Most or least effective aircraft in the U S military

[Elwyn]

Since the start of the jet age, which aircraft in service with the U S military do you think has given the most bang for the buck? Perhaps easier might be "Which aircraft do you think has been the least useful or effective?"

[Kyleb]

Since the start of the jet age, which aircraft in service with the U S military do you think has given the most bang for the buck? Perhaps easier might be "Which aircraft do you think has been the least useful or effective?"

Most? C-130, F-4, A-10, B-52.

Least? F-104, B-58, Vought Cutlass

[Elwyn]

The B-58 ought to get a few points for outright sex appeal, but in service I guess it proved to be too much of a maintenance headache. The KC-135 and its many variants seems to have been a pretty good investment. Ditto for the T-38.

Last edited by Elwyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[Jarink1]

Most: U-2/TR-1, B-52, C-130, CH-47

Least: B-2 (speaking strictly bang-for-HUGE-bucks), FB-111

[N3Njeff]

Since the start of the jet age, which aircraft in service with the U S military do you think has given the most bang for the buck? Perhaps easier might be "Which aircraft do you think has been the least useful or effective?"

Most? C-130, F-4, A-10, B-52.

Least? F-104, B-58, Vought Cutlass

For most, I would drop the F-4 and add the U-2...............another A/C born in the 50's and still going!!

[P51Mstg]

Keep in mind that the B-36, B-47, B-58 keep the forces of evil on their side of the North Pole for a long time without firing a shot at them. The Titan Missiles absolutely scared the crap out of the bad guys. Think what the terrorists would say now if they detonated a car bomb and we retaliated by turning their capitol (say an area the size of the NYC Metro area) into an inhabitable wasteland 45 minutes later.

That might get them thinking..... Titans were very useful weapons.

Mark H

[Stephan Wilkinson]

Think what the terrorists would say now if they detonated a car bomb and we retaliated by turning their capitol (say an area the size of the NYC Metro area) into an inhabitable wasteland 45 minutes later.

Who says they have "a capitol"? (Should be "capital," by the way.) You're thinking like you're fighting WWII.

[P51Mstg]

Mod Edit.....

[SaxMan]

Most? C-130, F-4, A-10, B-52.

Least? F-104, B-58, Vought Cutlass

I could agree with the most. Let's not forget about the KC-135s that also came online alongside the B-52s. Do helicopters count? The Huey would definitely join that list.

The one saving grace from the Cutlass was that (IIRC) it did have an influence on the F-14s design. I would probably put the B-1 on the least bang for the buck list, too.

[Tulio]

Considering the vast numbers of pilots that used them to learn to fly?

I would say the Stearmans, the PT-19-23-26, the AT-6 et all, the Cessna 172 Mescalero, the T-28s, the T-34.

The C-47 and the C-130 must be way up there, so does the B-52.

Saludos,


Tulio

[JohnB]

An unsued weapon isn't necessarily a waste anymore that an a never-called fire department or paramedic is.
Sadly, we have a generation (the anti-Vietnam crowd) in this country that looks at anything military as a waste.

Having said that, in the 50s there were some aircraft that had short operational lives. At the risk of picking on the Navy: the Cutlass, the original Demon (so dangerous 40 went from St. Louis to training school...by barge), and the Tiger. In the USAF there was the F-94 which didn't last a decade...at least it was an offshoot of a proven design and was fairly safe and inexpensive. Still, it played a valuable role until more capaable interceptors arrived. While the USAF didn't get much use out of the F-104, it led the way for the much-improved "G" model used by NATO and Japan. And we didn't get much out of the B-58 program other than having two wings of SAC causing sleepness nights at the Soviet Air Defense HQ...but it (and especially) the B-70 taught the world a lot about large high speed aircraft. I'm sure they made the Concorde a bit easier to design and build. Perhaps those lessons are now accepted as aerodynamic text gospel and have helped designers with other aircraft. Likewise, the C-133 was useful for 10 years before the C-5 arrived but was by accounts, a dangerous and ill-mannered brute. I wonder if the Soviets and Brits (with the Shorts Belfast) had similar troubles with their large turboprops?

Remember, aviation is (then and now) an inexact science...even the failures taugh someone something.

[fritzthefox]

Among jet aircraft, I'd say the A-10 is a great buy. You can buy ten Warthogs for the cost of a single JSF, and the F-35 still can't do half of the A-10's mission. I don't know what they are going to replace them with, except maybe drones, and it would take several missile-armed drones to do the job of one A-10.

The A-4 Skyhawk was a low-cost workhorse.

The F-16 continues its legacy.

The Su-35 is a very capable fighter for your modern dollar. The Gripen is also a good buy.

It's a slippery question, since modern combat capabilities have improved vastly over the years. For example, an F-86 Sabre would cost about 16 million if it were built in equal numbers today. An F/A-18 costs five times as much, but it can fly twice as fast, carry three times the payload and could easily dispatch five Sabre's in aerial combat without even going to afterburner. (The Hornet may well prove to be one of the longer-serving aircraft, too, given the state of the JSF program and the economy) Many cost-effective airplanes could not do their job without more-expensive air superiority fighters clearing the skies for them first. The combat capability of today's planes depends as much on the right munitions as it does the right airframe. Sea Harriers bested Argentinian Mirages in the Falklands largely because they fielded the latest all-aspect Sidewinder...no messy dogfighting required.

For LEAST bang for the buck, I'd agree that the B-2 was a waste of money, and add the B-1 to the list. The strategic bomber is an outdated concept that the generals seem to have trouble letting go. ICBM's and cruise missiles have rendered them obsolete. They have limited usefulness today as bomb trucks loaded with GPS guided munitions, but for the same money you could send a squadron of cheaper planes to do the same job.

It's too soon to tell about the F-35, but the last time we spent a fortune in R&D on an airplane that was supposed to do everything, we ended up with the F-111.

[raconnel]

Let's not forget the T-33!

Richard

For LEAST bang for the buck, I'd agree that the B-2 was a waste of money, and add the B-1 to the list. The strategic bomber is an outdated concept that the generals seem to have trouble letting go. ICBM's and cruise missiles have rendered them obsolete. They have limited usefulness today as bomb trucks loaded with GPS guided munitions, but for the same money you could send a squadron of cheaper planes to do the same job.

Some have been saying for over 50 years that the concept of the "strategic" or large bomber is dead. In my humble opinion I think the usefulness of a large bomber for delivering a large amount of conventional munitions on a target has been proven many times over that time period. And as long as we need to maintain a nuclear strike capability, this is an important augmentation to ballistic missiles. I think the B-2 has limited usefulness with less than 20 in service, but with the planned new long range strike aircraft (B-3??) probably coming in the next 10 to 15 years or so and the additional 25+ years service lives planned for all 3 existing big bombers these type aircraft will be here a long time. Obviously this is a subject that has and will coninue to be debated.

[JohnB]

In my humble opinion I think the usefulness of a large bomber for delivering a large amount of conventional munitions on a target has been proven many times over that time period.

Exactly.
The B-1 haters never ask the Army guys who called on the Lancer to help them out of tight spots in the recent wars.
They'd loiter, with 3 types of bombs in its three bays (or a huge amount of one type of ordnance) for hours waiting for a call to help out the good guys.
Try doing that with a F-15-16-18 or Tornado. You'd need to have a flight of four or six loitering doing the same job, and then not necessarily do it as well.


Spend some time with the B-1 and you'll come away very impressed.

BTW: the B-1 is no longer a nuke carrier...hasn't been since the mid-90s. So not even the USAF sees them in the old role as stated by fritz in Cincinnatti...who also overlooks the stealth capabilites of the B-2 in conventional and nuke roles. If push ever comes to shove in Iran...the B-2 will prove its worth. I'm sorry if you think its overpriced, but ask the guys on the flight deck if its unique capabilities are not necessary.
Would you (or son or grandson) prefer to go to war in a sophisticated air defense environment in a B-52 or B-2?
After 60 years, it should be obvious that strategic bombers do more than carry nukes (quick quiz 2...how many nukes has the B-52 dropped in anger? ) which as you point out, can be carried by ICBMs, SLBMs and ALCMs.

Anyone who knows USAF history knows that long range bombers have proved their worth in many times...the CALCM non-stop raid from Barksdale to Iraq in Feb of 1991 being just one example of them doing a job nothing else could do.

Last edited by JohnB on Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.