US Military procurement programs results reversed

Convair YB-60 instead of the Boeing B-52

and also, I had a thread about the YB-49 entering service.

I think the B36 was a cool plane but it had a shitton of problems and just sticking swepr wings and jets on the airframe doesn't fix those problems. That and the airframe was terribly outdated by the time the B60 project started.

I don't think it would have had anywhere near the longevity of the B52.
Theres also the X-32, and YF-23.

The FB22 also seems like a good one. Would have filled the niche of a long range strike stealth craft. The f35 is good at some things but its not really fantastic for long range strike missions.

I mean the F15E fills parts of the niche of the F111 but its not stealth.
 
I guess it depends on what you mean by "nothing like it," because the wikipedia article lists a whole bunch of "similar" vehicles that are used by countries like France, Switzerland, and Australia, and in general the idea of a largish off-road capable light truck seems pretty universal. Could you clarify?
As some other posters hinted at, The Hummer was an attempt to do the job of a bunch of military vehicles on one chassis.
Most other nations went for some sort of heavilly modified civilian vehicle like a Range Rover or Mercedes and kept the specialist vehicles. The spread of large vehicles only really happened when armies started demanding armour for IED protection.
 
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.
Whatever the errors may have been with these people it did make sense to standardise on the rifle for which you own the factory. The P17 factories stopped production at the end of the war.
 

Driftless

Donor
Don't build two tank designs(MBT-70 & M551) around the untried XM150 gun/launcher. While you're at it, pick a different alternative in place of the M551 Sheridan. (T-92? or a different conventional air portable design)
 
The Hummer is a great example of a project that got out of hand. I knew an engineer that worked on a competitor for that project. It started off as basically Jeep 2. The original ideas was cheap easy transport to replace the Jeep without various Jeep issues an example of which is that the old army Jeep was a bit high center of gravity. And was not great for transporting more the 2.
Somehow the project experienced huge amounts of creep and became the all signing and all dancing Hummer that is frankly HUGE. But it could have been worse. I remember the family friend having a FIT one day when some genius involved with the project suggested basically making the stupid thing amphibious and his boss told him they would need a prop drive system like the duplex drives of WW2. Eventually that was tossed out the window.
So we got a super sized Jeep that is the ultimate Jake of all trades m aster of non that costs a LOT more then is probably justified. Then because it is so large and used in so many roles including directly in combat we now have folks bitching that it is not armored. Well if you want armor get a tank or an armored troop transport. Not a vehicle designed to be cheep and dirty.
So in many ways the Hummer is the poster child for out of control projects that somehow managed to in the end be not to bad. But that could have been better and cheaper if the project didn’t snowball. The Bradley itself is another example of this. But this has happened many times before and will surely continue to happen in the future.
Aircraft have this happen to them a lot. The various Douglas Navy aircraft designed during WW2 (dive bombers and torpedo bombers) are great examples of this. They added so many bells and whistles that it basically killed the project. But many other examples exist.
You actually can get armor and amphibious ability cheaply if you don't add the big towing and carrying capacity requirements of a big truck- the VBL did that and works fine.
 
All of this sounds really interesting, I wasn't aware of all these small arms nor the HMMVW's story!

Something else I found is that choosing the GM XM-1 over the Chrysler one has actually much more impact that I thought:
-I can't find this document anymore but in a congressionnal hearing on the delays and cost overruns of the XM-1 programm, it was mentionned that not choosing the GM tank would have very negative consequences for several already weak states, such as Michigan. Many people such as those in the Teledyne company that made the AVCR-1360 engine would suddenly have no work, and the chairman explaining the problem made it seem like the SecDef's decision to choose Chrysler was really screwing over states and people that didn't need it.
One can wonder if saving Chrysler this way didn't actually have more negative impact on the economy than if he had chosen GM. The latter option might have better balanced the situation, at least for the time being.

- It seems like choosing GM would be quite a big deal regarding delays and additionnal costs. Outside of the fact that the decision to choose one design was delayed for a good time (IIRC several months), you also had to seriously rework the lackluster Chrysler prototype (change the turret, FCS...) and fix issues with the turbine, which is more expensive than the diesel. Choosing the GM in July 1976 would have likely accelerated delivery by over 8 months and prevented $1B from being used, and this was only a low-end estimate by the Congress. The AVCR-1360 engine is a well-proven, mature design taken from the MBT-70 and as such required pretty much no extra developement, unlike the turbine. The turret is also pretty much what the real Abrams ended up using so not many changes would have been required.
Overall if it's compared to the more sophisticated contemporary Leopard 2 I think that getting the Abrams in service in 1979 if not earlier is definitely possible.

- Without the delays, cost overruns, the costly turbine and all the massive logistics required by it, the GM Abrams would likely be much cheaper, and also more attractive due to it's lower price and more conventionnal design.

- The tank not only outperformed the Chrysler prototype in trials but it seems that it would have had quite a few improvements over a vanilla Abrams: it is slighly smaller, lighter, it is possible to shift gears manually (which is a plus for skilled drivers), the tank had hydropneumatic suspension elements on 3 roadwheels per side (which leads to even lighter weight and less volume taken inside the tank as well as better performance), and what's more is that such a suspension configuration was also tested in the M60A1E3 so if the GM Abrams has them it might butterfly an hybrid suspension on the M60A3 thanks to commonality.
 
Don't build two tank designs(MBT-70 & M551) around the untried XM150 gun/launcher. While you're at it, pick a different alternative in place of the M551 Sheridan. (T-92? or a different conventional air portable design)

CVR(t)?

At around 8 tons with multiple variants easily fulfills the role the Sheridan failed to fill
 
The T92 could work, it was supposed to enter service in 1962 and it didn't mess around with amphibious capability or a gun/launcher. Of course the use of the 76mm would make it obsolete in short order, but what matters is hat the US has a replacement for the M41 in critical years and can then develop a light tank with less limitations than the Sheridan.
 

Driftless

Donor
The T92 was no wunderweapon, but it would have filled the void for airmobile or other quick response units. The low-profile front engine design also allowed for access to the tank interior through doors in the rear, which in turn may have made it more adaptable to other uses. The similarly laid-out CVR design as noted by Cryhavoc101 has had a very long service life across the world for decades.
 
CVR(t)?

At around 8 tons with multiple variants easily fulfills the role the Sheridan failed to fill
Or more development on what the M551 replaced, the 7.5 T M114 Recon vehicle

It looked similar to a shorter M113, but with 44mm Aluminum armor, and underpowered with a Chevy V8
One prototype, the Battalion Anti-Tank (BAT) had an autoloading 106mm M40 recoilless gun and some 50 cals
us_t114.png

In Vietnam, the recon version with just '50s or a 20mm Hispano wasn't well liked from being underpowered, unreliable, and even less mine resistant than the M113, that had an add-on belly armor kit fitted later.

The Japanese SDF came up with an improved Ontos that stayed in service thru 2008
640px-JGSDF_Type60_RR%28SP%29.jpg

the nine ton Type 60
 
Last edited:
Top