Think about our present acquisition system - just as bad as the Brits.
Think about DDG-100, F-22, LCS ... heck even F-35. All our computers, all our money ... and yet ...
The answer is, in a word; no.
In 1931, the British Air Ministry sent out a demanding new specification for a fighter aircraft. It was a remarkable document for two reasons. The first was that throughout its existence the Royal Air Force had been dismissive of fighters. The conventional wisdom was that bombers could not be stopped. Instead, foreshadowing the nuclear doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the correct use of air power was widely presumed to be to build the largest possible fleet of bombers and strike any enemy with overwhelming force. The second reason was that the specification's demands seemed almost impossible to meet. Rather than rely on known technology, the bureaucrats wanted aviation engineers to abandon their orthodoxies and produce something completely new.You really need to read the whole thing to get the importance of it all.
The immediate response was disappointing: three designs were selected for prototyping, and none of them proved to be much use. The Air Ministry briefly went so far as to consider ordering aircraft from Poland.
Even more remarkable than the initial specification was the response of the ministry to this awkward failure. One of the competing firms, Supermarine, had delivered its prototype late and well below specification. But when Supermarine approached the ministry with a radical new design, an enterprising civil servant by the name of Air Commodore Henry Cave-Browne-Cave decided to bypass the regular commissioning process and order the new plane as "a most interesting experiment." The plane was the Supermarine Spitfire.
It's not hard to make the case that the Spitfire was one of the most significant new technologies in history. A brilliant, manoeuvrable, and superfast fighter, the Spitfire—and its pin-up pilots, brave to the point of insouciance—became the symbol of British resistance to the bombers of the Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe. The plane, with its distinctive elliptical wings, was a miraculous piece of engineering.
If the bureaucracy and politicians had their way, there would have never been a Spitfire. You know what they would have had? Defiants and Rocs. Don't know about them? Exactly.
As a side note - where is the statue of Air Vice Marshall Henry Cave-Browne-Cave, CB, DSO, DFC, RAF? There really should be one somewhere in the mother country. At least he has a Facebook page. I "liked" it. Least I can do.
A cautionary tale, to add: by 1933 Poland had first air force to equip solely metal construction monoplanes, of the characterisitc "gull wing" design. But series of botched decisions and lack of proper engines delayed the much faster replacement fighter with folding landing gear and 1939 found Poles facing the Me-109 with planes of 1933. Just 6 years was enough to make entire generation of fighters into obsolescence. Compare this to F-22 and F-35, in the works form late 80s?
ReplyDeleteShould F-35 fail, it would mean F-18Z and F-16 block 90+ facing T-50s and J-20s - or possibly Rafales or Typhoons given political instability in some of erm, most fighter-importing countries in the world (they happen to have lots of oil...) - somewhere in the future...
If course we can, if we let the aircraft companies alone to develop them. The F6F was developed by Grumman because Grumman thought that they could do better than the F4F. True, sometimes you do have to prod them. Most people don't know that during WWII, North American Aviation was a part of General Motors. So there really isn't much of a surprise that NAA put engines from Allison Division, General Motors Corporation in the P-51A. Thank goodness there were Merlins being made under contract by Packard.
ReplyDeleteEric Brown, in his book, Duels In The Sky, rated the Supermarine SpitFire, and the Grumman F6F as the best fighters of WWII, being the two ends of fighter design philosophy. He described the SeaFire as a ballerina with a switchblade, and the Hellcat as a prizefighter with an ax.
I guess I'd point to the MRAP and the ISR confederate air force as evidence that the potential still exists within both our leadership, our bureaucracy and our industrial base to push innovative solutions to the warfighter quickly. I'm certainly no expert on either, but somewhere inside the 10 years of sustained war, these platforms were developed and fielded.
ReplyDeleteYou could certainly argue that these are not as significant (or as pretty) as the Spitfire (or a host of other WW II nation-wholly-at-war platforms), but it also needs to be considered that by the Korean war (just a few years later) the Spitfire was all but obsolete. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that planning for the backbone of your fleet to be OBE within the decade is not a good thing.
if we let the companies do as they will today, they would come with flying version of the LCS... oh, wait, F-35 is one...
ReplyDeleteStill...
ReplyDelete> The Hurricane bore the lion's share of the effort during the Battle of Britain
> the Hurricane was still the fighter of choice in an expeditionary (read: North Africa) role
> The Spit was very much a work in progress early on (original had a fixed-pitch, wooden prop); and when the RAF was being pounded by the Luftwaffe (airfields and factories) and losing pilots, the Hurricane was quicker off the production line (didn't require as much scarce aluminum or skilled labor to build) and more forgiving for lower time pilots pressed into service.
> The same thinking was going on in the US with the AAC and the B-17 (which when it frist came out was faster than the then top fighter for the AAC - the P-26)
> For all the good the P-51 provided in air superiority, you still needed P-47's to go rooting around down low for CAS and interdiction.
Don't get me wrong - I love the Spit and admire it as much for its combat record as for the beauty of form (like the P-51), but let's make sure we keep the whole picture in focus. Without the Hurricane shouldering the brunt of the effort, the Spit would have ended up as a footnote. There is a story here of the proper mix of high/low and the value gained by not putting all your eggs in one *cough*jsf*cough* basket....
w/r, SJS
P.S. Really not liking this js-kit thing :P
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily -- companies are mindful of the bottomline - it is oft times the govt that has a habit of adding significantly to or changing the requirements list (or fails to adequately define and stick with same) that causes problems. To wit -- the B-2 was OK until the AF came back well into the developmental cycle and said it also needed to be a low-altitude penetrator. The poster child, however, remains the TFX and especially the F-111B. That the F-14 emerged from the ashes of the TFX fiasco is as much a testament to a community leader who wasn't shy about calling a pig a pig before Congress as it is for corporate leadership who saw the trainwreck coming and had an alternate in hand (and yes, it wasn't all altruism/patriotism on Grumman's part either).
ReplyDeletew/r, SJS
"<span> You know what they would have had? Defiants and Rocs. Don't know about them? Exactly."</span>
ReplyDeleteAnd they would have been swept from the sky with relative ease by the Bf-109E and even the 110B/C.
<span>We used to have a similar capability. It was (and still is) called the Skunk Works. Something went wrong somewhere between the F-117 and the F-22, though...</span>
ReplyDeletewe have forgotten how to build things since the 90's procurement holiday.
ReplyDeleteLove the aircraft of WW2. My favorite is the DeHavilland Mosquito. If you are in SE Virginia, take the time to visit the Virginia Military Aviation Museum. http://www.militaryaviationmuseum.org/ They have a large collection of aircraft from WW1 and WW2, including the Spitfire and Hurricane. Almost all of their aircraft are flyable and you can actually touch them. It is quite a treasure.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite WW2 aircraft was the 51D Mustang...till I saw 633 Squadron and realized there was an aircraft with just as big a bite and fast as a thief.
ReplyDeletethere are 2 problems, namely:
ReplyDelete1. since WW2 there was a continous trend towards ever less and less competing companies on the market, resulting in almost duopoly now
2. the same Grumman by 1990s went with the fiasco of A-12
A-12 was McD/General Dynamics and effectively ended both as a primary airframes manufacturer when the deal went south. Grumman was specifically benched by SECNAV because they "didn't get it" where stealth/LO was concerned. Grumman from that point fell back on systems integration, UAV and the E-2 after they got borg'd by Northrop. And don't forget, much of the downsizing followed the infamous "last supper" w/then SECDEF Perry...
ReplyDeletew/r, SJS
Actually, Sal, we CAN do this.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the major UAV programs. Predator and Global Hawk in particular. They were developed outside the regular acquisition process - and delivered a hell of a lot of fighting power quickly and at a reasonable cost. Rough-edged in places, but dazzlingly good at what they were designed to do.
The real problem is an acquisition system more concerned at process than product. Check the boxes, fill out the forms, and "Poof", good weapons appear. NOT! A successful program frequently reaches a point when you have to scrap the specification, toss the paperwork out the window, focus on the product, and GET THINGS DONE.
The Defiant was a total failure as a day fighter, but did have a degree of success as a night fighter against the nazi bombers.
ReplyDeleteBut I get your point all right.
Nothing new under the sun.
Well... they'd also still have had the Hurricane.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think indeed, no, I'm actually sure of it... that the Brits would have LOST the Battle off Britain had they not had the Spit. Certainly.
By the way, not a bad movie...
ReplyDeleteP-47's and P-40's were both great aircraft.
ReplyDeleteBUT....why has no one mentioned the great.....PANCAKE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U
Behold the next generation of marine corps aviation. It has STOL, extremely rugged, top speed over 450mph, great manuverability superior range, great firepower, reasonable price.
Everything the corps needs with the Super hornet to back it up.
My buddy and I were JUST talking about the A29 program for SOF-CAS. He was flying them, loved them, the mil was begging for them, but it got shot down due to politics. Super inexpensive asset.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/dti/2011/04/01/DT_04_01_2011_p38-297236.xml&channel=defense
There are a dozen aircraft that could fit the bill half just converted crop dusters (which are cheap robust and can fly for a long time with a good load out.)
ReplyDeleteBUT if we buy those..........why would we buy F-35's?
Of course the F-35A is replacing the A-10 right.....oh no its not because the idea is insane.
Build 300 or so more fighters...maybe that horrible F-22 sell some to Japan. Buy around 50-80 http://www.802u.com/ Build some more A-10's and figure out a way to get a good tactical bomber.
Navy buy more F-18E/F's for now but look into a good carrier based strike fighter. Marines look into a purpose built STOVL replacment for the harrier.
OH i forgot this is a political and jobs program not a actucally defense program my bad.
LCS-F-35 two of a kind.......wait jesus even the F35 doesnt suck as much as the LCS it atleast is a FIGHTER...wow.
We can't build a high speed rail system; why would you think we could build anything complicated?
ReplyDeletejames:
ReplyDeletecheck eagle speaks web site archives. a few years ago he was beating the drum about taking medium sized oil patch work boats, mounting an m1a1 tank on them and then saraying down the whole mess with water proofing sealant.
several positives: first there are quite a bunch of them tied up waiting, second the tank already has an optical gunfire control system that would compensate for the sea movement when firing, third they are fast, fourth they don't need much water to float..........
minuses: first you would need to hoist the tank off the boat with a pier crane and run it through one of those setups that railroads use to wash locomotives about once a week/month. second no way for the commercial shipbuilders to squeeze billions out of each conversion.
C