Top 10 Worst Aircraft Ever...

[brownshoe]

How about the B-36? The largest combat aircraft of all time, obsolete from the get-go, took 12 years to develop and was phased out two years after entering service, enormous cost overruns resulting in SecDef cancelling the contract on an aircraft carrier to fund it...

Oh, and it never flew a single combat mission.

Set the standard for incredibly expensive, theoretically awesome, but utterly useless planes from the XB-70 to the A-12 the the F(not A)-22.

Say it ain’t so! Jimmy Stewart made a movie years ago; he was playing the part of a pilot flying these planes in an AF command some place.

Steve

 

[mmx1]

Youre right, the problem is there really isnt a direct comparison given that its the first aircraft of its type. However, The fact that a new technology doesnt comapre favorably to a helicopter originally designed in the 1960's is, I think, cause for concern. At $120 million a pop it should be making the CH-53 obsolete.

And it's a shame the F-22 at $180mil a pop can't make the KC-130 obsolete.

Wait, what were we talking about?

 

[phrogpilot73]

I think the argument goes something like this: the V-22 has been proven to be substantially less effective at cargo transport than the CH-53. It has a true flyaway cost somewhere around. It lacks the oxygen for passengers that would allow it to carry troops above 10000 ft where it could really make use of its speed advantage. It still doesnt have a forward firing weapon. And last I heard the V-22 program accounted for something like 70% of the marine corps acquistion budget. Im glad the V-22 is operating successfully in Iraq, but I dont see how that changes things. Couldnt the money be better spent?

Like others have said, you're talking out of your ass. The CH-53E is a HEAVY lift platform. The V-22 was designed from the ground up as a replacement for the MEDIUM lift CH-46E. Try comparing those two with respect to cargo and passengers.

Who cares if it doesn't have O2 for the pax? I don't think their mission profiles require them to go above 10K, and people much smarter than you and I, and well tuned into the TTPs don't think it's an issue.

The CH-46E, and the CH-53E don't have forward firing weapon.

 

[Redux]

I didn't post the pics on here for fear of being banned permanently...but wasn't the F-4 Corsair at risk of being in this group initially?

With it's limited visibility ahead taxiing on the deck it wasn't adored aboard a carrier.

 

[Lawman]

With it's limited visibility ahead taxiing on the deck it wasn't adored aboard a carrier.

Didnt stop the Brits from putting it on their boats from moment one.

Id rather have an aircraft that is dynamite in combat and a tough to deal with at the boat then the other way around.

 

[phrogdriver]

Hmm, dare I say:

Jane, you ignorant slut!!!

We've already got 20 V-22 threads in which you can display your ignorance in all its glory.

Your $120 million figure, comparison with the 53, and your ignorance of the fact that no existing assault helos (when employed in the assault role) use forward firing guns shows that you are talking out your ass. If you have questions ask, but don't argue assault support when you don't know jack about it.

 

[HighDimension]

Jane, you ignorant slut!!!

We've already got 20 V-22 threads in which you can display your ignorance in all its glory.

Your $120 million figure, comparison with the 53, and your ignorance of the fact that no existing assault helos (when employed in the assault role) use forward firing guns shows that you are talking out your ass. If you have questions ask, but don't argue assault support when you don't know jack about it.

I was waiting for this.

 

[Redux]

Didnt stop the Brits from putting it on their boats from moment one.

Id rather have an aircraft that is dynamite in combat and a tough to deal with at the boat then the other way around.

No argument but facts are facts, the poor carrier traits is why they were mostly given to the Marines ashore.

 

[phrogdriver]

Didnt stop the Brits from putting it on their boats from moment one.

Id rather have an aircraft that is dynamite in combat and a tough to deal with at the boat then the other way around.

Actually, you're better off having a blend of the two. After all, you don't go into combat every flight, but you probably should land every time.

 

[Lawman]

Actually, you're better off having a blend of the two. After all, you don't go into combat every flight, but you probably should land every time.

Yeah but depending on how good your are in the fight you might not have to worry about the aircrafts landing characteristics.

 

[AJB37]

Yeah but depending on how good your are in the fight you might not have to worry about the aircrafts landing characteristics.

I would imagine that you only get good after a lot of practice... which you may not get if the aircraft is hard to land.

But that is just my wanna-be opinion.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

I would imagine that you only get good after a lot of practice... which you may not get if the aircraft is hard to land.

But that is just my wanna-be opinion.

Maybe you just alter the way you train and do business and maximize your strength and end up fine around the boat. IE, the Brits using the curved approach and having a lower accident rate than the USN. BAM: Great righter and good around the boat.

Those darn Brits and their carrier innovation.

 

[scoolbubba]

If you have questions ask, but don't argue assault support when you don't know jack about it.

Don't know jack about the osprey even tho I'm going to be flying with future V-22 pilots. Are waist guns in the works, or are they sh!tcanned bad idea considering the whirly motors voodoo magic/earth repelling super ugliness is happening right in the line of fire?

 

[phrogdriver]

The interim solution is a belly turret with a 7.62 minigun from BAE systems.

 

[VIZKRIEG]

Is it wrong to say that those Devils Whirlybirds look kinda sweet?