My point was that without the AH-56, there would be no AH-64. Without the MBT-70, there would have been no M1 Abrams. Without the OICW, we would never of had the advancements in the M4, SCAR, etc. Without the F-111, we never would of had an F-14, F-15, or F-16.

The AH-56 was firmly in the "rotary wing" camp, full stop. It was canned in 1972, long after the Johnson-McConnell agreement in 1966. The production contract was cancelled because it had many teething issues, one big one notably being how overweight it was. After further evaluation of the prototype, the Army found that -- surprise -- the AH-56 wasn't the kind of helicopter they needed and canned it. The AAH program then came about, and using the knowledge gained from the AH-56, resulted in the AH-64 in a far more rapid and far better development track than the AH-56.

I'm not going to address the MBT-70 as I have little innate knowledge of that program. Ditto OICW.

The F-111 on the other hand... Great strike aircraft and EW aircraft. I never saw it operate from carriers or act as a fighter/interceptor -- did you?

None of that is provable.

A snarky comment deserves a snarky reply - can you disprove any of it?

It's not like we're talking about the "existence of God" here......

Not snark, a statement of fact. As the author of the claim it is up to you to prove it. Which you can't unless you have a portal to alternate universes where those failed weapons programs never existed in order to see if the latter successful weapons came into being or not.

I've seen it stated somewhere, perhaps in Hunnicut's book on the M1 Abrams, that it at least does owe something to the MBT-70, although perhaps mostly in the way of 'what not to do'.

I had figured that it would be pretty clear that, for example, the AAH program directly following the cancellation of the AAFSS program would be pretty clear, but if you want sources...

AAH from AAFSS:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070807001809/http://www.vectorsite.net/avcobra_1.html

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA450121&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf (pg. 5)

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA442118 (this is actually interesting reading overall as it is mainly concerning the A-X program that resulted in the A-10)

M1 Abrams (and Leopard 2) from MBT-70:

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_leopard2.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mbt-70.htm

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=472

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/mbt_70.htm

OICW:

http://modernfirearms.net/assault/usa/xm29-oicw-e.html

http://www.military-today.com/firearms/xm29_oicw.htm

F-111:

http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/general-dynamics-f-111-aardvark-pig/

"The F-111B for the Navy, however, was a disaster. The underpowered and temperamental Pratt and Whitney F30 engine and the heavy weight of the F-111B made it completely unsuitable for carrier operation and fighting interceptions. When Vice Admiral Thomas “Tom” Connolly flew the F-111B, he found that the aircraft had a hard time breaking Mach 1 and that its bulk and unsatisfactory engines would make it highly dangerous to operate from carriers. In a congressional hearing afterward, Senator Stennis asked the Admiral if more engine power would solve the problem. Connolly famously said, “There isn’t enough thrust in Christendom to fix this plane.” In 1968, the Navy was finally allowed to stop development of the F-111B. It began a new procurement, which ultimately resulted in the F-14 Tomcat."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97982.pdf (Although not directly related to the F-111's spawning of later aircraft, this is very pertinent as it relates to out of control defense spending, incredible and unrealistic promises, and underperforming programs.)

http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/01/f-111b-versus-f-14a-one-more-time.html (This is interesting because it does, in fact, suggest that the F-14 and F-111 turned out very similar, although to different strengths and design requirements.)

I'll add more as I find it, but I'm going to leave this article here: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/military/whats-wrong-with-weapons-acquisitions

Bottom line: the F-35 may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or, it could end up as another multi-billion dollar boondoggle, as many defense programs turn out to be. I sincerely hope it's the former, because many people have their security and defense riding on how it turns out.

Well of course those newer programs followed the earlier ones chronologically. Duh.

That still has nothing to do with "If X never happened Y would not either".

Nevermind.

But to say no "Y" ever benefited from things learned from a prior "X" is a bit crazy, isn't it?

Benefited from yes, of course. Existed solely because of is a huge leap however.

You might require an account to see the article, but signing up is free:
F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation'

Similar article, no account needed:


Pilots Say F-35 Superior Within Visual Range: Dogfight Criticisms Laid To Rest

Interesting info, thanks!

Here's a video of the Paris Air Show performance:

Wow that engine sounds insane. That thing might be louder than a Raptor - I imagine the exhaust velocity must be higher for sure...

The only planes I've seen that seemed any louder than a Raptor was a B1 Lancer (nevermind, that thing was DEFINITELY louder!) and maybe the old Boeing 727's (but that might just be because the old spot for watching them take off in the 1970's in my hometown was far closer to the airplane than I've ever been at any airshow).

A bit of grey area there - I'm sure there's at least certain components of an airplane that literally ONLY exist because of lessons learned or knowledge gained from earlier generations......