Apollo Leader Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 A-12 Blackbird Article #128 here in Nebraska as I speak! The A-12 that was on display at Minnesota Air National Guard meseum is currently enroute to the CIA's headquarters in Langley to be put on display. Sadly, some jerk that was pissed that the aircraft was being taken from the museum, got into the cockpit and stole some of the displays and dials and maybe some other vandalism, too. This was one of the best preserved A-12's in existence. Since Worldwide Aircraft Recovery (http://www.worldwideaircraft.com/) is in Bellevue and that's where the aircraft is as I speak. I have already placed a call to the company and hope to hear back soon on whether or not I'll be allowed to go down and see it and maybe get some pictures. I had the chance to see it when I was up in Minneapolis back in 2003.
Apollo Leader Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/artic...wallstreet.html As it turns out it was aviation author, Lockheed Blackbird enthusiast, and former Minnesota Air Guardsman himself James Goodall, who is one of my favorite aviation authors, that did the "stealing". Basically he took back some of the displays and dials he had personally donated when he was involved in having 128 shipped out to Minneapolis and was involved with its restoration. I can undertand his fustrations and the parts were his to begin with, but when he gave those parts for this A-12, those belonged now to that A-12 regardless where it would be displayed. Though I can fully understand why Mr. Goodall and a lot of the others involved with Article 128 would be upset by what has happened, that there are other A-12's that would be a better choice (from an historic and combat point of view), that 128 will not be viewable up close by the general public once it's at CIA HQ, and from my own point of view this takes away the closest A-12 I can visit, but the bottom line is that the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum (http://www.mnangmuseum.org/) is NOT the greatest place for viewing anyway. Since it's right on Air Guard property, it's not exactly convenient to get to and the museum is only open a few days a month. Right after 9/11, the musuem was closed for awhile since the Air Force took back its old F-89 Scorpion hangers that the museum uses so it could operate F-16's there. When I made my only visit to the museum in August 2003, I had to arrange my visit weeks in advance since the museum wasn't fully open to public. Ironically, even though this A-12 may not be readily accessable to the general public, more people may now have the chance to actually see this A-12 just because of alll the people that work there at CIA HQ. If I get a chance to go see the aircraft and get some pictures, I'll make sure to post them here. I'll try to post some pictures of my 2003 visit tonight.
Nied Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 The whole situation sucks, however legally if Goodall never actually officially donated those gauges they are his to take out of the cockpit when the CIA took the plane back. It sucks that 128 is no longer complete, but as I understand it the CIA was planning on putting it on a pole in a courtyard somewhere, a complete cockpit doesn't really matter then does it?
Apollo Leader Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Looks like I might be able to go see it! I'm running home to get my camera in a few minutes. If the gates to the place are open when I get down there I'm in business. If not, I might try to get off work early tomorrow or Friday and try again.
David Hingtgen Posted March 14, 2007 Author Posted March 14, 2007 It seems any plane on display at a military (or CIA) installation usually gets the canopy opaqued anyways---there could be NO cockpit and you'd never know.
Apollo Leader Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 The whole situation sucks, however legally if Goodall never actually officially donated those gauges they are his to take out of the cockpit when the CIA took the plane back. It sucks that 128 is no longer complete, but as I understand it the CIA was planning on putting it on a pole in a courtyard somewhere, a complete cockpit doesn't really matter then does it? If you give your fiancee an engagement ring and the wedding gets cancelled, normally one doesn't get the engagement ring back. But in my opinion this hurts Goodall's case because it will put into question on what exactly he took and it makes him look bad. Furthermore by taking his stuff back, that can said that him and his supporters have less of a stake in the aircraft. But I would rather this aircraft have remained out here and I am against mounting rare and historic aircraft up on poles since it involves mutilating the aircraft. Either way its a sad case and the arguments from either side in this matter are reasonable and logical.
Nied Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 If you give your fiancee an engagement ring and the wedding gets cancelled, normally one doesn't get the engagement ring back. But in my opinion this hurts Goodall's case because it will put into question on what exactly he took and it makes him look bad. Furthermore by taking his stuff back, that can said that him and his supporters have less of a stake in the aircraft. Granted I don't have much experience in this particular area (my wife didn't turn me down), but it's my understanding that it depends on who calls off the wedding. It the bride calls it off it's proper etiquette to return the ring, if the groom calls it off it's up to the bride weather or not to return the ring (now that's a tangent I'd never thought I'd go down in the Aircraft vs thread). It's certainly crass for Goodall to rip those instruments out, but I can't really blame him for it. They're his instruments and if the CIA is going to ruin the airplane by putting it on a pole with the canopy opaqued over why shouldn't he take them back? It's not going to be a pristine condition A-12 anymore anyway.
Nied Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) Boo-friggin-yeah. You beat me to it. This gets a resounding "meh" from me. I was worried about how a Sundowners tail would look on an F-5, and apparently I was right to do so. The sun just looks off. Edited March 15, 2007 by Nied
VF-19 Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Boo-friggin-yeah. Nice. Although, I think it would have looked better if the sun was in the lower-leading-edge corner with the rays going towards the trailing edge. But that's just me. At least it's not on a Super-Hornet...
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Well the question is did he really install those components, there are photos of the cockpit before it was sent to the musuem showing the cockpit full of instruments (one was missing), and now photos show the instrument panel almost bare. So its a he said, photos said issue. There is no way to prove that the photos show it arrived like that or it the photos was taken, then the cockpit gutted before being shipped. However if whats in the cockpit was ripped out that was in there when it arrived, it should be returned. On a side note if i was installing stuff into a A-12 i would have photos of the entire process, including me grinning like a loon everytime i put one in. Interesting though I lived not to far from Castle Air Museum for several years and I never got any pictures of me with the SR-71 there. Note to self correct that when i can. Overall its being made into a child's fight. He did not pay for the A-12, the CIA did and they have the right to do with what they want with the planes. I may not agree with a A-12 being turned into oversized lawn ornament and away from public display, but the CIA has ownership of the plane. At least this A-12 has fared better then the one of the USS Intrepid. Cruel Angel's Thesis
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Was over at Dreamland Resort and came across some interesting news. First is the Eurofighter, the RAF is getting a Eurofighter with a gun it can't use. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html Second, well it had to happen. The F-117 is being retired to the TTR. Well six so far. http://www.alamogordonews.com/news/ci_5422727 http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/11235292/detail.html Cruel Angel's Thesis
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Fellas, imagine the VFC-111 shark mouth on the F-20 Tigershark....ah if only it could've been...
Graham Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Was over at Dreamland Resort and came across some interesting news. First is the Eurofighter, the RAF is getting a Eurofighter with a gun it can't use. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html Cruel Angel's Thesis That's actually extremely old news (several years at least). I'm surprised the Telegragh is just publishing it now. Also, the Telegraph is notoriously anti-Typhoon. According to news last October, which I consider more credible, the RAF will be getting ammunttion and training for the Typhoon's 27mm Mauser cannon. Typhoon wins gun dogfight By Neil Tweedie (Filed: 03/10/2006) "The RAF has been forced into an embarrassing U-turn on its policy of not allowing pilots of the new Eurofighter Typhoon to fire their gun. The service has decided to issue ammunition to future Typhoon squadrons and train pilots in using the fighter's single German-made 27mm Mauser cannon, reversing its cost-cutting edict. The decision follows experience in Afghanistan showing that guns are still one of the most effective weapons when supporting ground troops. In a scathing e-mail, a Parachute Regiment major commanding an isolated outpost described air support from RAF Harriers, which have no guns and rely on rockets, as "utterly, utterly useless". He contrasted their performance with the support offered by US air force A10 aircraft, which are equipped with a 30mm rotary cannon. At a conference last week, Air Vice-Marshal David Walker, the officer commanding No 1 Group, which includes the Harrier and the newly-forming Typhoon squadrons, said he had decided to proceed with the Typhoon gun, buying ammunition, spares and maintenance equipment. Seven years ago, the ministry decided to dispense with the gun on all but the first 55 of the 232 Typhoons planned for RAF service, in contrast to the other nations in the Eurofighter consortium, which kept it on all ordered aircraft. The experts argued that Typhoon did not need anything as crude as a gun. The plan would have saved the taxpayer about £90 million. But Typhoon is designed to such fine specifications that the loss of the gun created a weight imbalance and it was finally realised that the cheaper and easier option would be to fit a real cannon." Graham
Warmaker Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 I find it "amusing" that there were people that considered aircraft cannons to be useless because of their crudeness.
Apollo Leader Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 I got a bunch of pictures of A-12 128. As soon as I have a chance to get them on my computer and scale some down in size I'll post a few. I struck up a pretty good conversation with the company's vice president and he's promised to stay in touch with me to let me know what happens to the aircraft next. Right now they are waiting to hear from the CIA on what they are suppose to do next. It remains the possibility that it could be heading back to Minnesota.
T.V. Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 I find it "amusing" that there were people that considered aircraft cannons to be useless because of their crudeness. A case of mixed priorities and lack of foresight. The gun has lost it's usefulness.. as an air-to-air weapon in full scale combat. For (low intensity) air-to-ground work against soft targets and as a deterrent it's still unsurpassed and the most cost-effective method of precision required destruction and show of force. Especially in scenarios where targets are likely to be time sensitive, since the gun allows you to postpone commitment to weapon deployement to the last possible moment (pulling the trigger) and is near instant in its delivery. I wouldn't be suprised if A-10s, F/A-18s and F-16s would be kept in service past their current planned out of service dates, simply because they may prove to be more useful and cost effective than JSFs in Afghan-like theaters of war, if such scenarios remain prevalent. They already saved the A-10 from retirement time and again due to its sheer usefulness, while constantly being percieved as too slow and low tech. I suspect though that the A-10 will remain at the forefront until 2028 and probably beyond that. The B-52 isn't kept in service way beyond its intended out of service date(s) for nothing as well.
David Hingtgen Posted March 15, 2007 Author Posted March 15, 2007 Re: Sundowners There's no red tip or base, I think that's the main problem--they have the ENTIRE fin as a sunburst. You should have MOST of the fin a sunburst, with solid red trimming/edges. It's like a Jolly Rogers plane without the yellow fin accents. Also, look at the bottom-most red rays. They're perfectly horizontal. Never seen that before---they should dip lower in the center/angle upwards a bit. Not perfectly level. Here's a quick retouch I did to get my idea across: (I'd have to redo all the angles of all the rays to get it to look "right" with the new angle of the lower ones)
Nied Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Re: Sundowners There's no red tip or base, I think that's the main problem--they have the ENTIRE fin as a sunburst. You should have MOST of the fin a sunburst, with solid red trimming/edges. It's like a Jolly Rogers plane without the yellow fin accents. Also, look at the bottom-most red rays. They're perfectly horizontal. Never seen that before---they should dip lower in the center/angle upwards a bit. Not perfectly level. Here's a quick retouch I did to get my idea across: (I'd have to redo all the angles of all the rays to get it to look "right" with the new angle of the lower ones) You're right, that helps immensely. I think another factor is the lack of tailcodes, it just seems wrong to see the sunburst without a big NL overlaid on top (and yes I know the Sundowners have used other tailcodes, but for me their quintessential scheme will always be their F-14 one). Also, the "core" of the sun sits too high up, it should be further down so that it forms more of a half circle.
Apollo Leader Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Okay time for some pictures! First set is the main fuselage which was split in two. That's me in one of the pictures.
Apollo Leader Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Main landing gear; the upper sections of the landing gear were still attached to the engine nacelle sections.
Apollo Leader Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Some of the landing gear bay doors, skins, and what appears to be some of the RAM wedges that go into the leading and trailing edges.
Warmaker Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 A case of mixed priorities and lack of foresight. The gun has lost it's usefulness.. as an air-to-air weapon in full scale combat. The usefulness of the gun has not been shown to be negligible. You have to wait until a war with contesting air forces to show that. There really hasn't been much conflicts ever since Vietnam with regular fighting like that. Desert Shield / Storm showed no contest of the air. OIF in 2003 was more lopsided. Same with Afghanistan. However, I'm not knowledgeable in the air campaign of the Falklands War of the early 80's. The last shooting war that I know of with regular air to air fighting was Vietnam, and that conflict showed that guns are a good thing to have. You want your missiles to do the work. But the gun is your extra option.
Noyhauser Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 A case of mixed priorities and lack of foresight. The gun has lost it's usefulness.. as an air-to-air weapon in full scale combat. For (low intensity) air-to-ground work against soft targets and as a deterrent it's still unsurpassed and the most cost-effective method of precision required destruction and show of force. Especially in scenarios where targets are likely to be time sensitive, since the gun allows you to postpone commitment to weapon deployement to the last possible moment (pulling the trigger) and is near instant in its delivery. Thats not really true. First off, I'd hazard to say that the difference between guns and bombs rates on friendly fire is not very different. Just last year, an A-10 had a friendly fire incident with Canadian troops during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan. Also I'd like to know if any fighter (with the exception of the A-10) has actually used its guns. First off the fear of manpads has for the most part restricted fighters to mid altitude bombing. Second, guns is actually a pretty inefficient weapon, one that can have serious consequences over bombs. Unlike A-10 pilots who train Air to Ground strafing constantly, I'd hazard to say that most pilots get very little training in strafing. That means they probably would be very poor at conducting such attacks, creating more friendly fire incidents and high rates of collateral damage. If you're interested about the 1970s missile debate read "the Pentagon Paradox." and on the future of American Airpower, you can't go wrong with Benjamin Lambeth from the Rand Corporation. Most of his books are available online.
Noyhauser Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) The usefulness of the gun has not been shown to be negligible. You have to wait until a war with contesting air forces to show that. There really hasn't been much conflicts ever since Vietnam with regular fighting like that. Desert Shield / Storm showed no contest of the air. OIF in 2003 was more lopsided. Same with Afghanistan. However, I'm not knowledgeable in the air campaign of the Falklands War of the early 80's. The last shooting war that I know of with regular air to air fighting was Vietnam, and that conflict showed that guns are a good thing to have. You want your missiles to do the work. But the gun is your extra option. The whole missile debate has changed quite a bit since the 1970s. Vietnam itself isn't an instructive case either. Why were guns so useful in Vietnam? Basically it can be boiled down to two factors. First the Sparrow was a poor missile, and second there were restrictions on BVR combat. Moreover you have to remember that the context was alot different. Fighter designs was alot different back then as well, as most U.S. "fighters" were actually interceptors designed to take on Soviet bombers. Most missiles followed the same design philosophy as well. All of this has changed quite a bit since. It seems that western missiles are far more reliable (partly because technology has changed, we don't use vacuum tubes and transistors for electronics anymore). At the same time Missile design has progressed and are far more capabable than they once were (off axis launches, very high G loads, multi sensor tracking, improved blast warheads). Finally fighters are more effective and optimized for fighter to fighter combat. Then again there is the question about how effective missiles are. The best case study we have today for very modern missiles in a roughly equal match up is Ethiopia vs Eritrea's air war. It showed that missiles might not as effective as one would think, at least quality wise for Russian makes. As missiles get better, so do their countermeasures. Moreover as the 1973 Arab Israeli war showed, modern major wars will likely have very high depletion rates of modern missiles, therefore there is some logic behind having cannons as weapon. This probably isn't much of a concern for the US, as they have massive stocks, and the risk of a major war is very low. But for smaller countries with small stocks of weapons (or where the US holds their stocks of missiles for political reasons) cannons make alot of sense. So its difficult to say. Personally I subscribe to the first school, that guns are outmoded for modern US fighters, but it makes alot more sense for smaller countries with less capabilities. Edited March 15, 2007 by Noyhauser
buddhafabio Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 the first few kills for the f-15 were by Israel and one of those was a gun kill
F-ZeroOne Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 One of the factors in deciding to keep training and support for the Typhoons gun in RAF service was recent experience with gun-less Harriers on operations. Guns might be rather less important than they used to be, but they do still give an option that a gun-less fighter doesn't have.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) IMHO, Using the 1960/70s case of the Vietnam War to argue that 'missile only' fighters are not viable in 2007 might be like arguing in 1940 that aircraft are not capable of sinking battleships because they couldn't do it back in 1916. I still think guns are nice to have on a fighter but I would think that the latest western missiles would do the job virtually all the time in a no holds barred engagement. Edited March 15, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Phyrox Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) Israel has fought major air-to-air campaigns since Vietnam. Pilots of all of that nation's recent wars will tell you the value of a gun on a fighter. Missiles have become a more reliable and preferred method of engaging your enemy, but there will be occasions when a gun is indispensable. Guns aren't outmoded for any power that wants effective, versatile fighter aircraft. Edited March 15, 2007 by Phyrox
Warmaker Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 "Bring all your good toys when you come to play. Don't be the poor kid who's sorry he left something good behind at home..."
Apollo Leader Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Part of the reason you want to stick with guns is because you never know what rules of engagement may be forced on the pilots, ie. forcing the pilots to get in close enough for a visual conformation. And of course guns can be used for both air-to-air and air-to-ground.
David Hingtgen Posted March 15, 2007 Author Posted March 15, 2007 And it's not like guns are some finicky, unreliable, hard-to-integrate and maintain technology that adds a lot of development time and costs.
Recommended Posts