Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:dJLyb.535476$6C4.410916@pd7tw1no...

Yes, and the Bomarc was in service until the early 1970's.


You're not even trying to understand.

I keep wondering why you, and everyone else, keep trying?

"Andrew Chaplin"
Besides, wasn't the missile armament for Arrow to have been Velvet
Glove?

The Velvet Glove was actually a CF-100 experimental missile. The CF-105 was
going to use the Sparrow II missile. It would have been no big deal to
adapt the Genie to the Arrow if they had wanted to. Canada was reluctant to
adopt nukes but eventually did with the Bomarc, CF-101, and the CF-104 in
Europe. We were asked to leave France when we took on the nuclear role.
The U.S. always had control of the nukes. The U.S. would not hand over this
control to France so we were asked to leave. The French then developed
their own nuke program. 2(F)Wing in France closed with 1(F)Wing remaning
open as a transport base. 3(F)Wing and 4(F)Wing in Germany took on the nuke
strike recon role after converting from Sabres and CF-100s. This roll again
changed down the road but I'm not sure when as I was back in Canada by then.
Today Canada is non nuclear again after the Bomarc and CF-101s were phased
out of service.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:48:22 -0200, "Vicente Vazquez"
wrote:

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

There's a lot of truth in the sequence. The policy, pre-Carter, was to
provide second level (similar to Soviet "export" version) aircraft to
third-world/developing nation AFs. These were the folks that were
principal customers for the NF-156 Freedom Fighter (AKA F-5A program).

Northrop developed a follow-on to the F-5 to sell to existing
customers who were not eligible for US equippage, i.e. F-15/F-16
aircraft. There were other contenders, such as the F-16/79--a Viper
without advanced avionics and pushed by a J-79 engine. It was a viable
market for an arguably competitive airplane.

When Carter breached the dike by contracting for F-16As to Pakistan
and then S. Korea, the list of potential F-20 customers disappeared as
they all demanded first level equipment, i.e. F-16s.

Carter did not just breach the dyke, he *created* it in the first
place. It was * his * "no first tier exports" policy that was
announced in 1977. Prior to that we had sold quite a few "first tier"
aircraft to "developing nations", as long as they had the cash to buy
them, or if they were considered critical allies (nations like Israel,
Pakistan, Iran, the ROC, Australia, etc.), so I don't think your
characterization of this policy as existing "pre-Carter" is entirely
accurate.

"In February of 1977, in a well-meaning but ultimately futile gesture,
President Jimmy Carter announced a new arms transfer policy in an
attempt to reduce arms proliferation throughout the world. Under this
policy, American manufacturers could no longer sell to foreign air
forces any combat aircraft that were the equal of those in the US
inventory...To cater for the 'embargoed' air forces, the FX Export
Fighter Program was proposed...In 1980, President Carter relaxed his
policy and allowed the delivery of some export F-16A/Bs to proceed..."
(www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html )


I believe the F-20 program originated pre-Carter, and was oriented
more towards what Northrop perceived to be a lucrative market, namely
those nations which did *not* have either the cash required or the
clout needed to swing aircraft like the F-15/16 in their direction,
and especially those many nations that had already bought into the F-5
program years before. Carter's policy did provide the impetus for the
ill-begotten F-16/79 program, and his subsequent policy backpeddle in
1980 sounded the death knell for that program. All in all, the most
that can be said for Carter's short journey into idealistic export
policy is that the French may owe him a medal for taking the US out of
play for some fighter procurement deals.


Later Northrop tried to flog the airplane to Air Defense Command and
as a potential diversification airplane for TAC, but it simply
couldn't compete against the already existing Viper base.

ISTR the ANG threw some support behind the idea of purchasing the F-20
to replace the A-7, etc., as well as the F-106's they owned at the
time.

Brooks


Having flown the F-20 cockpit (albeit not with F-20 flight models)
during F-23 Dem/Val, I would say that the F-20 was not ready to
compete with the ergonomics of F-16.

Throw in a couple of demo aircraft prangs and you have all the
ingredients of a failed program.

ArtKramr wrote:
: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

I've often wondered about the Aircobra:

What if it had a supercharger like the ones fitted to the P-38? What
would it's hi alt performance have been then?

Same for the P-40, I suppose.



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:37:02 GMT, "Ed Majden" wrote:


"Keith Willshaw"
Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have
the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have
even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put their
strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only
made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to
expend them on possible Bomarc sites.

If what you say is correct, you can't say much for the American
intelligence community. Either that, or Ike was right! "Beware of the
military industrial complex in America". The military build up was not for
security but to keep industries running.
Glad we didn't have to carry out a test to see which concept was the correct
one!

Oh, now I see, the demise of the CF-105 was an evil plot by the nasty 'Mercans
to keep the industrial might of Canada from taking over the defense industries.
What a loon.

Al Minyard

In article ,
Gregg Germain wrote:

ArtKramr wrote:
: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

I've often wondered about the Aircobra:

What if it had a supercharger like the ones fitted to the P-38? What
would it's hi alt performance have been then?

The P-63 Kingcobra was pretty decent a high altitude, but other than its
general shape, shared almost nothing with the Airacobra. It was pretty
much the "bugfix" version of the P-39.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Alan Minyard"
Oh, now I see, the demise of the CF-105 was an evil plot by the nasty
'Mercans
to keep the industrial might of Canada from taking over the defense
industries.
What a loon.

Perhaps you should take a course in English comprehension. The CF-105
was cancelled because Canada was in the middle of a recession, there was a
government change, and Sputnik was launched making some to think that the
manned bomber threat was no longer an issue. The Arrow was a Liberal
project and the new Consevative government hated anything Liberal so they
stupidly cancelled the program. The U.S. apparently offered to fund some
CF-105's for the R.C.A.F. but it was too late. Even though the U.S. would
not buy the Arrow for the USAF it was an Canadian decision! Do some
research!

In article ,
Gregg Germain wrote:
ArtKramr wrote:
: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

I've often wondered about the Aircobra:

Westland Whirlwind, maybe - went nowhere much (apart from
France, repeatedly, at low level until they ran out of
examples) because the Peregrine engine was an early
orphan.
Fairey Barracuda was a "nearly" - if only it had the
Fairey P.24 Prince double-engine (same could be said for
many mid-war designs - it might have been a better developmental
bet than the awful Vulture, and possibly better than the Sabre)
- for naval a/c, particularly, the option of shutting half the engine
down for cruise was appealing.
Any of the late WW1 designs left orphaned by the ABC Dragonfly
debacle.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...

Really? I'd take a gander at a map of US Bomarc sites if I were you,
unless you consider places like Newport News, VA "near the Canadian
border".


Langley AFB, to be a bit more accurate. Other sites planned "near the
Canadian border" but never completed were Charleston AFB, SC, and Vandenberg
and Travis AFBs in CA.


No, that would actually be more *inaccurate* in terms of location. The
Bomarc unit in question was technically assigned to Langley, IIRC, but
it most definitely was not located at that location (my Dad spent
about thirty years working at Langley on the NASA side of the house).
It was located between Jefferson Avenue (Rt 143) and I-64, just north
of Rt 17-- part of it was later taken over by the city as the home for
its school bus maintenance and operations (ISTR seeing the old alert
status board still standing by the entrance when the busses moved in).
I spent many an hour tromping through the woods behind the bunkers
hunting squirrels and sitting on a deer stand, and it was one of the
few places where us suburbanites could go and do some target shooting
(interesting exchange with the local Politzei occured once during that
activity). Those bunkers are now part of the Oyster Point business
park, IIRC; before the park developers decided that they could be an
amenity (made nice storage buildings), my old employer and I did a
survey of them to determine the feasibility of performing demolition
with explosives to remove them. FYI, just up the road another mile or
two was another Cold War relic--the Nike Hercules complex which was
located at (what was then) Patrick Henry Airport (it later picked up
an "I" in the designation after a couple of charter flights to Mexico
flew out of it--sort of a joke at the time), now known as Newport
News-Williamsburg Regional Airport IIRC. Pat Henry had another
interesting historical sidenote affiliated with it--I can recall
walking through old barracks buildings which were still standing in
the early seventies that had housed German POW's during WWII.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...

No, that would actually be more *inaccurate* in terms of location. The
Bomarc unit in question was technically assigned to Langley, IIRC, but
it most definitely was not located at that location (my Dad spent
about thirty years working at Langley on the NASA side of the house).
It was located between Jefferson Avenue (Rt 143) and I-64, just north
of Rt 17-- part of it was later taken over by the city as the home for
its school bus maintenance and operations (ISTR seeing the old alert
status board still standing by the entrance when the busses moved in).
I spent many an hour tromping through the woods behind the bunkers
hunting squirrels and sitting on a deer stand, and it was one of the
few places where us suburbanites could go and do some target shooting
(interesting exchange with the local Politzei occured once during that
activity). Those bunkers are now part of the Oyster Point business
park, IIRC; before the park developers decided that they could be an
amenity (made nice storage buildings), my old employer and I did a
survey of them to determine the feasibility of performing demolition
with explosives to remove them.


You were there and I was not so I'll take your word for it. Robert
Mueller's "Air Force Bases" shows the 22nd Air Defense Missile Squadron as a
unit assigned to Langley but no mention of any Missile Site as a detached
installation, as one would expect if the launch facility was not on base.
The entry for McGuire AFB, as an example, shows the 46th Air Defense Missile
Squadron as a unit assigned to McGuire, but the McGuire AF Missile Site
(later Air Defense Missile Site) is listed under Major Off-Base and Detached
Installations along with it's location, 5 miles southeast of New Egypt, NJ.