Really, really dumb decisions

[elmayerle]

Regarding the Blackbird, IIRC the USAF wanted 93 F-12Bs and had the money set aside for these - this would have provided coverage for both the East and West Coasts of the US.  For 2 or 3 years in a row, McNamara saw to it that this request was not funded, and then went out of his way to destroy all the tooling.

The SAM threat was over-rated, I agree.  The SR-71 overflew NVN, N Korea and probably China with impunity - hundreds of SAMs were fired but there was only one case, I believe, of a bit of shrapnel from one of the SAMS ever hitting an SR.

As far as performing the intercept mission, I have always thought that the F-108 would probably have been better than the F-12, since it was designed from the start as a quick-reaction interceptor that could launch within a few minutes of the scramble order.  The F-12 was a modification of the A-12, and while it probably could have been modified to be a quick reaction aircraft, this may have been expensive.  Of course by the time the USAF wanted to develop the F-12B, it was the only game in town, the F-108 having been cancelled during mock up in Sept 1959.  


Wes W

Considering that the YF-12A used the cockpit layout, in great detail, from the F-108, I'd say the F-108 would've been the more likely candidate, especially since it was a few years ahead of the A-12 et al. program.

[Hobbes]

I think I would have to put the B-2 in there somewhere.  I won't put it in the completely stupid category by any means, but there are a lot of things that make it impractical, not matter how technologically wicked it is.  You can still make a case for the B-1, but I think that the world is at a point where big strategic bombers are of a very limited value.  Even virtually invisible ones.

Don't forget that during development of the B-2 (first flight was in 1989), the USSR was still in one piece. Back then, the B-2 made sense. Cancelling the B-2 after the collapse of the USSR would have been a colossal waste of money: most of the cost of the programme was in R&D, tooling etc., this was money already spent.

And big bombers still have their uses, even in today's wars. Granted, they were never designed to do CAS, and can only do this if you have air superiority, but the ability of a big bomber to loiter overhead for hours at a time, with enough bombs on board for multiple targets, has been very useful in Afghanistan and Iraq.  

[Hobbes]

ordering the Tornado ADV over the F-14, F-15 (or even the Mirage 4000)

I don't know about that. Yes, the Tornado ADV may not be the best dogfighter out there, but ordering the ADV helped keep the Panavia partners alive. Without the ADV, the IDS and ECR variants would have become more expensive, and (worst case) the whole Tornado project would have been cancelled. What are the odds MBB and BAe would have survived without the Tornado? Europe would have become even more dependent on the US aircraft industry.
And if the war had happened that the Tornado was specced for (all-out conflict with the USSR), dogfighting wouldn't have been that important. Downing everything Westbound with BVR shots would have been perfectly acceptable (unlike in the small-scale conflicts the Tornado has been used in).  

[Captain Canada]

And if the war had happened that the Tornado was specced for (all-out conflict with the USSR), dogfighting wouldn't have been that important. Downing everything Westbound with BVR shots would have been perfectly acceptable (unlike in the small-scale conflicts the Tornado has been used in).

Amen brother Hobbes ! Good call.......

 

[elmayerle]

I think I would have to put the B-2 in there somewhere.  I won't put it in the completely stupid category by any means, but there are a lot of things that make it impractical, not matter how technologically wicked it is.  You can still make a case for the B-1, but I think that the world is at a point where big strategic bombers are of a very limited value.  Even virtually invisible ones.

Don't forget that during development of the B-2 (first flight was in 1989), the USSR was still in one piece. Back then, the B-2 made sense. Cancelling the B-2 after the collapse of the USSR would have been a colossal waste of money: most of the cost of the programme was in R&D, tooling etc., this was money already spent.

And big bombers still have their uses, even in today's wars. Granted, they were never designed to do CAS, and can only do this if you have air superiority, but the ability of a big bomber to loiter overhead for hours at a time, with enough bombs on board for multiple targets, has been very useful in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'll agree about the B-2 (obligatory conflict of interest note: I worked for over six years on it).  Especially since most of the limited production run was well under way when the Soviet Union fell.  For what it's worth, the engines used for re-engining the U-2's to U-2S configuration are basically the B-2's engines which derive mainly from the F101 and F110.  Some of the work done there was fed back to later F404 variants and derivatives.

Personally, I do think they should've built more (esp. rather than work to bring AV1 up to near-production standard since there's flight test items in there you couldn't get out without total disassembly and they didn't go that far).  Too, the basic modular nature of the design would've allowed RB and ERB versions to be done quite easily - produce a different aft center section for the needed use and fully and appropriately equip the the third seat provisions that already were there.

[Davey B]

In defence of my previous statement, the ADV would've been much, much improved with more wing area, better radar and better engines. For the radar, I'd go with APG-65 initially, replacing it later with Blue Vixen. As for the engines, Rolls actually had the perfect powerplant in the RB199-62R, a high-altitude Tornado engine for potential EFA applications

[nev]

Forcing the F-14 to use the woeful TF-30 for most of its career

Not kicking the Germans off the Eurofighter project about 15 years ago.

The RAF evaluating the P-38, but asking for one with the turbochargers removed, then wondering why it wasn't very fast  :dum:

Insisting on re-engining the Phantom with the Spey

Giving all our post-war supersonic research to the yanks, receiving nothing in return and then closing down all UK research    (this one makes me really mad).

Never equipping the Lancaster with belly guns.  Hell, the general tactics of bomber command full stop.  Did I say "tactics"?  I meant butchery of young men on a vast scale.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that 70% loss rates are unacceptable and unsustainable    

[Swamphen]

The RAF evaluating the P-38, but asking for one with the turbochargers removed, then wondering why it wasn't very fast  :dum:

The way I understood it was that the USAAC considered the turbos secret and wouldn't supply them.  


Bad Decision: any decision MacNamara ever made.    

[elmayerle]

Forcing the F-14 to use the woeful TF-30 for most of its career

Ah, and that one was not the fault of the service, but rather of Congress.  I've ranted on this before so I won't again (yeah, I was there and I know/saw what happened) but it struck me even then as abysmally short-sighted, especially with an alternative engine readily available while work went into a proper next generation engine (or at least the F401 was kept at the development level 'til its F100 sibling got the basic bugs sorted out in the design).

[elmayerle]

Bad Decision: any decision MacNamara ever made.  

Almost any decision - the A-7 was 'bout the only good one and that really didn't overly press the state of the art.

[noxioux]

Don't forget that during development of the B-2 (first flight was in 1989), the USSR was still in one piece. Back then, the B-2 made sense. Cancelling the B-2 after the collapse of the USSR would have been a colossal waste of money: most of the cost of the programme was in R&D, tooling etc., this was money already spent.

And big bombers still have their uses, even in today's wars. Granted, they were never designed to do CAS, and can only do this if you have air superiority, but the ability of a big bomber to loiter overhead for hours at a time, with enough bombs on board for multiple targets, has been very useful in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those are two very good points.  It is totally stupid to throw away a project which has already been paid for.  And I agree, having an aircraft that can loiter for a long time and strike multiple targets over that time is very useful to the boys on the ground.

What would be really interesting would be a program similar to the JSF program, with similar long term goals:  A more cost-effective, multirole aircraft that can be adapted by all branches of the service for different missions.  It probably ought to be something we're not worried about exporting for a little extra return.  Make it tough, and a little stealthy--but not so stealthy it needs a lot of specialized maintenance.  I don't think that would be too hard to do.  It wouldn't need to be as large as the B-52 or the B-1.  Maybe two bomb bays, and provisions for external stores (treaties nothwithstanding).  I think that would make more sense for the kinds of conflicts we will be fighting in the forseeable future.  I think that kind of program would also have a more beneficial effect on the aircraft industry in general.

[P1127]

The RAF evaluating the P-38, but asking for one with the turbochargers removed, then wondering why it wasn't very fast  :dum:

The way I understood it was that the USAAC considered the turbos secret and wouldn't supply them.  


Bad Decision: any decision MacNamara ever made.  

Neither - the French ordered them without turbos to make mainenance easier and to have commonality with their P-40 order - the RAF piggy-backed that oder then took it over.

It was changed to a few mk Is and lots more mk IIs (P-38Fs) before being cancelled. The cancellation had much much more to do with Britains lack of funds. The order had been cancelled long before any made it to the UK, although there are references to an as yet un-named RAF pilot tesing one in the US and pronouncing it u/s

There is also the fact that the RAF, in mid 1941, didn't have an operational role for the P-38

[NARSES2]

Could come up with a littany but I'll settle for the Duncan Sandy's White Paper

Chris

[Archibald]

France was not too bad after WWII, when the country had to learn about jet propulsion...

The dumbest decision was to launch a naval, jet fighter program when the carrier was non-existing! 4 aircrafts flew, (Arsenal VG-90, Nord 2200, NC-1080) 3 crashed killing three pilots and the program was cancelled... because, in every case,  there was no carrier able to receive these fighters!
Cancellation of all turboshaft programs in 1951 (TB-1000, TGA 1bis, Atar-201) because of the jet engine!

No naval Mirage F-1 or Hornet to replace the Crusaders, leaving them until 1999 (!!!)
Decision to adopt the Mirage 2000 when the AdA wanted a twin-jet fighter (the 4000!) which lead  to the Rafale 12 years later! (Valerie Giscrap D'Estaing). Of course France has left the Typhoon program at the same time (because of Dassault )
A brilliant result  : in 1993, the Aeronavale had 35 years old Crusaders.
The same year, the AdA receive 37 Mirage 2000-5, which stay in service in paralel (redundant!) with the Rafale until 2025!! This mean that the AdA had too much modern interceptors,when the Aeronavale had none  

[Archibald]

I forget : leaving the AFVG program to develop our own VG fighters (Mirage G and G8) which were finally too expensive for France alone... when three European countries developped the Tornado     and produced 998 of them! Mirage G+ G8 = 3 planes...