OT: Top 5 No-Nos in an F-14 Tomcat

[FlashUNC]

I figure this is one Listicle that OldP can get behind.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-five-maneuvers-that-were-prohibited-in-the-f-14-tom-1757179036

[11.4]

Yup. Saw it this morning. Don't you see that it's an allegory on the question of what racing cyclists should not do?

[oldpotatoe]

I figure this is one Listicle that OldP can get behind.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-five-maneuvers-that-were-prohibited-in-the-f-14-tom-1757179036

Yup altho one or two F-14s, in flat spins looked they might have recovered when in thicker air but nobody ever tried, 'if spinning at 10k feet, canopy jettison, RIO command eject'.

F-14 was kinda the sram of aircraft. Big, complicated, didn't do what it was advertised to do, broke a lot. Phantom easier to fly, much more reliable. :D

[jimcav]

Phantom easier to fly, much more reliable. :D

curious as we talk about eTAP here, do you see any parallel in the initial resistance to fly by wire in jets versus the way things were?
jim

[unterhausen]

I rode in the back seat with this pilot, he was a very impressive person. I imagine trying to execute a split s at 2100 ft agl is on the "don't do" list of most aircraft. I think in the F16, it uses up about 3000ft of altitude.

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=162029

[bicycletricycle]

http://youtu.be/HG_myJ1fZJY

Apparently flameouts could cause terrible incidents like the one above because of the asymmetrical thrust from the wide engine spacing.

[batman1425]

The liked article in the story about the pilot that shot himself down is worth the read as well. Good story.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/F-14%20SHOOTDOWN.pdf

[fuzzalow]

F-14 was kinda the sram of aircraft. Big, complicated, didn't do what it was advertised to do, broke a lot. Phantom easier to fly, much more reliable. :D

It boggles the mind that this warplane was essentially designed to do one type of mission and for predominantly one thing as a weapons platform: the F-14 was intended for battle-group defense as a weapons delivery platform for a long-range radar-guided air-to-air missle. I think the missle was called the Phoenix. It's been a long time since I followed defense stocks in an earlier life.

All the myth about the F-14 as a dogfight aircraft was from the Hollywood Top Gun movie. That aircraft was too big to do that kinda action. It was real good at flying slow which made it capable for extended loiter durations at the very outreaches of the defense perimeter surrounding the battle group. So it could shoot a radar-guided missle at target aircraft while it was still very far away from the carrier.

All that taxpayer money for basically a one trick pony. Great for Grumman, which at the time was still based out of Long Island NY. But drivers like oldpotatoe know the real scoop on this wagon.

When I worked on topmost floors of an office tower in lower Manhattan, I observed F-14s in formation fly past my window. This was during Fleet Week when the carrier JFK was anchored in NY Harbor. As a civilian with no exposure to warplanes, it was amazing to see in real life how slow they could fly past. And as slow as they flew, the wings were in semi-swept back position.

[FlashUNC]

It boggles the mind that this warplane was essentially designed to do one type of mission and for predominantly one thing as a weapons platform: the F-14 was intended for battle-group defense as a weapons delivery platform for a long-range radar-guided air-to-air missle. I think the missle was called the Phoenix. It's been a long time since I followed defense stocks in an earlier life.

All the myth about the F-14 as a dogfight aircraft was from the Hollywood Top Gun movie. That aircraft was too big to do that kinda action. It was real good at flying slow which made it capable for extended loiter durations at the very outreaches of the defense perimeter surrounding the battle group. So it could shoot a radar-guided missle at target aircraft while it was still very far away from the carrier.

All that taxpayer money for basically a one trick pony. Great for Grumman, which at the time was still based out of Long Island NY. But drivers like oldpotatoe know the real scoop on this wagon.

When I worked on topmost floors of an office tower in lower Manhattan, I observed F-14s in formation fly past my window. This was during Fleet Week when the carrier JFK was anchored in NY Harbor. As a civilian with no exposure to warplanes, it was amazing to see in real life how slow they could fly past. And as slow as they flew, the wings were in semi-swept back position.

To be fair, the one trick was intercepting and shooting down Soviet bombers coming to drop armageddon. So it was an important trick.

And, of course, to look totally cool.

[sg8357]

To be fair, the one trick was intercepting and shooting down Soviet bombers coming to drop armageddon. So it was an important trick.

And, of course, to look totally cool.

The F-14 was great at Fleet Air Defense, in the good old days Soviet
Naval Aviation would send a couple regiments of Backfires to overwhelm
and sink the carriers. Ahhh the good days, they're gone forever.
F14 was not a dog fighter, an F-16 with aim-9s would be useless
against of barrage of AS-4 Kitchens.

[Tickdoc]

Anyone read the book "Boyd" by chance? It is a fascinating read about the training of combat flying and the evolution of our flying arsenal from the 50's to the 70's. A little controversial, but full of interesting stuff form an unusual character in the USAF.

[93legendti]

There have been many successful one trick military weapons.

[bicycletricycle]

I think that the desire to replace one trick ponies with every trick ponies has been sorta less than great (F35, F111)

F-15, F-16 and A10 were all originally one tricks (air superiority, cheap air superiority and close support) and lots of people think they are pretty good.

Besides, I think fleet defense is probably worth an airplane

What does an aircraft carrier cost these days?

[fuzzalow]

To be fair, the one trick was intercepting and shooting down Soviet bombers coming to drop armageddon. So it was an important trick.

And, of course, to look totally cool.

Yeah, no doubt it was a very cool looking aircraft. Almost in imagery as an SUV done up deluxe in the form of a warplane - it's got two engines, that means it's a faster jet, right? ;) I'd guess that photogenic quality is how it got a starring role in Top Gun, plus the whole pilot/rio partnership gave it the bro movie angle to boot.

Hey, I'm not complaining over the taxpayer's money spent on what are now seen as fairly inexpensive, relatively primative military hardware. The cumulative trajectory on all that spending helped bankrupt the Soviets and helped win the Cold War. It served a purpose. I'm not sure that the latest in modern warplanes have the same utility and identifiable purpose and adversary as during the Cold War. Which therefore makes the vast expenditure on stealth, multi-role attack warplanes to fight against ??? seem more a solution in search of a mission. Oh well, it moves the state of the art in technology forwards and cycles money into the US economy.

[bicycletricycle]

For sure, if you got an enemy with airplanes it's easier to figure out what you need yours to be.

These days we just seem to think we need them to have everything,

The pentagon has sure been ordering some fully loaded SUVs lately.

The basic airframe for the f14 seems to be a result of some pretty simple design parameters , swing wing for high intercept speeds and low stall for good loiter endurance and landing speeds, two engines so that less navy men have to bail out in the cold ass ocean and room for a few huge pheonix missiles. You can't put the missiles on the wings cause they move so you have to put them in between the engines.

Done.




Yeah, no doubt it was a very cool looking aircraft. Almost in imagery as an SUV done up deluxe in the form of a warplane - it's got two engines, that means it's a faster jet, right? ;) I'd guess that photogenic quality is how it got a starring role in Top Gun, plus the whole pilot/rio partnership gave it the bro movie angle to boot.

Hey, I'm not complaining over the taxpayer's money spent on what are now seen as fairly inexpensive, relatively primative military hardware. The cumulative trajectory on all that spending helped bankrupt the Soviets and helped win the Cold War. It served a purpose. I'm not sure that the latest in modern warplanes have the same utility and identifiable purpose and adversary as during the Cold War. Which therefore makes the vast expenditure on stealth, multi-role attack warplanes to fight against ??? seem more a solution in search of a mission. Oh well, it moves the state of the art in technology forwards and cycles money into the US economy.

[bigbill]

I was on some of the last deployments for the Tomcats when I was on the Theodore Roosevelt. During OEF and OIF, Tomcats were carrying four, 2000 pound bombs and could loiter for hours until called in. They were referred to as Bombcats by that point. The squadron was set up in Hangar Bay 3 and you'd have to wipe your feet leaving the bay to keep from tracking hydraulic oil all over the place. The planes leaked like a sieve, there were catch pans everywhere. But, they made every mission, every flight in every weather, and looked cool doing it. On one occasion, I was Officer of the Deck and we had CNN on one of the monitors and they had a reporter on the ground in Northern Iraq. I watched one of our Tomcats drop bombs live on TV and then watched it catch the three wire about an hour later. Very surreal.

In 2002, we were returning from OEF and Matt Lauer took his ill-fated ride live on TV. He was RIO in the Squadron XO's plane and they launched on afterburners and went supersonic about ten miles out before slowing to do some aerobatics and then a supersonic flyby inverted. Matt was not ready for a close up after they landed. I think that pilot is the CO of the Ronald Reagan now.

[velomonkey]

Elder Spud - this is the cover of Popular Mechanics of the F14 crashing on the landing. I was telling you how it had the phoenix missile that was brand new and the Russians were trolling looking for it. My dad's sub got scrambled and he found the missile.

I have an artist rendering of the sub coming up on the missile - I will find it take a picture if anyone is interested.

[bicycletricycle]

Thanks for sharing.

It is so easy to forget that old planes are like old cars, leaky and in need of alignment :)

Crazy to see the plane leave, see it one the news and then see it land again.

F 14s look so crazy from the front, the wings, fuselage and engine inlets are all a little askew and make it look sorta out of joint, in an awesome way

They are one of my favorites to see at airshows

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae236/bicycletricycle/6D73EE33-CFF8-45D0-9901-7D0DF59B8C89_zpsed3oakn5.jpg (http://s975.photobucket.com/user/bicycletricycle/media/6D73EE33-CFF8-45D0-9901-7D0DF59B8C89_zpsed3oakn5.jpg.html)


I was on some of the last deployments for the Tomcats when I was on the Theodore Roosevelt. During OEF and OIF, Tomcats were carrying four, 2000 pound bombs and could loiter for hours until called in. They were referred to as Bombcats by that point. The squadron was set up in Hangar Bay 3 and you'd have to wipe your feet leaving the bay to keep from tracking hydraulic oil all over the place. The planes leaked like a sieve, there were catch pans everywhere. But, they made every mission, every flight in every weather, and looked cool doing it. On one occasion, I was Officer of the Deck and we had CNN on one of the monitors and they had a reporter on the ground in Northern Iraq. I watched one of our Tomcats drop bombs live on TV and then watched it catch the three wire about an hour later. Very surreal.

In 2002, we were returning from OEF and Matt Lauer took his ill-fated ride live on TV. He was RIO in the Squadron XO's plane and they launched on afterburners and went supersonic about ten miles out before slowing to do some aerobatics and then a supersonic flyby inverted. Matt was not ready for a close up after they landed. I think that pilot is the CO of the Ronald Reagan now.

[Fuzzy2964]

I知 a retired Naval Aviator. Never flew the F-14. Never thought I'd see a discussion involving Naval Aviation on a cycling blog. It does make me smile though! And bring back some fond memories.

[bicycletricycle]

I知 a retired Naval Aviator. Never flew the F-14. Never thought I'd see a discussion involving Naval Aviation on a cycling blog. It does make me smile though! And bring back some fond memories.

What did you fly ? intruder? F18?

[93legendti]

I think that the desire to replace one trick ponies with every trick ponies has been sorta less than great (F35, F111)

F-15, F-16 and A10 were all originally one tricks (air superiority, cheap air superiority and close support) and lots of people think they are pretty good.

Besides, I think fleet defense is probably worth an airplane

What does an aircraft carrier cost these days?

Not sure if you're saying the F-111 was a success or not. I believe it was.

[bicycletricycle]

Elder Spud - this is the cover of Popular Mechanics of the F14 crashing on the landing. I was telling you how it had the phoenix missile that was brand new and the Russians were trolling looking for it. My dad's sub got scrambled and he found the missile.

I have an artist rendering of the sub coming up on the missile - I will find it take a picture if anyone is interested.

How the hell did they find the missile? An ROV? Sonar? Glass bottom on the sub :)

[bicycletricycle]

Not sure if you're saying the F-111 was a success or not. I believe it was.

Well, originally it was supposed to be a joint strike fighter/bomber/interceptor thing but the navy rejected it after an incredibly expensive effort to lighten it up for carrier use.

So it had a pretty rough start failing half of it's mission brief.

I guess you could say the navy would have rejected it anyways because they always hated that McNamara tried to force it down their throat, but either way the whole one plain for every purpose thing doesn't seem to work out well.

[Fuzzy2964]

I flew a mix of rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft during my 21 year career. My operational/combat flying was all rotary wing, SH-2F. Flying off of just about everything except a carrier - did deployments off of cruisers, frigates, destroyers and a battleship. Got about a 1,000 hours of fixed wing time towards the end of my career - that was station pilot stuff.

[ergott]

The F-14 was everything good and bad about US military at the time. Awesome looking.

It planed.

[velomonkey]

How the hell did they find the missile? An ROV? Sonar? Glass bottom on the sub :)

This way - the sub had arms and windows - this is the artist rendition.

[bicycletricycle]

I flew a mix of rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft during my 21 year career. My operational/combat flying was all rotary wing, SH-2F. Flying off of just about everything except a carrier - did deployments off of cruisers, frigates, destroyers and a battleship. Got about a 1,000 hours of fixed wing time towards the end of my career - that was station pilot stuff.

I'm sure you had some adventures, everyone always talks about the difficulty of landing on ships in fixed wing aircraft, how is it in a helicopter? I imagine compensating for heave can be a bit , um, complicated?

the crazy jet boat river racing maniacs use the GE t58 turbines from those seasprites. They are amazing little power plants.

[Fuzzy2964]

Yep - had some 都porty flights with the SH-2F. The GE-T58F was a good engine. Only had 1 engine fire. And 1 engine failure. The H-2 had 2 of 粗m, so no worries. The smaller the ship - the more fun it gets landing a helo on it. And night landings at sea ... well that brings your heart rate up a little.

[Fuzzy2964]

appears this blog does not like apsotrophes

[bigbill]

This way - the sub had arms and windows - this is the artist rendition.

NR1. Nuklar powered research sub. I had several friends who served on it.

[bigbill]

Thanks for sharing.

It is so easy to forget that old planes are like old cars, leaky and in need of alignment :)

Crazy to see the plane leave, see it one the news and then see it land again.

F 14s look so crazy from the front, the wings, fuselage and engine inlets are all a little askew and make it look sorta out of joint, in an awesome way

They are one of my favorites to see at airshows

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae236/bicycletricycle/6D73EE33-CFF8-45D0-9901-7D0DF59B8C89_zpsed3oakn5.jpg (http://s975.photobucket.com/user/bicycletricycle/media/6D73EE33-CFF8-45D0-9901-7D0DF59B8C89_zpsed3oakn5.jpg.html)

Best airshow plane ever. We'd do friends and family cruises out of Norfolk where we'd load up about 10,000 family members and take them out for around 12 hours. Once you're 50 miles out, you can do all kinds of airshow stuff including supersonic flybys. The best was when we'd speed the ship up to flank speed and a tomcat would approach in a parallel path with gear and flaps down with the wings extended. It seemed like it was barely passing the ship. All of the sudden, gear up, flaps up, afterburners lit and the wings would sweep as the plane went up like a rocket ship. Maybe the coolest thing ever.

My son got to do a Tiger Cruise with me in 2010 on the NIMITZ between Bremerton, WA and San Diego. He got to see the airshow with Hornets and Superhornets including supersonic flybys. The Superhornet is 95% as cool as a Tomcat.

[Fuzzy2964]

I am from a family with lots of Navy ties. My brother-in-law was on the NR-1 back in the mid/late 80s. He would have been a LT then. He later had command of the USS Norfolk.

[93legendti]

Well, originally it was supposed to be a joint strike fighter/bomber/interceptor thing but the navy rejected it after an incredibly expensive effort to lighten it up for carrier use.

So it had a pretty rough start failing half of it's mission brief.

I guess you could say the navy would have rejected it anyways because they always hated that McNamara tried to force it down their throat, but either way the whole one plain for every purpose thing doesn't seem to work out well.

Yes, but it ended up as a exceptional all weather, Mach 2.5 bomber, with amazing range. Great jet:


"* Although designated a fighter, the F-111 was a medium-range heavy tactical bomber
* Nicknamed the Aardvark, a solitary night hunter with excellent senses that roots round in the dirt
* First operational swing-wing aircraft, first turbofan with an afterburner, and pioneer of terrain-following flight
* Extremely long range on internal fuel alone; usually bombed without tanker support
* Heavy bomb load
* Mach 1.2 speed while hugging the terrain; Mach 2.5 at high altitude...
* Later success in Vietnam, Tripoli, and Desert Storm
* Used by the Royal Australian Air Force until 2010
* Our aircraft flew for many years with the Royal Australian Air Force (R double A F)
* In Australia, the Aardvark became the 撤ig Also, the 典riple One
Introduction
Somewhere in North Vietnam, December, 1972, 0300 hours, weather poor. Ear-shattering bomb blasts. No warning alarms. No package of fighter/bombers, fighters, jamming aircraft, and anti-SAM Wild Weasels. Survivors reported the sound of a one aircraft flying at high speed. Sometime later, a lone F-111 returns to its air base. It had made the entire trip alone. It had not needed a package of aircraft to protect it. It had not even needed a tanker. It taxied to its revetment, an elegant, enormous, and brutally effective strike bomber.
Its American crew called the F-111 the Aardvark. It was a good name. Like the South African aardvark, the F-111 was a solitary night hunter. Like the aardvark, it rooted in the dirt, guided by excellent senses. And like the aardvark, it had very long range. For much the same reasons, Australians called it the Pig.
The General Dynamics F-111 was a remarkable airplane. It was the first production aircraft to use swept wings. It had the first after-burning turbofan, which gave it both the power to fly supersonically at ground level and the efficiency to fly to Europe without tankers. It electronics that allowed it to fly at night, in any weather, and still find and destroy its target. Its sophisticated radar system controlled the aircraft, flying the nap of the earth to avoid detection. It could also take off from and land in 3,000 foot runways with obstructions up to 50 feet high at the ends.

The Aardvark grew up to become an excellent aircraft. Toward the end of the war in Southeast Asia, revamped F-111As were devastating in Linebacker II and in later fighting. They flew 4,000 missions with only six losses. In general, the F-111 had perhaps the best safety record of any major fighter. In 1986, eighteen F-111Fs accompanied by four EF-111A Raven electronic warfare aircraft flew from England, bombed Khadafi in Lybia, and flew back home. This was the longest strike mission in history. In Desert Storm, the F-111F really shone. Its Pave Tack avionics allowed it to locate its targets in the dead of night, track them, designate them with lasers, and hit them with smart bombs. In addition, despite its early crashes, the F-111 had one of the safest operating records in history.
The other major user of F-111s was the Royal Australian Air Force. With the growing obsolescence of its Canberra bombers, the RAAF need a new way of projecting power over regional distances. It began using the F-111C in 1973, roughly a decade after the aircraft was due to arrive. It used them through 2010, the last operator to do so. In 2013, the RAAF very generously gave the Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor one of its F-111s.
One source of confusion about the F-111 is the 擢 in its designation. It was not a fighter at all. It was a medium bomber. However, the Air Force stopped using the 鄷 attack designation in 1947. It reserved the 釘 prefix for big SAC bombers. The F-105 Thunderchief had stretched the F designation to its limits, and the F-111 was far beyond anything fighter-like. Still, the Air Force stubbornly resisted the attack designation until the A-10 many years later."
- See more at: http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/general-dynamics-f-111-aardvark-pig#sthash.WsAoWClC.dpuf

[bicycletricycle]

Ya, I didn't mean to say it was useless or anything, it was a cool plane, just didn't meet all of it's original goals, that's all.

[shinomaster]

Yup altho one or two F-14s, in flat spins looked they might have recovered when in thicker air but nobody ever tried, 'if spinning at 10k feet, canopy jettison, RIO command eject'.

F-14 was kinda the sram of aircraft. Big, complicated, didn't do what it was advertised to do, broke a lot. Phantom easier to fly, much more reliable. :D

The F-35 is clearly an improvement.

[CampyorBust]

Yup, those sure are some sexy death machines, err delete delete freedom delivery vehicles.

[bicycletricycle]

The F-35 is clearly an improvement.

Ha

[Louis]

The F-35 is clearly an improvement.

Where's the tongue-in-cheek emoticon?

[velomonkey]

NR1. Nuklar powered research sub. I had several friends who served on it.

You are correct, sir. My dad was CO from 1976 to 1979. He passed away in 79 when he was getting transfer to San Diego. I had a full table of submariners at my wedding in 2000. Those navy people sure do take care of their own.

I would be willing to be we know some of the same people.

[Louis]

Q: How do you sink a submarine full of blondes?

A: Knock on the hatch.

[shinomaster]

It seems like everything we make now doesn't work! Bring back the A-10.

[oldpotatoe]

curious as we talk about eTAP here, do you see any parallel in the initial resistance to fly by wire in jets versus the way things were?
jim

Not in my case. The F-14 was a supersonic A-6, not fly by wire in any way. When the USAF got the F-16(the F-15 was mechanical, old technology, rigid wing), it was designed in no small part by aviators, not just a bunch of pocket protector engineers, who never flew an aircraft. It was a revolution and people fought hard to get into it.

The resistance to the F-18 wasn't because of FBW, it was because of it being pushed by the 'Hornet mafia', the light attack guys(A-7) who eroded the USN Fighter mission.

If the F-14 was a better aircraft but it was a compromise, a Mcnamara folly after the F-111 for the USN failed. It was made as a Phoenix missile platform. Fleet Air Defense. BUT 70s technology.

[oldpotatoe]

http://youtu.be/HG_myJ1fZJY

Apparently flameouts could cause terrible incidents like the one above because of the asymmetrical thrust from the wide engine spacing.

It was also an afterburning TF-30, not really designed to do what they asked it to do. The 'B' model was supposed to have GE engines(B model never happened), the F-14A+ and 'D' finally did(GE-110 engines) and no more engine issues but the writing was on the wall and the light attack mafioso was running things.

[oldpotatoe]

It boggles the mind that this warplane was essentially designed to do one type of mission and for predominantly one thing as a weapons platform: the F-14 was intended for battle-group defense as a weapons delivery platform for a long-range radar-guided air-to-air missle. I think the missle was called the Phoenix. It's been a long time since I followed defense stocks in an earlier life.

All the myth about the F-14 as a dogfight aircraft was from the Hollywood Top Gun movie. That aircraft was too big to do that kinda action. It was real good at flying slow which made it capable for extended loiter durations at the very outreaches of the defense perimeter surrounding the battle group. So it could shoot a radar-guided missle at target aircraft while it was still very far away from the carrier.

All that taxpayer money for basically a one trick pony. Great for Grumman, which at the time was still based out of Long Island NY. But drivers like oldpotatoe know the real scoop on this wagon.

When I worked on topmost floors of an office tower in lower Manhattan, I observed F-14s in formation fly past my window. This was during Fleet Week when the carrier JFK was anchored in NY Harbor. As a civilian with no exposure to warplanes, it was amazing to see in real life how slow they could fly past. And as slow as they flew, the wings were in semi-swept back position.

Yup, called 'Vector Logic'...a bunch of F-14s, as far as 400 miles from the CVBG, alone and unafraid(yuk, yuk)..the idea to shoot down the 'indian' instead of the 'arrow'(sorry for the racist implication-what we called it), bag the Soviet Bear/Badger with a AS-4 before it sank the CV.

Remember this was cold war stuff, preparing for the Soviet march across the central plains of Europe..The CVs were to attack the flanks of this march, from the North Atlantic and Med..from the CV, with attack A/C, the F-14(with 96 Phoenix in each CV-huh??) protecting the boat.

Gotta admit tho, in the late 80s..pretty easy to 'lose' a CV, in that not be found by the Rooskies. There was a lot of 'purple net' monitoring of Soviet comms, and it was obvious that they often didn't know where the CV was.

But for the time frame, before the Soviet Union fell, pretty good idea to shoot before they shoot.

[oldpotatoe]

Elder Spud - this is the cover of Popular Mechanics of the F14 crashing on the landing. I was telling you how it had the phoenix missile that was brand new and the Russians were trolling looking for it. My dad's sub got scrambled and he found the missile.

I have an artist rendering of the sub coming up on the missile - I will find it take a picture if anyone is interested.

Soviet Phoenix-ski.

[oldpotatoe]

I think that the desire to replace one trick ponies with every trick ponies has been sorta less than great (F35, F111)

F-15, F-16 and A10 were all originally one tricks (air superiority, cheap air superiority and close support) and lots of people think they are pretty good.

Besides, I think fleet defense is probably worth an airplane

What does an aircraft carrier cost these days?

Less than a squadron of B-2...:eek:

[oldpotatoe]

I知 a retired Naval Aviator. Never flew the F-14. Never thought I'd see a discussion involving Naval Aviation on a cycling blog. It does make me smile though! And bring back some fond memories.

Thanks for your service. It is fun to talk about that era of USN aviation and how it melded with USAF. The USN needed some of their aircraft project officers..the F-16A/F-15A, morphed into C and 'E' models almost instantly. The F-14A languished. It could have been a contender. It was not. Hard to fly, hard to maintain, good airshow aircraft.

[oldpotatoe]

Well, originally it was supposed to be a joint strike fighter/bomber/interceptor thing but the navy rejected it after an incredibly expensive effort to lighten it up for carrier use.

So it had a pretty rough start failing half of it's mission brief.

I guess you could say the navy would have rejected it anyways because they always hated that McNamara tried to force it down their throat, but either way the whole one plain for every purpose thing doesn't seem to work out well.

Couldn't see over the nose for landing was the reason, plus same crappy TF-30 engines. After mods, the F-111 was a very good deep interdiction aircraft..all at night because any future conflict will be after the sun goes down.

[saab2000]

Speaking of slow flight.... I just flew with an F/A-18 guy and he told me that that airplane will fly as slow as about 85 knots. I suppose it's barely 'flying' at that speed and the wings and other aerodynamic surfaces are more or less stabilizers at that point and the engines are keeping it aloft. Nevertheless, I was amazed.

He is new to my world of flying and he's never flown an airplane with a yoke and has very little time in an airplane that isn't stabilized by a computer. Made for an interesting few days for me and a few days like this :eek: for him! :beer:

[oldpotatoe]

The F-35 is clearly an improvement.

Well, all the modern fighters had teething pains, The F-35 is no different. It is too expensive, and it is being rushed into fleet use too fast BUT it's being driven by the USAF huge Fighter shortage. They screwed the pooch when it came to aircraft procurement with the B-2/C-17 and probably officer's clubs and golf courses. BUT it's not as bad as the civilian press and some political members of the service, make it out to be. Many want to reopen the F-15/16 lines and make a Viper or Eagle-21.

The biggest issue is whether the aircraft will stay invisible to radar, ground or airborne. Like Subs, they always worry about the ocean becoming transparent, stealth is expensive and temporary. BUT 'a hamburger in any package is still a hamburger'..the training and skill of the NATO aircrew is light years better than Russia or China.

[oldpotatoe]

Speaking of slow flight.... I just flew with an F/A-18 guy and he told me that that airplane will fly as slow as about 85 knots. I suppose it's barely 'flying' at that speed and the wings and other aerodynamic surfaces are more or less stabilizers at that point and the engines are keeping it aloft. Nevertheless, I was amazed.

He is new to my world of flying and he's never flown an airplane with a yoke and has very little time in an airplane that isn't stabilized by a computer. Made for an interesting few days for me and a few days like this :eek: for him! :beer:

Is he an aircrew? How'd he get his ATP? Without flying a yoke aircraft?

[dcama5]

Peter, how do our present jet fighters compare to the rest of the world, like maybe the Russian Sukhoi or others?

[mgm777]

Is he an aircrew? How'd he get his ATP? Without flying a yoke aircraft?

1500 hrs total, 250 PIC, and $10K or thereabouts.

[fuzzalow]

Thanks oldpotatoe for telling the tales and sharing your insights.

I always feel like a kid, like sitting around a campfire, roasting marshmallows on a stick, hanging on every word uttered by a guy who's had and done a dream job for many a youngster.

It is nice, in the smallest of ways and if only for a few moments, to feel free to feel young again.

[93legendti]

Ya, I didn't mean to say it was useless or anything, it was a cool plane, just didn't meet all of it's original goals, that's all.

Ok, gotcha.

[velomonkey]

Building off of Fuzz: All I know is that as a little kid I went to go see the movie THE FINAL COUNTDOWN with my dad and brother. I was so amped up for the F14 tomcats to go shoot down the invading Jap zeros on their way to invade pearl harbor.

And then it didn't happen.

I was soooooooooo let down. Still think someone needs to make an alternate ending on that flick.

[oldpotatoe]

Peter, how do our present jet fighters compare to the rest of the world, like maybe the Russian Sukhoi or others?

Kinda depends on who you ask. Technologically, avionics wise, engine performance, cockpit design, etc, the -15/16/18/22/35..The older and newer aircraft, are very capable. Cockpits, avionics and software have continued to improve these aircraft. The 'issue' is cost, and age. The 15/16 fleet is really old.

All this emphasis on visual arena also..the 'war' is going to be at night. If during the daytime, if you find yourself in a visual arena, somebody made a mistake.

BUT with all these similar aircraft zooming around, even later gen SU and Mig now flown by NATO members, ID is going to get interesting.

I also find it interesting that Putin, in Syria, wanting to showcase his 'modern' air force, using SU-25 and SU-24, both really old designs. And doing most of what he's doing during the daytime.

Lastly US aircrew training, motivation, leadership is second to none.

[oldpotatoe]

1500 hrs total, 250 PIC, and $10K or thereabouts.

I get that, I have an ATP but Saab said he had no 'yoke' aircraft experience, don't see how he could have an ATP without it.

My $ for an ATP was about $1000. Written exam and about 3 hours in some twin engine bugsmasher.

[oldpotatoe]

Building off of Fuzz: All I know is that as a little kid I went to go see the movie THE FINAL COUNTDOWN with my dad and brother. I was so amped up for the F14 tomcats to go shoot down the invading Jap zeros on their way to invade pearl harbor.

And then it didn't happen.

I was soooooooooo let down. Still think someone needs to make an alternate ending on that flick.

My CO in VF-151, Fox Ferrell, was in that movie..He's the one that does that goofy coupled roll and almost flew into the water.

[shinomaster]

Well, all the modern fighters had teething pains, The F-35 is no different. It is too expensive, and it is being rushed into fleet use too fast BUT it's being driven by the USAF huge Fighter shortage. They screwed the pooch when it came to aircraft procurement with the B-2/C-17 and probably officer's clubs and golf courses. BUT it's not as bad as the civilian press and some political members of the service, make it out to be. Many want to reopen the F-15/16 lines and make a Viper or Eagle-21.

The biggest issue is whether the aircraft will stay invisible to radar, ground or airborne. Like Subs, they always worry about the ocean becoming transparent, stealth is expensive and temporary. BUT 'a hamburger in any package is still a hamburger'..the training and skill of the NATO aircrew is light years better than Russia or China.

Seems like all the news is bad about that thing (f-35).. expensive is an understatement.

[oldpotatoe]

Seems like all the news is bad about that thing (f-35).. expensive is an understatement.

They said the same thing about the turkey(F-14), particularly when a Grumman test pilot threw one into the trees on short final(not his fault, B/U hydraulics didn't work), plus it was a while before they had a successful 6 on 6 missile launch(5 hit). USAF needs something, running out of fighters. Primarily for -15/16 replacement, Harrier. Not for the F-18E/F for a long while.
Replace F-18C first.

[bicycletricycle]

its amazing how long the armed forces have been able to maintain some equipment, I would love to talk to some mechanics about the reality of keeping some of these things in the air.

that being said, the age of the design and the actual average age of air frames deployed is different, I am surprised to see that F16s still seem to be in some kind of production. I know brand new updated F18s are available for purchase. looks like f15 production petered out in the mid 80s, those are some old planes but not as old as B52s.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae236/bicycletricycle/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-06%20at%2012.56.29%20PM_zpspayfvfk2.png (http://s975.photobucket.com/user/bicycletricycle/media/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-06%20at%2012.56.29%20PM_zpspayfvfk2.png.html)

[firerescuefin]

As someone that works with the F35 all the time, and have a better understanding of its capabilities than most, I'd tell you it's an amazing aircraft. 3 branches keep moving the target/wanting more capability, which doesn't help when it utilizes 20 million lines of code. Most of the criticism I read tells me the level of ignorance present about its design and its capabilities.

[unterhausen]

the learning curve on any aircraft is crazy. Look at the number of crashes of F16's by year to see what I'm talking about.

As far as joint fighter programs, the F4 was pretty successful for the Air Force even though they were forced to use it kicking and screaming. We could have used the F18, except reasons. The way they did the F35 was nuts, and bound to drive costs through the roof.

[firerescuefin]

The way they did the F35 was nuts, and bound to drive costs through the roof.

Truth.

[oldpotatoe]

As someone that works with the F35 all the time, and have a better understanding of its capabilities than most, I'd tell you it's an amazing aircraft. 3 branches keep moving the target/wanting more capability, which doesn't help when it utilizes 20 million lines of code. Most of the criticism I read tells me the level of ignorance present about its design and its capabilities.

Glad to hear from horse's mouth...good on ya.

[oldpotatoe]

the learning curve on any aircraft is crazy. Look at the number of crashes of F16's by year to see what I'm talking about.

As far as joint fighter programs, the F4 was pretty successful for the Air Force even though they were forced to use it kicking and screaming. We could have used the F18, except reasons. The way they did the F35 was nuts, and bound to drive costs through the roof.

Not the F-18, the F-17(YF-17) but it lost the fly off.

[Louis]

Many want to reopen the F-15/16 lines and make a Viper or Eagle-21.

looks like f15 production petered out in the mid 80s

The F-15 line is still open and producing aircraft.

Don't know about the F-16.

[firerescuefin]

Don't know about the F-16.

F-15, F-16, and F-18 are all great airplanes and have current/new variants being built.

The F-16V is the newest and most modern variant (F-16) ever built. Taiwan just signed up to have existing aircraft retrofitted and an order of new ones. Weapons radar/targeting is a quantum leap forward for a gen 4 fighter.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a17874/f-16v-first-flight/

I work out on a mezzanine (in a hangar) overlooking where they are doing the retrofit to the first 1 and 2 seater V model prototypes.

[shinomaster]

As someone that works with the F35 all the time, and have a better understanding of its capabilities than most, I'd tell you it's an amazing aircraft. 3 branches keep moving the target/wanting more capability, which doesn't help when it utilizes 20 million lines of code. Most of the criticism I read tells me the level of ignorance present about its design and its capabilities.

I would hope so, if they can't build a decent jet for this much money they should just quit. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

[oldpotatoe]

I would hope so, if they can't build a decent jet for this much money they should just quit. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

http://www.theatlantic.com/author/dominic-tierne

A civilian academic..said with a sneer..

[firerescuefin]

I would hope so, if they can't build a decent jet for this much money they should just quit. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

I can't argue with that. It's a lot of coin.

I too get the question of whether we should just build more Gen 4 aircraft with upgraded avionic/weapons systems....but I'll add that you just couldn't take everything other than the stealth portion of the F-35 and retrofit it to an existing aircraft....not quite that simple.

An F-35 is a force multiplier. It can target and kill a bunch of Gen 4 aircraft from a great distance long before a Gen 4 aircraft even knows it's there...and there is a lot more to the aircraft than stealth. The concept of "sensor fusion"...taking in ton of info from myriad of sources/analyzing/prioritizing/giving the pilot actionable/non overwhelming data...in split second (as well as giving that same info to the other F-35s in the air that are also acting autonomously as well as part of a pack) is mind boggling.

They are pushing the envelope of what it can do/what they want it to do...and always are wanting more. It's expensive, but I roll my eyes when people try to say that it's a POS/Doesn't work/ Won't work. I work very closely with the program as well as have friends that fly Gen 5 (F-22/F-35) and 4 (F-15/F-16). They need to get operational with current development Blocks and worry about retrofitting/ bigger upgrades down the line IMO.

[oldpotatoe]

I can't argue with that. It's a lot of coin.

I too get the question of whether we should just build more Gen 4 aircraft with upgraded avionic/weapons systems....but I'll add that you just couldn't take everything other than the stealth portion of the F-35 and retrofit it to an existing aircraft....not quite that simple.

An F-35 is a force multiplier. It can target and kill a bunch of Gen 4 aircraft from a great distance long before a Gen 4 aircraft even knows it's there...and there is a lot more to the aircraft than stealth. The concept of "sensor fusion"...taking in ton of info from myriad of sources/analyzing/prioritizing/giving the pilot actionable/non overwhelming data...in split second (as well as giving that same info to the other F-35s in the air that are also acting autonomously as well as part of a pack) is mind boggling.

They are pushing the envelope of what it can do/what they want it to do...and always are wanting more. It's expensive, but I roll my eyes when people try to say that it's a POS/Doesn't work/ Won't work. I work very closely with the program as well as have friends that fly Gen 5 (F-22/F-35) and 4 (F-15/F-16). They need to get operational with current development Blocks and worry about retrofitting/ bigger upgrades down the line IMO.

Probably 3 reasons why at least now, Cat 5 aircraft are pretty much essential.

[shinomaster]

Probably 3 reasons why at least now, Cat 5 aircraft are pretty much essential.

I can't wait to see Turkey shoot one down (just kidding).

[93legendti]

Some think the Saab Gripen is the answer...

[bigbill]

Probably 3 reasons why at least now, Cat 5 aircraft are pretty much essential.

Sorry man, the Chinese carrier is a mobile airfield, not a warship. It doesn't operate as part of a strike group with integrated communications, it's not fast, and it's conventional powered so it can't conduct sustained operations without coming off station to refuel. It's an old Soviet ship that the Chinese bought through a fake Hong Kong merchant and the Chinese finished it out. Now they're building a reverse engineered version so it will be a copy of something they didn't build in the first place.

It looks cool though.

[saab2000]

Is he an aircrew? How'd he get his ATP? Without flying a yoke aircraft?

That's a very good question. He's brand new to the airlines.

Not saying a yoke is good but he has little to no experience with one. I was surprised, to say the least.

Frankly, flying with a stick is far, far more intuitive and the yoke is bulky and in the way.

But that's a whole 'nuther thread. I only have a few hours of time in airplanes with a stick but it takes all of about 30 seconds to adapt.

[bicycletricycle]

i was really sort of surprised about the first chinese aircraft carrier.

if they want to be taken seriously as a global super power I would imagine they would go a little further than a baby russian cast off.

on the other hand, russia never went full size on aircraft carriers either, always needed STOVL or rotary wing aircraft like the british, or the marines I guess.

as far as the chinese stealth jet. well, those round cross section exposed engine nozzles seem to me to be pretty bad for both thermal and radar detection. not sure if the canards increase radar cross section. I would imagine they would.

not that stealth is the only thing that matters, apparently low frequency radar ground stations can see all the stealth aircraft anyways.

however, I am just an idiot on the couch.


I guess the fact they are starting to spend money at all on this kind of stuff is reason enough to stay vigilant.

[shinomaster]

Some think the Saab Gripen is the answer...

Isn't that thing kinda old?

[oldpotatoe]

Sorry man, the Chinese carrier is a mobile airfield, not a warship. It doesn't operate as part of a strike group with integrated communications, it's not fast, and it's conventional powered so it can't conduct sustained operations without coming off station to refuel. It's an old Soviet ship that the Chinese bought through a fake Hong Kong merchant and the Chinese finished it out. Now they're building a reverse engineered version so it will be a copy of something they didn't build in the first place.

It looks cool though.

Not looking to argue but it obvious the Chinese want to get into the power projection game. Gotta start somewhere. Is this boat even as capable as the old FID class? No but it's better than the one before it.

[93legendti]

Isn't that thing kinda old?

New version

http://aviationweek.com/defense/saab-s-new-gripen-future-fighters

[bigbill]

i was really sort of surprised about the first chinese aircraft carrier.

if they want to be taken seriously as a global super power I would imagine they would go a little further than a baby russian cast off.

on the other hand, russia never went full size on aircraft carriers either, always needed STOVL or rotary wing aircraft like the british, or the marines I guess.

as far as the chinese stealth jet. well, those round cross section exposed engine nozzles seem to me to be pretty bad for both thermal and radar detection. not sure if the canards increase radar cross section. I would imagine they would.

not that stealth is the only thing that matters, apparently low frequency radar ground stations can see all the stealth aircraft anyways.

however, I am just an idiot on the couch.


I guess the fact they are starting to spend money at all on this kind of stuff is reason enough to stay vigilant.

The Chinese reverse engineer, very little is a Chinese design. They can copy a stealth look by building a swoopy plane with radar absorbing panels. What they can't copy is ducted turbojets that actually reduce a heat signature. The sad part is that it's just a matter of time before they reverse engineer or steal the plans for those.

The bigger picture is that unless you anticipate fighting an enemy with equal technology, all the stealth stuff is a money pit. Do we expect to go to war with China? Over what, some islands claimed by several countries? I don't see us in a shooting war over that. The Russians sell their technology worldwide, they need the money, but their stuff is about as good as our existing technology (F15, F16, F18). It will come down to training and tactics. The Russians rattle a lot of swords, but most of their swords were made in the 90's or earlier and have a fresh coat of paint. The Chinese are always a decade behind.

Back on topic, the Super Hornet F-18E/F/G are incredible aircraft and a worthy replacement for the Tomcat. US carriers have gone from deploying with 4 different jet aircraft types each requiring unique parts and maintenance teams to those 4 types all being replaced with a Hornet variant. It's a step forward in flexibility and cost savings. As much cost savings as you can have with a 12 billion dollar airport.

[cachagua]

Do we expect to go to war with China? Over what?

Food.

[oldpotatoe]

The Chinese reverse engineer, very little is a Chinese design. They can copy a stealth look by building a swoopy plane with radar absorbing panels. What they can't copy is ducted turbojets that actually reduce a heat signature. The sad part is that it's just a matter of time before they reverse engineer or steal the plans for those.

The bigger picture is that unless you anticipate fighting an enemy with equal technology, all the stealth stuff is a money pit. Do we expect to go to war with China? Over what, some islands claimed by several countries? I don't see us in a shooting war over that. The Russians sell their technology worldwide, they need the money, but their stuff is about as good as our existing technology (F15, F16, F18). It will come down to training and tactics. The Russians rattle a lot of swords, but most of their swords were made in the 90's or earlier and have a fresh coat of paint. The Chinese are always a decade behind.

Back on topic, the Super Hornet F-18E/F/G are incredible aircraft and a worthy replacement for the Tomcat. US carriers have gone from deploying with 4 different jet aircraft types each requiring unique parts and maintenance teams to those 4 types all being replaced with a Hornet variant. It's a step forward in flexibility and cost savings. As much cost savings as you can have with a 12 billion dollar airport.

We prepared for a global conventional(at least for a couple of days) war with the Soviet Union also. Bunches on tanks on the central plain of Europe, mass armies in the field. Same with China and Russia. China wants to make South China Sea and surrounds their 'lake'. Russia wants to reclaim their power and territory of the pre USSR days..

Back on topic also, the USAF is out of fighters. The F35 will be a capable replacement. The Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon are nice but Cat 4 fighters, old technology.

Interesting topic.

[firerescuefin]

The bigger picture is that unless you anticipate fighting an enemy with equal technology, all the stealth stuff is a money pit

The warfighter/pilot (the ones I talk to that fly F-35/F22...as well as good friend that is a current F-16 Wing Commander) strongly disagrees with you.

As I mentioned before Gen 5 aircraft are much more than just stealth. I can take out 6-8 (depending on weapon load) of your gen 4 aircraft with my gen 5 before you even know I am in the air. That is not only effective in the air, but quite a deterrent. You send your Gen 4 Air Force up against a wolfpack of F-22s/F-35s and you will be wiped off the map in a heartbeat...every time. The last thing I want for our military is a fair fight.

All that being said, I linked the F-16V in post above. A modernized fleet of F-15, F-16, F-18s (with that type of weapons radar/system) would be very formidable and less costly, But the current fleet of US aircraft are very tired....consisting mostly of airframes that have 2-3 times their projected initial service lives. My point is you're buying new.

At the end of the day, I think a blended force of Gen 5 and 4 makes a lot of sense, especially with new Super Hornets for carrier pops (given they are multi engined vs F-35C single engine).

[adrien]

What a great read. This doesn't really fit here, but this doesn't really fit, so why not.

My grandfather flew off carriers -- Victorious and Searcher. He flew Martlets mostly, and ended up with a squadron of his own. I won't go into many details here, but it was very rough. I actually shared many of his things with the US Navy museum recently, as Searcher had a history with Norfolk.

I of course never knew him as a Navy man. He was my gramps. Taught me to love being outside. I learned later that a lot of his hiking time was time he used to try to reconcile his war experience. And, when he hurt his leg pulling a hard turn to avoid being shot, he removed one of the pedals from his bike to build the musical back up.

I do think there's a kinship between bike people and people who are drawn to flight. And, when I'm on the bike I often think of him, and that time, and the conversations we had about life.

Thanks for reminding me of that. Kitting up now.

[cachagua]

I can take out 6-8 (depending on weapon load) of your gen 4 aircraft with my gen 5 before you even know I am in the air.

That's what I like to hear! The highest and best aspiration of humanity, right there.

As Judge Holden reminds us, war is God.

[firerescuefin]

.....nevermind

[oldpotatoe]

That's what I like to hear! The highest and best aspiration of humanity, right there.

As Judge Holden reminds us, war is God.

Remember the people that actually fight the wars hate it the most. Yes, it would be great if conflict, death, destruction didn't exist but not being prepared isn't the answer, IMHO. Group hugs don't really work.

[shinomaster]

That's what I like to hear! The highest and best aspiration of humanity, right there.

As Judge Holden reminds us, war is God.

Well, this is a thread about a lethal fighter jet.. Also, I thought an f- 14 could shoot 6 or so Phoenix missiles at once and take out planes 100 miles away? It's been a long time since I was obsessed about this stuff.. maybe it was just propaganda.

[oldpotatoe]

Well, this is a thread about a lethal fighter jet.. Also, I thought an f- 14 could shoot 6 or so Phoenix missiles at once and take out planes 100 miles away? It's been a long time since I was obsessed about this stuff.. maybe it was just propaganda.

Yup, track 20+, engage 6. Full load was 6 Phoenix, 4 in the tunnel and 2 on the wings. Phoenix was a 100 mile missile, went way, way up, coasted, came down at like Mach 6 or something. Active radar end game. No need for shooter to paint the whole way. When it worked, it was amazing. We called it the buffalo, also like having a wingman. 1000 pound missile. Big.

[soulspinner]

Learned a lot. Thanks OP and others, fascinating stuff............

[shinomaster]

Yup, track 20+, engage 6. Full load was 6 Phoenix, 4 in the tunnel and 2 on the wings. Phoenix was a 100 mile missile, went way, way up, coasted, came down at like Mach 6 or something. Active radar end game. No need for shooter to paint the whole way. When it worked, it was amazing. We called it the buffalo, also like having a wingman. 1000 pound missile. Big.

So you flew an f-14??

[93legendti]

There's a parallel track for Gen 5 fighters that I would pursue- anti missile technology. With so many variants of anti missile weapons now in service: Iron Dome, Iron Beam, David's Sling and Arrow for surface to surface missiles; Trophy for anti-tank missiles; Barak-8 anti-ship missiles; the problem should be relatively easy/cheap to solve.


If you study the first naval missile battles, you'll see stealth is one way, defeating/destroying the missile is another way.

[Burnette]

Well, thaks for getting facts all over my favorite war plane!
Always liked the F-14. Visually, for me, it's still the most awesome looking military jet. It was used in many movies too.
A trip to wiki and I found my favorite marking, the Jolly Roger. I couldn't remember what movie I saw it in, wiki says the movie was "The Final Countdown".
The F-14 influenced Japanese Anime too, you can see it's features prominently in some of the designs of the shows made years ago.
Here is a link to F-14 shots in a movie called "Executive Decision"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38grTs0ZTAg#t=21
I had my wife take a picture if me in front of an F-14 when we were on the deck of the Yorktown aircraft carrier years ago in Charelston. S.C.
Thanks for the info provided by those who know about this and other planes, I enjoyed reading it.

[oldpotatoe]

So you flew an f-14??

1200 or so hours, 2 different squadrons.

[bicycletricycle]

1200 or so hours, 2 different squadrons.

I have, maybe an odd question for you.

I was watching a video about the A10 recently , an old one, and it showed a pilot navigating by paper map. A little while later I was at an airshow and asked a A10 pilot about this and he the pulled a paper map out of a little pocket in the cockpit and confirmed that they still navigate this way (probably not exclusively)

Question.

What kind of instrumentation did you have available for navigation in your F14.
GPS is a relatively new technology and was not available when the f14 was designed. maps aren't great over the ocean and that aircraft carrier is mighty small out in the ocean. Did the carrier broadcast some kind of radio navigational aid? Maybe you had an inertial guidance system? Maybe a Sextant?

Also

Did you ever fire one of those Phoenix missiles? Always seemed crazy to me that some people can spend a whole career in the armed services practicing for something that they never get a chance to do. Like some kind of crazy groundhogs day. Although I guess the situation you are training for isn't exactly preferable either.

Anyways, thanks for sharing .

Buffalo because it was big?

[shinomaster]

1200 or so hours, 2 different squadrons.

Wow, impressive!

[oldpotatoe]

I have, maybe an odd question for you.

I was watching a video about the A10 recently , an old one, and it showed a pilot navigating by paper map. A little while later I was at an airshow and asked a A10 pilot about this and he the pulled a paper map out of a little pocket in the cockpit and confirmed that they still navigate this way (probably not exclusively)

Question.

What kind of instrumentation did you have available for navigation in your F14.
GPS is a relatively new technology and was not available when the f14 was designed. maps aren't great over the ocean and that aircraft carrier is mighty small out in the ocean. Did the carrier broadcast some kind of radio navigational aid? Maybe you had an inertial guidance system? Maybe a Sextant?

Also

Did you ever fire one of those Phoenix missiles? Always seemed crazy to me that some people can spend a whole career in the armed services practicing for something that they never get a chance to do. Like some kind of crazy groundhogs day. Although I guess the situation you are training for isn't exactly preferable either.

Anyways, thanks for sharing .

Buffalo because it was big?

Long answer and a sea story.

We had a very rudimentary 'INS'. Inertial Nav System. We could even plug into the ship's inertial nav and then when we launched it would kinda tell us where we were. Analog, drifted a lot, essentially useless. No GPS when I flew the A/C(late 80s). When over the ground, we used maps and TACAN. If no TACAN, we did dead reckoning, heading, time, speed. Over the water, ships' TACAn but often EMCON-tacan turned off. So either vector from E-2 or go that way for 30 minutes, go the other way for 30 minutes. Same system as in the F-4 I flew and same as jets off boats for long time before that.

I'll mention that when on the CV, Navigation still went out and shot the sun, calculated position.

Initial A-10s had a problem getting lost because they flew so close to the ground. Every cactus looked the same. Later models had GPS.

I was on cruise in the MED when we were taking intel pictures of Lebanon. I was in the TARPS F-14 squadron..big photo slug in tunnel, TARPS pod. Tactical Air Reconn Pod System. We called it 'Target Practice for Syrians'.

BUT when we flew into Lebanon, we had a prototype GPS installed to stay out of Syria..it was on the glare shield and about the size of a BIG loaf of bread..worked like crap. So, still used a map.

I never shot a 'buffalo'(yup, because it was BIG) I was the primary shooter on one when I was in VX-4(operational test squadron) but my missile crumped so my wingman shot his. VERY impressive-bula-bula(hit the target). Is was an instrumented range in White Sands, so saw the video of it hitting a QF-106 drone, going supersonic..BIG explosion, direct hit. I have shot Aim-9 and Aim-7..plus shot the gun a lot.

[oldpotatoe]

What a great read. This doesn't really fit here, but this doesn't really fit, so why not.

My grandfather flew off carriers -- Victorious and Searcher. He flew Martlets mostly, and ended up with a squadron of his own. I won't go into many details here, but it was very rough. I actually shared many of his things with the US Navy museum recently, as Searcher had a history with Norfolk.

I of course never knew him as a Navy man. He was my gramps. Taught me to love being outside. I learned later that a lot of his hiking time was time he used to try to reconcile his war experience. And, when he hurt his leg pulling a hard turn to avoid being shot, he removed one of the pedals from his bike to build the musical back up.

I do think there's a kinship between bike people and people who are drawn to flight. And, when I'm on the bike I often think of him, and that time, and the conversations we had about life.

Thanks for reminding me of that. Kitting up now.

Wow, Brit version of the F-4F..Wildcat in USN. Tough to fly, squirrelly, varsity aircraft on little carriers.

[bicycletricycle]

Wow,

must have been some close calls getting back aboard fuel wise. GPS must make all of the navigation problems so much easier for aviation.

Who would do the dead reckoning/map reading , pilot or the RIO?

Was there some kind of auto pilot to help when you where checking the maps or doing the math?




Long answer and a sea story.

We had a very rudimentary 'INS'. Inertial Nav System. We could even plug into the ship's inertial nav and then when we launched it would kinda tell us where we were. Analog, drifted a lot, essentially useless. No GPS when I flew the A/C(late 80s). When over the ground, we used maps and TACAN. If no TACAN, we did dead reckoning, heading, time, speed. Over the water, ships' TACAn but often EMCON-tacan turned off. So either vector from E-2 or go that way for 30 minutes, go the other way for 30 minutes. Same system as in the F-4 I flew and same as jets off boats for long time before that.

I'll mention that when on the CV, Navigation still went out and shot the sun, calculated position.

Initial A-10s had a problem getting lost because they flew so close to the ground. Every cactus looked the same. Later models had GPS.

I was on cruise in the MED when we were taking intel pictures of Lebanon. I was in the TARPS F-14 squadron..big photo slug in tunnel, TARPS pod. Tactical Air Reconn Pod System. We called it 'Target Practice for Syrians'.

BUT when we flew into Lebanon, we had a prototype GPS installed to stay out of Syria..it was on the glare shield and about the size of a BIG loaf of bread..worked like crap. So, still used a map.

I never shot a 'buffalo'(yup, because it was BIG) I was the primary shooter on one when I was in VX-4(operational test squadron) but my missile crumped so my wingman shot his. VERY impressive-bula-bula(hit the target). Is was an instrumented range in White Sands, so saw the video of it hitting a QF-106 drone, going supersonic..BIG explosion, direct hit. I have shot Aim-9 and Aim-7..plus shot the gun a lot.

[oldpotatoe]

Wow,

must have been some close calls getting back aboard fuel wise. GPS must make all of the navigation problems so much easier for aviation.

Who would do the dead reckoning/map reading , pilot or the RIO?

Was there some kind of auto pilot to help when you where checking the maps or doing the math?

The F-14 was pretty good fuel wise, the F-4 not so much but you created a fule ladder each hop, how much gas when..so tou always had the minimum when you came back. If ya ran low, altho tankers out there, NEVER counted on that.

The guys now have GPS, and even email on the boat..different world.

We both did it but often junior pilot with senior RIO..so he kept the kid safe. Senior pilot, nugget RIO, so he kept the kid safe...

The A/C had autopilot but 'george' was for nancys;)..never worked anyway. In F-14/ or F-4..you learned to do it all..

Aviate, navigate, communicate...wasn't really that hard. Early on, flew a bunch of low levels with only chart, route, heading, speed, time. Took a chart, drew on it, heading, turn points, speed...things to look for..that city, that hill. I have flown around a water tower in a town, looking for the name to figure put where I was.

[adrien]

Wow, Brit version of the F-4F..Wildcat in USN. Tough to fly, squirrelly, varsity aircraft on little carriers.

Per his stories, the American planes were much better for carriers than the British types, though his favorite (not surprising) was a Spitfire V he was flying when he was a flight instructor from late 44 on.

Searcher was converted into an escort carrier, and was made in the USA. She was handed over under lend/lease, and put in to Norfolk for repairs in late December 1943. She was part of the second attack on the Tirpitz in spring 1944.

Gramps referred to escort carriers as "grubby little ships". Honestly, it's amazing that any of those guys made it. People don't often realize what a desperate struggle WW2 was, and that for the English it was a 6-year slog with regular bombing of the homeland.

We owe so much to these folks, including those in the fast jets who've weighed in here. Go thank one of them, and change their flats for them on a ride.

[malcolm]

this is why it's so easy to hate OP

Navy check
Flew the coolest planes check
Now lives in Boulder check

Former marine living in Alabama. Whats not to hate

[shinomaster]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1279397-how-useful-will-chinas-weapons-be-in-a-real-war/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Postcron.com

Just thought about this thread after reading this..

[Louis]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1279397-how-useful-will-chinas-weapons-be-in-a-real-war/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Postcron.com

Just thought about this thread after reading this..

"Halfway through the drill the personnel were so distraught that female troops had to be brought in to cheer them up."

True pic of that event:

http://i.imgur.com/EeApglL.jpg?1

[oldpotatoe]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1279397-how-useful-will-chinas-weapons-be-in-a-real-war/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Postcron.com

Just thought about this thread after reading this..

Funny, surprised the info was even available..altho I wonder if it's 'planted'.

China doesn't have the benefit of real, recent combat like Russia and the US. Exercises are one thing but the actual heat and fog of war quite another.

China looks good on paper and wish to be a global military power but they have a ways to go. Like Russia in Soviet days, they have huge numbers, "quantity has a quality all it's own"-Josef Stalin, huge diesel boat numbers(straights of Taiwan)..and have a small, not very capable CV, but they have the $, they have the ability to steal design. BIG land power(elephant), vs BIG sea power(USA), a type of conflict going on since the days of Sparta and Greece. To ignore them is not smart, IMHO.