Aircraft the US should have bought from Europe

[kitbasher]

Which geographically includes that part of the former Soviet Union west of the Urals.

[eatthis]

lightning or mig21 to replace starfighter

[kitbasher]

Interestingly the USAF didn't do much with the F-104, but I get your point.

[MAD]

G'day Kitbash
With hindsight I would say:
-Dornier Do 31 VTOL transport aircraft.
-The USAF should have supported the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 program.
-Not Europe, but the USAF should have supported the development and fielding of the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow as its principle continental air defence interceptor.
-The combined Agusta A129 Mangusta & Agusta A129 LBH (Light Battlefield Helicopter) as a cost effective substitute for the cancelled and ridiculously expensive U.S. Army's LHX program. failing this the Agusta A129 Mangusta, as a replacement for the OH-58!
-The earlier support and operational fielding of Fiat/Aeritalia G.222 transport aircraft (fitted with Allison T56 turboprops), long before the debacle of the C-27.
-CASA C-212 Aviocar.
-Modified Panavia Tornado IDS (but using the larger fuselage of the Tornado F3) to replace it's McDonnell Douglas RF-4 and F-4G's in Europe!
-Again outside of European scope, but Japanese Shin Meiwa US-1 flying boat/amphibian in the ASW role.
-Westland Lynx HAS (naval variant) by the USN, so as to replace Kaman Seasprite on smaller frigates/destroyers
-The USAF/USN should have supported the development and fielding of the BAe (Warton) P.103 VTOL supersonic attack fighter, as a Harrier replacement.
-Modified Aeritalia AMX (with GE F404 engine) as a cost effective 'mud fighter' for the USAF
-Westernised (engimes, avionics, ......) Antonov An-124 'Ruslan' from the Ukraine, as a supplement to the already hard worked and over-stretched C-5 Galaxy fleet (even at the cost of C-17 purchases!!).

M.A.D      

[jcf]

G'day Kitbash
With hindsight I would say:
-Dornier Do 31 VTOL transport aircraft.
-The USAF should have supported the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 program.
-Not Europe, but the USAF should have supported the development and fielding of the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow as its principle continental air defence interceptor.
-The combined Agusta A129 Mangusta & Agusta A129 LBH (Light Battlefield Helicopter) as a cost effective substitute for the cancelled and ridiculously expensive U.S. Army's LHX program. failing this the Agusta A129 Mangusta, as a replacement for the OH-58!
-The earlier support and operational fielding of Fiat/Aeritalia G.222 transport aircraft (fitted with Allison T56 turboprops), long before the debacle of the C-27.
-CASA C-212 Aviocar.
-Modified Panavia Tornado IDS (but using the larger fuselage of the Tornado F3) to replace it's McDonnell Douglas RF-4 and F-4G's in Europe!
-Again outside of European scope, but Japanese Shin Meiwa US-1 flying boat/amphibian in the ASW role.
-Westland Lynx HAS (naval variant) by the USN, so as to replace Kaman Seasprite on smaller frigates/destroyers
-The USAF/USN should have supported the development and fielding of the BAe (Warton) P.103 VTOL supersonic attack fighter, as a Harrier replacement.
-Modified Aeritalia AMX (with GE F404 engine) as a cost effective 'mud fighter' for the USAF
-Westernised (engimes, avionics, ......) Antonov An-124 'Ruslan' from the Ukraine, as a supplement to the already hard worked and over-stretched C-5 Galaxy fleet (even at the cost of C-17 purchases!!).

M.A.D     

Nobody bought the Do 31 because it was quickly realized that the compromises necessary
to create a VSTOL 'transport' with available aerospace technology made it realistically useless,
and a non-fit with existing strategy and tactics.

The Hawker VSTOL research program that led to P.1127/P.1154/Harrier was largely funded by
the US and US research facilities/windtunnels were used. The USAF had no use in period for
P.1154, and realistically neither did the RAF/RN. Developing/buying it meant sacrificing other
capabilities.

The USAF did support the Arrow, technologically and financially. Also the Arrow was not the
über-weapon of legend and, using the established mission profiles/control scheme, would have
been no better than the F-106.

The A129 and OH-58 roles are so different as to make the comparison ridiculous.

Please detail how the Shinmeiwa aircraft would have been any better than the P-3.

G.222 and C-212? What hell for? In period the US had the C-8, C-123 and C-130,
I'd say they were pretty much covered.

AMX? Really? Something bought in small numbers, and only by the manufacturing countries?
How do you get to 'cost-effective' from 're-engining'? Do you have any clue how much that
sort of re-work costs in the aerospace world? Also 'mud-fighter', where? During the time
period (1980s) when a USAF purchase may have made a difference in the program, the
USAF had zero requirement for an AMX class aircraft.

The cost of re-/new 'Modernized/Westernized' build AN-124s would have exceeded the cost of
C-17s for an older 'less' capable aircraft design. Lifting heavy weights is not the only role of a
combined 'tactical' and 'strategic' airlifter. The cost of the re-engineering from the systems
design/install standpoint would be staggering, it aint' like rewiring yer house.

[kitbasher]

G.222 = C-27 (eventually)
CASA212 = C-41

[DarrenP]

Buccaneer instead of the F111 & A6
Nimrod instead of the P3
Hawk to replace the T38

[kitbasher]

The US did buy a load of Hunters........

...........for Belgium and the Netherlands under the Mutual Assistance Program.

And possibly Denmark?

[DarrenP]

Hunter instead of the F5
VC10 instead of the C135/707 & DC8
The KC45
VH71 Kestrel

[PR19_Kit]

Please detail how the Shinmeiwa aircraft would have been any better than the P-3.

It can land on water, NOT a good idea with a P-3................

[scooter]

Please detail how the Shinmeiwa aircraft would have been any better than the P-3.

It can land on water, NOT a good idea with a P-3................

Which would have made it an excellent SAR bird for the Coast Guard, instead of Falcons and 130s

Buccaneer instead of the F111 & A6
Hawk to replace the T38

I'll agree with you on the Hawk replacing the T-38, although at some point you are going to need a supersonic trainer.  Was the Bucc any better than an A-6 at its job?

Here's one I would have liked to have seen- twin-tailed navalized Tornado as the A-6 follow on.

[NARSES2]

Can I just ask that you bear in mind the comments I have made here please lads ?

Thanking you in advance

Chris

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,39108.new.html#new

[MAD]

G'day Kitbash
With hindsight I would say:
-Dornier Do 31 VTOL transport aircraft.
-The USAF should have supported the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 program.
-Not Europe, but the USAF should have supported the development and fielding of the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow as its principle continental air defence interceptor.
-The combined Agusta A129 Mangusta & Agusta A129 LBH (Light Battlefield Helicopter) as a cost effective substitute for the cancelled and ridiculously expensive U.S. Army's LHX program. failing this the Agusta A129 Mangusta, as a replacement for the OH-58!
-The earlier support and operational fielding of Fiat/Aeritalia G.222 transport aircraft (fitted with Allison T56 turboprops), long before the debacle of the C-27.
-CASA C-212 Aviocar.
-Modified Panavia Tornado IDS (but using the larger fuselage of the Tornado F3) to replace it's McDonnell Douglas RF-4 and F-4G's in Europe!
-Again outside of European scope, but Japanese Shin Meiwa US-1 flying boat/amphibian in the ASW role.
-Westland Lynx HAS (naval variant) by the USN, so as to replace Kaman Seasprite on smaller frigates/destroyers
-The USAF/USN should have supported the development and fielding of the BAe (Warton) P.103 VTOL supersonic attack fighter, as a Harrier replacement.
-Modified Aeritalia AMX (with GE F404 engine) as a cost effective 'mud fighter' for the USAF
-Westernised (engimes, avionics, ......) Antonov An-124 'Ruslan' from the Ukraine, as a supplement to the already hard worked and over-stretched C-5 Galaxy fleet (even at the cost of C-17 purchases!!).

M.A.D     

Nobody bought the Do 31 because it was quickly realized that the compromises necessary
to create a VSTOL 'transport' with available aerospace technology made it realistically useless,
and a non-fit with existing strategy and tactics.

The Hawker VSTOL research program that led to P.1127/P.1154/Harrier was largely funded by
the US and US research facilities/windtunnels were used. The USAF had no use in period for
P.1154, and realistically neither did the RAF/RN. Developing/buying it meant sacrificing other
capabilities.

The USAF did support the Arrow, technologically and financially. Also the Arrow was not the
über-weapon of legend and, using the established mission profiles/control scheme, would have
been no better than the F-106.

The A129 and OH-58 roles are so different as to make the comparison ridiculous.

Please detail how the Shinmeiwa aircraft would have been any better than the P-3.

G.222 and C-212? What hell for? In period the US had the C-8, C-123 and C-130,
I'd say they were pretty much covered.

AMX? Really? Something bought in small numbers, and only by the manufacturing countries?
How do you get to 'cost-effective' from 're-engining'? Do you have any clue how much that
sort of re-work costs in the aerospace world? Also 'mud-fighter', where? During the time
period (1980s) when a USAF purchase may have made a difference in the program, the
USAF had zero requirement for an AMX class aircraft.

The cost of re-/new 'Modernized/Westernized' build AN-124s would have exceeded the cost of
C-17s for an older 'less' capable aircraft design. Lifting heavy weights is not the only role of a
combined 'tactical' and 'strategic' airlifter. The cost of the re-engineering from the systems
design/install standpoint would be staggering, it aint' like rewiring yer house.

Hell joncarrfarrelly are you related to Thomas Edward Lawrence: "No prisoners!
I thought this was a What If Forum?
Didn't you have toys as a child or something?
I think your taking you're self a little to serious my friend!

M.A.D

[Logan Hartke]

I love the Super Hornet, but if Boeing could somehow magically build Rafales at anywhere near that unit price, I'd find that to be about ideal for the USN and USAF.



Not European, but the early adoption of the Tucano as a T-34 replacement would have been better, I think. It would have made the T-6 Texan II unnecessary.

Also not European, but I agree with the earlier nominations of a USAF Arrow and USCG Shin Meiwa. I also agree with jcf, though, that the Arrow was not a super weapon, but as an advanced airframe/engine combination, I think it had more growth potential.



I think a US-built Mirage/Kfir family might have been a good alternative to the F-104 and F-5 export fighters, as well as a good F-4 supplement. It would also serve as a cheaper way to give Reserve and ANG units some pretty good, cheap capability. The same could be said of the MiG-21, really, though to a lesser extent. The F-5E Tiger II was a superior plane to both in many respects, though.

The Nimrod would have served just fine in place of the P-3 Orion, but wouldn't have been necessarily better in many roles. Both are fine aircraft.

I think the Alouette II would have been a good helicopter until the advent of the OH-6 or OH-58. On that note, either the Bo-105 or Gazelle would have been fine alternatives to those, as well. Also the Lynx would have been the superior alternative to the Kaman SH-2, I think.



The early adoption of the Puma helicopter would have given commonality with the rest of NATO and eliminated the need for the CH-46 Sea Knight and later Blackhawk, though that's a fine helicopter, as well.

The Mangusta would have been a great cheaper replacement for the Kiowa instead of the aborted Comanche.

Expanding to include Soviet types, the Mi-8/24 family really didn't have US equivalents and are still fine aircraft. Likewise, the Su-25 Frogfoot would have worked fine instead of the A-10. In some ways, its higher speed fits better with USAF doctrine and may help it to survive the political battles better.



The Czech L-39 Albatros is a fantastic aircraft, especially for its time, and would have been a wonderful, cheap, subsonic trainer, though you could say much the same thing about the BAe Hawk. The US never really had an equivalent to these types, unless you count the Goshawk.

I also think the Tu-16 Badger was just as good of an aircraft as the B-47 Stratojet, and both represented a capability that no other aircraft in the world could match until the much later service entry of the Vulcan.



The Mi-26 represents a capability the US doesn't have and never has.

Those are just some that come to mind, but most really represent workable alternatives, more so than superior alternatives. It's also important to remember that many of those types entered service AFTER the comparable US aircraft. They were often better, but they took longer. Non-US types benefitted from coming to the market later. You see that with the Hunter vs the Sabre, Vulcan vs the B-47, Arrow vs the F-106, Nimrod vs the P-3, An-124 vs the C-5, Bo-105 vs the OH-58, etc. In that sense, the direct comparison isn't really fair. In fact, many of them were strongly influenced by the earlier US developments. For example, it's unlikely that the Mi-24 would have been developed were it not for the Cobra.

Cheers,

Logan

[McColm]

EH-101 Merlin to replace the Sea Hawk
EuroFighter Typhoon to replace F-15A and F-15Bs and early F-16s
Saab Gripen replacing early F-16s
BAe 146 special mission aircraft or cargo/transport
Yak-141- already built. Would have saved time and money in development stage. Money would have been spent on engines, New wing ,software and glitches.
Be A-40 Mermaid. Ideal for US Coast Guard, possible replacement for early Prions but not the current fleet.
Puma and Lynx-  used by other US Government agencies and civil contractors that work for the US military.
Avro Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane- speak for themselves. Flown by US servicemen but never ordered.
The V-Force. Possible for the Vulcan and Victor although the B-52 took care of that. The Vulcan was impressive flying at 150 feet during the Red/Green Flag exercises.
Airbus A400M to bridge the gap between the C-17 and C-130.
Bre1150 Atlantic US Coast Guard or coastal patrol.
Trident instead of the Boeing 727.
An-225 for those oversized loads.