Who Bought The Wrong Weapon?

[Guest Hans Engström]

Plus, frankly, there's barely enough room for a Draken to turn in Austria (mind you, an F104G in Austrian service would have endd up starting no end of wars).

 

On Topic

 

S-tank instead of Chieftain

[Simon Tan]

MiG-29N instead of more F-18Ds.....

[swerve]

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.

 

F-104ASA vs F-16 suffers from timescales, again. Committed to the project before knwing the F-16 was coming along. But there were other choices which might have been better - F-4, Mirage F.1, Viggen, for example.

 

Agree about AMX. Far too low-performance a plane for the money, because too few to spread the development cost across. Licence-built Jaguar, maybe? With updated avionics, of course. Assuming that a fairly cheap to operate dedicated mud-mover was really what was wanted. Or A-10, if real close CAS capability was desired?

 

do think that many of the nations that bought the F-104 should've bought the F-5E

 

Timescales! Most F-104 customers signed up before the F-5A was available, let alone the F-5E.

 

Any non-aircraft suggestions? They're a bit thin on the ground so far.

Edited January 14, 2005 by swerve

[swerve]

S-tank instead of Chieftain

 

Thinking about what you lot did to your Centurions, & now your Leopard 2s, I wonder what a Swedish Chieftain would end up like after 30 years? Probably still operational, unrecognisable under the fancy armour, re-engined with something excellent & far more powerful than the original, new FCS . . . .

[Daniel Papp]

MiG-29N instead of more F-18Ds.....

133941[/snapback]

 

Simon, I tought you would mention those Polish tanks, the Pt-91 Twardys.

[Guest Hans Engström]

We'd certainly never accepted that POS engine. However, imagine if the UK had sold the Chieftain to Israel! After all, most of our Cent upgrades were based on Israeli improvements (so much so that the final 104 version initially suffered from a cooler that was so effective the engine didn't reach proper operating temperatures). Better armour, better FCS, good engine...and the added bonus of 350 additional Chieftain sales for the UK.

 

Ah well, at least the S-tank looked cool (although the Chieftain is one of the most menacing tanks I've ever seen).

[Ol Paint]

F-104ASA vs F-16 suffers from timescales, again. Committed to the project before knwing the F-16 was coming along. But there were other choices which might have been better - F-4, Mirage F.1, Viggen, for example.

 

Agree about AMX. Far too low-performance a plane for the money, because too few to spread the development cost across. Licence-built Jaguar, maybe? With updated avionics, of course. Assuming that a fairly cheap to operate dedicated mud-mover was really what was wanted. Or A-10, if real close CAS capability was desired?

 

do think that many of the nations that bought the F-104 should've bought the F-5E

 

Timescales! Most F-104 customers signed up before the F-5A was available, let alone the F-5E.

 

Any non-aircraft suggestions? They're a bit thin on the ground so far.

133958[/snapback]

Well, I did suggest the T25 instead of M26. What about T92 instead of M551 (sorry, Senor Kibbey )? The aircraft ones are easier to think of because there are so many well-known programs and competitions. One more: GM XM1 instead of the Chrysler. From "King of the Killing Zone," I got that the GM offered generally better performance with its diesel engine and won the first stage of the competition, but that the requirements were rewritten to demand a gas turbine so the Chrysler prototype would win. I don't know how true this is, but it seems likely/possible.

 

The timescales on the F-104 and F-5 actually do line up:

From Joe Baugher's site:

In early 1959, Northrop management began discussions with overseas manufacturers who might be interested in license production of the N-156F. Companies approached included SABCA of Belgium, Fokker of Holland, and Fiat of Italy. Talks also took place with Australia and with Fairey Aviation of the UK. Northrop's president stated that he anticipated the potential worldwide market for the N-156F to be 4000 aircraft! As it turned out, the European companies turned down Northrop's overtures, and opted instead to build the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.

 

N-156F first flight was on 30 July 1959, 9 months after the F-104G contract was awarded. The first true F-104G flew on 05 October 1960, over 1 year later.

 

Douglas

[DKTanker]

  One more:  GM XM1 instead of the Chrysler.  From "King of the Killing Zone," I got that the GM offered generally better performance with its diesel engine and won the first stage of the competition, but that the requirements were rewritten to demand a gas turbine so the Chrysler prototype would win.  I don't know how true this is, but it seems likely/possible.

Douglas

133996[/snapback]

 

Well, let's look at the timeline, shall we? Late 1970s Chrysler is going broke, President Carter's administration starts talking about a federal bailout (Can't let the #3 automobile company go tits up). May or June of 1978 the Chrysler model of the XM1 is deemed the winner of the competition though most in the Armor community rave about the GM competitor. 1979, as part of the Federal Bailout program Chrysler is forced to sell, now lucrative, Defense land systems Division (or whatever the correct name was for the Division).

 

Another interesting aspect is that the XM1 that won the competion looks little like the M1 that went into production.

http://images4.fotki.com/v50/photos/1/1336...3898/XM1-vi.jpg

[Sparviero]

What was feasable to license production or get plans for and upgrade at the time the Ariete MBT was born?

 

Bradley IFV suffered a tumultious childhood. Was there something else that could have done the job while it was going through it's dev stage?

[Colin Williams]

Ah well, at least the S-tank looked cool (although the Chieftain is one of the most menacing tanks I've ever seen).

133984[/snapback]

 

I wonder if the greatest value of the S-tank was the X factor of unknown performance. If I'm a Soviet general planning an invasion of Sweden I have excellent intelligence from all over the world on Chieftains and modified Centurions. Then I think "The S-tank? Who knows what secret capabilities those clever Swedes have built into that plaform. An invasion may be prohibitively expensive..."

[cheese possessed]

O.k., but why didn't the gun on the S-tank face backwards.....? Would have been the ultimate shoot-and-scoot, instead of having to do a 3-point turn before legging it ...

[Yama]

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

133901[/snapback]

 

Well, the Austrian Drakens were older models which were surplus to Swedes, plus Austrians operate at shoestring budget as I understand, and Draken was the first supersonic fighter they had.

 

Finns were quite satisfied to Draken's serviceability (none lost to technical problem) however they had quite plenty of unreliable '60s electronics, which meant extra work. This problem was however common to all planes of the era.

[Yama]

The timescales on the F-104 and F-5 actually do line up:

N-156F first flight was on 30 July 1959, 9 months after the F-104G contract was awarded.  The first true F-104G flew on 05 October 1960, over 1 year later.

 

Douglas

133996[/snapback]

 

However, F-5A had pretty weak performance and no real radar. In the eyes of potential customers it compared poorly to MiG-21 and other Soviet front line fighters and fighter-bombers of the time, which were seen as primary threat (along with bombers). Of course with hindsight when we know that more obsolete Hunters, Gnats and MiG-17's could be flown with moderate success against more modern enemies, F-5 suddenly makes more sense.

[Guest Hans Engström]

O.k., but why didn't the gun on the S-tank face backwards.....? Would have been the ultimate shoot-and-scoot, instead of having to do a 3-point turn before legging it ...

134090[/snapback]

 

But you don't. The radio operator is the backwards driver (sits back to back with the gunner/driver) and the tank was equally fast in both directions.

[Yama]

But you don't. The radio operator is the backwards driver (sits back to back with the gunner/driver) and the tank was equally fast in both directions.

134103[/snapback]

 

Ah, a tank designed for easy retreat!

[lastdingo]

That's called "repositioning" and makes perfect sense tactically.

[swerve]

What was feasable to license production or get plans for and upgrade at the time the Ariete MBT was born?

 

Bradley IFV suffered a tumultious childhood. Was there something else that could have done the job while it was going through it's dev stage?

 

Leopard 2 & M1 were in service, & Leopard 1 was licence-built in Italy, so a follow-on Leo 2 deal should have been a doddle to arrange. Challenger was available. Leclerc was under development, so probably not a contender.

 

Oh, I made a mistake about the F-104ASA. I was thinking of the original F-104S, rather than the 1980s ASA upgrade, which could have been dispensed with in favour of new F-16s, F-18s or Mirage 2000s. Presumably it was a budgetary decision, upgrading F-104S being cheaper than buying anything new.

 

N-156F first flight was on 30 July 1959, 9 months after the F-104G contract was awarded. The first true F-104G flew on 05 October 1960, over 1 year later.

 

But that was the F-5A, not the F-5E. And only the prototype. F-5A entered service in 1965. The prototype F-104 flew in February 1954. The F-104A was in service in January 1958, the F-104G in 1962. The first F-5E didn't fly until 1972.

[swerve]

Finns were quite satisfied to Draken's serviceability

 

Same for Denmark, I believe.

[Corinthian]

Challenger 2 instead of Leo2A4/A5 for UK?

[DKTanker]

Challenger 2 instead of Leo2A4/A5 for UK?

134138[/snapback]

 

What shortcoming has the Chally 2, or 1 for that matter, displayed in combat, that would have been aleviated were Leo2s used instead?

[Corinthian]

Just a thought really. I was just thinking could the UK have been better off buying a "common European MBT" instead of having its own? Looking more into costs, etc.

[Chris Gould]

for all the Leopard 2 fans like me how about the U.S. buing the Leopard 2 and not the Abrams. Then we could practically stop all the which tank is better treads.

[Tiemler]

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

133898[/snapback]

 

Just seems to me the B-52 performs the role of bomb truck admirably to this day, and for all the gloom about the B-2 being a "Cold War weapon," it seems much more survivable as SAMs proliferate.

 

But I suppose you can't keep an airframe in service indefinitely, even when it continues to do its job as well as its intended replacement.

[Rubberanvil]

Was there any safer aircraft competing against the F-102?

[Sven Arvidsson]

Sweden's decision in the early 80's to develop JAS-39 Gripen instead of planning for F-16 or F/A-18 as a replacement in the 90's. Gripen is a terrific little aircraft, and very capable and suits us fine et cetera, but the cost of developing the thing have bled the rest of the armed forces dry. If we knew then what we know now...

 

...well, come to think about it, if we did knew then what we know now, our dear politicians would have scrapped the armed forces completely and outsorced it all to Securitas.

 

Agree with Hans Engström on the Strv 103 vs Chieftain deal. "Strv 121 Chieftain" does have a ring to it, and while the S-tank had some good points it lacked development potential just by the layout.