Remember Dick Cheney? No, not the vice president, the Secretary of Defense. Well, back in 1991 he cancelled the A-12 “Avenger II” program because of massive cost overruns. But JUST NOW the program was legally terminated. Here’s an excerpt from an article running at Military.com:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a judgment upholding the Navy’s termination for default of a contract with McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics for the A-12 stealth attack aircraft.
In 1988, the Navy awarded the $4.8 billion fixed-price contract for development of the A-12, which was to be a stealthy, carrier-based attack aircraft. The program encountered serious technical difficulties, and in 1991, after the Department of Defense refused to approve additional funding for the program; the Navy terminated the contract because it was substantially over budget and behind schedule.
On appeal for the third time, the court of appeals on June 2, 2009 affirmed the 2007 judgment of Court of Federal Claims Judge Robert B. Hodges Jr., holding that the Navy had properly terminated the contract for default.
Under the decision, the contractors are required to repay the government more than $1.35 billion in principal for funds advanced under the contract, plus interest accruing since 1991, for a total sum that currently approaches $2.8 billion.
Man, I’d hate to be working for McDonnell Douglas these days. Oh, wait …
And about that procurement reform …
– Ward
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Quit trying to build stealth bombers. You will bankrupt the country faster than Barak Obama! Build standoff bombers with stealth cruise missiles.
Who cares if it was way too expensive, or if it even worked? That thing looked like something straight out of a sci-fi movie….
i think it was this same Dick who took away the Tomcat, too.
A book has been written about this fiasco:
The $5 Billion Misunderstanding, by James Stevenson
See also the Washington Post Magazine issue of October 29, 1995 that has it as cover story.
In another post ,a couple of people that know way more that me said(and i agree).
“Stealth technology is expensive, and hard to maintain and fix; thats alot of money, time and energy to be pouring into a one way platform”
‘With the advent of Stealth, standoff attack is NOW ALWAYS more expensive than direct attack. This is true because indirect attack requires more technology (read = more cost) than direct attack which also means there are more things to go wrong over a longer period of time that it takes to get to the target.”
“A conventional cruise missile is stealth to an extent, considering its small size, low altitude flight path, and the ability to launch large numbers of them.”
“Weapon complexity rises with range. A JDAM or SDB w/o deployable lift devices has fewer things to go wrong than equivalent systems with range extension devices. Add a rocket booster and there is something else to go wrong”
” Cruise missiles are good when the target is relatively soft, high-priotity, and too high risk for direct attack.
Breaking news? The story is three days old.
Anyone have a link to the Appeals Court’s decision?
Thanks,
Snowman
Problems with stealth tech.
-Stealth is relative. The B-2 is probably the stealthiest bomber currently in service. The B-1B is supposedly “stealthy”. Up until you light those four big engines up into afterburner. Infrared spectrum anyone? You can throttle the engines down, but then the wings unfold. Don’t forget those external canards, or that big conventional tail. Not so stealthy anymore. The B-1B is certainly less noticeable then a B-52. But then again, a swift kick to the groin is also slightly less noticeable then a B-52.
-Stealth is relative to maintenance. Having a screw loose, or a shoddy seam, will leave you in a bad place. And generally, you will be unaware of this slight defect until the enemy is lighting you up. You’re going to feel dumb when your family is burying you because Airman Snuffy doesn’t know how to read fractions on a ruler. “Is this gap .1 or .01? Oh well, looks good to me.”
Open your bomb bay doors, and you’re no longer stealth. This is a bad thing to do directly over the SAM sight parked next to the target you are trying to kill. Drop more then one bomb in a row, and now the SAM site has a rough fix on your heading and altitude. The radar can’t see you, but they can see your bombs, and where they came from. You may want to turn right now. Stand off is a nice thing. If the target area has prolific in depth SAM coverage, you may be forced to open your bays in the midst of SAM or CAP coverage, either one is generally a bad idea. Note; The same applies to an F-22 opening up to fire missiles.
-If you aircraft takes damage, it is no longer stealthy. Now is a good time to get somewhere else.
-Most stealthy planes are slow. If your plane is no longer stealthy, and you are deep in enemy turf, this is what we call a bad bad thing. Even if you are in a fast stealth aircraft, battle damage or mechanical difficulty could cut short your performance envelope. Hope you stayed awake during SERE training….
-Stealthy planes aren’t so stealthy in broad daylight. The MK-2 eyeball has its weaknesses, but it has an amazing success rate, considering its’ age. This typically limits stealth penetration to night time. Thats perfectly fine, unless you absolutely need to kill the enemy right now, and it happens to be 0800 local.
-Stealth has to cover all detection envelopes. Not just radar. If its stealth to radar, but has a big heat sig, the enemy will be shooting Atolls or Sidewinders. If you’re stealth against radar, but not sound, the bad guys will try to golden BB your butt Iraq style. If an enemy pilot or sam sight can visually acquire you, they’ll bore-sight their missiles and pray to the Gods for luck. This is also in reference to future developments. If someone thinks of a new gee-whiz method to detect aircraft, you’re going to be stuck going back to the drawing board, because your stealth plane isn’t anymore.
Found it…thanks.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-5111.pdf
Curtis.
So? Remember Kosovo? So
Hey guys,
The A-12 looks good in the concept photo and that is as far as it will get since they released that. They have most likely moved on to bigger and more expensive things to waste money on. I want to know what will replace the A-6 and F-111. I was at a air show many years ago and I was EA-6B pilots. I asked them what they are doing at an Air Force air show. They told me they took over the role of the F-111 till the Air Force comes up with something to replace it. That was like 2000-2001. I did see something that has my mind moving a little. There was a video released by a man on youtube.com that showed two black triangle aircraft flying in formation during a military exercise. I grew up in the Air Force and have seen everything they have that has been shown to the pubic. For a kid whos father and friend are pilots I have never seen those planes before. Shortly after they pass by and F-117 flys by and you can see a different. I know that the YF-23 lost to the F-22, but it was the more stealthy than the F-22 and after. Other than that everything else is classified. There is a rumor going around that it has turned into a medium ranged bomber. Its just a rumor though. I always thought it was a beautiful aircraft. I hope that it is still operational. Anyways, see you later guys.
The basic truth is that the contractor’s didn’t know how to build a ship-capable F-117 version to be called the A-12. A corrupt Navy Captain approved several bogus progress reports. After the first flight of the prototype was cancelled, Cheney heard rumors that one didn’t exist.
He visited the plant himself to confirm that, and cancelled it on the spot. (This is before he became insane) The contractor argued that was unfair, since the Govt. rep okayed everything, so they sued. The Navy Capt. retired and went to work for the contractor.
OF course I remember Kosovo. I also remember a certain F-117 getting downed by an SA-3. Not exactly state of the art SAM technology. Rumor has it that a second one was damaged beyond repair, but I digress seeing as I have no evidence.
My point is two fold. First, stealth is relative. There are planes that are stealthy, there are planes that are unstealthy, and then there are airframes that are stealthy by nature, if not design. Such as small cruise missiles and UAVs. Applying stealth technology to both small cruise missiles and UAVs typically defeats the point and purpose of such a platform; Thrift and expendability. As far as survivability of the platform goes, its already small, it has a small heat sig due to the low thrust of its engine, it has the potential to be maneuverable as heck seeing as how there is no pilot, and its’ flying nap of the earth. I say skip the stealth and use the savings to buy more airframes. Quantity has a value all its own, and is especially critical when you have a force who’s total number of airframes is shrinking due to rising acquisition costs.
My second point is; Stealth is a combination of factors. There are many reasons why your stealth plane may not be as stealthy as you think it is. Even if it is stealthy 99.9% of the time that is in the air you can still successfully engage it on the ground.
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket, especially if you only have a fistful of ubernice and expensive stealth eggs.
SEAD, anyone?
Make your aircraft:
stealthy, radar, infra-red, accoustic
fly without fuel
Have unlimited range
fly at 0-250 mph airspeed, no more
fly without aerodynamics
amphibious, no carrier needed
able to fly as helicopter
fly with half of it damaged
able to carry 500 tons
cost less than $100 copy
Pentagon?…gimme a call
Most of the new US hi-tech equipment is slated to be canceled. President Osama learned that his stare works not only against news reporters, but also against enemy heads of state.
He is introducing the Stealth Stare, Cruise Stand off Stare and when things are going very bad, the Nuclear Stare…
campbell: ?
I wonder if F-22 can be navalized…
hmmm.. typo, less than $100 MILLION
Navalize F-22? UCAV, X-47 big deal. same ol “fighter/strike”, just no pilot.
No…I’m thinking something a bit more, um, large….and works like combo of nuke sub and B-2
Do-able. Now.
>campbell: ?
>I wonder if F-22 can be navalized…
Congratulations to get someone to know about it, there were two other variations in concept, the export variation (F-22EX), the fighter bomber variation (FB-22), and the naval variation which folds its wings like a tomcat (F-22N). It is plain dead but there was a F-117N plan as well. The bad news is that with Gates and Obama in charge, these plans will never make through.
The bad news is that with Gates and Obama in charge, these plans will never make through.–
not that those plans were never done over being a dream board.
Yikes!
There’s enough disinformation and error in this thread to build a CDI or POGO ‘report’.
About the only materially useful cotribution preceding this one [other than the observations on the Obama Administration of course) is the reference to Stevenson's "$5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding".
It is a tremendously valuable resource in understanding the A-12 program's woes, but it was also obviously coopted by the Contractor's defense team while it was being written. Read it with some caution. Don't get me wrong, I think the Navy IS at least partially culpable in the program's failure, just not wholely so. They after all were shown to be aware of the naivete of the contractors in the area of LO.
But remember, the key reason that the program came to a dead stop had to do with an inability to meet the required weight, and that was due to inexperience with and lack of understanding of structural composites:
"The primary problem encountered during FSD was weight growth due to the thickness of the composite material neccessary for the structural strength required to support the stress and loads experienced by carrier based aircraft. Both contractors have limited experience in building large composite structures,and in large measure, have failed to develop the technology as the program progressed."--House of Representatives (1992b)p.244 [as cited in The Cutting Edge: A Half Century of Fighter Aircraft R&D, RAND MR-939-AF, 1998, p.145].
The contractors tried to tie the lack of LO knowledge to the failure to develop suitable structural materials. I am somewhat symapthetic to their case, and think the gov’t should have at least shared in the responsibility, but obviously that hasn’t happened.
BTW: LOVED the ‘magic’ UAV/cruise missile proposal. Someone must have missed this recent thread: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004855.html
BTW: The sole mockup is rotting away outside at 32.7864361111 North, 97.44770460 West. Check it out at google Earth. It looks like ‘home plate’ with the outer wing panels laying beside it.
@Musson
Your stealth revisionism will not work here!
It was the bankers that bankrupted the country before Obama was elected. Never forget.
ALL
Re reading some of the more technical posts.
1. Stealth per se is a function of Radar returns. PRIME not IFF, if the structure does not return an echo, then per se it is stealthy. A partial or minimal return provides status as to location.
2. Composites in the early 90s were heavy, layered, and basically a type of Home Depot plastic. Costly, unwieldy, unmaintainable, tended to bubble, and generaly a pain to manufacture.
3. The A 12 also, had CV Flight deck and Hanger deck location problems. The shape did not tend to marry up with the existing aircraft of those days. IE the F18, A6, S3H, and the bulky helos. A Pie shape does not match older type aircraft.
4. Cheney did indeed walk in, pull the plug and depart. A one day affair, devastating to McD. It was essentially the end of the St Louis Mo, Corp.
end
Mac,
This the plane?
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=32.786709,-97.447499&spn=0.001195,0.002414&z=19
When it was initially cancelled, I was in Atkron One Two Eight at Whidbey Island, WA. We were going to be the Fleet Replacement Squadron for the A-12. When Secretary Cheney axed it, I got a new Phase/Check Crew Branch Officer. He had been in VA55 prior to this. I was on my third tour in the Intruder and had to teach him quite a bit.
Glad its gone! It’s about time!
That google shot below is dead on, I’m more interested in the F-35 parked next to the F-16 to the south at this point though.
Charles,
those coordinates come down in the small open area triangulated by the plane , a cube-like building, and a Quonset hut on my Google Earth, but that’s close enough to say ‘yep’. Differences could be due to version of software.
BTW: That isn’t an F-35 by the F-16 on the ramp. It is a JAST X-32 test article without the canards; an artifact of a precursor to the JSF program. Better view of one here: http://www.windtunnels.arc.nasa.gov/pics/80×120/80by18.html
The planes seen on the Google Earth reference are old mock ups (last used more than 10 years ago). Actually they represent an F-16 and F-22 configuration. The Google image is also about two or three years old, since there has been an RCS faciilty, a hover pit, and a final finish facility built in some of those areas under construction at the north part of the Lockheed Martin complex.
villagesmitty,
In regards to the aircraft to the south in the google image shot i noted earlier at http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=32.786709,-97.447499&spn=0.001195,0.002414&z=19
That is definitely not an F-22 mock up of any kind. It is much closer to the F-35. As SMSgt Mac showed in his last post, it was a test vehicle.
Note the shape of the intakes, those are definitly the configuration of some state of the F-35 development. Note the shadow as well, you can see the outline of the open intake cover on the top of the aircraft for the lift engine. That square shadow is too far back and incorrectly shaped to be the canopy.
Thought there was a cheaper alternative for a carrier based, unmanned aircraft?? Oh well….