I like discussing military issues and it seems like there are enough people on the forum with an interest in history, military issues, and aviation to have some good discussions.
So I would like to ask this question.
What was the best five military aircraft never built.
Although not so much for the United States, I think if the F-20 would have achieved some sales it could have been an extremely popular aircraft worldwide. It would have been cheaper and easier to operate than the F-16.
F-14 was always an awesome aircraft and the Tomcat 21 would have represented what the F-14 could be. Plus faster, longer ranged, and heavier armed than the Super Hornet. Would have kept the Navy much more in the air superiority game.
In size slotted in between the F-20 and F-16. Very good avionics for the time. I think if produced would still be a player in the fighter market today.
F-12/B-12 - Blackbirds with teeth, in both fighter and tactical-bomber flavors. I suspect it would have been simple for the Skunk Works to combine the two into a single switch-hitter airframe with ABM/ASAT capability…
A-6F Intruder II and EA-6B/ADVCAP - the Tomcat 21’s of the Intruder/Prowler platform. Intruder II would have added an A2A (mostly self-defense) capability to the A-6, a reach over toward bridging the gap between the two in tandem with ST21’s improved A2G. Choke on a diseased ulcerated dick, Cheney…
The F-12 would have been a very interesting aircraft. In theory even though in would be 1960s airframe, a modernized F-12 would be still a very formidable opponent for any modern fighter simply due to its unmatched speed and altitude performance. Even the latest fighters like the F-22, Eurofighter, or F-15EX would have an extremely hard time intercepting one.
However, operating costs would make an F-35 or F-22 look like an affordable aircraft to operate.
Lockheed actually DID propose an overhauled and modernized F-12 as one of their entries in the ATF competition right alongside F-22… it was one of the first entries cut in the downselect because the Pentagon is run by effing tards who don’t understand that the only thing more expensive than FIRST-rate equipment is SECOND-rate.
Consider: one of the three prototypes, from the edge of space, tore the tail off a drone B-47 skimming the Gulf of Mexico 80 miles away–a pure kinetic-energy kill even though the targeting goal was “just get it into the killbox enough to simulate a bag.” Its missiles and radar were downscaled and developed into the slightly-less-capable AWG-9/AIM-54 system on the Tomcat.
Speaking of, to throw out two more: FB-22 and F-22N NATF. Better yet, the FB’s huge wing planform might have actually been more carrier-friendly… though I’d have wanted it reworked for a double-F135 powerplant to improve the power/weight ratio.
When you think of it, the F-12 type concept might have actually be more useful in regards to are pivot towards China than the F-22 or F-35 simply due to its massive range and ability to cover distance much faster than any other aircraft. Even the 1960s specs is showing a range of 3000 miles which is a 1500 mile combat radius, which is double or triple most fighters. Although an F-12 dominated force would be foolish, as a niche capability having something like an F-12 even today would be very useful. Consider that even the 1960s version would be able to operate from Guam and hit targets around Taiwan.
However, it would complete rethink fighter tactics and probably the Pentagon didn’t like it because it couldn’t dogfight like a traditional fighter.
Between that, and the fact that the Tards In Stars and the numbskulls on the Hill are fixated on Least Common Denominators… it’d be like Horner making all his TACAIR F-117’s for Desert Storm. Having the majority of your forces be switch hitters is a solid foundation, but you still need to have some specialists and a small number of “silver bullets” in the mix, call it a 6:3:1 ratio. Maybe a single F-12 wing, three F-22 and six F-35/F-15EX on each coast with the Pacific Blackbird wing having one of its squadrons each deployed to Alaska and Okinawa with home base at McChord or Castle, Atlantic wing having one squadron forward deployed to Keflavik or Mildenhall, possibly one somewhere in the Med and the third and Wing HQ at Seymour-Johnson or Tyndall.
Kelly Johnson calculated that 112 F-12s would be enough to provide interceptor defense for all of North America as of '63… add a few more for ASAT, ABM and popup-satellite launcher roles.
The other interesting thing is the F-12 carried fundamentally an early version of the Aim-54 Phoenix the Aim-47. Missile range is dependent on the speed and altitude of the aircraft firing the weapon. Since the Aim-54 fired from the F-14 had a 100 mile range, it is very likely the much faster and higher flying F-12 could fire the same weapon at 150 or perhaps even 200 miles.
I think the other niche the F-12 would be very successful in even to this day would be as an anti-ship aircraft. Could you imagine what a dozen or two F-12 with modern anti-ship missiles built around it could do to the Chinese fleet? They would have nothing to hit an F-12 with.
AIM-47 was also a little bigger with more charge in its SRB–admittedly it was also designed for both conventional and tac-nuke options. Could probably be an effective ship killer by itself… a ton and a half plunging through like a meteorite at Mach 5 or better oughtta make a nice hole all the way through a ship, bonus if it has a delayed-detonation fuse to blow more of the bottom out.
I think what is interesting about your F-12 vote is it would have been an aircraft that if properly executed would have fundamentally changed the concept of what a fighter could be. Which very few planes throughout history accomplished.
For example, although it had its flaws and quirks, the F-4 phantom fundamentally changed air combat due to its considerable differences over previous aircraft.
It was the first fighter with serious BVR capabilities, first full performance fighter that was all-weather and day and night capable previous night fighters were lacking performance wise against day fighters. First fighter with lookdown/ shoot down capability (F-4J). The Phantom sort of set the performance and payload envelope of fighters Mach 2+, 50,000 ft+ service ceiling, 500 mile combat radius, 8 Air to air missiles, etc… which still carry over to this day.
Google “N/AW A-10B” sometime. Fairchild wanted to put nav and targeting pods right on the “kneecaps” with a GIB to run 'em, but the Air Force said “nope, Do Not Want we wanna get rid of you as it is.” This was when the bird was still new after one of my profs was one of the sweat-hogs who carried the AX program through the Pentagon on their backs and dragged the Chair Farce kicking and screaming into it–and ironically his previous and next assignments were pointy-nose fast-mover F-106’s!
Shouldn’t that be “phundamentally,” for you Phantom Phanatics?
Some good aircraft in the thread (especially the F-20 which was a crime it was never produced) to which I’d add the:
F-16XL - While the USAF picked the right aircraft in my opinion (the F-15E) out of the competition, the F-16XL did show some serous promise as an advanced tactical bomber.
F-15 STOL/MTD - While only a technology demonstrator, the “ACTIVE” Eagle really showed the capabilities of the Eagle when modified with emerging technologies.
Not technically an “aircraft” so to speak, but the X-20 Dyna-Soar was an incredible concept for the time and very well could have been the first operational space plane had they continued the research.
Combine the F-16XL with the improved “humpback”-CFT and ECM-spine Israeli F-16I, or the F-15 ACTIVE with the best features of the latest generation like SA/EX and Silent Eagle (and maybe shove a pair of F119 engines up its backside or at least the tech demonstrator F100-PW-232’s), and either of those birds would be some Next Level Shit.
Less glamorous, according to an old plane-modeling buddy who worked there when the Osprey program looked at risk of cancel Sikorsky proposed to build new “super” Pave Lows using the bigger Super Stallion airframes and even offered them at below normal “cost-plus” markup–if memory serves standard is “cost plus 10%” and they were offering “cost plus five” since it would be a simple retrofit to a bird still in production, and even easier to do the conversion during construction as a retrofit. (Steyr, this is the airframe that fictional “computer that found God” I mentioned a while back would have been hosted by.)
B-12 would have been interesting as an aircraft, but imagine what the Russians would have to put in place to defend against it with their land mass. Sams with tactical nuke‘s are about the only cost-effective way that I could see them countering them, but that’s some pretty steep prices to defend their land. Plus in less than World War III scenarios, you wouldn’t use nukes and you wouldn’t be able to stop a B-12 attack.
F-12 would’ve been an awesome way to take out enemy AWACS planes.
Sad irony is that Valkyrie was slain by Blackbird… JFK saw what the Skunk Works had, saw the cost-benefit numbers and went into full “why are we building this?” mode.
That is why despite the widespread proliferation of the Russian Flanker series fighters, I think in some ways the most dangerous Russian fighter is the Mig-31 simply due to its speed and altitude performance combined with long range missiles.
The other reason was land based and submarine launched ICBMs became more available. The XB-70 was really a one trick pony (a nuclear bomber for area targets). It’s near Mach 3 speed was useless for conventional bombing so it simply didn’t have the flexibility of the earlier and much cheaper B-52.
Ironically, since we’ve developed JDAMs and glide munitions, something like an XB-70 would have incredible stand off as a conventional bomber. Think about how a full load of SDBs coming in a Mach 2 could saturate defenses.
