The 10 Elite Aircraft That Never Entered Service

Рет қаралды 63,908

Күн бұрын

Regrettably, some top-tier combat jets were ultimately discarded. In assessments, their rivals occasionally outperformed them. At times, these unhappy combatants met their demise as a result of bribery, intrigue, or misfortune. Here is a tantalising array of ten fighters that were not deployed in squadron service:
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com.

Пікірлер: 204

@jaquigreenlees 2 ай бұрын

The Avro Arrow was a political loss to aviation, when the contract was cancelled the engineers that worked on the project went to work for NASA and were critical to the success of the Apollo missions.

@Myrrdhin83 2 ай бұрын

Every time I think about it, I feel nauseated. What a lost!

@tetraxis3011 2 ай бұрын

Granted. Purebred Interceptors were about to become mostly obsolete. I mean, the only Purebred interceptor left is the Mig31, thanks to its advanced Electronics suite. It’s currently being used as an air platform for Hypersonic Air to ground and Air to Air missiles.

@tetraxis3011 2 ай бұрын

@@Myrrdhin83True. I bet I that if it was made cheap enough, most nato Countries and even some countries like Venezuela and maybe Mexico would have bought it.

@oliverclosehoff8036 2 ай бұрын

Diefenbaker cancelled the arrow in favor of the bofors missle system! One of the arrows highlights was it's orenda iroquois twin spool turbojet engines!

@jaquigreenlees 2 ай бұрын

@@oliverclosehoff8036truth is the Iroquois engines were never used, they were delayed in production so the air-frame was tested with the second choice engines. The Arrow performed so well even under-powered by the 2nd choice engines it out performed the latest US fighters and Diefenbaker was pressured into the cancellation by the US.

@johneagen 2 ай бұрын

No F-16XL?

@paulkelk5142 2 ай бұрын

I'm surprised that the TSR2 wasn't mentioned which is a shame

@sirdino4t7 2 ай бұрын

yeah i was hoping to see that

@mathewcaldwell4108 2 ай бұрын

It was a bomber.

@kevinclaes1838 2 ай бұрын

@@mathewcaldwell4108 so was the Valkyrie..., neither are the Comanche and the Cheyenne...

@mathewcaldwell4108 2 ай бұрын

I didn't finish watching the video.. my dad worked on prototype two of the XB-70. Then the TSR2 should have been on the list.

@tsr207 2 ай бұрын

Well , you know the history - and certain countries involvement ....

@sbg911 2 ай бұрын

X36 was never intended to be a fighter, it was designed to test out tailess flight concepts

@patrickgriffitt6551 2 ай бұрын

HIMAT?

@JebHoge 2 ай бұрын

@@patrickgriffitt6551Son of HiMAT.

@TheWarriorsFromHell 2 ай бұрын

@4:14 for a machine that never entered service, the aerospace industry in CT has been building parts for the commanche for 20 years straight, so theres a fleet of them some where

@einundsiebenziger5488 2 ай бұрын

... somewhere*.*

@johnawalker9261 2 ай бұрын

No TSR 2?

@user-ig1xo3om2x 2 ай бұрын

Clue in the designation "Tactical Strike Reconnaissance"?

@johnawalker9261 2 ай бұрын

@@user-ig1xo3om2x clue in the word “strike”

@geoff7058 2 ай бұрын

Not a fighter

@johnawalker9261 2 ай бұрын

@@user-ig1xo3om2x You missed a word, “and” between strike and reconnaissance.

@fedster187 2 ай бұрын

rule of thumb only slag of the american politics once in a video and we had that with the avro

@cnealmartin 2 ай бұрын

Got your facts wrong on the XB-70. It was WAY faster than the B-52 ! It suffered a mid air collision disaster. Main reason for it to be canceled, price tag was insane for the time ! Would have been way more expensive than the B2. Most expensive plane of all time (if im not mistaken)

@martinjrgensen8234 2 ай бұрын

The XB 70 looks like it is out of science fiction

@xj900uk 2 ай бұрын

Also remember that the 2nd prototype collided with one of its chase planes and was lost, which lead to ever more spiralling costs and duties being placed on the sole remaining prototype - although most aviation historians ascertain that it was the actual collision that was the death-knell to the project (at the time it was the most expensive single plane lost in an accident)

@Rich77UK 2 ай бұрын

The Mirage 4000 is a thing of beauty. Such a shame we never got them in production varients.

@nicolas2419 2 ай бұрын

Mirage 4000 is a really beautiful aircraft, but if it had been put into production, the Rafale program probably would not have been. The Rafale recycled a lot of features developed for the Mirage 4000.

@MIGUEL2005LIMA 2 ай бұрын

Underpowered

@winternow2242 2 ай бұрын

@@MIGUEL2005LIMAunderpowered? From what I've seen, it's thrust-weight ratio was well above 1:1 on internal fuel and 4 short range missiles. What numbers have you seen?

@einundsiebenziger5488 2 ай бұрын

... variants*

@MIGUEL2005LIMA 2 ай бұрын

@@winternow2242 4 missilles, only 4 is a very little payload for a fighter to pretend to be an equivalent of the F-15

@mondo851 2 ай бұрын

The Lavi: If the F-16 and a Saab 37 Viggen had a baby together.

@ghostviggen 2 ай бұрын

That’s basically what Gripen is.

@patrickgriffitt6551 2 ай бұрын

I think F-20 plus F-16.

@ronjon7942 2 ай бұрын

Good list.

@caw3225 2 ай бұрын

The Arrow sure bears a resemblance to Convair’s F-106 Delta Dart.

@winternow2242 2 ай бұрын

...which flew first.

@logiclust 2 ай бұрын

who makes the vest 1:16 scale versions of these?

@robandcheryls 2 ай бұрын

So many great memories of these aircraft.

@jaws848 2 ай бұрын

When the person who made the video can't even get it right.....the title says "10 elite aircraft that never entered service" but the person said "10 jet fighters that didn"t enter service" so which is it considering you have BOMBERS /GROUND ATTACK aircraft AND HELICOPTERS on this list.....sorry my dear but the last time i looked bombers and helicopters are NOT jet fighters......and the correct pronunciation of "Dassault" is "Dasso".

@Kanas83 2 ай бұрын

almost the newer Japanese plane almost looks like the YF23

@Diveyl 2 ай бұрын

Check out YF 19 and YF 21 from Macross

@1958PonyBoy 2 ай бұрын

I worked at Northrop and worked on both the F-20 and YF-23 programs. And we were robbed. General Dynamics lowered the price on F-16's to the point where they were losing money on each plane just to keep the F-20 out of the market. And Sam Nunn was head of the Armed Services committee that oversaw arms procurement on the fighters. And he was from Georgia. And Lockheed is based in Georgia. Nuff' said. The YF-23 was better than the YF-22 in every aspect, save that it was slightly less maneuverable. But in this day and age, if you find yourself in an actual ACM dogfight, things have gone seriously wrong. Aircraft are little more than missile platforms, and the one that spots the other first is the winner.

@Telefiend 2 ай бұрын

I saw an F-20 flight demo at the El Toro air show and to this day I consider it the best flight demo I ever saw. It became my favorite plane that day and has been ever since

@callen6893 2 ай бұрын

I had heard rumors that the government seemed to make any excuse to put the ball in Lockheed’s court. They magically made thrust vectoring more important then how stealthy the aircraft was.

@tetraxis3011 2 ай бұрын

True on the most parts. But, as more and more countries get access to Stealth tech and Radars evolve to pick up Stealth jets, maneuverability becomes important again.

@machupikachu1085 2 ай бұрын

I've been lucky enough to see the the 23 up close. It is magnificent. Y'all should be proud!

@1958PonyBoy 2 ай бұрын

@@machupikachu1085 I was. And when I said I worked on it, I was involved in the structure testing of it, and got very familiar with just about every aspect of it. I spent weeks crawling all over and under it. A very sleek and beautiful aircraft. Not to mention very capable. A one on one combat simulation would not have turned out well for the 22.

@nuraly78 2 ай бұрын

I would also mention forward-swept wing Su-47 into this list

@kevintaylor791 2 ай бұрын

I've seen the remains of The Arrow. It's a heartbreaking sight. Like a severed head on a pole.

@everypitchcounts4875 2 ай бұрын

YF-118G Bird of Prey A-12 Avenger ii

@myizukai8478 2 ай бұрын

X-36 was what they saw in future concepts

@einundsiebenziger5488 2 ай бұрын

Anything with an X-distinction usually never enters serial production. The X-36 was always meant as an experimental prototype only, so it should not be on this list.

@Kreylem1 2 ай бұрын

Why is the TSR2 not on this list

@Sacto1654 2 ай бұрын

The F-20 was just not armed well enough for most potential customers. That's why most of them bought the F-16 initially, then eventually the Dassault Rafale when that become widely available for export.

@tedwojtasik8781 2 ай бұрын

Sad really as the test pilots who flew it said it was the best handling and easiest aircraft they ever flew.

@Sacto1654 2 ай бұрын

@@tedwojtasik8781 if you’re referring to the F-20, it’s a great handling plane. But it was a bit under-armed and would not accommodate many modern air-to-ground weapon systems.

@JebHoge 2 ай бұрын

No, it really was because everyone wanted the F-16 because that's what the USAF ordered.

@gwcrispi 2 ай бұрын

Initially the F-16 was not available for export sale. Once that changed, there was no need for the F-20.

@Sacto1654 2 ай бұрын

@@JebHoge The F-16 was considered a revolution because it was arguably the first jet fighter designed specifically around a fly-by-wire control system. As such, the plane had astonishing maneuverability by 1978 standards which the Israelis demonstrated during the 1982 war in Lebanon.

@Tuglife912 2 ай бұрын

Make a 10 ten intelligence agencies of the world.

@wayausofbounds9255 2 ай бұрын

You missed the F-16XL.

@MrShaneSunshine 2 ай бұрын

The Arrow was an interceptor...not a fighter! 👍🇨🇦

@callen6893 2 ай бұрын

Wait what? 7:55 the XB70 capable of Mach 3+ slower then a B52? It was also meant to carry nuclear payloads not conventional ones mainly. They called them deep penetration bombers.

@machupikachu1085 2 ай бұрын

Yes not much when flown at the same low altitude.

@stevenmartin6473 2 ай бұрын

TSR2 ?

@thewalrus6833 2 ай бұрын

@@jaws848 Well they've included two helicopters and a bomber.

@johnp8131 2 ай бұрын

@@jaws848Another blind fool? Where is the word "fighter" in the title?

@johnp8131 2 ай бұрын

@@jaws848 Where is the word "fighter" in the title?

@jaws848 2 ай бұрын

@@johnp8131 i didn't say there is...while the title says 10 elite aircraft the person speaking in the video DOES say 10 elite JET FIGHTERS ...and she says it more than once so the people who made this video haven't got a vlue what they are talking about

@davematthews3534 2 ай бұрын

I've seen alot on the f-23/22 r&d,testing etc and still can't understand how it didn't win!! I know politics was a big factor, but come on!!!

@tedwojtasik8781 2 ай бұрын

Good old-fashioned corruption, that's what.

@JebHoge 2 ай бұрын

Several reasons unrelated to politics but in short it was a much less effective design with a convoluted weapon bay trapeze-style missile rack. The changes needed to make the production version added way more risk that the YF-22 to F-22 would take.

@cturdo 2 ай бұрын

There are always lessons learned for future projects, so they are not a total waste (other than tax money).

@Rohit-cj6eb 2 ай бұрын

Half of this are just technology demonstrators they never meant to enter in service

@yoamal1187 2 ай бұрын

Literally only one

@KenanTurkiye 2 ай бұрын

Turkish high-tech! The smart nation. I have a folder about it (folder 5 in the playlist).

@carloscastillom.866 2 ай бұрын

F-16XL, SU-47, SU-37 Never Entered Service too.

@paulbunn2255 2 ай бұрын

The Buzz not including at least one Indian aircraft?

@ayanariyan-kg3ky 2 ай бұрын

Mig-1.44, SU-37 & SU-47 the Father of these Fighter Jets.

@user-hk8tk5qz3x 2 ай бұрын

Where is the Su-37?

@fedster187 2 ай бұрын

i never got why they canceled the valkyrie, the sr71 flew at mach 3 at high altitude and laughed at all the s.a.m. sites so could the valk not do the same ?

@MrNeil-qs5fo 2 ай бұрын

surface to air missiles improvement was one reason making the XP70 a fat target.

@winternow2242 2 ай бұрын

The SR-71 never flew as deep into Soviet airspace as the Valkyrie did. Also, Valkyrie would probably have had to slow down when dropping its payload. The Valkyrie was the first plane I ever really loved, but canceling was a smart idea.

@sharpy3453 2 ай бұрын

@@winternow2242 love both, but my first love was the arrow. would have been an amazing aircraft, especially if they had of gotten it to mach 3, would of been nuts. never useful but nuts.

@JebHoge 2 ай бұрын

SR-71 had some early stealth features that reduced its signature somewhat. The Valk did not...at all.

@EvanVoor 2 ай бұрын

It was supposedly too expensive with too many setbacks in development

@gasparguadalupethecante6377 2 ай бұрын

the best video

@1bardiel1 2 ай бұрын

No BAC TSR2 ? no F-16XL ? And the Mirage 4000 was more of a technical demonstration, a concept to bring to the Rafale. The IVI Lavi is a little-known model, and not appreciated by aviation enthusiasts, because it is more or less a copy of the F-16 with canards. Just like the F-20 Tigershark which was a barely improved copy of the Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter, which was already 20 years old.

@trevorhart545 2 ай бұрын

TSR2 omission, unacceptable, makes this a poor video F-16XL a bad an omission LAVI was "sponsored" by South Africa so the issue was NOT Money it was Israel were told NO! This is abuse of $US in aid. IAI got away with KFIR so pushed again but too far with a F-16 Branded Generic F-20 never had a market unless it was DUMPED on the third world as US Paid Military Aid Dassault Mirage 4000, even the French didn't want it Video with promise in the title but failed to deliver

@cosmoschtroumpf 2 ай бұрын

@@trevorhart545the M 4000 has been designed for export, not for french air force who had Mirage F1, IV and 2000, and Jaguar .

@Andrew-sv6zq 2 ай бұрын

The Comanche looks an awful lot like Blue Thunder!

@davidrichter9164 2 ай бұрын

Good movie.

@katherineberger6329 2 ай бұрын

7:38: This image is NOT a public-domain image of the XB-70 Valkyrie! It's a created image from the Mustard video about the plane. SHAME on you.

@winternow2242 2 ай бұрын

Mustard is a frequent target of this sort of thing.

@jamiejones7325 2 ай бұрын

IF true, that Cdn Arrow was not only decades ahead of its time , but still valuable today. Whose side is Canada on anyway?

@davemacmurchie6982 2 ай бұрын

Whose side is Canada on anyway? The real question is who was on Canada's side. The US conned John Diefenbaker, PM at the time, into scrapping the Arrow in favour of the useless Bomarc missile and then, of all things, buying Voodoos from the US. The Voodoo was vastly inferior to the Arrow and ended up costing Canada just as much.

@machupikachu1085 2 ай бұрын

On the side of their American corporate overlords.

@FirstLastOne 2 ай бұрын

Canada was pretty much threatened by the USA to quit or they'd simply shoot the nukes coming in from Russia as they flew over Canada.

@oc10121989 2 ай бұрын

The lavi was developed by *Israel alone with US funding* assistance and US limitations

@SPak-rt2gb 2 ай бұрын

NGAD will probably resemble the X-36

@gld1010 2 ай бұрын

And YF-23

@Unknown_Iranian_Soldier1 2 ай бұрын

F-20 Tiger Shark is Rebuilding by Iran with Name of "K-2 HESA" with Single Al-31 Jet Engine

@einundsiebenziger5488 2 ай бұрын

... is being* rebuilt* by Iran

@HankyInTheTanky 2 ай бұрын

How can you say the XB-70 was barely faster than the B-52 its max speed per Wikipedia is 2056 miles while the B-52s is only 650 mph???

@lucianobarbosa5764 2 ай бұрын

Note that she said "at lower altitude" (she was refering to mission profiles close to sea level to avoid radar recognition). Although this was never the intended operational mission altitude for both -70 and -52... YES, "close to sea level" the maximum speeds for both are almost the same (and this applies to SR-71 as well, paradoxically). But this is not a problem at all for this wonderful, Mach 3 (in altitude) aircraft, the XB-70.

@hugocheng6243 2 ай бұрын

LAVI enter service in China as the name of J-10😊

@MoizRaja-ry4dg 2 ай бұрын

You forget su47

@ebnhahn1993 2 ай бұрын

LAVI very much so was the US F-16. That is why the US stopped the funding...

@leondillon8723 2 ай бұрын

The Boeing B17 was not bought because it was the best. Boeing rounded up best "public relations" experts to get the congressmen to buy. Jack Northrop's YB49 "Flying Wing" was killed by politics. I have seen 4 engine pusher and a 8 jets models.

@einundsiebenziger5488 2 ай бұрын

Jack Northrop*

@einautofan6685 2 ай бұрын

The Avro Arrow is still a Trauma and Desaster today for Kanada! Such a Shame Government cancelled the whole Project!

@pike100 2 ай бұрын

Why all the extra capital letters?

@FirstLastOne 2 ай бұрын

Pretty sure if you dig hard enough you'll see that is was the USA leaning hard on Canada to quit their Arrow plans and join their program or they'd simply shoot down the incoming nukes as they flew over Canada.

@johnp8131 2 ай бұрын

They were probably bribed by Lockheed, like F.J.Strauss and others were in West Germany?

@johnp8131 2 ай бұрын

@@pike100I assume he's a German speaker? Shall we now test your foreign language skills?

@einundsiebenziger5488 2 ай бұрын

@@johnp8131 Guess so, too, given the channel name and him spelling Canada with a "K".

@smelkus 2 ай бұрын

I would have included the TSR2, Yak 141 and F16xl shame you restrict yourself to 10 as their are more that should be included

@qwertyK-vx7st 2 ай бұрын

Where Su-37, Mig 1.44, Su-47 Berkut?

@wrigman 2 ай бұрын

Gee…… go figure…… ANOTHER Northrop fighter passed over………….

@patrickradcliffe3837 2 ай бұрын

The YF-12 does not belong on this list.

@winternow2242 Ай бұрын

Not disagreeing, but why not?

@patrickradcliffe3837 Ай бұрын

@@winternow2242 my apologies I was under the impression that the YF-12 was pressed into service CIA as a surveillance drone launch platform.

@winternow2242 Ай бұрын

@@patrickradcliffe3837 That's the M-21/D-21, which I think used a modified A-12, or at least a Blackbird that was closer to the A-12 than SR-71. I'm not an expert on D-21, but AFAIK, use of M-21s to launch the D-21 drones was dicontinued before the system went operational, and D-21's launches were made witha B-52.

@jessehorn6180 2 ай бұрын

What a waist!

@pike100 2 ай бұрын

*waste

@jessehorn6180 2 ай бұрын

@@pike100 thanks for correcting me.

@LessAiredvanU 2 ай бұрын

Huzzah 'Murica (best add a couple of non US types, one another North American nation and the other a client state...)

@gisrele 2 ай бұрын

france ? a client state ? the fuck?

@gisrele 2 ай бұрын

ohhh, you are talking about israel! so, these are 3 non-American planes!

@taritakhe 2 ай бұрын

J10 of China is Isreali lavy.

@martinandreshenriquezconch1081 2 ай бұрын

And the MBB Lampyridae? The Myasishchev M-50, or the Sukhoi Sotka?

@winternow2242 2 ай бұрын

Did the Germans ever get around to building a Lampyridae? The other aircraft were at least built. M50 flew and was a disappointment, and never achieved supersonic speed.

@sandyhamilton8783 2 ай бұрын

TSR 2 !!! X36 is not even a real aircraft,

@spinynorman887 2 ай бұрын

If you're going to have a narrator (bot or otherwise), make sure they know the correct wat to pronounce words! Mispronunciation shows that the video maker is lazy, ignorant or both - bad ideas in an informational video! Also, calling the X-36 a fighter is like calling a Formula 1 car an ambulance. Fighters carry WEAPONS and the X-36 was never intended to carry weapons. The X stands for "Experimental" and the X-36 was designed to test new technology to make fighters more maneuverable. There's no talk of making it into a fighter because modifying it into a combat capable fighter isn't economically smart. It's cheaper to design a fighter from scratch than to turn a teeny little experimental plane into a fighter worth the name.

@logiclust 2 ай бұрын

bad AI read

@bestamerica 2 ай бұрын

' oh no... stop watch at 020... not good and lousy computer animation edit video

@Ringele5574 2 ай бұрын

This video is lacking in so much information that I quit watching before the end.

@ZillaZarate 2 ай бұрын

😮

@robandcheryls 2 ай бұрын

Like what? It’s not an in depth. I enjoyed it frankly

@machupikachu1085 2 ай бұрын

You'll be missed!

@peterstubbs5934 2 ай бұрын

No TSR2? What a load of bollox without it.

@davidtaylor8002 2 ай бұрын

The main reason the XB-70 was never developed was that the airframe design was unstable. Because of that instability, both prototypes were destroyed in flight.

@Hector-tx3be 2 ай бұрын

Bullshit, only one crash due to mid-air collision. Chase plane rolled into the XB-70 destroying the wing. The remaining prototype is a static display at Dayton, Ohio.

@davidfindlay5014 2 ай бұрын

Only 2 XB-70s were built, with a third under construction, when the design was relegated to R&D test flying related to future SST concepts. The Valkyrie was NOT an unstable design; in fact, the compression-lift principle was proven to be quite viable. The (more advanced) second prototype was destroyed in a completely unnecessary commercial formation photo flight highlighting various GE engine-powered warplanes in the USAF inventory. The tragedy occurred when an F-104 off the starboard wing of the XB-70 lost control in a wingtip vortex and rolled across the bomber's back, carrying away both its vertical tails. This had nothing to do with design weaknesses! FYI: the first prototype still exists and can be seen by visiting the National Museum of the USAF! Do your damned homework before posting erroneous statements as fact!!!

@winternow2242 2 ай бұрын

I'd love to know what evidence you have that shows the XB-70A was unstable.

@EvanVoor 2 ай бұрын

Oh yeah the mach 3+ capable XB-70 was just barely faster than the subsonic B-52, makes total sense. Do your research dude

@russellwhitmyer6764 2 ай бұрын

Makes question the rest of data.

@julienguillaume3881 2 ай бұрын

Video says "at low altitude, X70 is barely faster than B52" that is true. A basic research tells you the speed limit at low altitude is Mach 0.95 for B70 that is just above B52 rated at Mach 0.86.