F14 vs F18F

[rstro]

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"

[John Mullen]

rstro wrote:

> Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
> politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super Dud???
> Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't even
> carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but hell
> the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.
>
> "Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"
>
>
The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

John

[Keith Willshaw]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> rstro wrote:
>
> > Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
> > politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
Dud???
> > Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't
even
> > carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
hell
> > the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.
> >
> > "Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"
> >
> >
> The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.
>

Better strike aircraft perhaps but it being a better fighter is doubtful.

As I understand it the problem with the F-14 is maintainability,
it just needs to many hours of maintenance for each flying hour.

Keith

[John Carrier]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> rstro wrote:
>
> > Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
> > politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
Dud???
> > Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't
even
> > carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
hell
> > the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.
> >
> > "Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"
> >
> >
> The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.
>
> John

Yes and no. Far more maintainable. Better hi AOA performance (not
practical in a real world sense). Better weapons system integration,
particularly in cockpit ergonomics. Maybe better bringback capability (not
sure on this one).

Poorer range/endurance/speed. Poorer energy maneuverability.

In a practical sense, the F-18 can be turned around more quickly than the
F-14 and has better availability (less down for parts/maintenance jets).
Its weapons/avionics are thoroughly up to date (by comparison, the Navy
never even funded AAMRAM integration with the F-14 ... criminal IMO), the
F-14 less so.

The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a new
airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its functional.
Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall scheme
of things.

R / John

[rstro]

ah--
so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
would really like to know what the aircrews think....

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > rstro wrote:
> >
> > > Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
> > > politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
> Dud???
> > > Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18
can't
> even
> > > carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
> hell
> > > the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.
> > >
> > > "Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"
> > >
> > >
> > The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.
> >
> > John
>
> Yes and no. Far more maintainable. Better hi AOA performance (not
> practical in a real world sense). Better weapons system integration,
> particularly in cockpit ergonomics. Maybe better bringback capability
(not
> sure on this one).
>
> Poorer range/endurance/speed. Poorer energy maneuverability.
>
> In a practical sense, the F-18 can be turned around more quickly than the
> F-14 and has better availability (less down for parts/maintenance jets).
> Its weapons/avionics are thoroughly up to date (by comparison, the Navy
> never even funded AAMRAM integration with the F-14 ... criminal IMO), the
> F-14 less so.
>
> The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a new
> airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
functional.
> Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
scheme
> of things.
>
> R / John
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"rstro" > wrote in message
et...
> ah--
> so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
> would really like to know what the aircrews think....

Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons platform
is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
ships for many decades to come.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rstro" > wrote in message
> et...
> > ah--
> > so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
> > would really like to know what the aircrews think....
>
> Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons
platform
> is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
> only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
> ships for many decades to come.
>
>
At least he didn't call them boats.

[Brian]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a new
> airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
functional.
> Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
scheme
> of things.

It would have been nice to see what would have come from a serious look at
the Tomcat-21. Grumman offered it but I don't believe it got a serious
shake, the Navy was determined to get the F-18 E/F from what I recall.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a
new
> > airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
> functional.
> > Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
> scheme
> > of things.
>
> It would have been nice to see what would have come from a serious look at
> the Tomcat-21. Grumman offered it but I don't believe it got a serious
> shake, the Navy was determined to get the F-18 E/F from what I recall.

The Navy made a well reasoned decision and they are to be commended.

[Lyle]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:25:33 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Brian" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a
>new
>> > airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
>> functional.
>> > Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
>> scheme
>> > of things.
>>
>> It would have been nice to see what would have come from a serious look at
>> the Tomcat-21. Grumman offered it but I don't believe it got a serious
>> shake, the Navy was determined to get the F-18 E/F from what I recall.
>
>The Navy made a well reasoned decision and they are to be commended.
>
depends on how you look at it, with the super bug all the navy got was
the A-7 replacement they been looking for, for the last 20 years. the
Tomcat 21/quickstrike/(F/A-14D) was a A-6 replacement. But the real
replacement for the A-6 would and should have been the F-14C of the
70's

[John Carrier]

>The Super Bug will be on US
> ships for many decades to come.

Alas, true.

R / John

[John Carrier]

> >> It would have been nice to see what would have come from a serious look
at
> >> the Tomcat-21. Grumman offered it but I don't believe it got a serious
> >> shake, the Navy was determined to get the F-18 E/F from what I recall.
> >
> >The Navy made a well reasoned decision and they are to be commended.
> >
> depends on how you look at it, with the super bug all the navy got was
> the A-7 replacement they been looking for, for the last 20 years. the
> Tomcat 21/quickstrike/(F/A-14D) was a A-6 replacement. But the real
> replacement for the A-6 would and should have been the F-14C of the
> 70's

I'm a big fan of the Tom, but I don't think any mods could have made it
competitive in life cycle costs with the super bug. It's an electrical and
hydraulic nightmare relatively speaking. I don't think Tom 21 would have
designed out all the complexity. Its just a shame that a design that's 25
years newer can't match the performance of the beast.

R / John

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> >The Super Bug will be on US
> > ships for many decades to come.
>
> Alas, true.

God bless America.

[fudog50]

I suppose there is a first for everything, I finally found a Tarver
post I agree with! In addition, anyone that is in the Maintenance or
Supply/Logistics fields are happy to see the Tomcat go away. Way too
many manhours/flighthours ratio, about 140/1 now? Plus legacy parts
issues.Contractors just don't make any of the old avionics/airframe
parts, hydraulics. engines, etc.
For example, there are many avionics systems used on the
Tomcat (and other older a/c), that the microprocessors and other
components are just not made anymore. It's cheaper and more efficient
all around to introduce and support newer, current technology on newer
airframes, rather than have some company tool up for a short term run
to replace Tomcat only parts.
Believe me, sentimentally it will be a huge loss, having
served on 6 different carriers and 9 cruises in 22 years, but the
Tomcat can just not be financially supported any further than it's
scheduled retirement date. Good debate though.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:19:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"rstro" > wrote in message
et...
>> ah--
>> so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
>> would really like to know what the aircrews think....
>
>Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons platform
>is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
>only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
>ships for many decades to come.
>

[Brendan Grace]

I was sorry when the F14 re-rolled and stopped coming to Canada for the
Maple Flag exercises and DACT (dissimular air combat training). It was an
awesome aircraft in almost total control of the air when up there. My best
memory was when they had been up flying with us (at 410 Sqn Cold Lake)
and after 2 weeks had no losses to our instructor pilots, their CO in his
departure thank you speach thanked us for our target rich environment!
Our pilots (CF-18 A/B) wouldn't tell us how many of them were nailed by
the Tomcats, but any time a fighter pilot isn't bragging you know he was on
the receiving end big time! As much as I loved that aircraft when it
visited,
the techs worked damn hard to get them ready for the next flight. I suppose
it is just too old and time for a graceful departure, but it remains my
favourite jet.

Brendan

[Brian]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> I'm a big fan of the Tom, but I don't think any mods could have made it
> competitive in life cycle costs with the super bug. It's an electrical
and
> hydraulic nightmare relatively speaking. I don't think Tom 21 would have
> designed out all the complexity. Its just a shame that a design that's 25
> years newer can't match the performance of the beast.

It would have been nice to see what the real deal was with Tomcat 21. From
what I recall they had really designed in maintainability and it was a
totally new plane electrically and avionics-wise. I just hope the Tom sticks
around long enough for my son to see a good demo...he's 2 now...maybe in
another 2 years he'll be able to appreciate the truly awesome display only
an F-14 can put on;) The F-14 that came down for Ft. Lauderdale Air & Sea
last year put on an amazing show, people were just sitting there with their
mouths open. I've seen a lot of F-14 flights and even I was awed. Then in
the evening they authorized a afterburner run down the beach. Everyone on
the waterfront and in the bars was howling. The T-Birds were the "main"
attraction but I think the Tomcat stole a lot of the thunder.

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> I suppose there is a first for everything, I finally found a Tarver
> post I agree with! In addition, anyone that is in the Maintenance or
> Supply/Logistics fields are happy to see the Tomcat go away. Way too
> many manhours/flighthours ratio, about 140/1 now? Plus legacy parts
> issues.Contractors just don't make any of the old avionics/airframe
> parts, hydraulics. engines, etc.

There you go, Dog, your fisrt flicker of competence.

> For example, there are many avionics systems used on the
> Tomcat (and other older a/c), that the microprocessors and other
> components are just not made anymore. It's cheaper and more efficient
> all around to introduce and support newer, current technology on newer
> airframes, rather than have some company tool up for a short term run
> to replace Tomcat only parts.

In many ways the Tomcat was an excellet application of GAMMA type elecronics
communications in a military fighter, but she is long in the tooth.

> Believe me, sentimentally it will be a huge loss, having
> served on 6 different carriers and 9 cruises in 22 years, but the
> Tomcat can just not be financially supported any further than it's
> scheduled retirement date. Good debate though.

I doubt the Navy really feels they can afford the Tomcat now. If these
Ships of War were to actually have to perform their job, I want an airborn
platform that can be available.

> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:19:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"rstro" > wrote in message
> et...
> >> ah--
> >> so basically were are buying under "something is better than
nothing"--I
> >> would really like to know what the aircrews think....
> >
> >Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons
platform
> >is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
> >only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
> >ships for many decades to come.
> >
>

[fudog50]

LOL! What the hell do you care Tarver, ("I want an airborn
(sp) platform that can be available".) You can "want" all day long
sitting at your desk pretending to be "competent" in Naval Aviation
matters, c'mon out and play with us real warfighters, if you got any
nads.


On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:06:30 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> I suppose there is a first for everything, I finally found a Tarver
>> post I agree with! In addition, anyone that is in the Maintenance or
>> Supply/Logistics fields are happy to see the Tomcat go away. Way too
>> many manhours/flighthours ratio, about 140/1 now? Plus legacy parts
>> issues.Contractors just don't make any of the old avionics/airframe
>> parts, hydraulics. engines, etc.
>
>There you go, Dog, your fisrt flicker of competence.
>
>> For example, there are many avionics systems used on the
>> Tomcat (and other older a/c), that the microprocessors and other
>> components are just not made anymore. It's cheaper and more efficient
>> all around to introduce and support newer, current technology on newer
>> airframes, rather than have some company tool up for a short term run
>> to replace Tomcat only parts.
>
>In many ways the Tomcat was an excellet application of GAMMA type elecronics
>communications in a military fighter, but she is long in the tooth.
>
>> Believe me, sentimentally it will be a huge loss, having
>> served on 6 different carriers and 9 cruises in 22 years, but the
>> Tomcat can just not be financially supported any further than it's
>> scheduled retirement date. Good debate though.
>
>I doubt the Navy really feels they can afford the Tomcat now. If these
>Ships of War were to actually have to perform their job, I want an airborn
>platform that can be available.
>
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:19:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"rstro" > wrote in message
>> et...
>> >> ah--
>> >> so basically were are buying under "something is better than
>nothing"--I
>> >> would really like to know what the aircrews think....
>> >
>> >Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons
>platform
>> >is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
>> >only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
>> >ships for many decades to come.
>> >
>>
>

[M]

> > The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

Keith Willshaw >
> Better strike aircraft perhaps but it being a better fighter is
> doubtful.

The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.

Canada, Finland, Spain and Switzerland spring into mind. Eg in the
case of Finland, F-18C/D beat in competition in the early '90s
JAS Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, (the then current) F-16 and MiG-29.
The competition was all about air-to-air, as air-to-ground capability
wasn't even considered (not a requirement). The Hornet got the highest
absolute score, and also the highest score per dollar (life span
cost). Sure, there were other issues too, like availability (Gripen)
and politics (eg whether AMRAAM would be part of the package), but
still it seems obvious that the Hornet was the overall favourite of
the FAF.

F-14 would have been in different league (weight, price etc), had
there been a modern version to consider. Much like eg F-15 or Su-27
weren't considered.

[rstro]

Good point--but as you mentioned--all AirForces with Point Defense" in
mind---these contrysd are not into power projection and "reaching out and
touching someone"---look at the sit in Afganistan---the Hornet cannot reach
target without refueling multiple times and carries have the bomb
load---seems to me if we can keep a 50 years platform(The Buff) affordable
and mantainable--we could do it on the Cat----
"M" <*@*.*> wrote in message ...
> > > The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.
>
> Keith Willshaw >
> > Better strike aircraft perhaps but it being a better fighter is
> > doubtful.
>
> The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
> from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
> it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
> though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.
>
> Canada, Finland, Spain and Switzerland spring into mind. Eg in the
> case of Finland, F-18C/D beat in competition in the early '90s
> JAS Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, (the then current) F-16 and MiG-29.
> The competition was all about air-to-air, as air-to-ground capability
> wasn't even considered (not a requirement). The Hornet got the highest
> absolute score, and also the highest score per dollar (life span
> cost). Sure, there were other issues too, like availability (Gripen)
> and politics (eg whether AMRAAM would be part of the package), but
> still it seems obvious that the Hornet was the overall favourite of
> the FAF.
>
> F-14 would have been in different league (weight, price etc), had
> there been a modern version to consider. Much like eg F-15 or Su-27
> weren't considered.

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> LOL! What the hell do you care Tarver, ("I want an airborn
> (sp) platform that can be available".) You can "want" all day long
> sitting at your desk pretending to be "competent" in Naval Aviation
> matters, c'mon out and play with us real warfighters, if you got any
> nads.

A major portion of the Navy's Super bug is based on my work and I am proud
of it. My HARV simulator at Dryden was the first accurate F/A-18 simulator,
replicated at PAX River, and is the machine that allowed the Navy to perfect
the aircraft's model. The RPL model, created by Federal Electric
Corporation, is the basis of COTS and AS9100; something I made up and got
aproved by Rome Labs. (see Mil HBK 217F)

The war games I played were based on Global thermonuclear war, during which
all US CBGs would be burning junk. I can assure you that you don't want to
play.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> A major portion of the Navy's Super bug is based on my work and I am proud
> of it. My HARV simulator at Dryden was the first accurate F/A-18 simulator,
> replicated at PAX River, and is the machine that allowed the Navy to perfect
> the aircraft's model. The RPL model, created by Federal Electric
> Corporation, is the basis of COTS and AS9100; something I made up and got
> aproved by Rome Labs. (see Mil HBK 217F)

Some interesting claims...

What are the criteria you use as the basis for your claims of "based on my work"
and "My HARV simulator" and "I made up and got approved"?

[tadaa]

> The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
> from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
> it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
> though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.
>
> Canada, Finland, Spain and Switzerland spring into mind. Eg in the
> case of Finland, F-18C/D beat in competition in the early '90s
> JAS Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, (the then current) F-16 and MiG-29.
> The competition was all about air-to-air, as air-to-ground capability
> wasn't even considered (not a requirement). The Hornet got the highest
> absolute score, and also the highest score per dollar (life span
> cost). Sure, there were other issues too, like availability (Gripen)
> and politics (eg whether AMRAAM would be part of the package), but
> still it seems obvious that the Hornet was the overall favourite of
> the FAF.
>
> F-14 would have been in different league (weight, price etc), had
> there been a modern version to consider. Much like eg F-15 or Su-27
> weren't considered.

You have to keep in mind, that the F-18C/D offered to Finland and
Switzerland at the start of the 90's had a new radar (APG-73) and more
powerfull engines (F404-402 EPE) then the then current version of F/A-18C/D.
And they were offered with then modern weapons AIM-9 M / AIM-120 B and self
protection systems ALR-67 / ALE-47 / AN/ALQ-165. I don't know what they
offered with the other planes, but I doubt it was as current.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...

> (see Mil HBK 217F)

Which pages?

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:gUwTb.163870$5V2.843269@attbi_s53...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > A major portion of the Navy's Super bug is based on my work and I am
proud
> > of it. My HARV simulator at Dryden was the first accurate F/A-18
simulator,
> > replicated at PAX River, and is the machine that allowed the Navy to
perfect
> > the aircraft's model. The RPL model, created by Federal Electric
> > Corporation, is the basis of COTS and AS9100; something I made up and
got
> > aproved by Rome Labs. (see Mil HBK 217F)
>
> Some interesting claims...

The tab on my RPL work dwarfs NASA's entire budget.

> What are the criteria you use as the basis for your claims of "based on my
work"
> and "My HARV simulator" and "I made up and got approved"?

I designed and built the HARV simulator at Dryden. I had the instrument
panel, conectors, with wire stubs suitable for butt splicing, and
instruments removed from Hornet #1 for HARV. Soon after the HARV simulator
started producing data, Dryden and NASA Lewis were called before Congress to
explain their results. PAX River received equipments from Hornet #3 from
Dryden, to replicate HARV there. That work brought Dryden from a flight
test facility back a flight test center.

Later, Shafer and her buddies attempted to discredit me in the real world,
which led directly to her retirement and Ken Peterson being told to, "create
a basis for your own funding. Peterson did nothing for a year and lost 1/3
of Dryden's total budget.

At RPL, I wanted to procure parts to maintain ground equipments for the
purpose of facilitating rocket motor tests; as opposed to using parts from
NSN bins. I made up a means of satisfying the criterion for NSN parts, with
commercial electronics. Later, RL (Rome Labs) the owner of RPL inspected
my shop. The inspector told me, at 25, I was "clearly incompetent to be
doing what I had done". Once he stamped off, there was the thunder of
engineers tabbing to my work. The RPL Model allowed engineers to buy modern
parts, as the Mil-spec component system collapsed. I made up the basis of
what Steidle is doing at NASA and what he did for the F/A-18E/F/G.

AS9100 is a large shop adaptation of my USAF "many small shops RPL model".
Federal Electric Corporation now has as their sole business "reliability",
tabbed from my work at RPL.

Whom did you think you were posting to, Weiss?

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:S5xTb.161933$Rc4.1266022@attbi_s54...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > (see Mil HBK 217F)
>
> Which pages?

The data contained in the Rome Labs (RAC) companion book is a direct result
of my work.

The analogy between a carbon resistor and a mil-spec resistor, in Mil-Hbk
217F, is a direct quote of me.

The idea of "designing for reliability" is a conclusion drawn from the Rome
reliability data sample.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "rstro"
> wrote:

> Good point--but as you mentioned--all AirForces with Point Defense" in
> mind---these contrysd are not into power projection and "reaching out and
> touching someone"---look at the sit in Afganistan---the Hornet cannot reach
> target without refueling multiple times and carries have the bomb
> load---seems to me if we can keep a 50 years platform(The Buff) affordable
> and mantainable--we could do it on the Cat----

Major, major differences in flight profile and therefore airframe stress.

Like comparing a long-haul 18 wheeler with a short track race car.
The race car takes a tremendous beating everytime it goes out.
The 18 wheeler is in a much more benign environment.

(Although I do have a through-the-cockpit photo of a Buff in low
level training in Tenessee(?). I don't think they even train for that
mission anymore.)

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Brendan Grace]

Don't forget that many countries value economic spin off as a high
priority, not just bang (in the military sense) for the buck.

Brendan


"tadaa" > wrote in message ...
> > The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
> > from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
> > it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
> > though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.
> >
> > Canada, Finland, Spain and

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>
>"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
>news:S5xTb.161933$Rc4.1266022@attbi_s54...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>>
>> > (see Mil HBK 217F)
>>
>> Which pages?
>
>The data contained in the Rome Labs (RAC) companion book is a direct result
>of my work.
>
>The analogy between a carbon resistor and a mil-spec resistor, in Mil-Hbk
>217F, is a direct quote of me.
>
>The idea of "designing for reliability" is a conclusion drawn from the Rome
>reliability data sample.
>
Wow, you must be around 200 years old. I have seen the term "designing for
reliability" in documents going back to the 1840s. I bet there are examples
going bacl thousands of years.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >
> >"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> >news:S5xTb.161933$Rc4.1266022@attbi_s54...
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >>
> >> > (see Mil HBK 217F)
> >>
> >> Which pages?
> >
> >The data contained in the Rome Labs (RAC) companion book is a direct
result
> >of my work.
> >
> >The analogy between a carbon resistor and a mil-spec resistor, in Mil-Hbk
> >217F, is a direct quote of me.
> >
> >The idea of "designing for reliability" is a conclusion drawn from the
Rome
> >reliability data sample.
> >
> Wow, you must be around 200 years old. I have seen the term "designing for
> reliability" in documents going back to the 1840s. I bet there are
examples
> going bacl thousands of years.

Perhaps your bong is malfunctioning again, Dan.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:S5xTb.161933$Rc4.1266022@attbi_s54...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > (see Mil HBK 217F)
> >
> > Which pages?
>
> The data contained in the Rome Labs (RAC) companion book is a direct
result
> of my work.
>
> The analogy between a carbon resistor and a mil-spec resistor, in Mil-Hbk
> 217F, is a direct quote of me.
>
> The idea of "designing for reliability" is a conclusion drawn from the
Rome
> reliability data sample.

As an adendum:

There are some in the industry that would like to climb out on the AS9100
branch and saw off the "RPL many shops model" tree, but that thinking has a
flaw.