US Military procurement programs results reversed

Hello everyone.

So I was reading a bit about several US military procurement programs who ended up being competitions between two companies and their designs. In some cases the choice of one particular design was a political one (for example one company has more influence than the other, or the government wants to prevent one from getting a monopoly).
So just for fun, what if the results of every US procurement program were reversed? Would some of the losing designs in OTL actually be good, or even be better than their competitor?

There is only a single rule: you can't have a design that had very serious, almost FUBAR issues win. It needs to be plausible.

So here are some of the examples I know of:

- General Motors' XM-1 wins against Chrysler's competitor. The latter ended up being the famous Abrams MBT. Yet the former actually won Army trials and Chrysler only made it because SecDef Rumsfeld asked for new trials at the last minute, changing the requirements to favor Chrysler's design few advantages while the strenghts of GM's were devalorised.
The decision mostly had to do with the fact that Chrysler was nearing bankruptcy and was the main and in fact sole MBT manufacturer for much of the Cold War. In the end General Dynamics bought it in 1982.
The GM XM-1 featured a variable compression ratio diesel engine and a turret that would later evolve to be the Abrams' one (Chrysler asked for the design when its design was chosen) among other differences.


- .276 Pedersen cartridge against 30.06. In the 30s this intermediate cartridge design was proposed to be used in the future semi-auto rifle (a Pedersen design and what would become the M1 Garand in .276).
It was more practical to use in a self-loading rifle (the mechanisms were easier to make reliable, it was a bit ligher and had less recoil), but the Army Ordnance still prefered 30.06 because it was widely available, was common with .30 cal machineguns and was more suitable to the US doctrine that still emphasized long range accurate fire.
Interestingly enough, due to being easier to use in a Garand (which was developed with this in mind from the start), the .276 could have allowed the rifle to come into service earlier had it been adopted.


- Boeing's CX-HLS proposal against Lockheed's C-5 Galaxy. Lockheed's design was chosen as it was the lowest-cost bidder. However the aircraft ended up being plagued with serious wing craks. Plus the program suffered from significant cost overruns.

Boeing's proposal apparently evolved into the 747. There is no garantee that choosing it would have avoided the aforementioned issues, but it might have prevented Lockheed from being in a hard financial situation. Moreover, commonality with the 747 could have been interesting.


Have fun!
 
The upgraded F104, the Lockheed Cl-1200 instead of the Northrop F-5 or the McDonald Douglas F 4 Phantom for the Export Market
The Northrop Ya-9 instead of the Fairchild Republic A-10
The Northrop Yf-23 instead of the Lockheed Martin F-22
Convair Kingfish instead of the SR 71
 
The T23 machine gun. Ordnance Department had people working on a belt-fed BAR derivative for years before and during World War II. It was rejected because it was a half pound over the 26 pound limit, so Ordnance went with the 40 pound M1919A6. The basic belt-fed BAR operating system was used with the MG42 trigger and feed system to create the MAG58, which is currently the Army's 28 pound machine gun.
 
The M14 rifle vs the FAL and the AR-10. Ordnance claimed that the M14 could be developed quickly (a lie), would be cheap (a lie), and could be made with Garand tooling (a lie). It ended up 10 years late and the most expensive standard-issue service rifle in US history. You would think that an 11 lbs rifle would at least not recoil too badly, but the M14 was less controllable than the 7 lbs AR-10 (with the light steel barrel). The FAL is a great rifle and miles ahead of the M14, but the AR-10 would have been the best 60s battle rifle (better than that stamped German sledgehammer that will remain unnamed).
 
The M14 rifle vs the FAL and the AR-10. Ordnance claimed that the M14 could be developed quickly (a lie), would be cheap (a lie), and could be made with Garand tooling (a lie). It ended up 10 years late and the most expensive standard-issue service rifle in US history. You would think that an 11 lbs rifle would at least not recoil too badly, but the M14 was less controllable than the 7 lbs AR-10 (with the light steel barrel). The FAL is a great rifle and miles ahead of the M14, but the AR-10 would have been the best 60s battle rifle (better than that stamped German sledgehammer that will remain unnamed).

The only issue with the AR-10 'winning' that competition is that the design was not mature enough where as the FAL (which should have won if the competition was run fairly) and M14 were.

The AR10 is also dirt resistant and quite easy to strip down and a damn good design with hindsight I would pick it over the the other 2 - but then the FAL can be field stripped in the same time it took me to write this sentence and at the time of the competition worked!
 
The only issue with the AR-10 'winning' that competition is that the design was not mature enough where as the FAL (which should have won if the competition was run fairly) and M14 were.
I will acknowledge that the AR-10 that was entered in the US rifle trials was an immature design. However, I do think it's important to note that the AR-10 saw combat in Sudan, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic before the first M14s even reached the Army. Ordnance's claim that the AR-10 would take five extra years of development was simply more lying on their part.
 
I will acknowledge that the AR-10 that was entered in the US rifle trials was an immature design. However, I do think it's important to note that the AR-10 saw combat in Sudan, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic before the first M14s even reached the Army. Ordnance's claim that the AR-10 would take five extra years of development was simply more lying on their part.

Oh no argument from me. At risk of Viking finding out where I live and hunting me down the M14 was 'third best' and was great so long as the US Armed forces was not at war with anyone and did all its shooting on a clean firing range and maybe some parade bashing (but not if its raining) - good for sloping arms is the M14 - all that lovely wood...hmmmm. But not so good at the war thing as the other 2.
 
After WWI, the Army had enough M1903s and M1917s that they could have standardized on either. Ordnance decided to keep their bootleg Mauser with target sights and throw out what was probably the best bolt-action military rifle of the war.
 
After WWI, the Army had enough M1903s and M1917s that they could have standardized on either. Ordnance decided to keep their bootleg Mauser with target sights and throw out what was probably the best bolt-action military rifle of the war.
IIRC the US paid out happily on the patent for the Mauser action, it was the Spitzer bullet patent they fought and ultimately lost.
 
The Luger, really?? I admit to being a bit of a 1911 fanboy but the 1911 is waaaay more rugged than the Luger. Drop a 1911 in the mud, it should work, a Luger, not so much - like a lot of German design over-engineered and never use one part when you can use three for the same job.
 
The home guard could have used sticks with the same results.
They really expected to have to fight and expected to die just to delay the Germans. Many (like my grandfather) were WW1 veterans and quite liked the P17. By 1942 they could have probably defeated a Sea Lion by themselves and by 1944 have made an Overlord hard work.
 
The Luger, really?? I admit to being a bit of a 1911 fanboy but the 1911 is waaaay more rugged than the Luger. Drop a 1911 in the mud, it should work, a Luger, not so much - like a lot of German design over-engineered and never use one part when you can use three for the same job.
Luger actually isn't that bad in the mud. It actually seals up very well and is on par with a 1911in mud, what gives the Luger a bad rep is poor maintenance and parts kits that were not fitted right. Other hand Luger is definitely more expensive to make and maintain then a 1911.
 
As for what I'd change. Instead of m1903 post ww1 I'd use m1917. m1 be using .276 instead of 30-06, Thompson be replaced sooner with m3, dump 7.62 nato period, and scrap m14 in favour of either AR 10 or FAL
 
Top