UAS militarily planes if no Vietnam war

cjc

What kind of planes would the US develope whithout the lessons (right or wrong) learned from the Vietnam War.

To start of wail the F-111 dosnt look like it could have been saved even whith a much more positive outlook for multirole aircraft the F-14 was heavily influenced by it, maby that becomes the replacement for the F-4 as a joint USAF-USN fighter, whith the right engine and ground attack from the start then upgraded later, maby even to the ASF-14 version by the 90's. This kills the F-15 unfortunately and I have no idea how any of this effects the F-16, I also have a hard time seeing israel buying such a matanince heavy aircraft but they do need something to replace the F-15 for air to air work.
 

AdA

The F-15 was a reaction to the predicted capability of the MiG-25. Initial estimates where that it would not only be very fast and have a powerful radar but that it would also be very manoeuvrable (estimated weight was way low and data from missile tests was mistaken for aircraft tests IIRC).
So the F-15 would still get built.
The USAF never lost focus on who the main enemy was, and designed aircraft for use agains the soviets. One efect Viet BNam had was ext.ending the life of some platforms (Skyraiders, etc) and had an influence on COIN aircraft. It also provided a test ground for SEAD, etc, but in a major war in Europe the USAF would face a much greater threat and would have to up their game seriously. They knew that and built aircraft for it.
 

jmc247

No change.

The Air Force refused to really invest hard in the kind of COIN aircraft that Vietnam needed so the A-10 was done as northern tanks rolled South.
 

cjc

AdA said:
The F-15 was a reaction to the predicted capability of the MiG-25. Initial estimates where that it would not only be very fast and have a powerful radar but that it would also be very manoeuvrable (estimated weight was way low and data from missile tests was mistaken for aircraft tests IIRC).
So the F-15 would still get built.
The USAF never lost focus on who the main enemy was, and designed aircraft for use agains the soviets. One efect Viet BNam had was ext.ending the life of some platforms (Skyraiders, etc) and had an influence on COIN aircraft. It also provided a test ground for SEAD, etc, but in a major war in Europe the USAF would face a much greater threat and would have to up their game seriously. They knew that and built aircraft for it.
Click to expand...
Yet they also very much built it as "not a pound for air to ground" specifically because it was felt that the trade offs made for the f-4 are what made it do so bad in Vietnam. Haveing it become a great strike aircraft was not at all planned or expected, so how would the plane change if it was expected from the start of the design process? Same whith the unwillingness to share a fighter whith the Navy until after the cold war made congress force them to.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The one thing that changes isn't fixed wing, it's helicopters. The incredible utility of helicopters, especially dedicated gunships, was made obvious in Vietnam.
 
marathag

marathag

AdA said:
The USAF never lost focus on who the main enemy was, and designed aircraft for use agains the soviets.
Click to expand...
That would get more funding than what the Navy had. They both were wooing Congress.
If they would be effective against the Soviets, so much the better
That's why the F-4 was so embarrassing. They even wanted to call it the F-110, to disguise that naval origin
 
marathag

marathag

CalBear said:
The one thing that changes isn't fixed wing, it's helicopters. The incredible utility of helicopters, especially dedicated gunships, was made obvious in Vietnam.
Click to expand...
Might not be the AH-1, though, but the Huey and the rest were safe, as their design predated Vietnam
 
marathag

marathag

With all kinds of money around, you bet NAA will push for the cancellation of the XB-70 to be reversed, for a high speed Transport
1618097311948.png

For when it positively has to be there overnight
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Wild card question: with no Viet Nam, what's the arc of the military budget for the 60's and 70's? And what piece of the overall pie does each service get with that change?
 

Questerr

Does the F-105 stay in service significantly longer without the massive losses they took over the course of the war?
 

Bougnas

Driftless said:
Wild card question: with no Viet Nam, what's the arc of the military budget for the 60's and 70's? And what piece of the overall pie does each service get with that change?
Click to expand...
The war was insanely costly to the US military for five reasons:
- it massively ate into budgets obviously
- it weakened the US economy which likely led to poorer performance in the 70s
- it forced production of some equipment to be increased to replace losses and increase the size of some fleets (helicopters), which meant that new equipment was delayed because the large fleets were too expensive to be replaced early
- it led to overinvestment in technology that was more useful in COIN than in the more important conventional role in Europe
- it demoralized the army which had to pay to address drug abuse and other issues

I don't have a clear view of the budget, but IMO no war would lead to:

- greater procurement of guided weapons (Paveways for ex) and potentially proper replacements for the Sidewinder (AIM-82 or 95). The war forced the US to go with cheaper upgrades that could be viewed as somewhat more cost effective but weren't necessarily better in the long run.

- earlier service entry of a replacement for the UH-1 Huey and the OH-58 Kiowa, closer to the mid/late 70s.

- M48A5-like upgrade starts in 1965 instead of 1975 (this was specifically killed by the war), improving the numbers of modern tanks.

- Most likely a new scout vehicle and an IFV enter service in the early-mid 1970s (something akin to the XM800T ARSV and the XM723 or the XM2). The need to save funds meant that the two roles were combined in one vehicle and that the IFV development was delayed and took longer.

- earlier replacement for the shitty M219 coax?

- possibly greater efforts to upgrade the M60A1 or to fix the M60A2

- possibly longer life of the Sheridan in army service since it wouldn't need to be rushed for Vietnam, maybe more thorough upgrades.

- Essential to fix the gun-launcher tanks but still unlikely: Shillelagh 2 happens. This was a Shillelagh with the TOW's more modern electronics.

- for planes, IMO the LWF competition will change the most since it was dictated by the Fighter Mafia, same goes for the A-10.

- the F-14 program is probably not cut as hard which means that main production will be F-14Bs and Cs with F401 turbofans and better RAM-D which will address most of the complaints to the OTL F-14A.
 

Belisarius II

marathag said:
That would get more funding than what the Navy had. They both were wooing Congress.
If they would be effective against the Soviets, so much the better
That's why the F-4 was so embarrassing. They even wanted to call it the F-110, to disguise that naval origin
Click to expand...
The F-4 was far from an embarrassment, it was the most advanced multirole fighter of the 1960's. The obsession with it's early versions not having a gun miss the mark. Even after they got guns most kills were still made with missiles, as most kills by other aircraft were. F-4 pilots flew to the strengths of the aircraft, and usually prevailed over their more nimble opponents. The F-4, with updated ECM pods prevailed in the most intense air war in the post WWII period, the October War of 1973. If the now worshiped A-10 had been in Israeli service at the time, they would've been slaughtered.
 

Bougnas

The main reason behind underwhelming performance during the Vietnam war was not really the lack of a gun, but rather insufficient WVR training that led to US pilots launching the missiles outside of the specified parameters. The Navy had much better results even though they never got a gun because they got better training and somewhat better missile variants. That said the Navy had far less pilots to train so it's not like the USAF could do that much better.

However, it's true that US missiles and especially USAF versions received insufficient development.
 

The History Man

There were three key lessons from the Vietnam War:-

1) The need for fighters to be agile and have air combat capability. The F-15 and F-16 were designed around this and have proved it in subsequent conflicts.
2) The need for a dedicated close air support aircraft. The A-1 proved the value of a slow platform with great endurance and payload in the CAS role, and this led to the A-10 being developed with these characteristics.
3) Strategic bombers proved they had a valuable secondary role in conventional warfare. The B-1 was developed to have a massive payload and to have a conventional role once its days as a nuclear penetrator were finished.

Had the Vietnam War not taken place, I consider the following outcomes would have been likely:-
  • The F-15 would have been developed but as a straight-line interceptor with limited air combat capability. Same for the F-14 for the US Navy.
  • The F-111 would have become the single air-to-ground platform for the US Air Force, replacing the F-100 and F-105 by the 1970s.
  • A strike version of the F-14 would have been developed for the US Navy to replace the A-6 and A-7 by the 1980s.
  • There would have been no F-16, F/A-18, A-10 or B-1.
  • More FB-111s would have been built but the B-52 would have been withdrawn in the 1970s with the long-range strategic mission being delivered through land-based or submarine-based ballistic missiles.
This would have met Robert McNamara's objective to have as few aircraft types in US military service in order to bring operating and servicing costs down.
 

Workable Goblin

Belisarius II said:
I have to disagree here. Supersonic transports are just too expensive to be practical. The Anglo/French Concord, and Russian T-144 were prestige money pits.
Click to expand...
The poster you were quoting didn't say it would be a good idea, merely that North American would be pushing for it. Which they probably would be, but I can't see them succeeding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top