A-12 Avenger Scenario(s)

[quellish]

Perhaps the A-12 Avenger II could have found success within the USAF as a successor to the F-117A Nighthawk,

Why replace something with the RCS of a ball bearing with something that has the RCS of wrecking ball?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Would that be so terrible?

For the aviation industries in the UK, Italy, Spain and Germany, yes.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Why replace something with the RCS of a ball bearing with something that has the RCS of wrecking ball?

The USAF was supposed to buy the A-12, but even had it come to fruition I can't see it happening.

 

[apparition13]

Why replace something with the RCS of a ball bearing with something that has the RCS of wrecking ball?

The Northrop design? Because that's been much of the discussion.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For the aviation industries in the UK, Italy, Spain and Germany, yes.

This was assuming that they got appropriate workshare and/or industrial offsets.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Perhaps the A-12 Avenger II could have found success within the USAF as a successor to the F-117A Nighthawk,

It was going to replace the F-111. The F-117 was going to be replaced by what became F-35.

This was probably just a general idea before the USAF realized the Navy didn't understand how RCS worked though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It was going to replace the F-111. The F-117 was going to be replaced by what became F-35.

This was probably just a general idea before the USAF realized the Navy didn't understand how RCS worked though.

Oh, the Navy knew how RCS worked, they just didn't understand how to manipulate it.

 

[Hydroman]

Oh, the Navy knew how RCS worked, they just didn't understand how to manipulate it.

You are correct SK, they knew RCS and how it worked but were stuck in the low altitude, down-on-deck mission rut since they wanted a direct A-6 replacement. Northrop always stated to the USN with our ATA during the proposal phase that you will have the advantage from medium to high altitudes plus a flying on the deck is not feasible, they didn't listen and behold, no airplane.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think the USAF was always lukewarm about the ATA, and once they learned the A-12 the Navy wanted was going to be optimized for low altitude they probably lost any interest they had. As far as I know the Air Force's buy-in was really just about ensuring the Navy would commit to NATF.

I'm not sure if it's technically correct to say low altitude penetration wasn't feasible. I think more accurate to say you simply lose most of the advantages of a VLO design down there. The sort of threats you face would be at such short ranges where the minimal radar signature doesn't make the huge difference it would in other conditions. Vehicles like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka or 2S6M Tunguska could probably still throw up a great deal of fire in the likely flight path without a clear lock. And despite features to to reduce IR signature I wouldn't want to be the one to bet my life to those if a dozen different models of IR guided SAM are being launched after you. In that context how much of an improvement would the A-12 be over something like the upgraded A-6F Intruder II?

 

[Cancerman]

You are correct SK, they knew RCS and how it worked but were stuck in the low altitude, down-on-deck mission rut since they wanted a direct A-6 replacement. Northrop always stated to the USN with our ATA during the proposal phase that you will have the advantage from medium to high altitudes plus a flying on the deck is not feasible, they didn't listen and behold, no airplane.

That and the fixed price contract. They also seemed scared of our design for some reason. They changed requirements almost daily.

 

[apparition13]

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:

I'm coming back to this because I finally found the numbers. A (or the, depending on the source) publicly stated reason by the navy was that the change in yearly production raised the per unit cost too high for them to afford the NATF. The original rate was 72 ATF and 48 NATF per year, or 120 airframes total - 12 per month. That got lowered to 48 ATF and 36 NATF, or 84 per year, 7 per month, which raised the unit flyaway price. The actual rate never exceeded 24 ATF per year.

 

[jsport]

That and the fixed price contract. They also seemed scared of our design for some reason. They changed requirements almost daily.

engineer on the project said requirements creep was unmanageable. The customer could not decide what they wanted. Sounded like Aquila RPV. someone on the program basically said the Army wanted a RPV so heavy it could barely launch.