JSF is too heavy for the Royal Navy

"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

AKA The flying dorito.

Due mainly to being led down the primrose path by NAVAIR. The aircraft was
hugely overweight, GD was having serious problems with major composite
structures. The prototype was in final assembly and in big trouble.

A friend who worked the MacAir side of the program thought it was fixable,
but not on the cheap or on the schedule. I think it's very possible the PMA
didn't know the truth, less possible his deputy didn't. When the real word
finally came out, heads rolled and the A/C was cnx'd.

R / John

Oh ok. That makes sense then. Thanks for clarifying.

--
Jason
"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

--
Jason


You're confusting the CIA designator for the aircraft which was of the
SR-71
family with the DoD designated naval attack aircraft of a much later
period
which was abruptly canceled. The FA-18E/F was the stop-gap measure
employed.

Regards,

Tex Houston

jason- OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the
attack
version of the SR-71. BRBR

The 'Dorito'....A-12
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 5/18/04 7:50 PM, in article
t, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

If you're denying it's overweight, then I think you're in denial. It
is... That comes from folks working in the program. They're trying
to deal with it, but 2,000 lbs (I hadn't heard 3,300 lbs.) is a lot
to lose.

No, I'm not denying that it's overweight. However, I'm questioning whether
the weight issue is as bad as presented. Planes are *always* overweight at
this point in the design process. I think the reports tend to confuse the
current design weight with the final target weight. If it's 3000 pounds
over now, that does not mean it will be 3000 pounds over at IOC.


Presto, a 2000-lb weight savings.

Presto! Diminished striking capability for a STOVL aircraft... How
novel.

Shrug. That's why STOVL isn't suitable for all users. The Marines don't
necessarily need big bombs; smaller ones are actually more appropriate for
most CAS missions. As long as it can haul the 8 x 250-lb small-diameter
bombs they're talking about, the plane is well-armed for CAS.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

The original post had a lot of 'maybes' and 'mights' in it. Sounds to
me like a bunch of quibblers who want to canx out and help out the
budget. As for 2x2000 pound bombs, the only thing where bigger is
better is in cluster munitions. Note that USAF wants smaller LGBs -
250 pound size. Since just as in nukes HE bomb damage radius is a cube
root function of the explosive yield - laser guidance lets a smaller
bomb do the same job. Now if you can hit the target dead on - smack in
the middle - a 100 pounder would work just fine. 50 pounds of HE is
more than a field artillery shell carries. And what's wrong with a
pair of steam cats? The RN carriers weren't supposed to have cats?
That would be really dumb! A properly designed steam cat could launch
STOVLs with the ship lying to.
Walt BJ

"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message ...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

--
Jason



A-12 Stood for "Archangel" not "Attack" Theres was a fighter version
designated the YF-12 and a proposed nuclear strike variant the "R-12"
though

Prowlus wrote:
"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the
attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and
was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

--
Jason



A-12 Stood for "Archangel" not "Attack" Theres was a fighter version
designated the YF-12 and a proposed nuclear strike variant the "R-12"
though.

No, the bomber variant was designated B-71, a contemporary of the YF-12.
That number was in the correct bomber sequece after the B-70 Valkyrie.
Apparently that's how the Air Force Blackbird came to be designated SR-71,
as a recce variant of the B-71 bomber. Similarly, there was briefly a
proposed RS-70 recce version of the B-70 bomber. (But Curtis LeMay prefered
SR to RS, so he swapped the letters for the SR-71.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On 5/22/04 12:00 PM, in article
et, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:


No, I'm not denying that it's overweight. However, I'm questioning whether
the weight issue is as bad as presented. Planes are *always* overweight at
this point in the design process. I think the reports tend to confuse the
current design weight with the final target weight. If it's 3000 pounds
over now, that does not mean it will be 3000 pounds over at IOC.


I get snippets from folks in the program quite often. It won't necessarily
be 3000lbs over at IOC. That's what they're working on right now... Trying
to trim the excess.

In fact, the 3000 lbs is mostly due to the lift fan machinery on the
B-model. A and C models aren't suffering as much. I think I may have
mis-spoken on that point earlier.


Presto, a 2000-lb weight savings.

Presto! Diminished striking capability for a STOVL aircraft... How
novel.

Shrug. That's why STOVL isn't suitable for all users. The Marines don't
necessarily need big bombs; smaller ones are actually more appropriate for
most CAS missions. As long as it can haul the 8 x 250-lb small-diameter
bombs they're talking about, the plane is well-armed for CAS.

Talked to some Brits that were in town last week. They made the same case.
It's an obvious solution.

Frankly, what might work better though would be to (here goes the crazy
rant...)

BRING BACK THE INTRUDER!!!

Imagine being able to carry 22 x 500 lb JDAM on smart 1760-compatible MER's
in your very own SWIP Block 1A jet... Doing the work of 5 F-35's with one
airframe (at least in the last conflict).

Sorry about the insanity. Couldn't help it.

--Woody

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

BRING BACK THE INTRUDER!!!

Imagine being able to carry 22 x 500 lb JDAM on smart 1760-compatible MER's
in your very own SWIP Block 1A jet... Doing the work of 5 F-35's with one
airframe (at least in the last conflict).

Might as well rig up a C-2A as a bomb truck. Just roll'em off the back
of the ramp. As long as we are fighting enemies who only have RPGs...