Key Takeaways and Overview –The A-12 Avenger II was an innovative, aircraft carrier-capable stealth bomber developed in the 1980s with the aim of succeeding the A-6 Intruder.
– Known as the “Flying Dorito” due to its unique tailless, triangular design, the project sought to develop an aircraft capable of bypassing sophisticated Soviet defenses.
-However, the project turned into a total disaster, facing significant weight problems, unexpected technical difficulties, and expenses that got completely out of hand.
– Withdrawn in 1991, it marked the biggest contract cancellation in Pentagon history and acted as a warning for upcoming defense purchases.
Introducing the A-12 Avenger II Bombardment Aircraft
The McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II was an ambitious and contentious endeavor seeking to create a naval-basedstealth bomberFor the United States Navy, it aimed to replace the older traditional models. The A-12’s design was very innovative and quite different, incorporating a tailless flying wing structure that was unlike any aircraft the Navy had previously operated. Although the plane showed great promise, the project was terminated because of various delays and increased expenses.
The U.S. Navy Requires a Modern Bomber
Studies and development of the A-12 started in the 1980s, when the U.S. Navy began exploring possibilities forreplacing the A-6 Intruder.
The A-6 had been a dependable aircraft since the Vietnam War, providing extended-range, weather-resistant attack capabilities fromaircraft carriers.
However, during the 1980s, it was growing more obsolete due to the swift development of Soviet air defense systems and the rise of stealth technology.
The U.S. Navy required a new aircraft capable of entering highly protected airspace, deploying accurate weapons, and functioning on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
This requirement led to the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) program, which aimed to create a new generation of attack aircraft featuring stealth technology.
The initiative was a component of a broader, all-encompassing strategy within U.S. military aviation focused on stealthy aircraft, building upon the achievements of the Air Force’sF-117 NighthawkIn 1988, the Navy granted the ATA contract to a group headed by McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics.
The aircraft they suggested was called the A-12 Avenger II, a title that honored theTorpedo bomber from the World War II period, the Grumman TBF Avenger.
The Uncommon Appearance of the Avenger II
The A-12’s appearance was remarkable and unique. It includeda wing that lacks a tail and is designed to fly without onewith a triangular, Dorito-shaped form
This selection was made to reduce the aircraft’s radar signature and improve its stealth features. The structure was intended to be built with high-tech composite materials and radar-dampening finishes.
The plane would store its weapons inside to ensure a minimal radar signature, and it was built to transport a range of accurate guided weapons, such as laser-guided bombs and air-to-ground missiles.
One of the most difficult elements of the A-12’s design was itsrequirement to function from aircraft carriers. This meant the aircraft needed to be durable enough to handle catapult takeoffs and arrested landings, and small enough to fit on busy carrier decks. The A-12 was designed as a two-person aircraft, featuring a pilot and a weapons systems officer, and would include advanced avionics, such as terrain-following radar and electronic warfare capabilities. Its expected combat range surpassed 900 nautical miles, considerably more than the A-6, allowing it to attack deep into enemy territory without needing refueling.
Challenging Skies for the A-12
Although it had a cutting-edge design and potential, the A-12 program soon faced significant challenges. One of the most ongoing issues was weight. The aircraft wasconsiderably more heavy than initially estimated, partly due to the difficulty of incorporatingstealth features with carrier-based requirements.
This issue with weight jeopardized the aircraft’s capacity to achieve performance objectives and function safely aboard carriers. Moreover, the application of high-tech materials and production methods led to unexpected technical problems and setbacks.
As the program advanced, expenses started to escalate beyond control. The initial projected cost for development was approximately $4.8 billionincreased to more than $5 billionby the early 1990s, estimates indicated that the overall expense might surpass $11 billion.
The cost per unit of the aircraft was projected to beover $165 million, making it one of the priciest combat aircraft ever developed. Adding to these challenges was the fact that the A-12 was a confidential, or “black,” project. This confidentiality restricted supervision and made it challenging for Congress and the Department of Defense to evaluate the program’s development and feasibility.
In Four Words: The Navy Canceled It
By the end of 1990, the A-12 project was facing significant challenges. Unresolved technical issues persisted, expenses kept increasing, and the aircraft was still far from being prepared for manufacturing.
On January 7, 1991, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney made a decision tocancel the program, referencing budget increases, timeline setbacks, and performance doubts. It marked the biggest contract cancellation due to default in the Department of Defense’s history.
The termination of the A-12 led to a prolonged legal dispute between the U.S. government and the contractors, McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics.
The government aimed to reclaim $1.35 billion in payments, claiming the contractors did not fulfill their responsibilities. The contractors responded by stating that the government altered the requirements and could not offer sufficient assistance. The legal conflict lasted over two decades and was finally settled in 2014, when a federal court decided in favor of the contractors.
The A-12 fiascoled some to rethink the defense procurement policies of that era. Its failure demonstrated the risks of making excessive claims about untested technology, not recognizing the complexity involved, and moving forward without sufficient testing and verification.
In the wake of theA-12’s cancellation, the Department of Defense introduced stricter monitoring and milestone-driven development procedures to avoid similar issues going forward.
About the Author:
Isaac Seitz, a Defense Correspondent, completed the Strategic Intelligence and National Security program at Patrick Henry College. He has also taken Russian courses at Middlebury Language Schools and has served as an intelligence analyst in the private sector.
The Top Tanks in the World
Abrams X: The Tank That the U.S. Army Desires
M1 Abrams: The Top Tank in the World?
Challenger 3: The British Army’s Latest Advanced Tank
Please follow National Security Journalon MSN for the most recent updates on defense, foreign affairs, economics, and politics with a balanced perspective.
