Talk:Lockheed A-12/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image

Is there any chance of getting a more appropriate image for this article. I think if there is going to be only one image on the page one of the actual plane would be more appropriate, rather than an image of a one-off, rare, training variant. Gfad1 12:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The trainer bears a closer (albeit superficial) resemblance to the SR.

Let me see what I can scrounge up. ALC

Who flew these aircraft? USAF pilots? CIA pilots? USAF pilots detached/lended to CIA? David.Monniaux 22:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Different personnel at different times, but by in large these were operated as CIA

assets with company pilots. ALC

Shouldn't we be using the Cygnus popular name for the A-12, instead of Oxcart? This was the final popular name for the plane, and the name on the flight suit patch. ALC

How to tell them apart

The text below was removed in July 2005. However, I believe it is useful information especially for laymen because it points out the external differences of the three different kinds of planes. I restored it here to help the laymen to tell these planes apart.

There are three distinctive types of airplane that are all called Blackbirds by the laymen. These three airplanes were designed for different branches of the government, with different mission/operation objectives, design parameters and flight characteristics. Due to the secrecy surrounding these airplanes during their operating years, the military never stepped forward to clarify any confusion regarding these airplanes. These airplanes can be easily distinquished from one another by several very obvious external features:

File:A12Blackbird.JPG

An A-12 two seater trainer

• The A-12 is a one seater CIA spy airplane. The single seat cockpit is a telltale sign, with the exception of the one-of-a-kind trainer version shown on the right.
• The SR-71 is a two seater USAF spy airplane. The two seater cockpit is a telltale sign.
• The YF-12 is a Air Force fighter interceptor. The cone shaped nose is a telltale sign.

The three airplanes A-12, SR-71 and YF-12 were designed with different capabilities for different missions. Press release photos from the government sometimes mixed up the pictures. It is unknown if the mix up was intentional or not because these projects were secret and unclassified pictures were hard to come by.

Why did the A-12 retire?

This article is lacking on why the A-12 was retired. All I see are some ambiguous references to the SR-71 replacing it. -71.49.163.77 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A12 was retired due to money and politics

THe A12 was retired in the late 60s, very shortly after it became operational. The USAF had procured some 33 SR71s, and the argument was that there was no reason to fund both fleets (CIA A12 and USAF SR71). The CIA lost the funding battle; this decision is attributed to McNamara (also known as 'Mac the Knife') for cutting programs. Before being retired the A12 logged operational missions over North Vietnam, and was also used to locate the USS Pueblo in a North Korean harbor after it was captured. The A12 was called the Cygnus by its crews; the OXCART name was not actually the aircraft itself but the name of the program under which the CIA created the aircraft. The A12, being single seat, was actually a little lighter, and thus was marginally faster. The aircraft had a design speed of Mach 3.2, and slightly above that speed the windscreen started to go opaque due to heat effects. The CIA never put the A12 up for record attempts due to its 'deep black' status; thus the SR71 did all the record runs even though it was (very) slightly slower. The first A12 to fly is now at the Blackbird Airpark museum, just on the southern border of Palmdale Plant 42 (near Edwards AFB).Flyer190 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

which is faster?

I thought the SR-71 was the fastest. Maybe it was maid faster later? --Gbleem 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The SR-71 has the official record though as they are basically the same plane their top speeds are likely to be very similar. Exact details of these planes are difficult to verify but as the SR-71 was the later of the 2 planes it is likely that it had the benefit of greater development of the engines etc, e.g. computerised control of the shock cones to prevent and/or recover from unstarts. It would seem that the limiting factor on the top speed of these aircraft would have been intake compressor temperature. The known designs for these aircraft's intakes would have overheated at about mach 3.44, though there are suggestions that the SR-71 exceeded even this speed breifly on occassions. It should be noted that the SR-71's officially measured 'top' speed is very close to its transatlantic speed record. Although this is mainly a factor of the plane having a single design speed it also suggests that it might just have had a bit more to give - we will likely as not never know for sure. Who is to say that a pilot would have the same incentive to risk engine destruction to set an academic record as he would have had when missiles were being fired at him?

Thanks for the info. Please review my changes to the article. --Gbleem 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There are rumors that Lockheed test pilot Darryl Greenamyer took an A-12 to M 3.6, but I haven't found confirmation. SR-71 pilot Brian Shul has written and spoken about hitting M 3.5 coming out of Libya during Operation El Dorado Canyon. Interestingly, Bill Park, the second pilot to fly the aircraft, showed no interest in questions about the highest or fastest. For him the real challenge in the program was being able to make turns and otherwise fly a realistic mission profile at design altitude and speed. Paul Suhler (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Groom?

The image box at the bottom currently claims to show a bunch of A-12's "on the ramp at Groom". I'd say that's highly speculative, and frankly rather doubtful if only for the reason that neither the sun angle/shadow fits nor is the mountain range in the background what you'd see if that location was indeed Groom Lake. Just doesn't add up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.240.163 (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the limited production quantity, the limited locations they were ever located, and the number of craft in the photograph, where else could it have been? - Thaimoss 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked with a guy who used to do radar cross section testing at the Area; the photo is indeed from there. The view is to the northwest; the line of the pavement behind the aircraft runs east-west. The buildings in the background are part of the radar measurement facility operated by EG&G. Besides, if you use Google Earth, you can reproduce that view and the profile of the mountains in the distance matches. Paul Suhler (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A-12 aircraft on display

There's redundant info on this section of the article. There are 8 planes remaining, 5 lost - detailed in the table, but the 8 planes are mentioned again right below the table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.88.207 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I had originally included a section on Production, and in that section the airframe numbers were detailed, along with abbreviated references to the fate. The Production section eventually got removed, and the data embedded and dispersed elsewhere. The result was that a "after service life" section on "On Display" ended up being right alongside the "Production" information that was originally nearer to the beginning. This made that information obviously duplicative. Good catch. Please have a look now. - Thaimoss (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This works well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Great.. I didn't expect this to be fixed so fast. Thumbs up! 77.125.92.203 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Land Panel

In 1958-59, what's Land Panel? Jim.henderson (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A committee of 3 or 4 experts chaired by EM Land of Polaroid that helped the CIA decide among the proposed recon aircraft designs. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The 15 Nov 1958 recommendation of Convair's FISH over Lockheed's A-3 was signed by Edwin Land, Edward Purcell, Guyford Stever, Courtland Perkins, and Allen Donovan. 146.174.240.11 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Timeline in Paragraph form

Finlayson, I'd suggest leaving the timeline in the format it is in now. The Design and Development and Operational History sections can (and sort of already do) expand on the timeline items, and augment them with additional verbiage, etc. But, for the timeline, which I think is pretty useful, I think the "list" form that is there now is a good layout. - Thaimoss (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the early history is not addressed in the article, but are mentioned in the timeline. It's alright to have both. I just think a timeline with less detail with the details in the Development section would be better. I'll change tags to better address this... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Area 51

Should we add a section on its testing at AREA 51 as has been declassified?

The Road to Area 51 Backstory

After decades of denying the facility's existence, five former insiders speak out by Annie Jacobsen

Area 51. It's the most famous military institution in the world that doesn't officially exist. If it did, it would be found about 100 miles outside Las Vegas in Nevada's high desert, tucked between an Air Force base and an abandoned nuclear testing ground. Then again, maybe not— the U.S. government refuses to say. You can't drive anywhere close to it, and until recently, the airspace overhead was restricted—all the way to outer space. Any mention of Area 51 gets redacted from official documents, even those that have been declassified for decades.

... http://www.latimes.com/la-mag-april052009-backstory,0,786384.story

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.121.129 (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it's absolutely unnecessary to post the entire article text above. Second, I'd already used the Times piece to add a couple of citations to the A-12 article (and to the Area 51 article), if you'd bothered to read it. YLee (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I should add that the declassification the Times article mentions should be seen in context. The A-12's existence has been known for years (heck, Lyndon Johnson announced the existence of its direct descendant, the SR-71, on national television more than 40 years ago); the declassification simply permits people who worked on the project to now freely talk about what they did. I didn't see much in the article that was not either a) already known or b) trivial and unencylopedic. YLee (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical / Operational Details

When you consider that the SR-71 is a variant of the A-12, it's kind of strange that in regards to technical details the A-12 page doesn't have anywhere near as much information in regards to technical data and operational details, which would include things like the air-inlets, engines and propulsion-system, the fuselage, it's titanium-structure, it's stealth design features such as chines, it's life-support systems, it's JP-7 fuel, and it's astro-inertial navigation systems, as the SR-71 page which has an ENORMOUS amount of information. In my opinion the A-12 page should have all of this information.AVKent882 (talk) 1:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Should have much more detail here, no doubt. I think the SR-71 article has too much detail and needs to be referenced better. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the A-12 article does not (except for the single nickname reference) reference titanium at all--where it came from (the USSR) or the special tooling needed to be innovated to work it--makes this article somewhat a fluff, if not a joke. It's the most significant point! It also calls the flights "test" when it fact most were operational. The SR-71 article was an early in-depth effort benefiting from someone connected with the program before the emphasis on referencing kicked in. After-the-fact tracking down of references is tedious--that's why it rarely gets done.--65.185.127.109 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I just copy the stuff from the SR-71 page, simply substitute the word SR-71 with A-12 and bring it over here? AVKent882 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure on the parts that apply to the A-12. Better to stick to content in the SR-71 article that is cited though. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the case, I've added a new section in the Design and development chapter called "New materials and production techniques" and named the rest of the text "Flight testing" in relation to what you have mentioned as it is important. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

More mention of SR-71 needed

The tone of the article is sort of that this was a disappointing, abbreviated, perhaps failed program. Article should mention that essentially the A-12 survived in a lengthened version as the SR-71. Tempshill (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviated? Yes, and that's 100% true from an operational perspective. Disappointing or failed? I don't get that sense. That said, I will add a mention of how the Air Force's SR-71 was kept and the A-12 wasn't. YLee (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The A-12 did have a short career. But the article does needs expanding, no doubt. Converting the timeline into sentences and citing would be a good place to start, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever considered combining the article in the Lockheed A-12 with the article on the SR-71 and renaming it Lockheed Blackbird? Accoring to Ben Rich's book Skunkworks (ISBN: 0-31674300-3) both planes were developed from the same internal project code named Archangle. The main difference was the customer one was specialized for the CIA, and the other was for the Air Force, but they are variations of the same basic design. --Freesoler01 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)]]

I disagree that the SR-71 should be mentioned more or the articles merged. It has it own comprehensive article for starters and the 2 planes are not the same. The SR-71 was heavier and therefore flew lower and slower than the A-12. As the CIA put it the SR-71 was "a somewhat less sophisticated version of the A-12". They had different cameras and mission profiles. The CIA always intended the A-12 for direct over-flights of target countries whereas the Air Force had a totally different mission profile using sideways looking cameras and sensors and never having to overfly the target countries. It is totally correct to not mention the (inferior imho) SR-71 except when necessary! ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Article tone seems fine to me. I always attributed the shift from CIA to AF more as a function of politics and wrangling than technology. It's not coincidence that the program moved just about when the NRO was forming… Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, it was political, I've read in the FOI docs that the reason that USAF pilots were used is because after the U2 incident, that civilian (CIA) pilots presented too much of a political "risk" as they could be tried as spys whereas an USAF pilot is a military man "doing his job". It was the differenece between a death sentence or a lifetime in foreign jail as opposed to the return of a "downed pilot" who needed to be sympathised with - thus avoiding the major international incident around the return of Francis Gary Powers - That was the argument more or less, so after 1960 USAF pilots always flew spy planes, not civilian CIA pilots. I'll keep expanding the article when I can reference a good source or two and we can all chip away at it slowly. I'd rather we not copy text over from the SR-71 article and expand it independantly. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Codes

These were CIA planes but were also assigned USAF serial numbers? I think the Agency referred to them as "Article X" - should these codes also be listed in the article? Drutt (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Article code is mentioned in the Development section already. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that tells us that 60-6924 was Article 121. What about the others. Drutt (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the 3rd number increases from 1 in series. I may have a book with this in a table or something. Will have to check later.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A-12 Utility Flight Manual

http://www.foia.cia.gov/ has the "A-12 Utility Flight Manual" (15. June 1968) - search for "A-12 FLIGHT MANUAL WITH TECHNICAL DATA CHANGE". It is quite extensive with 459 pages. This should be a treasure trove for anyone who wants to add technical or operational details. Have fun... --Enemenemu (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

External link "Sheep-Dipping"

The rational for moving "Sheep-dipping" is valid; I only added it in hopes it would inspire some editor more closely associated with this article to work reference to the practice into the main article. I also added it to the lede of the agricultural article Sheep dip, following a rather apt Monty Python reference. "Sheep-Dipping" also took place during the CIA's Secret War in Laos (now re-named Laotian Civil War,) Operation Barrel Roll, Raven Forward Air Controllers, and the Battle of Lima Site 85 (which is currently the subject of an edit war.) --Pawyilee (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in Infobox

The Infobox reports the aircraft in the photo as Serial Number 06932, which I understand to be invalid for United States Air Force types; it should be 60-6932. The Air Force goes by a Fiscal Year sequence, which was abbreviated for repeating on the tailfin. The actual serial number is in a databox on the fuselage at the cockpit position, formatted as follows:

U. S. AIR FORCE YA-12A SERIAL NO. 60-6932 SERVICE WITH JP-7 FUEL PER MIL-DTL-38219 - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)