The A-12 Avenger II came about as a part of the United States Navy’s Advanced Tactical Aircraft program, which sought to develop a successor to the A-6 Intruder.
In a first for the United States Navy, the aircraft would rely heavily on a stealthy design to excel in contested environments, and mockups of the aircraft revealed a triangular flying wing airframe design. Hopes were high for a carrier-capable stealth fighter that, in theory, would have been a multi-mission aircraft.
Named after the Grumman TBF Avenger, a Second World War-era torpedo bomber, the updated Avenger would have carried a variety of munitions, including conventional and nuclear, in an internal weapons bay, both to persevere its stealth capabilities and to reduce drag, consequently increasing range.
Compared to naval aviation of that time, the A-12 Avenger II would have been a significantly more advanced aircraft.
Stealth Bombers from Aircraft Carriers
A Naval Aviation News publication from late 1990 highlights the leap in capabilities the A-12 would have offered over older legacy aircraft.
“The Navy is examining the use of the A-12 airframe and systems for other missions, which would reduce the number of different types of aircraft deployed with each air wing and minimize the need for development and procurement of various types of single-mission aircraft in the future.
The Avenger’s electric displays, high-speed fiberoptic data bus, Very High-Speed Integrated Circuit technology, programmable processors, and large weapon bay and air-to-air bay capacities make it well suited for various roles.”
Then Assistant Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Admiral Richard M. Dunleavy, explained that the A-12 had the potential to replace several platforms in what would have been a significant logistical boon.
He “pointed out that the Navy is seriously considering the A-12’s airframe for the primary role of the Navy’s Advanced Tactical System (ATS) aircraft, which could replace the EA-6B Prowler in the electronic jamming mission. The ATS would also take on the E-2C Haweye’s airborne early warning mission, the S-3 Viking’s antisubmarine warfare role, and the ES-3’s electronic reconnaissance function.”
Vice Admiral Dunleavy added that the Navy was also investigating the A-12’s potential application for fleet defense, saying it would have an air-to-air capability.
But unfortunately, for the A-12 Avenger II program, it never really left the drawing board.
Why This Stealth Bomber Failed: One-two Punch
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent end of Cold War hostilities meant that the U.S. Navy, like other branches, would experience some of the steepest budgetary drawdowns in history.
Combined with delays to the project as well as a significant increase in aircraft weight meant that there was little appetite within the Department of Defense for an over-budget, underperforming aircraft, and the A-12 Avenger II was ultimately canceled.
Money, Money, Money
In early 1991, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney took responsibility for the A-12 cancellation. “The A-12 I did terminate. It was not an easy decision to make because it’s an important requirement that we’re trying to fulfill,” Cheney said.
“But no one could tell me how much the program was going to cost, even just through the full scale development phase, or when it would be available. And data that had been presented at one point a few months ago turned out to be invalid and inaccurate.”
Legacy of A-12 Avenger II
In 2014, the United States Navy, Boeing, and General Dynamics settled a $400 million lawsuit over the A-12 program cancellation, capping one of history’s longest unresolved military procurement lawsuits.
According to the settlement terms, both companies agreed to give the U.S. Navy $200 million in naval aircraft and services.
Both companies argued that they should retain the money they had been initially awarded for the A-12, plus about $1 billion, claiming the contract had been wrongfully terminated.
About the Author: Caleb Larson
Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.
