Cat peeking out of the bag?

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.

The F-14A languished, no new models came out in spite of plans to have a
re-engined F-14B after just a few F-14As.

It could have been a contender but as soon as the $ went to the F-18, the
F-14"E", ala the Strike Eagle, was doomed.
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

Harry Andreas wrote:
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;

Harry, there is still 3 level maintenance. In the USN, what you
refer to as flightline is usually called "O level" as in organization
(squadron). "I level" for intermediate, may be as close as across
the street on base, but it is a separate entity from the squadron.
(It is also usually a "good deal" for the maintenance folks for a
shore tour after their time in the squadron, especially if the guys
with families, because they don't have to move.) Depot level is
usually not on the same base, as one depot serves a geographical
reqion of several hundred miles radius or more.

From what I've seen so far, I agree with how you describe the
direction of the work on the flightline. Fault codes,
troubleshooting flowcharts, and replacing black boxes. The avionics
guys still know how to detail work like repair individual pins in
connectors, check for continuity, but I've seen major components like
an entire FLIR turret get shipped to swap out with a bad one on a
deployed aircraft.

By the way I'm a helicopter guy, not fast mover, but maintenance is a
pretty similar business through all of naval aviation.

Delighted to hear your experience again, Mary! You really have a unique
point of view.
(although I still smart a little when my first post attempt on this group
was rejected years ago, when you said it was "almost good enough")
Were you the last moderator on this group?
Old Chief Lynn

Jose- So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving
the
Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a
more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not? BRBR

Don't think that is the issue, that of giving the thumbs down vs a 'thumbs up'.
The design is old, the tooling is essentially gone, the chance for a modern
Tomcat was lost in the 80s when Reagan was POTUS and $$ was everywhere.

The AIM-54 and F-14 are a matched set. Lose one, lose the other. Altho a good
missile in the correct envelope, it was designed to knock down Soviet Bombers.
Considering today's and future 'threats', I think the AIM-120 and a follow-on
are a better, cheaper and more compatible to more A/C, solution.

The F-14B, C, strike Tomcat would have been great and 'may' have precluded the
development of the F-18F, but it wasn't and it didn't. The F-14 is history, the
same way the F-8 was when I got my wings(1974), the same way the F-4 was when I
entered my Department HD tour.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Laura O''Leary" wrote in message news:...
Well, the bigger issues are requirements and cost. The requirement for a
fighter to be able to engage and destroy a target at the long range of the
Phoenix just isn't there anymore. The ROE is too restrictive to allow for
the engagement of targets at that range. The cold war days of protecting
the fleet from the big bad Soviet bombers are long gone. As for the cost,
the F-14 is the highest in maintenance man-hours per flight in carrier
aircraft. (The EA-6B is the next highest in maint man-hours and will
follow the Tomcat into the Super Hornet world). Besides the maintenance
man-hours, the availability and mission capability ratings of the Toms
isn't nearly as good as the Super Hornet. While the Tomcat does do a
fantastic job filling the role of a pseudo-medium range bomber, the recent
trend is to deliver smaller war heads to reduce collateral damage. But,
the days of going out and carrying in excess of twenty 500-pound dumb
bombs have already passed. The joint battlespace doesn't require the CV to
deliver that type and quantity anymore. The Air Force has to fill the
role of heavy bombers which would carry numerous PGMs and the Navy has the
Super Hornet to attempt to fill the pseudo-medium bomber which would also
use PGMs. In summary, the Tomcat is a great aircraft whose day has
unfortunately passed, but current requirements and fiscal responsibilities
make the Tomcat no longer viable.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air
F-14 kills, with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills.

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.

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.

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. The MiG-23 has long hit the scapyard most places.
Remaining F-111 has been deported to a place where planes normally fly
upside-down. The Tornado flies only because anything else is better than
an F-104.

"José Herculano" wrote in message .. .
I've just finished reading the following book about the F-14 in Iranian
hands:

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

It is a well written account which is claimed to be based upon extensive
research and talks with Iranian, and some Iraqi, aircrew.

With the caveat of the usual inflation of kills when talking with "those who
where there", particularly in what concerns BVR kills, the book is
consistent with the many leaked details that have been emerging for several
years.

For those less attentive to the complexities of the Middle East politics and
operations, it can be a bit of an eye opener, but there are plenty of people
around, from the "air-warrior" community, that have claimed in print and on
the net that they had interesting times they cannot speak openly about.

To cut the introduction short, and getting to the theme I'd like to see
discussed...

It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills,
with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded claims are higher
than that, but let's stay cautious.

The Iraqis have sure lost quite a lot of aircraft during the long Iraq-Iran
war, with quite a few MiG-21/23/25, Mirage F1, Su-22 and other assorted
types being credited to the Tomcats by both sides. It has been often relayed
as a fact that, during the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqis were very unwilling to
go anywhere near the USN F-14s and their tell-tale AWG-9 signature, while
not being so shy towards the Eagles. Reports have come out - both recent and
old - of Iraqi pilots saying that the F-14s were the Iranian aircraft they
most feared...

So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving the
Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a
more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not?

_____________
José Herculano

I've yet to ever hear anybody diss the F-14 based on its performance.
Instead, much of what I've heard comes down to the supposed advantage
of CVW's based on SH given (again supposed) advantages in maintenance.
Instead of pilots, we'll need to hear from plane captains on that
score. I've yet to hear this discussed, but it may also have
something to do with the more complicated state of our ROE which
obviates the need for or precludes the resort to missile shots from as
far away as those of the Phoenix.

I don't know if this is part of your question (it seems to be), but I've
asked about the accuracy of Tom's book[s] about Iranian F-4s and F-14s
without getting too much of a straight answer. Heck, not so much as a
"wink/nod" to confirm it when talking to Phantom/Tomcat aircrew (current and
former). I'd love to know how accurate it is, and while Tom certainly seems
credible enough, it'd be nice to get confirmation from another insider
source. Certainly, if his claims are true, it'd be hard to see how Tomcat
crews could resist bragging about those kills (especially compared to the
Eagles ~100 kills). That would also suggest that Iran has a cadre of very
skilled and/or experienced pilots in their AF, which would make any action
against Iran very interesting to say the least! But that's drifting a
little far off topic, so I'll cut it here and reiterate my request to hear
more from those in the know. Cheers,

Tony

little far off topic, so I'll cut it here and reiterate my request to hear
more from those in the know. Cheers,

That's the whole idea ;-)
_____________
José Herculano