Military Projects Cancelled by the End of the Cold War
- Thread starter KuboCaskett
- Start date
Definitely the Super Tomcat. The Tomcat's biggest problem, it's shit reliability, could have been mitigated by a new variant, and when everything worked it would have been an awesome bird.
The S-3, on the other hand, was just a piece of shit all around from what I've heard. An ex-Navy guy I know compared the series of fixes the Viking went through early in its life to the US Navy's WWII torpedo fixes, mentioned that the ASW suite was rendered useless after a few carrier landings, and basically brought nothing to the table except tanker duties that a P-3 couldn't do better.
I think it's telling that even as the US Navy scrambled to replicate even some of the capability of the Intruder and Tomcat they basically ignored the loss of the S-3, and new ASW UAVs seem to be focused on the inner cordon mission shared with the helos.
As for the OP, I lament the loss of the A-6F.
Doubtful. Replica was a technology demonstrator to show the ability to design a low-observable aircraft and manufacture the materials required, it was as much about BAE gaining access to American programs as anything else. I honestly can't see the British government funding it and I doubt BAE would spend all that money themselves without a likely customer.
I wonder what of the Eastern bloc? Would more of them be able to manufacture their own weapons like how Czechoslovakia and Poland did? I can see East Germany coming up with an arms industry to compete with their Western counterparts.
Have we mentioned the first Soviet nuclear-powered catapult equipped aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk? It was 20% done when the USSR broke up and the successor states had no money to finish her. Soviet nuclear carriers are a really underexplored TL possibility. I keep thinking about what could have happened if maybe the Chinese somehow stepped in to fund her completion and buy her.
That's one messy design. SSMs and long range SAMs taking up massive amounts of space, catapults AND ski-ramp...
That's not entirely fair. There is logic to it, even if it's not what Western navies choose to do. The SSMs partially fill the strike role and the SAMs the air-defence role - do remember that Soviet/Russian CAGs are much smaller than the US Navy uses, and their aircraft are less capable (probably, I'm not 100% sure). Using missiles rather than aircraft as a strike package also has advantages, you don't need to worry about recovering them and they're harder to detect and intercept. It may also fit better with how they expected the ships to be used, but I'm not going to try to mind-read the designers or doctrine-makers of the Soviet fleet!
RamscoopRaider
Donor
The Kuznetsov's are STOBAR, launching fighters via a ski jump means they need to be really high performance (fighters) and can only carry a limited warload, not nearly enough for a useful antiship payload. The older Kiev's, were VTOL, and VTOL launches can carry even less than that, and with the exception of the F-35B, have pretty shitty performance. Plus Kuznetsov only has ~45 aircraft, the Kiev ~30 compared to ~100 for a USN Supercarrier
Agreed, the Kievs were rubbish at anything except ASW. I just took a look at the proposed Ulyanovsk airgroup, and as you say it's all either fighters or helos. Given that I think the SSMs ARE the strike package, but the carrier as a whole isn't really intended for strike operations. It looks more like it's intended to provide area AA and ASW defence.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
AFAIK Soviet Doctrine was that the carriers were there to defend the SSBN bastion areas, though I have heard that was an excuse to get carriers. A Kiev is useful enough for ASW and swatting MPA's, and it can do some bombing of low intensity opposition. Kuznetsov can really complicate matters for a CVN performing a strike, and is better at bombing, plus can do the ASW
Ulyanovsk was also to have Yak 44 AEW aircraft, which could also fly from Kuznetsov, plus with cats it could launch fully loaded Su-33 and Mig-29, which had a limited strike ability
But the problem is that putting SSMs and heavy SAMs in the carrier barelly improves the overall missile capabilities, while taking a huge chunk of the number of planes carried. Which I'm sure is why China stripped the SSMs out of the carrier.
There is a good reason the Soviets put SSMs on their aircraft carriers. Only one Soviet shipyard built carriers: the Black Sea Shipyard in Nikolayev, Ukrainian SSR. Soviet carriers had to transit the Turkish Straits so they could join the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. However, the Montreaux Convention, which gives Turkey control over the straits and regulates the transit of warships through them, prohibits aircraft carriers heavier than 15,000 tons from being sailed through the straits. It also excludes carriers from the definition of capital ship. Black Sea states (such as the USSR/Russia) are allowed to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits. The Soviets got around these restrictions by designating their Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class carriers as "aviation cruisers" - officially, they were missile cruisers (which count as capital ships) that also carried aircraft. Turkey has always allowed these "aviation cruisers" to transit the straights because they are technically not "true" aircraft carriers.
The Soviets put SSMs on their carriers to exploit a loophole in a treaty.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Eh Arguably that is not the reason, an aircraft carrier is defined in the treaty as "Aircraft-Carriers are surface vessels of war, whatever their displacement, designed or adapted
primarily for the purpose of carrying", on look at a Kiev or Kuznetsov would tell you, yes it is primarily adapted for that, name or not. Turkey allows this, because they do not want to renegotiate that treaty as it would be less favorable to them, and it is in the spirit of the treaty to allow them
Soviet Carriers could not operate strike aircraft, so Heavy SSM's had to substitute for that
Bulgaria and Romania had pretty formidable military industries.
I recently learned about the existence of the Have Sting project (by General Electric);
Along with the rest of SDI it probably wouldn't have been built even if the Cold War kept going, but the Soviet's collapse definitely killed it.
Along with the rest of SDI it probably wouldn't have been built even if the Cold War kept going, but the Soviet's collapse definitely killed it.