"Obsolete" planes still dishing it out

[GrauGeist]

Let's say we disagree on the A-11 part.

Doesn't matter if we do or not, it's what's factual, that's the issue here.

The fact that Lockheed, who designed and developed the aircraft referred to all concepts by number, the 12th one being approved and produced under CIA funding. The A-11 model had too large of a radar cross-section, especially since it had a tall, single vertical stabilizer and protruding under-slung engine housings.

The A-12 design also addressed a lightened airframe and incorporated a titanium alloy for it's skin, the design also incorporated canted twin vert-stabs to reduce radar cross-section, reduced mainwing properties as well as having the engines faired inline to the wing assembly.

Here's your A-11:

And here's a letter directly relating to project OXcart that specifically refers to the aircraft by name.

You can either accept historical accuracy, or you can shrug it off when it doesn't fall in your favor. But in doing so, you also promote inaccuricies and have no room to complain when other arise. That choice is up to you.

 

[GregP]

I guess you'd rather believe that drawing / memo than the President. It's up to you, Geaugeist. Makes no difference to me either way. I simply choose to believe my own ears and what was in the press and on TV at the time. It's how I recall it and it matches the press releases.

The paper A-11 above was a concept, Convair as I recall, but a contract was never awarded nor was it built or any metal cut. It remains a paper airplane. You may recall we sometimes reuse designations. Perhaps you recall the Martin B-26 and the Douglas B-26 that grew out of the A-26? The A-11 is not the first designation to be applied to different airframes.

I'll join the designer and pilots in their nomenclature. I assure you, President Johnson wasn't the only person who called the first article the A-11. Most people at the time did exxcept for the CIA who called it "Oxcart" fora code name. Once they moved on to the A-12 designation, the A-11 handle was dropped, but it was there at first, and I decry rewriting history. We should at least be accurate.

Out of a sense of courtesy, let's let this go. I still believe the video clip and you still don't, even though it was a public relese by the President at the time, and was on TV. Going by that, I suppose the Blackbird was the "RS-71" instead of the "SR-71" that history will remember? If you want to think of it that way, go ahead. To the pilots and to Kelly Johnson, it was the SR-71 Habu or Blackbird because the President changed the designation in a public address. So it became the SR-71 and has been ever since. But on paper, the handle should have been RS-71. The paper didn't survive the press release.

 

[GrauGeist]

Ok, you win, the SR-71 was originally the A-11, the President is the all-knowing oracle of mankind, the Pheonix missile was the grandfather of all AIM ordnance and the AVG fought Zeros in the CBI...

Anything to get this thread back on track.

 

[parsifal]

On excercise the F-14s were easily the queen of the battlefields in the 70s and 80s. That included match ups against aircraft like the F-4, some F-18s, Mirage IIIs and our own A-4s. I ddint know why at the time, but i was a trainee PWO on the Melbourne and watched our PWO do some nasty things to the opposing teams on excercise..... it was reaonably possible or sucker the F-14 standing patrols, maybe that was a failing of their look down radar. we ran several excercises where the hawkeyes were not in the sky, and used combinations of high speed f-111s and extreme low level a-4s with some (simulated) stand off weaponry. The a-4s were not detected, the f-11s made a lot of "noise", and suckered the red teams controller into vectoring his CAP off in their direction. a-4s come in very low at subsonic from the other direction and delivered a blow judged as fatal by the umpires.

However with the proper support of AWACs and AEW they were very dangerous, and virtually impenetrable....and thats pretty much their service record when used in shooting wars. I think the Yanks learnt a lot from those excercises, andd as far as i know the F-14 was never left to its own devices.....ive also read that the Phoenix was something of a dud....thats not what we observed in those early 80's excercises. They were usually devastating and against the target drones hardly ever missed. Unlike our crappy AIM-7Bs that might lock and hit 25% of the time (if that)

 

[Marcel]

But on topic:

An aircraft never mentioned on this forum. The Fokker C.V. A light reconesance bomber did it's job against odds with not that many losses. Finns made good use of the aircraft.

 

[GregP]

For longevity, though not exactly "dishing it out," I'd say the U-2 / TR-2 is one of the longer-serving, behind the DC-3, which also didn't exactly "dish it out" unless you count the AC-47 "Puff the Magic Dragon" gunships.

How long did the Swedish Drakens servce and when were they last in active service? Seems to me they served a long time ... I think longer than the Viggens did. I believe first flight was in 1955, service entry was 1960, and they were retired in 2005 (in Sewden). I don't know if anyone else flew them longer than Sweden.

The SAAB 105 might eclipse the Draken, being in service since 1967 and is still in service.

I believe the Dassault Mirage II has been mentioned. Service entry was 1961 and it is still in service.

The Hawker Hunter went in service in 1951 and is still in service with the Lebanese Air Force, possibly giving it the title for longest lasting and able to "dish it out." Right now it is at 63 years and counting.

Hi Graugeist,

I wasn't tring to win or to convert you to my beliefs about the A-11.

I was stating mine that won't change and why I thought that way. The President may or may not know much, but he certainly has the power to name an aircraft if he wants to do so. He can name ships, airplanes, tanks, anything he wants to name ... and the people who work for him will make it happen. Since you live in the U.S.A., I thought you knew that.

I never mentioned the AVG though I did hear a talk given by Robert Scott once in Mesa, AZ at the old Doug Champlin Fighter Museum. That same evening, Saburo Sakai also gave a talk. It was a function given by the American Fighter Aces Association in the early 1980's. Scott never said they fought Zeros and Sakai never flew much else except a Zero after flight training. Saburo signed a print I bought that evening. I still have it.

As for the Phoenix, I think it was originally slated for the F-111B and was migrated to the YF-12 and then the F-14 (called the VFX at the time) when the F-111B was cancelled. Do you recall it that way? I believe they retired the AIM-54 a couple of years before they retired the F-14, but maybe I misremember. I know it was shot at least once from an A-3 Skywarrior test platform. I believe the only user of the Phoenix still remaining may be Iran, if they still have any of them.

I was never very fond of the AIM-54 personally and believe they failed in most combat encounters. It definitely failed in both January (Iraq) and September 1999 (also Iraq) when they were fired in anger. Should have been retired before being produced, but that's another thread.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I've got to back Greg on this A-11 issue. The president and I believe most of the print media (including Aviation Leak), followed suit introducing the plane, correctly or incorrectly as the A-11. Being a card carrying member of the Old F*rts Club, I recall that confusion followed for a period of time about its actual designation because the A-11 deisgnation was dropped so quickly. Whether there was a typo by a presidential staffer who had followed the A-12's development from its original A-11 designator is unknown but likely. Maybe it was purposeful confusion as J suggested. Nevertheless, when it first appeared, the aircraft was called publically the A-11.

 

[GrauGeist]

AIM-47 Falcom = F-108/YF-12, AIM-54 Pheonix = F-111B/F-14. Check the timeline and do the math.

If the President can eff up the name of the SR-71, he can eff up the name to the A-12...that's a no brainer. He didn't design it or build it, so I would tend to stick with the manufacturer's designation before anyone else. I posted an official CIA document up there and that should have been good enough.

Fair enough...regarding the designation, here's from Lockheed with suppliments from CIA sources:

HISTORY OF THE A-12

The U-2 dated from 1954. When its development began under the direction of a group headed by Richard M. Bissell of the CIA. Before the U-2 became operational in June 1956, CIA project officials had estimated that its life expectancy for flying safely over the Soviet Union would be between 18 months and two years. After overflights began and the Soviets demonstrated the capability of tracking and attempting to intercept the U-2, this estimate seemed too optimistic. By August 1956, Richard Bissell was so concerned about the U-2's vulnerability that he despaired of its ability to avoid destruction for six months, let alone two years. By the autumn of 1957, Bissell had collected so many ideas for a successor to the U-2, that Bissell asked the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles for permission to establish an advisory committee, which became known as the Land Committee, to assist in the selection process. Bissell also felt that the support of a committee of prominent scientists and engineers would prove useful when it came time to ask for funding for such an expensive project.

The two most prominent firms involved in the search for a new aircraft were the Lockheed Corporation, which had designed the successful U-2, and Convair which was building the supersonic B-58 "Hustler" bomber for the Air force and also working on an even faster model known as the B-58B "Super Hustler". Early in 1958, Richard Bissell asked officials from both firms to submit designs for a high-speed reconnaissance aircraft. During the spring and summer of 1958, both firms worked on designs and concepts without government contracts or funds.

Following extended discussions with Bissell on the subject of a supersonic successor to the U-2, Lockheed's Kelly Johnson began designing an aircraft that would cruise at Mach 3.0 at altitudes above 90,000 feet. On 23 July 1958, Johnson presented his new high-speed concept to Land's advisory committee, which expressed interested in the approach he was taking. At the same meeting, Navy representatives presented a concept for a high-altitude reconnaissance vehicle that examined the possibility of developing a ramjet-powered, inflatable, rubber vehicle that would be lifted to altitude by a balloon and then be propelled by a rocket to a speed where the ramjets could produce thrust. Richard Bissell asked Johnson to evaluate this concept, and three weeks later, after receiving more details from the Navy representatives, Kelly Johnson made some quick calculations that showed that the design was impractical because the balloon would have to be a mile in diameter to lift the vehicle, which in turn would need a wing surface greater than one-seventh of an acre to carry the payload.

In September 1958, the Land committee met again to review all the concepts then under consideration and to narrow out the few that were most practicable. Among the concepts rejected were the Navy's proposal for an inflatable, ramjet-powered aircraft, a Boeing proposal for a 190-foot-long hydrogen-powered inflatable aircraft, and a Lockheed design for a hydrogen-powered aircraft (the CL-400). The committee examined two other Kelly Johnson designs at this meeting, a tailless subsonic aircraft with a very-low-radar cross section (the G2A) and a new supersonic design (the A-2) and did not accept either one, the former because of its slow speed and the latter because of it dependence on exotic fuels for its ramjets and it overall high cost. The committee approved the continuation of Convair's work on a ramjet-powered Mach 4.0 "parasite" aircraft that would be launched from a specially configured version of the B-58B bomber. The design was termed a parasite because it could not take off on its own but needed a larger aircraft to carry it aloft and accelerate it to the speed required to start the ramjet engine. The Convair design was called the FISH.

Two months later, after reviewing the Convair proposal and yet another Lockheed design for a high-speed reconnaissance aircraft (the A-3), the Land committee concluded in late November 1958 that it would indeed be feasible to build an aircraft whose speed and altitude would make radar tracking difficult or impossible. The committee, therefore, recommended that DCI Dulles ask President Eisenhower to approve further pursuit of the project and to provide fund for additional studies and tests.

On 17 December 1958, Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell briefed the President on the progress toward a successor to the U-2. Also present were Land and Purcell from the advisory committee, Presidential Service Advisor James Killian, and Air Force Secretary Donald Quarles. DCI Dulles reviewed the results to the U-2 missions to date and stated his belief that a successor to the U-2 could be used all over the world and "would have a much greater invulnerability to detection"

Bissell then described two competing projects by Lockheed and Convair, noting that the chief question at the moment was whether to use air launch or ground takeoff. The next phase, he added, would be detailed engineering, at the end of which it was proposed that 12 aircraft be ordered at a cost of about $100 million. With funding for the proposed new type of aircraft now available, Richard Bissell asked Lockheed and Convair to submit detailed proposals.

By the summer of 1959, both firms had completed their proposals. In early June, Lockheed submitted a design for the ground-launched aircraft known as the A-11. It would have a speed of Mach 3.2, a range of 3,200 miles, an altitude of 90,000 feet, and a completion date of January 1961. Kelly Johnson had refused to reduce the aerodynamics of his design in order to achieve a greater anti-radar capability, and the A-11's radar cross section, although not great, was substantially larger than that of the much smaller parasite aircraft being designed by Convair.

The Convair proposal called for a small, manned, ramjet-powered, reconnaissance vehicle to be air launched from one of two specially configured B-58B Super Hustlers. The FISH vehicle, a radical lifting body with a very-small-radar cross section, would fly at Mach 4.2 at 90,000 feet and have a range of 3,900 miles. Two Marquardt ramjets would power its Mach 4.2 dash over the target area. Once the FISH decelerated, two Pratt Whitney JT-12 turbojets would bring it back to base. The ramjet exit nozzles and wing edges would be constructed of Pyroceram, a ceramic material that could withstand the high temperatures of very high speeds and would absorb radio frequency energy from the radar pulses. Convair stated that the FISH could be ready by January 1961.

Continued next Post

 

[GrauGeist]

Continued from previos post

Convair's proposal depended on two uncertain factors. First and foremost was the unproven technology of the ramjet engines. At the time, no aircraft in existence could carry a large, ramjet-powered aircraft into the sky and then accelerate to sufficient speed for the ramjet engines to be ignited. Since ramjet engines had only been tested in wind tunnels, there was no available data to prove that these engines would work in the application proposed by Convair. The second uncertain factor was the B-58B bomber that was supposed to achieve Mach 2.2 before launching the FISH above 35,000 feet. The version of the B-58 was still in the design stage.

Convair's proposal suffered a major setback in June 1959, when the Air Force canceled the B-58B project. Conversion of the older, slower B-58A into the supersonic launching platform for the FISH was ruled out by the high cost and technical difficulties involved. Moreover, the Air Force was unwilling to part with two aircraft from the small inventory of its most advanced bomber. Even had the B-58B program not been canceled, the FISH proposal would probably not have been feasible. Convair engineers had calculated that the added weight of the FISH would prevent the B-58B from achieving the speed required to ignite the parasite aircraft's ramjet engines.

The Convair proposal was therefore unusable, but the Lockheed design with its high radar cross section was also unacceptable to the Land committee. On 14 July 1959, the committee rejected both designs and continued the competition. Lockheed continued to work on developing a design that would be less vulnerable to detection, and Convair received a new CIA contract to design an air-breathing twin-engine aircraft that would meet the general specifications being followed by Lockheed.

Following recommendations by the Land committee, both Lockheed and Convair incorporated the Pratt Whitney J58 power plant into their designs. This engine had originally been developed for the Navy's large, jet-powered flying boat, the Glenn L. Martin Company's P6M Seamaster, and was the most powerful engine available. In 1958 the Navy had canceled the Seamaster program, which left Pratt Whitney without a buyer for the powerful J58 engine.

Although the Land committee had not yet found an acceptable design, it informed President Eisenhower on 20 July 1959 that the search was making good process. Concerned about the U-2's vulnerability to detection and possible interception and aware that the photo satellite project was encountering significant problems, the President gave his final approval to the high-speed reconnaissance aircraft project.

By the late summer of 1959, both Convair and Lockheed had completed new designs for a follow-on to the U-2. Convair's entry, known as the KINGFISH, used much of the technology developed for the F-102, F-106, and B-58, including stainless steel honeycomb skin, planiform wing design, and crew capsule system, which eliminated the need for the pilot to wear a pressurized suit. The KINGFISH had two side-by-side J58 engines inside the fuselage, which significantly reduced the radar cross section. Two additional important design features that contributed to a small radar return were fiberglass engine inlets and wings whose leading edges were made of Pyroceram.

Lockheed's new entry was much like its first, but with several modifications and a new designator, A-12. It too, would employ two of the powerful J58 engines. Lockheed's major innovation in reducing radar return was a cesium additive in the fuel, which decreased the radar cross section of the afterburner plume. This improvement had been proposed by Edward Purcell of the Land committee. Desiring to save weight, Kelly Johnson had decided not to construct the A-12 out of steel. Traditional lightweight metals such as aluminum were out of the question because they could not stand the heat that would be generated as the A-12 flew at Mach 3.2, so Johnson chose a titanium alloy.

On 20 August 1959, Lockheed and Convair submitted their proposals to a joint Department of Defense, Air Force, and CIA selection panel. The two aircraft were similar in performance characteristics, although the Lockheed design's specifications were slightly better in each category. The Lockheed design was also preferable in terms of overall cost. In the vital area of vulnerability to radar detection, however, the Convair design was superior. Its smaller size and internally mounted engines gave it a smaller radar cross section than the Lockheed A-12.

Some of the CIA representatives initially favored the Convair KINGFISH design because of its smaller radar cross section, but they were eventually convinced to support the Lockheed design by the Air Force members of the panel, who believed that Convair's cost over-runs and production delays on the B-58 project might be repeated in this new project. In contrast, Lockheed had produced the U-2 under budget and on time. Another factor favoring the A-12 was security. Lockheed had experience in running a highly secure facility (the Skunk Works) in which all of the key employees were already cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The CIA selected Lockheed's A-12 over a Convair proposal called KINGFISH.

Despite its vote in favor of the Lockheed proposal, the selection panel remained concerned about the A-12's vulnerability to radar detection and therefore required Lockheed to prove its concept for reducing the A-12's radar cross section by 1 January 1960. On 14 September 1959, the CIA awarded a four-month contract to Lockheed to proceed with anti-radar studies, aerodynamic structural tests, and engineering designs. This research and all later work on the A-12 took place under a new codename, Project OXCART, established at the end of August 1959 to replace its more widely known predecessor, Project GUSTO.

By mid-January 1960, Lockheed had demonstrated that its concept of shape, fuel additive, and non-metallic parts would reduce the OXCART's radar cross section substantially. Richard Bissell, however, was very upset to learn that the changes had led to a reduction in the aircraft's performance, which meant it would not be able to attain the penetration altitude he had promised to President Eisenhower. Kelly Johnson then proposed to reduce the aircraft's weight by 1,000 pounds and increase the fuel load by 2,000 pounds, making it possible to achieve the target altitude of 90,000 feet. Afterward, he noted in the project log: "We have no performance margins left; so this project instead of being 10 times as hard as anything we have done, is 12 times as hard. This matches the design number and is obviously right". Johnson, "Archangel log", 21 January 1960.

These changes satisfied Bissell, who notified Johnson on 26 January that the CIA was authorizing the construction of 12 of the new aircraft. The actual contract was signed on 11 February 1960. Lockheed's original quotation for the project was $96.6 million for 12 aircraft, but technological difficulties eventually made this price impossible to meet. Recognizing that fabricating an aircraft from titanium might involve unforeseen difficulties, the CIA included a clause in the contract that allowed costs to be reevaluated. During the next five years, this clause had to be invoked on a number of occasions as the A-12's costs soared to more than double the original estimate."

And the report continues, but the key points were covered here. This is not my opinion, this is not a bunch of buddies BS'ing in a hangar, this is not Wikipedia. This is from the source...

 

[GregP]

I always wondered why and also came to the conclusion that it may have been a typo by the speech writer. I even bought a plastic model that was called the "A-11" on the box. A year later, the same box had "YF-12A" on it instead. At the time, I frequented hobby shops that sold model kits.

I never actually thought of it as the A-11 after they changed the designation, but recall the initial unveiling quite vividly.

Living in Tennessee I never thought to see one, but one day in about 1963 I was in the back yard when a tanker and a YF-12 / SR-71 flew over at relatively low altitude while refuelling. Since I had a model of it, I easily recognized the wing planform, but could not tell you if the nose was a fighter nose or a recon nose as I didn't really care at the time. I just watched it until they disapeared from sight. After being a pilot many years later, I estimate they were at maybe 15,000 feet. Why they were so low over Tennessee I couldn't begin to say and now think maybe they were on their way down into Arkansas, maybe Little Rock, as they were headed directly west over Jackson, Tennessee. Memphis is only about 90 miles west and Little Rock is not much farther.

In about 1967, my dad and I were on vacation near Destin, Florida (the rest of the family wwas, too, but they weren't in the boat) and were fishing in our boat in the Gulf when the XB-70 flew right over on final approach to Eglin AFB. It was awesome to see it come right over the boat at maybe 500 feet. We were about a mile offshore. I din't notice if the tail number was 001 or 002. I was just taking in the sight and sound. The chase plane was a T-38. It was magnificent, though I never saw it fly in person again.

 

[Greyman]

On excercise the F-14s were easily the queen of the battlefields in the 70s and 80s. That included match ups against aircraft like the F-4, some F-18s, Mirage IIIs and our own A-4s. I ddint know why at the time, but i was a trainee PWO on the Melbourne and watched our PWO do some nasty things to the opposing teams on excercise..... it was reaonably possible or sucker the F-14 standing patrols, maybe that was a failing of their look down radar. we ran several excercises where the hawkeyes were not in the sky, and used combinations of high speed f-111s and extreme low level a-4s with some (simulated) stand off weaponry. The a-4s were not detected, the f-11s made a lot of "noise", and suckered the red teams controller into vectoring his CAP off in their direction. a-4s come in very low at subsonic from the other direction and delivered a blow judged as fatal by the umpires.

However with the proper support of AWACs and AEW they were very dangerous, and virtually impenetrable....and thats pretty much their service record when used in shooting wars. I think the Yanks learnt a lot from those excercises, andd as far as i know the F-14 was never left to its own devices.....ive also read that the Phoenix was something of a dud....thats not what we observed in those early 80's excercises. They were usually devastating and against the target drones hardly ever missed. Unlike our crappy AIM-7Bs that might lock and hit 25% of the time (if that)

The retired pilot had a similar anecdote; '... we joked about that during blue flag '89... where their tactical doctrine of angels 30-40 with the radar on full blast let us NAPE right up to 50 miles off their nose, circle around onto their backside, and light them up completely unawares so long as Hawkeye wasn't on the board.'

On exercise this pilot explicitly mentioned always being hobbled by having to meet Navy RoE; hard deck above the USAF's advantage level, Navy gets Hawkeye and AF couldn't get AWACS diverted to assist, oceanic/flat terrain, etc.

'Amazing how they refuse to train or allow engagements below angels 5, when we didn't train at altitudes ABOVE angels 10.'

Comparing radars from F-16 and F-14, and taking into accounts year that radars were installed, F-14 have had vastly better radar than F-16.

We might never know the truth how well F-14 was suited for dogfight.

On the issue of radar, he said the Tomcat's original mission role limits the effectiveness of it's radar in look-down; for all it's power that 200 mile engagement range quickly dwindles to 30 miles over land (worse than the F-4 Phantom it replaced). Combine this with a turn radius not worth mentioning even compared to it's predecessor. If its best tactical deployment is to fly around at medium altitude with its radar on means that anything made after 1970 can see it from twice as far away as the Tomcat's radar can see.

In terms of dogfight performance, I'm sure there is decades of firsthand experience.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

GG You are providing a story with ample documentation, evidently the real deal, with all the benefit of hindsight and revealed history. Whatever was the real designation of the aircraft, it was introduced as the 'A-11.' I think that's the point being made... Not an answer to the question what was the real designation of the aircraft. We can certainly say now that the A-11 was never made metal or flew, but for a brief time, an aircraft advertised and called the A-11 was unveiled to the public. Just doing a search of Lockheed A-11 typically reveals many photos of the A-12, unaccompanied by the documentation you provided. The story you and others have presented is just not widely known. Many knowledgeable aircraft aficionados don't know this rather esoteric tale. For example this from a website recounting the history of the SR-71:

Unreal Aircraft - Beating Gravity - Lockheed A-11, A-12, SR-71 and YF-12A Blackbird

"Beating Gravity - Lockheed A-11, A-12, SR-71 and YF-12A Blackbird"

"After several setbacks, the first of the Blackbird series was ready for taxiing trials in April 1962 at Groom Dry Lake. With little fuel on board the aircraft, believed to have been known as A-11 (the 'A' possibly from the CIA custom of referring to its aircraft as 'Articles') lifted unexpectedly. It did not handle well, and looked briefly as if its career might be short, but the test pilot landed it again at the far end of the runway. Two days later a scheduled test flight took place. Apart from slight shedding of RAM (Radar Absorbent Material) from the leading edges, all went well. On 30th April, 1962, the aircraft, known as A-12, made its first 'official' flight in front of government representatives."

I can't speak for Greg, but I didn't know the history of the aircraft's designation. I submit we still and will probably never know why it was introduced to the public as the A-11.

However your suggestion that we simply acknowledge the nomenclature used by the manufacturer, raises an interesting example of the confusion that apparently still reigns: Here is the Lockheed Martin web site that calls the aircraft A-11.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aeronautics/skunkworks/CollierTrophies/usaf-a-11.html

 

[oldcrowcv63]

To continue in this vein, the NASA Dryden web site provides the following description which, it seems to me, perpetuates the confusion:

Lockheed YF-12 | NASA

"In 1959, Lockheed began work on the design of a long-range, high-altitude plane, then known as the A-11. It was a Cold War project. Heading the project team was Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, Lockheed's Vice President for Advanced Development Projects. Johnson had previously led the development of the U-2 spy plane. Five years after work began on the A-11, on February 29, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson told reporters that the aircraft (by that time modified to the A-12 production version with a reduced radar cross section) had attained speeds of over 2,000 mph and altitudes of more than 70,000 feet in tests at Edwards Air Force Base."

 

[GregP]

You're right about the public not knowing the history of the name. I didn't realize there was anything strange about it until maybe 20 years after having seen the public debut. At the time I was recently out of the Air Force and was considering doing an RC model of it when I stumbled across the A-11 / A-12 confusion and started looking into it.

At that time there was precious little available, but it gradually started coming out. Today, I know that original A-11 designation was probably an error, but it WAS introduced that way. We didn't jump up and down shouting that the President had made a mistake ... we didn't KNOW it until many years later. That's why the A-11 stayed with me. To me it always WAS the A-11 first, and only later became the A-12 / YF-12 / YF-12A / SR-71.

 

[nuuumannn]

From what I've read the A-12 was designed from a combination of the A-7 (Not the Vought Corsair II before anyone suggests it!) and A-11 paper plane designs. The A-7 incorporated the twin inward canted fins, but was not liked by the Skunkworks guys and was dismissed as not being able to meet the performance parameters. The A-11 however, was the preferred candidate, but the CIA insisted on a lower radar cross section, so the best features went into what became the A-12 and Locheed built a mock-up in November 1959.

The 'A-11' designation by Johnson might have been a ruse since the Oxcart programme was kept a secret and remained so until the late 80s or early 90s, so although Johnson mentioned "...an advanced experimental jet aircraft, the A-11, which has been in sustained flight at more than 2000 mph and at altitudes in excess of 70,000 feet." he did not give away too much about it, I suspect because the CIA was running the programme and some have stated that when the USAF revealed the existence of the Senior Crown programme (The SR-71), this also aided in keeping the A-12 and its activities hidden from public view.

The SR-71 was also subject to a miss-designation; it was originally designated RS-71, which followed on from the proposed RS-70 variant of the XB-70 Valkyrie, the RS-71 itself was initially designated R-12, a pure reconnaissance version of the B-12, which was a bomber variant of the YF-12. Inevitably politics played its part in this and as a result of criticism by Sen Goldwater of the Kennedy/Johnson Administration's lack of advanced aircraft programmes, Johnson revealed the "SR-71" to the world in 1964, also revealing the RS-70 programme, which by then had been canned by MacNamara. The transposition of 'Reconnaissance-Strike' to 'Strike-Reconnaisance' was obviously in counter to Goldwater's claim, even if the R-12 had no strike capability.

 

[GregP]

You sure it wasn't "Strategic Reconnaissance" instead of "Strike Reconnaissance?"

 

[nuuumannn]

Not by Johnson at any rate, his intention was to infer that the aircraft had a 'strike' capability, even though it was later designated Strategic Reconnaissance-71. The B-12 derivative was in fact christened "Reconnaissance-Strike-71", following on, like I stated earlier, from the RS-70, which by inferrence would have maintained some weapons delivery capabilities. The actual SR-71 was derived from the R-12 variant, which was a pure recon machine, however, despite Johnson's political intentions.

 

[tomo pauk]

If anyone is interested, I've continued the discussion about F-14 in this thread.

 

[davparlr]

They retired the F-14 prematurely, but they did it.

Don't know much about the F-14 but I have heard it was a high maintenance aircraft. I also don't know the maintenance ratio between avionics and airframe. I do know it had an old avionics architecture and would probably have to be completely rewired for modern avionics.

They reired the Hellcat prematurely, but they did it.

Maintaining both the F6F and F4U in the post war period would have been economically unfeasible. By 1948, the military budget was 10% of the war budget and the Navy's portion was probably less than that. One had to go. The Navy had to choose and chose the F4U. Independent of budget, the Navy needed to simplify configurations for carrier borne aircraft for efficiency.

They retired the Bearcat prematurely, but they did it.

I am not sure what its mission would be in 1950 that could not be done better by another Navy aircraft. Also, see above.

I think they should have kept the F-86 around longer, too.

Tough Issue. I think the century series fighters were designed to fight the USSR in WWIII and not very adaptable to the regional wars that were on the horizon, so I know where you're coming from. But what the AF really needed was an F8U type or lightened F-107. However, even the Navy phased out the F8U for the much poorer dogfighting F-4 during the Vietnam War. Also, more importantly, both the AF and Navy should have continued emphasizing dogfighting techniques.

Let's see, if I recall correctly, they said of the F-105 Thundrechief:

"If they made a runway that went all the way around the world and joined itself, Republic would make a plane that couldn't take off from it on a hot and humid day!"

The first thing any F-105 flight in Viet Nam did after takeoff and join up was to hit a tanker! The first thing they did after coming off target was to search for a tanker.

An F-105 without tanker support wasn't much of a warplane, but it DID use fuel like a small creek!

The F-105 was one of those WWIII aircraft designed to take tactical nukes to the Ruskies and was greased lightning on the deck clean. Must have made the Ruskies sweat bullets. Anyway, it fought hard in Vietnam and took a beating. I am not sure the F-4 would have done much better on the mission but it did carry more. In my book, it is a hero, along with the Red River Rats that climbed into the cockpit.

In about 1967, my dad and I were on vacation near Destin, Florida (the rest of the family wwas, too, but they weren't in the boat) and were fishing in our boat in the Gulf when the XB-70 flew right over on final approach to Eglin AFB. It was awesome to see it come right over the boat at maybe 500 feet. We were about a mile offshore. I din't notice if the tail number was 001 or 002. I was just taking in the sight and sound. The chase plane was a T-38. It was magnificent, though I never saw it fly in person again.

You should have dropped by. I was only about 40 miles away going to Pensacola Jr. College at the time. Destin is beautiful. My dream was to get a job at Eglin and live around there. I ended up in the L.A. area, oh well.

I would have loved to see that plane fly.

And I've heard F-14 drivers say sweet things about the 16 as well (Datsun short bed, BB hauler, tinker toy). Unless that 16 driver did a navy exchange and had a chance to fly the Tomcat, take those statements with a grain of salt. I'd say the same thing about a 14 driver with remarks about the 16...

At Northrop, one of my jobs was trying to integrate the Northrop AMRAAM proposal into the F-14, 15, 16, and Harrier cockpit controls and displays. I remember that the F-16 was stated to have two cubic feet of growth for avionics. After examining the drawings I decide they must have come up with that number by fill the fuselage with water and then measuring what came out!

I don't disagree that the Harrier was a good combat aircraft but, unfortunately, with the exception of the afloat role, Tornado can do everything that the Harrier did, hence my comments about smarter decisions to reduce complexity/cost of both QEII and JSF. Had those intelligent decisions been made, there might not have been any capability gap afloat. Sadly, maintaining multiple aircraft that all perform similar roles is just not affordable.

My only comment about the Harrier in the Falklands is that if Britain had not gotten rid of their big carriers with their F-4s and Buccaneers the Falkland War would probably not have happened

 

[nuuumannn]

My only comment about the Harrier in the Falklands is that if Britain had not gotten rid of their big carriers with their F-4s and Buccaneers the Falkland War would probably not have happened.

Whilst I agree with the majority of your post, Dave, if the British had their big carriers, the Falklands war still would have gone ahead. Galtieri and his Junta used the invasions of the Falklands as an excuse to divert the public's attention away from his own incompetence in running the country and to a degree it worked, since patriotic fervour trumps political mismanagement - it seems.

As for the British big carriers, an argument behind the effectiveness of these during the Falklands war has arisen; the conclusion was that the Harrier carriers were able to operate their aircraft in weather conditions that the big carrier aircraft could not operate - so common in the South Atlantic at the time the war was conducted, Southern hemisphere Autumn/Winter. The success rate of the British might have been higher at bringing down Argie aircraft, but only because they had more aircraft. What the British were lacking was airborne early warning, so Harriers were carrying out standing patrols and once San Carlos was secure, the navy established HMS Sheathbill, which was a temporary forward landing ground for the Harriers, GR.3s and Sea Harriers, guarded with Rapier missile batteries. The Harriers certainly provided a unique element to the fighting. The end result would have been the same, though, but I doubt there would have been any greater advantage to the British except perhaps a larger number of aircraft in theatre, which couldn't have done any harm. RAF - ex Navy - Phantoms were based at Ascension Island for combat air patrols, but I'm uncertain was to whether any made it as far south as over the fleet. The Victor tankers were busy with Vulcan raids and Nimrod maritime patrol ops.