Sanchez makes naval history(F-14 Tomcats being phased out)

The Bee-Picayune ^ | July 2, 2004

[SwinneySwitch]

- Ens. Manuel Sanchez, VX-30 maintenance material control officer, recently made history by being the last Navy F-14 Tomcat test and evaluation maintenance material control officer. According to tradition, Sanchez took a supersonic ride in the back of the F-14 Tomcat which he said was the time of his life.

“If you haven’t heard, the world famous Tomcat that Tom Cruise put on the map with the movie Top Gun is currently disestablishing from the Navy,” Sanchez said. “We at Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Three Zero (VX-30) ‘The Bloodhounds’ out of Point Mugu, Calif., are a Combat Support Unit. The Bloodhounds exist to carry out missions in support of our naval war fighters. These missions consist of providing our naval war fighters with system improvements that enhance their ability to ‘put missiles in enemy cockpits and strike weapons through their front doors.’

“We do this by conducting and supporting cutting edge research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) flight tests of naval combat systems,” Sanchez continued. “To accomplish these missions, we provide Naval Air Systems Command with people and aircraft that contribute both unique and complementary RDT&E capabilities to our winning team. However, since the Tomcat squadrons will be going away by midyear 2006, the requirements to continue research and tests of advanced weapons and systems for the F-14 Tomcat is no longer a demand.

“The Navy’s heart and soul for fighter aircraft is now the Strike Fighter F/A-18 Hornet which is currently used by the world famous Navy Blue Angels,” Sanchez said.

Sanchez joined the Navy out of Beeville in May 1990 as an enlisted sailor and was commissioned as an officer in December 2002. He is the son of Abel and Esther Rodriguez of Beeville. He will leave Point Mugu for VFA-27 Royal Maces (F/A-18E Super Hornet Squadron) out of Atsugi, Japan, in April 2005.

“I’ve had an awesome tour here at Point Mugu as you can tell by a couple of these photos,” Sanchez said. “I gave actor Jamie Foxx a tour of my squadron and had him sit in the Tomcat. He wanted to get the feel of sitting in a jet as he was filming for his upcoming movie ‘Stealth.’ Also, I participated in President Ronald Reagan’s funeral. Being away from home, I sincerely enjoy going online (to read the newspaper) and keeping up with Beeville every Wednesday and Saturday. You guys do a phenomenal job!”

[Long Cut]

According to Pukin Dog, the JSF 35 is a non-starter, mainly because of weight issues.

The scenario I described above would relate to ANY Air Force bird that wanted to improve its lot in life. In other words, if you START with an AF fighter, it's damn near impossible to make it a Navy fighter. The difference almost starts at the genetic level.

What they SHOULD do is start out with a Navy version, and then remove what they don't need, rather than the other way 'round.

T'was done with the F-18 back in the day...Micky D designed one without all the Navy bells and whistles (folding wings, undercarriage, etc) and saved a bunch of weight, improved performance to a GREAT degree, and sadly never sold the idea.

Ironically, it was called the F-18F, just like the Super Hornet is now.

[Pukin Dog]

Sorry guys, gotta go. I have to build a grill for my girlfriend's mother, so she can have a BBQ tomorrow. Duty calls.

[Squantos]

Looking at the specs the carrier variant is much heavier and carries more internal fuel etc.....than the other UK-USAF-USMC flavors. So is the F35 dead in the water ?

Stay safe !

[Long Cut]

Yep, by all indications. It's about two tons overweight, and there's no fix for it.

Someone might still pull a rabbit out of a hat, but I doubt it...no one wants another boondoggle.

[Long Cut]

Have fun, Doggie. I'm on watch this weekend, so hoist a cold one for me!

[dc27]

I saw a special on History channel about the F-14. The drop tests that were done were amazing.

[VaBthang4]

"According to Pukin Dog, the JSF 35 is a non-starter, mainly because of weight issues."

And that is where he starts coloring outside the lines. The JSF has too many hands in the pie to be killed. Hell, the British are building a brand new aircraft carrier class around the thing.

For that alone it'll see service.

[VOA]

bump

[Pukin Dog]

Buddy, that sucker is dead, dead, dead. You will find out soon enough. The Brits will be happy with the EFA.

[VaBthang4]

And the Norwegians [their only problem so far is their part of the work share], Israelis [oh they'll end up buying them], Denmark, Canada, Norway, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey? What will they be happy to buy? Not counting the interest of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

They all gonna want to buy the "Less bang for your overpriced buck" and overwhelmingly Euro-engineered [see: too complicated] European Fighter? Rrrrright.

Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Adecel [Australians], General Dynamics, BAE Systems, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, Vision Systems International (a partnership between Kaiser Electronics and Elbit of Israel) Ball Aerospace, The Harris Corporation, Honeywell, Raytheon, ATK Composites, Hamilton Sundstrand, Parker Aerospace, Moog Inc, EDO Corporation, Goodrich and Stork Aerospace. The cities of Fort Worth, Texas, El Segundo & Goleta, California, Samlesbury, Lancashire, Edinburgh, not at all an exhaustive list of those involved in seeing this thing survive.
No...the money involved here insures a solution.
The Critical Design Review had been postponed from April 2004 to sometime next year and the A version isn't expected to roll out until 2008, the B version not until 2012.

They've got plenty of time to work out the weight issues. It may well be that it is canned but that decision is not even close to being made.

[Gunrunner2]

You may be right, but right now the industry is not %100 convinced. Weight is weight is weight, and the Boeing (Mac-Dee) solution was two engine and could have carried the load but the RFP specifically required one engine. Therefore, Mac-Dee lost and the USAF-preferred solution won. And, BTW, the "ugliness" of the Mac-Dee design did not play in the matrix of any of the volumes, to includes the section L's. M's, and B's. Not one bit.

At any rate, Boeing is gloating and ready to jump in.

[Gunrunner2]

Ahhh. . .come on, Puke, that ain't fair. On our worse day we look damed good, on our best day we spectacular!

We are not the Navy, where looking awful is an art form.

(BTW, F-15 AC is tied to avionics and other subsystems, AC down and the jet, and you, are "toast.")

Cheers!
"Navy, it's not just a job. . .it's a silly job"

[Gunrunner2]

>>Pukin could probably gointo a LOT more detail on this than me. . .<<


Me too.

>>See, the AF uses nice, LOOOOOoooong concrete runways with nice big hangars and tons of facilities to park their birds on. The Navy uses SHORT steel strips that bob and sway in the ocean, as well as move. These also have VERY limited space to store and maintain the birds in. <<

So? What’s your point?

>>Whilst the AF can take off and land their birds nice and softly, over a long distance, the Navy must smash theirs down at 120+ MPH on a pitching deck, and launch them by means of a steam catapult. It also must contend with constant exposure to salt water.<<

Again. . .so? The A-10 is designed to take hits and does and keeps flying under conditions that would knock the F-14/F-18 outta the sky. . .the Army drives around on the ground and we fly jets, different missions require different capabilities and involve different requirements.

>>The Navy must also contend with fueling needs...our birds can wind up quite a distance from land, and extra gas is a BIG deal. One cannot always count on refueling in the air, due to weather and such. <<

Same for the Air Force. But the Navy can move the carrier if need be. . . try and move an airfield.

>>Okay, with that in mind, an Air Force plane made into a Naval aircraft must necessarily:

[Snipping for brevity]

>>7. Use different navigation equipment...finding your way over the ocean is a touch different from doing so over land; <<

What? Different nav gear? LORAN, perhaps? Ever hear of INS? GPS? TACAN, etc. . .

>>Frankly, the difficulty in modifying an AF bird to Navy requirements is often so great as to make it impossible. The differences begin at the most fundamental levels; it is NO "quick fix". <<

You are absolutely correct.

>>Actually, the best way to go is to let the Navy design the bird to ITS requirements, and then let the AF remove stuff or change it for theirs. That is far easier, and results in an aircraft that both can use well, which is somewhat tougher and more capable for both. As an example, I give you the F-4 Phantom.<<

Hogwash. With today’s design, tooling, manufacturing and acquisition processes, it is impossible to do what you suggest. For example, I was flying my Strike Eagle and had a gear malfunction on take off at St Louis. The St Louis Guard flew F-15C’s so I returned and asked them to fix the jet. They could not. Seems the basic airframe is the same--but 80% of the jet is different. . . to include the gear. You see, the F-15E is much heavier than the “C”-model and therefore requires different gear/brakes. “Same” jet but different components.

(This change of the F-4 you talk about really Didn’t involve much of a basic airframe change, and certainly not much of a weight change. )

>>However, that is probably never going to happen again, simply because the AF is loathe to adopt a Navy-designed bird, no matter how good it is.<<

Hogwash, times two.

Different missions, as you correctly point out, require different capabilities and designs. The Navy has unique requirements and, for examples, things like huge gear and folding wings may be necessary for Navy operations but they add weight and a level of maintenance that is costly and unnecessary if you can avoid it. You change even gear and you change a heck of a lot about the jet.

Cheers, from "157-days under way, making way--with 8-hrs under way not making way" Gunrunner2.

[Long Cut]

Not disagreeing with ya at all, GR. I was only pointing out that there are fundamental differences between Navy and Air Force figthers, and explaining what some of them are.

In looking at what I'd written, it seemed that converting a Navy bird to Air Force configuration (lighter gear and frame) was easier than the other way around. I'm talking about an air-superiority bird here, to compare apples and apples. The Warthog is a thouroughly WONDERFUL airplane, and is one of my favorites, but it IS unique in both mission and design. Hell, I'd think that it'd need relatively few changes to "navalize" it. I always sort of hoped that the Marines would adopt it.

Maybe it would be impossible nowadays for both services to use versions of the same aircraft, but just from my humble Enlisted point of view, wouldn't it be worth at least a look? Or at least some consideration in the early design phase? If it'd save some $$$, we'd be able to get more of them, and train more with them.

It just seems that there's gotta be a better way than having both services buying two completely different planes for the same mission.

[Gunrunner2]

Wish it was easier, but acquisition law is a bear and will eat you if you try and change it (thank-you-very-much-congress).

Working closely with major aerospace manufacturers I get to see up close how the "system" runs. It ain't pretty.

I am working with Boeing a lot these days and know the F-18 guys fairly well. I also know the F-15 guys and the F-22 guys (actually, they have the training contract and it is run out of the Boeing Seattle office).

All told, the "majors" compete like there is no tomorrow and then after a win they subj out all sorts of stuff--like the F-22. LM has about 35% work share and Boeing has about 34%. Go figure.

Anyway, I figure the future is in lighter avionics with less requirements for cooling, along with lighter composites and such.

But that's just me talking. . .

Cheers.

[Gunrunner2]

Late and time to dig the cats out from under the sink, as the fireworks has them batty. Now, wife's out of town so I may be able to ditch the cats, say they ran off due to the fireworks. . .hmm. . .

See ya.

[Pukin Dog]

Ahhh. . .come on, Puke, that ain't fair. On our worse day we look damed good, on our best day we spectacular!

Hey, I agree. Especially from the rear while I'm pulling you down my funnel. We in the Navy don't look bad, son. We look mean. We look like hell sitting back there between your stabs, pulling lead while your wingie on high-cover is busy adjusting his scarf.

[Pukin Dog]

They've got plenty of time to work out the weight issues.

Yup, the laws of physics will probably change in the next, oh... 3000 years? Dead, dead, dead.

[Pukin Dog]

Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Adecel [Australians], General Dynamics, BAE Systems, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, Vision Systems International (a partnership between Kaiser Electronics and Elbit of Israel) Ball Aerospace, The Harris Corporation, Honeywell, Raytheon, ATK Composites, Hamilton Sundstrand, Parker Aerospace, Moog Inc, EDO Corporation, Goodrich and Stork Aerospace. The cities of Fort Worth, Texas, El Segundo & Goleta, California, Samlesbury, Lancashire, Edinburgh, not at all an exhaustive list of those involved in seeing this thing survive.

My broker will appreciate this extensive list of companies to add to his SHORT list.

[Pukin Dog]

There has never been an ugly aircraft worth a damn except for the A-10. JSF should be scrapped for a dual-engine model, I agree. But they also need to drop the stupid STOL missions, and trade that thrust for ordinance. Who needs a jet that can go vertical if it cant carry so much as a pop gun doing it? If the AF was smart, they would bring back that cranked-arrow Viper, and stick another engine up its butt, with a canard in front for alpha.