The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
Robert McNamara

Vietnam will rightly dominate discussions of the legacy that Robert McNamara's seven-year tenure as U.S. Secretary of Defense to Kennedy and Johnson left behind, but it's also worth looking at the impact of his decisions on defense technology - then and now.

Before Vietnam, McNamara's first war was with the Air Force, which was still trying to revive projects for high-speed bombers and interceptors that had been cut back in the later 1950s under President Eisenhower. The generals were campaigning to get the B-70 Valkyrie bomber reinstated as the "reconnaissance-strike" RS-70, designed to take out targets that had escaped missile launches. The CIA's A-12 Blackbird was leading to its own RS and interceptor versions. McNamara blocked all of them, as well as efforts to preserve the production tooling for the pure-reconnaissance SR-71. 

High-level lack of enthusiasm and the diversion of NASA funds to the space program also capped the development of hypersonic systems. Under McNamara, the progenitor of the Shuttle - the X-20 Dyna-Soar - was scrapped. Progress in the 1950s, which eventually saw a ramjet fly at Mach 4.31 in 1958, came to a halt. Only the CIA, which did not report to him, persisted with the development of the boost-glide Isinglass - but without Pentagon support it, too, withered. 

In all cases, the objection was the same: faster aircraft would get shot down by bigger missiles. It was a simplistic argument and given the two-decades-plus of operational experience with the A-12 and SR, it was probably wrong.

What did McNamara like? He backed one winner: the McDonnell Phantom, which was already in Navy service. Under McNamara, the F-105 and F-106 lines were stopped and the USAF adopted the Phantom. 

In one parallel to today's developments, the McNamara Pentagon backed a low-intensity warfare aircraft - the Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (LARA). It was intended to operate from carriers or from water, as well as almost any piece of flat ground, and do almost anything from air defense to troop transport. It resulted, however, in the rather mediocre OV-10. 

The biggest McNamara-era program, though, was the joint-service TFX. I was just looking through some old magazines and came up with Flying Review's first look at the prototype. After quite correctly pointing out that the design was going to have trouble with weights and inlet design, and that the Navy was already beginning to back away, the magazine concluded: "With so much at stake, how can the aircraft be anything but a resounding success?"

No comment.... 

Tags: ar99McNamara
Email this post
User Image
Loader2088 wrote:
RIP, Mr. McNamara. With regard to his stewardship of the Viet Nam War, I have considered this thought experiment: if he had been a Soviet agent during that period, would he have done anything differently? I have a hard time thinking of anything.

Anyone who has ever read Jack Broughton's "Thud Ridge" and "Going Downtown" cannot but be impressed with the mutual disdain between McNamara and the pilots who carried the war to the north. I've thought it a testimony to their integrity that not one of them ever attacked him physically afterwards.
7/6/2009 1:29 PM CDT
User Image
Mark Simpson wrote:
O. I see what you did there...
7/6/2009 4:11 PM CDT
User Image
sferrin wrote:
Yeah he alluded to the F-35 going on to be as successful as the F-4. When did you finally have a change of heart Bill? ;-)

"He backed one winner: the McDonnell Phantom, which was already in Navy service. Under McNamara, the F-105 and F-106 lines were stopped and the USAF adopted the Phantom."


I'd have to agree with the gist of the article. Gates sure does remind me of McNamara in all the worst ways.
7/6/2009 6:16 PM CDT
User Image
Talyn wrote:
Robert McNamara has been replaced by the new Robert (Gates) in making some really bad decisions. If the F-22 truely stops production it will be Gates fault that the USA gave up the air supremacy mission after many decades.
7/6/2009 7:17 PM CDT
User Image
Bobbymike wrote:
His stewardship over triad modernization should also be criticized. Some historians said he got "spooked" after the Bay of Pigs and stopped or slowed a lot of promising R&D into RVs and heavy ICBM's. This allowed the Soviets to catch up when prior to these decisions they really had no hope of doing so.

But that's OK because the nuclear mission is not being neglected now......oh wait and now Obama negotiating arms control agreements....its the 60's all over agian. I'm getting a headstart and going to Woodstock.
7/6/2009 7:34 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
McNamara got saddled with two different problems. Fighting a war while the president he served attempted to increase social programs. He was therefore ordered to get the beast of defense procurement under control. By doing so he devised programs to aide in that effort. The triservice fighter was just one example of this. Standardization of infantry weapons is another. As well as the myriad ground vehicles that were in use by the services. One of the many contributions he has made which is constantly overlooked is his rationalization of DOD nomenclature as well as his attempts to tame the beast. Question to all of the McNamara haters...what would you have done differently? Remember the hawks in the US wanted to declare all out war which would have brought the Chinese and Russians into the fray possibly leading to WW3 and the doves wanted to declare defeat and simply pullup stakes which would have emboldened Russia and put western Europe in jeopardy. He took the painful middle road. He didn't start the war but he is largely blamed for it. A pity, he was smart, lucid and aware of the toll his decisions were having on the force. There was just no good way out. Think of Vietnam as the modern day tar baby. Funny thing is that Rummy could be given the same disrespect and so could Gates but the thing to remember is that they both served and are serving at the pleasure of the President. An elected official. I'm certain that none of their policies were taken without the POTUS permission.
7/6/2009 7:53 PM CDT
User Image
Bobbymike wrote:
I don't think anyone here is a "McNamara hater". Why is critisicm of policy diferrences/choices - even vehement disagreement - said to be hateful? Let's raise the level of discourse.

I am sure McNamara was a decent man and a good husband/father but in order to have a dispassionate view of history it is necessary to say what he did right OR wrong.
7/6/2009 9:41 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
You question my discourse when you make statements like....

"But that's OK because the nuclear mission is not being neglected now......oh wait and now Obama negotiating arms control agreements....its the 60's all over agian. I'm getting a headstart and going to Woodstock."

GET REAL!
7/6/2009 11:26 PM CDT
User Image
Geogen wrote:
Very clever, Bill. Eloquent, original and relevant. Worth the read..
7/6/2009 11:40 PM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
I thought of the nomenclature thing but left it out... McNamara robbed so many of us of the chance to sound smart by understanding what a F11F-1F or an HR2S-1W were.
7/7/2009 9:14 AM CDT
1 2 >> Last
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos