Talk:Lockheed A-12/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

OXCART codename

After 1996 when all the documents on the A-12 became available, it became clear that the A-12 was retrospectively called the "A-12 OXCART", much like General Dynamics F-111 became retrospectively known as the "F-111 AARDVARK". The wiki article refers to the General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark

For consistency (and as per the all CIA website material on the A-12 OXCART) I propose that the A-12 introductory paragraph be modified to reflect the same retrospective codename nomenclature format as the F-111 wiki article does, to distinghuish it from the (SR-71) "Blackbird" as the A-12 is incorrectly referred to on some web pages out there. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Aardvark is a name not a codename and if the A-12 did have a name it would be "Oxcart" and not OXCART, that said it would seem unlikely that they named the aircraft retrospectively, It appears to be more shorthand to link it to the OXCART program than a formal name, have you a reliable source that the A-12 is called "Oxcart" ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The capitalisation was for enhancement, so lets not get hung up over that, "Oxcart" is always what I intended and as for proof I can provide lots of instances. I have all the FOI docs on a DVD and I dont know which ones are which on the [FOI] website off hand as I need to cross reference .Even by the time the A-12 'Oxcart' was retired it was being differentiated between the YF-12A and SR-71 so here's a screen shot from one of the docs.

http://i.imgur.com/Pbmk3vq.jpg --"Lockheed produced 15 OXCARTS three YF-12-A's and 31 SR-71's".

I'll actually go to the effort to provide matches to references on the CIA FOI website if that's what is needed because this JPG is insufficient "proof" for now. Regards, Emir ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001471749.pdf - there's one document where they clearly refer to the "Oxcart" as a separate fleet to the "SR-71" when discussing options of retiring the A-12 Oxcart or combining it with the SR-71 Blackbirds. I'll post more here as I update the real article for refs. I really just want to roll with it and be done with the debate. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Still cant see anything in your sources that says that the popular name of the A-12 is Oxcart, lots of use of the term Oxcart but as a codeword or program name rather than a "Popular Name", clearly evident from your last link. Just need something that says they have decided to give the A-12 the popular name "Oxcart" as I cant see it in your links. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's inferred, not explicitly stated, or put another way it's self-evident. If you actually take the time to read that document, whenever they say "Oxcart" they mean the A-12 NOT the SR-71. How much more obvious and in your face do you need it to be ? The F-111 for example was never called the Aardvark by General Dynamics or the US government officially but it came to be called the "Aardvark" just like the A-12 is the Oxcart, NOT the SR-71, NOT the YF-12A. That statement in the imgur screenshot, it says "Lockheed produced 15 OXCARTS three YF-12-A's and 31 SR-71's", what do you think the "15 Oxcarts" means ? It means the A-12 as the other 2 variants are mentioned separately. How obvious do you need it to be ? ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Calm Down,Milborne's point is valid. No need to become so emotional, it is a disagreement about a naming convention, it is not a major life issue.172.56.11.29 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Inferred is not reliable as it is original research. No doubt that when they say codename/program Oxcart they are talking about A-12 but that doesnt mean it is the official popular name for the aircraft, it is common for American military programmes to have a codeword but it is not related to the official or popular name. Aardavrk is the official popular name for the F-111 and was declared in DOD 4120.15-L (MDS Designators) as such. So all we want is a reliable source, like a press release or DoD amendment to DoD 4120.15-L or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Turn's out it's not infered, it's fact, I found an official mention about the entire issue - https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-12/Archangel-2ndEdition-2Feb12.pdf - PAGE 15 "Project GUSTO was terminated, and by a sort of inspired perversity, an Agency officer later wrote, OXCART was selected from a random list of codenames to designate this R&D and all later work on the A-12. The aircraft itself came to be called that as well" QED ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Only according to CIA source(s). None of my aviation books list it as "A-12 Oxcart". The Jenkins Blackbirds Warbirds book has a section named CIA's Oxcart and refers to it as Oxcart. "A-12 Oxcart" is not that common. However, there are several US aircraft where their name is almost never used, e.g. UH-1, B-1. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough, none of my old aircraft books even mention the A-12, only the SR-71, let alone the Oxcart codename or program name and as it was a CIA aircraft, unlike the SR-71 which was USAF, it is only mentioned in CIA sources. The U2 never had any codename, defacto or otherwise. I'm satisfied with the extra paragraph in the introduction that explains the association and will not seek to push the matter further but I do feel strongly that the paragraph in the intro explaining the association not be edited out in the future! ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sure! Oxcart should definitely be stated in the article and the Lead. I am just not behind renaming the article to "Lockheed A-12 Oxcart". -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Fnlayson. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur that the article should not be named "Lockheed A-12 Oxcart" as it is confusing as the project is called Oxcart and the CIA website states "The official designation of the aircraft was A-12." Then states: "By a sort of inspired perversity, however, it came to be called OXCART, a code word also applied to the program under which it was developed." That in no way states that it became official and was anything the pilots or maintainers called the airframe they worked on. It may have also been a early reference that became obsolete when other airframes developed from Project Oxcart. Another obvious question is who called it Oxcart? With no further details it becomes a matter of subjecture. Did a CIA commission seeking funding call it that because of it's secrecy? We do not know and that point has to be aknowledged by reasonable people.172.56.3.87 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Case for Project Oxcart Article

Several designs were submitted under Project Oxcart so the term Oxcart can cause some confusion. Kelly Johnson called his design Archangel. Convair called their design Kingfish. Why not create a separate article called Project Oxcart that covers more of the reasoning behind the program. Project Isinglass could be used as an example. The official name of the aircraft is the A-12 according to the CIA's website. The A-12's naming convention could be talked in detail there instead of spending so much time here aguing about a Top Secret aircraft referred to as an article by the CIA. It could also cover the SR-71, YF-12, etc. program offshoots and reasons for them. It would tie all the lineage of the program together. The A-12 may of had no official name and I would be surprised to find out it was called Oxcart by the pilots.

Whatever some CIA administrative people later wrote is not convincing when one considers how pilots nickname aircraft. I would be more likely to believe they called it something more dramatic like Archangel that Kelly Johnson called it. That will take some real research like tracking down a living pilot or maintainer. Everything is not to be found on the web from some scanning of documents. I have a contact with a guy who retired out of Beale Airforce Base as a maintainer on the SR-71. He may not know the nickname of the A-12 but may know someone who does. He may also not talk about the program at all as some parts are still classified. I would not ask about technical aspects as he would not disclose them nor would I if I was him. 172.56.11.29 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Lou Schalk calls it the "12" in the youtube video of the first flight. That's how that pilot nicknamed the aircraft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7diDWBrTjr0. If you want something "more dramatic" then go watch a hollywood blockbuster. It's a pretty arrogant stance to take to state that the CIA, which commissioned, funded and operated the A-12 Oxcart does not have the credibility to name the aircraft. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please refrain from unproductive snarky comments. Your statement is also unsupported. Where is the evidence that the official name of the A-12 was Oxcart. To quote you: "It's a pretty arrogant stance to take to state that the CIA, which commissioned, funded and operated the A-12 Oxcart does not have the credibility to name the aircraft." Yes I agree it is arrogant to change the name when the CIA officially called the airframe the A-12 according to the CIA's own website. 172.56.11.29 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Didnt the crews call it the Cygnus ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that sounds like something a fighter jock would call his aircraft. That is something deserving of research. He asserts the CIA called the airframe Oxcart but on their website they say the official name for the aircraft was A-12. The program/project was called Oxcart. Again one needs to separate the project name and the airframe name. An article on Project Oxcart would be beneficial and could talk about the official and unofficial names of different airframes.172.56.11.29 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Update The CIA history states: "CYGNUS was the name given the A-12 in testing." https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-12/Archangel-2ndEdition-2Feb12.pdf 172.56.3.87 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that you mention that name, it vaguely rings a bell, I haven't read about it recently in researching the Oxcart but I get this feeling I may have read about it with regards to the Blackbirds long ago. btw, nice re-layout to match up the stored Oxcarts with the Retirement section ;)

Your new edit has now fully jogged my memory, the A-12 or SR-71 had a database of 20 stars for the celestial navigation system that used a telescope at the back of the aircraft. One was probably in the constellation of Cygnus for sure. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusing use of English

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_A-12&diff=604540680&oldid=604527915 states:

It was to be a routine FCF to check the replacement starboard engine that had been installed in the aircraft,

Why even put replacement in there when the sentence already states installation. What about the adjective routine? How does that help? Is an FCF a routine flight? What is a routine flight? Is is there to add some drama? Should the sentence read: A functional check flight was flown after the installation of the starboard engine....

This would be much less confusing and wordy and encyclopedic in nature. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well usually when you replace something you have to install it, but yes probably rewording it like you suggest would be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.147.54 (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed it to It was to be a routine functional check flight on the starboard engine that had just been installed in the aircraft although I need to move the whole entry to to the accident and incident section after I check the references and perhaps trim down a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Plagarism-Word for word copying

I removed a large section under New materials and production techniques due to outright plagarism. I was checking the source and found out it was a direct copy word for word. Very unethical practicesare not encouraged in encyclopedias. Many paragraphs were removed to correct the plagarism. It could be re-written and put back in with adequate references. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots of wiki articles have directly copied text, as long as its cited its not plagiarism. Plagiarism is when a named author or jouirnalist or person uses someone elses work as their own, thats not the case with wikipedia, as the work is communal. Maybe you should learn what plagiarism actually is before accusing other people of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.147.54 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A-12 directly copied text

More research has revealed a word for word copy from a copyrighted book here: http://books.google.com/books?id=5UmZAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Here is the the copyrighted material performed by IronGron on line 23. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_A-12&diff=next&oldid=601728340

Below is a copy from the wiki article which is word for word from page 155 of the copyrighted book.

• "The A-12’s specifications were slightly better than the Kingfish’s, and its projected cost was significantly less. Convair’s design had the smaller radar cross section, however, and CIA’s representatives initially favored it for that reason. The companies’ respective track records proved decisive. Convair’s work on the B-58 had been plagued with delays and cost overruns, whereas Lockheed had produced the U-2 on time and under budget. In addition, it had experience running a “black” project."

The author is a CIA historian David Robarge so it may be government sponsored. There are additional direct copies by the editor Irongron from the work of Robarge in the A-12 article. Copying books directly is not encyclopedic in style as they are often written for entertainment value. I earlier challenged some of the comments on the grounds they did not sound encyclopedic nor accurate in technical speak. I later realized they were directly copied from the source. I have since realized the CIA author is a historian who makes it clear he has no aviation technical experience. It is all coming together now that I know who wrote the copied material originally. I have never seen tech manuals so vague as was written in the A-12 article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.87 (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Work of US government agencies is public domain. So using the text is not a copyright issue. But the wording should be reworked/reworded to avlid plagiarism issues. Issues with accuracy/correctness of text can be worked with specifics here or appropriately tagging the relevant text. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If the government is allowed to use a brief of someone else's work under license, copying it would be still a copyright violation. It can get a little difficult to figure out what is government material and private work used under license. In order to avoid the issue and to avoid ethical violations such as plagarism it is best to rewrite it and credit the source. Fair use of some directly copied material is acceptable as long as it is quoted properly. Multiple directly copied paragraphs which become a major portion of the article is not fair use. It becomes plagarism especially when it is note indicated by quotations. My suggestion is to remove the offending/questionable material immediately. Much is already covered under the SR-71 article without the plagarism issues. Lazy cut and paste editing should be severely shunned to prevent wikipedia from becoming known for pirating others work. 172.56.3.134 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The book that 172 links to on Google books is marked as copyright of LIT Verlag http://www.lit-verlag.de/ and published in Germany, so we should really remove any text directly copied from this source. No reason why properly cited facts could not be used from the book but not direct copying. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Anybody have any thoughts on the timeline section? most of it should be including in the prose sections as the stand-alone timeline is either just repeating or listing stuff out of context with the "story". MilborneOne (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't amazingly like timelines, the best one I've ever seen was on the A380 article, a simple image detailing a few key dates across a wide period of time from the type's concept to initial production. I'd be in favor of dispensing with it, moving what was useful into prose instead. It would also be a good opportunity to rewrite some of the odd nuances of the current version's wording, its got some problems with the use of informalities and there are due-weight issues present, in my opinion Kyteto (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Kyteto you reflect what I was thinking. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• The main text should be in prose in the main sections. Move most of the text to the main sections. I say leave a timeline with brief 1 line of text on each line or omit all together. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. But a lot of the expanded timeline text has good information in it, wouldn't it be better to retain it and integrate it all into the main article text. Shouldn't the SR-71 elements in the timeline be removed altogether ? They already appear in the SR-71 article time line, from which this A-12 timeline is actually taken from blackbird timelines that are available from multiple sources and then truncated after the Oxcart program ended. The SR-71 elements are completely irrelevant. Apart from being an evolution of the A-12 they really are 2 separate "genetic" timelines. It's just repeating the SR-71 timeline. I'm going to remove the SR-71 elements and make a new section for the first flight and also integrate the loss of the last A-12 with Jack weeks into the main article this removing the 2 main "offenders". If anyone objects just revert the changes or make the appropriate changes. Maybe Kyeto should start to clean up the wording and removed those said nuances. English is not my first language 178.216.122.254 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I am in favor of moving the text that is cited to be with main article text, not just deleting it. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's mostly done now. I agree with you that the timeline should not be removed. It's a matter of subjectivity anyway, I can see why some people may not like them, but they are handy, lots of jet fighter books have them for important or seminal designs etc. Take them all back to one line ? or expand the rest to maybe 3 lines or thereabouts ? 178.216.122.254 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits of a Banned Editor's Sock

I apologize to those who have intermediate edits but in order to ensure accuracy and integrity of the editing process I reverted all the edits of the Socks of the banned editor Irongron. I was away from editing due to obligations and missed what what happening until much later. Please see the banned editor's sock investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=618034898#A_Very_Strong_Probable_Sock_of_an_editor_you_permanently_banned_in_April_2014_User:IRoNGRoN The IP 178.216.122.254 and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... are both socks of ☭Irongron☭User talk:IRoNGRoN

Reason for discontinuation

Article needs better explanation of reason for removal from service : cost ? how were successors better ? Rcbutcher (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Leaky outer-skin/fuel-tank

   Does the bit (recited about recon-aircraft at Intrepid Sea and Air Museum) about the fuel pouring out of the gaps in the hull, until, in flight, friction with the air heats the hull up enuf to make thermal expansion squeeze the gaps shut, apply to both A-12 and SR-71 designs? Can we document that, in any case?
--Jerzy•t 08:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

missing info re: lost aircraft

The article says, quote, "Three more A-12s were lost in later testing", but only mentions two - 9 July 1964, and 28 December 1965. When was the third loss? Elsquared (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

LCO Name in Fatal Test Crash

Regarding naming of Ray Torick as LCO of fatal test crash. While it has been suggested that the identification of Torick in the article is inappropriate because he is a "non-notable person," we respectfully disagree. First, the test pilot gave his life while on duty. Second, the Lockheed A-12/M-21 program was canceled by program manager Kelly Johnson because of the loss. Third, Torick is mentioned by name in several books about the aircraft program. All of these factors make his identity notable. --algocu

no way to insert this in the article, sadly....

... but here's a first-hand account of flying the A-12, & as he says, it's very different from the SR-71:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGdxpqqsHl8 duncanrmi (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

When exactly was the A-12 declassified?

The article really needs some clarification on when the A-12 program was surfaced (revealed to the public). Some bits I've been able to find are:

• 1964 -- We know it was secret in 1964 because the YF-12A Wikipedia article says "The YF-12A was announced in part to continue hiding the A-12".
• 1967 -- In 1967 A-12s were deployed to Okinawa (as the article states), and those runways are easily seen from the surrounding area. How were these airplanes explained officially? Was there no comment and people assumed they were SR-71s?
• 1969 -- "Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1969" has a passage about the A-12. For whatever reason Google Books is withholding the text, but the search results have a transcript of a hearing that says, "The original A-12 — that is not what they called the original one — the A-11, I believe it was — I thought it would have a range of about [deleted] miles. Secretary Brown. No, sir, certainly not without refueling." That appears to be the first place where the plane is on the public record.
• 1982 -- The A-12s were definitely public at this time since they were described in a major story written by Kelly Johnson in the July 1982 issue of Popular Mechanics.
• 1984 -- The A-12 was described at length and differentiated from the SR-71 in Jay Miller's Aerofax title on the SR-71. Not where what his sources would have been on all of this content, maybe he did a lot of research looking at 25 years of Aviation Week, Flight International, etc, but it was probably the first comprehensive work ever published on the Blackbird program.

-Rolypolyman (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A12 60938

On display at the USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park. 174.79.13.99 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That's what the article says. Only that it's 60-6938. --Zac67 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)