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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

One thing the A-12 program did well was give us a good definition of a LO strike aircraft weapons bay size.

I expect that the main weapons bays of the F/A-XX are going to be the same size as the main bays of the A-12: 2 bays, each able to hold a GBU-15 and an AGM-84 (or AGM-88E). Plus a couple of AAMs in side bays.

If the USAF was smart, they'd make the NGAD bays about that big as well.

 

[Ainen]

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.

Well, not too unsensible for ca.1990 navy.

This was to be a long-range attack aircraft, with main roles set in naval warfare and deep penetration(inherited from A-6).

Major emerging threat- Soviet carriers and their AWACS(Soviet navy turning largely symmetric opponent by the year 2000), against which you can defend. They emit from downwards.

Against surface ships and rapidly evolving big SAMs (with their band mix and stupid power levels), stealth wasn't exactly the most promising bet.

 

[quellish]

One thing the A-12 program did well was give us a good definition of a LO strike aircraft weapons bay size.

There was absolutely nothing the A-12 program did well.

The Navy was trying to put a paint locker and a goat locker on an aircraft, and hiding the money along the way. Northrop and Grumman were wise to get out before they got sucked in further.

The weapons bay sizes killed the aircraft.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Against surface ships and rapidly evolving big SAMs (with their band mix and stupid power levels), stealth wasn't exactly the most promising bet.

I know that you guys built the Felon but that doesn't mean the Felon is the way forward...

Seriously, it's either VLO and subsonic, and LO for supersonic, or Mach 6 cruise. And I doubt a mini Lancer would be palatable.

 

[Ainen]

I know that you guys built the Felon but that doesn't mean the Felon is the way forward...

How is it related?

Like, felon can maaaaybe very roughly compared to F/A-XX (at least per expectations, which may or may not reflect reality) with caveat that comparing aircraft with 20 years in-between is tricky.
But A-12 was just an entirely different aircraft in every single part imaginable. One can say it's almost entirely opposite.

 

[yeetmahboi]

It's in the quote, man...

stealth wasn't exactly the most promising bet.

 

[Ainen]

It's in the quote, man...

Ah, i see. No, it wasn't meant #999th stealth rebuke. Only specific situation and logic.

For A-12 it means: from 1990 navy point of view, for a navy deep penetrating aircraft(with rather secondary a2a function - both as part of OaB and for self-defense) meant to operate in 2000s onwards, betting solely on platform stealth is unreasonable. Stealth protects from that it can defend against(AWACS, tactical fighters, shorads), together with LOS stealth. Strike against priority targets is done from stand-off. Bay is sized to fit in existing and future anti-ship cruise missiles.


For Su-57 stealth means: from 2001 VKS point of view, penetrating aircraft against NATO (tactical fighter force 20 times larger) in 2020s is unreasonable; it is a fighter first. Stealth protects aircraft against enemy aircraft against friendly fire in favourable circumstances(DEF-CA), preventing bluefor from achieving penetration of IADNs or over neutral waters. Penetrative strike from stand-off. Bay is sized to fit in cruise missiles, and those are part of platform.

 

[yeetmahboi]

betting solely on platform stealth is unreasonable. Stealth protects from that it can defend against(AWACS, tactical fighters, shorads), together with LOS stealth.

The USAF got F-117, refined their tactics and accurately grasp the growing obsolescence of low altitude attack. The Navy didn't.

Stealth is far more than just the platform. It is about tactics. Stealth aircrafts fly in ways that present their stealthiest angles. The higher the altitude, the bigger the gaps between the RCS spikes grow. That way they have much more allowance in how they can fly, etc.

 

[Ainen]

The USAF got F-117, refined their tactics and accurately grasp the growing obsolescence of low altitude attack. The Navy didn't.

F-117 (or F-35 for the matter) to bomb a Luyang-III with advanced altitude tactics?

Or get to attack Chengdu aircraft factories.

Or, say, get a shot at Murmansk boomers - standard A-6 mission profile, by the way.

Count me sceptical. Air force things are air force things(or, for the matter, navy light attack). A-12 had a different primary mission set.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Or, say, get a shot at Murmansk boomers - standard A-6 mission profile, by the way.

Predates stealth.

Feel free use F-117 (or F-35 for the matter) to bomb a Luyang-III with advanced altitude tactics

Using a LGB to kill ships has been USN tactics for like... forever.
JASSM is standoff, carried on external hardpoints and attack at range.

Or get to attack Chengdu aircraft factories.

A B-21 would do that with JDAMs or nukes. Or a B-52 force armed with LRSO. Munitions release at high altitude for both.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Air force things are air force things(or, for the matter, navy light attack). A-12 had a different primary mission set.

A-12 was a joint program. It would have replaced the F-111, a low altitude high speed bomber.

Nowadays the Beagle does that mission, bar the low alt part.

 

[Ainen]

Predates stealth.

Murmansk is still there. It was just an example anyway - a type of very heavily defended target of absolute strategic value.

Using a LGB to kill ships has been USN tactics for like... forever.

Bombing an intact air defense destroyer with LGBs seems to be a very USAF idea indeed.

Performing final search/identification of PLAN SAG while engaged by overhead CAP will add some pleasure.

JASSM is standoff, carried on external hardpoints and attack at range.

Which will work now, because this isn't Soviet Union anymore, and there's no denial zone anymore. Though this isn't "high altitude stealth".
But, if we add some complexity (distance) and...

A B-21 would do that with JDAMs or nukes. Or a B-52 force armed with LRSO. Munitions release at high altitude for both.

A-3/5/6(after it de facto replaced a-5)/12/ A/F-X were there precisely to do it without USAF strategic bombers. Carriers are meant to bring concentrated firepower closer, producing higher sortie bursts with more flexibility than otherwise possible.

Lack of them significantly cuts value of US carrier fleet, which is arguably still the single largest investment in modern military world. Can US with its current flat spending to relegate it to secondary roles?

Chengdu is also a notional type of target - very far inland, involves deep penetration even before LACM release.

A-12 was a joint program. It would have replaced the F-111, a low altitude high speed bomber.

Nowadays the Beagle does that mission, bar the low alt part.

In pen missions f-15e/ex does exactly a low altitude flight.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Murmansk is still there. It was just an example anyway - a type of very heavily defended target of absolute strategic value.

But the A-6 is no more.

Bombing an intact air defense destroyer with LGBs seems to be a very USAF idea indeed.

Performing final search/identification of PLAN SAG while engaged by overhead CAP will add some pleasure.

PLAN's SAG locked inside the 1IC? And, yeah, overhead CAP. All the more reason for altitude!

Chengdu is also a notional type of target - very far inland, involves deep penetration even before LACM release.

The USAF looked at deep penetration and various ways to accomplish that mission before. They arrived at a high altitude subsonic bomber.

In pen missions f-15e/ex does exactly a low altitude flight.

It's 2025. They serve as flying rails for standoff duties, augmenting the strikers armed with direct attack weapons, and carrying those themselves when the AIDS is smashed and everywhere is a free fire zone. And for that they fly up high where they can get the best energy state.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There was absolutely nothing the A-12 program did well.

The Navy was trying to put a paint locker and a goat locker on an aircraft, and hiding the money along the way. Northrop and Grumman were wise to get out before they got sucked in further.

The weapons bay sizes killed the aircraft.

If demanding that the bays be capable of holding 2x GBU-15s and 2x Harpoons or SLAMs or HARMs kills the aircraft, that says more about the engineers than it does about the requirements...

 

[Ainen]

But the A-6 is no more.

PLAN's SAG locked inside the 1IC? And, yeah, overhead CAP. All the more reason for altitude!

The USAF looked at deep penetration and various ways to accomplish that mission before. They arrived at a high altitude subsonic bomber.

It's 2025. They serve as flying rails for standoff duties, augmenting the strikers armed with direct attack weapons, and carrying those themselves when the AIDS is smashed and everywhere is a free fire zone. And for that they fly up high where they can get the best energy state.

Sorry in advance for common quote, inconvenient place!

(1)Yes, but for US navy it's a type of mission which directly determines value of its carriers. The further they can reach into "world island", the more value added they are. The deeper they can strike while still being safe, the more value they are. etc etc.

(2)altitude bombing attempt against AD SAG with CAP is called Formosa Turkey shot - or, more likely, it's called "pretending to do a mission". You can't win this fight this way against a peer opponent, air defense destroyers will win in 100% of rolls; you can claim to have sunk 999 their ships, though, you just had to retreat against superior numbers. Which is sensible air force way of thinking, it just doesn't work for naval warfare.
Naval strike aircraft used lower altitudes not because it's fun. They did it to have chances to execute the mission against (by design) superior opponent, even at cost.
Whole underlying logic is different - when air force logic is being applied to naval theaters, typically underperformance happens. Luftwaffe demonstrated it many times, wasting its superiority in everything, over and over again. Wrong degree of commitment, wrong basic underlying concepts under operational plans, (often) wrong target priority order.
Compare 1942 in Mediterranean/Barents Sea and in Indian Ocean/Pacific.

(3)And USN(as well as VKS, since you mentioned them) arrived to proxy weapon carrier with penetrating munition. It's just a more sensible, safer, if a less ambitious way(no need to mourn over something you're going to lose anyways).
Apart from that, USAF itself prefers to use JASSM/LRASM for most harmful missions.

"AIDS being smashed and everywhere is a free fire zone" is a rather optimistic concept, sort of Kantai Kessen done to a blind hyppo doing things we planned for him. I frankly don't know who gave USAF boldness to aim for it as a basic scenario.
USN and USMC went through WW2, however - they do have institutional memory of how things can go left.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A-12 was a joint program. It would have replaced the F-111, a low altitude high speed bomber.

Nowadays the Beagle does that mission, bar the low alt part.

The Navy promised to use the atf. The air force promised to use the ax. Both services had their fingers crossed behind their backs.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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?

The Navy would have to choose Northrop's design.

 

[yeetmahboi]

The Navy promised to use the atf. The air force promised to use the ax. Both services had their fingers crossed behind their backs.

The USAF was also really big on switching out their inventory of supersonic bombers for stealthy, subsonic one.
Sure, maybe USAF wouldn't have bite. They rather have that money goes toward more ATBs, maybe.

(1)Yes, but for US navy it's a type of mission which directly determines value of its carriers. The further they can reach into "world island", the more value added they are. The deeper they can strike while still being safe, the more value they are. etc etc.

Which all call for VLO, high altitude strikers.
The low alt attack profile was a knee jerk reaction towards how legacy supersonic strikers performed in Vietnam. They were designed before awareness of the lethality and effectiveness of SAMs when reinforced with a competent fighter fleet was widely known.
This is not only my position but also the USAF which evaluated a high speed B-2 that would've attacked low on the deck versus what we see today.
Now, which crafts are the premier strikers for the USN? F-35C, a high/medium altitude strike fighter. And before that, X-47B.

altitude bombing attempt against AD SAG with CAP is called Formosa Turkey shot - or, more likely, it's called "pretending to do a mission". You can't win this fight this way against a peer opponent, air defense destroyers will win in 100% of rolls

So you're proposing that the USN fly at sea level, on a silky flat background of rolling waves, against an opponent with carrier capable look down AWACS? What? Or just don't bomb at all? Which is what the USN IS doing; their spearhead against a SAG is the SSNs!

Whole underlying logic is different - when air force logic is being applied to naval theaters, typically underperformance happens. Luftwaffe demonstrated it many times, wasting its superiority in everything, over and over again. Wrong degree of commitment, wrong basic underlying concepts under operational plans, (often) wrong target priority order.

AF logic? Skipper was a Navy weapon.

(3)And USN(as well as VKS, since you mentioned them) arrived to proxy weapon carrier with penetrating munition. It's just a more sensible, safer, if a less ambitious way(no need to mourn over something you're going to lose anyways).
Apart from that, USAF itself prefers to use JASSM/LRASM for most harmful missions.

So the F-117 strikes on Iraq didn't happened? Nor Serbia?

"AIDS being smashed and everywhere is a free fire zone" is a rather optimistic concept, sort of Kantai Kessen done to a blind hyppo doing things we planned for him. I frankly don't know who gave USAF boldness to aim for it as a basic scenario.

ISIS insurgents have DShKs and a large reservoir of MANPADs at their disposal. That didn't stop unstealthy F-16s or Beagles loaded with ordnances from attacking them over the skies of what-the-heck-stan. Ok, HAVE GLASS does improve RO in the relevant aspects but that just further reinforce their usability after successful DEAD.

USN and USMC went through WW2, however - they do have institutional memory of how things can go left.

The USMC gave us Guadalcanal. I'm not even touching that in the slightest.

 

[Ainen]

Which all call for VLO, high altitude strikers.

Against peer fleet and air defenses? 1980s stealth wasn't seen as a sure bet against even 1980s teen series SAMs.
Also, 1990s USAF would've still 99% relied on low level pen/stand off against high threat adversaries. F-117 was small, silver bullet type fleet. B-2 was in the future, ATF was further still in the future, and anything later is completely 2000s and on. Even main weapon to replace low-level tactics(in safe world) - JDAM - was still far into the future.

This is not only my position but also the USAF which evaluated a high speed B-2 that would've attacked low on the deck versus what we see today.

The hardest opponent we see B-2 was used against is Serbia (supressed and unable to stop even teen fighters, stealth or not) and Yemen.
I am personally lik 95% sure no one will seriously use B-2 as it is for penetration missions into China or Russia nowadays. Even if it's still fully effective 20 years later(which is ?), it's a fleet of dozen aircraft. Count in availability, add on accident, lose a couple in combat, and reliable B-2 capability is lost.
B-21 is another thing; by late 2020s it's likely to be tried. Not because it's incredible (which it probably is, but it's a bit secondary), but because you can lose one(or 50) and it isn't the end of things. But still, we're yet to see if it's seriously to fly in with JDAMs, or something longer-ranged(replicators, CCAs and all the AI targeting).
Which was just not available for 1990s planning.

So you're proposing that the USN fly at sea level, on a silky flat background of rolling waves, against an opponent with carrier capable look down AWACS? What? Or just don't bomb at all? Which is what the USN IS doing; their spearhead against a SAG is the SSNs!

If it comes to CSG combat in 1990s - yes, that would have been the way (as the air force way would've been low altitude clusuters, too - stealth would've reached them in high numbers no later than ca.2000 anyways).
If in 2020s - stand in networked unmanned, launched from stand off. Yes, i don't believe in stand-in anti-ship against peep operational combatants. Maybe somewhat dated frigates(054a) can be quicksink-ed, but losing a bomber several times the cost of the frigate on such a mission will likely be cold shower.

SSNs are entirely different capability in their ability to cover battlespace(exchange information, etc). One SSN is one point. CSG is a footprint easily visible on a 1:26'000'000 map.

Also, it was totally doable to hide against 1990s Soviet AEW in low altitude clutter at reasonable ranges; Ukraine proves that many times(2010s Russian/international electronics, heavy A-50M > 1990s Soviet electronics, CATOBAR Yak-44 or Heli Ka-31).
It's still possible to do the same at extended (stand off launch) ranges against modern AEW (for aircraft and munitions respectively) - processing may have changed, but radars ultimately are restricted by physics underneath them.

AF logic? Skipper was a Navy weapon.

1980s one, with average Hi threat being 1970s AD combatant(in a world where majority of ships of most nations still didn't have SAMs at all, and could be reasonably sunk by ww-2 level attack). For ca. 1985 Soviet Union, neither long range escort nor VTOL capabilities are up yet. We're talking about hypothetical late 1990s/2000s platform(much higher than real Soviet Union ca. 1991), which is a very different threat. In some ways less, in many - more advanced, and far more numbers-heavy than modern(2025) Russia.
Or, since we're also comparing situation to nowadays, to late 2020s China. Long range escort is basic PLANAF skill set(very long one may come by 2030), carrier capability is already here, basic PLAN AD combatants are 2010s state-of-the-art ships.

So the F-117 strikes on Iraq didn't happened? Nor Serbia?

So did tomahawks and JASSMs. When US had to strike Damascus past Hmeimim defences with unknown ROE - only munitions flew in.

ISIS insurgents have DShKs and a large reservoir of MANPADs at their disposal.

(1)no, ISIS never had a large reservoir of MANPADs.
(2)By flying a bit higher you're absolutely safe from all of them.
Until Iran started speading 358 around(which is 2020s) in the region, even piston/turboprop drones were absolutely invulnerable. For obvious reasons, ISIS doesn't get Iranian weapons.

The USMC gave us Guadalcanal. I'm not even touching that in the slightest.

Exactly, as they lived through Wake. USN had to live through tragic and bloody 1941-42. US Army has an even longer history of experiencing setbacks.
It's USAF that was born only after WW2, and has to compensate with ridiculous swords and has this cavalier attitude of nothing ever going wrong.