Cat peeking out of the bag?

With this thread still active, I thought I'd take another crack at expousing
Jose's original query to those in the know about the accuracy of Tom's books
on the performance of the F-4 and -14 in Iranian air combat. The stuff on
the Tomcat could surely have a lot to say about the current picture of a-a
combat. Some of you guys must have an inkling about whether or not there
really was a lot of a-a combat as Tom suggests, or whether the "popular"
account of there being very little a-a action (and airworthy 'Cats!) is more
likely to be true. Thanks,

Tony

Woody wrote:

Most of the 2-seaters in existence now are still coupled cockpits.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by "coupled cockpits"?

Scott Seders

Most of the 2-seaters in existence now are still coupled cockpits.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by "coupled cockpits"?

The back station is about the same as the front station. IIRC, VFA-103 is
going to be the first fleet squadron with decoupled cockpits, that is the
WSO station has a lot of stuff that the pilot's doesn't have, and
vice-versa.
_____________
José Herculano

On 11/6/04 10:41, in article , "Scott
Seders" wrote:

Woody wrote:

Most of the 2-seaters in existence now are still coupled cockpits.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by "coupled cockpits"?

Scott Seders



Scott,

The current F/A-18B/D/F have "coupled" cockpits which means that even though
the pilot and WSO can independently select displays for their respective
Digital Display Indicators (DDI's), whatever the WSO does to his radar
attack display (for example) will also happen to the pilot's radar attack
display in the front. They are "coupled" from front to back cockpit.

Decoupled means that the pilot could be working an air-to-air problem with
the radar while the WSO works an air-to-ground targeting problem.

--Woody

Pechs1 wrote:
Thomas- Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened
to Tomcat availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the
ground up in the early 1990s like the Super Hornet. BRBR

To late. If it was going to become the 'Super Tomcat or Tomcat 21, it
needed to happen in the 80s, when $ was everywhere.

I would say that the detailed Super Tomcat work would have been done in
about the same period as the F/A-18E/F, but you're quite right to point out
that the groundwork needed to be laid earlier. If in the early 1980s, they
had comitted to making the whole force into F-14Ds or equivalent, there
would have been a lot more reason to push a next generation version in place
of the Super Bug.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Tom-I would say that the detailed Super Tomcat work would have been done in

about the same period as the F/A-18E/F,

It was, I saw briefs on the Tomcat 21 when I was in VX-4...late 80s but the USN
didn't buy it.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

From: (Pechs1)
Newsgroups:

It was, I saw briefs on the Tomcat 21 when I was in VX-4...late 80s but the
USN
didn't buy it.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer


Do I know you?

I was on the COMFITAEWWING Staff from 1978-1982. Visited VX-4 twice and every
other squadron at least 4 times.

VFP-63 which I was in in 72 and 73 we visited only once.

VF-124 which had Crusaders when I was there switched to Tomcats so i only
visited them to check records.

I was just a lowly enlisted puke.

nimbill- Do I know you?

I was on the COMFITAEWWING Staff from 1978-1982. Visited VX-4 twice and every
other squadron at least 4 times BRBR

I was just a lowly enlisted puke. BRBR

Don't know. I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Nov '89. CO/XO of VF-126 until
Spet of 1992.

No 'lowly enlisted pukes'., IMO, I worked for a salty E-6 in my first
squadron..AMS1 Eubanks...and many others in the next 16 years or so.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

In article , wrote:

On 24 Oct 2004 14:33:05 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

Tamas- Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
retiring all Tomcats. BRBR

It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2 F-14
squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue.

It's pretty much bulletproof, too, being overbuilt and armored. Wing
sweep problems are really rare. The folks at Pax tested the one wing
stuck aft flyability and landability (I don't remember whether they
tested trappability, though), I think as the result of that actually
happening once. That was fairly recently, like in the last decade, so
it's probably related to system wear.

It is an old design, never modified to it's full capabilities with available
technology. Analog, push rod type flight controls, tube type avionics,
****poor
engines in the majority of the A/C(TF-30).

What really did it in was LRUs, Line-Replaceable Units. These greatly
reduce the amount of plane-side maintenance by moving it to depots.
Instead of repairing or replacing components, the entire defective
unit is pulled out and a new working unit is plugged in. This is
quick and easy.

The LRUs were the result of the military emphasizing ease of
maintenance. With LRUs they increased up time, reduced maintenance
time, and reduced crew size.

We saw a huge improvement in all three at Dryden when we switched from
F-104s to F-18s. The USN saw something similar going from A-7s to
F/A-18s, according to a couple of captains I talked to back in 1990.

I started with Hughes in '78 and LRUs were the design standard then.
Can't speak for the rest of the electronics on the a/c, but the radar & EW
systems were designed as LRUs.

Here's the real difference today:
Prior to the mid-90's all maintenance was 3 levels; flightline, shop level
(local, on-base), and depot. The flightline maintenance comsists of
replacing the black box at the airplane.

The shop level tried to diagnose the problem with the black box, open
it up and replace the faulty assembly inside. This required a LOT of test
and evaluation equipment and highly trained electronics techs.
Sometimes even card repairs were done in the shop.

Anything that could not be diagnosed and fixed in the shop was sent to
the depot for repair.

This 3 level maintenance was the same for both USAF and USN.

Lately, since the mid-90's, contracts have gone to 2 level maintenance.
Getting rid of the intermediate shop has eased a lot of problems;
No expensive test equipment, reduced need for trained techs, less
hardware in the pipeline, less facilities required, etc.
Now, the LRUs are pulled at the flightline and sent directly to the depot
with no attempt to repair at the base.

What allows this to be economical are three things, heavy emphasis
on reliability engineering, improved capability of embedded self-test,
and the FEDEX model of moving hardware fast overnight.

There were LRUs well before the F/A-18, but Mary is right in that the
emphasis on ease of maintenance and reliability paid real
dividends in system availability and uptime, and reduced cost.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Tamas- Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN
is
retiring all Tomcats. BRBR

It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2
F-14
squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue.

It's pretty much bulletproof, too, being overbuilt and armored. Wing
sweep problems are really rare. The folks at Pax tested the one wing
stuck aft flyability and landability (I don't remember whether they
tested trappability, though), I think as the result of that actually
happening once. That was fairly recently, like in the last decade, so
it's probably related to system wear.

The wing sweep actuators ran on separate hyd systems but were interconnected
via a torque tube so that loss of one PC would not inhibit wing operation.
Problem was the torque tube was designed for emergency use, not every day.
Standard maint procedures would use only one hyd to power the system and
sweep the wings with the tube. Eventually one failed in flight and the
aircraft trapped aboard America in the IO with one at 20 degrees one at 35
(mid 80's, the cruise after I left VF-102). It was relatively easy to
control and except for higher approach speed (maneuvering flaps/slats only)
not that big a deal.

R / John