McDonnell Douglas' proposed shortened twinjet version of the DC-10 would have given them the ability to compete with Airbus and a jump on the widebody twin market well before the 767. Ditto the similiar Lockheed "Bistar" L10-11 derivative..
It failed the Aéronavale's carrier trials. One-engine-out handling was unacceptable, among other things.Caravellarella said:SEPECAT Jaguar M - looks fabulous (why didn't this enter service? I don't know)......
Caravellarella said:Mirage G8 and Mirage III V - because they are Mirages and look wonderful?
McColm said:a wide-bodied Nimrod with carbon fibre materials and fly-by-wire. Say a 20ft plug in the forward section and a 10 ft at the rear for a cargo door to be fitted. This could have been used in the bomber role, ELINT or J-STARS. Tanker or AWACS with a E-2 or E-3 rotordome. Could have been the basis of the MK4 MRA.
Yes, Focke-Wulf 187 Falke was an good airplane more than Bf-110 , Fw190 was better than Me-109, but probably Kurt Tank hadn't more influence like Willy Messerschmitt !SaturnCanuck said:Most people here seem to be posting about post-war and jets.
How about these to consider...
The He 112B, or, even better, the He 100D
Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke
airman said:Cancel of development of Dornier 19 and Junkers 89 ( part of Ural Bomber Program) was a big mistake
Other big mistake was the deveploment of Heinkel 177 with two engines ( DB610) instead four engines as proposed by Heinkel !
OM said:...Allowing Cheney to control the decision to choose the F-22 (c)Raptor over the F-23 Black Widow II. Ditto for the scuttling of the Avenger II simply because none of his puppet companies had any of their collective fingers in that particular pie.
Abraham Gubler said:CFE this is the 'Biggest mistakes in aviation? Which projects should have been built?" thread, I don't think its possible to go off topic!
Now I really hate historical comparisions of aircraft (looking at you Robunos ;-). Because they tend to leave out very important differences in capability and just focus on rough alignment. A stealthy, high field of regard, long range radar, rapid accleration missile armed subsonic aircraft is NOT a Douglas Missileer. The Missileer did not have the kind of situational awareness and LO surviability you would expect in a contemporary fighter, fast or slow. The Missileer was not built with 21st century technology and no one is going to build an aircraft today with 1960s technology (except Iran).
It is also not a single-role weapon system. The aircraft we are talking about using as a fighter are strike platforms like the A-12, Boeing 988-123, Northrop ATA offer, etc. To give them a name these ATA/F (Advanced Tactical Aircraft/Fighter) are around ~70,000lb aircraft with 0.3 fuel fraction, -30 to -40 dB RCS, 0.3 TW for a >1,000 NM radius with 8,000 lbs of weapons crusing at Mach 0.8-0.9. The concept for making them fighters is to use a two or more stage high accleration missile (for example the General Dynamics A3M or AIM-152 offer) combined with AESA radars for long range and potentially 360 deg. field of regard.
Back to the topic, OT or not. Rules of engagement may hamper long range missile engagement but they would equally hamper the ATA/F and the high speed fighter (eg F-22). The high accleration missile launched by the ATA/F would not outrange the Mach 1.6/AIM-120 combination just enable it to be equaled from a Mach 0.6-0.9 launch. Because the ATA/F has big and deep bays with the weight margins it can carry up to 16 x 500lb missiles internally (GD A3M was only 380lb).
The real capability sacrifice is the high speed dash to engagement for DCA and use of high speed for surviability in other areas. While a ATA/F is very much a work of alternate history at the moment this kind of capability argument is very relevant to the use of F-35 and UCAS as air to air platforms in place of supercruisers. With massive increases in data linking and situational awareness capability since ODS in '91 we should be less constrained by visual idenfication for ROE. Or even worse visual identification awaiting upon AWACS approval the failure of which lead directly to the loss of L.Cdr. Scott Speicher.
Pioneer said:Have we mentioned the Grumman A-6F Intruder?
This would have offered a capability the USN still lacks to this day (even after the A-12 Avenger II cancellation decision)
The F/A-18E/F still lacks the A-6F's range and offensive payload capability
McColm said:The proposed F-117B/C earmarked for the Royal Air Force as a competitor to the Tornado GR4.
The thin winged Javelin.
AAAdrone said:I'm pretty sure my choices have all been said several times before but here are my $0.02
The Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III: It was single purposed and had only one crew member which gave it a large workload per crew member but it was more capable in the interceptor role than anything else. It had a track while scan capable radar AFAIK and considering it ate Phantoms for breakfast I consider it a waste how the US simply scrapped the thing without finding some role for it to fill.
F-23: Needs no introduction. An incredible aircraft and with a well upgraded and perfected F-120 engine along with the improved weapons bay demonstrated in the EMD images this fighter would have been amazing for the USAF if a lot riskier in design.
pathology_doc said:Sounds a little like Phantom II and Crusader III all over again, then, doesn't it? Even down to the four versus three missile main armament...
I think the technical reasons you give are good enough (on a "your mileage may vary" basis) to prefer the F-22. Naturally I thoroughly disagree that the WVR dogfight is dead - they've thought that before, and they were wrong.
ISTR reading someone's opinion that the YF-23 was too good, and had been siphoned quietly off to be part of covert operations etc. To what extent this is true or even reasonable, I offer no opinion - but it sounds like it would make a pretty good ace-in-the-hole interceptor for use when that incoming rogue state nuclear bomber absolutely HAS to be stopped. In that case what you want is the ability to whizz past the fighter screen without being spotted, outrun them (and dodge all their missiles) if you are, squirt your three AIM-120s at the bomber and run like hell in case the nuke is salvage-fused. Dale Brown, Larry Bond and Tom Clancy, take note.
Jd_Sec said:The B-70 (from the XB-70), the F-23 (from the YF-23), Project Pluto, and a successor to the SR-71 (with armament). And let's not forget the BAC TSR-2. And I'm not going to forget the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.
And I should also mention the Soviet RSR.
royabulgaf said:Unless you are one of the Mackenzie brothers crying into your Molson's, forget the CF-105. It was the F-35B of its day. New airframe, new engine, new electronics. This was a late, over budget, hangar queen waiting to happen. It was already gobbling more and more of the Canadian defense budget with no end in sight. Also, the export prospects were a lot less than the fanboys like to say.
royabulgaf said:Uh, Triple A? The Soviets never built massive supersonic bombers in the timeframe we are looking at.
"And I'm not going to forget the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.
Unless you are one of the Mackenzie brothers crying into your Molson's, forget the CF-105. It was the F-35B of its day. New airframe, new engine, new electronics. This was a late, over budget, hangar queen waiting to happen. It was already gobbling more and more of the Canadian defense budget with no end in sight. Also, the export prospects were a lot less than the fanboys like to say.