A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

F-14 on the History Channel's "Modern Marvels"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old November 5th 03, 08:23 PM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default




"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


Ads
  #42  
Old November 5th 03, 11:17 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article %[email protected], "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  
Old November 5th 03, 11:20 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 5th 03, 11:31 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 6th 03, 12:35 AM
Jim Calpin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 6th 03, 02:48 AM
Mike Kanze
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 6th 03, 04:16 AM
Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 6th 03, 04:40 AM
Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 11/5/03 5:35 PM, in article , "Jim Calpin"
wrote:

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.


Certainly does open up a can o' worms.

Never having flown a two-seat FIGHTER (I'm VA to VFA) I'm speaking out of
turn here, but stories relayed from my VF to VFA buddies indicate that it's
much easier (given the automation) to perform the fighter mission (and with
greater success) in the Hornet. All cite the single-seat configuration as
one of the major factors given:

1. All tactical decisions at range (Defend? Skate? Banzai? Shoot?
Crank?) become the responsibility of just one set of brain cells and don't
have to be communicated with another set before execution.

2. Easy to find the beam if defending because you're not depending on some
other guy to tell you where it is.

3. The tendency if you're talking on the radio to NOT miss radio calls as
opposed to if you're simply listening to the radio. This is the phenomenon
I see quite often... Heck, I even do it sometimes in my civilian job.

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.


Great troll. We can plan on not cleaning up merges, but then what happens
if we find ourselves across the circle from a MiG without that training?

If you're DCA against marauding hordes of very simple North Korean airplanes
(for example), seeing a merge would be likely. When winchester
AMRAAM's/Phoeny-bombs/Sparrows, it'd be nice for our guys to know how to pop
the other jet in the can with a heater.

Do we really want to stop training to merge clean-up due to that
"un-likeliness" which is based on the last several third world conflicts
against poor air forces with meager numbers? Don't fight the last war.
Plan for the next one.

CAG's and NSAWC preach merge clean up because it's the current game. (Of
course, CAG wants his CVW to look good for lots of reasons.) It's a tough
skill to master, and thus requires some significant training time and
dollars. Of course, admirals want to stop training to it because it costs
money. I think it's worth the investment.

--Woody

  #49  
Old November 6th 03, 04:52 AM
Mu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 6th 03, 06:04 AM
Jake Donovan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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 %[email protected], "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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:10 AM
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements me Military Aviation 146 January 15th 04 11:13 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.