F-14 and F/A-18E

[Blutonski816]

But if you can convince the powers that be in Washington to bring back a bomb-truck like the A-6, I'll jump in the right seat Won't be holding my breath, though

Well, if Grumman hadn't gone under and sold its soul to Northrop, I bet you they'd be able to put something *****in' together at Bethpage and sell it to Congress a lot easier than any of the crap Boeing and Lockheed's pumping out.

Whatever happened to the good ole' CVW I grew up wanting to fly in??

 

[A4sForever]

A4S FOREVER: Would that be a picture of A-6's at Cubi? I can wish but never made it there.....

However, the consensus is that the Iranian Tomcats got lots of kills including 40+ with the Phoenix.

A-6's: Heck if we still had them, I could go single bubble, 18.7 on gas with 22 500lb JDAM. The truth is that the Rhino is the best platform we can buy right now to keep Naval Air in the fight...... The truth is that the Rhino is what we have and it will at least keep Naval Air ....

All right, the alcohol is burning off.

CORRECT !! Keen eyes, Meat. See Rome and die ...? No, it's see Cubi and die ... :icon_wink

The consensus is also that a LOT of the Iranian F-14 kills were made by Grummies and/or "independent contractors" ...

An "Ugly" with 22 JDAMs ??? My eyes glaze over ... every bridge in Route Pac 1 would have been gone in an afternoon.

The alcohol is burning off ?? No it's not, you are repeating yourself. But if in doubt -- go have another Margarita or three . :icon_drin

 

[A4sForever]

What do I need to relearn here? Thought I was the one trying to argue in favor of the idea that fighter guys shouldn't think of strike, refueling, or recon as 'beneath' them...

The point, however.....

Maybe I missed your point. Maybe I am in need of another Margarita or three ... :icon_drin

MARGARITA HERE !!

 

[A4sForever]

Hey, I thought this was a Tomcat/Rhino thread, what's wrong with a little healthy discourse? :icon_tong ......
but as far as the VA A-6 squads were concerned, they never even had so much as a gun!

By the way, I do not remember Navy F-4s sporting a gun,

I think you are correct -- but my opinion is not worth much. There should be a lively discussion of this stuff here and elsewhere -- ultimately we are talking about warplanes, winning, and getting your squadron's collective rear end "back to the ship". Discussions now lay the groundwork for informed and experience-driven decisions later when some of these guys get promoted and move up to become "politicians" in Navy blue uniforms with gold buttons. One problem is there are no options today other than the Hornet because of $$$$ and politics and it seems some guys get defensive when you criticize their machine. To criticize the mount does not necessarily equate to criticism of the rider -- don't take it so personal, guys.

I would never presume to second-guess what a senior test pilot says about an aircraft -- in this case the F/A-18 E/F. Kinda makes sense that he would be a big promoter of the bird -- or he would be looking for another job, would he not ?? If the Hornet is the end-all be-all for the AirWing, it will be the first time in the history of Naval Aviation. You can only polish the Rhino so much and it's still a .... compromise??

Whatever aircraft you get is going to be your favorite, until you move on to the next one ... and the next one. That seems to be a constant. I will wait to see if one aircraft can replace the fighter and attack components of the AirWing -- I remain dubious. I am an old guy with no real-time contribution to give to this thread -- A4s outta' here!

Just to keep a perspective ... better men than you and I have come this way before. This is how they (and we?) are all going to end up ... A4s, F4s, and P3s amongst others (below - including F-18s) RIP @ the Boneyard.

ROGER BALL!!

 

[vegita1220]

That was most likely the video from the RAAF airshow that Boeing put on for them. No doubt the SH's forteit is in the slow-speed regime, but as a fighter pilot that's not usually where I would want to be.

Good call.

On the subject of your fascination with GE, you hear about that proposed GE F414 upgrade? By 2008 supposedly a ~20% engine thrust upgrade for the Super Bug.
I'm just wondering if we're actually going to pay for it when the time comes.

 

[squeeze]

some of you guys read Jane's entirely too much

 

[AirRyan]

Well said A4forever, that's the biggest reason why I enjoy talking about the entire ordeal, it was damn near illegal or certainly should have been as the checks and balances were not abided by. Don't get me wrong, with no Tomcats left an F/A-18F would be my first choice as far as jets are concerned, because well what else is there?! (Personally, a new C-40 or to get on board with the new MMA's would be really sweet, too!)

While I'm in no posistion to argue with a test pilot, I agree with A4forever alluded to, I've read comments from other aviators with experience in numerous types saying things a little differently than what CDR Niewoehner was saying. The opinions I would tend to put the most weight in would be former Tomcat drivers who at least had the luxury of knowing how they handled with the GE engines and then converted over to the Rhinos, so that they were able to make a 1 for 1 comparison, although the honesty of those opinions might cost them their job so I'm not holding my breath to hear those anytime soon! And that's just part of the problem as I see it, that too many Tomcat backers were either run out or flat up resigned their commission because once Cheney did his thing there was no place in the Navy for an opposite opinion.

Speaking of VP Dick, have you heard the recent articles about scrapping the Tomcats already? I know they are keeping some for "wartime reserve" but it seems to me like orders from someone up top came down to get rid of the Tomcats ASAP! Please tell me there is plans for a one-off paint scheme salute to the myopic politican who stuck a knife in the Tom's back?!

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=81017&ran=138750

Here's what get's me - they scrap a perfectly good late model F-14D to save $1m when they have already saved via other salvaged parts $17m - (someone must really not like the F-14!) and that sounds like a big waste of taxpayers dollars to me only getting about half out of the airframe that the Navy paid for! :icon_rage

A computer-generated list tells Bell the planes’ history . Bureau No. 163894 was an F-14D model, built at Grumman’s plant on Long Island, N.Y. It came off the production line Sept. 30, 1990, flew 3,704 flight hours, made 827 catapult takeoffs and 820 cable-arrested landings aboard carriers.

While it used up just half of its estimated 7,000-hour structural life, it would have had to undergo a $1 million overhaul in November to keep flying.

It was ordered scrapped.

“I worked on Tomcats for 30 years and I have a tear in my eye, too,” said Bell, who retired in 1999 as a maintenance officer at Oceana.

But the businessman in him said it is a fact of life: Some have to go.

However, not all is lost. Titan has reclaimed about 500 items per plane, or 6,000 per year since 1999 that the F-14 squadrons can re-use. That’s about 30,500 parts, Bell said, resulting in $17.5 million worth of material being returned to the Navy for use in F-14s, or other aircraft.

 

[AirRyan]

Good call.

On the subject of your fascination with GE, you hear about that proposed GE F414 upgrade? By 2008 supposedly a ~20% engine thrust upgrade for the Super Bug.
I'm just wondering if we're actually going to pay for it when the time comes.

Yes I had heard of this and saw where the money was funded to GE for the initial tests to see if anything could be done, but I have yet to find anything since then saying GE was given the green light for making them. I think new engines would first appear in Block III Super Hornets, so it would be awhile but I also think all engines/aircraft would be eventually receive the upgrade.

The article I posted earlier showed that GE was then claiming 15% increase in thrust and about a 3% to 4% increase in efficiency. I think in fuel and maintenance savings alone that the program would by far get their monies worth when you look at how many Rhino's will be built, and heck it may just help sell some Super Bugs overseas as well.

The F414 is already an excellent engine and for it's size it's one of the most powerful engines out there. I'm not a big anti Pratt&Splatt guy per se, my friends Dad flew with the TF30 in his -111 and my other friends dad with P&W in the F-16, but from the civilian market (GE90-115B sole engine on new 777-2/300ER P&W not being selected for 787,) to the military market (big fan of GE F110 series from the Tomcat, the -16's to the new F-15K powered by the F110, hell it just looks better and therefore...) my money is stil on GE.

 

[Blutonski816]

Here's what get's me - they scrap a perfectly good late model F-14D to save $1m when they have already saved via other salvaged parts $17m - (someone must really not like the F-14!) and that sounds like a big waste of taxpayers dollars to me only getting about half out of the airframe that the Navy paid for! :icon_rage

When the proposal for what eventually turned out to be the legacy Hornet came out, Congress kept telling Grumman they didn't want another Tomcat variant.
Whoever led the cause then must have moved on up in the past couple decades or at least fanned the flames enough for stuff like that to happen.
God knows why they'd want to beat the Tomcat when it's already dying. Maybe they're just pissed that they didn't get a part in Top Gun.

 

[AirRyan]

Speaking of nice avatars, packmack18! :icon_tong

Who!? That's a pretty bold statement.

Admiral Paul Gilchrist published a book entitled something like the Grumman F-14 Story, and not only was that his opinion but also the impresssion he seemed to convey of many other Tomcat drivers that either resigned their commissions out of disgust or were forced out because they wouldn't tote the party line. I've heard some people try to discount some of his words and opinions, but read his bio - I'll put his opinions up there with anyone.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-3886934-4120850?v=glance&s=books

 

[AirRyan]

When the proposal for what eventually turned out to be the legacy Hornet came out, Congress kept telling Grumman they didn't want another Tomcat variant.
Whoever led the cause then must have moved on up in the past couple decades or at least fanned the flames enough for stuff like that to happen.
God knows why they'd want to beat the Tomcat when it's already dying. Maybe they're just pissed that they didn't get a part in Top Gun.

I was more so insinuating to a certain Vice President of the United States. Dick was SECDEF and it was rumored that he got into a personal argument with a Grumman exec and took out his frustration on him by cancelling the Delta Tomcat order that was already approved by Congress and in the midst of production. How he got away with such a move when the USN wanted it and Congress had approved it, has reaked of foul play ever since, yet he's never given any valid reasons as to why he cut the F-14D when he did.

If he thought it was a bad airframe he should have cut it earlier in his administration, not on his way out in 1991 after Desert Storm. I remember reading where a two ship patrol of F-14's could have scored a few kills on Iraqi MiG's but the AF AWACS couldn't break the Navy's security code in order to tell the Tom's to turn off their radars. The Iraqi MiG's saw the big radar of the Tomcat, did a 180 and bugged out before the Tomcats could get them. And of course, the problems of the single mission Tomcat were only highlighted by the conflict and likely gave Dick all the evidence he thought he needed to cancel the program.

 

[Brett327]

Dick was SECDEF and it was rumored that he got into a personal argument with a Grumman exec and took out his frustration on him by cancelling the Delta Tomcat order that was already approved by Congress and in the midst of production.

Sounds like far fetched rumor mongering to me.

Brett

 

[AirRyan]

Those comments came from Admiral Paul Gilchrist, USN retired in his F-14 book if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure you've heard the term "Hornet Mafia" before? You mean they don't teach this history in the Naval Academy yet?

Great F-14 site...
http://www.anft.net/f-14/

F-14D Rivals - But things went different for the latest Tomcat version, the F-14D, due to financial cut-backs and due to a pro F/A-18E/F lobby in the US government. The procurement number of new F-14Ds was reduced as well as the remanufacture numbers of aircraft that should have been upgraded from F-14A/B standard to the F-14D.

Finally it happened: A few days after the F-14D production and remanufacture were terminated on 26 February 1991, the US Department of Defense announced that the Navy wanted to develop a new version of the F/A-18 to replace both the F-14 strike-fighter and the aging A-6E. The F/A-18 is basically a light fighter and so it had to be dramatically modified to fit into the new multi-role. Such considerations were already made in 1984: These modifications included a two-man cockpit, upgraded APG-65 radar, enlarged wing-area for better landing performance, increased internal fuel-capacity (+ 3,000 lbs) and improved F404 engines with 18,000 lbs of thrust each. All these changes made the F/A-18E/F a new aircraft, but still the Navy was not satisfied since the Super Hornet did not have the internal volume to carry the avionics, sensors and countermeasures equipment to be well prepared for the future conflict environment. Further, even though the F/A-18E/F was somewhat faster than the A-6, the improved thrust could not compensate the gain in weight and therefore it would lose some of its agility! Even the Super Hornets range and payload suffered in comparison with the planned A-6F. And back in 1984 the Navy rejected the F/A-18E/F program... But the light fighter lobby was strong enough and today the F/A-18E and F are already flying instead of new F-14Ds rolling off the assembly lines...

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14d.htm

 

[Blutonski816]

Sounds like far fetched rumor mongering to me.

Brett

I dunno, man... I mean think about all the Platforms the Rhino is designed to replace...
Tomcats, Intruders, and soon enough, Prowlers...
All Grumman products...

then there's Vikings, but that's different, Lockheed's got enough business from the F-35 and the F/A-22

 

[Brett327]

Northrop-Grumman is in bed with Boeing on the G model, so it's not like they're cut out of the loop.

Brett