USN calls for new fighter - they never learn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP - wasn't the problem with the A-12 that it had to have such enormous cutouts for all the kit they wished on to it, or rather IN it, so it just couldn't be built due to the structural issues and their affect on weight.....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3 main problems with A-12 were:
1. Insufficient knowledge/experience of the bid-winning companies with advance composite structural/surfacing materials*, leading to manufacturing & design problems, which led to both:
2. Massive cost over-runs. McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics won the bid with a target price of US$4.38 billion and ceiling price of US$4.84 billion for the design/development portion, while the losing Grumman/Northrop/Vought team had declined to enter a final bid after they determined they couldn't bid for less than US$6 billion. At the time of cancellation, cost over-runs meant that the end cost of the development phase would be at least equal to that G/N/V estimate, and likely higher. The main factor here was difficulties in designing and fabricating with the new composite materials and in manufacturing components with those materials.
3. A bad design in general. The airframe design was deemed "unsatisfactory" by the USN, whose experts had concluded that the aircraft would have insufficient reserve aerodynamic stability for safe recovery aboard a carrier with any battle damage to control surfaces, or malfunction of same. Since many USN aircraft of all types have successfully recovered aboard with such malfunctions and/or damage, I can see why the USN would not be happy with McD/GD.
I personally believe that, due to Northrop's recent experience with large structural/surfacing materials on the B-2 (Northrop was also a major partner in the F/A-18 Hornet, responsible for the composite structures in that aircraft), that they had a much better "handle" on those materials and on designing and building structures with them. I expect that this is why their bid was so much higher... they had a much more realistic grasp of what it would take to actually deliver the aircraft!
Also, I believe that, with Grumman & Vought's extensive experience with carrier aircraft (as well as Northrop's Hornet experience), they would have delivered a design with greater "damaged/malfunction" aerodynamic stability as well as better structural design & execution... likely at the same or less cost than the failed McD/GD design!
I know that McD had a long history of building carrier aircraft... but I think the engineers from GD managed to over-ride any objections from McD about the design.
GD had been expected to supply a navalized variant of the F-16 in the mid-1970s for the USN's F-4/A-7 replacement program (both the USAF & USN/USMC were supposed to buy the same aircraft), but their F-16N was considered by the USN to be a poor carrier aircraft, something GD dismissed as "the Navy is being too picky". This is what made the USN have McD/Northrop create the F/A-18 Hornet from Northrop's YF-17 Cobra design.
{edit: GD was also responsible for the failed F-111B, which led to Grumman building the F-14.
Funny how failed two GD carrier-fighter designs led to two excellent carrier-fighters being built by other companies.}
1. Insufficient knowledge/experience of the bid-winning companies with advance composite structural/surfacing materials*, leading to manufacturing & design problems, which led to both:
2. Massive cost over-runs. McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics won the bid with a target price of US$4.38 billion and ceiling price of US$4.84 billion for the design/development portion, while the losing Grumman/Northrop/Vought team had declined to enter a final bid after they determined they couldn't bid for less than US$6 billion. At the time of cancellation, cost over-runs meant that the end cost of the development phase would be at least equal to that G/N/V estimate, and likely higher. The main factor here was difficulties in designing and fabricating with the new composite materials and in manufacturing components with those materials.
3. A bad design in general. The airframe design was deemed "unsatisfactory" by the USN, whose experts had concluded that the aircraft would have insufficient reserve aerodynamic stability for safe recovery aboard a carrier with any battle damage to control surfaces, or malfunction of same. Since many USN aircraft of all types have successfully recovered aboard with such malfunctions and/or damage, I can see why the USN would not be happy with McD/GD.
I personally believe that, due to Northrop's recent experience with large structural/surfacing materials on the B-2 (Northrop was also a major partner in the F/A-18 Hornet, responsible for the composite structures in that aircraft), that they had a much better "handle" on those materials and on designing and building structures with them. I expect that this is why their bid was so much higher... they had a much more realistic grasp of what it would take to actually deliver the aircraft!
Also, I believe that, with Grumman & Vought's extensive experience with carrier aircraft (as well as Northrop's Hornet experience), they would have delivered a design with greater "damaged/malfunction" aerodynamic stability as well as better structural design & execution... likely at the same or less cost than the failed McD/GD design!
I know that McD had a long history of building carrier aircraft... but I think the engineers from GD managed to over-ride any objections from McD about the design.
GD had been expected to supply a navalized variant of the F-16 in the mid-1970s for the USN's F-4/A-7 replacement program (both the USAF & USN/USMC were supposed to buy the same aircraft), but their F-16N was considered by the USN to be a poor carrier aircraft, something GD dismissed as "the Navy is being too picky". This is what made the USN have McD/Northrop create the F/A-18 Hornet from Northrop's YF-17 Cobra design.
{edit: GD was also responsible for the failed F-111B, which led to Grumman building the F-14.
Funny how failed two GD carrier-fighter designs led to two excellent carrier-fighters being built by other companies.}
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 1st May 2012 at 07:43.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
