The Navy's Fighter-Plane-Size UAV, the X-47B, Is Unveiled in California

[austin552]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4296188.html

[URY914]

Has Revell released the model yet?

[john70t]

http://www.luft46.com/horten/horten.html Revisiting the past....

[rouxroux]

Cool. a pocket-sized B2. Jack would be proud.

[M.D. Holloway]

Many years ago I worked on a project that looked similar - we were developing radar cross section reduction materials for several planes one of which was the A12. It never made it to production or so we were told. Cool plane. I came up with the concept of a conductive polymeric foam which proved to be a great EMI/RFI shield as well for this project. DARPA took my 3 lab books and my 8 patent disclosures and thanked me for my contributions. I feel cheated yet proud!

Here is a pic of that plane - look alot like the other one. It was supposed to be a mini B2 that could launch off carriers.

[m21sniper]

Ah, the A-12 "Flying Dorrito", the single greatest debacle in USN procurement history and the plane that destroyed Grumman.

Somehow, when i look at these unmaned hunter-killer UAV's all i really see is this:



Or perhaps even this:

[svandamme]

It's no F-14 in the looking good department.

[tcar]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Ah, the A-12 "Flying Dorrito", the single greatest debacle in USN procurement history and the plane that destroyed Grumman.

There were 2 A-12's, neither was from Grumman, I don't think.

Lockheed - The Blackbird, for the CIA (SR-71)

McDonnell-Douglas - is the one you're thinking of; for the Navy (Dorito?).

[MFAFF]

Snipe...
How do you figure a General Dyanmics /McDD aircraft destroyed Grumman?
It did a great job of self destructing in the mid 1970s with the F-14 contract and never recovered....let alone stomach the loss of the A-6F programme and not convincing NavAir that a updated Strike Tomcat was a better bet than the Super Hornet...

Ah politics...

But the X-47B is looking interesting... not as good as a Tomcat tho'....

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally Posted by tcar

There were 2 A-12's, neither was from Grumman, I don't think.

Lockheed - The Blackbird, for the CIA (SR-71)

McDonnell-Douglas - is the one you're thinking of; for the Navy (Dorito?).

It was Mac D that I was working with.

[Seahawk]

The real aircraft is much bigger...the program is still in the fly-off, carrier suitability phase. No final design yet from the two competitors.

Good friend of mine runs the program...very interesting technology.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by tcar

There were 2 A-12's, neither was from Grumman, I don't think.

Lockheed - The Blackbird, for the CIA (SR-71)

McDonnell-Douglas - is the one you're thinking of; for the Navy (Dorito?).

The A-12 pictured in this thread was a Navy bird.

Originally Posted by MFAFF

Snipe...
How do you figure a General Dyanmics /McDD aircraft destroyed Grumman?
It did a great job of self destructing in the mid 1970s with the F-14 contract and never recovered....let alone stomach the loss of the A-6F programme and not convincing NavAir that a updated Strike Tomcat was a better bet than the Super Hornet...

Ah politics...

But the X-47B is looking interesting... not as good as a Tomcat tho'....

It's a looooooooooooong story, but it involved Dick Cheyney, the Navy, the A-12, the F-14D tomcat and revenge. The lawsuits over the defunct A-12 program lingered for decades.

Google it for some interesting reading some time.

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Good friend of mine runs the program...very interesting technology.

So are Cylons.

[Seahawk]

When I had my PMA at NAVAIR for Navy and Marine Corps UAS I made all of my Officers and GS-15 civilians read: "Hornet: The Inside Story of the F/A-18"
by Orr Kelly.

It is really fascinating peek behind the curtain and helped us immensely as we pushed forward with UAS programs against some rather interesting opposition.

I personally think the JUCAS is a tremendous waste...we already have a deep penetrating strike UAS: the Tomahawk. It just doesn't come home.

Originally Posted by MFAFF

Snipe...
How do you figure a General Dyanmics /McDD aircraft destroyed Grumman?
It did a great job of self destructing in the mid 1970s with the F-14 contract and never recovered....let alone stomach the loss of the A-6F programme and not convincing NavAir that a updated Strike Tomcat was a better bet than the Super Hornet...

Ah politics...

But the X-47B is looking interesting... not as good as a Tomcat tho'....

[rick-l]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

It's a looooooooooooong story, but it involved Dick Cheyney, the Navy, the A-12, the F-14D tomcat and revenge. The lawsuits over the defunct A-12 program lingered for decades.

It was McDonnel Douglas and General Dynamics.

The lawsuits will linger for additional decades. The last ruling was June 1st 2009 where the companies owed something like 1.35 billion and 1.45 billion in interest.

The best quote I remember is "it wasn't a fighter plane it was a train wreck".

[J-P]

This is just the next step in the long trend towards completely removing the man from the cockpit, particularly in strike/tactical aircraft.

As a former naval aviator and airline pilot, it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, but it is reality and there are certainly benefits.

- UAV's don't need to pee, eat, drink, sleep, have an ejection seat, have an oxygen generating or LOX system, etc., etc., etc.

- Smaller, lighter aircraft will burn less fuel, carry more weapons, have a longer on-station and loiter time, and provide greater battlefield flexibility.

- Aircraft designers are allowed much more design freedoms when they don't have to accomodate a human crew.

- Aircraft can be made to perform MUCH, MUCH better with respect to G-loading and maneuverability when you're not constrained by the human-limited, sustained 9 G barrier.

The list goes on. It is the future.

[MFAFF]

Seahawk..

The F-18 book is great.. so is James Stevenson's 'The $5billion Misunderstanding' The Collapse of the Navy's A-12 Stealth Bomber Program.

The sheer scale of the smoke and mirrors and the quantum of money is almost unbelievable.. but it happened.

Snipe..
The F-14 was doomed even before the first metal was cut in terms of the DoD... as the "Revolt of the Admirals" lead by Adm. Tom Connelley (hence Tomcat) made sure the civilians would always ensure it sucked hind tit in the DoD regardless of its actual performance...this was followed up by Grumman basically blackmailing NavAir when the fixed cost contract it had signed revealed it would go broke despite delivering on time and to spec.....the final nail in its coffin was the TF30 engine. Had the original B version been introduced when it was first flown then it would have perhaps survived and be the Navy equivalent of the Eagle.

The F14A+, B and D versions were post scripts to the program that was already mortally wounded, not by its technical prowess but by McDD' s political work in the back ground and Grumman's slightly high handed approach. The Strike Tomcat was a really low risk option to replace the A-12 when that died.. much lower risk than the F-18E, as pretty much all of the avionics had already flown with the F-15E and the aero configuration was tried and tested.. there was already a much improved FCS system waiting in the wings....but no... McDD ably used its influence and Grumman failed to see the danger...we'll not even talk about the Tomcat 21 which was to be procured as a follow on...

Read Tomcat! by Rear Adm Gillcrist to get a good view... Stevenson's 70s haiography of the F-14 is also an interesting period view of this 'super fighter', its now pretty embarassing to read, but at the time (1975) it was the 'word'...

[Heel n Toe]

The Department of Defense terminated the contract after the contractors failed to deliver a single airplane after receiving more than $2 billion in payments. Instead, the contractors refused to continue with the contract unless they received extraordinary relief in the form of relaxed terms and extra funds. At the same time, they would or could not assure delivery of an aircraft by a time certain, specify the aircraft's performance capabilities, or commit to a specific price for the aircraft.

Were the A-12 Program’s cost overruns exceptional when compared to other major acquisitions? Prior research indicated that most major programs experience some degree of cost variance. To determine if the A-12’s overruns were exceptional, in a 1996 Master of Science in Management thesis compared the A-12 Program to 58 other contracts for developmental work. The conclusion of the research was that the A-12’s overruns were exceptional. The cost overruns in the A-12 Program, at termination, exceeded 97 percent of other programs examined. To complete the Program may have cost between $9 and $11 billion. The required budget adjustment to complete the A-12 Program was greater than 91 percent of other programs. The research found no difference between cost variances of fixed-price contracts and cost-type contracts. The assertion that the use of a fixed-price contract contributed to the failure of the program was not proven. There was also no statistical difference between the cost overruns of aircraft programs and other types of programs. The Government’s decision to terminate the A-12 Program for cost overruns was justified, based on the sample of programs examined.

Litigation on the A-12 program termination was in progress for a decade since 1991. As a consequence of the termination for default, the Navy demanded that the contractors repay $1,352 in unliquidated progress payments, but agreed to defer collection of the amount pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on the contractors’ challenge to the termination for default, or a negotiated settlement. The A-12 contractor team filed a legal action to contest the Navy's default termination, to assert its rights to convert the termination to one for "the convenience of the Government," and to obtain payment for work done and costs incurred on the A-12 contract but not paid to date.

More:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-12.htm

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I personally think the JUCAS is a tremendous waste...we already have a deep penetrating strike UAS: the Tomahawk. It just doesn't come home.

It's better to give than receive.

[austin552]

X-47A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crfLkasFp68&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Epelicanparts%2Ecom%2Fsh owthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D391522%26page%3D180&feature=player_embedded

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by MFAFF

Stevenson's 70s haiography of the F-14 is also an interesting period view of this 'super fighter', its now pretty embarassing to read, but at the time (1975) it was the 'word'...

My business partner is a former F-14 RIO...Top Gun guy, went back to be an instructor.

If I hear ONE more Turkey story...