A-12 Avenger Scenario(s)

[zen]

What happens if the USN A-12 Avenger enters service and how might that come about?
Could this require a different design?
Does the USN have to change requirements?

What's the effects of having a LO Attack platform entering service in the late 90's to early 2000's?
How does this affect the CALF-JAST-JSF effort?
Or affect the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet?

If the RAF buy into this, does this affect the CVF debate?

Who else would buy into the system?
Japan?
South Korea?
Israel?
Germany?
Crazy notion but might the MN want it over the Rafale?

 

[CV12Hornet]

What happens if the USN A-12 Avenger enters service and how might that come about?
Could this require a different design?
Does the USN have to change requirements?

In hindsight, it's pretty clear that the Navy's cost expectations were unrealistic. At the same time, the actual likely cost was so high it would've likely strangled the project in the cradle.

So, uh, good question and I honestly don't have any good ideas.

What's the effects of having a LO Attack platform entering service in the late 90's to early 2000's?
How does this affect the CALF-JAST-JSF effort?
Or affect the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet?

Having a deep strike platform on the way changes NavAir's focus to air combat - the Super Hornet and JSF are all part of the Navy's efforts to close that strike gap and replace the A-6. That said, it may not change the sequence of events all that much: Tomcat gets killed off in the early 90s, the USN starts looking into something newer to replace it, Super Hornet enters service as an interim aircraft. That "something newer", though, is almost certainly going to be a lot more air combat-focused than the A/F-X was, and might let the Navy continue on with the program without getting shoved into the JSF.

Who else would buy into the system?
Japan?
South Korea?
Israel?
Germany?

Japan has the F-2 underway for the job and Germany would be deep in the throes of the Peace Dividend by the time any A-12 starts entering service. The Koreans need something that can tackle enemy fighters, so they're out.

The Israelis are the only maybe I can see: they have a need for a deep-strike aircraft in the right timeframe and don't need the extra air combat capability of the F-15I nearly as badly as the Koreans did.

Crazy notion but might the MN want it over the Rafale?

Absolutely not. Like the Koreans the MN needs something that can do fighter stuff and the French don't have the resources to run two different combat planes.

 

[apparition13]

The Northrop design had accurate cost estimates (they were doing the B-2 at the same time after all, so they had 'right now' experience with building stealth aircraft) but the USN didn't want to hear it and stuck their heads in the sand. Assuming they go with the Northrop design and have a design that actually works and is near it's cost estimates (which it should be, given B-2), and the funds are made available to produce it in large numbers:

1. The original customers, namely the USN and USMC (replacing the A-6), the RAF (replacing Tornado), and USAF (replacing F-111).

2. Really close allies who can keep the tech secure. This may mean no one, as with the the F-22. Or perhaps only the RAAF, to replace their F-111s. Or perhaps the other NATO Tornado users as well.

3. Not Japan, since it is an offensive rather than defensive system, and would therefore be unpalatable to Japanese politics of the time.

4. Personally I think Israel would be a stretch, and I don't see anyone else being considered even if they wanted them.

5. It would make CATOBAR more attractive for the RN. The new Carrier would probably be a lot different.

6. The idea for the USN was F-14D + A-6F --> F-14D + A12 --> NATF + A12, with ASTOVL for the Marines replacing F-18s and AV-8Bs. A successful A-12 program might allow NATF to survive. In which case JSF would not happen since there would be no USN participation, leaving either MRF and ASTOVL as separate programs, or CALF as the combined program. I'd prefer the former to the latter, but apparently the USAF and USMC were enthused by CALF.

7. Northrop replaces Lockheed as the one stop stealth shop, with the F-23 being chosen since they have now shown cost and time problems with the B-2 were a learning opportunity rather than a handicap. In which case they could partner with other firms to produce the other aircraft. I'm only semi-kidding on this one.

 

[CV12Hornet]

6. The idea for the USN was F-14D + A-6F --> F-14D + A12 --> NATF + A12, with ASTOVL for the Marines replacing F-18s and AV-8Bs. A successful A-12 program might allow NATF to survive. In which case JSF would not happen since there would be no USN participation, leaving either MRF and ASTOVL as separate programs, or CALF as the combined program. I'd prefer the former to the latter, for reasons of but apparently the USAF and USMC were enthused by CALF.

I don't think NATF would survive. The NATF's demise was, as I understand it, entirely independent of the demise of the ATA, and included the following reasons:

- Excessive Air Force control of the program - despite separate production lines the Air Force wasn't allowing anything like the F-16/F/A-18 split. This was a problem given the two programs had legitimately divergent needs.
- It was incredibly expensive.
- There were worries the F-22 NATF couldn't accommodate AIM-152.
- The F-14D looked like it would be adequate for the foreseeable future.
- Weight was climbing and there were serious worries it would wind up to heavy for existing catapults.

And maybe a few others I don't have time to research ATM.

 

[red admiral]

1. The original customers, namely the USN and USMC (replacing the A-6), the RAF (replacing Tornado), and USAF (replacing F-111).

I'm far from convinced on the RAF Tornado replacement as the GR4s are brand new and all the 90s and 00s money is going on Typhoon development. Is the production line really going to still be open up to 2010+?

In this timeframe the next development focus was on Harrier replacement, hence UK involvement in ASTOVL and then JSF.

 

[red admiral]

Having a deep strike platform on the way changes NavAir's focus to air combat - the Super Hornet and JSF are all part of the Navy's efforts to close that strike gap and replace the A-6.

What was the actual range/radius for the A-12? Either the requirement or estimated performance?

Most likely figure I've seen is 485mile (nm?) radius from USNI article, which is below Super Hornet or Tornado or F-35C. This seems reasonable to me:

• Low fuel fraction
• Operating L/D probably not that different to other fast jets (peak may be higher but low wing loading)
• Similar engines to fast jets but worse installation leads to similar/worse sfc

 

[Hood]

I think some folks here have also doubted about how stealthy the 'Dorito' layout would have been in practice.

I can't see this ever being a cheap aircraft nor the price allowing more than a small token force being acquired - again at eye watering cost (like the B-2).

It may well have not had much of an impact on other aircraft USN programmes, it's cost may well have sucked F-14D funding away which would result in the likelihood of F-14 not lasting any longer in service (or even a shorter time if the F-14D programme is canned to save money) and then almost certainly requiring Super Bug interim filling as NATF is never likely to succeed.

As to exports, I don't think I've ever seen any mention of prospective customers. Given the classified status its likely to be lumped in with the F-22 as non-exportable - making it exportable by substituting radars and system would be too difficult I would think and the price tag would put most potential close US allies off. Plus the F-15E looks a much better deal.

The RAF had tentative FOA studies in the early 90s for a Tornado replacement which firmed up as FOAS in 1997 but despite interest in collaborations with the US and France it got nowhere. Timing wise A-12 would probably be the only off-the-shelf solution but whether they would go for it is open to question especially as they were interested in CALCM at the same time and not sure that would fit internally in A-12. Even so all the money went into Eurofighter and JSF instead as more pressing needs and I can't see that changing as Tornado GR.4 was still pretty serviceable and at the time of 'Peace Dividends' seemed optimal enough for what was required until the 21st Century.

 

[riggerrob]

…. - Weight was climbing and there were serious worries it would wind up to heavy for existing catapults. ….

Engineer Barnaby WainfIn mentioned A-12’s excessive structural weight in his lecture “7 Deadly Sins of Airplane Design.” See the lecture on www.YouTube.com.
Wainfain said that A-12 had so many holes in the bottom skin (landing gear, bomb bays, engine removal, etc. that there was no room for lateral spars. With no room for a straight (span-wise) front spar, structural engineers were forced to route all the outboard leading edge aero loads back to the rear spar, then across the airframe, then forward for the other leading edge. That long load path ended up too heavy, making it too fast for carrier approach speeds (IOW wing-loading too heavy).

Barnaby Wainfain has designed several unconventional plan forms, most noteably his “Facetmobile” single-seat, ultra-light that defies conventional description … er … sort of a faceted (aka. stealthy). Ery low aspect-ratio delta-wing. Wainfain is lecturing at the Experiment gal Aircraft Association’s big Airventure fly-in at Oshkosh, Wisconsin this week.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What happens if the USN A-12 Avenger enters service and how might that come about?
Could this require a different design?
Does the USN have to change requirements?

What's the effects of having a LO Attack platform entering service in the late 90's to early 2000's?
How does this affect the CALF-JAST-JSF effort?
Or affect the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet?

If the RAF buy into this, does this affect the CVF debate?

Who else would buy into the system?
Japan?
South Korea?
Israel?
Germany?
Crazy notion but might the MN want it over the Rafale?

Almost guaranteed to have to have been the Northrup design, not the MDD one, because N knew what they were doing and MDD didn't (not to mention was never granted the access required for the stealth technology because USAF was playing politics for some stupid reason).

I would expect that there still would be a JSF, in that replacements for F-16 and Harrier were going to be needed. And arguably F-18C/D replacements. Whether that would have been one airframe, two, or three is a different discussion. Probably 2 airframes, one to replace Harrier and one to replace both F-16 and F-18.

IF the USN kept the Tomcats (and that's highly questionable!), I don't think they would have bought Super Hornets. If the Tomcats get cut to pay for the A-12, then Super Hornets will happen.

I suspect that if the RAF bought A-12s, then the CVFs would have been built with catapults.

I could see maybe the Aussies buying in, to replace F-111Cs. Japan doesn't need an attack plane, they need multirole like the Mitsu F-2. South Korea needs all the air-to-air capabilities they can get. Israel would have loved to get the A-12, they need range and bombload more than they need air to air. Germany was stuck paying for reunification, they're out. And the French need a carrier fighter with secondary attack capabilities, not a pure attack plane, so they're out. This assumes that the A-12 is allowed to be sold abroad at all. F-22 got export blocked, after all.

 

[Hydroman]

The A-12 was supposed to be a direct A-6 replacement and penetrate at low altitudes like the A-6. If you have an aircraft which is to take advantage of LO, why the hell would you want to fly it down on the deck, does not make any sense. Our N/G/LTV mini B-2 design took advantage of the LO and would have attacked from medium to high altitudes ala B-2. The B-2 was re-designed for the on the deck mission and has never to my knowledge had penetrated and attacked on the deck (i.e. the Balkans, later middle east conflicts), all at high altitudes.

Near or supersonic, semi-LO on the deck, then accelerate to get the hell out of dodge, that makes some sense possibly. In the first gulf war, the Tornado's took some decent losses attacking on the deck by flying through all of the anti-aircraft gun flack. Don't think the A-12 would have fared very well if put into service but I could be wrong.

 

[apparition13]

What was the actual range/radius for the A-12? Either the requirement or estimated performance?

Most likely figure I've seen is 485mile (nm?) radius from USNI article, which is below Super Hornet or Tornado or F-35C. This seems reasonable to me:

Engineer Barnaby WainfIn mentioned A-12’s excessive structural weight in his lecture “7 Deadly Sins of Airplane Design.” See the lecture on www.YouTube.com.

I did specify the Northrop design. The MD/GD design was DOA.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The A-12 was supposed to be a direct A-6 replacement and penetrate at low altitudes like the A-6. If you have an aircraft which is to take advantage of LO, why the hell would you want to fly it down on the deck, does not make any sense.

Navy did not grok stealth tech at all.

 

[CV12Hornet]

What was the actual range/radius for the A-12? Either the requirement or estimated performance?

Most likely figure I've seen is 485mile (nm?) radius from USNI article, which is below Super Hornet or Tornado or F-35C. This seems reasonable to me:

• Low fuel fraction
• Operating L/D probably not that different to other fast jets (peak may be higher but low wing loading)
• Similar engines to fast jets but worse installation leads to similar/worse sfc

I've seen 800nm-radius figures thrown around, but I generally consider them to be of mediocre at best credibility.

Engineer Barnaby WainfIn mentioned A-12’s excessive structural weight in his lecture “7 Deadly Sins of Airplane Design.” See the lecture on www.YouTube.com.
Wainfain said that A-12 had so many holes in the bottom skin (landing gear, bomb bays, engine removal, etc. that there was no room for lateral spars. With no room for a straight (span-wise) front spar, structural engineers were forced to route all the outboard leading edge aero loads back to the rear spar, then across the airframe, then forward for the other leading edge. That long load path ended up too heavy, making it too fast for carrier approach speeds (IOW wing-loading too heavy).

Barnaby Wainfain has designed several unconventional plan forms, most noteably his “Facetmobile” single-seat, ultra-light that defies conventional description … er … sort of a faceted (aka. stealthy). Ery low aspect-ratio delta-wing. Wainfain is lecturing at the Experiment gal Aircraft Association’s big Airventure fly-in at Oshkosh, Wisconsin this week.

Well, I was referring to NATF there, but yes, weight growth was most definitely a problem with the A-12.

 

[Hydroman]

Navy did not grok stealth tech at all.

USN wanted LO just did not want to use it in the right way.

 

[Scott Kenny]

USN wanted LO just did not want to use it in the right way.

Exactly. They didn't know how it worked. At all. Hence the A-12 designed to be down in the weeds with engine exhausts under the wing, instead of on top.

 

[Archibald]

Best case for the Navy ? F-14D, A-6F, and ASTOVL for the Marines to replace the AV-8B. No NATF, no A-12, no Superbug, and (hell, NO !) no F-35.
A plane called CALF ? really ?

 

[Hydroman]

Exactly. They didn't know how it worked. At all. Hence the A-12 designed to be down in the weeds with engine exhausts under the wing, instead of on top.

And engine inlets on the bottom as well. Not a good idea to have a flying wing down on the deck, not designed for that. I would assume Northrop's Low Altitude Penetrator would have supersonic dash capability, design great for USAF (highly swept delta) but bad for USN, high landing speed and too big.

 

[BlackBat242]

A plane called CALF ? really ?

Common
Affordable
Lightweight
Fighter

 

[Archibald]

I know - it was just a lame joke... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calf_(animal) Interestingly enough, "calf" is "veau" in french. But "cet avion était un veau" - literally: that plane was a calf, that is it had sluggish controls and was underpowered.

 

[FighterJock]

Following the B-2 LAP, the USAF were supposed to have bought the A-12 as well as the B-2 but when the A-12 was cancelled I suspect that they were rather P***** off at that and went away and to develop their own equivalent design, only time will tell if anything else came of the design phase.

 

[GeorgeA]

Following the B-2 LAP, the USAF were supposed to have bought the A-12 as well as the B-2 but when the A-12 was cancelled I suspect that they were rather P***** off at that and went away and to develop their own equivalent design, only time will tell if anything else came of the design phase.

Wasn’t it the other way around? I thought Aldridge, then SecAF, agreed to buy the ATA as an F-111 replacement and suspend any parallel program, acknowledged or not, in return for the USN agreeing to buy the NATF.

 

[ST21]

I doubt that the A-12 would have survived long enough to enter service. That program was a trainwreck in slow motion. Even if Cheney had not cancelled it in January 1991, it would likely have been axed in another round of budget cuts, the worst of which were yet to come in the 1990s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I doubt that the A-12 would have survived long enough to enter service. That program was a trainwreck in slow motion. Even if Cheney had not cancelled it in January 1991, it would likely have been axed in another round of budget cuts, the worst of which were yet to come in the 1990s.

We're assuming that the Navy had an outbreak of common sense and went with the Northrop design instead of MDD.

 

[FighterJock]

We can but dream Scott Kenny. I like the Northrop design, it is way better than the MDD A-12.

 

[OldManJoe]

How would the ventral fins on the LAP affect radar cross section?

 

[FighterJock]

With the LAP ventral fins, not by much. I would assume that they would have been treated in RAM to keep them stealthy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With the LAP ventral fins, not by much. I would assume that they would have been treated in RAM to keep them stealthy.

And made from materials that are as close to radar transparent as possible to begin with.

 

[GruntFox]

The A-12 was supposed to be a direct A-6 replacement and penetrate at low altitudes like the A-6. If you have an aircraft which is to take advantage of LO, why the hell would you want to fly it down on the deck, does not make any sense. Our N/G/LTV mini B-2 design took advantage of the LO and would have attacked from medium to high altitudes ala B-2. The B-2 was re-designed for the on the deck mission and has never to my knowledge had penetrated and attacked on the deck (i.e. the Balkans, later middle east conflicts), all at high altitudes.

Near or supersonic, semi-LO on the deck, then accelerate to get the hell out of dodge, that makes some sense possibly. In the first gulf war, the Tornado's took some decent losses attacking on the deck by flying through all of the anti-aircraft gun flack. Don't think the A-12 would have fared very well if put into service but I could be wrong.

Largely because it became increasingly obvious that 'low' is a literal death sentence. Hence why Desert Storm and later whatever operation that happened in the former Yugoslavia had 'fight floors' instituted rather quickly (7k feet if I remember right).

The A-12 and all future aircraft must fly 'high and fast' anyway.

 

[Cancerman]

And engine inlets on the bottom as well. Not a good idea to have a flying wing down on the deck, not designed for that. I would assume Northrop's Low Altitude Penetrator would have supersonic dash capability, design great for USAF (highly swept delta) but bad for USN, high landing speed and too big.

View attachment 705088

This proposal never even made it to the wind tunnel. A paper proposal. There were many of these during this time span. Ideas were literally bounced around the room. Never even made it to the low speed tunnel, nor a tunnel model produced.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This proposal never even made it to the wind tunnel. A paper proposal. There were many of these during this time span. Ideas were literally bounced around the room. Never even made it to the low speed tunnel, nor a tunnel model produced.

Indeed - it was part of the earliest concept studies. The unofficial drawing makes it look a lot more worked out and detailed than it was.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Largely because it became increasingly obvious that 'low' is a literal death sentence. Hence why Desert Storm and later whatever operation that happened in the former Yugoslavia had 'fight floors' instituted rather quickly (7k feet if I remember right).

The A-12 and all future aircraft must fly 'high and fast' anyway.

Unfortunately, the Navy never grokked that. By the time those lessons were learned, the contract for a stealthy A-6 was already awarded.

 

[GruntFox]

Unfortunately, the Navy never grokked that. By the time those lessons were learned, the contract for a stealthy A-6 was already awarded.

God, you've got to love institutional inertia.

 

[Scott Kenny]

God, you've got to love institutional inertia.

Think you misspelled "loathe"

 

[GruntFox]

Think you misspelled "loathe"

I was being sarcastic.

 

[uk 75]

I brought this thread back as the absence of a long range strike aircraft on US aircraft carriers has become critical if they are to be effective against China or Russia.

The chaotic A12 programme and the early withdrawal of the A6 Intruder is now over thirty years ago. In that time the US Navy has moved from an all F18 to an all F35 combat aircraft force. This reminds me of the Royal Navy's plan to do the same with its stillborn Fighter/Attacker VG type.

A friend of mine was a a great fan of the A5 Vigilante and could not get over its demise as a nuclear strike aircraft. To him it made no sense to have Nimitz/Forrestal carriers relying on a US version of the Buccaneer.

A Northrop A12 would have been an awesome plane. It would now be in service not just with the USAF and USN but probably also the RAF and RAAF.

Imagine catapult equipped Big Lizzie with a squadron of A12s and a fighter like the Rafale.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I brought this thread back as the absence of a long range strike aircraft on US aircraft carriers has become critical if they are to be effective against China or Russia.

The chaotic A12 programme and the early withdrawal of the A6 Intruder is now over thirty years ago. In that time the US Navy has moved from an all F18 to an all F35 combat aircraft force. This reminds me of the Royal Navy's plan to do the same with its stillborn Fighter/Attacker VG type.

A friend of mine was a a great fan of the A5 Vigilante and could not get over its demise as a nuclear strike aircraft. To him it made no sense to have Nimitz/Forrestal carriers relying on a US version of the Buccaneer.

A Northrop A12 would have been an awesome plane. It would now be in service not just with the USAF and USN but probably also the RAF and RAAF.

Imagine catapult equipped Big Lizzie with a squadron of A12s and a fighter like the Rafale.

Honestly, had the Northrop A-12 been allowed to be exported, it may have allowed for UK carriers sooner. USN replacing A-6s, USAF and RAAF replacing F-111s, RAF and RN replacing Buccs.

Also, had the UK kept carriers in the 1980s (CAV01, not those poor excuses for carriers yall actually had), it's likely that the French would have stayed involved in Eurofighter, since the UK would have insisted on carrier compatibility.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Honestly, had the Northrop A-12 been allowed to be exported, it may have allowed for UK carriers sooner. USN replacing A-6s, USAF and RAAF replacing F-111s, RAF and RN replacing Buccs.

The UK wouldn't have got new carriers much earlier under any circumstances: they were planned as replacements for the INVINCIBLE class, so the absolute earliest is service entry in 2007 and 2010. That requires you to start design studies in the mid-1980s and invite tenders in 1989, which is pretty unlikely.

Also, had the UK kept carriers in the 1980s (CAV01, not those poor excuses for carriers yall actually had), it's likely that the French would have stayed involved in Eurofighter, since the UK would have insisted on carrier compatibility.

Arguable - the French were insisting on design leadership as well as carrier compatibility. In which case it's not the French being involved in Eurofighter, but the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain buying Rafale, with some industrial offsets if they're lucky.

 

[Christopher Wang]

1. The original customers, namely the USN and USMC (replacing the A-6), the RAF (replacing Tornado), and USAF (replacing F-111).

Perhaps the A-12 Avenger II could have found success within the USAF as a successor to the F-117A Nighthawk, maybe even flying alongside the more advanced F-117B or A/F-117X.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I brought this thread back as the absence of a long range strike aircraft on US aircraft carriers has become critical if they are to be effective against China or Russia.

The chaotic A12 programme and the early withdrawal of the A6 Intruder is now over thirty years ago. In that time the US Navy has moved from an all F18 to an all F35 combat aircraft force. This reminds me of the Royal Navy's plan to do the same with its stillborn Fighter/Attacker VG type.

A friend of mine was a a great fan of the A5 Vigilante and could not get over its demise as a nuclear strike aircraft. To him it made no sense to have Nimitz/Forrestal carriers relying on a US version of the Buccaneer.

A Northrop A12 would have been an awesome plane. It would now be in service not just with the USAF and USN but probably also the RAF and RAAF.

Imagine catapult equipped Big Lizzie with a squadron of A12s and a fighter like the Rafale.

I don't think the withdrawal of the A-6 Intruder could really be considered early. Unless the Navy had gone with one of the upgrades being offered like the A-6F, they were becoming increasingly dated. Maybe those A-6Es that had received some upgrades could have stuck around for a while longer, but it wouldn't matter much. The Navy doesn't have an all F-35 combat force either. The E/F Super Hornet is still their most common fighter and I believe they just agreed to the final production order which will keep production of those going until 2027. I suppose they could end up with an all F-35 force someday depending on how F/A-XX goes but I hope they can achieve something more capable than that. NAVAIR's past decisions definitely give people reason to not very optimistic though.

I said before in another thread, but considering some of the differences about the F-35C makes me think that they were doing what they could to make it into a "poor-man's A-12". They did indeed move away from low-level strike however, which is one of the things it seemed Northrop tried to convince them to do back in the ATA program. With the F-35C they probably got as much of an increase in the size of the wing as they possibly could without drastic changes, and that bought them an extra 1,500lb or so of fuel. They seemed fine to sacrifice some high-speed performance and agility for greater range and being able to loiter in an area longer. It also seems to me that they're a lot more interested in using them in air-to-surface roles than in air-to-air ones. I recall seeing some very early slides which envisioned the F-35C as having an internal gun like the F-35A, but the Navy seemed content with discarding that along the way.

The A/F-X program prior to the Navy being forced into the JSF seemed to include some designs with a lot of potential but it wasn't yet very far along, and the NAVAIR hadn't too-clearly defined what they were looking for in many respects. From what we know of the different designs being worked on, there was a great deal variation between what was on offer, so who knows what exactly the Navy would have ended up with? The idea that they'd somehow manage to repeat the disaster that was the A-12 program probably factored into the decision to do a CATOBAR JSF variant.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The UK wouldn't have got new carriers much earlier under any circumstances: they were planned as replacements for the INVINCIBLE class, so the absolute earliest is service entry in 2007 and 2010. That requires you to start design studies in the mid-1980s and invite tenders in 1989, which is pretty unlikely.

Fair enough.

Arguable - the French were insisting on design leadership as well as carrier compatibility. In which case it's not the French being involved in Eurofighter, but the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain buying Rafale, with some industrial offsets if they're lucky.

Would that be so terrible?