US NAVY ATA (Advanced Tactical Aircraft) program: A-12 Avenger II & its rivals

allysonca said:
LOL.. no kidding! Let's see... I have an arrest warrant from the IRS, my Social Security is frozen, and I won the Publishers Clearing House.... I did think this a closed forum. LOL. Well hello everyone, and come visit or call to say hi!
Click to expand...
You forgot your computer has also been contacting Microsoft....
 
Hydroman said:
allysonca said:
LOL.. no kidding! Let's see... I have an arrest warrant from the IRS, my Social Security is frozen, and I won the Publishers Clearing House.... I did think this a closed forum. LOL. Well hello everyone, and come visit or call to say hi!
Click to expand...
You forgot your computer has also been contacting Microsoft....
Click to expand...
I'm on a MAC... but I have a virus and need to call some dude in India..... LOL
 
Okay, I know where I'm going next Saturday for an early Father's Day celebration (museum isn't open on Sundays).
 
LEG said:
If it was real, it looked, in it's final configuration, nothing like a Flying Wing and much more like a Modified Delta, similar to the X-47B.
The A-12, as it was finally configured had a nose job that was described as a 'bra' which greatly modified the forward quarter RCS values of the inlets which were a known cavity reflector weakness in the design.
Click to expand...

Are there any drawings of this "final" design?
 
BAROBA said:
LEG said:
If it was real, it looked, in it's final configuration, nothing like a Flying Wing and much more like a Modified Delta, similar to the X-47B.
The A-12, as it was finally configured had a nose job that was described as a 'bra' which greatly modified the forward quarter RCS values of the inlets which were a known cavity reflector weakness in the design.
Click to expand...

Are there any drawings of this "final" design?
Click to expand...


Though often labeled as 'Northrop' in origin, it clear is not. As the A-11 was essentially a minime B-2 with a W wing.

The first time I saw it was actually as a cufflink type pin. I was told it represented a covert signal among members of a minor rebellion in the Navair community that was trying to Phoenix the A-12 up from the ashes as the A/X in the immediate aftermath of cancellation.

You get fed a whole lot of targeted disinformation in the defense world as a kind of misleading propaganda, designed to feed both conspiracy theorists (DOD is so incredibly inept/corrupt etc.) and enemy techint monitors among other things.

It had 'never in our wildest imaginings' (fake, false, never intended to reach flight hardware, as a naval bomber...) been believed that the A-12 would be cancelled. Sternly lectured, individuals censured or even jailed, but not dumped like yesterday's garbage. This was the story I was told. So of course, as a contrarian, I automatically assumed they were lying and simply got out the big book of fact checking as a protractor to determine how many degrees out of true.

Though, in some ways, it does make sense because of course, in the Reagan era, they sponsored such things as the DIVAD and AMRAAM and Maverick D through a literal DECADE of false promises field testing and back to the lab failure on systems whose absence would have literally changed the course of any hotwar in Europe at a time when Russia (lost in the weeds of Afghanistan) 'really was' Enemy #1.

And prepping to fight in Europe should have been the laser focus for everyone while the Window Of Vulnerability persisted. Which principally means slinging powered smart weapons from outside the target terminal area defenses, in all weathers, not chasing high tech as a post-1990 fantasy, at best (remember Lehman's doubts).

With this in mind, just as with ATA, A/X had a 'fast' and 'slow' approach.

With the latter supposedly intended to capture as much of the development work which went into the original A-12 as possible while removing excessive spec chasing requirements like the outer self defense bays and the absolute payload threshold of X16 Mk.82 which required two main weapons bays, each roughly 90% of the size of that on the F-22.

Couple this to a GEF414 level unreheated engine core able to push a realistically 58-62,000lb (F-14 level) airframe and you have the beginnings of a much tighter overall design. Even as the extended nose likely improved induced drag by resetting the level flight AOA and gave a slightly less close coupled control factor between LE and TE surfaces (never did understand the idea of slats on a VLO...) during power-on approach.

If you look at the A-12 clear model, it becomes obvious that the serpentine just isn't that well developed on the original F404 installation and again, extending the trunking would allow for a bit more fold around the cockpit tub assembly and possibly less flash-back from reprofiling the angled inlet corners.

The ability to rapidly make these kinds of major LO design modifications, on the fly is was why Lockheed ended up on so many A/X transitional teams and then leading A/FX, as they had the pedigree of making ATF work within a tripartite teaming arrangement that got the job done.

Unfortunately, the USN, failing to realize that the post-ODS 90s was to be a time of Congressional tear down of all that had been built by Reagan, via the BUR and BRAC, force restructuring, just got sideswiped.

To the point that their fallback was the F/A-18E/F.

Their being in the doghouse of tacair failure was just a convenient way to bring the clippers a lot closer to the skin because they still had BGM-109. How the squids actually thought they could simply restart the ATA program under a new name/same shape and get back on track in this environment is anybody's guess.

In the commercial sector, this would be deemed a toxic condition of 'extreme market sensitivity' to a failed product line and avoided at all costs.

Certainly The Flying Wing was a no-go as an attack bomber, though it likely did fly in other colors-

wordlesstech.com

The mysterious unidentified Flying Object over Kansas | WordlessTech

A new photo of the mysterious unidentified flying object in Texas, flying over Wichita, Kansas by Jeff Templin, clearly saws a triangular-shaped wing plane
wordlesstech.com wordlesstech.com

As Congress /supposedly/ finally put their foot down on blind alley SAR-U programs and thus the eventual A/FX became a reversion to the 'Fast' ATA mode as VG, as a subsonic change to the NATF profile.



You could say that the USN finally realized what a pickle they were in, having cancelled A-6F and G and even the F-14D reman to buy-in on the A-12, now finally understanding the bigger picture of going into the 90s with a 1960s era (and badly aging) heavy fighter/attack fleet while potentially being asked to fight, in SWA, across radii twice the size of Europe or Korea.

Well beyond safe support mission rollback of threats.

And, like the blind man finally seeing as he opens his eyes to a drowning in sharks condition, they flailed out to grab the best of both worlds solution within in easiest reach. Which was a stubby, subsonic, PW7000 engined, ATF with VG.

It still wasn't enough. As everything was Jointness (have a toke) driven and we began plodding down the road to Fat Amy. Irony of ironies: where the A-12 was clearly the result of designing to an absolute signature threshold parameter without thought towards boarding; the JSF would put 90% of engineering effort into a non-common set of basing mode as 1% of the sortie evolution. While ignoring the entirety of the up and away KPP combat requirements as far as kinematics, weapons load and all aspect VLO.

Reach for pie the sky, end up sucking sewage in the gutter.

And so we now have an I-Pod fighter designed to exploit information as an ISR hubnode under conditions where a smart stealth asset conservatism would be didimau'ing out of Dodge rather than loitering to vacuum the battlespace as a veritable lighthouse of MADL emissions where everyone will be pointing hunting fast set-on receivers at it and attempting to inject viruses into it's network.

I miss the 80s. Better a fantasy of how stealth could be usefully employed to help build a better bomb truck than the madness of uncompartmented data trading 'to help penetrate the JASSM', as today.
 
Was A/F-X going to eventually have a supersonic speed requirement though? The evolution of the Lockheed-team VG proposal definitely seemed to be heading in that direction even though it would have remained optimized for subsonic flight. That speed would definately have its use for the secondary "fighter" mission that had gained more importance.
 
Thanks LEG for the picture.
Exhausts on top?
Impossible to see, but I think the intakes would be different too..
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Howedar said:
It should be said that, as envisioned, the A-12 would be a dreadfully poor bomb truck. Remember, the intended warload was always something like a F-117 with a pair of AMRAAM. I doubt that (imaginary, as far as I know) external pylons would be very successful given the serious CG margin issues with a tailless design.
Click to expand...

Uninformed Intuition: 0, Facts: 1

The A-12A and the ATA specification had an extensive bomb truck capability. Each of the two main bomb bays could carry eight Mk 82 500 lb bomber or five Mk 83 1,000 lb bombs or two Mk 84 2,000 lb bombs. That’s a dumb bomb capability of 8,000-10,000 lbs all carried without any drag penalty. The Close Air Support (CAS) mission in the A-12A detail specification was for a mission range of 560 NM with 16 Mk 82 Snakeye 500 lb bombs (9,008 lbs) plus two air to air missiles (1,000 lbs).
Click to expand...
Where is the source for this? Because everything else says that its payload was 2 aim-120, 2 harms, and two strike (2,000 pounds presumably) with a payload capacity of only a little over 5,000. So if its not that i would be really curious were I could find that.
 
(Never used this side before so forgive any mistakes)
My great Aunt showed me a picture she had of her time working for the Navy, working on the A-12 Avenger project and a little information on the back about it, while it may not be ground breaking information, I find it neat nonetheless.
A5BE25E4-C36C-467E-BA55-060F90DA3B4A.jpg

4CA825C8-7BE7-414F-BA98-0894E8A3B468.jpg
 
Triton said:
General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas ATA (A-12A Avenger II)

Dimensions external
Wing span: 21.42 m (70 ft 3.25 in)
Width, wings folded: 11.05 m (36 ft 3.25 in)
Length overall: 11.35 m (37 ft 3 in)
Height overall: 3.44 m (11 ft 3.75 in)
Height wings folded: 3.82 m (12 ft 6.25 in)
Wheel track (outer rims): 6.71 m (22 ft 0 in)
Wheelbase: 5.85 m (19 ft 2.25 in)

Weights and Loadings
Internal weapon load (24 Mk 82 bombs and four AIM-120 AMRAAM) approx 6,123 kg (13,500 lb)
Design max Take-Off weight: 36,287 kg (80,000 lb)

Text source: Lambert, Mark ed. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1992-1993 Jane's Information Group Ltd. 1992 p. 282.
Click to expand...
Interesting, was jane still a good source then, because that payload gose against all the other sources I've seen.
 
Cjc said:
Triton said:
General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas ATA (A-12A Avenger II)

Dimensions external
Wing span: 21.42 m (70 ft 3.25 in)
Width, wings folded: 11.05 m (36 ft 3.25 in)
Length overall: 11.35 m (37 ft 3 in)
Height overall: 3.44 m (11 ft 3.75 in)
Height wings folded: 3.82 m (12 ft 6.25 in)
Wheel track (outer rims): 6.71 m (22 ft 0 in)
Wheelbase: 5.85 m (19 ft 2.25 in)

Weights and Loadings
Internal weapon load (24 Mk 82 bombs and four AIM-120 AMRAAM) approx 6,123 kg (13,500 lb)
Design max Take-Off weight: 36,287 kg (80,000 lb)

Text source: Lambert, Mark ed. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1992-1993 Jane's Information Group Ltd. 1992 p. 282.
Click to expand...
Interesting, was jane still a good source then, because that payload gose against all the other sources I've seen.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure its wrong. It might be max internal + external payload perhaps? 24 Mk 82 and 4 AIM-120 wouldn't fit inside.

Best info is in $5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding.

4 weapons bays.

Air/Air bays : 1 x AIM-120 or AIM-9 each bay (Maximum: 335 lb)
Air/Surface bays: 2 x 2,000lb Mk 84 or 5 x 1,000 lb Mk 83 or 8 500lb Mk 82 bombs (Maximum 4,000- 5,000lb)
Maximum internal payload: 10,670lb
 

Attachments

  • A-12 Load.jpg
    A-12 Load.jpg
    104.2 KB · Views: 546
Last edited:
Mission Loads (from A-12 specifications)

Strike mission

• 2 TASSM (4,500 lbs)
• 2 air-to-air missiles (up to 1,000 lbs)

Anti-ship mission

• 2 HARM 1,600 lbs.
• 2 Harpoon 2,320 lbs.
• 2 air-to-air missiles (up to 1,000 lbs)

Close air Support

• 16 MK-82 Snakeye (563 lbs. ea.) 9,008 lbs.
• 2 air-to-air missiles (up to 1,000 lbs)

Tanker

• 2 air-to-air missiles (up to 1,000 lbs)
• 2 external tanks (400 gal. ea .) 530 lbs tanks + 13,750 lbs. of fuel
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Cjc said:
Triton said:
General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas ATA (A-12A Avenger II)

Dimensions external
Wing span: 21.42 m (70 ft 3.25 in)
Width, wings folded: 11.05 m (36 ft 3.25 in)
Length overall: 11.35 m (37 ft 3 in)
Height overall: 3.44 m (11 ft 3.75 in)
Height wings folded: 3.82 m (12 ft 6.25 in)
Wheel track (outer rims): 6.71 m (22 ft 0 in)
Wheelbase: 5.85 m (19 ft 2.25 in)

Weights and Loadings
Internal weapon load (24 Mk 82 bombs and four AIM-120 AMRAAM) approx 6,123 kg (13,500 lb)
Design max Take-Off weight: 36,287 kg (80,000 lb)

Text source: Lambert, Mark ed. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1992-1993 Jane's Information Group Ltd. 1992 p. 282.
Click to expand...
Interesting, was jane still a good source then, because that payload gose against all the other sources I've seen.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure its wrong. It might be max internal + external payload perhaps? 24 Mk 82 and 4 AIM-120 wouldn't fit inside.

Best info is in $5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding.

4 weapons bays.

Air/Air bays : 1 x AIM-120 or AIM-9 each bay (Maximum: 335 lb)
Air/Surface bays: 2 x 2,000lb Mk 84 or 5 x 1,000 lb Mk 83 or 8 500lb Mk 82 bombs (Maximum 4,000- 5,000lb)
Maximum internal payload: 10,670lb
Click to expand...
Thats interesting, I wonder if someone somewhere got confused with the payload of one bay with the payload of the intier aircraft. Because all the websites claimed its payload is 5,160 lbs.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
5150lb is probably the standard load rather than maximum.
Click to expand...
Possible but nobody actually uses that for online publication, they only use maximum unless its a really detailed look, like on this site. They could get maximum wrong but I'm struggling to think of a single website that uses standard over max.
 
Cjc said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
5150lb is probably the standard load rather than maximum.
Click to expand...
Possible but nobody actually uses that for online publication, they only use maximum unless its a really detailed look, like on this site. They could get maximum wrong but I'm struggling to think of a single website that uses standard over max.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia, or just about every creditable aviation site that offers detailed descriptions of modern era aircraft. Don't get me wrong, I am not putting Wikipedia in the absolute credible category, but nevertheless they more than not differentiate between design max load, and max mission load (well I should say the many authors).
 
Sundog said:
The full scale Mock-Up, I think, is in a museum in Texas.

Also, if anyone has the book, Billion Dollar Blunder, their is a pic of the model of the Northrop design for the ATA program. It looks like a smaller version of the B-2 (The planform is more like the original B-2 layout, with a smaller aspect ratio) and the wingtips would bend up vertically for greater stability when the gear was extended.

I would love to 3D model this plane, but it has so many subtle curves, without good cross section drawings it would be about impossible to get it right.

BTW, Overscan, that first "official" model for GD-McDD that has the cockpit modeled, is there any chance you can get a pic of the lower back exhaust area? I'm just curious if what is on that model is what is also shown on the full scale mock-up, because it's always been my understanding that it is still classified.

Also, an interesting side note, the Air Force version was to have the exhaust above the wing, not below. If you recall the Navy was supposed to get a version of the ATF and the Air Force a version of the ATA. The Air Force told the Navy that with stealth they wouldn't need to penetrate below the RADAR OTD the way A-6's did, so they could put the exhaust on the top so it was shielded from below. But the Navy felt they needed to perform low level penetration so they kept them on the bottom to shield them from above. At least that's what was said. I think it actually had more to do with the exhaust sytem.

In one of my old AIAA Aerospace America magazines they had a CFD image of a "Delta Shaped Flying Wing" that looked remarkably like the A-12 in planform and in the CFD pic, the exhaust (Also in the same location as on the A-12) is shown vectored down and forward about 30 degrees and slightly angled out from centerline, hitting the ground/deck and bouncing back up under the wing as if to act as a "thrust cushion." I've often wondered if that was a feature the A-12 had to reduce the impact forces at landing and was why the noxzze(s) were classified.
Click to expand...
The Book you are referring to is "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" by James P. Stevenson. Originally published by the Naval Institute Press. There is one copy for sale on Amazon for $238.97.
 
DAWingert said:
The Book you are referring to is "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" by James P. Stevenson. Originally published by the Naval Institute Press. There is one copy for sale on Amazon for $238.97.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I have it, I just wasn't going to run downstairs to look up it's exact name when I posted. But thanks, for anyone who would be interested in it. I don't think it's worth that price, though. At least not to me anyway.
 
Hi everyone,

I am just wondering about the A-12 Avenger's rear view stealth, straight line with perpendicular exhaust cut out and flight surfaces.
Don't they all go against Stealth principles, as we see in all other later and even contemporary stealth projects, with saw tooth patterns everywhere?
Can anyone shed some light into this?
was Avenger's rear view stealth a big compromise?
I suppose the realities of landing on a carrier might have made cutting a long tail section attractive, but still wondering if this
was a trade off, how much LO compromise this would have resulted in?
 
  1. Knowledge from other Stealth aircraft was not transferred to the A-12. Planform alignment principle wasn't revealed publicly until B-2 reveal.
  2. US Navy never quite trusted in Stealth alone and intended to combine it with low level attack and ECM. Most likely the RCS target was lower than USAF programs and concentrated on forward sector RCS.
  3. Northrop's A-12 design looked like a fat mini B-2, but Northrop refused to submit a final bid as they thought the cost target unachievable. GD 'won' by default.
 
I found my 5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding book and read it again, aye, aye, aye. In a nutshell, the USN appropriated the funding without congressional approval, only wanted to pay roughly $4.8B for FSD with 8 flight test birds, the USN directed the teaming arrangements, GD was the lead (no good) over McAir, GD/McAir with no LO and very little composite experience, Northrop/Grumman/LTV told the USN to basically pound sand to a fixed-price, high risk program which also had many scope changes. And in the end, the USN admitted the N/G/LTV team would have given them an airplane. Also, GD/McAir disregarded Skunk Works tailpipe design so Ben Rich told them to pound sand too.
 
Most of all I like part on attempts to reach Lockheed for help and force Northrop to share LO tech through DoD.
 
Yes flateric, USN wanted Lockheed and Northrop LO tech which was primarily developed by both companies throughout decades of proprietary R&D, everyone else got left behind. Also, during the subsequent AX and AF/X programs, I know the DOD wanted Northrop to try and salvage the GD/McAir design in some other form but in the end the USN got F/A-18EF.
 
Sometime before Dick Cheney killed the program, I remember the day in Fort Worth when the entire aerodynamics department visited the full-scale A-12 mock up in its lair!
After only being around the much smaller wind tunnel test models, it was awesome to see the Dorito in such a massive size. A wow moment to be sure. It was tough to see this beat up survivor baking in the Texas sun of the Ft. Worth Aviation Museum a couple years back. However, I am grateful it did not get scrapped.
 
Do we know the weapons bay layout of the Northrop ATA proposal?

I'm assuming that it wasn't 2x AAM bays and 2x AGM bays like the MDD version.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom