The Battle of the A-12 still rages on to a rough final

So it sounds like the A-12 Avenger will never ever ever fly. Though the possiblity was always low for the last 16 years the final verdict from the courts is just raping up now.

"The US Court of Federal Claims last week upheld the Navy’s decision to terminate the A-12 contract for default, requiring the contractors to return progress payments of about $1.35 billion"

And the following clip shows why this whole thing got to be the mess it is and was.

"The court originally ruled against the government, finding Cheney had wrongfully cancelled the A-12, and ordered the termination converted to “for convenience” and the contractors to be paid $1.2 billion for work in progress at the time of cancellation.

Following two appeals, the court held the Navy had properly terminated the contract for default because the contractors had missed the originally required first flight date of June 1990 and were not going to meet the revised target of December 1991."





Link: www.flightglobal.com...

Wasn't the A-12 the predecessor to the SR-71? I'm kind of confused how they could use that designation to begin with if it was already used, but that is beside the point.

From what I understood the project has been officially canceled by bot parties for at least a decade and the only thing in question now is money (who owes who and how much). Have I been missing something?

[edit on 5/8/2007 by SwitchbladeNGC]

You may be right switch blade about it being officialy canned for a decade there is just so much info its hard to desifer for even myself sometimes lol.

As for the overlap of designations its hard to call. the A-12 in reference to what was also know as artical ???? for each plane or Oxcart is muddy for me as to how it would of effected the A-12 for the navy.

There are those of us (not sure if I'm one) who hope for some of these types of cancelled projects to see the light of day again when funding is avaible etc like the F-23 blackwidow.

The designation A-12, as applied to the Blackbird predecessor, was Lockheed's own, from the drawing board, and nothing to do with anything else.

The A-12 designation applied to the Avenger II however was its official DoD, mission specific designation, ie the prototype would have been the YA-12, the in service version would have been the A-12A, a recce version might have been the RA-12B, etc etc.

All aircraft have their own manufacturers 'label's which apply during design, and sometimes up to prototype test flying, but the official designator is the one applied by the Govt agency responsible for procuring it.

Other examples to illustrate;

USA - McDonnell Douglas' MDD-267 became the DoD's 'F/A-18A'

UK - Hawkers P1127RAF became the MoD's 'Harrier GR.1'

Russia - MiG's Ye 155 became the Kremlin's MiG 25

Likewise Lockheeds's A-12 became the DoD's SR-71, eventually.

Here are some model images of the Avenger II you might like, not mine, but I wish it was.









[edit on 8-5-2007 by waynos]

Lockheed's A-12 did NOT become the SR-71. Those are two different airplanes from the same design family.

The Lockheed A-12 (the "A" stood for Archangel) was a single-seat, single-system reconnaissance platform, funded by the CIA. The SR-71 was a dual-seat, multisystem platform, funded by the USAF.

Designer Clarence "Kelly" Johnson propsosed numerous variants with different missions. The AF-12 (later designated YF-12A) was an interceptor prototype. Three were built and tested, but it didn't go into production. The M-21 was a launch platform for the D-21 drone (originally called AQ-12). Two were built. The R-12 design eveolved into the SR-71. A B-12 bomber version was never built.

Because the Lockheed design number A-12 was not part of the Mission Design Series (MDS) system, there was no conflict when the A-12 designator was assigned to the Navy's planned stealthy attack aircraft.

Lockheed's A-12 did NOT become the SR-71. Those are two different airplanes from the same design family.

Of course it did. You said yourself "the same design family", or are you expecting us to think that Mr Johnson started again with a clean sheet of paper with the SR-71 and "coincidentally" came up with the same airframe design again, only slightly bigger? Of course he didn't, he adapted what he already had into the new requirement.

You are splitting hairs. The YF-12, SR-71 and M-21 ALL evolved from the same basic A-12 design, this is quite obvious. Whether single system recce or multi system is irrelevant except in a detailed history of the type. The airframe is essentially the same and this is why I said 'became' and 'eventually' in my original post.

It is not a history of the SR-71 that I was aiming for, only an explanation of why A-12 appears to have been used twice, when it has not, in simple terms.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by waynos]

[edit on 8-5-2007 by waynos]

Sorry, waynos. Maybe it is "irrelevant except in a detailed history of the type," but since I am writing just such a history I am a bit hypersensitive to that sort of detail.

It's true that the variants have many elements in common, but they are distinctly different aircraft. For another example, I would never say the YF-17 became the F/A-18A despite similarities between the two.

And yet I would say that, shadowhawk. Although the YF-17 and the F-18 are clearly different, you would not have the latter without the former. I see the relationship between these two, and the A-12 and SR-71 for that matter, in the same way as the relationship between the Spitfire 1 and the Spitfire F.24 - completely different, but an evolution of the original design.

Given the amount of research you must have carried out on the Blackbird though. I can wellunderstand your desire to correct a percieved error.

Yeah, this is still the most advanced one even decade past, if it be come really. But US navy would not need a special mono-purpose attacker today, to rejoicing the luck of US navy they stop the expensive、wasteful project.

conversely, making a model for play, it is a nice-looking one

[edit on 9-5-2007 by emile]

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Sorry, waynos. Maybe it is "irrelevant except in a detailed history of the type," but since I am writing just such a history I am a bit hypersensitive to that sort of detail.

It's true that the variants have many elements in common, but they are distinctly different aircraft. For another example, I would never say the YF-17 became the F/A-18A despite similarities between the two.

Pete,

While I fully agree with your basic point, and support you on it, with respect to This Paticular Thread you're splitting hairs with an ax, buddy. All we're saying is that the Designation "A-12" also applied to the Blackbird Spyplane at one time, which in and of itself is 100% true!

The essential premis of his claim is correct: The Blackbird Series is the Lockheed A-12. Kelly conducted a series of configuration studies within the Skunkworks that he called Archangle. It was the design known as Archangle 12 or A-12 for short that was developed into the Blackbird series of aircraft. So in that sense of thinking, you could say the A-12 became the SR-71 Blackbird.

We can clarify the details of the Blackbird story to your heart's content, but that's for another thread!

Tim

[edit on 5/11/2007 by Ghost01]

I think waynos and I already worked this out, Ghost. There is no reason to beat a dead horse. Sometimes I wonder if you read the other posts before responding. Try to get the thread back on track.

Thanks Pete!

Now back to the origional issue of the A-12 Avenger. What are they really discussing here?

I think the question is if the contrator will ever get any return for their role in the program. The A-12 was scrapped in 1991, when DoD Terminated the contracts and pulled the funding from the program. The Project has been dead for about 16 years now. The A-12 isn't going to fly not tommarrow, not ever!

Tim

Side Note: I only meant to help Pete and Waynos, not to restart a closed discussion! Sorry if I opened things back up.

So, it looks like we aren't going to see the flying Dorito any time soon. Maybe they can at least use what they learned in future aircraft.

I really do think they (the Contractors) did take something away from the A-12 project. And it pretty simple Don't go over budget by 4 million dollars and not even have a plane flying. To myself its frustrating how close minded the Gov can be though too right? I know alot of you agree with me on that. Project like the BWB and A-12 get canned and we still have the CF-18 flying around. It deffently seems like we are long over due for plane like the F-22A and so on. I guess I want to heaer what ghost, waynos, shadowhawk, switchblade-all of you think about the way the goverment handled the A-12 program and should they of had more time and money for a plane the was pushing the limit or was an updated F-18 really the better option?

Can't wait to hear what you guys and gals think! I think the issue to disscus now is the mind set of programes and trying to push the envelope. I have a feeling these mind sets will have an effect on UCAV testing and the like as well and I know a number of member are very gung-ho to see that tech come to fruition.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
I guess I want to heaer what ghost, waynos, shadowhawk, switchblade-all of you think about the way the goverment handled the A-12 program and should they of had more time and money for a plane the was pushing the limit or was an updated F-18 really the better option?

Your wish, is my Command!

I personally think based on my research that the Pentagon botched the A-12 from Square 1. I have read the book The $5 Billion Misunderstanding: The Collaps of the Navy's Stealth Bomber Program.

The A-12 was a mess from the very beginning. Things started getting ugly when the Air Force didn't want to share stealth technology with the navy. From there the Program went down-hill. The Navy insisted on a fixed price that was much too low. Lockheed Skunkworks bailed out of the compatition because they couldn't couldn't meet the terns the Navywanted within the price limit (Red Flag #1). Then the Navy decided they wanted a Fixed Price Contract WITHOUT an inflation clause.

By the time they finally picked a contractor, things went from bad to worse. First they decided to skip the prottype stage, despite the fact that noone had Ever attempted to land a stealth aircraft (let alone one made purely from composits) on a ship. Next the navy desided they wanted to make it a miltirole aircraft flying Strike, Antisurface Warfare, CAS, and Tanker roles. However, noone calculated in the added weight of the extra roles. Then there were miscommunications reguarding the RCS specs. Next, they Never ajusted the Program timeline even as problems came to light.

Basicly, the A-12 Program was the perfect example of how the Government should NOT do busness!

Tim

Sometimes revolutionary programs go the way of the dinosaur, not because the technology wasn't available but because they were mismanaged. There is no quicker way to kill your program than by getting behind schedule and over budget.

I can think of a number of programs that would have been awesome had they not had they not fallen down the rabbit hole of changing specifications, unrealistic goals, poor management practices, or other factors:

X-30 National Aero Space Plane (NASP)

X-33 Single-Stage-To- Orbit (SSTO) demonstrator

AGM-137 Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM)

A-12 "Avenger II" Medium Attack Aircraft

RQ-3 DarkStar UAV

I'm sure there are many more.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
I guess I want to heaer what ghost, waynos, shadowhawk, switchblade-all of you think about the way the goverment handled the A-12 program and should they of had more time and money for a plane the was pushing the limit or was an updated F-18 really the better option?

Before I get into that, I want to clarify something because I don't want people getting the wrong impression either way. I do not claim to be an expert in the field of aerospace or aerodynamics (and especially not politics) but I can claim more than just a fundamental knowledge of both aerospace and aerodynamics as that was my major for several years. (Politics on the other hand I would have to say is way out of my league)

Saying that, I would have to say, that the A-12 program, if it was indeed intended to be a production craft and not just a demonstrator, then it was horribly mismanaged (as opposed to just greatly mismanaged if it was to have been a demonstrator only).

One of the major mistakes came at the very beginning of the project when they decided to go against the president of competing designs. Ghost went into most of my other problems with how the government "managed" the A-12 project.

As for if the updated F-18 was the better option, it depends. If you mean at the time they decided to cut their losses and end the program I would have to say yes because they had spent so much time and money already on one failed project that it would be unreasonable to attempt to start from scratch again. However, I don't believe that the updated F-18 would have been a better choice if the A-12 project wasn't mismanaged and it was able to meet it's full potential.