[HN Gopher] Why did the F-14 Tomcat retire decades before its pe... ___________________________________________________________________ Why did the F-14 Tomcat retire decades before its peers? (2021) Author : zeristor Score : 146 points Date : 2022-10-30 10:04 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sandboxx.us) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sandboxx.us) | zoomablemind wrote: | _"...But like the bringing the F-22 Raptor back from the dead... | "_ | | When did the F-22 die that it had to be brought back? | nocoiner wrote: | I think he was referring to restarting the F-22 production | line. | alberto7 wrote: | I heard that was near impossible, because the tooling was | destroyed. | chipsa wrote: | The tooling exists and was carefully packed away. The | problem is the stuff that wasn't F-22 specific, and we | can't make anymore, because the company that makes them | doesn't anymore. Or doesn't even exist. | b06timmer wrote: | I did two Western Pacific tours (West-Pacs) while in the Navy. On | the first one in 1979 we had the F-4 Phantoms and on the second | one we were introduced to the Tomcat's. For me, this was a mind | blowing experience. | | The F-14 is a very large aircraft. It had electroluminescent | exterior lighting that looked straight out of a sci-fi novel and | with its differential rear stabilizers it looked like a living | machine, especially when landing. | | I was an electronics tech in a bomber (A6) squadron so I didn't | know much about the workings of the aircraft, as mentioned in the | article. I will say that I am always in awe when I see that | aircraft and will always be. | dctoedt wrote: | What carrier were you on (and air wing) that still had F-4s in | 1979? By the time I got to the Enterprise in early 1976, the | embarked air wing, CVW-14, had no F-4s anymore, just F-14s (and | A-7s and A-6s, etc.). | | The article's picture of a Soviet Bear bomber above a carrier, | being escorted by armed F-14s flying close aboard, brought back | memories of how we were always greeted with a "welcome to | WestPac" flyover by a Bear, and we likewise sent up armed F-14s | to make sure everyone stayed peaceable. On my first WestPac | deployment, one of my roommates in "Boys Town" (an eight-man | bunkroom for junior officers, just below the flight deck) was a | warrant officer who ran the ship's photo lab; he brought us all | 8x10 glossies of a similar photo, taken by the back-seater in | one of the F-14s. I still have mine somewhere. | greedo wrote: | I think some Reserve Marine squadrons were operating them up | until 1992, so it seems plausible that they were in use at | that time. | b06timmer wrote: | I was on the Ranger (CV-61). | (https://i.imgur.com/Wma9k84.jpg) | | We also had the Bear's and the trawlers. I think that had a | lot to do the spy John Walker Jr.. He gave the Russians the | cryptographic codes for the Navy, and they could read all of | our communications. That's why the Bear's knew exactly when | the carriers were changing station. | | I was an AT and programmed the "code of the day" into each | aircraft, every day. Mode-4, IFF. | | Edited to add: CVW-2 for airwing. West Coast. | aceazzameen wrote: | I always loved the F-14. Top Gun was of course a big reason (and | I'm glad they brought it back for the newest film). But before | Top Gun, there was Macross (or Robotech in the US). The variable | state of the Tomcat influenced the variable state design of VF-1 | Vaklyrie fighters in the anime. And I'm sure the AIM-54/AWG-9 | Phoenix missle system (with the ability to fire on multiple | targets almost at once) influenced the multiple missle launches | seen throughout the TV series. Here's a clip I found: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZazVwBlz9fc | mgarfias wrote: | Duder needs to read his Boyd. | jwithington wrote: | Trash aircraft. 40-60 hrs of maintenance required for 1 hour of | flight. Its successor, the F/A-18, required about 10x less. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | I don't understand how a plane like that would work in a | serious conflict. A week of maintenance after an hour of | flight? Anyone depending on those planes in a war wouldn't last | very long. | [deleted] | rambambram wrote: | I guess multiple technicians work on the aircraft at the same | time. Still a lot of man hours. | techstrategist wrote: | I'm no expert, but 40 hours of maintenance probably isn't one | tech working 9-5 for a week. | VLM wrote: | Also aircraft are not cars. The front line does day to day | wartime service, but the "tasks people take cars to auto | mechanics to do" like completely tearing down and re- | assembling is done by a totally separate depot level | service back in the states. Its like "keeping it running | day to day" vs "doing a complete restoration". | | Depot service hours only matter in a budgetary sense, | although I heard they were immense for the F-14. All those | moving wing parts need to be removed, inspected, x-rayed or | magnafluxed or whatever they did, reassembled, and | exhaustively tested. In comparison, on the flight line day | to day, I don't recall hearing the jet required unusually | more time than similar aircraft. | izacus wrote: | Hmm, that's strange, because I keep hearing from several | Navy sources that the F14s biggest problem indeed was the | time they needed for servicing - the newer Hornets | require significantly less time for equal maintenance | operations (avionics, engine swaps) and also break less. | | The time the F-14s spend sitting inside hangars (and | requirements of trained techs to work on them) being | useless was the primary driver of their retirement. | Carrier hangar space and tech numbers are very limited | after all. | VLM wrote: | In a serious conflict, within hours either the carrier will | be sunk and so maint will be a moot point, or the opfor will | no longer have the capability to sink the carrier (at least | by air) and again maint will be a moot point. | | Kind of like calculating hours of maintenance per hour of | cruise missile flight time, admittedly that metric would | apply very well to an observation platform like a E-3, but | not so much to a wartime interceptor platform. | ethbr0 wrote: | Exactly, the F-14 value calculus stems from the carrier's | survivability. | | Keeping a carrier from being sunk was _almost_ invaluable | (at least, to the Navy) in many envisioned conflicts. | | Consequently, in a modern, first-strike-is-primary-strike | (limited numbers of exquisite, high-lethality weapons and | platforms) scenario, ongoing maintainability is less of an | issue than maximizing aerial and combat performance. | mst wrote: | Reminds me of the UK Type 440 destroyer class, which (I'm | going from memory here, if somebody fact checks me I | expect them to be right, not me) was designed to fire | missiles at incoming USSR aircraft ... with an average | time from initial engagement to toast of around 7 | minutes. | | But if those aircraft were intending to drop nuclear | weapons on British soil, even a single successful kill | would have saved far more lives than the crew complement | of a 440. | greedo wrote: | Can the F/A-18 do BARCAP? Engage cruise missile carrying | aircraft at range? | | The F-14 was an excellent aircraft when using the F-110 | engines. The TF-30s were terrible. Cheney just didn't trust | NAVAIR to develop any aircraft (see the A-12 fiasco), and he | wasn't going to approve updating all the F-14s to the D | standard. | WalterBright wrote: | Anyone interested would enjoy reading about John Boyd, head of | the Fighter Mafia: | | https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/031... | lukas099 wrote: | Seconded, he was truly a remarkable figure in U.S. military | history, both for his personality and his accomplishments. | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | It's an outstanding book about an outstanding man but still a | bit of a hagiography when it comes to all the "fighter mafia's" | ideas on aircraft design. However, his focus on prioritizing | investments in people over weapons is a truly underappreciated | part of his legacy. | | Another story of an undersung military airpower leader is that | of Red Flag & Moody Suter: | https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1100flag/ | | There's a better longform writeup I saw once from one of the | military service academies, but I can't seem to find it now. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | I think the reason was Iran. | | Before the revolution, Iran had bought F-14s and made them the | core of their air force. | | The US went out of its way not only to retire the F-14 but also | to ensure that there would be no spare parts for it that could | help Iran maintain its F14 fleet. | usefulcat wrote: | This seems.. unlikely? If the US govt didn't want Iran to get | spare parts, all it had to do was forbid the US companies | making those parts from selling them to Iran. | spamizbad wrote: | Iran used F-14As to great effect during the Iraq-Iran conflict. | The Tomcat flown by Iranian pilots did exceptionally well | against its Soviet and French peers in the Iraqi Air Force. | sokoloff wrote: | Fans of the Tomcat might be interested in F-14 RIO Ward | Carroll's YouTube channel. | | Here's an episode covering Iran's usage of the F-14 against | Iraq: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3HYrasBB4k | eternalban wrote: | Listening to the intro, good to point out that the Shah was | an accomplished pilot himself and could appreciate the | demonstration. | | -- | | "`There were several factors which influenced the selection | of the F-14. Iran's northern border with the USSR, and | those to the west and southwest with Iraq, are guarded by | high mountains. Our Air Defence Command was building radar | outposts on many peaks for better radar coverage, but we | could never improve the situation with ground-based radar | alone. There were too many "blind spots" in this coverage, | and the big white domes of our radar stations were also | excellent targets, visible from up to 50 miles away. | Intelligence information obtained at the time verified that | the Soviets would indeed strike them first. | | `In the south, along the Persian Gulf coast, we had only | US-supplied radars, which did not work properly in hot and | humid conditions -- that is, for ten months of the year -- | and otherwise also had poor performance, despite several | upgrades. All the radars supplied to the IIAF as part of | Military Assistance Program projects were far from being | top-of-the-line. The Americans gave us what they wanted to | give, not what we needed. | | For two years -- 1973-74 -- a group of Iranian radar | instructor including Col Iradj Ghaffari (the first Iranian | tactical radar instructor) studied coverage problems | associated with "Radar Sites Reinforcement," but could not | find a solution. Eventually, it was decided that a "flying | radar" would eliminate the terrain masking problems. That | flying radar would also have to be able to defend itself. | It is beyond doubt that during the war with Iraq, the F-14 | proved that it was exactly what we needed. | | `Before these studies were conducted within IIAF circles -- | at the time we were still flying F-5A/B Freedom Fighters | and F-4D Phantom IIs we started looking for a top-of-the- | line fighter interceptor. The result of these studies, | directed by Gen Mehdi Rouhani, was a requirement for F-14s | and AEW aircraft. US briefings on F-14s and F-15s | undoubtedly helped us to formulate our requirement. We | created the plan to purchase eight AEW aircraft -- | initially four, followed by four more -- and the F-14s. | Eventually, four orders were issued -- the first for 30 | Tomcats and the second for 50. There was one for Boeing E-3 | Sentry AWACS, followed by one for two communication | satellites, which would enable all these aircraft to | communicate securely with each other.' | | "Unaware that the Iranians had already identified the F-14 | as the right aircraft for their unique operational | requirements, the US Navy and Grumman started an intensive | campaign to 'sell the Shah', which included sending the | F-14 Program Coordinator of the Chief of Naval Operations, | Capt Mitchell, to Tehran twice to brief the Shah and IIAF | commanders on the Tomcat's capabilities. This culminated in | a spectacular fly-off in July 1973 at Andrews AFB, | Maryland, for the Shah and a group of high-ranking Iranian | officers." | | source: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-iiaf-tomcat- | pilots-te... | | the demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-mrFcsw-Ew | CoastalCoder wrote: | (Tangent, in praise of the F-14) | | Before the F-14s were retired (2004-ish?), I attended an air show | at the Quonset Air National Guard Base [0] . | | As part of the show, an F-14 took off from the runway and then | went vertical (I assume on afterburners). It stayed vertical | until it disappeared into the clouds. | | It felt like I was living in some sci-fi future, watching a | spaceship launch. I was in awe. It was like some Stewart Cowley | [1] book [2] come to life. | | IMHO it's still one of the coolest-looking fighter planes ever, | up there with the YF-23 [3] and Su-35 [4]. | | [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quonset_Point_Air_National_Gua... | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Cowley | | [2] https://www.amazon.com/Spacecraft-2000-2100-D-Authority- | Hand... | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23 | | [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 | xionon wrote: | I have a vague childhood memory of looking through a large | illustrated book about spaceships in our public library and | being in awe. When I came back on another trip, it was gone. I | never knew the name or author, but the memory surfaces every | few years. It always made me a little sad, because I couldn't | remember enough to find it as an adult - just the vibes I got | as a child. | | I am now 99% sure it was Spacecraft 2000 - 2100 AD. Thank you | so much for posting the name and helping me solve this mystery. | CoastalCoder wrote: | You're welcome! One day when I was pretty young, my dad | brought that book home from the local library. He didn't | often do stuff like that, so it's a really nice memory. | | I couldn't remember much about the book either. I did some | digging a few years ago when I wanted to get a copy for one | of _my_ kids. | | Tangent: the spaceship designs in the Homeworld games [0] | remind me a lot of that book. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeworld | [deleted] | EdwardDiego wrote: | Ah Chris Foss cover art, God I loved his space art when I | discovered a book of it as a kid. | ethbr0 wrote: | The first time I saw an F-22 do this out of Dobbins (north of | Atlanta) completely changed my art-of-the-possible physics | understanding. | | Seeing something going vertical _and accelerating_ is | fascinating. | [deleted] | sedatk wrote: | I agree about the coolest looking. It has a very muscular look | from the front. I'd also add F-4 and Mig-29 to the list. F-22 | isn't bad either although not as cool as YF-23. | YZF wrote: | The F-15 can also do that. I guess they don't operate from | carriers though but otherwise they're probably the ones that | took away a lot of the F-14's niche. | darksaints wrote: | I saw an F-14 during fleet week in San Francisco when I was still | in high school...we were watching from the pedestrian pathway on | the golden gate bridge. It broke the sound barrier, and I still | remember the shock wave and the sound of the bridge cables | vibrating for 5-10 seconds afterwards. It was terrifying...I | seriously thought the bridge would be damaged from it. I'm still | not sure what the story was behind it, whether it was an accident | or an "accident", but it made me fully appreciate the reasons why | supersonic flight is not allowed over land. | dingaling wrote: | Just as a point of note, the vapour cone often seen around fast | jets at low level in humid conditions doesn't necessarily mean | they're going supersonic themselves. Certain local areas of | airflow do, however, which causes the drop in air pressure and | thus condensation. | dtgriscom wrote: | You don't need supersonic anywhere to cause condensation. | Watch the wingtips of a commercial airliner landing in high | humidity; you'll often see swirls of fog caused by the low | pressure inside the vortices. | | But, the cone of condensation coming off the body of a plane | is the supersonic shock wave. | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | > But, the cone of condensation coming off the body of a | plane is the supersonic shock wave. | | And shock surfaces can be present over the body due to | local flow speed being supersonic even when the aircraft's | velocity vector is strictly subsonic. Though to be fair, | still in the transonic realm if you're seeing shocks. | darksaints wrote: | Not sure if that was an explanation for me, but I've seen it | before and I wasn't basing it off that. This was obvious from | the sound. The plane was too far away for me to see a | condensation cone. It was probably somewhere over Angel | Island at the time. | | A sonic boom, on a small scale, isn't something | impressive...bullets cause sonic booms, even the tip of a | bullwhip will. I had been around high explosives before too, | an oddity of my father's profession. This wasn't just a loud | jet, it literally sounded like a bomb, and it resonated for | what felt like 5-10 seconds. | CH1jZci6jV wrote: | I served in the last F-14 squadron, VF-31. When President Bush | landed on our carrier (Mission Accomplished!) they had the | inferior F-18s in the background for the political shots. We were | told that was because the US taxpayers would be pissed if they | knew how ripped off they got for the F-18, which was replacing | the F-14 in all of the squadrons. | | This might be just F-14 bravado, of course, but I do also | remember that like the second week of "shock and awe" (the | initial Iraq campaign bombing) they stopped all F-14 flights for | the same reasons. F-14s were trouncing the sorties of the F-18s, | even though we were one squadron vs four or five of their | squadrons, because we were the only jets capable of actually | reaching Bagdad from the carrier and we were able to convert our | bombs to "smart bombs" much faster (F-14s break a lot more so our | techs were more skilled). | darksaints wrote: | By the time of the second gulf war, the F-14D cost 20% more per | unit than the F-18E, and some 80-100% more to maintain. I'm not | sure how you're concluding that the taxpayers were ripped off | by that. | | Also, didn't we have airbases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Why | were we relying on carrier aircraft for bombing Bagdad when we | could have been using F-15s and F-16s? | tb_technical wrote: | Out of curiosity was this the F18 Hornet or the F18 Super | Hornet? | ramesh31 wrote: | How sophisticated was the AA threat over Baghdad on the initial | wave? | CH1jZci6jV wrote: | I think we thought they were a lot more sophisticated than | they actually were. But shock and awe was designed to | basically neutralize all of that anyway. The Navy was the | night shift and that included a lot of tomahawk missiles too. | The Air Force was the daytime campaign so there was a lot of | capability to take out different threats. | | The biggest threat I remember was we were very sure Saddam | had chemical weapons (mostly because we sold them to him | previously, but I digress). So we had to carry gas masks and | did chemical attack drills alot. We also were forced to take | many shots including small pox and an experimental anthrax | shot. Many of my friends have medical conditions they believe | are related to those shots. | the__alchemist wrote: | Surprising re shifts! More recently, the Navy has been | biased towards day shifts due to carrier landing windows. | My understanding is a big part of the Navy | training/brief/debrief focus is the recovery. | mysterydip wrote: | There's a big difference in number of personnel involved | and how important equipment (radar, IFF, landing systems) | are for daytime vs nighttime recoveries. | wheelerof4te wrote: | SECProto wrote: | > Isn't shock and awe designed to strike fear and terror | in the hearts and minds of the populace? When you bomb | bridges, railroads and vital energy infrastructure, the | civilians are the ones who suffer the most. | | Per the Wikipedia article on the invasion and campaign | being referenced, no this was not the intent: | | > _In practice, U.S. plans envisioned simultaneous air | and ground assaults to incapacitate the Iraqi forces | quickly [...] would allow them to attack the heart of the | Iraqi command structure and destroy it in a short time, | and that this would minimize civilian deaths and damage | to infrastructure._ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in | vasion_of_Iraq#Opening_... | | The real impact turned out ... a bit different than this | claimed strategy | yywwbbn wrote: | No, it was designed to strike fear and terror into the | hearts of common soldiers so that they would run | away/surrender instead of fighting. Civilians were just | collateral damage. | | The uprising happened during the first war, but Bush I | decided that he'd rather keep Sadam in power and that | Kuwait's oil was enough... | diskzero wrote: | Being on the ground and dealing with MOPP gear was no fun | either. The Army certainly took the risk very seriously. | The MOPP gear receded into the background on later | deployments. While all the shots may be a slight concern, I | am more afraid of breathing in all the invigorating air | from the burn pits. | Mikeb85 wrote: | > F-14s break a lot more | | Pretty sure this is the answer lol... | CH1jZci6jV wrote: | F-18s def are lower maintenance overall but they couldn't go | very far (important when your ship isn't docked in Bagdad) or | drop bombs in adverse weather so not very useful during a | war. Doesn't mean they are not politically useful, though. | One part is made in each congressional district on purpose. | sedatk wrote: | Is that the case with Super Hornets too? | izacus wrote: | Yes, the 18s and 16s have relatively low fuel capacity in | comparison to the 14. The F-35 finally improved on tank | capacity quite a bit. | stouset wrote: | Super hornets have about 100mi shorter combat range than | the Tomcat. That said they are capable of buddy air-air | refueling so that can extend their range by a bit (at the | cost of an extra pilot, airframe, and associated costs | which doesn't get to carry a useful payload). | ethbr0 wrote: | What was the feeling from the squadrons on the whole "Mission | Accomplished!" political chaff after the fact? | | I heard the banner was pre-planned by the ship as a celebration | for the completion of the cruise, but then it was prominent in | the photo ops and Bush got attacked as though he were | celebrating victory in Iraq. | | Curious on thoughts from someone who was there, or if you all | even had opinions about it afterwards. | CH1jZci6jV wrote: | Excellent question. I worked in politics after the military | and when I was in the West Wing during the Bush admin it came | up once! They said the same thing, that it was the ship's | idea. I reminded them that aircraft carriers don't have | printing presses so it would be a little hard for the sailors | to put that kind of banner together. | | It could be that the ship's leadership wanted something like | that (they are politicians too). But at least in my squadron | we were all furious the president was coming because we had | been out at sea for the longest nuclear and F-14 cruise of | all time (10 months) and we just wanted to go home to our | families but now we are delayed another week for a political | stunt and have to spend the next two weeks cleaning the ship | in preparation. | CH1jZci6jV wrote: | It's fun to have been a part of history in that way though. | And when I have some kind of career advancement I always | throw up a "mission accomplished" banner as a joke. | ethbr0 wrote: | 290 days with prep for a presidential visit at the end is | a helluva deployment. Nice to see Wikipedia records the | sacrifice: https://web.archive.org/web/20120328094805/htt | p://www.av8rst... And looks like the captain made flag, | so apparently someone was happy. ;) | smitty1e wrote: | This is a pet rant of mine. | | The U.S. will always fetish gadgets at the expense of simple | functionality. | | You'll always get a DDG-51 rather than an FFG-7; an M-16 rather | than an AK-47. | | This despite the reality that the FFG-7 does most of what you | need a navy to do, more cheaply, and an AK-47 is far less fuss | and bother than an M-16. | | The F-14 falls right in line. | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | Within a given class of system, sometimes rugged, robust, and | plentiful does win the day over sophisticated but more fragile | and expensive. On the other hand, an advanced military will | want advanced capabilities and there is plenty of history of | putting such things to good use. See for example the F-117, | precision guided bombs/JDAMs, etc. | | A lot of good arguments can be made about how the U.S. has | failed to control the costs of developing and fielding advanced | capabilities. Sometimes they just plain make bad design | decisions, like with the M1A1 or F-35. But I don't think | there's a valid case that advanced capabilities confer | insignificant benefits vs. large quantities of less- | sophisticated systems. You ideally want a good balance of both | and you need the understanding and empowerment on the | acquisition side to control costs. | | Re the M-16, Jim Fallows wrote a great article decades ago: | https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-... | unity1001 wrote: | Tomcat et all, all the swing-wing aircraft were the solutions of | an interim era in which the engines were still not yet developed | enough to make up for the drag that wings with low angles | induced, but the aircraft needed such low-sweep-angle wings in | order to be able to take of and land in short distances. | | From MIG-23 to Tomcat to F-111 to less-known Su series to Tornado | to whichever example you can imagine, were designed in this | period. | | Then engines got much stronger. They overcame the drag from low | sweep angle wings and readily pushed aircraft to the barrier of | 2000 km/h speeds. It was also discovered that at 2000 km/h you | fly like a brick and there is not much room for manuevering or | doing anything. It was also discovered that the practical max was | 2500 km/h, and beyond that you either use titanium like in SR-71 | and keep the aircraft light so that it couldn't do anything but | recon, or, just accept that your aircraft would burn and crash if | it exceeded that speed. Even the successful and widely used | MIG-25 had 2500 km/h as its max. | | Therefore aircraft speeds hit a wall, engines got powerful enough | to make up for the loss from non-swing wings. Add to that how the | industry learned to use the entire aircraft body as a lifting | surface instead of loading everything on the wings, any reason | for swing wings has gone away. | | Hence their early retirement. | yyyk wrote: | Because the F-14 was based on the epitome of 1960s tech, while | the newer planes were based on 70s/80s tech. There was no slack | for upgrades and even maintenance was difficult. | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | This is a very underappreciated aspect. The systems ( _i.e._ , | avionics and portions attached to the avionics) would have also | needed significant updates ($$$) to keep the aircraft relevant | into the 21st century. It's not just the engines that needed | modernizing. | izacus wrote: | That update existed (F-14D) but the upgrades of 40+ year old | airframes were deemed to be a pretty big waste of money when | they could be spent on fully modernized designs that could be | stealthy and require less maintenance and pilots. | chasd00 wrote: | Idk, the B52 is still flying and that airframe was designed | like in to 50s I think. | izacus wrote: | The B52 isn't rated (and regularly) used for high-G | manouvers, splashed with sea salt and crashed into a ship | deck. | | Carrier life is rough on planes. | guestbest wrote: | No one is mentioning airframes, but the technology put in the | composites of the F18 airframe was worlds cheaper and more | flexible to repair in a fleet than the pre composites airframe | of a F14 | jabl wrote: | "Pre composites", doesn't that mean, well, aluminum? That's | not particularly hard to work with, no? With composites, | well, you can slap together some repair relatively easily, | but for more complicated stuff, well you're not carrying | around a large autoclave on a carrier are you? | | (Unless the above doesn't make it abundantly clear, I have | little knowledge of aircraft repair procedures) | Qtips87 wrote: | I read that the F-14 is still stick and rudder and not Fly-by- | wire. | indymike wrote: | Short version was the engines were terrible. They were prone to | compressor stalls and blades started failing ahead of | specification. The Phoenix missile and associated AWG-9 radar | were top of the line in 1972, but were simply obsolete by mid | 90s. If you look at the lifespan of the F-14 it was pretty | remarkable, and the irony is that the F/A-18 was another design | from the same era - it was a beefed up, navalized version of the | YF-17 Cobra which lost out the the F-16. | galgot wrote: | F-14 was a very complex and expensive to maintain. A beauty, but | an Hangar Queen in her last years. | | Maybe by "peers" the author meant it was one of the "teen" | fighters serie, F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. Like there was the | "century" fighters, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106. | pxmpxm wrote: | Fun point I read about this topic while back is that planes | essentially cost the same amount of money per pound in the air, | so building anything with two times the MTOW is an inherent | disadvantage. | rjsw wrote: | Apparently, a comment on the TSR-2 [1] was that it was too | heavy. The problem was that the manufacturer misinterpreted | this and instead of just going away and designing a smaller | aircraft they spent a lot of money trying to make the | existing one lighter. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2 | muro wrote: | Any reason for not including the F-101? | galgot wrote: | just one, my poor memory. | tibbydudeza wrote: | The flight computer ("Central Air Data Computer") was interesting | design and rather advanced for its time. | | https://www.wired.com/story/secret-history-of-the-first-micr... | ddalex wrote: | Having read the original article , I disagree that this is a | microprocessor - | https://web.archive.org/web/20190523172420/http://firstmicro... | | I feel this is in line with other computers of that time, and | uses rather clever parallel design to improve the performance | of the specific functions required - but it is not general | purpose by any means. | justinator wrote: | _More troubling still, with the engines mounted a vast nine feet | apart to allow for greater lift and more weapons carriage space, | a stall in one engine could throw the aircraft into an often | unrecoverable flat spin. These issues led to the loss of a | whopping 40 F-14s in all._ | | That's a huge design flaw. | arethuza wrote: | I believe that's one reason why the English Electric Lightning | had its two engines arranged vertically. | chiph wrote: | It's not like they didn't know about it - it was a tradeoff | that allowed them to carry more ordnance and drop-tanks on the | center-line. They weren't able to put ordnance stations on the | wings, so the centerline and the sides of the fuselage were the | only areas available to carry the honkin' big Phoenix missile | (13 feet long!) | | As a swing-wing plane, putting weapon stations on the wings | meant they'd have to pivot in the opposite direction of the | wing motion to keep the bombs/missiles pointing forward (so | they didn't become an aerodynamic drag.) Pivoting ordnance | stations on the wings would also mean the wing swing servos | would need to be larger and more powerful (aka heavier). So no | ordnance on the wings. | | http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-wsm.htm | | The other heavy consumable part of a fighter is the fuel. Most | of the fuel on the F-14 was carried inside the fuselage between | the engines. There were small tanks in the wings (which mean | there was a flexible hose connecting it - that likely leaked) | but most of it was stored along the centerline of the aircraft, | helping with the center of gravity and allowing it to turn | faster. | | http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-fueltank.htm | jabl wrote: | Hypothetically, couldn't they have made a design with both | engines right beside each other, and fuel tanks, and pylons | for weapons and drop tanks on the outside of the "engine | box"? | HPsquared wrote: | Huh, interesting. The Panavia Tornado was a swing-wing plane | from a similar vintage and did have pivoting wing-mounted | pylons. Tradeoffs abound in aviation though, of course. | justinator wrote: | Imagine if one of your swing wings is locked in the "out" | position and one in the, "in" position. Couldn't imagine | all the scenarios like this the pilots had to deal with. | | I LOVED seeing the F14 fly in the 80s at an air show. Total | star of the show - I can't believe how close to the ground | they fly that thing! | aceazzameen wrote: | I thought that was impossible with the way the wings were | geared. But apparently I'm wrong. I found this: | https://imgur.io/L9OEWQr | justinator wrote: | Right? Seemed like this would have been a big whoopsie | with several giant gears mashed up to dust to be able to | make this happen. | justinator wrote: | More F-14s were destroyed (which OK: in conjunction with the | crappy engine) because of this design than in combat. | | The AIM-54's never lived up to their name as an air to air | missle, since it was meant to shoot down bombers, which never | flew (and you know: thankfully never flew). Though they tried | against fighters - that wasn't very successfully (except for | Iran?). | | One wonders if a computer system like what's in the F35 could | have worked in the F14 to mitigate the problem with engine | failure - of course: if one could go back in time 30+ years | to install it. | | Good point on the variable swept wings not allowing hard | points, didn't think about that. The F111 did allow for | ordinances on the wings and they did it in the method you've | described (tho much larger plane) | | Perhaps the greatest achievement for the F14 was selling it | to Iran, which had a real hard time keeping them in the air | due to flight costs. Kinda sold them a lemon then cut off | diplomatic ties. No one else wanted the plane! | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | > One wonders if a computer system like what's in the F35 | could have worked in the F14 to mitigate the problem with | engine failure | | It could be possible that with full-authority fly-by-wire | flight controls, a flight computer could prevent departures | in case of single engine failure. I doubt anyone with | enough F-14 flight dynamics knowledge is going to be on HN | (you never know though!) to say if there was enough | authority in the controls in these parts of the envelope to | recover from such scenarios. | | While not the same failure mode, the SR-71 in the '80s | acquired a system called "DAFICS": Digital Automatic Flight | and Inlet Control System. During supersonic flight, you | could get inlet unstart (ejection of the internal normal | shock and a resultant sudden decrease in thrust due to poor | inlet performance) - which typically occurred | asymmetrically and was not uncommon. DAFICS sensed an | impending unstart and actually forced both inlets to | simultaneously unstart. A less expensive patch than | redesigning a finicky inlet already 20+ years old. | | https://www.sae.org/publications/technical- | papers/content/85... | | That aside aside, the real fix the F-14 needed was the GE | engines (A+/D model). So you likely ought to blame the | losses of these airframes from engine-induced issues on | acquisition system decisions, rather than the airframe | design itself. | chiph wrote: | Here's a photo I took of an F-14 that had stopped over at | Sheppard AFB in the early 80's. | | https://imgur.com/Ji55Vgv | | And another one next to an A-10. Notice how substantial the | landing gear is on the F-14 compared to the A-10, and the | A-10 was designed for landings on improvised runways... | | https://imgur.com/GMupZaq | Kubuxu wrote: | It's due to carrier landing requirements. When landing on | carrier, you don't flare the aircraft, you just dump it | on deck with significant vertical speed. At least that is | what you do with F-18 (with 200-400feet per minute | descend rate), I would assume F-14 is the same for all | the same reasons. | avar wrote: | Couldn't the pivoting of wing mounted weapons stations be | driven by the airflow over the mounted weapon, rather than | mechanically? | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | It's not a design flaw, it's a design choice which was made | without the expectation the airframe would be saddled with the | awful TF-30s. A very valid design choice at that. | | If you want to understand more about the genesis of the | configuration, look on YouTube for "Peninsula Valley Seniors" | or "Western Museum of Flight" for a talk by Mike Ciminera of | Grumman. | matthewdgreen wrote: | This is how Goose died. | jeffdn wrote: | And how the test pilot who was flying the F-14 to get the | shot for the movie died[0], as well. | | [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Scholl | aceazzameen wrote: | Oh wow, I never knew about that. | histriosum wrote: | Uhm.. sort of, I guess? The airplane that Art Scholl died | in was a Pitts S-2 BiPlane, not an F-14. So.. pretty | different, although yes he died in a spin while filming | footage for Top Gun. | Test0129 wrote: | The F-14 was a fantastic airplane. My favorite of all time | (except for MAYBE the A-10, F-4, or the spitfire). | | Unfortunately, it was too expensive to maintain and didnt perform | a role that couldn't be performed by more advanced multi-role | fighters (e.g. the F-16 and F-18) at the point it was retired. | Similar to the A-10, really, in that the F-35 will likely take | it's place. | nradov wrote: | The decision was mainly a cost reduction measure, driven by the | failure of the A-12 program and a need to free up funds to fight | the GWOT while continuing JSF development. The earlier F-14 | problems had largely been resolved in the F-14D model and there | was a clear, low-risk development path to the "Super Tomcat 21" | model with greatly improved capabilities in every area. The | F/A-18E/F Super Hornets which replaced the Tomcat, while cheaper | and more reliable, lack the speed and range that would be needed | to fight a future Pacific Theater war against China. | | https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29653/this-is-what-gru... | | https://youtu.be/CpXyYgL4jPI | | I think the Navy is now regretting their decision, but it's too | late to go back. | pdoege wrote: | I think it is even worse. NAVAIR had the 14 with its massive | capabilities and instead spent a ton of money improving the A6, | A7, a bunch of canceled projects, picked the effing LOSER of | the LWF program, and then effed the 2 stealth projects and got | out of the 2010s with extremely limited capability. | | Even worse, the money that could have been spent building ships | that would be useful in a conflict with CN was spent on effing | GUN Cruisers (!!!) and littoral ships that didn't even work. | | Imagine instead if the USN had 8 additional Burkes, | upgraded/refurbed 47s, Aegis/VLS across the fleet, and a hi/lo | of updated, maintainable 14s and 16s. | | The US taxpayer spent billions and billions and got nothing. | It's been huge scandal for 30+ years | izacus wrote: | I stronly doubt your conclusion considering the Navy is | replacing the F/A-18s with F-35s which are closer to design of | 18s than 14s. | | Perhaps there might be time to face the fact that the F-14 may | not have been the most useful (and upgradable) planes for | actually practical roles the carrier aircraft are expected to | do? | | The F-14 maybe has been sexy in the air, but for effective and | operational warfare the things like logistics, maintainability, | reuse of parts and carrier space matter much more, especially | if F-14s shortcomings made it less able to actually be in the | air when needed. | | It's like taking your daddys 1970s charger (with new | infotainmed and bolted on cruise control) into a desert | expedition. Sure it has that gas guzzling V8 for the POWER when | you need to hunt sand people, but in reality a modern Hilux is | going to make the combined force a much more potent force and | won't need truckloads of spare parts and mechanics to trail it. | Even if it doesn't go 0-60 in 3s. | zokier wrote: | The article does not spell it out directly, so to clarify the | title a bit here are the introduction years of the relevant | aircraft: | | * F-14 1974 | | * F-15 1976 | | * F-16 1978 | | * F-18 1983/84 | | * F-22 2005 | | * F-35 2016ish | | The interesting thing here is that F-18 was introduced only a | decade after F-14, while F-15 -> F-22 took nearly three decades | and F-16 -> F-35 four. | indymike wrote: | The F-18 was based on the Northrop YF-17 that lost to the F-16 | for it's contract. The Navy likes twin-engine fighters for | safety reasons. | YZF wrote: | The F-15 and the F-16 were just so good. Also there are many | versions of those. | icegreentea2 wrote: | That's because the original F-18 was not a replacement for the | F-14 - it was intended to be a complement. The F-18E/F which | did replace the F-14 entered service in like 1997 or something. | The F-18E/F is not really a variant of the F-18 - calling it | E/F was a procurement masterstroke. | sidewndr46 wrote: | The author lists the "F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, and F-16 Fighting | Falcon" as peers. I'm not really sure I agree with this. The F-15 | and F-16 are land based fighters. The F-14 is a carrier launched | aircraft. The requirements are different & the constraints are | different. To consider the F-15 as a peer isn't even a valid | starting point. It's a different plane for a different mission. | | Also worth mentioning there are effectively two generations of | F-14, the second one having an improved engine design. These did | not debut until 1987. | masklinn wrote: | The F-16 actually had a carrier demonstrator, the Vought 1600, | for VFAX. | | While the F16 beat the YF17 for LWF, it's carrier version was | defeated by the carrier version of the YF17 (which would become | the F/A-18). | | I would agree that the F16 is not a peer to the F15 or F14, the | entire point of the 16 was to be a small and cheap workhorse. | Not just because of the LWF program, but because that was its | designers' ethos inside General Dynamics. | | The 15 is 50% heavier when empty, And the 14 more than double | (though part of that is changes and reinforcements for carrier- | based operations, the Vought 1600 was also quite a bit heavier | than an F-16). | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | > The F-16 actually had a carrier demonstrator, the Vought | 1600, for VFAX. | | To be clear, the Vought 1600 (a partnership with GD where | Vought took on the prime role and GD became a sub, similar to | the what happened with Northrop and McDonnell-Douglas with | the YF-17 and F-18) never left the conceptual design phase. | You won't find a Vought 1600 airframe in any museum. | | > Not just because of the LWF program, but because that was | its designers' ethos inside General Dynamics. | | And also on the part of the USAF instigators of the LWF | program (the so-called "fighter mafia"). The interesting | thing is that if you look at the combat & military exercise | record of the F-15C, it contradicts a lot of what the fighter | mafia took and preached as gospel, at least as far as the | air-to-air theater goes. The F-16 did/does enjoy a great deal | of success as a multirole fighter with a non-trivial emphasis | on the ground attack role. | 6stringmerc wrote: | It's been nice in my opinion to see the international | market for the Viper generation to maintain relationships. | It's a spiffy development imho for a really practical | machine. | ethbr0 wrote: | > _The interesting thing is that if you look at the combat | & military exercise record of the F-15C, it contradicts a | lot of what the fighter mafia took and preached as gospel, | at least as far as the air-to-air theater goes._ | | I dunno. Another way of looking at it is that the F-15 has | never had to compete in a war the fighter mafia was | designing around: specifically total war. | | Israel/US vs Lebanon/Syria/Iraq was never a peer state | conflict, and so allowed staged strikes or long-range | AWACs-supported intercepts, both of which played to the | F-15's strength, without exposing the weaknesses the | fighter mafia claimed to address (feasibility of procuring | large numbers and visual range dogfighting). | | The F-16 was designed for a scenario where the _number_ of | F-15s became a limiting factor and where any-fighter >> | no-more-fighters. I.e. NATO-vs-WP | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | Sure, in a pure mass vs. mass scenario where the | adversary's systems are no more advanced than yours, more | mass likely wins. But this is really the only scenario in | which aircraft like the F-16 or F-18 give you "air | dominance". | | The fighter mafia tended to overextrapolate from Vietnam | that systems/technology were never going to be the force | multiplier originally thought, and you needed to equip | lots of smart men with incredible knife-fighting ability. | | The maybe underappreciated lesson from the F-15 (air-to- | air variants anyway) is that the systems did indeed catch | up to airframe capabilities and proved their mettle. Not | just in combat with lesser-trained adversaries but also | in western military exercises. Moreover the F-15 doesn't | give up very much in the WVR dogfight situation either, | despite a lack of fly-by-wire (until F-15SA) or lack of | relaxed static longitudinal stability. I'm sure you can | setup a WVR fighter maneuvers set where the F-16's | characteristics give it an advantage but that is likely | to be a small window in the envelope of potential | engagements. The F-15's size actually ends up being a | pretty sweet spot and is (ironically?) a better airframe | for getting within the adversary's OODA loop. | | That all being said, John Boyd is credited with keeping | the F-X program from foolishly pursuing a more complex | and less maneuverable design - design direction which | deserves immense praise. | formerly_proven wrote: | Compare the LWT idea the "figher mafia" proposed to what | the F-16 actually is though. | Brian_K_White wrote: | The main thrust of the article is that the machine has no | direct peers because the job it was designed for was unique, | and restates this several times all through it. Any comparisons | to any other aircraft are by definition automatically contrasts | with other things that are different. | | The later upgrades which are worth mentioning, were mentioned, | several times. | Denvercoder9 wrote: | They are peers in the sense that they had their first flight | and operational introduction within 4 years of each other. | Contemporaries would probably have been a better choice of | wording. | YLYvYkHeB2NRNT wrote: | > ... but without a Soviet boogeyman to keep Uncle Sam's | pocketbook upturned and shaking, it became an incredibly | expensive and sometimes problematic solution to a problem nobody | had anymore. | | This says a lot about our world. Just look outside. | psychphysic wrote: | Russia's performance in Ukraine has been so abysmal I believe | Western war hawks are most offended. | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | Cold war Russia and today's Russia are two different beasts. | Also, Russia's strategy of deliberate large-scale brutality | against civilians to win military conflicts still motivates | the drive to nullify their military capabilities as quickly | as possible. | Aloha wrote: | This. | | The Soviet Union had _vast_ excess capacity to scale its | army, build more armaments, etc. All of that went away as | unaffordable when the Union collapsed. | metadat wrote: | > Could the F-14 have been modernized, upgraded, and improved to | still be flying today? Of course it could. But like the bringing | the F-22 Raptor back from the dead... sometimes it would cost | more to keep a really good older fighter than it would cost to | design and build a great new one. | | Is the F-35 considered "great" when compared to the F-22 Raptor? | I was under the impression the Raptor was better in most ways, | but also way expensive. | | Disclaimer: I'm no expert on military aircraft, though I have | visited the _San Diego Air and Space Museum_ countless times. | izacus wrote: | They really do different things. F-22 is meant to fight other | planes and has much less flexibility of attacking ground | targets and supporting the army. It also can't even land on a | full sized carrier, much less a smaller Marine one. | | F-35 is a jack of all trades, has a better sensor suite for | ground attack, can be dispatched somewhere from a deck of even | small carriers and is much cheaper to manufacture. It is also | worse at fighting other planes (although not bad really). | | In any kind of real fight you'll probably see both because | they're complementing each other, but the 22 is much less | flexible and more specialized at its role. | | So the 22 is more of a successor to F-15 and F-35 is a | successor to the F-18 or F-16. | srvmshr wrote: | The F-22 is an air dominance fighter. It's primary objective is | air superiority. F-35 on the other hand is a versatile | multirole aircraft which has been adapted to 3 variants for air | force, navy and the marines. | | The F-35 trades a slightly higher radar visibility (vis a vis | F22) with a very modular software & hardware architecture & | networked combat assistance. Its avionics is much more easily | upgradeable & mostly written in a C++ dialect to best of my | knowledge. F-22 on the other hand is absolutely the best in | class on stealth & maneuverability - but the tech it is built | on, will be of 90s always (sadly). Its avionics & controls were | coded in Ada on i960MX architecture (CPU clock ~90MHz) which is | no longer maintained. | | Between the two, F-22 is a marvelous bird still, and still | outclasses F-35 in air dominance roles. Its capabilities can | strike fear to even well-equipped combat adversaries. In an | anecdote that I was told by an US airman friend, Pakistan AF | had scrambled F-16s during the OBL's Abbotabad raid, but the | sortie was pushed to flying the perimeters of the city when a | F-22 pair switched on their radar beacons temporarily to ping | their presence (& as a obvious warning). Apparently they were | overflying at reasonably high altitude having taken off from | Qatar or KSA on special close air support mission. Their | stealthy presence & perceived capabilities from this incident | speaks volumes. | | Edit: The hardware is Intel i960MX. I mistakenly remembered it | as IBM Power architecture. | | Edit2: Aviation Intel also surmised that F-22s were possibly in | the theater | | http://aviationintel.com/was-the-f-22-used-for-contingency-c... | mst wrote: | Having seen quite a lot about the language, I do rather | wonder whether Ada would've been a better choice of | implementation platform, just with a modern-ish processor | underneath it. | | (I would not describe myself as competent at either Ada -or- | C++ though, so take my wondering with a suitable amount of | salt) | cstross wrote: | 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 | | (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 ... | Tronno wrote: | 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. | ethbr0 wrote: | I've never understood why the AIM-54 wasn't replatformed | after the decision was made to retire the F-14. | | I guess procurement politics? | | But maybe also because the terminal active radar guidance was | no longer capable of burning through expected Russian ECM? | And in a balancing of "substantially update and redesign" vs | "invest elsewhere", long-range fleet missiles weren't a | priority in the wake of the USSR's collapse and Russia's | economic struggles. | giantrobot wrote: | > I've never understood why the AIM-54 wasn't replatformed | after the decision was made to retire the F-14. | | It was a huge fucking missile. Only the F-14 was able to | physically carry it and it's unique pylon. If adapted to | other airframes they might have only been able to carry a | single missile. Even the F-14 could only practically carry | four of them. If it launched with the max of six and didn't | fire any it would have to jettison two before attempting a | landing. | | The AIM-120 in contrast could be carried by a number of US | and allied fighters, had active radar homing (fire and | forget), and BVR capability. The latest versions can even | match the range of the AIM-54. | | The AIM-54 was designed to hit incoming high altitude | bombers coming for a carrier battle group outside of the | range they could launch nuclear ALCMs. With that job | largely obviated by the collapse of the USSR and end of the | Cold War there was never much need to keep the system in | service. | | The danger to carrier battle groups today are lower | altitude cruise missiles, opposing fighter/attack aircraft, | and UAVs. A missile that really only works well against | high altitude targets isn't all that useful. | jabl wrote: | Yeah, wikipedia says the Phoenix weighed about 450kg, | three times as much as an AMRAAM. And given that the | latest versions, like you mention, have a range very | close to the Phoenix, and the AMRAAM has been continually | developed (presumably including advances in sensors, | electronics and software), whereas Phoenix apparently | wasn't developed since the 1986 AIM-54C. So except for a | very slight advantage in nominal range, arguably the | modern AMRAAM is vastly superior in every respect. | Gravityloss wrote: | MBDA Meteor has the dimensions of Amraam but is air | breathing and has very high range and speed. For one | example, even the small Gripen has already fired it. | dragonwriter wrote: | As I understand it, the AIM-54 being too expensive for its | utility and its function being less prioritized was part of | the calculus of retiring the F-14, which happened _after_ | the AIM-54 was retired. | oxfeed65261 wrote: | 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._comba | t_e... | bombcar wrote: | 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 wrote: | Also, the AIM-54 was designed to down bombers, which even | in TU-22M form have very different maneuverability than | fighters. | oxfeed65261 wrote: | 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 wrote: | From the article I got the idea that the AIM was probably | short for "And... I Missed." | chipsa wrote: | https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/missiles.html | | Theres's an entire system for how the designations work. | chipsa wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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? | V_Terranova_Jr wrote: | 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 wrote: | Good points - thank you. | chipsa wrote: | 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. | frankharv wrote: | 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 wrote: | Good points - thank you. | greedo wrote: | 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. | CarVac wrote: | Amusingly, the AIM-47 page says that the YF-12A was itself a | lower-cost replacement for the XF-108 program. | pastaguy1 wrote: | The F15 doesn't get a ton of fanfare, but it's an extremely | capable aircraft. | chasd00 wrote: | As a kid the F15 was the only plane I ever drew pictures of and | hung in my room. I agree, it's a fantastic aircraft. | gdubs wrote: | Lots of great stories in the comments here, but I figured I'd | drop a little reference to my time in the saddle: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Burner | | Hard to overstate how large the F-14 loomed in the consciousness | of kids growing up in the 80s/90s -- not just from Top Gun but | from this game as well. So many quarters spent having this | machine babysit me while my mom shopped. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-30 23:00 UTC)