The Ship Model Forum

Bunzov Steele wrote:Werner, why would the Navy have been in a stronger position to request new shipbuilding? Could you go into more detail? Just curious. Thank you.

There would be no new aircraft to fund (F-35). The Navy would have consolidated it's lobby effort around some other program, almost certainly a surface warfare ship.

They certainly would have been in a position to garner more headlines during the active war phase. They probably would have been able to keep one carrier and Alameda Naval Station open.

Seasick wrote: When Dick Cheney canceled the A-12 the program was way out of control. Way too much money was spent for little result. I have strong feelings that certain people should have been proseuted for their acts.

My thoughts were based on a "successful" airplane and not a boondoggle.

Would you care to elaborate? Name names?

Even with the boondoggle, you have to admit that the estimated $9 to $11 billion is a ludicrously small amount compared to current boondoggles like DDG-1000 or even the B-2 program.

Each B-2 cost about $2.2 billion 1992 dollars, fairly close to the cost of an aircraft carrier. (Ronald Reagan cost $4.3 billion)

The A-12 would have killed Naval avation.

The A-12 would have consumed too much money.

Results:

1. A small number of A-12 would have been built and the production would start late.

2. Production of F/A-18C and F/A-18D would have been cut and a much smaller number would have been built. F/A-18A air frames would have been been worn out and carrier air wings would have shrunk.

3. Due to a lack of funds the F-14A would have had to have started being retired in the late 1990s. Only the F-14B and F-14D fighters would have been in service by 2000.

When Dick Cheney canceled the A-12 the program was way out of control. Way too much money was spent for little result. I have strong feelings that certain people should have been proseuted for their acts.

Bunzov Steele wrote:With the A-12 in the Navy, would carrier aviation have been made stronger as a result, or weaker?

Werner, why would the Navy have been in a stronger position to request new shipbuilding? Could you go into more detail? Just curious. Thank you.

It probably would have had it's numbers cut like the B-2. Still, the target performance would have been breathtaking; like comparing the B-2 and the B-52.

I would say it would have had the same impact on the USN's mission as the B-2 had on the USAF.

With the A-12 in the Navy, would carrier aviation have been made stronger as a result, or weaker?

Werner, why would the Navy have been in a stronger position to request new shipbuilding? Could you go into more detail? Just curious. Thank you.

The A-12 would have killed off the F-35 project, at least as far as the CTOL version is considered. The USAF and Marines would have gone their own ways with separate programs at much greater expense. The F/A-18 E/F probably would have continued with smaller buys.

The USN would be in a much stronger position to demand ships than it is now.

Hypothetically, if the A-12 Avenger II was not cancelled in the early '90s and made it into the Fleet, what do you think a carrier's airwing would be like now? Would we have need for the F/A-18 E and F? Would the Tomcat have been upgraded? What are your thoughts? I'm just curious, as the A-12 was meant to replace the A-6. Without it, we never did fill that gap, right?