5 ms·

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 sam

by 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.
  - jes 4y ago
    Good points - thank you.
- chipsa 4y ago
  In this specific case, it was because McNamara believed that SAMs were too good for the aircraft to survive, and to keep it from being resurrected, he ordered it destroyed. There was no direct follow on program, just spy satellites.
nicholasbraker 4y ago
Funny sidetone: the largest customer of the data and imaginary the SR-71 produced was the Navy ;-)

by chipsa 4y ago

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.
- jes 4y ago
  Good points - thank you.
chipsa 4y ago
In this specific case, it was because McNamara believed that SAMs were too good for the aircraft to survive, and to keep it from being resurrected, he ordered it destroyed. There was no direct follow on program, just spy satellites.

nicholasbraker 4y ago

Funny sidetone: the largest customer of the data and imaginary the SR-71 produced was the Navy ;-)