If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... Jose- Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can do, I find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F. BRBR But how ya gonna get that thing to sit off a coastline, no friendly airbase w/i 1000 miles and 'rattle the saber'??? Geeezzz, a squadron of B-2s(6) cost the same as a CV and airwing. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer Not to mention Show the flag, and project power... How does a stealh bomber show the flag, If you don't know it is there how does it project power? Oh How many months can the B-2 remain on station Ready to answer the bell. Jim |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
In article %X_pb.2467$0d2.956@lakeread06, "Jake Donovan"
wrote: For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time, maintenance is a big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the F-14's tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious lack of spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program like the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range, Load out...... Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists.... I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with the continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to fund it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling. That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "José Herculano"
wrote: AESA? Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one already...:-( That's the bells&whistles version of the APG-79 radar, that does everything from air-to-air to air-to-ground to jamming. Needs the ACS (advanced crew stations) to be effective. José, the APG-79 radar IS the AESA radar. Same thing, not a version. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ralph Savelsberg
wrote: And more in general stands for Active Electronically Scanned Array, which is the name for the type of antenna/emitter group. Instead of a mechanically swivelling antenna (with complicated waveguides and a heavy hydraulic system to move it around) this has a flat, fixed array Instead it has a liquid cooling system. Still, a lot more reliable than hydraulics. To keep this in the naval vein, it needs to be mentioned that the APG-65 and APG-73 antennas use electric motors to drive the antenna, not hydraulics. But of course, the response time of any mechanical system is much slower than electronic steeting. consisting of multiple emitter/receiver modules. The beam is controlled electronically and at least in theory such a radar can use multiple modes simultaneously. In the F/A-18F (with the ACS) this could mean that for instance the pilot would have an air-to-air mode selected, while the NFO in the back could be using a ground-mapping mode at the same time. A small number of USAF F-15Cs (from the 3rd FW in Alaska if I'm not mistaken) already fly with a radar with such an antenna: a modified version of the regular APG-63(V)1 (unsurprisingly) called the APG-63(V)2 . The APG-79 is a newer generation. USAF is looking into a fleet-wide retrofit of F-15C's and E's with AESA based on the extremely positive results of the (V)2. This would also be newer generation. APG-63(V)2 is the world's first production AESA radar. The first F/A-18F fitted with the APG-79 has already undertaken its first flight. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
You NFO-hating ******* troll!!
Just kidding. I'll grant you the "at the merge" utility as being marginal, but does the addition of an extra set of eyes/ears/digits pre-merge significantly reduce the potential for task saturation and therefore increase overall mission effectiveness? (Especially if the RIO is minding the store on other aspects of the mission?) My guess is "probably", but we'll have to wait to see what the F-model experience base builds. I think the real crux of the question (and here's the real troll) is how many merges will we really see in the future? The old "end of dogfighting?" issue, revisited yet again. Having heard countless CAGs and NSAWC Overalls carp repeatedly about the need to clean up merges, I know the need is there and that we train to it continuously - but let's be realistic about an Adversary's skills needed to *make* it to the merge, let alone clean it up to their own advantage. At night. In an EA environment. That calls for some serious varsity-time training and experience, and who in the world has it but us? End troll -Jim C. Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: I'm sure I'm going to get many responses from this one. Seriously, folks, not a troll. --Woody |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
John,
There isn't one, mainly because most of the folks contributing to this NG "lived the life". I realize that this can be confusing to someone unfamiliar with aviation and military acronyms, but that's how we learned to communicate among one another. (No different than the "tongues" spoken among technology professionals in Silicon Valley.) For a very general dictionary of Naval aviation terms, go to http://www.tailhook.org/AVSLANG.htm. The above link won't answer your weapon-specific question, though. -- Mike Kanze 436 Greenbrier Road Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259 USA 650-726-7890 "John Penta" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:50:10 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote: I'd agree with you all the way up to the air-to-air mission. Most of the Tomcat converts I know claim that the RIO sucked SA away from the pilot... BUT when AESA comes on line, and the folks at Boeing split up the cockpit, the WSO in will have plenty to do that the pilot would never be able to handle by himself. --Woody AESA? Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one already...:-( John |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On 11/5/03 10:18 AM, in article ,
"José Herculano" wrote: AESA? Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one already...:-( That's the bells&whistles version of the APG-79 radar, that does everything from air-to-air to air-to-ground to jamming. Needs the ACS (advanced crew stations) to be effective. _____________ José Herculano José's right. Active Electronically Scanned Array. The jets off the line right now (Lot 23, I think) already have ACS, they just haven't split the cockpit functionality yet. --Woody |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:41:54 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg
wrote: And more in general stands for Active Electronically Scanned Array, which is the name for the type of antenna/emitter group. Instead of a mechanically swivelling antenna (with complicated waveguides and a heavy hydraulic system to move it around) this has a flat, fixed array consisting of multiple emitter/receiver modules. The beam is controlled electronically and at least in theory such a radar can use multiple modes simultaneously. In the F/A-18F (with the ACS) this could mean that for instance the pilot would have an air-to-air mode selected, while the NFO in the back could be using a ground-mapping mode at the same time. Regards, Ralph Savelsberg Ave Ralph Is this the phased array radar? And if not,wthat's the difference? Greetz Mu |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"
No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3 years at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling. Plane (no spelling error) and simple. As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing the Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat was not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on the drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in the political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven wrong. Wonder why the T45 took so long to get to the fleet? As an engineering raconteur surely you know. The decision was made to go with an aircraft that was never intended to land on carriers. It almost drove D J Venlet, the Navy's T45 Program Lead Test Pilot to the nut house. The DoD told the Navy to make it work, blamed the Navy for every failure, but hey, it's in the fleet. Underpowered, squirrelly on carrier approach, can be even more of a handful on a cat shot, but it's a done deal. My resume? Undergrad degree in System Engineering and a Masters in Mechanical Engineering, F4's, 2 years at MD in St Louis in 78 &79 as an engineering officer on the original Hornet, (Ken Grubbs and Dick Richards flew the program) F14's, TPS, exchange tour at Boscombe Down, DARPA, DoD Test and Development, A stint at Crystal City watching programs that should have progressed get cut and programs, as a test pilot knowing they were a nightmare, get approved. Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15 ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint test program on the YF22 and the X35. Been there, Seen it, Done that. Still active AND flying after 30 years and have never been called a conspiracy theorists in my career. Jake "Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article %X_pb.2467$0d2.956@lakeread06, "Jake Donovan" wrote: For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time, maintenance is a big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the F-14's tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious lack of spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program like the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range, Load out...... Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists.... I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with the continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to fund it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling. That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New aviation history interview: Fokker/Curtiss/Messerschmitt ace Mauno Fräntilä | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 0 | September 22nd 04 11:18 PM |
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS | Robert Hansen | Military Aviation | 0 | February 19th 04 02:10 AM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
F-14 on the History Channel's "Modern Marvels" | Brian J. McCann | Military Aviation | 15 | October 12th 03 02:12 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |