The best aircraft that never should have been built

While the A10's wouldn't have lasted long in the air in said scenario it's also fair to say the same about pretty much everything.

The sheer amount of missiles, flak, interceptors, and fighters the Soviets would have thrown up was insane.
Everything was designed for low altitudes because the air defense environment above about 500 feet was so dense. There were huge amounts of systems at low altitude, but it's easier to hide from those over hills and forests than wide open deserts . The progression of the air campaign over Iraq happened because of the specific circumstances of the Iraqi air defense system and Iraqi geography.
 
The Brabazon was built around the idea that only a few rich people and companies would pay for long distance air flight but the Brabazon was capacious and the large wing area made it a potential good weight lifter. Possibly with modern high density seating it could have made it's market with low price high volume transport. Not unlike the Loftleidair Candair Cl44.
Had it flown in 1939 instead of 1949 the Brabazon would have been Queen of the Sky in the 40's.
 
Horseshit.

Something has to take 50% per sortie casualty to stop the Soviet spearhead in the Fulda Gap, and that something needs to do the job.

This...

ar_mrl_mlrs_o1.jpg


...and this instead. Cheaper, all-weather, less vulnerable.

m052.jpg
 
They could have easily just stuck a couple of forward firing guns on it but nobody ever tried that.
It did, sort of
The gunner could rotate the turret directly forward and transfer firing control of the guns to the pilot, with the guns firing along each side of the cockpit canopy; this was rarely done as the turret's minimum forward elevation was 19° and the pilot did not have a gunsight
 
The Defiant was planned to use the no deflection system with a sight that allowed for the different drop from the angled guns. The concept had merit but something slipped through the net and the pilot sight and training was absent. A management fault not a concept/mechanical fault. With the intended system the Defiant had, in effect, forward firing guns.
 
TSR-2 - almost the perfect embodiment of the phrase "The perfect is the enemy of the good"
I know I'm going to be pilloried by my fellow Canadians, but the Arrow was too much, too expensive, and had limited use.

Gorgeous plane, and Dief should have been shot for destroying the prototypes and plans.
But.
 
I know I'm going to be pilloried by my fellow Canadians, but the Arrow was too much, too expensive, and had limited use.

Gorgeous plane, and Dief should have been shot for destroying the prototypes and plans.
But.

Unfortunately the actual merits of the Arrow tend to be overshadowed by whole "America destroyed the Arrow to hobble Canada" schtick. It was an amazing plane but it's role was already way too limited and it was too expensive for the Canucks. Ironically Canada's best bet for the Arrow might have been managing to somehow sell it to the US.
 
How about the B36? Had a lot of reliability problems but at least for the time had unparelled range and weapons load. Was quickly made obsolete by changing conditions.

Personally always been one of my favorites. There's something I love about a plane that physics and nature seem to be screaming "This should not Fly!"

The B-36 was the only aircraft for a time that could carry the first air-deliverable H-bombs. The Mark-17 weighed in at 42K pounds. Reason enough for it to stay until the bombs got smaller and lighter, and the B-52s came into service.
 
This is amazingly wrong.

Yes, the Air Force wanted to ditch the A-10 as early as the late 80s. No, it wasn't to get out of the CAS game, else they wouldn't have funded three separate programs to produce a CAS-dedicated F-16 before Desert Storm put the kibosh on that.

The F-16 "CAS" wasn't to replace the A-10, (we were still using them for the purpose to today) but to add more "FIGHTER/bombers" (note the emphisis) to the force not really to address or even service the actual CAS role. The F-16/F-15 even with guided bombs was (and still) doesn't effectively address the ground CAS needs but that's part of the Air Force problem.

No, the Air Force did move away from low-altitude tactics precisely because the A-10 couldn't do it's job at acceptable loss rates. See again Desert Storm, where the A-10 fleet got sufficiently chewed up that F-16s with guided bombs replaced them in the CAS role

And yet the A-10 continued (and continues) to perform it's CAS role to today. F-16's and Strike Eagles were not sent in to replace the A-10s, the A-10s continued to fight through the war and after. (They continue in interdiction roles in theater to today) The big problem with the A-10 was speed and the fact that the 'front' was moving to fast forward for them to keep up from bases towards the rear of the fighting.

Standard AAA wasn't that effective against the A-10s due to their operational doctrine and flight altitude whereas they ARE a major danger to aircraft that fly at very high speeds and can't get down in the terrain. Such as "CAS" F-16's and Strike Eagles which have to stand off a great distance and/or high altitude which even with smart bombs reducese their effectivness.

Here's the thing: the revelation about the A-10 was not that it was vulnerable to SHORAD, that had been known from day one. The revelation was that with precision munitions in quantity normal fast movers could do the same job with far less risk and only having to hang a targeting pod on one of the pylons. The F-111 was the best tankhunter aircraft in that war, for Chrissakes.

The problem was that's not a truism but a situational effect. The A-10 was/is perfectly adequate against SHORAD given any non-desert terrain whereas, (as has been shown in places like Kosovo and Europe) the "fast-movers/smart-bombs" by the nature of the delivery platform tend to be less effective than direct action at a near distance. The Marines and Army LOVE the hog because it IS a CAS aircraft rather than having the "CAS" function tacked onto a fast moving, high altitude 'fighter' jet as an afterthought. Which is what the Air Force has always considered and operated the CAS mission as.

Randy
 
This...

...and this instead. Cheaper, all-weather, less vulnerable.

Well the former was specifically, and the 'deliverable mine-field' warhead itself, were actually designed for that situation and deployed the same time as the A-10. (1983 actually) The latter on the other hand was already outdated and vulnerable not to mention less effective against moving targets. Nukes? Yes but keep in mind the situation was that once we start using them so do the other guys and we were more vulnerable to them than they were.

Massed artillary always has the issue with set-up time and vulnerablity of a 'fixed' site so you only get a few 'shots' before the other guy starts shooting back.

Randy
 
The F-16 "CAS" wasn't to replace the A-10, (we were still using them for the purpose to today) but to add more "FIGHTER/bombers" (note the emphisis) to the force not really to address or even service the actual CAS role. The F-16/F-15 even with guided bombs was (and still) doesn't effectively address the ground CAS needs but that's part of the Air Force problem.



And yet the A-10 continued (and continues) to perform it's CAS role to today. F-16's and Strike Eagles were not sent in to replace the A-10s, the A-10s continued to fight through the war and after. (They continue in interdiction roles in theater to today) The big problem with the A-10 was speed and the fact that the 'front' was moving to fast forward for them to keep up from bases towards the rear of the fighting.

Standard AAA wasn't that effective against the A-10s due to their operational doctrine and flight altitude whereas they ARE a major danger to aircraft that fly at very high speeds and can't get down in the terrain. Such as "CAS" F-16's and Strike Eagles which have to stand off a great distance and/or high altitude which even with smart bombs reducese their effectivness.



The problem was that's not a truism but a situational effect. The A-10 was/is perfectly adequate against SHORAD given any non-desert terrain whereas, (as has been shown in places like Kosovo and Europe) the "fast-movers/smart-bombs" by the nature of the delivery platform tend to be less effective than direct action at a near distance. The Marines and Army LOVE the hog because it IS a CAS aircraft rather than having the "CAS" function tacked onto a fast moving, high altitude 'fighter' jet as an afterthought. Which is what the Air Force has always considered and operated the CAS mission as.

Randy

Isn't the A10 fixation more of a civilian thing with servicemen actually having more of a love affair with the AC 130? Admittedly an AC130 is a death trap in anything but the lightest AA. Its only really viable in the post 9/11 low intensity COIN operations.
 
Wait, what? But the GAU-8 is huge! The A-10 was literally designed around the cannon! How on God's green Earth could you mount it on the A-7?!?

Why mount it? Mavericks and cluster bombs are better anti-tank weapons in the face of Soviet ADA.
 
The original and I'd have spent the money on a British replacement for the Lightning, or the proposed supersonic Buccaneer.

As for cocaine and strippers, well I suppose the NHS can always use more pain killers and decorating supplies.
 
Last edited:
The original and I'd have spent the money on a British replacement for the Lightning, or the proposed supersonic Buccaneer.

As for cocaine and strippers, well I suppose the NHS can always use more pain killers and decorating supplies.

Man Socialism really does kill people's love of fun. I bet you're reaction to getting a birthday cake is "These Nutrients could better serve the proletariat if made into a slurry padded out with potatoes". Poor bastards. If only communists could experience human emotions.
 
Last edited:
Top