Message posted by Magoo on November 19, 2000 at 00:06:58 EST:

As Richard mentions, the main reason why the A-12 was cancelled was because the weight of the aircraft blew out, and the subsequent delays and cost overruns meant the aircraft was going to end up costing in the region if US$165 per copy (in 1991 dollars!!!).

Since the cancellation (and subsequent compensation court case - McDonnel Douglas Corporation and General Dynamics Corporation vs the United States of America), many commentators have questioned the viability of an almost strategic precision attack bomber being deployed on a carrier anyway. They claim that the carrier (and CBG) itself is the strategic element, and the aircraft should be purely tactical multi-role types that maximise the efficiency of an embarked air wing. The F-14D and F/A-18E/F epitomise this concept - both are extremely capable air-to-air fighters, and both can carry a decent bomb load and drop it with precision accuracy.

The A-12 could have gone in deep and solo (much like the F-117 or B-2 is designed to do), however the USN has hundreds of TLAMs deployed on SSNs, DDGs and Aegis cruisers that can basically complete 95% of that designed mission at less than 1% of the cost. If a target is of high enough value for a carrier launched A-12 to be required to hit it, then 10 TLAMs could do the job as well with less risk. Other options available include shore-based F-117s, F-15Es, B-1Bs, B-52s carying C/ALCMs, or even B-2s flying out of Wiseman or Fairford to hit any point on the globe, as demonstrated in Kosovo last year.

The aircraft would have basically duplicated the mission of these aircraft with little gain, and with considerable cost!

Magoo

In Reply to: GD/ A-12 Avenger II posted by TRUTHDEFENDER on November 18, 2000 at 08:11:09 EST:

Replies: