Who Bought The Wrong Weapon?

[swerve]

I'm interested in what you esteemed forum members think are particularly egregious examples of armed forces buying the wrong tank, gun, plane, ship or whatever.

 

I'd like to limit it (fat chance!) to cases where it was a choice between A & B (or A & B & C etc), all meant to perform the same role, & the clearly inferior product was purchased. I think we have plenty of scope for arguments without extending it to matters of military doctrine.

 

I propose the French navy purchase of the Super Etendard instead of the naval Jaguar as an example. The Jaguar had considerably higher performance, & a very high degree of commonality with the land-based Jaguar, of which hundreds were being built, so the unit cost was probably lower.

 

What others can you think of?

[DB]

Sticking with aircraft, the classic British debacle has to be dumping TSR.2 for the F-111, which might have been OK, except that we cancelled that as well and ended up paying in contract cancellation penalties more than it would have cost to complete the TSR.2

 

 

Or, how about hanging our hat on the Skybolt programme, when we could have been developing Blue Steel mk II?

 

But this is getting to be a re-run of "Project Cancelled"...

 

David

[Icicle]

The Bomarc missle as opposed to the Avro Arrow. (A bit of Canadiana)

[Durandal]

I'm interested in what you esteemed forum members think are particularly egregious examples of armed forces buying the wrong tank, gun, plane, ship or whatever.

 

I'd like to limit it (fat chance!) to cases where it was a choice between A & B (or A & B & C etc), all meant to perform the same role, & the clearly inferior product was purchased. I think we have plenty of scope for arguments without extending it to matters of military doctrine.

 

I propose the French navy purchase of the Super Etendard instead of the naval Jaguar as an example. The Jaguar had considerably higher performance, & a very high degree of commonality with the land-based Jaguar, of which hundreds were being built, so the unit cost was probably lower.

 

What others can you think of?

133645[/snapback]

 

 

Imho both Jaguars and Sup are weak planes with a poor on board electronic.

The F18 was what we should have used until Rafale. When you have carrier this is stupid to not give them the planes they deserves. a bit like the British WW2 Carriers.

[Rickshaw]

For the UK:

 

F-111 instead of TSR-2

 

"end of manned fighter development" in lieu of missiles in the late 1950s.

 

For Australia:

 

F-111 instead of TSR-2

 

F-111 instead of F-4E

 

M60 GPMG instead of the FN MAG-58

 

M1 Abrahms MBT

 

F/A-18A instead of F-15

[Brian Kennedy]

What was that way-ahead-of-its time assault rifle the British came up with in the '50s -- the EM-2 or something?

[logster]

Since spending most of my days in the motor pool trying to fix my vehicles, I would have to say, every key component in every army vehicle.

[swerve]

Imho both Jaguars and Sup are weak planes with a poor on board electronic.

The F18 was what we should have used until Rafale. When you have carrier this is stupid to not give them the planes they deserves. a bit like the British WW2 Carriers. 

 

But there weren't any F-18s until 10 years later, so that option wasn't available. It hadn't even been thought of - the decision for Jaguar or Super Etendard was taken before work began on the YF-17 technology demonstrator. And electronics can be, & these days usually are, improved.

[gregoire]

Imho both Jaguars and Sup are weak planes with a poor on board electronic.

The F18 was what we should have used until Rafale. When you have carrier this is stupid to not give them the planes they deserves. a bit like the British WW2 Carriers. 

133684[/snapback]

 

 

In fact when france decided to replace the etendard (naval attack plane) there were 4 main contestant the jaguar, the SUE, the A4 and the A7, the F18 was at this time not an option (too expensive and not in service yet) after the preliminary trial both the Jaguar and the A4 were dropped and it was more a competition betwen the SUE and the A7

The naval Jaguar was not such the wonder it is described and it had a few weakness and some major flaw as a naval aircraft, it was not such the wonder it has been described as (there is an extract of an article in the web site of french fleet air arm)

 

The F18 was intented in the french navy as a temporary solution betwen the F8 and the Rafale it was intended to be operational for less than 10 years from the late 80's to the late 90's now such a solution might have compromissed the rafale and the french navy might be flying early version of the F18 as primary fighter instead of rafale by now

[Durandal]

But there weren't any F-18s until 10 years later, so that option wasn't available. It hadn't even been thought of - the decision for Jaguar or Super Etendard was taken before work began on the YF-17 technology demonstrator. And electronics can be, & these days usually are, improved.

133787[/snapback]

 

 

Thats a damn good argument. But for a long time the Marine wanted F18 to have valuable planes until Rafale both Crusaders and Etendards were so old planes. (first flight in 1958) almost 50 years until Rafales.

[Soren Ras]

When you have carrier this is stupid to not give them the planes they deserves.

133684[/snapback]

 

I completely agree. I recall a conversation with a navy officer many years ago. We were discussing carriers and while I forget which carrier he was referring to, at one point he was looking at a picture and said "Nice carrier. Too bad about the planes."

 

The phrase stuck in my mind.

 

I always thought that was a pretty devastating putdown.

--

Soren

[Tiemler]

F-104 - Made more holes in Germany than the Eighth Air Force.

 

B-1B? - Better not go there, that's a whole 'nother thread.

Edited January 14, 2005 by Tiemler

[T-44]

What was that way-ahead-of-its time assault rifle the British came up with in the '50s -- the EM-2 or something?

133715[/snapback]

 

Yes, although that's part of a bigger issue: the 7.65mm NATO round chosen instead of some decent intermediate cartridge. Some decades later, it was the same shit over again, then with the 5.56mm NATO, wich is in return too light again.

Now the US have their 6mm and 6.5mm designs, wich atlast seem right, only to discover Britain had a similar round ready 50 years earlier...

The 'old' continent indeed!

[Guest bojan]

For Yugoslavia, 1946-1991:

1. 1958 - getting SKS from Soviets instead of pushing for modified M1 Garand that was already ready for production;

2. Late '60s - Refusing A-4 Skyhawk and developing J-21 light strike aircraft;

3. Late '70s - Refusing A-7 Corsair and developing J-22;

4. 1986 - Getting Mig-29 instead od Mirage 2000, based on the false Soviet reports about price, maintenance and capabilities (they submited technical documentation for their own Mig-29, but sold us export version), and despite the fact that pilots that flew both prefered Mirage 2000;

5. Puting Styx missiles instead of RBS-15 on RTOP-401 missile boat class, despite the fact that RBS-15 was available, not much more expencive and did not need modifications to integrate)...

[Corinthian]

AFAIK, we got more helicopters instead of fighters during Marcos' time. Any of the F-8s we had were exchanged for Hueys IIRC.

 

How about...

 

F-22 over the YF-23?

Edited January 14, 2005 by TomasCTT

[lastdingo]

Germany: F104G Starfighter instead of Mirage III or Draken.

[T-44]

Germany: F104G Starfighter instead of Mirage III or Draken.

133831[/snapback]

 

That goes for almost all countries that bought the F104G..

[Durandal]

That goes for almost all countries that bought the F104G..

133863[/snapback]

 

Agree, that plane was a deadly flying trap.

[Chris Werb]

B-1B? - Better not go there, that's a whole 'nother thread.

133810[/snapback]

 

What was B-1B bought instead of that would have performed its roles better?

[Scott Cunningham]

I know the Austrian government had a problem with the Drakkens it bought from Sweden. Apparently they were unreliable as hell.

[Sparviero]

Agree, that plane was a deadly flying trap.

133874[/snapback]

 

Well what do you expect when you use a pilot seat with an engine for ground work? Afaik no other nation had such a casualty rate, don't recall Italy having such a big problem. Only now getting some F-16s though.

 

So maybe F104ASA vs. F-16, although I'm not sure if this was really a choice.

AMX vs. anything else already existing serving that role that could have been licensed for production.

[Garth]

Two, from the USN ... first:

 

F/A-18F instead of F-14 Tomcat21 (or whatever Grumman's proposal for a post-D Tomcat variant was).

 

And more interesting:

 

A-6E instead of F-111B (while the Vark wasn't suited to the carrier defense role, it WOULD have made an excellent A-6A replacement).

 

--Garth

[Ol Paint]

What was B-1B bought instead of that would have performed its roles better?

133898[/snapback]

The oft-lamented B747 that should've been bought instead of the B-1B, B-2, F-15C, and F-16, I guess...

 

I'd nominate the F-20 as a plane that should've been bought, although it is tough to argue between it and the F-16. I do think that many of the nations that bought the F-104 should've bought the F-5E, although that aircraft had a pretty good sales record, anyway.

 

Some other suggestions:

 

The Northrop F-18L might've been a nice fighter that would have been well-suited to the needs of F-16 buyers.

 

CONFORM instead of Los Angeles class subs, perhaps?

 

F-16CJ instead of F-4G upgrades (I'd drool over a PW1128 re-engined F-4G...), or F-15E-based Wild Weasels.

 

FB-22 instead of B-1R, if that is how it works out.

 

As much as I love them, the Alaskas should've been replaced by Iowas.

 

Cancellation of the third XB-70 prototype. Although it would've required foresight to know that the 2nd aircraft would be lost, it would have permitted a complete test program.

 

T25 instead of M26, anyone?

 

Douglas

[lastdingo]

I know the Austrian government had a problem with the Drakkens it bought from Sweden. Apparently they were unreliable as hell.

133901[/snapback]

 

They were then older than hell...

[Scott Cunningham]

That too