Stealth specs of USN A-12 and NATF.

B

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
5 August 2012
Messages
511
Reaction score
408
The contemporary of the A-12 & NATF, the F-22 has an RCS supposedly of -40db. Were the A-12 and NATF to have similar requirements? Maybe not so much the NATF, since the USN pretty much said they would sacrifice some stealth for other characteristics.
 
The Lockheed NATF would have swing-wings (DAILY, Aug. 31, 1990) and there is a radar cross-section penalty for that choice, Blackwell conceded. But it will allow longer loiter time, improve carrier landing and takeoff performance, and the wings can be swept for a stealthier configuration in combat, he said.
Click to expand...
 
May 7, 1991 Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"Admiral Dunleavy. I will answer that for the record later on because I do not have it off the top of my head.
[The information follows:]
The NATF's internal payload was 4AAAM/AMRAAM, 2 AIM-9, AND 500 RDS 20MM. No external load was mandated, but provision for external carriage of weapons was desired.
[Deleted.]"
 
Bruno Anthony said:
The contemporary of the A-12 & NATF, the F-22 has an RCS supposedly of -40db. Were the A-12 and NATF to have similar requirements?
Click to expand...


No.
RCS requirements are more complex than a single dBsm value. The A-12 was intended to be a low level penetrator, and the RF signature requirements were not in line with the state of the art for the day. It was also intended to carry a stealthy standoff weapon.
 
quellish said:
RCS requirements are more complex than a single dBsm value. The A-12 was intended to be a low level penetrator, and the RF signature requirements were not in line with the state of the art for the day. It was also intended to carry a stealthy standoff weapon.
Click to expand...

So A-12 RF stealth requirements were less than the F-22? I am a little confused by your statement that "RF...requirements were not in line with the state of the art for the day."
 
Bruno Anthony said:
So A-12 RF stealth requirements were less than the F-22? I am a little confused by your statement that "RF...requirements were not in line with the state of the art for the day."
Click to expand...


The A-12 requirements were written without knowledge of the degree of signature reduction achieved in other programs that had advanced the state of the art.


Comparing the A-12 to the F-22 does not make sense. The A-12 was intended to penetrate at low level, while the F-22 flies as high as it can. The A-12 was also intended to be survivable against a different set of RF threats.
 
quellish said:
The A-12 requirements were written without knowledge of the degree of signature reduction achieved in other programs that had advanced the state of the art.

Comparing the A-12 to the F-22 does not make sense. The A-12 was intended to penetrate at low level, while the F-22 flies as high as it can. The A-12 was also intended to be survivable against a different set of RF threats.
Click to expand...

This is great stuff. Can you elaborate on what the A-12 requirements were supposed to survive against as defined by the USN?

Did GD's design meet the Navy requirements?
Did NorthGrum know what the Navy wanted/needed better than the Navy did and consequently would their's have done better?
 
Bruno Anthony said:
This is great stuff. Can you elaborate on what the A-12 requirements were supposed to survive against as defined by the USN?
Click to expand...


The specifics have never been made public. The ATA was intended to penetrate at low level to strike at defended land and sea targets. Soviet land and sea RF threats used different bands, polarization, etc. Because the ATA was to penetrate at low level, Soviet look down fighter radars were considered a priority (though SuAWACS was apparently not considered a priority by USN, strangely).

Bruno Anthony said:
Did GD's design meet the Navy requirements?
Click to expand...

No.

Bruno Anthony said:
Did NorthGrum know what the Navy wanted/needed better than the Navy did and consequently would their's have done better?
Click to expand...



That is the general consensus, and more importantly Northrop knew better than USN what was *possible* (and feasible) because of their experience with recent DARPA and USAF programs.


All of these questions, and more, are covered in several books and papers, such as Stevenson's "The 5 billion dollar misunderstanding".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The $5 Billion... Book is expensive and further was Stevenson in "the P-51 is the answer" mode? Was he in hard core Military Reformer mode like Pentagon Paradox?
 
Bruno Anthony said:
The $5 Billion... Book is expensive and further was Stevenson in "the P-51 is the answer" mode? Was he in hard core Military Reformer mode like Pentagon Paradox?
Click to expand...


Stevenson is/was part of the fighter mafia crowd, and that is reflected in most of his work. In the A-12 book, it's very easy to separate those opinions from the facts.
 
quellish said:
Stevenson is/was part of the fighter mafia crowd, and that is reflected in most of his work. In the A-12 book, it's very easy to separate those opinions from the facts.
Click to expand...

Thank you. At least I won't throw it against the wall if I get it.
 
quellish said:
The specifics have never been made public. The ATA was intended to penetrate at low level to strike at defended land and sea targets. Soviet land and sea RF threats used different bands, polarization, etc. Because the ATA was to penetrate at low level, Soviet look down fighter radars were considered a priority (though SuAWACS was apparently not considered a priority by USN, strangely
[/font]
Click to expand...

Ok this makes sense now, the A-12 would face different radars than F-22. Maybe the USN thought the SuAWACS would fly more inland tracks to track SAC bombers or cruise missiles that had already penetrated as opposed to flying tracks right at the border? Or the USN blew it on the SuAWACS threat?

Would the NATF be given any A-12 escort mission?

Oh, I just remembered, would the ATA version for the USAF have had different stealth requirements compared to A-12? It would have presumably the same overland mission as F-22.

Thanks for your patience.
 
if you can find the flight global article about a/f-x, it does shed a little insight on how lockheed modify the f-22 frame to better meet the USN's requirement for RCS.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Or the USN blew it on the SuAWACS threat?
Click to expand...


USAF probably overblew it, while the Navy did the opposite.

Bruno Anthony said:
Oh, I just remembered, would the ATA version for the USAF have had different stealth requirements compared to A-12? It would have presumably the same overland mission as F-22.
Click to expand...



I would have to find the source material, but essentially the ATA was pushed on USAF. At that point the specifications were pretty much already set. USAF monitored the progress of ATA, and at more than one point raised the red flag on the RCS spec (or rather, that they did not think GD would meet it). Again, without the source material in front of me this is from memory, but before USAF lost interest I recall that they were talking about changes to the A-12 for the USAF mission, and this would include changes to the shaping to alter RCS, and at one point making substantial changes including relocating the inlets. USAF was not enthusiastic about low level penetration.
 
quellish said:
I would have to find the source material, but essentially the ATA was pushed on USAF. At that point the specifications were pretty much already set. USAF monitored the progress of ATA, and at more than one point raised the red flag on the RCS spec (or rather, that they did not think GD would meet it). Again, without the source material in front of me this is from memory, but before USAF lost interest I recall that they were talking about changes to the A-12 for the USAF mission, and this would include changes to the shaping to alter RCS, and at one point making substantial changes including relocating the inlets. USAF was not enthusiastic about low level penetration.
Click to expand...
From the bottom to the top of the aircraft?
 
IIRC, I think AvWeek at one point also mentioned the exhaust nozzle being moved above the wing as well, which as we know now, makes sense. But that straight trailing edge wasn't going to cut it, so hopefully the USAF made them change that as well. By the time they were done, it probably would have looked like the Northrop submission for the ATA. ;)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom