More About OXCART
For those interested in aviation history, the CIA recently (2012) released a short history of the Lockheed “Archangel” program. It’s a bit over 50 pages, and focuses solely on the A-12.
The document is called Archangel: the CIA’s Supersonic A-12 Reconnaissance Aircraft. It was written by David Robarge, who in 2012 was the CIA’s Chief Historian.
It’s enjoyable reading. It can be found here in PDF format.
In case “A-12” doesn’t ring a bell: that was the airframe developed by Lockheed for the CIA as a successor for the U-2. It was later modified to produce the SR-71 for the USAF. (The SR-71 was a 2-seat plane; the A-12 was single-seat.)
While the SR-71 has somewhat longer range, it is also 5’ longer, 15,000lbs heavier, somewhat slower, and has a lower operational ceiling than the original production A-12s. Further, the redesign reduced the size of the equipment bays available for the aircraft’s on-board sensor package. Some of the original optics designed for the A-12 – in particular, the Perkin-Elmer Type I cameras – were too large to fit into the SR-71’s smaller equipment bays.
The initial Blackbird operational missions overflying Vietnam and during the aftermath of the North Korean seizure of the USS Pueblo were flown by CIA A-12s operating out of Kadena AB in Okinawa; a CIA A-12 located the ship on the first mission. Only later did the SR-71 begin to overfly these areas.
At Kadena, the A-12 acquired a nickname that stuck: “Habu”. That’s the name of a highly-poisonous pit-viper native to Okinawa.
For budgetary and political reasons, the CIA’s A-12 fleet was ordered to cease operations in 1968; USAF SR-71s (now operational) assumed their mission. The last A-12 operational flight (over North Korea) occurred on 8 May 1968. Afterwards, the deployed A-12s returned to CONUS from Kadena and were placed in storage. The last CIA A-12 flight of occurred on 21 June 1968, when the final remaining A-12 airframe was flown from the program’s Nevada test site to a storage facility in California.
Only a relatively small number of A-12s were ever produced – fifteen in all. These were called Articles 121 through 135. One (Article 124) was a 2-seat trainer version. The others were all configured as single-seat test (2 of these were produced) or operational (the remaining 12) aircraft.
Six of the fifteen A-12s built were lost in crashes before the fleet was retired. The surviving 9 airframes – the two-seat trainer version plus 8 test/operational airframes – are today in various locations nationwide on display. The linked document details where they are on display – as well as much of what they did.
If you’re an aviation history buff, Robarge’s work is definitely worth reading.
. . .
In looking through the document, I learned some things I wish I’d have known years ago. I’ve seen one of those surviving A-12s “up close and in person.” It turns out that particular bird is one with quite an interesting history.
The surviving A-12 with the longest operational flight time is Article 127, serial number 60-6930. Only the 2-seat trainer model (Article 124, serial number 60-6927) has more flight time – and it was used solely for training, never operationally.
Article 127 was the seventh A-12 delivered. It is the oldest operational A-12 remaining. The first two A-12s (Articles 121 and 122) were test aircraft and were not used for operational missions. The 2-seat trainer version was the fourth delivery; the other operational aircraft delivered earlier – Articles 123, 125, and 126 – were among those six lost to crashes.
Article 127 was one of the few A-12s to overfly bona fide hostile territory. (Some of the other operational A-12s flew peripheral, non-overflight missions.) It was one of three A-12s that flew operational missions over Southeast Asia and North Korea – during the CIA’s Operation BLACK SHIELD – in 1967 and 1968. The other two to do so were Articles 129 and 131.
Article 127 took enemy fire on 4 January 1968 (the SAM missed, and the airframe wasn’t damaged). It made the last two BLACK SHIELD flights over Vietnam – on 16 February and 8 March 1968. It was involved in the search for the USS Pueblo, making 2 of the 3 overflights of North Korea in the aftermath of the ship’s capture. Its last operational flight – over North Korea on 8 May 1968 – was in fact the last operational A-12 flight over hostile territory.
All told, Article 127 flew just over 1/3 of the operational missions ever flown by CIA A-12s over hostile territory.
Today, the airframe is on display at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. It’s located immediately in front of the main building.
But for all it’s sheer brute power and history, and despite it’s age, it’s also still . . . absolutely beautiful. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s a photograph; judge for yourself. A larger version of the same photo can be found here. (For a bit of perspective, the turquoise/teal/greenish object that seems to be under the rear of the left wing and engine is the shirt of someone walking next to the fence around the airframe.)
Some years ago, I visited the U.S. Space and Rocket Center. When I visited, Article 127 was fenced off (as it is in the photo above). Visitors couldn’t get really close to most of the airframe. But in a few places, the aircraft’s wings were quite close to the fence.
They also droop a bit at their outboard ends. In one of those places – whether intended or not – a visitor could touch reach out their hand and literally touch the aircraft.
I’ve touched that aircraft. When I did so, it was one of the few times in my life I honestly wished a machine could talk. Now that I know more of its history, I really wish it could have.
I’d have stayed there all night to listen.
Addendum (21 October 2015): the link to the photo referenced above is, unfortunately, now broken. Here’s another photo of the same airframe, but without anyone standing under the wing:
. . .
Author’s note: “Archangel” was the original Lockheed internal designation for the design effort that ultimately produced the A-12. The “A” in the designation reputedly came from the internal designation “Archangel”; the “12” came from the fact that it was the 12th major design revision. (“Angel” had been Lockheed’s internal designation for the U-2 – hence “Archangel” for its successor.)
“Oxcart” was the CIA’s official codeword for the project. That CIA codeword for the A-12 was chosen from a random list of codewords after the Lockheed design had been selected in lieu of a competing proposal from Convair as the one to be produced.
Category: Historical
Good stuff Hondo…
Some solid blackbird TV docs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQBsIZFLWNg
All planes are beautiful, but these were hot to trot sexy aircraft.
I’m not so sure I’d go that far, Ex-PH2 – I’ve seen a few aircraft designs that I’d frankly consider butt-ugly, even if well-engineered and highly useful. That said, the Oxcart family (A-12, YF-12, SR-71) were among those I consider the most beautiful aircraft ever designed.
There is, however, one which may be even more pleasing to my eye. I’ll be writing a short article on that one sometime soon.
I read something from one of the pilots in this program, he had a patch that read: “Alone, Unarmed, and Unafraid” he stated that “in reality two out of three ain’t bad…..”
Those guys flew closer to space, at great speed over hostile territory doing important work on a regular basis than most pilots ever dream of…
I agree these are some of the coolest looking aircraft ever built by any manufacturer…
I love exploring the desert and a couple of years ago I came across a great article about some guys who searched for the crash site of an A-12 in Nevada.
I won’t post the URL here (seems like the TAH software doesn’t like when I post URLS? Understandable, given the possibility of SPAM) but if you want to read about it, do a google search for this:
“The Hunt for 928.”
Martinjmpr: that was the crash which occurred on 5 January 1967. Test pilot Walter L. Ray was killed in that incident.
The aircraft was A-12 Article 125, Serial Number 60-6928.
PH2 – amen…. Hondo, how about a B-58 Hustler article?
Adobe says “The object’s root is missing or invalid.”
Anonymous: if you’re talking about the linked document, it seems to work fine for me from multiple different systems. Perhaps you have a problem with your browser or PDF reader configuration, or need to upgrade your PDF Reader to a newer version.
@Hondo Awesome stuff! Thanks for posting it.
@2 These looked badass and they were badass. The A-10s were considered butt ugly, but are amazing at doing their job. It’s too bad they’ll be out of a job…
@8 If you’re on Windows, try the foxit pdf reader (which is free). Fewer issues than Adobe’s steaming POS.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/29/world/north-korea-disputes-us-over-missile-firing-incident.html
August 28, 1981:— North Korea today denied American charges that its forces fired a missile Wednesday at a United States SR-71 reconnaissance plane flying in what the Pentagon called ”South Korean and international airspace.”
But North Korea said nothing about whether such an attack had been made in what it defines as its own airspace. Issuing its first direct statement on the incident, the official North Korean press agency charged that the SR-71 had violated ”the territorial air of the northern half of our republic,” meaning North Korea. The statement did not elaborate.
Demarcation Is Disputed
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/29/world/radar-detector-aboard-sr-71-alerted-pilot-to-missile-attack.html
The American SR-71 reconnaissance plane that was fired at on Wednesday from a North Korean ground-launched missile site first detected the attack through a radar warning device, an Administration official said today.
I have been told by certain AF plane captains(EMs who take care of the A/C on the ground) that the SR71 leaked at every gasket and hose fitting. Once at 20,000 feet and above all leaks stopped and the plane came alive.While passing thru Oki, I witness a SR-71 takeoff,didn’t know what it was the time.The Blackbird’s engines were louder than a B-51. I was very impressed by the climbout rate.Gone in seconds. Joe
@14 Joe: they leaked because they were designed that way. At altitude and speed, the airframe heated up so much that it would literally expand several inches. Here’s a quote from http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/:
“The component parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly, since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating temperatures. There is little danger of fire since the JP-7 fuel is very stable with an extremely high flash point.”
Fascinating stuff. Thanks, Hondo.
Marine_7002: yes, all members of the Oxcart family (A-12/YF-12/SR-71) leaked fuel markedly prior to takeoff. However, they weren’t actually designed to leak. The fact that they did was one of the few issues that the Skunk Works failed at fixing during Archangel’s development.
Lockheed tried to solve this problem. Unfortunately, finding a fuel-tank sealant that would (1) stay flexible enough to seal over the temperature range at which the Blackbird family operated and (2) which would also stand up to long-term immersion in hot JP-7/exposure to hot JP-7 vapor eluded even the Skunk Works. They and the CIA (and later the USAF) finally settled on the work-around of just letting the bird leak, giving the bird only enough fuel before takeoff to make refueling altitude and refuel (plus a safety factor to allow for return-to-base in the event of a refueling NO-GO).
Fortunately, as you indicated thermal expansion due to high temperatures reached during high-speed flight sealed the leaks. However, it’s possible that always didn’t happen. One of the things known about the 1965 crash of Article 125 that killed Walt Ray (see comments 5 and 6 above) is that he reported losing fuel much more rapidly than expected late in the flight; his last report was that he had run out of fuel. It’s possible that for some reason thermal expansion failed to seal his tanks, thus contributing to the loss of pilot and aircraft. An alternative possibility is that a tank developed structural crack too large for thermal expansion to seal, or which widened due to thermal expansion vice sealing.
— break —
johca: yes, SR-71s were on occasion also engaged with SAMs – both in Vietnam, and near North Korea. But the SR-71 is not an A-12. This article was about the latter, not the former.
Hondo – interesting, especially about the crash of Article 125! I guess there were some things that even the Skunk Works couldn’t solve.
—break—
Ex-PH2 – here’s some ugly ones for ya:
http://globaldiscussion.net/topic/1168-flying-cars/?k=880ea6a14ea49e853634fbdc5015a024&setlanguage=1&langurlbits=topic/1168-flying-cars/&langid=4
My nomination for ugliest:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/2008/05/caproni-ca60/
http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/caproni_ca-60.php
@ Hondo – good stuff as always, Thank you.
@ #5 Martinjmpr – nice direction to The Hunt for 928. I read through it and devoured every word of it, including the CIA LAW CODE docs..under recommendations: “Q.THAT A D-RING CABLE CUTTER BE INSTALLED.” That one really hurts. RIP Mr. Ray.
Marine_7002: dunno. The XF-85 Goblin was pretty damn ugly.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin_USAF_%28Cropped%29.jpg/640px-McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin_USAF_%28Cropped%29.jpg
Martinjmpr: thanks for the trip down memory lane. I first read that some years ago, when Tom Mahood still maintained his “bluefire” site.
RIP, Mr. Ray. RIP.
By the way: Mahood seems to be back with a new site:
http://www.otherhand.org/
His old bluefire page is archived there at
http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/bluefire-main/
A thing of beauty is a joy forever. That is ONE fine damned beautiful aircraft. I lusts. . . .
@7 asked about a thread devoted to the B-58. While I can’t help with that, I can share a bit of history where the B-58 was used as a test bed for the YF-12’s AA missiles. In the late 50’s, a close friend and I both worked for Hughes AC, in Culver City. I worked antenna systems and he worked quality control. One day while working on a roof top test shack adjacent to the Hughes AC runway (7000 ft. as I recall), I got to watch a B-58 come in. It taxied into the test hanger where I knew my friend was working. Later that day when I asked him about what that beauty was doing there, he told me of the work he was involved with to make this bomber capable of firing AA missiles. After about a year, my friend transferred to Edwards AFB, to work there. A year or so later, I had the opportunity to take a tour of the hanger where he spent most of his time, and within it was contained that B-58 with a different looking radome nose. He said the B-58 was shooting down drones with the AIM-47, the latest air to air missile we had at the time. I went on to another company and we didn’t reestablish close contact until he was reassigned to Culver City, in the early to mid 60’s. I think it was in the mid-60’s, Armed Forces Day, when he urged me to go with him to Edwards, to watch their show. What a show they provided in those days. For several years following, I went there so my memory tends to blurr what happened when, but I got to see the A-12, YF-12A, U-2, and B-70. Not just on static display, but flying. The B-70 must have been later because what I remember so richly from that day, is the YF-12A, and the payload it carried – the AIM-47. As we viewed the YF-12A, my buddy was grinning like a fool, probably because what he couldn’t tell me himself, I could see at last.… Read more »
The B-58 was one of the birds featured in one of my favorite books I had when I was a little yard ape, and I had many a childhood daydream of joining the Air Force and piloting one!
@2 & 3 The last aesthetically beautiful airplane was the F-86 Sabre. Planes designed since then just don’t have the same elegance anymore. But they don’t need to look nice, they just need to work well. Badass counts for a lot more than pretty. The Blackbirds weren’t huge on looks in my opinion, but they made up for it with balls.
Of course, the F-86 had looks AND balls.
@Hondo: Did you see this from SB Nation (an odd place for this sort of thing): http://www.sbnation.com/2014/3/7/5447310/sr-71-blackbird-pilot-interview
tm: no, I hadn’t. Thanks – that article was a helluva decent read!