PDA

View Full Version : End of line for the Tomcat



Argos
2006-Sep-22, 12:06 PM
It came as a surprise for me. Now the third world will be flooded with them...

Link (http://www.ecanadanow.com/us/2006/09/21/us-navy-retires-the-f-14-tomcat/)

Tog
2006-Sep-22, 12:15 PM
Well Boo.

The F-14, F-15, F-4 and A-10 were the planes I loved the most as a kid.

I understand that the F/A-18 is more versital and all, but the F-14 was the last real interceptor in my eyes.

Argos
2006-Sep-22, 12:24 PM
Man, I love that plane. I thought it would be kept on duty for a few more years.

Moose
2006-Sep-22, 12:36 PM
I understand that the F/A-18 is more versital and all, but the F-14 was the last real interceptor in my eyes.

The plastic bug's all well and good, but it has to get within the weapon range of its target to do anything. A pair of Toms with their full load of Phoenix can splash your whole squadron from over the horizon, before you even know they're there.

Tog
2006-Sep-22, 12:41 PM
The plastic bug's all well and good, but it has to get within the weapon range of its target to do anything. A pair of Toms with their full load of Phoenix can splash your whole squadron from over the horizon, before you even know they're there.

Oh yeah, I completely agree. That's what I mean by the last interceptor. I have never seen a picture or model kit of an F-14 in any variant that had a single bit of air to ground, unless you count the cannon. I feel the same way about the A-10. The F-16 is supposed to step into that roll, but there is just something about the A-10 that says "Bring it", whereas the F-16 is more of a "not in the face not in the face".

Doodler
2006-Sep-22, 02:39 PM
Well Boo.

The F-14, F-15, F-4 and A-10 were the planes I loved the most as a kid.

I understand that the F/A-18 is more versital and all, but the F-14 was the last real interceptor in my eyes.

It'll be interesting to see how the new planes stack up to them. I've seen the JSF next to a Tomcat down at the Air and Space Museum in Chantilly, and aside from the extra body volume required by the variable geometry wings, its not that much smaller physically. It might be able to pack enough heat to match it. To say nothing of the F-22's potential.

MrClean
2006-Sep-22, 03:46 PM
I miss Corsairs and Mustangs. I was just at an airshow this week and realized that they're just not the same without a flyby of F-4 Fantoms. Growing up just north of Forbes Air Force base in Topeka, KS every airshow had a flyby of a KC-135 and a squadron of F-4's which would then come back with a missing man formation all planes low, in full burner and just subsonic. The ground litteraly shook for minutes. After getting married on June 30th my wife and I went to the 4th of July celebration at Cessna Stadium in 84. A flight of F-4's came by and I told my wife to cover her ears. Just as she was asking why the sound caught up with them, oh did her eyes bug out. Later that year at Topekas air show another flight went by and I looked over, she was already covered up, fantastic. The new fighters just aren't loud enough.

The worlds a changin place. I'm glad that we'll probably never see a large formation of enemy bombers coming across the horizon so hopefully we'll never need that particular aspect of the F-14, but I'll miss not seeing it around.

Tog
2006-Sep-22, 03:51 PM
The new fighters just aren't loud enough.


I SOOOOOO disagree with that, but then I live about 400 yards left of the final approach of a F-16 base. They are plenty loud for me.:p

BigDon
2006-Sep-22, 05:11 PM
I was in VF-211's avionics and fire control shop for just over three years.

Moose, over the horizon? Pffft, try over three horizons relative to people on the ground. But they are expensive and difficult to maintain. After the Ruskies folded we no longer had an enemy worthy of them. Sorry but the Al Queda is never going to amass huge bomber fleets bearing surface skimming ship killing missiles escorted by trans-mach high altitude fighters with support from heavy guided missile cruisers and huge subs that actually stand a good chance of taking on an entire Kittyhawk class battle group. It just ain't gonna happen.

I was extremely lucky in that my shop acted like a big extended family. We all knew who was good for what, and who to assign what project. With that level of co-operation we kept the level of maintainence high enough that our pilots were able to perform outstanding work. They actually had to invent awards and merets to give us. (Yes I have a Battle "E")

In contrast VF-24, our "sister" squadron, had a situation where their whole avionics dept. was broken up into 3 and 4 man cliques that showed no co-operation between them. The civilian tech rep, (Chuck Fritz aka "Sea Daddy" as he bore a striking resembalence to Popeye's father) who is supposed to aid and assist in technical matters to both squadrons gave us a prime example.

Four of their guys were beating their brains out trying to figure out a "gripe" (technical problem), had the schematics spread everwhere, were formulating loudly what the heck the problem could be, etc, etc. Chuck turned to a Second Class who had is feet up drinking coffee, who had repaired the exact same problem on another aircraft two days earlier and said, "Aren't you going to help them? to which the Petty Officer replied, "Naww I don't like them, let them figure out for themselves."

Our pilots, until ordered not to, used to refer to VF-24 as the Lead Noses, as their radars often didn't worked as advertized. That's lead as in the dense grey metal.

And as always the case in the Navy, when ordered not to use a particular nickname, they come up with a worse one. Due to the stylized "check mark" where the long line on the "check" curved upward on the vertical stabilizer, we started calling them the "S**t Hooks"

We were a genuine elite outfit. 80% of our pilots were former Top Gun instructors. Every single time we went up against the Airforce we ate their lunch and popped their sacks. On average we killed state-side Airforce squadrons at 8/1 to 7/1, without using phoenix. The best they ever did was when we took on a elite Airforce squadron flying out of the bases in Japan. We could only kill them a 4/1

korjik
2006-Sep-22, 05:43 PM
I SOOOOOO disagree with that, but then I live about 400 yards left of the final approach of a F-16 base. They are plenty loud for me.:p

F-16s arent exactly new

teddyv
2006-Sep-22, 07:52 PM
I was just at an airshow this week and realized that they're just not the same without a flyby of F-4 Fantoms. Growing up just north of Forbes Air Force base in Topeka, KS every airshow had a flyby of a KC-135 and a squadron of F-4's which would then come back with a missing man formation all planes low, in full burner and just subsonic. The ground litteraly shook for minutes. After getting married on June 30th my wife and I went to the 4th of July celebration at Cessna Stadium in 84. A flight of F-4's came by and I told my wife to cover her ears. Just as she was asking why the sound caught up with them, oh did her eyes bug out. Later that year at Topekas air show another flight went by and I looked over, she was already covered up, fantastic. The new fighters just aren't loud enough.


Probably the best display I saw at an airshow was from F-4's as well. This was awhile back at the Abbotsford airshow (~10 years ago). There was 2 US Air National Guard F-4's. During one flyby they came by on burner and created a small but noticeable compression wave. The commentator on the PA suggested there might be a few square eggs on the local chicken farms.

The following year they did not appear to be going anywhere near that fast.

Nicolas
2006-Sep-22, 08:09 PM
The F-16 zith full afterburner aimed directly at you crunches your belly. It doesn't feel like I should cover my ears for it, but that might just be me being dumb. I haven't heard the F-4, but the Tornado also can be really loud. All not too new of course. I remember some supersonic flight at low altitude, very close to the house when I was really young. That sound is ridiculous. It shook the windows as much as when a large caterpillar crane drove by just next to the house. I don't know exactly how come they flew supersonic on many occasions, as it was already forbidden by then IIRC.

Am I right that the JSF and F-22 can carry quite a bit less weapons than the F-14? I'm always impressed at the massive amount of armament an F-16 can carry. Indeed it does not have the "and I want to see the colour of your eyes" attitude of the A-10 ground attacker, but to me it seems like a very good plane for both ground runs and AtA.

I've never seen an F-14 flying on an airshow (same goes for F-104, F-4, F-15...unless I forgot something) and probably never will. However, I have seen the Spitfire and even Lancaster, so maybe in a few decades... ;)

Doodler
2006-Sep-22, 09:28 PM
Desert Storm was kind of a misleading campaign. Because air superiority was secured so fast, they were loading EVERYTHING with bombs for runs.

They'd load them up beyond their usual spec, with just enough fuel to get airborne, then air to air refuel almost immediately. Its surprising you didn't see any of these planes falling out of the sky from their post-fuelling weight.

Then the A-10, that thing is less plane and more floating tank. There was a joke a friend of mine told me about a bragging session between an F-16 maintenance chief and an A-10 chief. After the F-16 chief finished rattling off the kinds of loads the F-16 could carry, the A-10 chief put his hand on the other guy's shoulder, pointed at the hardpoints under the wings and said, "You know what we put there?" After seeing the F-16 chief shake his head negative, he put a big grin on his mug and said, "F-16s."

Nicolas
2006-Sep-22, 09:37 PM
Desert Storm was kind of a misleading campaign. Because air superiority was secured so fast, they were loading EVERYTHING with bombs for runs.

In Belgium and the Netherlands the F-16 is the primary fighter, and hence also is the transport service of choice for bombs. Or didn't you mean that with that statement?

Moose
2006-Sep-22, 10:47 PM
Moose, over the horizon? Pffft, try over three horizons relative to people on the ground. But they are expensive and difficult to maintain.

How many Toms+Phoenix load can you get for a single JSF (assuming overall unit price in today's dollars to take R&D into account.) How many for an F-22? An F-117? A B-2?


After the Ruskies folded we no longer had an enemy worthy of them.

Fair enough, but do you have enemies worthy of the JSF, F-22, F-117 or B-2s? Why bother developping them if it's not worth keeping F-14s in service, or updating them (again) and increasing their run some more?


Sorry but the Al Queda is never going to amass huge bomber fleets bearing surface skimming ship killing missiles escorted by trans-mach high altitude fighters with support from heavy guided missile cruisers and huge subs that actually stand a good chance of taking on an entire Kittyhawk class battle group. It just ain't gonna happen.

I don't especially disagree with anything you've said, but times do change. What's true today might not be true tomorrow.

PetersCreek
2006-Sep-22, 10:47 PM
I miss the old planes, too. I cut my avionics teeth on the A7-D Corsair II, then came of age on Phantoms...F4-Ds, -Es, and occasionally, an RF4-C. I worked other jets here and there, especially when I worked in OT&E, but always looked back to workin' on the "pigs."

Doodler
2006-Sep-22, 11:09 PM
In Belgium and the Netherlands the F-16 is the primary fighter, and hence also is the transport service of choice for bombs. Or didn't you mean that with that statement?

The US uses it as an Air Superiority fighter in its primary role, along with the F-15. To be honest, from what I saw of the footage from Desert Storm, it didn't matter who's flag was on it, and what breed it was. If it had wings, it had bombs strapped on it.

BigDon
2006-Sep-22, 11:10 PM
How many Toms+Phoenix load can you get for a single JSF (assuming overall unit price in today's dollars to take R&D into account.) How many for an F-22? An F-117? A B-2?

Back in 1980 Tomcats were 45 million dollars apiece. Phoenix missles were 600,000 dollars a shot. The usual close to home patrol load out was two phoenix, four sparrows, four 'winders. Fleet defense exercises or getting close to Bear country was four phoenix, two sparrow and four 'winders.

My first cruise was the last cruise the Russians overflew us with TU-95's (Bears). An awesome bird when you look at them. Made of solid steel and still one of the fastest propeller planes ever built. When they would bank it looked like they were banking forever. More wing just seemed to keep appearing. Also got buzzed by some Badgers too.

JMV
2006-Sep-23, 01:37 AM
Back in 1980 Tomcats were 45 million dollars apiece. Phoenix missles were 600,000 dollars a shot. The usual close to home patrol load out was two phoenix, four sparrows, four 'winders. Fleet defense exercises or getting close to Bear country was four phoenix, two sparrow and four 'winders.
You sure about the numbers? Perhaps two Sidewinders for each case? I don't think Tomcat has enough hardpoints for four, if you want to carry six other missiles.

BigDon
2006-Sep-23, 01:54 AM
JMV, they loved sidewinders. We had a rail you could put on a single hard point that would carry two. On the outer most hard point. One below and one outboard.

JMV
2006-Sep-23, 02:18 AM
You mean the siderails on the wing pylons? What I meant was the F-14 has only eight hardpoints, four underbelly for AIM-54 or AIM-7 and four on the wing pylons for two AIM-9 and two missiles of your choice.

Four Phoenix, four Sidewinders and two Sparrows make ten. Where do the two extra missiles go?

Here's a picture of a Tomcat with six AIM-54 and two siderails without missiles.
http://www2.osk.3web.ne.jp/~kurochan/gif/aircraft/f-14.jpg

Nicolas
2006-Sep-23, 09:37 AM
The US uses it as an Air Superiority fighter in its primary role, along with the F-15. To be honest, from what I saw of the footage from Desert Storm, it didn't matter who's flag was on it, and what breed it was. If it had wings, it had bombs strapped on it.

I can certainly believe that, when you don't have much enemies in the skies, you put bombs everywhere :).

I do like (from an engineering point of view; I don't particularly "like" killing machines...) the F-16 as a versatile fighter that isn't too heavy but can carry lots and lots of armament. And with a good amount of updates on it, I think only dangerously overconfident pilots would laugh while having one of these as an enemy. Modern fighters can be better overall, but that doesn't mean the F-16 no longer is a mean machine.

Personally, I agree that Belgium sticks to F-16 instead of going to JSF. It's a lot of money, and for what? We can't completely defend our country against a large enemy anyway. A load of F-16's will keep small groups of nutters out just as good as JSF. And for our role in the NAVO, we use the money on other things. The JSF wouldbe a *huge* investment. Besides, the F-16 still has a major role in the NAVO. Again, with the necessary updates, which the Belgian F-16's have. I do think that originally we built too much F-16's for our country. It might have been better not to do this "build now, use not, sell later for small prices" action...

Roy Batty
2006-Sep-23, 01:39 PM
You mean the siderails on the wing pylons? What I meant was the F-14 has only eight hardpoints, four underbelly for AIM-54 or AIM-7 and four on the wing pylons for two AIM-9 and two missiles of your choice.

Four Phoenix, four Sidewinders and two Sparrows make ten. Where do the two extra missiles go?

Here's a picture of a Tomcat with six AIM-54 and two siderails without missiles.
http://www2.osk.3web.ne.jp/~kurochan/gif/aircraft/f-14.jpg (http://www2.osk.3web.ne.jp/%7Ekurochan/gif/aircraft/f-14.jpg)
I think he meant they, err, 'modified' it so that a single hard point could carry a special rail which could hold two Sidewinders. Apologies if I've got it wrong BigDon, it's just what I understood from your post :)

Gemini
2006-Sep-23, 03:09 PM
The F-16 zith full afterburner aimed directly at you crunches your belly. It doesn't feel like I should cover my ears for it, but that might just be me being dumb. I haven't heard the F-4, but the Tornado also can be really loud. All not too new of course. I remember some supersonic flight at low altitude, very close to the house when I was really young. That sound is ridiculous. It shook the windows as much as when a large caterpillar crane drove by just next to the house. I don't know exactly how come they flew supersonic on many occasions, as it was already forbidden by then IIRC.

Am I right that the JSF and F-22 can carry quite a bit less weapons than the F-14? I'm always impressed at the massive amount of armament an F-16 can carry. Indeed it does not have the "and I want to see the colour of your eyes" attitude of the A-10 ground attacker, but to me it seems like a very good plane for both ground runs and AtA.

I've never seen an F-14 flying on an airshow (same goes for F-104, F-4, F-15...unless I forgot something) and probably never will. However, I have seen the Spitfire and even Lancaster, so maybe in a few decades... ;)
I have seen an F-14 at an airshow before, it was an awesome sight.

BigDon
2006-Sep-23, 06:22 PM
That's what I meant Roy, thanks.

I've also seen them rigged for straight up dog fighting, with the phoenix rails removed, (They weigh half a ton a piece) four sparrows on the belly and the double 'winder mounts on all the wing stations. They look really mean like that.

One major annoyance, not obvious to folks who have never had the pleasure of working on a flightline at night during "high tempo" operations.

You always do this several times during any particular deployment. Its night. The planes are all turning, (Navy speak for the engines running, if the plane is on the flight deck and is actually turning like you'ld turn a car, its said to be spinning.) You are under floodlighting that casts hard shadows or worse, under those damn red lights that only give you the illusion of being able to see.

In the middle of any particular deployment the tie-down chains get rusty. Iron rust is what color? Red. Red lights render them nearly invisble, so say good bye to your shins. When you trip over one without actually falling you are said to be doing the "Tie-down Tango" and that isn't even the annoyance I'm leading up to.

Well when a plane leaves the flight deck it usually wants to come back eventually. Even at night and under signal security, (No radiating in the EM. the Bad Guys will find you) So you sync the ship's INS with the aircraft's INS via whats called a SINS cable. (Ship's Inertial Navigation System) After the mission the plane can then find its way back to where it took off from, and then find the ship. The ship doesn't have to be in the exact spot for the pilots to find it. The pilots just need the reference.

So, to repaint the picture. Its dark, you are dragging one end of a greasy, rubber coated, 80 foot long, half inch thick cable so you can hook it up in the nose wheel well. You have one eye firmly on the aircraft's intake so the Bad Thing doesn't happen to you, one eye on your destination and any intervening tie-down chains, and your ears attuned to any changes in the harmonics of the engines of the aircraft around you, which tells you they are pulling out of position to go to the catapults and are thus going to expose you to their exhaust. (That's so nasty it will get its own write up later). You are hustling with all speed. When suddenly and out of nowhere, DOINK!

Now you, dear readers, are wondering, what could this DOINK be?

The DOINK is the sound of your head coming in contact with a missile fin. Be it Sparrow or Sidewinder, the fins of both are powder coated black, made of super hard "space age materials", come to very sharp points and are firmly attached to a twenty ton aircraft.

Since you are moving slightly head down from pulling the cable, the tip of the fin always nails you right in the cloth area that seperates the front shell from the back shell of your flight deck helmet. Often you actually feel it go through your scalp and embed in the material of your skull. More than once I've had to put a hand on the missile in question to push my head off the tip of the fin.

Funny how they never mention that in those recruiting commercials that state "Rockets science is more fun when you have real rockets!"

BD

BigDon
2006-Sep-23, 06:26 PM
It came as a surprise for me. Now the third world will be flooded with them...

Link (http://www.ecanadanow.com/us/2006/09/21/us-navy-retires-the-f-14-tomcat/)


I just read the second sentence in you post Argos. I don't think so homey. Too expensive and difficult to maintain.

JMV
2006-Sep-23, 07:15 PM
Maybe I expressed myself a bit unclearly. What I mean is that even with the siderails on wing pylons, Tomcat has only eight missile hardpoints. Your loadout calls for ten. This page (http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-weaponstation.htm) shows ten stations, but notice that stations 2 and 7 are for external fuel tanks and not for weapons. I believe the extra rails you mentioned are the ones marked 1A and 8A attached to the sides of the wing pylons, the same siderails I mentioned.

Unless you're saying that Tomcat can carry six missiles on wing pylons or alternatively six underbelly, I don't see how the numbers add up. Is that what you're saying?

Doodler
2006-Sep-23, 10:26 PM
I just read the second sentence in you post Argos. I don't think so homey. Too expensive and difficult to maintain.

Heck, the amount of ordnance it can carry would give the Senate pause before approving their release.

Tog
2006-Sep-23, 10:57 PM
Heck, the amount of ordnance it can carry would give the Senate pause before approving their release.

Actually, there is one other counrty that had F-14s at one time. Iran. This was in the Early '80s and the odds are very good that they are no longer in working condition.

worzel
2006-Sep-23, 11:19 PM
Phew! I read the title and thought you meant the web server.

Moose
2006-Sep-23, 11:21 PM
They had some flying by cannibalizing the others, at least as of 1999ish apparently. Almost entirely for the radar. Nobody seemed to be talking about numbers when I was researching it though, except that it was probably "fewer than ten".

The funny thing is that I have a "made in china" Tom in desert camo. As far as I know, the US has never painted Toms in desert camo. The conclusion seems clear to me. Yes, that's right my friends, I apparently have a model Tom from Iran sitting on my monitor. :lol:

Chip
2006-Sep-24, 01:02 AM
Actually, there is one other counrty that had F-14s at one time. Iran. This was in the Early '80s and the odds are very good that they are no longer in working condition.
Iranian designers have developed two indigenous fighter aircraft. One is called "Azarakhsh" (Lightning) and is believed to been based on a prototype that was itself the result of reverse-engineered elements from a number of other aircraft.
Wikipedia has an article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azarakhsh

The other plane is called the "Shafaq" and shows the influence of possibly the F16 as well as MiG designs. Wikipedia has an article about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafaq

This is perhaps not unlike what the Czechs did with the German Me 109, creating the post-World War II S-199 or what the Romanians did with the Polish PZL P24, creating the IAR 80 (which looked very different from the PZL). Or it could be like the Kawasaki Ki 61 Hien, which was first thought was a Macchi or Messerschmitt design built in Japan under license, but turned out to be completely original. The Japanese designers had to solve similar aerodynamic and inline engine problems, resulting in an airframe that somewhat resembled the European designs. (To site just three examples from aviation history.)

BigDon
2006-Sep-24, 01:53 AM
You mean the siderails on the wing pylons? What I meant was the F-14 has only eight hardpoints, four underbelly for AIM-54 or AIM-7 and four on the wing pylons for two AIM-9 and two missiles of your choice.

Four Phoenix, four Sidewinders and two Sparrows make ten. Where do the two extra missiles go?

Here's a picture of a Tomcat with six AIM-54 and two siderails without missiles.
http://www2.osk.3web.ne.jp/~kurochan/gif/aircraft/f-14.jpg

Four phoenix under belly, a sparrow each on the inboard wing mounts, (Six now) and double winder rails on each of the outboard wing mounts. Thats ten correct?

I did make an error here though


Back in 1980 Tomcats were 45 million dollars apiece. Phoenix missles were 600,000 dollars a shot. The usual close to home patrol load out was two phoenix, four sparrows, four 'winders. Fleet defense exercises or getting close to Bear country was four phoenix, two sparrow and four 'winders.

That should read two.

JMV
2006-Sep-24, 02:09 AM
Four phoenix under belly, a sparrow each on the inboard wing mounts, (Six now) and double winder rails on each of the outboard wing mounts. Thats ten correct?
So they somehow managed to add another Sidewinder besides the one shown here (http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-aim079-02.htm)?

I don't see how there's room for a third missile on the wing pylon.

BigDon
2006-Sep-24, 02:22 AM
Yes! The modified rail stuck out and carried two winders, one straight below it and one outboard.

And on the same mount the sparrow is on in your picture you would use a side by side double mount that hung down a little futher. Wait, side by side is misleading. The double rail extended downward and you had a sidewinder on each side of it. Thats a little better discription.

BigDon
2006-Sep-24, 02:26 AM
And the way the sparrow is configured in that picture is the one you were most likely to run your head into. Just high enough to be out of your sight line and those damn black fins extending downward.

BigDon
2006-Sep-24, 02:29 AM
Wow, thanks for that link BTW. Getting all mooshy looking at those VF-211 aircraft.

JMV
2006-Sep-24, 02:53 AM
Yes! The modified rail stuck out and carried two winders, one straight below it and one outboard.

And on the same mount the sparrow is on in your picture you would use a side by side double mount that hung down a little futher. Wait, side by side is misleading. The double rail extended downward and you had a sidewinder on each side of it. Thats a little better discription.
OK.

Fitted with this modified rail the plane could basically carry six Sidewinders maximum? That's where I went wrong because all the books mention only four mounted like this (http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-aim09-01.htm).

Was this modification widely used by the Navy or limited to only a few squadrons? Probably limited, or it would be mentioned in the literature and there would be pictures of it more abundantly available.

BigDon
2006-Sep-24, 07:57 PM
I honestly can't tell you. I've only seen them on my birds and only when we were at sea.

MrClean
2006-Sep-24, 08:35 PM
Here's another link, midway down the page you can see the underbelly of a Tomcat with 6 Phoenix missles on it.

http://navysite.de/planes/f14.htm

I can't find a picture, but I thought the maximum load of Phoenix missles was seven, 5 in the middle and 2 on the outer pylons. That's a whole lotta shoot down configuration.

sarongsong
2006-Sep-25, 01:04 AM
September 22, 2006
...The Navy's last 22 F-14 aircraft...will go to museums such as the Virginia Aviation Museum in Richmond...“There's a certain mystique about it”... San Diego Union-Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20060922-1211-tomcatfarewell.html)The Top Gun movie's house (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.topgun-lefilm.com/lieux-tournage/charlie_house.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.topgun-lefilm.com/lieux-tournage/oceanside.htm&h=232&w=405&sz=38&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=oI9K7atDEapTqM:&tbnh=69&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtop%2Bgun%2Bhouse%2Boceanside%2B%26sv num%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dopera%26rls% 3Den%26sa%3DN) will live on, too:
January 26, 2006
Oceanside, CA - The Top Gun House will be a waiting room for a restaurant at the city's premier resort...
San Diego Union-Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060127/news_1m27omayor.html)

Gnomistic
2006-Sep-25, 02:28 AM
Well, folks... after cruising through this thread, I am still stuck on the idea that anyone would be suprized that the F-14 needed to be retired. The other day, at the Virginia ceremony retiring them, AC #102 taxied out of sight down to the end of a runway and the crowd waited...and waited... Shortly, an F-14 came streaking down the rw and lifted its nose and bolted skyward.... Tail number? 107. Reason? 102 had maintenance problems and had to be replaced at the last minute. Sic siemper oldbirdus.

And there is no disrespect in my statement. I grew up in the '50s with B-29s in my back yard, moved on to, ultimately, the F-16 OTD team and the first operational squadron and wrote the manuals that taught an entire generation of pilots to fly that pretty little bird. We saw the video from the gunsight camera when first blood was drawn over the mid east. The F-14 was a phenominal flying machine, in its time. And just as for the rest of us, time comes and goes.

captain swoop
2006-Sep-25, 08:49 AM
F-14?? Whooooosh! http://www.micom.net/oops/F14-flyby.jpg

Tog
2006-Sep-25, 09:16 AM
I kind of like this one (Loose1 (http://www.micom.net/oops/Loose1.jpg))

Nicolas
2006-Sep-25, 11:20 AM
How does one fire a missile while on the ground with wheels down?

And what triggers the explosion of a missile, does it explode dumb and simple due to the damage of hitting the aircraft it aimed at, is there a detonator involved and if so what triggers it?

jumbo
2006-Sep-25, 11:34 AM
And what triggers the explosion of a missile, does it explode dumb and simple due to the damage of hitting the aircraft it aimed at, is there a detonator involved and if so what triggers it?
Most have a proximity sensor and explode a warhead when within a certian range. The damage is done by the shrapnel of the warhead impacting the target.

The Tomcat was a fine interceptor and a great plane in general but sadly its time had come. It was an unparralleled fleet defender but its unlikely to have been ever used to its capabilities. The Phoenix could down bombers from a long long long distance (Fighters are a whole other kettle of fish. Phoenix probably wasnt suitable there) but many countries dont field the same large bombers they once did. In addition rules of engagement tend to prohibit long distance beyond visual range shots so the Tomcats ability to reach out and touch the enemy was not as valuable as it once was. (In the 1st gulf war several potential Tomcat kills were in the end made by USAF eagles due to the Eagles being closer to the target at the tmie and more able to ID the target).

A fine, even legendary, aircraft but its time had probably come.

Moose
2006-Sep-25, 11:57 AM
How does one fire a missile while on the ground with wheels down?

Dunno, but that's not what happened. The missile didn't launch in that it never fired. It snapped off the rail once the arrester cable kicked in and kept right on sliding until it fell off the ship. Sir Newton's first, and all that.

Tog
2006-Sep-25, 12:18 PM
How does one fire a missile while on the ground with wheels down?

And what triggers the explosion of a missile, does it explode dumb and simple due to the damage of hitting the aircraft it aimed at, is there a detonator involved and if so what triggers it?

It's sort of a coffee can full of explosive that it triggered by a shor range radar. If the missile detects something metal withing X Meters, it goes off. The warhead is actually in the middle, well behind the first set of fins. They also have a timer that will wait a certain amout of time after firing before arming the warhead.

Nicolas
2006-Sep-25, 12:37 PM
Dunno, but that's not what happened. The missile didn't launch in that it never fired. It snapped off the rail once the arrester cable kicked in and kept right on sliding until it fell off the ship. Sir Newton's first, and all that.

Ah ok, I thought that pic was taken prior to takeoff.

BigDon
2006-Sep-25, 08:35 PM
There is a weight-on-wheels sensor that prevents accidently firing the misslie while on the ground. There is an over-ride, but you can't do it from the cockpit. Its a piece of metal with a big red flag on it that fits in the nose wheel well. You need to do it to test the misslie systems and do other inspections of same.

Mr. Clean, nope you can't put seven phoenix on a Tomcat. Only six max, and they almost never put six on. Most of the pictures you see of six phoenix on board are all from the same flight. The wing mounts really restrict the flight characteristics. The only times you see the wing mounts in use is either at base or within the 110 mile limit off the coast. Beyond that they like to be a fighter, not a missile bus.

The missile had multiple, autonomous switching between targeting modes. Including multiple active, semi-active and IR modes. If it was being jammed, it could not only tell it was being jammed, but would automatically switch to a mode where it wasn't being jammed.

And it could swat down fighters easily. If a live phoenix got within ten miles of your bird you were considered dead. There was a 98% certain kill radius of a hundred yards. But...

On one missile shoot against drone F-4's that were jinking, jamming and dropping chaff, on our first shot with phoenix that were using inert warheads (To get multiple shots on the same drone. Drone F-4's were expensive) the missle knocked the turkey feathers off the Phantom. No missile missed by more than thirty feet. On the last shot of the day we fired a live warhead at it and tore the Phantom in half just aft of the intakes. We fired that one from 15 miles off. (For safety reasons they didn't like hucking live missiles their full range. "Stuff happens" and it might find a non-target more appealing)

The AWG-9 radars could pick up and lock on to a target as small as an F-5 tigershark at 110 miles as soon as they got weight off wheels. (We did it in response to a challenge) It wasn't the weather service that invented pulse doppler radar.

Nicolas
2006-Sep-25, 09:30 PM
"end of the line for the tomcat" has a whole different meaning in minor feline surgery...

Moose
2006-Sep-26, 12:47 AM
Mr. Clean, nope you can't put seven phoenix on a Tomcat. Only six max, and they almost never put six on.

'Cause apparently you can only bring back four.

BigDon
2006-Sep-26, 03:53 AM
Also I want to add that I couldn't get the edit function to work. I want to correct that certain kill radius to 50 yards. Diameter/radius I always confuse those when I'm typing fast.

Graybeard6
2006-Sep-27, 06:43 AM
Graybeard, Jr. ( former RIO, now a Nav/Bomb instructor at NAS Pensacola) tells me I didn't miss anything by not being able to make the final flyover. He also said the Tomcat fans were a little disappointed at their treatment. I do look forward to getting a "Tomcat, Last Time Baby" patch for my flight jacket. He did enjoy getting together with old squadron mates and students.
I'll miss the old bird, but we have two in the Valiant Air Command museum, so I can always go and look at them.

Graybeard6
2006-Sep-27, 06:47 AM
I forgot this: http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/

BigDon
2006-Sep-27, 06:52 AM
One thing not obvious in the Tomcats design is that they are very comfortable to sleep on top of. At sea during the night when the airboss can't see you of course. I've gone up on top of one to work a radio gripe or CSDC malfunction and find up to 10 or 12 people sleeping on top of one. Did it myself more than once. A lot more comfortable than the flightdeck and not as greasy. You'ld rest your head on the turtle back and your feet would be elevated by the wing joint.

Doodler
2006-Sep-27, 02:21 PM
I'll miss the old bird, but we have two in the Valiant Air Command museum, so I can always go and look at them.

The Air and Space Museum building in Chantilly just added one to their collection about two weeks ago, I got a chance to see it two days after it was slipped in, its not even on the guide yet.

WHarris
2006-Sep-27, 03:18 PM
The Air and Space Museum building in Chantilly just added one to their collection about two weeks ago, I got a chance to see it two days after it was slipped in, its not even on the guide yet.

Cool! I'll have to go out there again in the near future.

Doodler
2006-Sep-27, 03:27 PM
It over by the Joint Strike Fighter prototype.

MrClean
2006-Sep-27, 03:36 PM
Mr. Clean, nope you can't put seven phoenix on a Tomcat. Only six max,

Yup, found the picture in a stack of mags, it was six in the pix.

Gnomistic
2006-Sep-30, 02:34 AM
I need a sanity check on this. I was told by someone who "should know" (Hrumph) that the Tomcat was/is the only American aircraft to shoot itself down. The story went that, over Edwards, a live fire test missle was launched and then took a flight path that placed the Tomcat in range of its sensors. Missile locks on and Tomcat turns into ball of smoke and flame.

I had a lot of trouble buying this scenario. Anyone got more info?

Moose
2006-Sep-30, 10:32 AM
I need a sanity check on this. I was told by someone who "should know" (Hrumph) that the Tomcat was/is the only American aircraft to shoot itself down. The story went that, over Edwards, a live fire test missle was launched and then took a flight path that placed the Tomcat in range of its sensors. Missile locks on and Tomcat turns into ball of smoke and flame.

I had a lot of trouble buying this scenario. Anyone got more info?

Sounds like an urban legend.

Like the legend about some vietnam-era test plane being the "only American aircraft to shoot itself down". Apparently the plane was testing supersonic strafing. It's supposed to have started its dive at Mach 1.x then fired its cannon at ground targets. The bullets slowed down towards their terminal velocity while the plane kept accelerating. Boom. Shootdown.

Meh.

As for the Tom, first off, the missile is in front of the Tom at all times. Second, why fire a warshot as an exercise? Drones are expensive, and the practice weapons (sans warhead) use the same guidance systems. Third, three words: range safety packages.

Tog
2006-Sep-30, 12:01 PM
I need a sanity check on this. I was told by someone who "should know" (Hrumph) that the Tomcat was/is the only American aircraft to shoot itself down. The story went that, over Edwards, a live fire test missle was launched and then took a flight path that placed the Tomcat in range of its sensors. Missile locks on and Tomcat turns into ball of smoke and flame.

I had a lot of trouble buying this scenario. Anyone got more info?

Same story about the YF-12. Originally the SR-71 was to a be a high speed interceptor. GUns were mountes on it, but the plane was capable of outrunning the bullets shortly after firing.

I'd heard the same things happened in WW2. Planes would dive in to strafe a ground target, then the bullets would ricochet u and take out the plane as it climed away. I've also heard that WW1 planes had issues with the nose mountes machine guns. Seems the rate of fire didn't always match the RPM of the propeller. Certainly shooting off one's own propeller counts as a shoot down? Both are unconfirmed as far as know.

As for the F14, it would have to be an interseting flight path. Missiles generally move about Mach 4. A book I have that it sort of a "poor man's Jane's" lists the Pheonix at Mach 5 plus for over 124 miles.

sts60
2006-Sep-30, 12:47 PM
Sounds like an urban legend.

Like the legend about some vietnam-era test plane being the "only American aircraft to shoot itself down". Apparently the plane was testing supersonic strafing. It's supposed to have started its dive at Mach 1.x then fired its cannon at ground targets. The bullets slowed down towards their terminal velocity while the plane kept accelerating. Boom. Shootdown.

Maybe the real deal; see the story about a test flight of the Grumman F-11F1 Tiger (http://aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html).

Larry Jacks
2006-Sep-30, 12:56 PM
Same story about the YF-12. Originally the SR-71 was to a be a high speed interceptor. GUns were mountes on it, but the plane was capable of outrunning the bullets shortly after firing.

There were 4 main versions of the Blackbird. The A-12 (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/a-12/) "Oxcart" was the first. It was a single seat photographic reconnassance plane designed for the overflight mission for the CIA. It saw limited service and was retired in 1968.

The second version was the YF-12A (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/yf-12/) interceptor. It was a two seater that carried the GAR-9/AIM-47 Falcon (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-47.html) missile (an ancestor to the Phoenix). It never carried any form of gun. Putting a gun on a Mach 3.2 airframe would be pointless because a) it couldn't pull the Gs necessary for maneuvering combat and b) the range of the guns was too short when the closing speed is so fast.

The third version was the M-21 (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/m-21.php) that carried the D-21 (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/d-21.php) drone. Only two M-21s were built and the sole surviving example is in Seattle.

The SR-71 (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/) was the 4th version, a two-seater designed primarily for side scanning reconnassance. It didn't have to directly overfly the target to gather intellegence (radar, ELINT, or oblique imagery). One of my coworkers flew as an SR-71 RSO for 5 years. He said they seldom overflew anyone unless they were specifically trying to send a message (e.g. Cuba). From crusing altitude, they could easily look over 70 miles into a target area.

There was a two-seat trainer version of the A-12 and a couple trainer versions of the SR-71 used for pilot training. No Blackbird ever carried a gun according to all of the sources that I've seen.

JMV
2006-Sep-30, 05:00 PM
I need a sanity check on this. I was told by someone who "should know" (Hrumph) that the Tomcat was/is the only American aircraft to shoot itself down. The story went that, over Edwards, a live fire test missle was launched and then took a flight path that placed the Tomcat in range of its sensors. Missile locks on and Tomcat turns into ball of smoke and flame.

I had a lot of trouble buying this scenario. Anyone got more info?
Tomcat prototype #5 was lost in a missile stores separation test in the 70's. The Sparrow missile pitched up right after release and damaged the fighter. This led to some changes in the missile release mechanism. The missile didn't lock on though and I don't think the warhead went off (if there even was one).

There is a video circulating in the Internet of a similar incident involving a F-111. The plane released a drop tank which soon after pitched up and hit the plane near the engine nozzles.

Gnomistic
2006-Oct-01, 02:33 PM
Thanks, guys. I love the rumor control function here.

One related story: An SR-71 returning from an operation over the Pacific and controlled by "Palmdale" requests clearance to FL70 (70K feet). The young and new aircraft controller, not recognizing the bird's call sign says, "Sir, if you can get to 70 thousand, you are cleared." Pilot replies, "Thank you, Palmdale, decending to 70 thousand."

Bogus, but a cute story. Somtimes urban legends should be seen as 'folk art'.

Graybeard6
2006-Oct-02, 05:52 AM
I need a sanity check on this. I was told by someone who "should know" (Hrumph) that the Tomcat was/is the only American aircraft to shoot itself down. The story went that, over Edwards, a live fire test missle was launched and then took a flight path that placed the Tomcat in range of its sensors. Missile locks on and Tomcat turns into ball of smoke and flame.

I had a lot of trouble buying this scenario. Anyone got more info?

I talked to GB Jr. (an ex-Tomcat RIO) last night and he said it never happened. He didn't have time to talk, but promised to e-mail the full story.

Nicolas
2006-Oct-02, 07:29 AM
The stories about WW1 planes shooting off their own propellor are true. The synchronisation mechanism was not always around. In the beginning, they placed metal plates on the propellor tobend off any bullets that would hit a blade. And when they invented the sync mechanism, it sometimes failed, resulting in a very very small propellor.

I don't know about WWII and catching up with your own bullets.

captain swoop
2006-Oct-02, 11:09 AM
It was teh Germans that developed the first interrupt mechanism that blocked the firing mechanism when the prop was in fron t of the gun, Prior to that the guns were mounted high on the top wing above the prop or a 'defelctor' was fitted to the back of the prop.

jumbo
2006-Oct-02, 12:31 PM
Not quite. The Swiss and French both had interupter gear or patents too such gear by early to mid 1914. Anthony Fokker (A Dutchman) developed a working version for the German air service in late 1914 reaching the fornt by 1915. The RFC got their version nearly a year later.

The Grumman F-11F1 Tiger is the only case ive heard of of a plane shooting itself down that didnt involved shooting its own propellor off.

JMV
2006-Oct-02, 12:41 PM
The incident I was talking about happened to prototype #6, not #5.
From here (http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-01.htm#25):

6th prototype: Missile separation & weapons separation tests
crashed 20.06.1973. The aircraft was lost near Point Mugu when an AIM-7 pitched up on launch and ruptured a fuel tank, causing a fire which necessitated crew ejection.
Apparently this is the origin of those rumours about a Tomcat shooting itself down with a missile.

Nicolas
2006-Oct-02, 07:41 PM
On a sidenote, how come Fokker worked for Germany during WW1? He left for Germany already before WW1, was that becasue at that time the economical climate was better in Germany than in the Netherlands?

Swift
2006-Oct-02, 08:18 PM
The Tomcat was a fine interceptor and a great plane in general but sadly its time had come. It was an unparralleled fleet defender but its unlikely to have been ever used to its capabilities. The Phoenix could down bombers from a long long long distance (Fighters are a whole other kettle of fish. Phoenix probably wasnt suitable there) but many countries dont field the same large bombers they once did.
I still play the computer game Harpoon, and the Tomcat/Phoenix combo is the weapon of choice when the USSR sends those big squadrons of bombers against my fleet. It just never happened in the real world.

Does anyone know, is the Phoenix missile going to be used on any other plane, or will it be retired too?

Larry Jacks
2006-Oct-02, 08:32 PM
According to this article (http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15422), the Phoenix was retired two years ago. It's a big missile and there aren't too many planes set up to carry it. While the AAMRAM doesn't have the really long range of the Phoenix, it's in use on a variety of fighters.

BigDon
2006-Oct-02, 08:54 PM
IIRC there was two aircraft set up incase of an all out Soviet blitz into Europe that was designed to escort fleets of supply aircraft heading to Britain. Built on a 747 airframe they could put 23 Phoenix under each wing. But that was just something I read in '82.

Now I did see one of the large "passenger" type planes (DC-9 I believe, could have been the 737) rigged with Harpoons. And that was impressive and more than slightly wierd.

mugaliens
2006-Oct-02, 09:19 PM
The incident I was talking about happened to prototype #6, not #5.
From here (http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-01.htm#25):

Apparently this is the origin of those rumours about a Tomcat shooting itself down with a missile.

Bingo. My father is a former Naval Aviation Maintenance officer, and when I relayed the initial story to him, he recalled the sketchy details which you've detailed here.

mugaliens
2006-Oct-02, 09:22 PM
IIRC there was two aircraft set up incase of an all out Soviet blitz into Europe that was designed to escort fleets of supply aircraft heading to Britain. Built on a 747 airframe they could put 23 Phoenix under each wing. But that was just something I read in '82.

Now I did see one of the large "passenger" type planes (DC-9 I believe, could have been the 737) rigged with Harpoons. And that was impressive and more than slightly wierd.

If they were to have put them on an internal rotary launcher, instead, they'd have been able to carry more than a hundred of them.

Scary.

mugaliens
2006-Oct-02, 09:27 PM
Same story about the YF-12. Originally the SR-71 was to a be a high speed interceptor. GUns were mountes on it, but the plane was capable of outrunning the bullets shortly after firing.

There were 4 main versions of the Blackbird. The A-12 (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/a-12/) "Oxcart" was the first. It was a single seat photographic reconnassance plane designed for the overflight mission for the CIA. It saw limited service and was retired in 1968.

The second version was the YF-12A (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/yf-12/) interceptor. It was a two seater that carried the GAR-9/AIM-47 Falcon (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-47.html) missile (an ancestor to the Phoenix). It never carried any form of gun. Putting a gun on a Mach 3.2 airframe would be pointless because a) it couldn't pull the Gs necessary for maneuvering combat and b) the range of the guns was too short when the closing speed is so fast.

The third version was the M-21 (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/m-21.php) that carried the D-21 (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/d-21.php) drone. Only two M-21s were built and the sole surviving example is in Seattle.

The SR-71 (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/) was the 4th version, a two-seater designed primarily for side scanning reconnassance. It didn't have to directly overfly the target to gather intellegence (radar, ELINT, or oblique imagery). One of my coworkers flew as an SR-71 RSO for 5 years. He said they seldom overflew anyone unless they were specifically trying to send a message (e.g. Cuba). From crusing altitude, they could easily look over 70 miles into a target area.

There was a two-seat trainer version of the A-12 and a couple trainer versions of the SR-71 used for pilot training. No Blackbird ever carried a gun according to all of the sources that I've seen.

Excellent work, Larry Jacks, if I remember, I'll shortly include a pic of the A-12 Drone in the McMinnville, Oregon home of the Spruce Goose Museum, where sits an SR-72 and it's A-12 drone, among many other fine aircraft.

BigDon
2006-Oct-02, 10:03 PM
If they were to have put them on an internal rotary launcher, instead, they'd have been able to carry more than a hundred of them.

Scary.

I don't know if that would work Mugs, the phoenix needs to "see" its target prior to launch. Then God help it.

And yes, once again, they were very good at swatting fighters out of the sky. As a matter of fact a fighter is an easier target simply because it has less room for massive amounts of jamming equipment that the larger airframes.
Also being attacked from above at "Mach 5+" doesn't give the pilot much reaction time. (Phoenix always climb high above the target when feasible)

mugaliens
2006-Oct-03, 08:52 AM
No worries, as upon command of the pilot, one could be automatically moved from the internal storage racks to an external "launching point" before firing.

I suspect you could have several of these external points on a 747, all of which could be sucked back up into the belly like the landing gear to provide for efficient cruise to/from the launch area.

Nicolas
2006-Oct-03, 10:59 AM
Is the guiding of these missiles self-contained or does it require the aircraft? If the latter is the case, it'd better be capable of steering multiple missiles at the same time :).

Tog
2006-Oct-03, 11:15 AM
Is the guiding of these missiles self-contained or does it require the aircraft? If the latter is the case, it'd better be capable of steering multiple missiles at the same time :).

They are active radar guided. This is another way of saing they are "fire and forget". This means that yes, they have a way to find and track the target on their own. But, they also need a plane mounted radar to point them in the right direction. It's sort of like a bloodhound. The plane holds up an old shoe so the missile can get the scent, then it's cut loose to hunt.

AIM-7 missiles (Sparrows) are semi-active. They track the target based on the radar from the plane. This is more like a dog that can only see what is in a flashligt beam. If the target is out of the beam for too long, the mssels can't find it.

JMV
2006-Oct-03, 02:30 PM
They are active radar guided. This is another way of saing they are "fire and forget". This means that yes, they have a way to find and track the target on their own. But, they also need a plane mounted radar to point them in the right direction. It's sort of like a bloodhound. The plane holds up an old shoe so the missile can get the scent, then it's cut loose to hunt.

Phoenix uses active radar guidance only for the last 18 kilometers of its flight. Because the missile has a range of 150 kilometers, mid-course guidance is semi-active. But because F-14 can guide six AIM-54s simultaneusly, each missile receives target position updates only in intervals when the aircraft's radar illuminates each target periodically.

Tog
2006-Oct-03, 03:36 PM
Phoenix uses active radar guidance only for the last 18 kilometers of its flight. Because the missile has a range of 150 kilometers, mid-course guidance is semi-active. But because F-14 can guide six AIM-54s simultaneusly, each missile receives target position updates only in intervals when the aircraft's radar illuminates each target periodically.

Ahh okay, I thought it was active from launch.

Moose
2006-Oct-03, 04:01 PM
Ahh okay, I thought it was active from launch.

What's neat about this is that the target isn't receiving ESM from the Phoenix until those last 18kms, and by then, it's coasting at Mach 5, so there's no contrail for the pilot to use to try and evade the missile. With emphasis on "try".

Larry Jacks
2006-Oct-03, 05:58 PM
I'll shortly include a pic of the A-12 Drone in the McMinnville, Oregon home of the Spruce Goose Museum, where sits an SR-72 and it's A-12 drone

Actually, the drone was designated the D-21. I was in McMinnville last June for the birth of a new grandson and to babysit my granddaughter. I took a little time to visit the wonderful museum there (my second time there) and saw the D-21. It was my first time to see a D-21 up close. Very impressive!

Anyone interested in airplanes would appreciate a visit to the museum (named the Evergreen Aviation Museum (http://www.sprucegoose.org/)) in McMinnville. It has an impressive collection, many of them still airworthy. I highly recommend it. I wanted to steal this one! (http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_artifacts/Aircraft/EarlyFlight/A-22.htm)

FireEyes
2006-Oct-04, 02:47 AM
Well Boo.

The F-14, F-15, F-4 and A-10 were the planes I loved the most as a kid.

I understand that the F/A-18 is more versital and all, but the F-14 was the last real interceptor in my eyes.

From a nostalgic standpoint...when I was younger I loved going to the base at dawn and see the blue fire glow of the afterburners when the Tomcat took off, and you could see the double fins in the early morning sky. In the past I had the privelege to "fly" the F-14, and F-15 sim. Most recently a dashing former F-14 pilot...now a F/A-18 pilot and has promised me my turn at the "sim" of the Hornet (and a glass of wine afterwards). Though I am a neophyte...perhaps I will be able to make some type of appropriate comparison...if not at least I will enjoy the thrill....Now if only it could be the real thing, and we landed on the deck of a carrier. One can only dream.

Still I will miss the Tomcat soaring in the skies near my home.

mugaliens
2006-Oct-04, 11:54 PM
I'll miss that too, for you. It's definately the end of a very romatic era, one highlighted by Top Gun, one of my favorited movies of all times. The Tomcast may no longer be soaring in the skies, but hearts are breaking wide open nevertheless. I understand, and as a flyer, feel your pain.

Nicolas
2006-Oct-05, 06:59 AM
The Tomcast

That would be Mr Cruise in Top Gun? ;)

publiusr
2006-Oct-06, 07:57 PM
Ugh...

mugaliens
2006-Oct-09, 05:12 PM
That would be Mr Cruise in Top Gun? ;)

You're good - don't miss a thing, do you? :lol:

Nicolas
2006-Oct-09, 05:16 PM
The sad thing is that I never see my own typo's; my eye only falls on those made by others. NOT practical :)

I can even often see at first glance when in these sentences where they mixed up all letters in the words except for the first or last one, a mixed up word doesn't contain the right letters. Weird ;)

Bot Y'd brevur iv I coud juzd rite widout miztakus actualy.

F14Dude
2007-Jun-04, 09:52 PM
Is this forum still alive?

Nicolas
2007-Jun-04, 09:57 PM
You mean this thread? The last post before yours was in october 2006 so no, it wasn't really alive anymore. :)
This forum is very, very alive though.
And this board is extremely alive.

Enjoy! :)

Pinemarten
2007-Jun-04, 11:40 PM
Never noticed this thread before.
Saw one perform at an air show once. I thought it was the best plane there, much more impressive than the Harrier.

Nicolas
2007-Jun-05, 08:40 AM
I've never seen the Tomcat on an airshow (not even stationary IIRC), though I once saw 2 F-14 or F-15 fly in the distance. I think F-15. I've certainly seen F-15 stationary on an airshow once, but no F-14 in my memory. I don't know whether I'll ever see an F-14 performing at an air show, though it's possible since I've seen the Lancaster like 3 years ago :). I'd like to see the starfighter flying once too.

After a number of airshows, I can't remember what I've seen flying and what not. I've seen the Gripen stationary for sure, and I think I've seen it flying, but I can't remember... Maybe I've seen an F-4 take off, but can't remember. I don't think I've seen F-15s flying on shows, but I'm not sure. I should've kept notes :). I'm sure about F16,F18, MiG29, Mirage2000,Tornado,Jaguar, Apha Jet, Fouga Magister, Harrier and B1B though :).

I don't understand how you could compare a harrier with a tomcat, as they're totally different craft. The harrier is a VSTOL craft, the tomcat a high speed fighter. Apples and oranges imo.

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Jun-05, 12:39 PM
Back on the first page of this thread, BigDon mentioned having to avoid getting sucked into a jet intake when working on a carrier deck, which reminded me of something I saw recently.

A few nights ago I saw a doccy on either Nat.Geo or Discovery, which included a shot of a "deckhand"* getting sucked bodily into an intake. It was a most shocking video - His entire body dissapeared into the intake in .5 seconds, like a piece of paper getting Hoovered, not like an 80-kilo human being.

I think the plane was a Prowler.

The program said that he escaped with relatively minor injuries. Now that has to be the digested remains of a male bovine's dinner! Wouldn't the high-speed blades in the compressor smash his helmet and puree his body? Were they just claiming he was unhurt so as to spare the viewer's feelings?

*What would be a proper general term for a crewman who works on the deck of a carrier? I'm sure "deckhand" would be considered an insult, I just can't think of a better term right now.

jumbo
2007-Jun-05, 01:05 PM
The program said that he escaped with relatively minor injuries. Now that has to be the digested remains of a male bovine's dinner! Wouldn't the high-speed blades in the compressor smash his helmet and puree his body? Were they just claiming he was unhurt so as to spare the viewer's feelings?
He is Petty Officer J.D. Bridges and is very much alive (but i believe now retired) after being pulled into the A6 intruders engine area.
He was relatively unharmed as his exit from the engine area wasnt through the blades. He was sucked in but his helmet came off as did some of his clothes (and ear protectors) and those were sucked thorugh the engine wrecking the thing. Thats what you see coming out of the back part way through the clips often shown. Part of his gear got caught up inside the intake saving him. He was deposited out rather later. I think he came out of the intake not the exhaust.

Nicolas
2007-Jun-05, 01:33 PM
He certainly came out via the intake, there is no way a man can get through in one piece via the exit even if you remove some compressor stages. The combustion area of such an engine lacking a serious cold flow gate simply isn't "passable" for a human body. Then there's still the turbine section. And with some luck even a smaller afterburner ignition ring in the exhaust.

Somehow his helmet and sucked off gear stopped the engine quite instantly, removing the source of the airflow pulling him in and stopping/breaking off the compressor blades. He had a few minor cuts of flying debris, but that's it.

I know that you can stop even the largest jet engine if you hold it still before it starts turning, but I didn't know that a helmet was strong enough to stop the inertia of the turning compressor-turbine blades instantly.

Anyway, he's really lucky and yes, he survived.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4
Video showing the accident and PO Bridges alive an quite well afterwards. (ignore the comments section, it's GLP all over again. Some guys are ok, some are OK but mix up turbine and copressor, and some are well, GLP ready.)

Many parts you see flying out of the back must be parts of the engine itself, unless that guy had a lot of gear on him :). According to one of the comments (I'm sorry) His gear and especially helmet got sucked off, destroying the engine ahead of him. The guy himself got stuck onto the engine bullet with his float coat, which avoided him going all the way to the engine. Combine those two things, and you have one exploded engine and alive guy.

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Jun-05, 01:54 PM
Oh, that is good to hear!

But what does "GLP" mean?

So I take it this video is actually quite old, as AFAIK, the Intruders were retired a long time ago. I thought that it was recent, as the rest of the documentary was, but I guess they were just illustrating a point using an old video.

Nicolas
2007-Jun-05, 01:58 PM
GLP is a bulletin board that has much of the style of youtube comments: some normal people, but most aren't hindered by any lack of knowledge, reality, social rules etc in discussion.

The video is somewhere from the late 80's as far as I understood.

jumbo
2007-Jun-05, 02:23 PM
Ive heard the video was taken aboard USS Roosevelt in 1992 or 93. Im not sure which but i reckon 93 as it was on its 3rd deployement then.

Argos
2007-Jun-05, 02:35 PM
A few nights ago I saw a doccy on either Nat.Geo or Discovery, which included a shot of a "deckhand"* getting sucked bodily into an intake. It was a most shocking video - His entire body dissapeared into the intake in .5 seconds, like a piece of paper getting Hoovered, not like an 80-kilo human being.

Ive seen that footage too. Quite impressive...

F14Dude
2007-Jun-05, 05:24 PM
definetly it was a A-6 or EA-6B

F14Dude
2007-Jun-05, 05:25 PM
Was this the Thread were Big Don talked about the Tomcat could have carried 4 AIM-54, 2 AIM-7, and 4 AIM-9?

Argos
2007-Jun-05, 06:07 PM
Well, no (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=831200&postcount=21). :)

jumbo
2007-Jun-05, 07:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJf1okwb-5Y&mode=related&search=

Hopefully a link to the video with more details. Apparently it was February 1991 when it happened

Pinemarten
2007-Jun-05, 07:19 PM
I don't understand how you could compare a harrier with a tomcat, as they're totally different craft. The harrier is a VSTOL craft, the tomcat a high speed fighter. Apples and oranges imo.

Sorry, I was referring to the show they put on. The Tomcat went from 'the deck' straight up to max altitude at max power. Loud, fast, and impressive. I was told the pilot usually blacks out during this manoeuvre.

The Harrier just danced around in slow circles and blew debris everywhere.;)

F14Dude
2007-Jun-07, 12:31 PM
Big Don, what squadron did u serve in?

Tog
2007-Jun-07, 12:36 PM
Big Don, what squadron did u serve in?
From here (http://www.bautforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=830870):

I was in VF-211's avionics and fire control shop for just over three years.

F14Dude
2007-Jun-07, 03:08 PM
Thanks. I'm telling gunny-senoj on the history channel best jet fighterrs by generation forum about the special missile rail

F14Dude
2007-Jun-11, 02:54 PM
Anyone still here?

Nicolas
2007-Jun-11, 03:21 PM
See other thread. Simply kicking doesn't kick life in a discussion; if you'd like to continue to discuss the subject, you (or anyone) will have to come with content to discuss. Threads only live on their discussable content.

F14Dude
2007-Jun-11, 05:11 PM
Let's talk about B-1R vs. F/B-22.

Nicolas
2007-Jun-11, 05:44 PM
Both craft were proposals for the now withdrawn interim bomber proposal. Are they also suitable for the long term bomber proposal?
And how about the YF-23, the third player in that field?

The FB-22 seems to be completely cancelled in favor of a long range bomber, I assume that has to do with the shift from interim bomber to long term bomber replacement.