Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Doesn't matter if we do or not, it's what's factual, that's the issue here.Let's say we disagree on the A-11 part.
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.
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."
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)
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.
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 retired the F-14 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 reired the Hellcat 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.They retired the Bearcat prematurely, but they did it.
I think they should have kept the F-86 around longer, too.
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!
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.
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...
Buffnut453 said: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.