The FW-187 was built as an uncompromised fighter and would have had ZERO versatility AND would still have been outperformed by British single engined fighters in the battle of Britain, so if anything, its production as opposed to the ME-110 reduces German strategic options to counter their growing and diversifying air needs as the war progresses
 
It's strange because (according to wiki, at any rate) they were planning on having a chin intake at first, but moved it to the top of the plane. I mean, really.

It would keep a lot of sand and dirt out of the engine when operating out of dusty/sandy unpaved airfields. But the wheels don't look suitable for that sort of thing.
 
For my own desires, an F7U Cutlass with better engines and earlier angled decks to handle them better (when they cruised with an angled deck carrier, safety was greatly improved). I just like the looks of it, no better reason.

Wrong, the MiG-25 would have had a hard time trying to keep up with the B-70 at high altitude and production models would have been flying high in the stratosphere where their big wings would have easily outmaneuvered the MiG-25 and AA6, nor would even the modern S-300 would have had a good chance of even touching it.

Maneuvering at Mach 3 and high altitude involves turns the radius of which are the size of countries. It also requires some knowledge of the incoming threat which the B-70 would not have had.

And thats not considering the fact the B-70 would be shooting back

Self-defense weapons were dropped from the B-70 program fairly early on.

and specialized Wild Weasel Versions would be jamming the shit out of Soviet RADAR.

Erm, no. That's a rather fanciful idea not supported by USAF planning or doctrine. The B-70 program, as a potential strategic aircraft, was cancelled years before the USAF realized the need for dedicated Wild Weasel missions and aircraft in fact.

Even if the Soviets did a good job at defense and downed 20% of the B-70s, their country would have still been utterly devastated.

That is the advantage of nuclear weapons over conventional. The B-70, however, was in competition with ICBMs which could do the same job with a higher degree of reliability and a good deal cheaper.

As for the B-52, that should have been scrapped in favor of a pure bomb truck F-111, which we'll rename the B-111. At Mach 2.5 and with a 31,500 lbs bombload, it will suffice for missions the B-52 does.

The USAF was adamantly against using strategic aircraft for conventional bombing.
 
Last edited:
ICBMs have numerous weaknesses compared to nuclear bombers, you know.

Well, yes, they are remarkably less cost effective in the conventional bombing role. They are however:
Cheaper to build on an individual and per warhead basis (especially with MIRV).
Rather more likely to penetrate enemy defenses
Far more survivable under conditions of enemy attack (a note: While bombers can use airborne alert, mobile ICBMs and SLBMs not in garrison/port are effectively the same).
Much easier to disperse away from population centers than are airfields
Far cheaper to maintain and operate than are bombers, especially considering the need for airborne refueling aircraft as well.
 
As Mote points out, ICBMs (and their variants) are much more effective in the actual use of nuclear weapons, that is as a deterrent. If you're in a situation where you have to actually nuke something, then the nukes have failed in their purpose (to prevent anyone from doing anything to you that would result in a nuking).
 
The J-79/F-11F could not have entered service because Grumman couldn't bribe their way out of a wet paper bag.

GrummanF11FTigerII.png
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top