Non US designed Aircraft in servive with the USAF/USN/USMC
- Thread starter Pangur
- Start date
The Canadian DHC 4 Caribou was used by the US Army and transferred to the USAF in 1967. The Army also trialled the bigger, turboprop DHC 5 Buffalo, but this wasn't picked up by the USAF because of their C123 fleet. These STOL aircraft would have been awesome if they were still around for Afghanistan.
In Vietnam they did, they're a great plane which can access areas not much bigger than a helicopter needs but with a higher transit speed and vastly lower purchase and operating cost.
Driftless
Donor
Pretty good beats perfection sometimes.
The Caribou wasn't very "sexy" but apparently served quite well and had useful capabilities that other craft did not/do not have.
Last edited:
Delta Force
Banned
Unless the contract allows for American firms to have complete export rights over the airframe, engines, and perhaps the avionics and weapons, the aircraft can't be built like the F-16 because it would contain foreign content and/or intellectual property.
Delta Force
Banned
British missiles, engines, and technology patents could be usable. They had very competitive missiles (Red Top had or was planned for all-aspect targeting well before the AIM-9 Sidewinder) and engines (turboprop and turbojet/turbofan, including the Rolls-Royce Spey and Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593), and useful developments in a variety of other fields such as thrust vectoring rocket engines (Rolls-Royce RZ2 on the Blue Streak), blown flaps, the rotodyne, the Hawker Siddeley Kestrel and ski jumps (as well as rubber decks).
Buccaneer v Intruder
I'll leave it to aircraft nerds (sorry experts) to decide which was the better aircraft. I'm inclined to think the Intruder had better avionics but that was probably UK Treasury meanness. The Buccaneer tested both TSR-2 and Tornado systems so could have been made more capable.
The Blackburn/HS Buccaneer was a two seat strike aircraft, nuclear capable. Its nearest US equivalent was the A6 Intruder. The Buccaneer was also good as a buddy-buddy tanker and could be configured as a tanker rather than strike aircraft. One or maybe two per squadron had that role on the UK carriers.
I'll leave it to aircraft nerds (sorry experts) to decide which was the better aircraft. I'm inclined to think the Intruder had better avionics but that was probably UK Treasury meanness. The Buccaneer tested both TSR-2 and Tornado systems so could have been made more capable.
Delta Force
Banned
The Rolls-Royce Spey and Orenda Iroquois could be used as interim replacements for the General Electric J79 and Pratt & Whitney J75, respectively. The Pratt & Whitney TF30 was never intended for use production aircraft, or at least the production F-14. Since many problems with the TF30 on the F-111 were due to using intakes designed for turbojet engines, it's possible there would have been teething problems with any turbofan powering the F-111, unless the intake decision is butterflied.
Here's what I think is a possibility: the BAC TSR.2.
It may sound crazy, but General Dynamics ran into a LOT of serious developmental problems with the engine intakes, avionics and the swing-wing wing box of the F-111, problems that weren't fully resolved until later production F-111 models arrived around 1971. As such, the TSR.2 could have been modified for USAF use by 1970 with a smaller-fan GE F101 derivative (essentially the GE F110 in an earlier development timeframe), American avionics and the ability to carry the B28, B43, B61 and eventually B83 nuclear bombs (along with a long list of conventional weapons).
It may sound crazy, but General Dynamics ran into a LOT of serious developmental problems with the engine intakes, avionics and the swing-wing wing box of the F-111, problems that weren't fully resolved until later production F-111 models arrived around 1971. As such, the TSR.2 could have been modified for USAF use by 1970 with a smaller-fan GE F101 derivative (essentially the GE F110 in an earlier development timeframe), American avionics and the ability to carry the B28, B43, B61 and eventually B83 nuclear bombs (along with a long list of conventional weapons).
Pangur
Donor
Now there is a top answer. Had not even thought about it.
This is a different cut on what I was asking but still spot on
That's one heck of a reach however heavily modified why not?
There was some consideration given to adopting the Panavia Tornado in the all weather attack / strike role as an alternative to the F-15E. A non-starter to be fair.
The Tornado was considered a second time for the Wild Weasel SEAD role then undertaken by the F-4G. The F-15 (F-15G?) was also strongly looked at. Of course, the F-16 now fills this niche.
The Tornado was considered a second time for the Wild Weasel SEAD role then undertaken by the F-4G. The F-15 (F-15G?) was also strongly looked at. Of course, the F-16 now fills this niche.
I'm heavily biased to the A-6, mainly because I wanted to be an A-6 Bombardier Navigator for one.....and the Navy never seriously looked at the Buccaneer as an A-6 alternative.
Tornado Wild Weasel was a serious contender: Rockwell International was going to build the aircraft down in Palmdale, in the same factory that built the B-1s. But the Post-Cold War drawdown nixed the Follow-on Wild Weasel competition (F-16G and F-15G were the other two entries).
Over on ACIG.org some time back, there was someone who had the gall to suggest that the USN buy the Rafale M instead of the Super Hornet. He got pretty much laughed out of the thread for that.
Tornado Wild Weasel was a serious contender: Rockwell International was going to build the aircraft down in Palmdale, in the same factory that built the B-1s. But the Post-Cold War drawdown nixed the Follow-on Wild Weasel competition (F-16G and F-15G were the other two entries).
Over on ACIG.org some time back, there was someone who had the gall to suggest that the USN buy the Rafale M instead of the Super Hornet. He got pretty much laughed out of the thread for that.
One other point about all those small buys of non-US-build transports.
It is precisely BECAUSE they're not US planes, or rather, not standards US C-130 / C-17 / C-5. They're for SOF use, some in corporate / "almost civilian" camo schemes, so are difficult to identify, and so don't stand out as much in the more interesting locations around the world.
Plus, they're smaller, so cheaper, more efficient, and able to actually get into location that are not a major international airport. And also more expendable, if it comes to that.
Regards,
Gerard
It is precisely BECAUSE they're not US planes, or rather, not standards US C-130 / C-17 / C-5. They're for SOF use, some in corporate / "almost civilian" camo schemes, so are difficult to identify, and so don't stand out as much in the more interesting locations around the world.
Plus, they're smaller, so cheaper, more efficient, and able to actually get into location that are not a major international airport. And also more expendable, if it comes to that.
Regards,
Gerard
British Republic
Banned
In OTL Britain in terms of milltary aircraft has historically perfered working with the rest of Europe (until the F-35) in projects such as the Jaguar, Tornado and Eurofighter. ITTL if they decided to with the USA on such projects such as fighters and otherwise, what would have been the end result?
Delta Force
Banned
The USAF seriously considered purchasing Canadian built Canadair CL-44 cargo aircraft, but political pressure in both countries led to it not being pursued. There was pressure for the United States to buy domestically, and the Canadian government was wary of having a massive aircraft order go to an aircraft firm in Quebec shortly after the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, which devastated the aerospace industry in Ontario.