Biggest mistakes in aviation history? Which projects should have been built?

[Deltafan]

The first Mirage IV...

Not the future nuclear bomber, but the "looks like Mirage III" fighter project of the 50's...

 

[Jemiba]

And as it was just mentioned in another thread here and is one of my
favourite aircraft : The Folland Gnat, as a fighter of course ! Finland
and India were very satisfied by it and it could have turned the trend
towards heavier and heavier fighters, at least a little bit and perhaps
saved the tax payer some money .. What the enemy has, must be good
and I need it, too !

 

[Stormbreaker]

These military aircraft should definitely been fully developed and put into service.

TSR.2

Advanced Harrier

Avro-Canada Arrow

And -

Maybe the X-30 SSTO - assuming it doesn't already exist as a deep black project?

 

[Archibald]

The first Mirage IV...

Not the future nuclear bomber, but the "looks like Mirage III" fighter project of the 50's...

what do you mean ? the twin-engine heavy fighter variant (Mirage IV C ?)
Even with the Atar 9K50, it would have had less power than a Phantom (7200 *2 Vs 2* 8000kgp + ).
But its aerodynamic would have been much better, and its weight lower... with two or four R-530 under the belly and two drop tanks, what a fighter we missed... :'(

Upgraded Vautours (with Atar 8, Speys or M53). This was the Tsiklon proposal...
CA-31 and Mako supersonic trainers (and their single seat variant as LWF and for CAS).

CF-105 Arrow, Fairey Delta III...

Dyna soar (already mentioned ?)

Baikal reusable flyback booster (first step to RLV).

Griffon III, Leduc 022 -02

 

[Jemiba]

"what do you mean ? the twin-engine heavy fighter variant (Mirage IV C ?) "

Perhaps he means this Mirage IV, I once found in an Flugwelt issue ?
It really still looks much more like a Mirage IIIB, than the later Mirage IV ...

 

[elmayerle]

Hmm, going over the suggestions, I'd like to add cancelling further development of the DC-X concept beyond the basic proof of concept vehicle flown. Definitely a NIH attitude on NASA's part, that.

 

[Trident]

The Hawker P.1121 IMHO. Very much exportable and far more potential versatility than the Lightning, but still likely to have been a blazing performer.

 

[Deltafan]

what do you mean ? the twin-engine heavy fighter variant (Mirage IV C ?)
Even with the Atar 9K50, it would have had less power than a Phantom (7200 *2 Vs 2* 8000kgp + ).
But its aerodynamic would have been much better, and its weight lower... with two or four R-530 under the belly and two drop tanks, what a fighter we missed... :'(
(...)

Yes the twin-engine heavy fighter variant Mirage IV C (project 1956) :
Engines : 2 x 6000 kgp ATAR
Wing area : 43m²
"Take off" weight : 11 T

The Mirage IV of Jemiba's drawing is maybe nearer of the the Mirage VI project of 1958 (17 T and 2 x 9000 kgp SUPER ATAR)

 

[Archibald]

KGLKLGJGHFJDYRYRHDFSDJUFHSDJKJKLBJLBBJL ?????!!!!! ???

SO THERE WAS A MIRAGE VI ???

So, dear deltafan, were did the serie ended ? was there a Mirage VII and a Mirage VIII ? ;D

Lots of fun... when I build the Mega Mirage (you know, the kind of delta MiG-25 of 1969) I decided to name it Mirage VI (I just inverted the "I" and "V" on some Mirage IV decals : )

 

[sferrin]

Hmm, going over the suggestions, I'd like to add cancelling further development of the DC-X concept beyond the basic proof of concept vehicle flown. Definitely a NIH attitude on NASA's part, that.

Agree totally there. I'd add cancellation of nuclear propulsion too (Nerva, Kiwi, Pluto etc.)

 

[elmayerle]

Hmm, going over the suggestions, I'd like to add cancelling further development of the DC-X concept beyond the basic proof of concept vehicle flown. Definitely a NIH attitude on NASA's part, that.

Agree totally there. I'd add cancellation of nuclear propulsion too (Nerva, Kiwi, Pluto etc.)

Provided it departed from orbit and never entered the atmosphere, I wouldn't have a problem with Orion, either. I do think research should've continued on it for deep-space ops.

 

[smurf]

Perhaps I'm showing my age.
Miles M-52. It was nearly finished

 

[Deltafan]

KGLKLGJGHFJDYRYRHDFSDJUFHSDJKJKLBJLBBJL ?????!!!!! ???
SO THERE WAS A MIRAGE VI ???
So, dear deltafan, were did the serie ended ? was there a Mirage VII and a Mirage VIII ? ;D
Lots of fun... when I build the Mega Mirage (you know, the kind of delta MiG-25 of 1969) I decided to name it Mirage VI (I just inverted the "I" and "V" on some Mirage IV decals : )

Yes, there was a Mirage VI project (mach 2,4 and later mach 3 at 25 000 m) to succeed to the Mirage III. And no, i don't know Mirages number between the VI and the 50 (except your Mi(g)rage 25 Tiger avatar )

In Les avions de combat français 1944-1960, tome I chasse assaut (p.242), Cuny says that Dassault proposed many models of Mirage VI, A, B, C or D. They had plenty stainless steel and titane in their structure. Cuny speaks a little about a twin engined (my previous information + "very similar to the Mirage IVs prototype") and a little more about a Mirage VI A :
-one SNECMA Super-Atar engine 9000 kgp
-one rocket engine SEPR 1500 kgp
-wing area : 50 m²
-empty weight : 8570 kg
-maximal take off weight : 13170 kg
-speed : mach 3
-6 minutes to reach 25 000 m

 

[Hood]

What should have been in Britain, the M.52 and the VC.7/V.1000. Both could have been world beaters but were stopped short of success. P.1121 would have been good but any sales would have been stopped by Starfighter's dominance in Europe. Maybe to see the Fairey Delta III fly would have been awesome even if by today it would have been obsolete. Another should have been is a Blue Streak based three-stage rocket to give NASA and Ariane a run for its money.

Much too much British ingenuity and progress was stopped by political short-sightedness or a lack of money or technological troubles.

 

[Sundog]

The funny thing about alot of these choices is the military used alot of planes for missions that we don't think of that the USAF really wanted them to fulfill. For instance, the USAF chose the F-105 over the F-107 when the F-107 would have made an awesome fighter IMHO. The main reason they went with the F-105 was that at the time the USAF basically wanted every airplane to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon and as a low level strike aircraft, the F-105 was better than the F-107.

The F-16XL also should have been put into production as a replacement for the standard F-16 because
a) The standard F-16 is usually used as a bomb truck anyway, so the lower sustained turnrate and the higher instantaneous turn rate of the XL wouldn't have made much of a difference. It also had a much better payload/range capacity.
b) F-16's are used for Air Defense and the XL's greater internal fuel capacity and ability to supercruise would have made it an ideal F-106 replacement.
c) The XL just looks so much better than most planes out there. ;D

The YF-23. It was faster than the YF-22, stealthier than the YF-22 and only slightly less maneuverable in certain parts of the flight enevelope (It did meet the maneuvering specs in the contract). Not to mention, it looked so wicked it would have scared the enemy out of the sky. Instead, the Air Force went with the boring, and in the case of the YF-22, butt-ugly choice. Fortunately the F-22 looks better than the YF-22. I'm not saying the F-22 is a bad airplane by any measure. It just would have been nice to have the wicked-cool design as the frontline fighter as opposed to the really boring ugly one.

Also the
CF-105, TSR.2 and P.1121.

 

[sferrin]

The funny thing about alot of these choices is the military used alot of planes for missions that we don't think of that the USAF really wanted them to fulfill. For instance, the USAF chose the F-105 over the F-107 when the F-107 would have made an awesome fighter IMHO. The main reason they went with the F-105 was that at the time the USAF basically wanted every airplane to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon and as a low level strike aircraft, the F-105 was better than the F-107.

The F-16XL also should have been put into production as a replacement for the standard F-16 because
a) The standard F-16 is usually used as a bomb truck anyway, so the lower sustained turnrate and the higher instantaneous turn rate of the XL wouldn't have made much of a difference. It also had a much better payload/range capacity.
b) F-16's are used for Air Defense and the XL's greater internal fuel capacity and ability to supercruise would have made it an ideal F-106 replacement.
c) The XL just looks so much better than most planes out there. ;D

The YF-23. It was faster than the YF-22, stealthier than the YF-22 and only slightly less maneuverable in certain parts of the flight enevelope (It did meet the maneuvering specs in the contract). Not to mention, it looked so wicked it would have scared the enemy out of the sky. Instead, the Air Force went with the boring, and in the case of the YF-22, butt-ugly choice. Fortunately the F-22 looks better than the YF-22. I'm not saying the F-22 is a bad airplane by any measure. It just would have been nice to have the wicked-cool design as the frontline fighter as opposed to the really boring ugly one.

Also the
CF-105, TSR.2 and P.1121.

Imagine if the USAF had swallowed their pride and told Vought "get rid of the variable incidence wing and lighten up the airframe for land-based use on the Crusader III because we want to buy some". :'(

 

[elmayerle]

The funny thing about alot of these choices is the military used alot of planes for missions that we don't think of that the USAF really wanted them to fulfill. For instance, the USAF chose the F-105 over the F-107 when the F-107 would have made an awesome fighter IMHO. The main reason they went with the F-105 was that at the time the USAF basically wanted every airplane to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon and as a low level strike aircraft, the F-105 was better than the F-107.

I'm told that one big driver for the F-105 over the F-107 was that the F-105 used a big forging press the USAF had put major money into and the F-107 didn't. Too, from Bill Simone's book, it appears that part of the problem was a "turf war" between competing Commands.

 

[Madoc]

SD,

As to the F-22 vs. F-23, I think there was also concern over Northrop's ability to manage the production. The Air Force had been dealing with Northrop on the B-2 program and that apparently left a very sour taste in its mouth. Thus, with both programs meeting the contractual goals it came down to other, secondary, criteria.

Among these, the F-22 was more maneuverable. That's a plus for a fighter.

Also, Northrop already had one stealth contract - the B-2 - and Lockheed was by then done with the F-117 production.

So, it made sense to have two major contractors working stealth production lines.

Combined, that was enough.

No argument though, the F-23 is a much better looking aircraft.

Madoc

 

[elmayerle]

SD,

As to the F-22 vs. F-23, I think there was also concern over Northrop's ability to manage the production. The Air Force had been dealing with Northrop on the B-2 program and that apparently left a very sour taste in its mouth.

I was there at Northrop at the time and in the post-award outbrief, concerns about Northrop's management ability (and I, for one, consider them valid) were a prime reason the award went the way it did. It wasn't only the B-2's problems, the USAF was starting to see management problems on TSSAM, too (yeah, they were there and weren't rectified until way too late for the program's survival).

 

[elmayerle]

I'm going to say that one major mistake on Northrop's part was not putting a bigger wing on the F-20 from the get-go. While the existing wing has the advantage of being very similar to that of the F-5E/F, it also makes for a very high wing loading which requires a fair rate of speed in turns; leading to the G-LOC problems that lost 3 F-20s and probably doomed the program.

 

[Sundog]

Wasn't the fourth F-20 being built with the larger wing when the program was cancelled? BTW, have you ever seen drawings of the F-20 with the bigger wing?

One of my friends at NAVAIR worked on the NATF and one of the reasons the Navy didn't like Northrop was their arrogance, because they knew they had the hot design. At least that's what my friend said, but I never expected there would be an NATF and of course, there wasn't.

Oh, and I completely agree about the DCX. I thought it was brilliant and should have continued. I mean, it seems to me that unlike the Lockheed design, it seemed to be the most robust design and it proved it could work. I don't think it was supposed to have composite tanks like the Lockheed design, but don't quote me on that. At least if IIRC it was the composite tanks that were the problem with the X-33.

 

[elmayerle]

Wasn't the fourth F-20 being built with the larger wing when the program was cancelled? BTW, have you ever seen drawings of the F-20 with the bigger wing?

One of my friends at NAVAIR worked on the NATF and one of the reasons the Navy didn't like Northrop was their arrogance, because they knew they had the hot design. At least that's what my friend said, but I never expected there would be an NATF and of course, there wasn't.

Oh, and I completely agree about the DCX. I thought it was brilliant and should have continued. I mean, it seems to me that unlike the Lockheed design, it seemed to be the most robust design and it proved it could work. I don't think it was supposed to have composite tanks like the Lockheed design, but don't quote me on that. At least if IIRC it was the composite tanks that were the problem with the X-33.

Nope, the fourth and final F-20 had the same wing as the others and is currently pinned to the wall, literally, of the Science Museum in LA's Fair Park.

Well, Northrop had an excellent technical and preliminary/advanced design operation but the long years of the F-5 did not allow them to grow the management capability to deal with advanced technology programs. I rather suspect that a certain arrogance flowed down from T.V. Jones (IMHO, he stayed on about 10 years too long for the good of the company).

DC-X had metallic tanks but I'm not sure what the proposed DC-Y was supposed to have. It was unacknowledged, at least formally unreported, problems with the composite tanks that killed the X-33. Rocketdyne had encountered their own problems with the linear aerospike engine, but they'd been unfront in acknowledging them and working them (I was there on another program at the time) and caught all sorts of criticism for delaying the X-33 when Lockheed had their own, worse, problems with the composite tanks that they weren't formally reporting.

 

[Archibald]

Hmmm seems that the X-33 was not the best way of building a SSTO (single stage to orbit). Horizontal landing add weight of an undercarriage, wings and control surfaces to the basic structure. Problem is, a SSTO has to carry so much fuel that these designs are very sensitive to weight growth. That's the problem that's killed the X-33 (the compsite fuel tanks were to save weight, but they failed).
A vertical take-off / vertical landing, unwinged egg-shaped SSTO (I mean, the DC-X ) seems to be a better way...

Akaikaze already mentioned the F-108... a big problem was the lack of an adequate platform for US long range radars.
AN/ASG-18 was planned for the F-108, then was tested on a B-58 and ended on the YF-12.
The AWG-9 suffered from similar drawbacks when the F-111B failure.
Result of all this mess was the long range interceptor (tomcat) only entered service in 1976, long time after the MiG-25.
For 10 years, none aircraft in the West could intercept the Foxbat (albeit Iranian and Israelis pilots bravely tried to kill MiG-25 with their Phantom).

- F-108. How good would have been the aircraft ?
- Interim fighter : a CF-105 fitted with the weapon system. This was proposed some weeks before cancellation, in late 1958.

If only... : ;D

 

[Pioneer]

I'm going to say that one major mistake on Northrop's part was not putting a bigger wing on the F-20 from the get-go. While the existing wing has the advantage of being very similar to that of the F-5E/F, it also makes for a very high wing loading which requires a fair rate of speed in turns; leading to the G-LOC problems that lost 3 F-20s and probably doomed the program.

I have to agree with you.
I think the F-20 was a lost opportunity. And yes it should have had a larger wing area, but I guess Northrop just went that little too far in its attempt to save costs.
It is ironic that today, the idea of a lightweight multi-role fighter is back in vogue – The Gripen, the Indian Indigenes Fighter program and the Joint Chinese/Pakistani program
I know that there was talk regarding a larger-wing F-20 Tigershark, but I was not aware that Northrop was building one!

Bring back the 'F-20 Tigershark 2000' I say!

 

[TinWing]

Wasn't the fourth F-20 being built with the larger wing when the program was cancelled? BTW, have you ever seen drawings of the F-20 with the bigger wing?

The production version of the F-20 was supposed to have a wing area of 200 square feet, but maintained the same span as the F-5E? The LERX was somewhat bigger than on the F-5E, and perhaps chord was increased at the trailing edge.

 

[Tam]

I don't know about the wing loading and I doubt that it was high on the F-20. The thing weighs just over 5,000kg, quite lighter than a J-7E at 5,300kg. With that less weight, the F-20 screams with a TWR over 1.10, better even that of the F-16A/B.

The plane is a bit of a hotrod, but it was also plagued with sheer bad luck. The Reagan administration seems to have something against it at the get go, when they refused Northrop from selling the plane to the Taiwanese as the Reagan Administration courted Beijing. To add insult to injury, they called General Dynamics to secretly assist the Taiwanese in developing a new indigenous fighter, one that had Northrop like features such as

---twin Garret bix engines, ironically originally proposed for an engine upgrade of the F-5 (F-5X)

---uses the same APG-67 for the Tigershark

---uses LERX to divert airflow into the intake at high AoA, something Northrop designed first for the F-5, then the F-5E, the F-20, the YF-17 and the F-18 series.

 

[sferrin]

My own "theory" is if they'd left the name as "F-5G" they might have sold a few. Politically "F-20" = brand spankin' new aircraft that is the latest and great (ironically the very perception Northrop wanted to portray) whereas "F-5G" is an upgrade of a current design and maybe they calle it "Tiger III" or "Super Tiger". Then again they didn't sell any F-18Ls so who knows.

 

[Tam]

Northrop could have sold as many as 300 to 400 F-20s to Taiwan if Reagan had allowed them to. But the "F-16 Mafia", starting from the Reagan admin to the officials of the USAF, wanted as many F-16s built in order to lower the cost. When they're building as many as 600 F-16s in a year, they could lower the flyaway cost to just over 8 million (early 198x dollars), just above the F-20's own price.

The thrust to weight ratio of the F-20 beats that of what eventually went to the ROCAF, the F-CK-1. It goes further that it also beats that of the Block 20 F-16 and the Mirage 2000-5. It also beats that of the Gripen, the Tejas, and the JF-17. The plane is the classic hot rod story of putting a big engine on the smallest possible airframe.

Not to mention at that time, the APG-67 was also a superior radar over the APG-66. It not only has better range and more features, but it is capable of supporting the Sparrow, which the F-16A could not.

 

[TinWing]

I don't know about the wing loading and I doubt that it was high on the F-20. The thing weighs just over 5,000kg, quite lighter than a J-7E at 5,300kg.

The production F-20 would have ended up weighing closer to 6,000kg than 5,000kg. Early specs were somewhat more optimistic in terms of weight than the final public specs. Fuel load, max armament and MTOW also increased. Early on, the quoted wing area was the same as the F-5E, as was internal fuel.

Still, the F-20 would have had a lighter empty weight than the later Gripen or current LCA - but much higher wing loading.

 

[elmayerle]

I'm going to say that one major mistake on Northrop's part was not putting a bigger wing on the F-20 from the get-go. While the existing wing has the advantage of being very similar to that of the F-5E/F, it also makes for a very high wing loading which requires a fair rate of speed in turns; leading to the G-LOC problems that lost 3 F-20s and probably doomed the program.

I have to agree with you.
I think the F-20 was a lost opportunity. And yes it should have had a larger wing area, but I guess Northrop just went that little too far in its attempt to save costs.
It is ironic that today, the idea of a lightweight multi-role fighter is back in vogue – The Gripen, the Indian Indigenes Fighter program and the Joint Chinese/Pakistani program
I know that there was talk regarding a larger-wing F-20 Tigershark, but I was not aware that Northrop was building one!

Bring back the 'F-20 Tigershark 2000' I say!

Northrop was working on designs for a larger wing that kept the same quarter-chord sweep and overall aspect ratio, but nothing ever got translated into hardware. I do know that the aerodynamic loads folk were quite aware of the problems the original F-20 wing had. For that matter, I do know that there were groups who felt the F-5F had too high a wing loading and had proposed an enlarged version with a sufficiently larger wing to allow room for another stores station on each side, powered by two afterburning versions of the J97. However, since this proposal came up from the Service Engineering group rather than Advanced Design, it was not taken up (NIH syndrom within a company).

 

[Tam]

Here is another one I think that should have been made.

Forget about the STOVL concept, just use a straight engine or two for the MiG "Faithless" concept. I think if further developed, this becomes like a fixed wing MiG-23, except that it will retain the delta wing plus all moving tailplane layout of the MiG-21. The engines will be a couple of R-11s or R-13 Tumanskies, or a single R-27/29. It will be somewhat like a Shenyang J-8II in the sixties. Refinement may lead to a compound sweep of the wing's front edge. the variable cone inlet would give way to a variable ramp inlet.

Getting rid of the VG will result in a plane that is much more simpler to maintain, one that offers more structural integrity for less weight. It may sacrifice some low speed performance that VG can get if you swing the wings forward, or the high speed, low altitude ride and dash you can get if the wings are swept backward. But the lighter weight can make it more agile, gives it better climb. The fixed wings will offer more hardpoints, including wetpoints for more fuel tanks.

A fixed wing Flogger will be cheaper, and in the end, probably end up being more popular than the VG Flogger, with examples that will last much longer in service.

 

[Archibald]

Yep, seems that the Tornado was the smallest aircraft to fully benefit from VG. I mean, for smaller aircrafts (such as AA-107, Bac P.45 or... Mig-23) the system is too heavy and bulky, offsetting its benefits.

some russians prototypes were missed opportunities... I think about the Ye-8 (http://prototypes.free.fr/ye8/ye8-10.htm)
Hope it's not the faithless :

This one seems much better than the MiG-23 (and looks like a single engine Typhoon ;D)

what about the Navaho and Burya ? interesting concept of supersonic cruise missiles... they were pushed aside by the ICBM, that's sure. But we all know that the cruise missile had its revenge in the 70's in the form of the tomahawk. See what I mean ?
A mach 3.5 Navaho would have much more punch than a subsonic Tomahawk to destroy buried bunkers...

 

[Trident]

what about the Navaho and Burya ? interesting concept of supersonic cruise missiles... they were pushed aside by the ICBM, that's sure. But we all know that the cruise missile had its revenge in the 70's in the form of the tomahawk. See what I mean ?
A mach 3.5 Navaho would have much more punch than a subsonic Tomahawk to destroy buried bunkers...

Today a missile like that might make some sense and the multitude of hypersonic projects in the US is testimony to that.

Back then however, cruise missiles were strictly nuclear weapons, not bunker busters for the opening hours of conventional regional conflicts. As such, they were required to penetrate the airspace of countries that had formidable airdefence assets, and since their cruising altitude was very high their survivability in this scenario was far inferior to an ICBM warhead.

Weapons like the Tomahawk are slow, but they are small and fly at very low altitudes which makes them very challenging to intercept. Not to mention that, AFAIK, part of the reason for developing the Tomahawk was simply to keep a high number of warheads in the face of arms limitation treaties that focused on restricting ICBMs.

 

[Archibald]

Today a missile like that might make some sense and the multitude of hypersonic projects in the US is testimony to that.

That's was the idea... upgrading Navaho over 50 years could be cool ;D
Just consider all progress made in the field of rocket motors... such missile would have helped improving ramjets (up to mach 4+).

Hmmm there's some very, very interesting "whatifs" to imagine...

Another interesting concept was the Lockheed D-21. With modern guidance systems, it could have been a useful SR-71 follow-on (no need for Aurora ;D )

The Navaho upper-stage itself could have been change into a high-speed, unmanned recon vehicle (no need for the A-12 recon aircraft).

 

[Trident]

I still think Burya/Navaho type missiles were obsolete for their intended role and thus rightly abandoned. It doesn't seem to make much sense to invest in a weapon that would only become useful 50 years later, due to rather unanticipated political changes

As a supersonic what-if ASALM would be more interesting and practical.

 

[elmayerle]

The Navaho upper-stage itself could have been change into a high-speed, unmanned recon vehicle (no need for the A-12 recon aircraft).

There's some reason to think that something like that may have been done. I've been given to understand that there is a discrepancy between the number produced and the number flown or placed on display.

 

[Archibald]

The Navaho upper-stage itself could have been change into a high-speed, unmanned recon vehicle (no need for the A-12 recon aircraft).

There's some reason to think that something like that may have been done. I've been given to understand that there is a discrepancy between the number produced and the number flown or placed on display.
[/quote]

Can you repeat that !!!! ;D Awesome...

Well I've compared the G-38 variant to the A-12 and SR-71 family. And it seemed obvious that the G-38 could have been a very good complement, or even a replacement for them...

- no pilot on board = no risk of having another Powers crisis. I know the stats
- 6000 missiles fired at the SR-71s, no Lockheed aircraft shot down-. But there had been some close calls over the years...

- same cruise speed, mach 3.25 (and top speed, up to mach 3.5). Range of the G-38 was nevertheless vastly superior (circa 9500 km Vs 5000 km for the SR-71, and even less for the smaller A-12 ).

- the D-21 drone case... an umanned, ramjet powered, mach 3 vehicle... to complement the A-12

- Well, the G-38 was a missile, so the upper stage was expended. Fortunately, its X-10 forerunner had... an undercarriage.

- and, last but no least, G-38 "useful" load. 7 tons; or 3 nuclear warheads...
divide this into 3 parts, 1/3 for the undercarriage, 1/3 more fuel, 1/3 a Q-bay similar to the SR-71 or A-12.

A 10 000 km range, unmanned, mach 3+ vehicle could overfly USSR (not only make border incursions like A-12s or SR-71s ). What was Powers mission when he was shot down over USSR ? crossing the whole country for Pakistan to Norway...

All of this is IHMO of course

 

[elmayerle]

I don't know this for certain. When a book on the Navaho came out some time back, I bought it and was discussing the missile with someone quite familiar with NAA's activities during that period. When I mentioned that the basic vehicle seemed ideal for this purpose, he just smiled and mentioned what I said earlier. I can neither confirm nor deny it, but I find it difficult to believe the only use for the built-up airframes, once the program was apparently cancelled, was as targets for Bomarc trials (and I gather the Bomarc was distinctly unsuccessful in these).

How many realize that three divisions of NAA arose from the Navaho program? Rocketdyne for the engines, Autonetics for the guidance, and General Atomics for the warhead. Today, all three exist but none are associated with the successor companies that purchased what was NAA.

 

[Archibald]

An US proverb could be "there's always something to salvage (or to learn) from the failure of a program" (even a HUGE failure such as the XF-10F Jaguar helped Grumman building the Tomcat 15 years later )

Didn't know that G-38 Navahos had been used as target for the BOMARC (another awesome missile of this era!!).
I've found many infos on the Navaho at "prototypes.com", and they have pics of the G-38 production line, with many missiles on it...
This missile was flawed on its tactical concept (because of the ICBM) but certainly not on its basic concept (albeit it many problems when tested).

 

[Schorsch]

I'm going to say that one major mistake on Northrop's part was not putting a bigger wing on the F-20 from the get-go. While the existing wing has the advantage of being very similar to that of the F-5E/F, it also makes for a very high wing loading which requires a fair rate of speed in turns; leading to the G-LOC problems that lost 3 F-20s and probably doomed the program.

I have to agree with you.
I think the F-20 was a lost opportunity. And yes it should have had a larger wing area, but I guess Northrop just went that little too far in its attempt to save costs.
It is ironic that today, the idea of a lightweight multi-role fighter is back in vogue – The Gripen, the Indian Indigenes Fighter program and the Joint Chinese/Pakistani program
I know that there was talk regarding a larger-wing F-20 Tigershark, but I was not aware that Northrop was building one!

Bring back the 'F-20 Tigershark 2000' I say!

I would be on that.
The F-20 was a great design for European theatre of operations. Fairly maneuverable, available in large numbers (due to low costs), easy to fly and low on complexity. The Nothrop aircraft of the F-5 series was known for low maintenance requirements.
Design risks were low, the engine was available and avionics were mostly of the shelf. I still have some doubts about the automatic flap system, which would have been very important for good turn rates. The resulting aircraft would be lower on performance than the F-16, but for dogfights against Soviet aircraft at low level it would suffice. For most countries (incl. Taiwan) the opposition would not have agile high-tech fighter, and even if, this advantage can be offset with more numbers.