6 ms·

It's worth noting that despite all the valid points about the costs of the F-14, the F-14 was the cheaper alternate platform for the AIM-54 and AN/AWG-9 radar;

It's worth noting that despite all the valid points about the costs of the F-14, the F-14 was the cheaper alternate platform for the AIM-54 and AN/AWG-9 radar; they were originally developed (as the AIM-47 and AN/ASG 18) for the Lockheed YF-12A, a Mach 3 bomber-interceptor variant of the A-12, single-seat predecessor to the SR-71: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 (The YF-12A program got as far as a 96 plane order for the USAF before it was cancelled in favour of the cheaper F-106X project, which also failed.) Anyway, before condemning the F-14 for being expensive to operate, I invite you to consider the likely costs of fielding a fleet of hundreds of nearly-hypersonic interceptors based on the same hardware as the SR-71 ...

CarVac 4y ago
Amusingly, the AIM-47 page says that the YF-12A was itself a lower-cost replacement for the XF-108 program.
greedo 4y ago
The F-14 was the alternative to the aborted F-111B. This was originally intended to carry the Phoenix and AN/AWG-9. Although it would have been cool, the YF-12 would have difficulty with a catapult launch.
Tronno 4y ago
I was curious how much the Phoenix missile itself cost. Some sources state a development cost of $167M, and a unit cost of ~$500k (with ~5000 built), adding up to about $2.5B, some of which was recouped by sales to Iran. It's impossible to say how much money was spent on aircraft capable of firing the missile, since they were also designed to do other things, and raw production/maintenance costs are hard to track down anyway. The Tomcat alone seems to have cost tens of billions to build and operate. Ultimately, "the AIM-54 has been used in 62 air-to-air strikes, all by Iran during the eight-year Iran–Iraq War" (Wikipedia). Whether or not this outcome was "expensive" is up to the American taxpayer, I guess.
- oxfeed65261 4y ago
  The quote from Wikipedia appears to be wrong. The US has also used the missile in combat. FTA: “In January of 1999, two F-14s each fired one Phoenix missile at two Iraqi MiG-25s, only to have both miss. Later that same year, another F-14 fired a Phoenix at a MiG-23, only to miss once again. No F-14 ever shot down an enemy aircraft with the missile it was designed to carry.” The Wikipedia quote above is from the initial introductory section. Later, Wikipedia[0] says: > U.S. combat experience > On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target. > On September 9, 1999, another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_experience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_e...
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Part of the problem with "super expensive" weapons is they rarely get used in actual situations and so not much is known about their performance in theater.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Also, the AIM-54 was designed to down bombers, which even in TU-22M form have very different maneuverability than fighters.
      - oxfeed65261 4y ago
        True, and the article discussed this. However, two of the three AIM-54 missiles launched by the US in combat failed to even ignite; the characteristics of the target aircraft were irrelevant.
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    From the article I got the idea that the AIM was probably short for "And... I Missed."
chipsa 4y ago
The F-12 cancelation is also why SR-71 producing ended: part of the cancelation order from the SecDef was to destroy the tooling for the YF-12. Which is the same as the tooling for the SR-71. Though: this is actually beside the point because the Navy wasn't ever going to operate the F-12. The predecessors of the F-14 were the F-111B (rejected because it wasn't actually going to be carrier qualifiable) and the F6D (rejected because it was useless once the missiles were launched)
- jes 4y ago
  Why destroy the tooling? I assume it's to ensure that a previous program can't be revived and thus threaten the follow-on program. In my view, if the follow on program is truly compelling, it should live or die based on its own performance, but I guess that's not how the game is played. I think this was done with the Saturn V, as well. Thoughts?
  - frankharv 4y ago
    First off at the end of a production run you are faced with a decision. Do you preserve the production line or destroy it? The customer paid for it so it is their property usually. They make the call. I would bet that the tooling was not destroyed but transferred to other lines. The jigs and fixtures used would be destroyed because it was top secret job. Safer to destroy than preserve.
    - jes 4y ago
      Good points - thank you.
  - V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
    It's really for two primary reasons: 1. Storing tooling, especially huge aircraft-sized tooling, has real costs associated with it. There's the physical space it occupies as well as the costs associated with keeping it from degrading. Guess who industry charges for all of this? 2. Concerns about security. If an adversary manages to surreptitiously capture images or other data on the tooling, perhaps they can get closer to developing an equivalent capability. It's certainly possible the idea is also at play that by destroying the tooling, you prevent advocates of the current system from jamming up the process of acquiring new and improved systems. It would be great if the development and acquisition of new systems was always merit-based and rigorous, but it's often not. I'm not saying this is the case, but it could have been a fear of guerrilla advocacy from Lockheed or its advocates in the Government stymieing progress. For all its awesomeness, the A-12 family was heinously expensive to operate. If you had pressure from congresspersons or ill-informed generals to acquire more of these because of their incredible capability, but that meant you couldn't afford to improve your capabilities in other areas, you might not appreciate that pressure.

CarVac 4y ago

Amusingly, the AIM-47 page says that the YF-12A was itself a lower-cost replacement for the XF-108 program.

greedo 4y ago

The F-14 was the alternative to the aborted F-111B. This was originally intended to carry the Phoenix and AN/AWG-9. Although it would have been cool, the YF-12 would have difficulty with a catapult launch.

Tronno 4y ago

I was curious how much the Phoenix missile itself cost. Some sources state a development cost of $167M, and a unit cost of ~$500k (with ~5000 built), adding up to about $2.5B, some of which was recouped by sales to Iran. It's impossible to say how much money was spent on aircraft capable of firing the missile, since they were also designed to do other things, and raw production/maintenance costs are hard to track down anyway. The Tomcat alone seems to have cost tens of billions to build and operate. Ultimately, "the AIM-54 has been used in 62 air-to-air strikes, all by Iran during the eight-year Iran–Iraq War" (Wikipedia). Whether or not this outcome was "expensive" is up to the American taxpayer, I guess.

oxfeed65261 4y ago
The quote from Wikipedia appears to be wrong. The US has also used the missile in combat. FTA: “In January of 1999, two F-14s each fired one Phoenix missile at two Iraqi MiG-25s, only to have both miss. Later that same year, another F-14 fired a Phoenix at a MiG-23, only to miss once again. No F-14 ever shot down an enemy aircraft with the missile it was designed to carry.” The Wikipedia quote above is from the initial introductory section. Later, Wikipedia[0] says: > U.S. combat experience > On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target. > On September 9, 1999, another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_experience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_e...
- bombcar 4y ago
  Part of the problem with "super expensive" weapons is they rarely get used in actual situations and so not much is known about their performance in theater.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Also, the AIM-54 was designed to down bombers, which even in TU-22M form have very different maneuverability than fighters.
    - oxfeed65261 4y ago
      True, and the article discussed this. However, two of the three AIM-54 missiles launched by the US in combat failed to even ignite; the characteristics of the target aircraft were irrelevant.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  From the article I got the idea that the AIM was probably short for "And... I Missed."

chipsa 4y ago

The F-12 cancelation is also why SR-71 producing ended: part of the cancelation order from the SecDef was to destroy the tooling for the YF-12. Which is the same as the tooling for the SR-71. Though: this is actually beside the point because the Navy wasn't ever going to operate the F-12. The predecessors of the F-14 were the F-111B (rejected because it wasn't actually going to be carrier qualifiable) and the F6D (rejected because it was useless once the missiles were launched)

jes 4y ago
Why destroy the tooling? I assume it's to ensure that a previous program can't be revived and thus threaten the follow-on program. In my view, if the follow on program is truly compelling, it should live or die based on its own performance, but I guess that's not how the game is played. I think this was done with the Saturn V, as well. Thoughts?
- frankharv 4y ago
  First off at the end of a production run you are faced with a decision. Do you preserve the production line or destroy it? The customer paid for it so it is their property usually. They make the call. I would bet that the tooling was not destroyed but transferred to other lines. The jigs and fixtures used would be destroyed because it was top secret job. Safer to destroy than preserve.
  - jes 4y ago
    Good points - thank you.
- V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
  It's really for two primary reasons: 1. Storing tooling, especially huge aircraft-sized tooling, has real costs associated with it. There's the physical space it occupies as well as the costs associated with keeping it from degrading. Guess who industry charges for all of this? 2. Concerns about security. If an adversary manages to surreptitiously capture images or other data on the tooling, perhaps they can get closer to developing an equivalent capability. It's certainly possible the idea is also at play that by destroying the tooling, you prevent advocates of the current system from jamming up the process of acquiring new and improved systems. It would be great if the development and acquisition of new systems was always merit-based and rigorous, but it's often not. I'm not saying this is the case, but it could have been a fear of guerrilla advocacy from Lockheed or its advocates in the Government stymieing progress. For all its awesomeness, the A-12 family was heinously expensive to operate. If you had pressure from congresspersons or ill-informed generals to acquire more of these because of their incredible capability, but that meant you couldn't afford to improve your capabilities in other areas, you might not appreciate that pressure.