Production F-35 too heavy to take off vertically

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Heh not really. Oh yea like I know imode, i made that comment since someone in this thread suggested that the JSF replace the F-22.

[Coota0]

Aah, the JSF. I really, really, hope they pull a Houdini on this project. My beloved Marine Corps is really staking quite a bit onto this aircraft. If the Royal Navy is aggrivated about the weight issue, you can be assured the USMC can be too, though I haven't heard it yet.

Actually, for a different subject, the USMC really needs to replace the CH-46. The CH-53 I think can soldier on for a couple more years than the '46. Our two helos are really feeling the age. The Super Cobra should get a nice boost with the AH-1Z.

The Corps is keeping the Bullfrog for a while longer, the last time I talked to the recruiter about OCS, he said the last CH-46 pilot probably wasn't even born yet. The Corps is keeping the hiey too.

Assuming the V-22 works out well, both choppers will be kept well behind the lines.

The F-35, could be some bad mojo, not enough firepower, if you have to unload most of it's stores for STOl, and the rear visibility sucks.

[Sundown]

I love the Tomcat to death, yes... but I've heard on good authority that one of the huge benefits of switching over to Super Hornets is the ungainly amounts of maintenance time involved in servicing F-14's compared to the other options. The time difference is something on the order of several magnitudes over, and this is actually one of the biggest reasons for dropping the Cats-- for something that can do the job, if not as effectively in areas, but would be much easier to maintain.

The guy I'd heard it from was CJ Martin, the designer involved in the Janes' sims series, who was a Naval tweak and had also been involved in the Hornet test programs.

-Al

[Nied]

Having seen a Super Hornet in action I gotta say that is not the hopeless aircraft some here make it out to be. Would a ST-21 be more effective in some areas? Arguably. Would it have been cheaper? Absolutely. But that is besides the point, as I said the Tomcat is dead and it can't be resurected.

The plane I saw had absolutely increadible high AoA performance, It pulled something close to a Cobra imedietly after takeoff, and were it's AoA limiter shut off (like they do for Su-27 shows) it probably could have pulled the whole maneuver off. It also showed some pretty impressive acceleration. Really the only problem it seemed to have was that it seemed to be a little low on power (good acceleration non-withstanding, it also seemed to avoid going vertical), so really what it could use is a good engine. Does anyone know the releitve dimentions of the F-414 and the F-119, if they're similar that would be ideal (commonality and all).

[Nied]

I love the Tomcat to death, yes... but I've heard on good authority that one of the huge benefits of switching over to Super Hornets is the ungainly amounts of maintenance time involved in servicing F-14's compared to the other options. The time difference is something on the order of several magnitudes over, and this is actually one of the biggest reasons for dropping the Cats-- for something that can do the job, if not as effectively in areas, but would be much easier to maintain.

The guy I'd heard it from was CJ Martin, the designer involved in the Janes' sims series, who was a Naval tweak and had also been involved in the Hornet test programs.

-Al

Indeed. That was also a factor in choosing the F-22 over the -23. People need to remember that a high performance airplane isn't all that useful when it's in a hangar for an overhaul.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Indeed. That was also a factor in choosing the F-22 over the -23. People need to remember that a high performance airplane isn't all that useful when it's in a hangar for an overhaul.

But..But.. the 23 is so pretty! It'll look good and be worth the money even when its sitting in the hanger!

[David Hingtgen]

Yes, the Super Hornet has high-alpha performance to rival anything. But that's not what the F-14's role was, it was long-range high-speed interception and air superiority. If you want a nimble agile dogfighter, that's what the F-18C was for.

Can't argue about maintenance time/effort, F-14's take an ungodly amount, anything's better.

Can't find diameter of the F119, but the length is about 5 feet longer than the F414.

I did find this VERY interesting comment while looking for F119 dimensions:

* The F119 was also used to power the winning entry in the multiservice "Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)" effort, the Lockheed Martin F-35. The production F-35 will actually use a cost-reduced version of the F119, designated the "F135", which will have the same capabilities, but some cheaper components at the expense of greater weight. For example, the hollow titanium first-stage fan blades will be replaced by solid blades. *

Well THAT idea sure backfired! So much for the "cheap" JSF. Light weight has always cost money, whether it's a plane or car parts or cell-phone batteries...

[Mislovrit]

I thought the F-14s were hanger queens because of the lack of spares and the age of the airframe? Anyone have information on the F-14a maintence(sp) back when they were brand new?

Mislovrit, the A-12 referenced here is the Avenger II flying dorito carrier-based stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted to build.

Crap got the desginations mixed up. Edited May 28, 2004 by Mislovrit

[Nied]

Yes, the Super Hornet has high-alpha performance to rival anything. But that's not what the F-14's role was, it was long-range high-speed interception and air superiority. If you want a nimble agile dogfighter, that's what the F-18C was for.

Actually now it's primarily a bombtruck, with a secondary role of fleet defense. And if we're talking about stuff like CAS, it apears that the Rhino could do just as good a job as the Bombcat. It was able to gain and lose speed at the drop of a hat, and the tight turn rate would mean turning around ofr another attack faster. Only problem was that it looked a little underpowered, sure it accelerated like a bat out of hell, but that was clean, and it didn't have much room to go vertical. What the Rhino needs now is a something better than a warmed over F404 (though it does have the afterburner from the GE120).

Can't find diameter of the F119, but the length is about 5 feet longer than the F414.

Well I guess that would preclude jamming it into a Super Hornet. I guess they'll have to find another way to get some more power out of that thing.

I did find this VERY interesting comment while looking for F119 dimensions:

* The F119 was also used to power the winning entry in the multiservice "Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)" effort, the Lockheed Martin F-35. The production F-35 will actually use a cost-reduced version of the F119, designated the "F135", which will have the same capabilities, but some cheaper components at the expense of greater weight. For example, the hollow titanium first-stage fan blades will be replaced by solid blades. *

And David ties it back to the original topic, nice !

Well I guess that makes the solution somewhat easier than we all thought, just use the F-119 first stage blades on the F-35B, and use F135s on the rest of the planes.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yea the F-14 was a maintenance hog but thats not the point, ST21 would have cut back on that since it was more digitized and stuff. St21 is 2 the tomcat what the super bug is to legacy....or should i say SHOULD be as the ST231 wouldnt ahve given the tomcat any draw backs...super bug however...

maintenance aside id wantt eh better airplane not the air plane that could be maintained faster. ST21 would have used technology from this era not the 70s, a lot of people tend to forget that ST21 would make the F-14 almost all brand new aside from frame.

F-14s always were hard to maintain since its so big. And lackof spares is because of cheney. I am not sure if i am correct in saying thias, but I believe ST21 would have been able to outperform some other teen fighters. With thrust vectoring and changes to the front portion of the airframe concerning the wings and gloves it be more manueverable, and plus the engines would enable supercruise so with that I also say quick manuevering energy as well. Possibly be able to outmanuever the superbug. Bear in mind the engines were going to be GE engines from the ATF program I believe with vectoring nozzles. I know cheney axed the tomcat but who is to say we wont see a tomcat st21 upgrade on a northrop grumman private venture tested by VX9? Sure it would require some remolding of tools and would cost a bit but hell

well yea you all know im biased for the tomcat. awesome ass plane.Too bad not many of us have seen ASF-14 and the other proposal...(quickstrike?)

[Lynx7725]

I love the Tomcat to death, yes... but I've heard on good authority that one of the huge benefits of switching over to Super Hornets is the ungainly amounts of maintenance time involved in servicing F-14's compared to the other options.

I think, at this point, let's segregate a few points that appeared to be mixed in.

• 1. There is no denying the F-14 is a maintenance hog. This is well documented.
  
• 2. There is no denying that new technologies that the F-22 and F-35 represent must be introduced in a controlled fashion to the military. This has been extensively dealt with in another thread.
  
• 3. That the F-22 and F-35 may not be SOTA enough is really a relevant issue here. Moreover, you need to have gradual introduction of new technologies in order to maintain combat effectiveness of the whole armed forces, so introducing a less-than-SOTA machine makes sense in a way.
  
• 4. There is no denying that the F-18 can't do all the missions that the F-14 is currently doing. The question is whether the F-14's original mission is still valid, which IMO it is.. which means a US Task Force may have serious holes in its defenses in the near future.
  
• 5. The F-18 isn't a bad plane. It flies. Better than the F-35 now, better than the Eurofighter now, better than the Brit's uncertified Chinooks. So it's not a bad plane. It just looks like a bad plane... :D
  

These are all separate issues and shouldn't be mixed up too much.

What really irritates me is the destruction of the F-14's toolings. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to do that. It is a burning of a bridge that I suspect in the near future will become a regrettable decision.

It is utterly insane to destroy the toolings because it means if and when you need to reintroduce the F-14 due to pressing situational needs (like when they discover in practice that F-18's can't do all of F-14's jobs..).. you can't. It's an insane, stupid, and utterly senseless thing to do, especially when there are other ways of achieving the same result.

[David Hingtgen]

Hornets of any type can slow down incredibly fast (the one use for drag), but I seriously wonder about a Super Hornet's acceleration. In car terms, their 0-60 is pretty good, but their quarter mile SUCKS. Drag builds up incredibly fast on that airframe---once you're past a few hundred knots , acceleration is very poor, and the Super's is worse than the regular's. Tomcats at low speed with the wings unswept can use their maneuvering flaps and can turn like *that*, especially B/D models, since it's all power for high-rate sustained turns.

I need to check out some real-life bombloads for Operation Iraqi Freedom, I want to compare bombloads before I comment on that aspect. (I hope I have *super* Hornet load-outs) Stats are meaningless, I like real-life usage. Super Hornets ironically are often seen flying with 2 pylons empty--wasn't that one of the main points in building it, to have 2 more pylons?

Anyways back to the Jennycraig Strike Fighter--while lightweight fan blades may help, I doubt that using solid blades on the current ones accounts for 3,300lbs. I think it's more than that.

Just IMHO, I think we need a new swing-wing plane. The bigger, the better. (Hard to make the mechanism small, Tornado's about as small as it gets). A new big, fast, long-range high-speed swing-wing interceptor. With Phoenix missiles. And just like the F-14 and F-15, those sorts of airframes tend to make awesome bombers with almost no mods needed. Think about how advanced a new swing-wing plane could be, with 30+ years of aerodynamics over the F-14's wings and gloves. Rather than a re-re-re-re-hashed Northrop P530 wing, which is a modified F-5 wing. Heh, just go look at the F-5A>F-5E>P530>YF-17>F-18A>F/A-18E. Not much changes, just gets fuglier. The Hornet is a super-tweaked F-5, much like the F-22 is little more than a stealth F-15. F-16's about the only "new" design lately. But a new swing-wing starting from scratch? With more power than a Super Flanker? ::drool::

Edited May 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yea like, THANK GOD SOMEONE REALIZES THE role filled by the tomcat is STILL VALID! Awesome lynx!

Yes people though russia is poor as hell what a lot of people don't realize is that many nations that the US is not really allied with by a bunch of shi* from russia. Su37 a paper threat that dont exist? RIght. Just kluz russia dont use them yet dont mean one of their customers wont in the near future!

threat of longe range bomber attacks over my ass.

Scenario. tomcat fleet dead and gone with superbugs instead. Some country not really rich but still aveage in terms of money buys some bear bombers from russia. Attack imenent on carrier. hmmmmm suyper bug cant really target them before the missles come. wait here come the missles. Shi* what to do now. Lets use sea sparrow, wait even with modern advances sparrow has always sucked in terms of past kill ratios, crap missle coming in, phalanx em! 4 missles shot 6 make it bam bam. One carrier decimated.

see my point? We still need tomcatrs. just kuz russia aint as big as a threat dont mean we gotta settle for LESS.

hey is it not possible to retool the toolings that were destroyed by remolding each piece of the tomcat 1 by 1? Otr did they destroy the paperwork as well? Hmm.....wait guys...GUYS!

ASF-14 was to be a tomcat NEW build. It could NOT be built from prexisting tomcat airframes! It had to be all new! Since that was never made, and since it couldnt be made from old tomcat frames, perhaps it can be made in the future when the superbug F***S up!

[David Hingtgen]

Nah, when that happens they'll just make the Ultra Hornet. 1% more range, 2% more payload, and only 3x the cost of a Super Hornet.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

heh . Seems like the navy's got a hornet fetish like konami has a fetish for flankers in airforce dela strike!

but yes I would lke to know if production of an ASF14 or retools of the destroyed tools is even possible. Hopefully someone at grumman was smart enough to keep the documentation included with the information needed to make the tools that were destroyed.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

hmmm the closest thing i can think of with air dominance AND swin wing is the XFA27 from ace combat 2. That and the ASF-14.

[Druna Skass]

but yes I would lke to know if production of an ASF14 or retools of the destroyed tools is even possible. Hopefully someone at grumman was smart enough to keep the documentation included with the information needed to make the tools that were destroyed.

Yup there's a Grumman guy somewhere with all the data on a laptop that he's hiding somewhere from the Hornet Cartel.

Ahh the XFA-27, I remember that guy, I kind of like the X-02 better though. Seemed like a cross between the XFA-27 and the YF-23.

[J A Dare]

Anyways back to the Jennycraig Strike Fighter--

[Neova]

What about the X-29 concept as a new basis for the F-14 replacement ? or F-15 ACTIVE? I don't know jack about planes but I thought these would provide technology to make better planes, not fat craptastic skee shooting pigeons.

Or did the F22/F23 incoporate all these advances and still fell under the F35 axe?

[David Hingtgen]

Heck no, the ACTIVE would have made every F-15 and F-16 and F-14B/D thrust-vectoring capable, quickly and cheaply using the existing engines! No way the US would do something like THAT.

The "real" reason is that upgrading F-15/16's would take away from money for the F-22/35. That's why Lockheed isn't trying TOO hard to make F-16C Block 60's all that great, they almost didn't do CFT's for it. The better the F-16C is, the worse the F-35 looks. Same with the F-22. Same reason they killed the F-14---if there was the possibility of upgrading the F-14 for cheap, or heck an almost-new F-14 design, then the "more $/lb than platinum" Hornet had serious competition. New designs cost LOTS of money, and upgrading already-paid-for planes always looks way more attractive, money-wise. So of course they don't let that happen, so new more expensive planes can be built.

Edited May 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Sundown]

Same reason they killed the F-14---if there was the possibility of upgrading the F-14 for cheap, or heck an almost-new F-14 design, then the "more $/lb than platinum" Hornet had serious competition. New designs cost LOTS of money, and upgrading already-paid-for planes always looks way more attractive, money-wise. So of course they don't let that happen, so new more expensive planes can be built.

Hmm... so they opted for the worst of both worlds. Upgrading an existing and mediocre design-- and yet still managing to spend the huge gobs on it that could have been directed towards a completely new design and airframe, done right.

If they were going for a new and more 'spensive plane, they could have at least done it right. I dunno... say something cool like fresh design to fill the 14's role, akin to what the F-22 is to the F15. That would own. Instead we get the Super bug and JSF.

I thought the Navy demanded twin engines on their plane. Whatever happened to that requirement, or is there a Naval JSF that does have two engines?

-Al

[David Hingtgen]

That's the military for you. "Why spend $10 billion on a brand new plane, when you can spend $15 billion and get a marginally improved version of the old one! "

Navy doesn't *demand* twin engines, but it's always preferred. (Same with Canada and Australia) If they design their own plane (A-6, F-4, F-14) they always are twins. When there's a fly-off (F-16 vs F-17) they'll go for the twin. For the JSF, X-32 vs X-35, they picked the one that didn't look like it was specifically designed to kill sailors on deck... (Boeing will never learn, large mouth bass intakes will NOT endear you to the Navy)

Naval JSF has strengthened gear (of course) and larger wings and tails for slower landing speeds and better control at those low speeds. Looks better than a "normal" JSF from some angles, worse at others.

One final thing is that overall, history has shown the technology of the engines to be more important than the number of them. Newer engines are SO much more reliable, an older 2 or 3 or 4 engined plane is more likely to have 2 or 3 engines fail, than a newer 1 or 2 engined plane is to have a single failure. And I fully believe an F-14A or even F-15 is more likely to have double engine failure than a JSF is to ever have its engine fail. Heck, the GE F4x4 family is so darn reliable you really only need one. And that'd be the X-29, F-20, and Grippen. A second engine is always nice, but the weight and fuel burn is becoming more and more of a disadvantage every year. If it gets down to the odds being 1/1000000 of an engine failure, there's no point in carrying a second one around 99999/1000000 of the time. (Money/fuel/weight wise for the military, the pilot of that 1 failed-engine plane will always want the second engine) And the Navy does hate excess weight coming aboard...

Edited May 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

Let's see...

Nope, sorry, I think the F-14's role as fleet defender is gone. The need may return eventually, but by that time both the nature of the threat and the response are likely to have changed due to technological advances. In fact, the nature of the fleet being defended may also change radically.

It's pretty clear that Naval aviation sees its main job today and for the foreseeable future to be bombing land targets. For this the Super Hornet is probably "pretty good" although David has always made a good case that the Super Tomcat would be better. The following links might be of interest. They provide extremely contrasting views.

F-14 vs. F-18E/F (Flight Journal)

Navy Fact File: F-18 Hornet

You could also look up a speech by Randy "Duke" Cunningham about how great the Super Hornet is. (He also thinks we should buy a lot of F-22's.) Right or wrong, it's a good read simply because the guy has a larger-than-life persona. (First Navy ace of the Vietnam War for those who don't recognize the name.) Oh heck, here it is: http://www.house.gov/cunningham/congressio...ning15Feb00.htm

Regarding maintainability, the second link claims that the cost per flight hour for the Super Hornet is 40% that of the F-14, and maintenance time per flight hour is 25% that of the F-14. That may not seem to matter during wartime, but since ongoing costs during peacetime affect how large a force we can maintain against the possibility of war, it matters a lot.

Anyway, the other thing I wanted to mention is that the Super Hornet is also being touted as a tanker and a future electronics warfare platform. I wonder if the tanker role will help make up for any range/payload deficiency compared to the Tomcat? I.e., factor in the extra planes needed for tanking, but then also factor in the maintenance savings--what would the effect be on what ultimately matters in wartime: tons of HE delivered on target per hour? And again, there's the underlying issue of just how many planes we bring into the conflict in the first place.

[Nied]

yea the F-14 was a maintenance hog but thats not the point, ST21 would have cut back on that since it was more digitized and stuff. St21 is 2 the tomcat what the super bug is to legacy....or should i say SHOULD be as the ST231 wouldnt ahve given the tomcat any draw backs...super bug however...

maintenance aside id wantt eh better airplane not the air plane that could be maintained faster. ST21 would have used technology from this era not the 70s, a lot of people tend to forget that ST21 would make the F-14 almost all brand new aside from frame.

F-14s always were hard to maintain since its so big. And lackof spares is because of cheney. I am not sure if i am correct in saying thias, but I believe ST21 would have been able to outperform some other teen fighters. With thrust vectoring and changes to the front portion of the airframe concerning the wings and gloves it be more manueverable, and plus the engines would enable supercruise so with that I also say quick manuevering energy as well. Possibly be able to outmanuever the superbug. Bear in mind the engines were going to be GE engines from the ATF program I believe with vectoring nozzles. I know cheney axed the tomcat but who is to say we wont see a tomcat st21 upgrade on a northrop grumman private venture tested by VX9? Sure it would require some remolding of tools and would cost a bit but hell

well yea you all know im biased for the tomcat. awesome ass plane.Too bad not many of us have seen ASF-14 and the other proposal...(quickstrike?)

Unfortunetly the airframe is the problem. Without a total re-design of the airframe there's only so much you can do to make a plane more maintainable. 90% of an aircraft's maintainability doesn't have anything to do with technology, it has to do with the accesability to that technology. Take a look at the those pictures of the F/A-22 I posted a while back. Just about everything you need to get to for everyday maintnence is right there at eye level where it can be easily worked on, on an F-14 they're scatered about the airframe and they can't just be moved with out re-designing the whole thing.

The other aspect of maintainability is how easily you can take it apart and put it back together, again this doesn't have anything to do with technology, it has to do with the design of the airframe. If you have to undo 20 little fasteners to get an engine out of a plane it's going to take you at least twice as long as it would to undo 10 big ones. And no amount of digital microchips are going to fix that, only an airframe re-design would.

I don't think people realize the importance of low maintnence aircraft in the real world. Sure a Super Hornet might be only 80% as effective as a ST-21 when both are in perfect working order, but if the Hornet is in the air and fighting while the Tomcat would be in the hangar getting yet anohter overhaul it's 100% more effective. A plane in the air fighting is useful, a plane sitting in the hangar is not.

[the white drew carey]

I think we should sell everything and buy a fleet of about 20,000 A-10's.

Or, if the military REALLY wants a VTOL, I mean really badly, we can convert our existing A-10's into Cobra Rattlers.

[Nied]

yea like, THANK GOD SOMEONE REALIZES THE role filled by the tomcat is STILL VALID! Awesome lynx!

Yes people though russia is poor as hell what a lot of people don't realize is that many nations that the US is not really allied with by a bunch of shi* from russia. Su37 a paper threat that dont exist? RIght. Just kluz russia dont use them yet dont mean one of their customers wont in the near future!

threat of longe range bomber attacks over my ass.

Scenario. tomcat fleet dead and gone with superbugs instead. Some country not really rich but still aveage in terms of money buys some bear bombers from russia. Attack imenent on carrier. hmmmmm suyper bug cant really target them before the missles come. wait here come the missles. Shi* what to do now. Lets use sea sparrow, wait even with modern advances sparrow has always sucked in terms of past kill ratios, crap missle coming in, phalanx em! 4 missles shot 6 make it bam bam. One carrier decimated.

So some country is going to bankrupt itself on a massive overwhelming fleet of Bear bombers like the Soviets would have used? At most a moderately rich country could maybe get a squadrons worht of Bears operating (and getting them all operational at once would be quite a trick). Even then a Super Hornet Loaded to bear (say with 12 AMRAAMs and a pair of sidewinders) could with some luck take out the whole squaron on it's own, but of course it wouldn't be alone. Hell even if the Bears got off those big fat cruise missiles they carry before the Hornets could get them the Hornets could just go after the missiles.

A more likely fleet defense scenario would be smaller fighter bombers (perhaps Su-30Ms) coming in at low altitude with Medium range ASMs (for arguments sake lets say Exocets). In that case a Pheonix armed F-14 would be at a disadvantage against the maneuverable Flankers. Pheonix missiles are great against the large lumbering bombers and single minded cruise missiles they were designed to take down, but only marginally effective against small maneuvering targets, and useless against small missiles like the Exocets. A Rhino on the other hand would have those 12 AMRAAMs, which were designed to take out fighters from long distances.

[imode]

Unfortunetly the airframe is the problem. Without a total re-design of the airframe there's only so much you can do to make a plane more maintainable. 90% of an aircraft's maintainability doesn't have anything to do with technology, it has to do with the accesability to that technology. Take a look at the those pictures of the F/A-22 I posted a while back. Just about everything you need to get to for everyday maintnence is right there at eye level where it can be easily worked on, on an F-14 they're scatered about the airframe and they can't just be moved with out re-designing the whole thing.

The other aspect of maintainability is how easily you can take it apart and put it back together, again this doesn't have anything to do with technology, it has to do with the design of the airframe. If you have to undo 20 little fasteners to get an engine out of a plane it's going to take you at least twice as long as it would to undo 10 big ones. And no amount of digital microchips are going to fix that, only an airframe re-design would.

I don't think people realize the importance of low maintnence aircraft in the real world. Sure a Super Hornet might be only 80% as effective as a ST-21 when both are in perfect working order, but if the Hornet is in the air and fighting while the Tomcat would be in the hangar getting yet anohter overhaul it's 100% more effective. A plane in the air fighting is useful, a plane sitting in the hangar is not.

Yes! Thank you for this post!

[Anubis]

Unfortunetly the airframe is the problem.  Without a total re-design of the airframe there's only so much you can do to make a plane more maintainable.  90% of an aircraft's maintainability doesn't have anything to do with technology, it has to do with the accesability to that technology.    Take a look at the those pictures of the F/A-22 I posted a while back.  Just about everything you need to get to for everyday maintnence is right there at eye level where it can be easily worked on, on an F-14 they're scatered about the airframe and they can't just be moved with out re-designing the whole thing.

The other aspect of maintainability is how easily you can take it apart and put it back together, again this doesn't have anything to do with technology, it has to do with the design of the airframe.  If you have to undo 20 little fasteners to get an engine out of a plane it's going to take you at least twice as long as it would to undo 10 big ones.  And no amount of digital microchips are going to fix that, only an airframe re-design would.

I don't think people realize the importance of low maintnence aircraft in the real world.  Sure a Super Hornet might be only 80% as effective as a ST-21 when both are in perfect working order, but if the Hornet is in the air and fighting while the Tomcat would be in the hangar getting yet anohter overhaul it's 100% more effective.  A plane in the air fighting is useful, a plane sitting in the hangar is not.

Yes! Thank you for this post!

That is oh so true.

One F-16 problem is easily apparent to those who worked on it: the damn cockpit. You lose a screw in an F-15 or A-10 odds are you can get it out at the most by having Egress raise the seat. F-16 you have to raise the seat and tilt the rails, and more often than not have to take the seat and canopy off. It can be a royal pain to work in that cockpit at times, with it's cramped and disorganized nature under those boxes. Add in the comm matrix behind the seat rails and you have a lot of maintenance to do in there.

We got a jet out of rebuild (which became the new wing king's jet), 2137 or something like that. Damn comm matrix kept failing it's checks or sputtering out, don't remember what the exact problem was, maybe electrical, but we kept that thing coming apart and back topgether so often. If the thing were easier to get to, the jet would have had astronomically lower down time.

FOD:

Every time someone loses a screw or a pin or some other crap that they can't find

F-16:

Raise/tilt the seat - 30 minutes

Wait 2 hours for the FOD search.

Seat/Canopy removal so crew chief can search better- 1 hour with Hill's awesome overhead hangar cranes. Little longer with regency crane.

Seat incoming - up to an hour

Canopy incoming - up to an hour.

wait hours for the jet to be cleared and signed off

Seat/Canopy install, 7-level inspection - 1 1/2 hours

A-10:

Raise Seat - 30 minutes

wait an hour or so to be called back

Lower seat - 30 minutes.

Final insp - 20 minutes.

The F-16 is a great Jet, it does it's job, but there are several thing in there that make you scream who designed this crap.

The A-10 is a much simpler bird for a lot of shops.

If the JSF can do most or all of what the F-16 can do with easier maintenance, then kick ass.

One of the hallmarks of the F-22 supposedly that I read before was that there were only going to be so many screw and nut sizes to mess with on the airframe. No more 20 different heads in the toolbox necessary. Why the hell would you use 3/32 instead of a damn 1/4 nut? We used every size from 3/32" all the way to 1 1/2". Simplifying how many tools you need alone is so good, and was supposed to carry over to the JSF as well.

Anyone know if this holds any truth to it?

Any F-16 horror stories I have heard or seen pale in comparison to F-14 horror stories though.

Ease of maintenance is a big deal, if a jet can get through it's maintenace faster and get in the air, that is a huge help, and cost saver. That was supposed to be one of the goals of these programs, especially the JSF. It was supposed to make parts so much easier to get if the the AF, Navy, and Marines were using the bird. The volume would also lower the price.

All in theory of course.

[David Hingtgen]

Tomcat 21 was to have new maintenance panels, etc. Said to reduce time/hours needed by 40%. Not as good as a Super Hornet, but quite an improvement.

Read both links up above. Of course Cunningham's right about the other guy being an idiot, because the other guy was making a lot of stupid claims. However, the Super Hornet's "unaddressed in that report" problems are the severe lack of acceleration, supercruise (and pretty much all transonic performance), and the eventual "range chopping" due to redesigning the pylons. I'm really trying to pinpoint when they discovered the pylon problem vs when that report was made. Yes, the Super Hornet does have greater range than a Legacy Hornet--however, it is much less than was originally thought, and less than a lot of reports indicate because they were made before the pylon redesign. And the wing-drop is still a "temp" fix, most overhead photos show the "patch" over the wing joint fairing. And they keep fiddling with it, it seems every block has a new version of it.

Also, the redesigned pylons are NOT friendly to many weapons. There have been numerous reports of damage to the weapons by flying them through the air at Mach 1, sideways. (Duh). A Paveway LGB with broken fins will NOT be accurate, and even JDAMs and dumb bombs will lose accuracy. Thank God the AIM-9X has vectored thrust, and AIM-120C's have clipped fins, or the air-to-air weapons might suffer damage too. All this is, I believe, subsequent to Cunningham's report. At least when a Tomcat carries bombs, it doesn't damage them in the process.

Sigh---all threads here become Tomcat vs Hornet, no matter what. So, any JSF news?

Edited May 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Cdr Fokker]

no the F-35B was meant to have VTOL from the beginning. Fully loaded even a harrier cant take off cvertically thats why tjey use ski ramps on ship but with medium load it can. With no VTOL the royal air force and marines wouldnt care for it. Even all the concept arts of the JSF program feature the B doing VTOL. the whole reason the marines want it is the ability to do VTOL . Otherwise they could have just opted for an F-22 which can do STOL(yes its capable of doing short landing and take off).

While the X-35B/F-35B was designed to also have VTOL capabilities, it was designed primarily for STOVL, not VTOL, operations. Hence why the B has been referred to as the STOVL (not VTOL) variant, and why the one test X-35 had 'STOVL' painted on its tail as part of the insignia.

Which is why it's kind of funny how the VTO capability - which is kind of an "extra" from the design perspective - is that which is being bitched about. Yes, VTO is nice and the X-35 was capable of it, but that is not what was in mind when it was designed.

[ewilen]

The BBC reporter may just be misunderstanding the weight problem. Whether or not VTOL is possible, the real issue is apparently that the extra weight in the F-35B will make operation off the RN carriers harder, or impossible.

Someone in another forum claimed, though, that the original specification on payload was less rigorous than what's currently being attempted. So if they need to, they could just backtrack and assume it will carry smaller bombs. That might be acceptable to the US Marines, not sure about the RN.

[David Hingtgen]

Yup. The new RN carriers were pretty much counting on VTO for the JSF. Sure, the USMC may not NEED it, but the RN sure does it seems. And at this point, the F-35 is so overweight it can't even do a rolling STO takeoff from the new carriers. That is a severe problem.

[Mislovrit]

David Hingtgen on your "one engine or two engine) post you considered the advantages and disadvantages during wartime? As it seems to me you've just listed the benefits and problems of just peace time flying.

[Mislovrit]

Yup there's a Grumman guy somewhere with all the data on a laptop that he's hiding somewhere from the Hornet Cartel.

At this stage of the game there's really not much point in rebuilding the machinery to build more F-14s unless the Tomcats are intended to be in service for another 20-30 or more years.

Anyone hear anything about Grumman is getting out of the air industry completely?

[David Hingtgen]

My true love is airliners, and there's a lot of talk about twin-engine overwater flights vs 3/4 engine ones, so a lot of my knowledge does come from there, thus "peacetime" jet ops.

Umm, basically the fewer engines the better, weight/drag/fuel-wise. And that includes power/weight ratio. If an F-18 had 1 big engine with exactly the same thrust as its 2 F404's, it'd climb and accelerate better, and have better range and be able to carry more weapons.

And as I alluded to earlier, nowadays engines are so reliable that anything that knocks out an engine, will likely knock them all out. As in, fuel starvation--doesn't matter how many engines you have, if you're out of fuel, you're gliding home. Combat damage and bird strike are about the only things that will randomly strike only 1 engine, and that is frankly rare. How often do you find a jet that's had its engine, and only its engine, taken out in combat? Not very often, if you're hit that bad the plane tends to crash due to gaping holes in the airframe or large fires caused by the damage. Also, the vast majority of military planes lost are due to collision (either another plane or controlled flight into terrain), not engine failure.

Of course, about the one and only time I know of it happening lately was in Desert Storm, an F-18 took a SAM and it only got 1 engine and there was no fire. But half of the reason is due to the Hornet's funky design with such aft-mounted engines. An F-14 or F-15 would likely have been toast, since they'd have many more hydraulic lines, stabs, etc in the area.

All that said, just about everybody likes two engines, no matter how small the safety margin is nowadays compared to other things that can go wrong.

Finally---can't thrust-vector for roll with only 1 engine. F-22 enjoys 50% better roll rates due to vectoring, couldn't do it with just 1 engine.

Edited May 29, 2004 by David Hingtgen