Really Top Secret Projects (Ben Rich remark to Jim Goodall)

[quellish]

There were a few references to a Northrop "fighter sized" stealth aircraft in the early 1980s in Aviation Week and other press. That is probably where the notion of a B-2 demonstrator AND the "TR-3" came from.

TACIT BLUE demonstrated more than the Northrop "curved" stealth philosophy. The later stages of the TACIT BLUE flight test program overlapped with the early ATB program. TACIT BLUE flight test was expanded to demonstrate/test specific things in support of the ATB program - like EW and defensive system avionics, as well as visual stealth.

 

[Cancerman]

There were a few references to a Northrop "fighter sized" stealth aircraft in the early 1980s in Aviation Week and other press. That is probably where the notion of a B-2 demonstrator AND the "TR-3" came from.

TACIT BLUE demonstrated more than the Northrop "curved" stealth philosophy. The later stages of the TACIT BLUE flight test program overlapped with the early ATB program. TACIT BLUE flight test was expanded to demonstrate/test specific things in support of the ATB program - like EW and defensive system avionics, as well as visual stealth.

Once the decision was made to put the radar on a different airframe with a big radome on top, BSAX became a test mule for antennas, etc. Mainly to test ideas on how to do things tech wise. Flush antenna and pop ups, Radomes, etc. Then the funding dried up. It's biggest thing besides proving the Northrop RCS design theory was the quad redundant fly by wire system and it's 1553 multiplex bus complex, giving the developers a huge head start in developing the FCS for the soon to be B-2 in the avionic integration lab..

 

[Dynoman]

I wonder if the confusion came from the competition for the ATB and Lockheed's development of a demonstrator vehicle, Senior Peg. Considering the competition between the two primes some may have assumed Northrop's Senior Ice was a demonstrator.

 

[edwest4]

Cancerman, I worked these programs as well and you are correct in your statements and info regarding B-2, ATA and ATF. I left NGC in the late -90's. I started NGC at ASD-Pico.

Man, you guys are just making me jealous. I would have loved to work at NGC ASD.

I started at ASD-Pico in '86 working to design and build the full-scale flight controls/hydro iron bird test rig (the FCHIL), my first project. By the late '90s when I left NGC, not much going on in the way of new programs, all B-2 went to Palmdale then eventually ASD-Pico closed and was demolished unfortunately.

You and I have crossed paths numerous times. I won't go into too much detail on a public forum, but here's a snapshot, and I won't go into too much detail as some of this I would imagine is still sensitive. In early 1981, I left the USAF, as a weapons system specialist. Main bird was the F111D at CAFB. I went to MD in Long Beach on DC9, MD80, KC10. Being a new hire, I was laid off during contract/union disputes. A friend suggested I go apply at Northrop. I was hired,went through security, since I still had my clearance active from the USAF, they snatched me up at 23 years old. I worked Wind tunnel instrumentation at the Tunnel complex at Aircraft division / Advanced projects. My first program was Tacit Blue which only a hand full of us were cleared for. ATB/B2 was next, along with other "Poverty programs/studies". ATF, and ATA, and some other things. When Pico started it's buildup I was drafted and made the move. When the design was mostly frozen, I was bumped back into my avionics background and took over the Lead tech role in the Avionics lab across the hall from the FCHIL lab. I also integrated the two, allowing the AIL to "Run" the FCHIL bird. I also ran at that time several other "labs" that I won't mention on the forum. Northrop had it's fingers in many areas at Pico. After the 21 bird cut, things were getting tight, the plan was to cut the Lab in two, part going to Palmdale, the other to OK. I was burnt out, and I was building Ultralights and experimental aircraft on the side as a hobby, so I took a voluntary layoff which gave me full benefits while I got my instructors ratings, and went into that field full time. I quickly moved out of CA and set up shop. Been a hell of a ride. I just retired after a 10 year bout with cancer. I'm still standing, just a bit wobbly.

This should be a lesson to the "Gosh, can you please, please tell ME the SECRETS because, you know, it's been a long time and I desperately want to know" crowd. I met two new hires in aerospace. One complained that it took 6 months to get his security clearance. "They interviewed my grade school teacher!" That's what security means. Yes, they can keep those secrets as long as they want.

 

[Sundog]

There were a few references to a Northrop "fighter sized" stealth aircraft in the early 1980s in Aviation Week and other press. That is probably where the notion of a B-2 demonstrator AND the "TR-3" came from.

TACIT BLUE demonstrated more than the Northrop "curved" stealth philosophy. The later stages of the TACIT BLUE flight test program overlapped with the early ATB program. TACIT BLUE flight test was expanded to demonstrate/test specific things in support of the ATB program - like EW and defensive system avionics, as well as visual stealth.

Was the LPI radar in the B-2 based of what was developed for TB, or was it a completely different system?

 

[bob225]

Digging back a while (1988) , the BBC and CBS did a great aviation series "Reaching for the Skies".

In episode 10 "the quest for speed" @ around 52:30 they discuss the future, i'm sure the voice is Ben Rich, and checking other interviews with him it sounds right, (but i could be wrong) his quote:

"We can go as far as mans imagination, we have the capabilities today that if you can think about it, we can do it. We have the materials, the know how, we have the capabilities today to fly mach 6, to fly mach 11, the question is can we afford it and do we need it? If you have answers to both those questions, I say yes we can do it."

34 years latter, nothing in the public domain, but it does make you wonder.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRLjPPsNvPs

 

[Cancerman]

The closest thing was a full scale mockup for the Navy ATA

Which amazingly enough has not only been saved but restored.

The mockup I was referring to was the NG version, which was scrapped per orders. The GD version, the "Dorrito", was saved as it was an engineering mockup" that proceeded much further towards production. The NG version would have looked great in the museum of flight in California.

 

[Orionblamblam]

There is no automatic declassification review, a fact which many enthusiasts forget. If something is marked SECRET, it will always remain that way until:

1. Someone decides to review its classification
2. A reviewer is found with the right security clearance and subject knowledge to actually review it
3. That reviewer determines that it can be declassified

Yes and no. Officially, unless the document deals with human intelligence sources or the design of nukes, *all* documents are automatically declassified no later than 50 years from their date, most by 25. This means if *you* have a 60 year old document, it ain't secret no more. But if you *want* that document and it's being held by the Feds, it'll still likely be a bureaucratic nightmare to get it, especially if it's marked "secret."

This is due to Executive Order 13526, signed December 29, 2009. I have the text printed out and nailed to my wall. Because, you know, reasons.

The following provisions shall apply to the onset of automatic declassification:
 
(1)   Classified records within an integral file block, as defined in this order, that are otherwise subject to automatic declassification under this section shall not be automatically declassified until December 31 of the year that is 25 years from the date of the most recent record within the file block.
(2)   After consultation with the Director of the National Declassification Center (the Center) established by section 3.7 of this order and before the records are subject to automatic declassification, an agency head or senior agency official may delay automatic declassification for up to five additional years for classified information contained in media that make a review for possible declassification exemptions more difficult or costly.

...
except when the information within the file series almost invariably identifies a confidential human source or a human intelligence source or key design concepts of weapons of mass destruction, a specific date or event for declassification of the information, not to exceed December 31 of the year that is 50 years from the date of origin of the records.

 

[sublight_]

But if you *want* that document and it's being held by the Feds, it'll still likely be a bureaucratic nightmare to get it, especially if it's marked "secret."

And this is where we need legislation to bridge the GAP. If you are a domestic author/researcher/academia, you should be allowed to hire a clearance authorized middle man to go on a fishing expedition for your favorite mystery gizmo in order to spring those files from classification prison.

 

[edwest4]

The closest thing was a full scale mockup for the Navy ATA

Which amazingly enough has not only been saved but restored.

The mockup I was referring to was the NG version, which was scrapped per orders. The GD version, the "Dorrito", was saved as it was an engineering mockup" that proceeded much further towards production. The NG version would have looked great in the museum of flight in California.

Glad to hear the GD version was saved.

 

[edwest4]

But if you *want* that document and it's being held by the Feds, it'll still likely be a bureaucratic nightmare to get it, especially if it's marked "secret."

And this is where we need legislation to bridge the GAP. If you are a domestic author/researcher/academia, you should be allowed to hire a clearance authorized middle man to go on a fishing expedition for your favorite mystery gizmo in order to spring those files from classification prison.

Has anyone here tried the Freedom of Information Act? Don't know the exact file name? "We have not found a file that is responsive to your request." If you're looking for a person and have the name. "We require a birth date to accurately search for a person."

NARA releases newly declassified documents every quarter. The problem is the Record Entry Title is very unspecific and bland.

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/ndc/release-list-q3-2022.pdf

Fortunately, they also release highlights on another page:

The National Declassification Center

NDC - "Releasing All We Can, Protecting What We Must" New Entries Released by the National Declassification Center Updated July 25, 2022 2022 Third Quarter Release List The National Declassification Center (NDC) is pleased to announce its first release of textual records since the beginning of...

www.archives.gov

 

[Hydroman]

The closest thing was a full scale mockup for the Navy ATA

Which amazingly enough has not only been saved but restored.

The mockup I was referring to was the NG version, which was scrapped per orders. The GD version, the "Dorrito", was saved as it was an engineering mockup" that proceeded much further towards production. The NG version would have looked great in the museum of flight in California.

I remember our NG ATA mockup well, across the hall from B-2 FCHIL, shame it had to be destroyed. At least the GD "Dorito" is preserved, always good to hold on to aerospace history.

 

[martinbayer]

The closest thing was a full scale mockup for the Navy ATA

Which amazingly enough has not only been saved but restored.

The mockup I was referring to was the NG version, which was scrapped per orders. The GD version, the "Dorrito", was saved as it was an engineering mockup" that proceeded much further towards production. The NG version would have looked great in the museum of flight in California.

I remember our NG ATA mockup well, across the hall from B-2 FCHIL, shame it had to be destroyed. At least the GD "Dorito" is preserved, always good to hold on to aerospace history.

Is there any remaining photographic evidence of the NG ATA mockup available?

 

[Cancerman]

The closest thing was a full scale mockup for the Navy ATA

Which amazingly enough has not only been saved but restored.

The mockup I was referring to was the NG version, which was scrapped per orders. The GD version, the "Dorrito", was saved as it was an engineering mockup" that proceeded much further towards production. The NG version would have looked great in the museum of flight in California.

I remember our NG ATA mockup well, across the hall from B-2 FCHIL, shame it had to be destroyed. At least the GD "Dorito" is preserved, always good to hold on to aerospace history.

Is there any remaining photographic evidence of the NG ATA mockup available?

Hydroman, you are 100 % correct on the location of the ATA mockup. I have never seen any photos of the ATA mockup, just the real item in the day. I worked on some of the wind tunnel models and it's instrumentation. We also did a follow on to it called Arrowhead. There are 3d renderings of that out there. Had the butterfly tail like the -23.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Yes and no. Officially, unless the document deals with human intelligence sources or the design of nukes, *all* documents are automatically declassified no later than 50 years from their date, most by 25. This means if *you* have a 60 year old document, it ain't secret no more. But if you *want* that document and it's being held by the Feds, it'll still likely be a bureaucratic nightmare to get it, especially if it's marked "secret."

That depends very much on the jurisdiction... places other than the US can be a lot less forthcoming. Also a lot more forthcoming, in some cases.

 

[edwest4]

The British have violated the 50 Year Rule. It's very naive to think that an arbitrary time period is set in stone.

 

[Hydroman]

The closest thing was a full scale mockup for the Navy ATA

Which amazingly enough has not only been saved but restored.

The mockup I was referring to was the NG version, which was scrapped per orders. The GD version, the "Dorrito", was saved as it was an engineering mockup" that proceeded much further towards production. The NG version would have looked great in the museum of flight in California.

I remember our NG ATA mockup well, across the hall from B-2 FCHIL, shame it had to be destroyed. At least the GD "Dorito" is preserved, always good to hold on to aerospace history.

Is there any remaining photographic evidence of the NG ATA mockup available?

Hydroman, you are 100 % correct on the location of the ATA mockup. I have never seen any photos of the ATA mockup, just the real item in the day. I worked on some of the wind tunnel models and it's instrumentation. We also did a follow on to it called Arrowhead. There are 3d renderings of that out there. Had the butterfly tail like the -23.

Wasn't that an offering fro AF-X? I think I did see a low speed wind tunnel model of that.

 

[Hydroman]

The closest thing was a full scale mockup for the Navy ATA

Which amazingly enough has not only been saved but restored.

The mockup I was referring to was the NG version, which was scrapped per orders. The GD version, the "Dorrito", was saved as it was an engineering mockup" that proceeded much further towards production. The NG version would have looked great in the museum of flight in California.

I remember our NG ATA mockup well, across the hall from B-2 FCHIL, shame it had to be destroyed. At least the GD "Dorito" is preserved, always good to hold on to aerospace history.

Is there any remaining photographic evidence of the NG ATA mockup available?

Hydroman, you are 100 % correct on the location of the ATA mockup. I have never seen any photos of the ATA mockup, just the real item in the day. I worked on some of the wind tunnel models and it's instrumentation. We also did a follow on to it called Arrowhead. There are 3d renderings of that out there. Had the butterfly tail like the -23.

Cancerman you know, a lot of NG programs like ATA as an example are kept very close to the vest, even now, not much other than Paul Metz's YF-23 book which of course I have a copy of or Tony Chong's. NG has always been very quietly "advanced" which is all I can say. Imagine a production and in service FB-23, that would have been very cool.

 

[CJGibson]

The British have violated the 50 Year Rule. It's very naive to think that an arbitrary time period is set in stone.

Used to be a flat 30 years, but seems to be quite random now, depending on the subject matter. Stuff about the royals eg Brenda's bailing out/not bailing out her middle son will be closed for at least 100 years if not longer. T'was always thus.

Some subjects are 'Withheld under section 4.3' which I encounter a lot. Usually because it's nuclear related (or has 'Top Secret - Atomic' stamped on the top and bottom) but again, I've seen these in archives.

As Ed Says, a fickle system. Mainly, I think, because the weeders missed stuff, such as the plan for Buccaneers to attack 25 de Mayo.

Chris

 

[Dynoman]

Was the mockup similar to the model and drawings seen from Northrop AF/X or were there significant changes (if available to say)?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Has anyone here tried the Freedom of Information Act?

Sure. Used to use it all the time, but it has become wonky and unreliable. For example: one of my more recent FOIA efforts was a request I made in 2018 for a USAF funded reusable launch system study from a few decades back. Just a week or so ago I finally got word: the US *Army* had received the request and had determined at last that they are not the agency to deal with, and that I get to start from scratch. Lightning fast speed, world class efficiency!

So you've got a government bureaucracy, now with extra Covid goodness.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Was the mockup similar to the model and drawings seen from Northrop AF/X or were there significant changes (if available to say)?

Mockup was AX (A-12). It looked different to this.

 

[edwest4]

Video with A-12 Avenger II

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhy-BVQb3ck

 

[quellish]

Was the mockup similar to the model and drawings seen from Northrop AF/X or were there significant changes (if available to say)?

This was the Northrop ATA.

 

[Cancerman]

Was the mockup similar to the model and drawings seen from Northrop AF/X or were there significant changes (if available to say)?

This was the "Performance" design, for AX/AXF. It was the start of a follow-up design to replace the F111 and fold for the Navy. It went through several irradiation s before the company moved on after the Customers showed little interest since there was no room in the budgets. We had some pretty cool designs floating around about then. The ATA was a pure wing, posted by quellish. The wind tunnel photo was at Northrop Aircraft's 7x10 low speed tunnel. I worked there for a couple of years.

 

[Hood]

The British have violated the 50 Year Rule. It's very naive to think that an arbitrary time period is set in stone.

Used to be a flat 30 years, but seems to be quite random now, depending on the subject matter. Stuff about the royals eg Brenda's bailing out/not bailing out her middle son will be closed for at least 100 years if not longer. T'was always thus.

Some subjects are 'Withheld under section 4.3' which I encounter a lot. Usually because it's nuclear related (or has 'Top Secret - Atomic' stamped on the top and bottom) but again, I've seen these in archives.

As Ed Says, a fickle system. Mainly, I think, because the weeders missed stuff, such as the plan for Buccaneers to attack 25 de Mayo.

Chris

I know a guy who used to be a weeder at Kew - mainly FO maps and materials like that. His job seemed interesting enough but not interesting enough for him not to jack it in and become a teacher instead.

Retention under Section 4.3 seems equally popular. A bunch of seem to indicate the Lord Chancellor's Office should have re-examined them back in 2018 but it doesn't appear that they have been.
Technical files (relating to combat systems etc.) connected with an in-service piece of kit it stay classified as long as the kit is in use (and presumably a bit after). Also there is another exception "Personal information where the applicant is a 3rd party" which seem to be closed for around 50-55 years on average (presumably to cover remaining life expectancy).

A weeder of course can only weed what they know to weed. Like any retention policy, there is always stuff that doesn't fit the tickbox and you hum-and-ah over it for a minute before either tossing it in the confidential waste bag or stuffing back on the shelf depending on which seems the least effort at the time...

Some files from as recent as 1997 seem to be coming on stream so 25 years seems to be a thing. I suspect within a few years they will get into the email years and files will drastically thin out, though doubtless some conservative computer-doubters continued to print copies of emails for many years however so all hope is not lost. (I speak from personal experience of finding piles of these in my workplace from even a decade ago before the old guard retired...)
Of course today government seems to work via Whatsapp so no traces left at all. Future historians won't have a clue what happened, just some printed out copies of once kinda-funny memes to piece together like a Roman mosaic.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I know a guy who used to be a weeder at Kew - mainly FO maps and materials like that. His job seemed interesting enough but not interesting enough for him not to jack it in and become a teacher instead.

Umm. Phrasing.

 

[CJGibson]

I know a guy who used to be a weeder at Kew - mainly FO maps and materials like that. His job seemed interesting enough but not interesting enough for him not to jack it in and become a teacher instead.

Umm. Phrasing.

OBB, it's not what you think. not like the term I mentioned the other week. It is a Britishism for quitting a job.

'Where's Jim?
'He's jacked it in.'
'Oh? Why?'
'Says the gaffer is a [insert the term you learned the other week]


Anyway, as Hood says, there will probably be a thinning once email kicks in. Be spending all day scrolling up and down a screen in Kew to discover that the tanker project really was a fiddle.

Chris

 

[Orionblamblam]

I know a guy who used to be a weeder at Kew - mainly FO maps and materials like that. His job seemed interesting enough but not interesting enough for him not to jack it in and become a teacher instead.

Umm. Phrasing.

OBB, it's not what you think. not like the term I mentioned the other week. It is a Britishism for quitting a job.

Well. I guess that's a marked improvement over other interpretations of someone jacking it into archival maps.

 

[edwest4]

This goes to show the problem with "convenience." [Insert illustration of spoon going into baby's mouth here.] If accuracy is desired then strict rules need to be followed. Fer cryin' out loud, if you want a quality book then do what needs to be done. And don't be fooled into thinking that people will suddenly 'forget' what that means as soon as the new app appears.

 

[Orionblamblam]

. Fer cryin' out loud, if you want a quality book then do what needs to be done.

Yes, and what's that? I want a quality book on the Orion program. In fact, I wrote and illustrated just such a book a decade or so ago. But it is incomplete; whole swathes of the program are black holes of redaction, and most of the people with direct knowledge of the issues can only be contacted via Ouija board, and the roaming charges on that are *insane.* What *needs* to be done is not only a raid on locked government vaults but access to a time machine, and neither of these are practical propositions.

Sometimes stuff is locked up tight or just plain lost. I know for a fact, since I saw 'em, there are design reports on Titan variant launch vehicles that would make space-project-fans flip their lids. But these files are locked up in an Iron Mountain facility in large file boxes marked "Joe Smith files box Number 12" or some such. Good luck.

Yes, yes, I know, the official position around here is, and I quote the moderation team, "If you can't offer constructive support then STFU." But reality is often not supportive.

 

[edwest4]

. Fer cryin' out loud, if you want a quality book then do what needs to be done.

Yes, and what's that? I want a quality book on the Orion program. In fact, I wrote and illustrated just such a book a decade or so ago. But it is incomplete; whole swathes of the program are black holes of redaction, and most of the people with direct knowledge of the issues can only be contacted via Ouija board, and the roaming charges on that are *insane.* What *needs* to be done is not only a raid on locked government vaults but access to a time machine, and neither of these are practical propositions.

Sometimes stuff is locked up tight or just plain lost. I know for a fact, since I saw 'em, there are design reports on Titan variant launch vehicles that would make space-project-fans flip their lids. But these files are locked up in an Iron Mountain facility in large file boxes marked "Joe Smith files box Number 12" or some such. Good luck.

Yes, yes, I know, the official position around here is, and I quote the moderation team, "If you can't offer constructive support then STFU." But reality is often not supportive.

Yes, yes. I have seen files related to World War II marked "Impersonal Files." I soon got the idea that 'they' did not want certain information to be found or to make it difficult to locate. Have you seen the bibliography in From Rainbow to Gusto? A bunch of "unpublished manuscript" references. Perhaps the unpublished authors had reason to fear their going public with 'sensitive' information so they decided to see if the author of that book could get away with it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yes, yes. I have seen files related to World War II marked "Impersonal Files." I soon got the idea that 'they' did not want certain information to be found or to make it difficult to locate. Have you seen the bibliography in From Rainbow to Gusto? A bunch of "unpublished manuscript" references. Perhaps the unpublished authors had reason to fear their going public with 'sensitive' information so they decided to see if the author of that book could get away with it.

Probably more likely... a lot of "unpublished manuscripts" are unpublished because they're just not worth publishing. Just because someone had what *they* think was an interesting life doesn't mean that it's interesting to others... or that it was well written enough to be interesting to others. And yet, a horribly dull self-hagiography might have information that's useful to a researcher.

A lot of people love to write. That doesn't meant they write well enough to be interesting to a publisher. And while Kelly Johnson or Ben Rich might be famous enough that even if they write terribly their name alone might be worth publishing, 3rd Banana Second Class Corky McCorkface, who once tightened a bolt on an SR-71 and overheard Johnson and Rich talk about the flying saucer they're reverse engineering, wouldn't be.

 

[edwest4]

My, my, the way your brain works. It would make for interesting reading. I work as a book editor and 99 out of every 100 manuscripts I see are not worth publishing. Your strange comment about my reference to From Rainbow to Gusto. The author of that book pulled references from those unpublished manuscripts for no particular reason? He did not think they were credible?

And especially today, Corky McCorkface can publish his own book and have it listed on Amazon. At the moment, book readers the world over are not looking for a needle in a haystack. They are looking for a needle in a haystack the size of all the world's oceans combined. So yeah, if he talked about a flying saucer he saw being built, you bet his book would be out there.

 

[Richard N]

I know a guy who used to be a weeder at Kew - mainly FO maps and materials like that. His job seemed interesting enough but not interesting enough for him not to jack it in and become a teacher instead.

Umm. Phrasing.

OBB, it's not what you think. not like the term I mentioned the other week. It is a Britishism for quitting a job.

'Where's Jim?
'He's jacked it in.'
'Oh? Why?'
'Says the gaffer is a [insert the term you learned the other week]


Anyway, as Hood says, there will probably be a thinning once email kicks in. Be spending all day scrolling up and down a screen in Kew to discover that the tanker project really was a fiddle.

Chris

In the Guardian, I've read about a politician named "Johnson" who is referred to as a "spaffer". Haven't heard that one in the states.

 

[CJGibson]

spaff

1. to waste money on something: 2. to ejaculate (= to produce a sudden flow of…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Might be time to get back to aeroplanes.

Chris

 

[Archibald]

spaff

1. to waste money on something: 2. to ejaculate (= to produce a sudden flow of…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Might be time to get back to aeroplanes.

Chris

Yeah, let's stop being jerks... off the mark.

 

[Orionblamblam]

My, my, the way your brain works. It would make for interesting reading. I work as a book editor and 99 out of every 100 manuscripts I see are not worth publishing. Your strange comment about my reference to From Rainbow to Gusto. The author of that book pulled references from those unpublished manuscripts for no particular reason? He did not think they were credible?

How can you be an editor with reading comprehension that bad? I made it quite clear that a garbage manuscript could have useful information in it. You yourself say that 99% of manuscripts aren't worth publishing. Is it because they are all full of stuff that's not credible? Or is it because they are badly written, dull, incoherent?

If someone worked on an amazing program and fills his autobiography with amazing details never before published, but it's the most badly written, boring, slepping-erorr filled monstrosity to ever slither across a literary agents desk, it's not worth publishing... but it may very well be worth *referencing.*

 

[Hydroman]

Was the mockup similar to the model and drawings seen from Northrop AF/X or were there significant changes (if available to say)?

This was the "Performance" design, for AX/AXF. It was the start of a follow-up design to replace the F111 and fold for the Navy. It went through several irradiation s before the company moved on after the Customers showed little interest since there was no room in the budgets. We had some pretty cool designs floating around about then. The ATA was a pure wing, posted by quellish. The wind tunnel photo was at Northrop Aircraft's 7x10 low speed tunnel. I worked there for a couple of years.

Correct me if I am wrong and as far as I know for ATA, we stayed with the side by side seating arrangement (because the USN wanted an LO A-6 replacement) at the time we bowed out and let GD/McAir have it. The USN also was jacking around with the spec too much as well. We had a very nice design. Plus I think GD/McAir low-balled their bid too.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Was the mockup similar to the model and drawings seen from Northrop AF/X or were there significant changes (if available to say)?

This was the "Performance" design, for AX/AXF. It was the start of a follow-up design to replace the F111 and fold for the Navy. It went through several irradiation s before the company moved on after the Customers showed little interest since there was no room in the budgets. We had some pretty cool designs floating around about then. The ATA was a pure wing, posted by quellish. The wind tunnel photo was at Northrop Aircraft's 7x10 low speed tunnel. I worked there for a couple of years.

Correct me if I am wrong and as far as I know for ATA, we stayed with the side by side seating arrangement (because the USN wanted an LO A-6 replacement) at the time we bowed out and let GD/McAir have it. The USN also was jacking around with the spec too much as well. We had a very nice design. Plus I think GD/McAir low-balled their bid too.

Northrop's cost estimates were grounded in experience and hence more realistic. The Navy didn't like them and went with the team with little relevant experience, promising to do it all cheaper. Northrop wouldn't match their price and didn't bid.

It didn't work out well for anyone except Northrop.

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”​