Thread: Worst Cancellation ever....

The A-12, the XB-70 and the other A-12 all seem like lost opportunities.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

The A-12, the XB-70 and the other A-12 all seem like lost opportunities.

Yea, with all the BS litigation expenses that the Pentagon has been blowing on cancellation of the most recent A-12 program, they could have fully funded it. That program was NEVER in the dire straights that the pentagon made it out to be. Additionally, I'd add NATF to the list, and scrap JSF.

Originally Posted by jgetti

Yea, with all the BS litigation expenses that the Pentagon has been blowing on cancellation of the most recent A-12 program, they could have fully funded it. That program was NEVER in the dire straights that the pentagon made it out to be. Additionally, I'd add NATF to the list, and scrap JSF.

Was there much real substance to the weight issue problems that surrounded the NATF? It looks to me that it was a Navy excuse not to take an Airforce plane (and didnt they then change their minds late on in the development phase, persumably when they realised that their airpower for the next couple of decades would be the Superbug)

Imagine if the USAF had taken the A12 and the navy the F22(N) - there would be no need for the JSF at all..

According to TopHatter's account of what someone else said, by the time the F-22 was navalised it would have weighed too much.

Carrierborne aircraft obviously need very strong airframes, gear and hooks to sustain the rigours of landing and catapulting off one.

Originally Posted by PubFather

Imagine if the USAF had taken the A12 and the navy the F22(N) - there would be no need for the JSF at all..

A carrier full of A-12s and F-22Ns would have been a sight to behold.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

According to TopHatter's account of what someone else said, by the time the F-22 was navalised it would have weighed too much.

Carrierborne aircraft obviously need very strong airframes, gear and hooks to sustain the rigours of landing and catapulting off one.



A carrier full of A-12s and F-22Ns would have been a sight to behold.

I still wonder if there was really a will to do it - surely the max take-off weight could have been cut (just like the JSF B). I know that navalising adds about 30% and there might have been a range/payload handicap, but its sheer potency would have compensated.

With the A12 also in USAF, the F117 could have been retired/put on standby early and I believe they are pretty expensive to maintain. Possibly a few of the heavy bombers as well and if the USAF version was lighter, it might have possessed more range/payload.

The possibilities are considerable..

Hm, part of the potency of the F-22 comes from its gigantic thrust-to-weight ratio.

I agree about the F-117>A-12 thing, though, for at the very least the older is getting old indeed and needs a replacement in the 'stealthy tactical bombing' role.

The XB-70 Valkyrie or B-71 Black Bird were the dumbest cancellations in USAF history.

For the US army, the cancellation of Commanche was pretty friggin' stupid, but i can't really think of any 'all time stupid' cancellations. Most of the systems that got axed deserved to get axed, lol.

For the US Navy, probably either the ST-21 "Tomcat21" or the already in production Seawolf SSN. Hell, even cancelling the already in production F-14D was STUPID beyond words.

Thanx DICK Cheyney....

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

According to TopHatter's account of what someone else said, by the time the F-22 was navalised it would have weighed too much.

Carrierborne aircraft obviously need very strong airframes, gear and hooks to sustain the rigours of landing and catapulting off one.



A carrier full of A-12s and F-22Ns would have been a sight to behold.

F-22Ns would've EASILY cost $500 million each.

A totally redesigned carrier capable F-22 SWING WING stealth fighter?

LOL, yup...$500 million per...EASY. There is NO WAY Congress was ever going to fund that plane through all the Clinton years. Hell, getting these systems by Tricky Dick Cheyney and RumNamara is hard enough. Getting them past Clinton would've been impossible, lol.

The ST-21 is in reality the most ambitious plane the USN was going to get, and they got screwed on that one too. Thanx AGAIN Tricky Dick Cheyney.

Cheyney had an axe to grind against Grumman. And he did. To the tune of putting them out of business.

$500 million per unit cost, not including development...?

I think it would be much cheaper simply to build more land bases and get more KC-10s for a normal F-22 squadron!

Out of curiosity, how difficult and time-consuming would the logistics be, now, to get a squadron of F-22s to a potential troublespot anywhere in the world?

That $500 million per was in adjusted FY06 dollars, including development costs, and was no more than a very sound WAG.

The F-22 including development is about $350 mil per.

So yeah, redesigning it AND adapting it to swing wings would EASILY have added another $150 mil per.

Probably more.

The ST-21(basically a totally redesigned and modernized F-14, a la the Super Hornet) on the other hand gave around 90% of the raptors capability for about 70% of the price. Even a less ambitious "F-14E" program would've still resulted in a plane much, much more capable than the F-18E/F is, though the maintenance man hours issue would've still be present to some extent.

Oh well......i guess it was dumb for Grumman to do business as they did. Apparently they rubbed the wrong guy the wrong way at least one time to many. And it cost them(and us), big.

And now we have the A/E/F/K-18E/F/G.

Yay us... :(