Cat peeking out of the bag?

he left that country. I have heard from fighter guys that in close while
the
motor is running that the buff can be a formibidal weapon that can make a
pretty good turn. But then they were probably looking for an excuse to use
the
thing. It wasn't designed for the close in fight but only as a back up to
something better.

And it has one BIG fragmentation warhead. There are some pretty wild claims
on that book about multiple kills with a single missile. Like Iraqis flying
close formation and the missile bagging the leader AND the wingman. Sounds
fishy to me, but...

But even when the motor is spent, that thing is coming balistic at you at
Mach 4 plus... it should be hard to vacate its ballpark. I heard the thing
does 18 G turns while motoring.
_____________
José Herculano

Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
power.

Iranian sources claim that only 12 were sabotaged, and those were later
fixed with parts out of that Iran-Contra deal.

Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile
targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise missile
or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to hit with
a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm.

Well, most of the kills were against MiGs... true it seems they were not
maneuvering much, but most BVR kills are like that.

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

Tell you what... the swing wing spar IS the thoughest piece of metal on the
Tomcat. You can claim the bird is prone to battle damage everywhere BUT on
the swing-wing mechanism.

_____________
José Herculano

ISTR the 54 had a continuous rod warhead. Dodging a Mach 4 missile
coming down at you from high above seems sort of problematical -
unless it's leaving a smoke trail how do you see it coming? Sure, you
got some radar warning - you hope - but the main defense seems to be
a) the wetware controlling the launch sequence screwed up and b)
system reliability. Employed within proper parameters with a weapons
system maintained within specs - even the Hughes radar Falcon could
hit the target. Glad I'm retired, since similar systems to the 54 are
becoming all too prevalent. W(Way)BVR takes a lot of fun out of the
game.
Walt BJ

"José Herculano" wrote:

Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
power.

Iranian sources claim that only 12 were sabotaged, and those were later
fixed with parts out of that Iran-Contra deal.

Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile
targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise missile
or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to hit with
a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm.

Well, most of the kills were against MiGs... true it seems they were not
maneuvering much, but most BVR kills are like that.

snip

As with virtually everything else, Tamas is full of it. The AIM-54 was tested
against maneuvering fighter targets during its development and nailed a QF-86
drone pulling 6g (the missile pulled 16g to get it), as well as having several
successful tests against multiple fighter-sized targets (BQM-34, QT-33 or QF-9
drones, the latter augmented to MiG-21 RCS). Fighters weren't the primary
target it was designed around, but it's certainly capable of killing them,
especially with a BVR 'bolt from the blue' with a missile coming down from
above.

Guy

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 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).

BUT it had nothing to do with it being a varible geometry A/C...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

tube type avionics


Presumably this refers to the TWT's in the radar
system, the EW/ECM systems and not the C3 equipment ?
(the Tomcat was certainly not Korean War vintage!)

TWT's are "tubes" that are encased in steel (think
of microwave oven magnetrons). That was the only
technology at the time that could handle the power
levels required for the radar packages being used.

The other technology for VHF / UHF radios (NAV and
air to air, air to ground, etc), were solid state
designs with NO tubes.

Also the FGC's were undeniably solid state, NON tube
technology.

To be specific, references of "tubes" are as a
circuit switching or amplification device - not
as a display device (ie. a PFD, or MFD).

KingPin- Presumably this refers to the TWT's in the radar
system, the EW/ECM systems and not the C3 equipment ?
(the Tomcat was certainly not Korean War vintage!) BRBR

The (h)AWG-9 was old technology that was prevelent in early radars seen on the
F-4(AWG-10), never really modified when available technology was present.

Poor reliability, many MH to maintain.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

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.

BUT it had nothing to do with it being a varible geometry A/C...

Exactly.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

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

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. (Actually, unlike the Hornet, the base
structural design could probably have been retained, even if a wing and
inlet redesign was desirable.)

I'm sure it would still have been more maintenance-intensive than the SH
(bigger engines, second seat, etc.). But it seems to me that switching the
electronics over to LRUs, going to modern flight controls, and installing
new-technology engines would have done wonders for servicability rates and
maintenance costs.

--
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

On 11/2/04 6:49 PM, in article
, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

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. (Actually, unlike the Hornet, the base
structural design could probably have been retained, even if a wing and
inlet redesign was desirable.)

I'm sure it would still have been more maintenance-intensive than the SH
(bigger engines, second seat, etc.). But it seems to me that switching the
electronics over to LRUs, going to modern flight controls, and installing
new-technology engines would have done wonders for servicability rates and
maintenance costs.

Tom,

The Super Hornet issn't as much of a ground-up redesign as it is an
improvement on the old model. It's amazing how similar the two jets are.

From a maintenance standpoint the Tomcat would have to make some MAJOR
changes to keep up with the Hornet WRT MMH/FH. e.g. Engine changes... it's
WAY easier to do on a Hornet because it was DESIGNED to be easier. That'd
be tough to design in on a Tomcat.

--Woody