At the very least, the Super Hornet should have been made compatible with the Phoenix missile.
Military Aircraft that should have never been built?
- Thread starter S. Marlowski
- Start date
At the very least, the Super Hornet should have been made compatible with the Phoenix missile.
The B-1 Lancer
Is that the aircraft otherwise known as the worlds 'first self jamming bomber' as it's electronic suite was f**ked!
BlackDragon98
Banned
They have Hurricats though.
And after escort carriers started being deployed, the Fw 200 was doomed.
You forget when and why the B-36 was designed and built. It was designed when it looked like the U.S. may have to fight a transoceanic war with no allies in Europe. Design work started in 1941. priorities were adjusted as the war went on but it was always seen as the ultimate 'long arm' of American strategic forces. It continued to provide a credible threat until the 'all jet' Strategic Air Command was fully deployed.
The Phoenix missile system was never a complete success. It was retired when the 'threat' of large numbers of attacking aircraft against Carrier Task Groups became less likey and could be defeated by other means.
Or rather, when the threat of fighting an enemy that had a large or competent air force (re: the Soviet Air Force) had largely passed for a while. Granted the closest threat would be the PLAAF, but suffice to say, by that point the Phoenix is still unnecessary.
You could legitimately put any and every aircraft made by Lockheed/Lockheed Martin on this thread, simply because of Lockheed's scummy practices throughout its history. Personally, my candidate is the F-104.
Agreed
But it was the time span until the CM's and the Escort Carriers turned up . . . that's when they where causing havoc.
Last edited:
As I understand it, the Phoenix (AWG-9) weapons system (radar and missile) was actually a continuation of the work that Hughes started, to meet the RCAF spec for the CF-105 project in the mid-late 1950's.
This project was later (after the discontinuation of Canadian funding) sold to the USN for the fleet defense role.
After this disconnect, (again IIUC) the RCAF went directly to RCA and engaged them (under "Astra") to continue the above noted development, The RCAF had a massive amount of proprietary information which they freely shared with RCA.
Hughes threatened a massive lawsuit over the matter and the GOC backed down and looked towards Raytheon's Sparrow as an alternative.
This system was in it's very early developmental stage at this point and shortly thereafter the Diefenbaker government canned the entire (CF-105) project.
It just goes to show that there is much more behind the death of "our beloved Arrow" than is commonly noted.
It was (RL 206) essentially "toothless" at the time, although (like most anyone) I would have loved to see it fly with the PS.19 "Iroquois"pushing it.
It was a bridge too far and we ought to get over it.
The F-14/Phoenix concept was an outgrowth of the F6D Missileer/Eagle design of the mid 50s. A long range, long duration Fleet defense platform where the missle would be the primary maneuvering element not the aircraft.
Douglas F6D Missileer - Wikipedia
CF-18A was only the first step in perfecting the Super Hornet F-18E.
Super Hornet evolved from the CF-18A Hornet, which in turn evolved from the much smaller YF-17.
When I wrenched on CF-18As (mid-1980s) external panels were labelled "1A" etc.
IOW, CF-18 was still an upgraded YF-17 with lumps and bumps added by the US Navy. They really needed a complete re-design to integrate all those lumps and bumps.
Call CF-18A the short-production-run early version that eventually led to the fully-capable F-18E version.
Kind of like the way the early Boeing 747-100 series was only built in small numbers, while hundreds of 747-400s are still flying.
"A" series should only be built in small numbers. Fly them hard until they reveal flaws, then reinforce the "B" model to cure those flaws.
Super Hornet evolved from the CF-18A Hornet, which in turn evolved from the much smaller YF-17.
When I wrenched on CF-18As (mid-1980s) external panels were labelled "1A" etc.
IOW, CF-18 was still an upgraded YF-17 with lumps and bumps added by the US Navy. They really needed a complete re-design to integrate all those lumps and bumps.
Call CF-18A the short-production-run early version that eventually led to the fully-capable F-18E version.
Kind of like the way the early Boeing 747-100 series was only built in small numbers, while hundreds of 747-400s are still flying.
"A" series should only be built in small numbers. Fly them hard until they reveal flaws, then reinforce the "B" model to cure those flaws.
Point taken. I do know that Hughes and the GoC were very intimately involved with this project initially, with a view to it's utility for our "next generation" interceptor.The F-14/Phoenix concept was an outgrowth of the F6D Missileer/Eagle design of the mid 50s. A long range, long duration Fleet defense platform where the missle would be the primary maneuvering element not the aircraft.
Douglas F6D Missileer - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Much of the details of these matters still remain "classified" to this day.
What I have been able to find out is simply regurgitating the work of others.
There are citations of source documents available to support my thesis and I am certain the the GoC did dump a ton of money into Hughes Corp. initially.
Then there is the Chance Vought F7U Cutlass, aka the Gutless Cutlass. That aircraft was very notorious for being dangerous to it's crews during carrier landings, and it was made during the time when jet powered naval aviation was new, thus that field was relatively uncharted. But still, the F7U has to be mentioned in this thread.
P-38? U-2? SR-71? F-117?
Sure, Lockheed’s made some stinkers, but they’ve made plenty of outstanding aircraft too...
Definitely agree about one that the USN should have passed up on: the F7U Cutlass. The "Gutless Cutlass", "Ramp Monster", "Ensign Killer," take your pick. A blend of captured German design work with an underpowered engine was the result.
Disagree about the B-26: once the teething troubles were ironed out, it turned out to have the lowest loss rate in the ETO among bombers.
Disagree about the B-26: once the teething troubles were ironed out, it turned out to have the lowest loss rate in the ETO among bombers.
Last edited:
On the other hand the Me-163 did prove absolutely excellent at killing Nazis.
I can even argue that the B-26 was the best Allied Medium Bomber of WWII.
I wouldn't be surprised by what you say. The AAM-N-10 Eagle missile was a Bendix project. Not sure who took over the Bendix missile program but back then the military branches transferred test result and concepts from one manufacturer to another. I've read that Hughes was considered to be considered 'hard to deal with' having come out of the Hughes tool (which didn't sell their signature drill bits but rented them to drilling companies). There was a story that one reason the USAF rewired F-4s to use the AIM-9 sidewinder missle instead of its original AIM-4 Falcon was that the Hughes people tried to play hardball on replacement missle cost and the Air Force contracting people said 'screw it the AIM-9 design is owned by the Navy which is also DoD so we can competitive bid its production'
Also just as the Eagle program was bein g developed Hughes was developing the AIM-47 'super' Falcon for the F-12. The two long range missile programs were probably merged as both launch aircraft had been stillborn and ended up as the AIM-54.