Biggest mistakes in aviation history? Which projects should have been built?

[sferrin]

An US proverb could be "there's always something to salvage (or to learn) from the failure of a program" (even a HUGE failure such as the XF-10F Jaguar helped Grumman building the Tomcat 15 years later )

Didn't know that G-38 Navahos had been used as target for the BOMARC (another awesome missile of this era!!).
I've found many infos on the Navaho at "prototypes.com", and they have pics of the G-38 production line, with many missiles on it...
This missile was flawed on its tactical concept (because of the ICBM) but certainly not on its basic concept (albeit it many problems when tested).

Is it certain there isn't some confusion here? AFAIK the Regulus II was used as a Bomarc target but this is the first time I've heard even a peep about Navaho ever having anything but failures.

 

[elmayerle]

*shrug* What info I have that way, I seem to remember, comes via someone with connection to NAA at the time. I can see Navahos being used as an extreme target for Bomarcs.

 

[Archibald]

Spent two hours yesterday evening writting history of SR-64 - the recon Navaho- ;D
I suppose the program went black after cancellation, which explain why we never heard of BOMARC tests against Navaho (which were due to fail, the target having speed and celing very similar to the BOMARC itself)

 

[Woody]

For all the problem that the United States has had with the V-22 / MV-22 Osprey program, I think that the likes of the Dornier Do-31 and Vought-Hiller-Ryan XC-142, with their development bugs ironed out and given a fair chance politically (including inter-service rivalry), would have made very effective assault transport aircraft to this day.

If you want a better idea than the V-22 ,Pioneer, (and lets face it, haemorrhoid's are a better idea than the V-22) what about the Bell Model D2127/X-22? It's always been one over my favourites. At last it could take off and, more importantly, land with the engines pointing forward. What is the plan for the MV if it jams in aeroplane mode? or didn't anyone think of that?

Helicopters are amazing pieces of gear but we've had loads of better ideas in the last 50 years, its a tragedy for all the drowned sailors too far from land for chopper to reach in time, that no ones got them into production. (How's the V-22 on winching?)
Cheers, Woody

 

[Jemiba]

As this thread has entered now the filed of VSTOL, I think it's time to mentione
another sad decision and a very recent decision, the cancellation of the X-50
Dragonfly program. So the development of a completely new method to combine
vertical take-off and landing with high forward speeds is at least delayed for
a lot of years.
(3-view from wikipedia)

 

[Woody]

I agree with you Anderman, the AH-56 was far better than AH-64
So was the S-67 Black Hawk which was the worlds record holder for speed and it could almost carry twice the weapons load of the AH-64.

I admit the Apache's damn ugly and wasn't too effective in the Balkans in the fog, and got shot down in Iraq a bit, but the Brits speak highly of it in Afghanistan: 'each one worth a squadron of tanks' or words to that effect Fight Global. (Why were they sitting marines on the wings when they had Lynxes? link below)

Wasn't the AH-56 a delicate (not so) little flower and hideously expensive and the S-67 a Sea king with go-faster bits? Why not put a tandem cockpit and a swivel chair on an EH-101 or a Chinook if speed and payload's all you're after. Now that's a gunship!, you could probably get a GAU-8 underneath as well. The EH-101 and Chinook are pretty fast for choppers and both quicker in climb and decent than that V-22 donkey (ha-ha).

My choice, for gunship should have been, would be the Bell AH-63 on asthetic grounds. I've always preferred tricycles to tail sitters or skids. It still looks better than the latest AH-1? that they can't get working.

Or how about the gunship Lynx that was planned in the 80s (sorry can't find an image)? The Lynx holds the pure helicopter speed record last I heard.

Cheers, Woody

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqpu4oGDQxE&mode=related&search=

 

[elmayerle]

I'd go for the YAH-63 only if you switch it to a four-bladed rotor. My understanding is that the two-bladed rotor was large enough and flexible enough to occassionally strike the canopy in manuevers and this is one reason Hughes won (granted, the source was a designer on the YAH-64 and might have a touch of predjudice, but Bell seems to have stuck with the two-bladed rotor rather long when a four- or more-bladed one would have worked better).

 

[Woody]

You dared me to do it. Well, no, you didn't really but I did it anyway. And now I have it doesn't actually look that crazy after all. Would probably make a better CSAR than the straight HH. Lets see Lockheed and Sikorsky's response. Enjoy.
Cheers Woody

 

[elmayerle]

Way back when (1960s), I remember seeing an artist's rendering of one AH-47 concept that had a small field gun mounted so that when it landed and dropped the ramp, the gun could be fired - something of a very mobile artillery piece. I wonder if it could be stressed to fire in flight?

 

[Sundog]

If you want a better idea than the V-22 ,Pioneer, (and lets face it, haemorrhoid's are a better idea than the V-22) what about the Bell Model D2127/X-22? It's always been one over my favourites. At last it could take off and, more importantly, land with the engines pointing forward. What is the plan for the MV if it jams in aeroplane mode? or didn't anyone think of that?

Helicopters are amazing pieces of gear but we've had loads of better ideas in the last 50 years, its a tragedy for all the drowned sailors too far from land for chopper to reach in time, that no ones got them into production. (How's the V-22 on winching?)
Cheers, Woody

My guess is they went for the V-22 over the X-22 due to higher efficiency. Remember, they weren't planning on development of the V-22 taking this long. I also would have liked to have seen how the X-19 would have fared if they could have gotten the rotors/propellors to remain attached

As for winching on the V-22, they had some trouble using the winch at the side door, so it's been moved to the aft ramp on production models.

 

[Hood]

The YC-14 and YC-15 also seem to be another example of what might have been to replace the C-130. Versatile as the Herk is these jet-powered transports would have just as adaptable and also much better performers. I guess they would have cost more to buy but they were sound designs thrown away when funds became tight.

 

[yasotay]

Having had an opportunity to talk with one of the designers of the YAH-63, the Army made the right decision with the YAH-64. The YAH-63 was seriously underpowered and had the maneuverability of a loaded CH-47. It was designed to go from a FARP to a battle position and lob missiles. It was however very well armored.

As to the point about the Apaches combat capability. It is true that at the beginning of the war the 11th Regiment flew into an ambush. It was a well planned effort by the Iraqi military (when the city lights blink, go out in the streets and shoot into the air). All but one Apache received damage, some very serious damage. However even with all of that damage all but one returned to base. Some had been hit by RPG rounds. I saw a briefing where the bottom of one of the Apaches had the bottom cut from under that transmission to half way back on the tailboom, like someone had taken a giant knife to it. Some had Hellfire missiles motors explode in the racks. As an Army Aviator I can tell you it is one tough bird. You may not know it but the helicopters in Iraq are getting shot at almost every day. They have been shot at by just about anything. Most people only hear about helicopters when they get shot down (as that is the only thing that turns a profit for the news organizations), but I will tell you that there is more action for the helos in Iraq and Afghanistan than makes it into the press. I have attached a picture of one of the encounters that did not make it into the press.

As to the V-22. It is relatively typical to be pessimistic about new technologies. Actually if you look at the development of the now loved CH-47, it was not well received in the early 60's when it was fielded. It was considered a death trap of the highest order, and some aviators took courts martial in lieu of having to learn to fly the death trap. It had a bad habit of having the dual transmissions getting out of sync and the rotors would mesh. Of course a helicopter without rotors does not fly or autorotate very well. Until the D model of the aircraft it was typical for the CH-47 ramp at the rear to be slick with leaking hydraulic fluid. You only worried when it stopped leaking cause that meant the rear hydraulic system was empty. I personally lived the 'lawn dart' phase of the UH-60 program when they could not figure out what was causing them to flip over and crash. I sat at Ft. Rucker for two months waiting to learn how to fly the Hawk while they figured out what was wrong. It did not inspire me I will tell you. So when I hear all of the hype about the V-22 I smile. So far the USMC has killed far fewer troopers making the V-22 work than the U.S. Army did making the CH-47 and UH-60 work. We shall see.

I mentioned elsewhere that the X-22 was a very successful VTOL concept. I agree that it has some very desirable traits and capabilities that are even more relevant today than when it was actually flying. Higher speeds than a classic helicopter that allows it to transit the more scarcely populated and larger battlefields, better radar protection (since the rotors are covered), better ballistic protection for the same reason as radar, more fuel efficient, better gust response in a hover and finally as more combat takes place in urban areas having protected rotors is a good thing when flying/landing in between buildings. Of course it has no auto-rotational capability at all. Still it wins my vote for the biggest mistake for not produced aircraft.

 

[Firefly 2]

Wow, thanks for the info Yasotay...
I will neverbadmouth the Apache again

 

[Woody]

Wow Yasotay, that's some serious stuff about the Apache. I remember reading in the initial competition the US Army required invulnerability to fire of 12.5 mm and below and to keep flying with 23 mm hits in critical regions. No one seamed to anticipate RPGs as a serous threat back then though. But to get home from a Hellfire explosion on the wing is amazing.

We seem to agree the X-22 was wasted, but I'm not sure how you'd fold away those ducted fans on ship (not that the V-22 folds down particularly small). In a power out do you think it could have glided? And since I found that pic, I've noticed it doesn't have a tail gate. Surely some mistake?

I know the CH-47, GAU-8 combination was a joke but the C-130 can be made into gunship why not? I would guess its got enough payload capacity to carry the gun and a fare bit of armour. (not really serious)

And Yasotay, since you're well informed about US Army aviation, do you know how an Osprey is supposed to land if its engines jam in the forward position in flight?

Cheers Woody

 

[dan_inbox]

[quote author=Woody]how an Osprey is supposed to land if its engines jam in the forward position in flight?[/quote]

Sure, it will land like a normal airplane. The blades will frag and no big deal...
That was foreseen in the design.

 

[elmayerle]

Wasn't the AH-56 a delicate (not so) little flower and hideously expensive and the S-67 a Sea king with go-faster bits?

Regarding the the S-67, it used Sea King engines and dynamic components, much as the Mi-24 uses the same items from the Mi-8/Mi-17 helicopters, as a means of speeding development and reducing logistical footprint while developing an entirely new fuselage et al. to suit the mission. One could argue that the S-67 concept was fairly directly equivalent to the Mi-24 since it did have provisions for transporting a squad.

I don't know that the AH-56 was that much more delicate nor expensive than any other all-new helicopter of the period, especially since it was working in somewhat unexplored territory in terms of tech and performance.

 

[yasotay]

Woody - You are right that the RPG as an anti-helo weapon was never considered in the design of any current aircraft. Frankly to be honest with you it may be a bit far to expect, with current technology, making an aircraft RPG tolerant. An RPG protected helicopter would make the the venerable Mi-24 flying tank look like a light-weight. The only way may be with some sort of ballistic survivability system like the ones that are now being considered for armored vehicles. Of course operating them at high speed in three dimensions will present some challenges.

On the X-22 it was a purpose designed experimental aircraft, built to demonstrate the concept (like the XV-15). Bell did however have a significant family of ducted fans that they had designed. There is a thread in the forum that if fact shows all of the designs that Bell did. Had they developed a ducted fan aircraft for naval operations they would have likely had to build the wings above the fuselage and turned them seventy or so degrees along the airframe. i do not know about the glide capability of a ducted fan aircraft, but those big fans windmilling in the breeze without a means to feather them would have made for some serious drag. Perhaps modern technology would allow for a military grade parachute like they put on some civil light aircraft, but that adds weight (the bane of all aircraft design).

As dan_inbox has mentioned the V-22 prop-rotors are designs to disintegrate if they engine nacelle cannot be moved out of airplane mode. Although I don't know if the aircrew will consider it to be no big deal.

On the AH-56, I believe that its demise was as much a political decision as much as technical challenge. to be sure the AH-56 was very progressive for its time with several novel rotor and weapon systems capabilities that were cutting edge at the time. Aerodynamically it had a problem with rotor flutter at high speed, but this was identified and was being remedied when the program was terminated. Another contributing factor, and I personally believe the true reason for its demise was the inter-service issues between the USAF and the US Army. The USAF felt that the AH-56 was impinging on their Title 10 (Constitutional responsibilities of the military) mission to do Close Air Support. The Army had gotten away with the Huey and Huey Cobra gunships because they were within the weight restrictions laid out in the Key West Agreement between the services in 1949. The AH-56 was considerably bigger and carried far more firepower than any Army aircraf tto date had carried. There was a very long and drawn out "discussion" behind closed doors in the Pentagon on roles and responsibilities and who got to do what. Ultimately the USAF trumped the Army through Congress and the program died. The aero problems were cited as the reason, but these were minor compared to issues with other aircraft being fielded at the time. A good thing that did come out of the demise of the AH-56 program. the USAF realized that they to demonstrate a means to do Close Air Support mission for ground troops. Thus was born the AX program, which led to the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog). The most loved aircraft of the ground troops.

 

[Woody]

Thanks Yasotay, a very convincing explanation. Re: the RGP issue and the AH-56 issue:- back in the 90s it was starting to be questioned whether helicopters or slower jets could survive over the modern battle field because of the more sophisticated SAM threat. No one considered RPGs but all the same they add to that argument. Though its got to be difficult to support house-to-house fighting with a supersonic fighter bomber (F/A-16 carried the 30 mm GAU-13/A Wiki) but likewise wouldn't an exotic craft like the Cheyenne be just as inappropriate? I remember reading it had more complicated wiring than a contemporary B-52! And how was its armour compared to the Apache? A faster A-10 type beast with VSTOL and agility in the hover would be my preferred amateur prescription (not quite the F-35).

And Dan_inbox, all I can say about the Osprey landing horizontally, given its reputation so far, is you first mate. ;D

To get the thread back on subject, how about the Grumman FAAV for a great should have been? (I really like fan-in-wings) If they'd used tip thrusters/roll posts to control it instead of venetian blinds and used shafts not gas to drive the fans it, would have answered all the above (maybe).

 

[yasotay]

At the risk of sounding cryptic... the fan in wing concept may not be as dead as we think. There is rumor it is being worked now.

 

[Woody]

At the risk of sounding cryptic... the fan in wing concept may not be as dead as we think. There is rumor it is being worked now.

Thats great news Yasotay. All hints gratefully received.

Gregory Flateric posted some cool stuff about Grumman fan-in wings the bottom of page 6, 'US VSTOL projects' thread. I'll hassel him to see if he know whether they're still breathing.

And I just did a search for fan-in-wings and got heaps. I know how I'm going to be wasting the next couple of hours!

I'd forgotten how cool close-support is, I spend so mush the thinking about stealth fighters.

Cheers, Woody

 

[thewanderingmind]

.....A good thing that did come out of the demise of the AH-56 program. the USAF realized that they to demonstrate a means to do Close Air Support mission for ground troops. Thus was born the AX program, which led to the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog). The most loved aircraft of the ground troops.

And since the Air Force just gotta have its go-fast machines, guess which aircraft is getting boneyarded just as quick as the generals can finagle it? The A-10 just doesn't meet the Air Force "deep interdiction" mission requirements, which is just another excuse for buying an expensive, fast, fancy-looking hotrod to drop bombs from 30,000 feet in the general direction of the enemy.

Down with the Key West Agreement! Bring back the Blitzfighter!

 

[yasotay]

LOL -

I think the A-10 is safe for a while. If for no other reason than to keep the Army from re-investigating the "Mudfighter / Blitzfighter" concepts. When Rutan built the ARES aircraft there was a lot of 'nervousness' in the USAF hall of the Pentagon...

In order to keep the thread on track, that is another Big mistake. The Rutan ARES was a fantastic concept that could have become a wonderful CAS platform.

 

[Firefly 2]

The ARES, fantasy of my youth

It was armed with a 25mm Gatling. Sublime design.

 

[Sundog]

One of OrionBlamBlam's APR's has a Sikorsky fan in wing concept for CAS that looks sort of like a fat delta wing when in conventional flight (It has one bis fan in the center). it's in one of the last two issues on highspeed rotorcraft (I can't recommend those two issues enough).

Also, Senior Citizen, the stealthy special forces transport is reportedly a fan in wing aircraft. There are drawings somewhere in these forums of a design that looks like a diamond flying wing with fans in the wings. Think B-2 in a diamond planform instead of it's "bat" platform. I usually check the UFO sites for clues on secret aircraft. Someone near Seattle reported seeing a diamond shaped "UFO" while they were hiking that was "very loud" or sounded like alot of jets that was diamond shaped. There have also been alot of reports of a diamond shaped "UFO" flying near the ground (low alt) out west. Whether or not that's it, I don't know, but it seems to match the drawings I've seen.

BTW Yasotay, that was great info on the Apcahe, thanks for sharing. I also think the X-22, or some variant, should have seen production and I think development of the X-19 should have continued as well.

 

[Woody]

RE: the fan-in-wing thing and the X-22. I found some nice images at:-

http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/x_planes/x_planes.html

(You guys probably know all about it but it was new to me.)

Here's an image showing detail of the X-22's fan and duct. I was surprised to learn that it only had 3 blades and they were possibly featherable. So maybe the bird could glide if it came to the crunch. I can't figure out the angle its taken from or where the wing has gone. You can see from the model image there's supposed to be one. I think it must be removed and sat on a rack but the fuselage next to it is really confusing me.

Also what the hell was the Hyper-3? I'd never heard of it.

There are many other great images there if you haven't already checked them out.

Cheer, Woody

 

[Firefly 2]

Hyper 3 was one of several bodyshapes studied in the 70's that were optimized for sustained hypersonic flight. Most were lifting bodies.

 

[Pioneer]

1/ Continue the Douglas A2D Skyshark, with its troublesome coupled-engine XT40 arrangement replaced by a Rolls Royce Dart turboprop arrangement.

2/ Re-designating the unrealistic ‘Tactical Fighter Experimental’ (TFX) program into two separate programs
designated as a true 'Tactical Strike Experimental’ (TSX), as an F-105 & B-66 replacement in USAF service and as an A-6 & A-5 replacement in USN service. Which would become the F-111A/B (But the Boeing Model 818, instead of the General Dynamics design!) and a true ‘Tactical Fighter Experimental’ (TFX) program to replace the F-4 Phantom II in the service of the USAF, USN and USMC?

More to follow over!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

3/ The Convair Model 200A should have been selected over the NA/Rockwell XFV-12, as being a simpler design, and put into service as in both its V/STOL (Model 200A) aboard the SCS and the CTOL (Model 201) as a Vought F-8 Crusader replacement, aboard smaller carriers.

4/ The USAF should have continued with the Douglas XC-132 transport aircraft

5/ Boeing should have been awarded the CX-HLS (C-5 Galaxy) contract, instead of the Lockheed design – which went on to prove to more troublesome.

6/ Letting Robert McNamara think he knew something about military affairs, his Knowledge of cars had no relevance to military equipment – although the US military did need to work harder and smarter.
‘The one of few decisions that Mc made that I agreed with was the USAF having to use the McDonnell Douglas F-4C Phantom II!

Robert McNamara should have stayed at Ford, or taken up golf!!!!

7/ The USN should have continued and fielded the Canadair CL-84 in the roles of AEW, ASW, COD

8/ The USAF should have continued with its AMST Competition, and choosing either the Boeing YC-14 or the McDonnell-Douglas YC-15 as a replacement for the venerable Lockheed C-130 Hercules.

More to follow over!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[elmayerle]

*chuckle* Pioneer, you might appreciate this quote that appears in David Halberstam's "The Reckoning", it's attributed to a high ranking Ford executive just after Kennedy picked McNamara for SecDef, "A great day for Ford, a rotten day for the country but a great day for Ford." He wasn't too well liked/respected there, either.

 

[Sundog]

The only thing I'll add about the TFX program is based on everything I have read the F-111 was an excellent strike aircraft. Where I would differ with Pioneer's assessment is that based on what I have read, the GD design actually was better than the Boeing design, although the Air Force chose Boeing twice. I think the Navy should have kept the F-111B as an A-3 replacement and an A-6 replacement and maybe they still should have had the A-7 for CAS for the Marines; e.g. just a bomb truck.

Of course, I say that mainly because it would have been cool to see swing wing F-111B "bombers" escorted by swing wing F-14A Tomcats. Hell, they probably should have just dumped the A-6 and A-7 and used a navalised A-10 for the bomb truck/CAS duties. Fold the wings at the wing break just outside of the main gear and they could have used the two seat all-weather version if that's what they needed. Just think what that cannon could do to small maritime vessels in a littoral conflict. OK, I had better stop, I'm starting to make sense.

I can see I'm going to have to repaint my Aerosft A-10 for MSFS in Navy colors now and start flying it off of CV's!

 

[sferrin]

The only thing I'll add about the TFX program is based on everything I have read the F-111 was an excellent strike aircraft. Where I would differ with Pioneer's assessment is that based on what I have read, the GD design actually was better than the Boeing design, although the Air Force chose Boeing twice. I think the Navy should have kept the F-111B as an A-3 replacement and an A-6 replacement and maybe they still should have had the A-7 for CAS for the Marines; e.g. just a bomb truck.

Of course, I say that mainly because it would have been cool to see swing wing F-111B "bombers" escorted by swing wing F-14A Tomcats.

Only down side to that is you'd have all your fighting aircraft powered by TF-30s

 

[lantinian]

I would like to add the Chance-Vought XF5U here

You only need to look at the specs to see that this aircraft was out of it time. Had the US Navy taken the project seriously and put it into production, the pacific campaign would have been much shorter.

The Idea behind this aircraft amazes me. How you eliminate the wing and make the airframe compact with no folding. The two propellers move the airflow over the aircraft even at zero speed creating lift.

The body has large volume, yet is very strong. This aircraft can house very large cannons or many machine guns in their ideal position.

The speed capabilities are phenomenal and due to its small size, I bet the maneuvering characteristics are just as impressive. Couple this to almost VTOL characteristics and you get the potential of the idea.

All in AL it reminds me of the propeller ancestor to the alien fighter in the movies "Independence day"
I also bet that this aircraft has many spinoffs in the black world responsible for the USA signings.


lantinian

 

[Archibald]

Yeah, but it's propulsion system was a nightmare... on the other hand, a pair of linear or radial engine (such as these Boeing 390 projects...)

 

[MIRAGE 4000]

The Mirage 4000 of course !

And the Mirage "Mach 4", the great French project for the high speed fighter (secret) program at the end of the 60. 2 Snecma M51 for Mach 4, higher than the Mig 25, faster than the SR 71.

or the SO 4060, the "French" Phantom II ....

 

[sferrin]

The Mirage 4000 of course !

And the Mirage "Mach 4", the great French project for the high speed fighter (secret) program at the end of the 60. 2 Snecma M51 for Mach 4, higher than the Mig 25, faster than the SR 71.

or the SO 4060, the "French" Phantom II ....

that wouldn't be in the same class as the Mach 5 F-106 would it?

 

[Pioneer]

Only down side to that is you'd have all your fighting aircraft powered by TF-30s

Point made my friend!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

The Mirage 4000 of course !

And the Mirage "Mach 4", the great French project for the high speed fighter (secret) program at the end of the 60. 2 Snecma M51 for Mach 4, higher than the Mig 25, faster than the SR 71.

or the SO 4060, the "French" Phantom II ....

Hmmm don't tell too much about this project, kept your infos for the June 2007 edition of Le Fana de l'aviation magazine ;D
THIS promise so much...
The SO-4060 could have been some aircraft, particularly with a load of R-530, and Atar 9K50 engines...

PS
About the TF-30, the french managed to obtain good results with this engine.
The SNECMA TF-306E of 1968 had 10 300 kgp thrust, and no compressor stall problems...

 

[sferrin]

The Mirage 4000 of course !

And the Mirage "Mach 4", the great French project for the high speed fighter (secret) program at the end of the 60. 2 Snecma M51 for Mach 4, higher than the Mig 25, faster than the SR 71.

or the SO 4060, the "French" Phantom II ....

Hmmm don't tell too much about this project, kept your infos for the June 2007 edition of Le Fana de l'aviation magazine ;D
THIS promise so much...
The SO-4060 could have been some aircraft, particularly with a load of R-530, and Atar 9K50 engines...

PS
About the TF-30, the french managed to obtain good results with this engine.
The SNECMA TF-306E of 1968 had 10 300 kgp thrust, and no compressor stall problems...

It's unlikely they were flying the Mirage G as hard as a Tomcat. Interesting thing about the TF-30 is that apparently they were working on versions all the way up to 30,000lbs of thrust.

 

[snurg]

A-12 even if you had to turn it over to Lockheed and Northrop to make it viable.

From some of the stories I've heard around Ft. Worth, just giving it to one company where things could be coordinated without an extra layer of bureaucracy would've helped. I understand the sharing aspects of the contract led to several gross inefficiencies in both design and management.

I've heard that the Northrop-Grumman (separate companies at that time) design was the preferred one, but they couldn't see how they could do what the Navy wanted for what Congress had authorized for the program, Hence, the Northrop-Grumman team "no-bid" the BAFO (Best And Final Offer) phase of the competition. From what I've heard from those involved at Northrop, their estimates of what it would run did track pretty closely with the EAC (Estimate At Completion) costs projected for the full A-12 program; these were released after the project was cancelled. As a result of the Northrop-Grumman team's decision, the chief designer for the program was told he'd never be allowed to work on another US Navy aircraft - he'd played a strong role in botht he F-14 and A-6 - because he told the bureaucracy what they didn't want to hear and refused to "bid in" to win the contract.

Yeah; in this case some of the bureaucrats wore uniforms and ignored the law. Read the "Five Billion Dollar Blunder".

You know, there are times when some bureaucrats need to be put up against the wall.

 

[elmayerle]

And one of those bureaucrats went on to become head of NASA for a while (no, not the current head).