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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Jake,
Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way! http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan" wrote: "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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
That would be one and the same. DJ. Was a RIO with VF41 and was riding
backseat to the skipper for the Fitter shoot down. Left the boat the next day for Whiting Field and Pilot Training. Went back to the boat as a Pukin Dog and then to TPS. Not only a fine officer, but a great person. Jake "user" wrote in message ... Jake, Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way! http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan" wrote: "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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
PS -
Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS "user" wrote in message ... Jake, Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way! http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan" wrote: "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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS
Is that THE Music from the Fitter shoot-down? _____________ José Herculano |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Jake- Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS BRBR
What ever happened to Joe "I don't have any tone" Connelly, P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
calpin- 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. BRBR In the fog of war, with lots of jets around and suspect ID of which is which, a VID will become more common, not less and there will be merges, like it or don't. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
doug- 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. BRBR My experience is somewhat 'jaded' as well but coming from all two seat VF to Adversary, I found that single seat, even in the lowly Dog, paticularly in the F-16N, was not hard. Situational awareness was not hard, knowing where most of the 'bad guys' were was not hard,...in many v many scenarios. I think with the advance of avionics and RHAW, with a very manuverable A/C, single seat will not degrade the Pilots survival... P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Jose- Although I wouldn't mind seeing a navalized F/A-22, but I believe that
will happen, as it is said here, in the afternoon of St Never's day. BRBR Ya kinda are going to-with the JSF...kinda. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Mu wrote: 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 Technically the AESA is an active phased array radar whilst older phased array radars (like the `Flash Dance' in the MiG-31 or the APQ-164 fitted to the B-1B) are so-called passive phased array radars. The latter (passive) has a single transmitter/receiver and somehow applies a phase shift to the signals sent to various parts of the antenna, depending on the location on the antenna, whilst the former actually uses a large number of transmitter/receiver units that each operate at a different phase and possibly in a different mode. In both cases the `beam' is sent in a certain direction through adjusting the phase across the antenna, enabling a far higher scan rate, but the actively scanned array can actually generate multiple beams as well. I don't know the intricacies. Harry Andreas will probably be able to give a much more detailed answer than I can. Regards, Ralph Savelsberg |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
What ever happened to Joe "I don't have any tone"
remove/replace "any" with appropriate Navy word v/r Gordon |
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 |