|
(Sighhh)
I wish there was a :roll eyes: smilie on this forum.
These are posts on another website by a crewchief and a former Tomcat pilot about this ever-present argument:
<i>Damn this is the issue that just won't die.
I'm torn between simply ignoring this thread or trying to set the record straight. For some reason, either because I designed an F/A-18 sim or because I am currently on the F/A-18 test team at Pax I've been labeled "pro-Hornet". Nevermind the fact that I spent 7 years actually turning a wrench on all models of Tomcat. I think I have a pretty good perspective on the issues.
Spare parts shortages makes the Tomcat hard to maintain? Umm...no. Did we "rob" aircraft in the fleet, you bet. All squadrons do, even now, even the SH squadrons currently deployed. It's often better to troubleshoot with known good parts from another jet. On cruise we had plenty of parts even back in the mid-80's. Now it is probably even better as you have a bunch of jets in the boneyard to get parts from. Won't help you much with avionics obsolesence issue but all platforms have that issues these days.
What makes the Tomcat hard to maintain are 1. really bad access, 2. miles of crap wire, 3. poorly integrated avionics, and 4. an ECS system from hell. Well there are more but those are my top 4.
By "really poor access" I mean panels that have literally hundreds of fasteners, in seven (count em) different sizes! Ah the joys of those belly strip panels...NOT! Could the Tomcat be redesigned to use more quick access doors like the Hornet? Maybe...but it would be a MAJOR redesign, as the reason to panels have so many fasteners now is because they are stress panels, i.e. part of the struture of the airframe. So you would need to redesign almost all of the guts of the jets, and then make all new tooling to build it. Seems easier to make a new jet...BTW, such a major redesign was not part of any of the post F-14D proposals. Why? Cost.
Miles of crap wire, well a completely new avionics suite would fix this, and number 3, but you are talking even bigger bucks.
The crap ECS system, well I guess you could borrow the Hornets, but I guess you see where this is going.
Hell I didn't even mention the really bad hyd system that leaks constantly..."drip pans" are placed under the jets as soon as they come in the hanger because even a "good" jet will leak everywhere. Hornets, even old ones, don't have near that problem. When Pax got retired the F-14 all the drip pans went in the trash...don't need em. (Well, the EA-6B folks do, but thats another story)
Look, even the F-14 guys out there now will admit that it takes a ton of work to keep the jets in the air. Last time I checked it was well over 50 maintenance manhours per flight hour (the SH is in the teens, and dropping as the learning curve flattens). People are another huge cost. Troubleshooting on a Tomcat is part art, part skill, and takes years to get good at. A chimp could troubleshoot a SH (which believe it or not isn't something I think is a good idea, but you get the point).
This is long enough already...and I've said it all before. Sorry for the typos / spelling errors...I just don't care enough about this issue anymore to go back and fix em...
-CJ
Pilot re:
Concur wholeheartedly with what CJ just said above. The Tomcat's day is done. That doesn't make it a bad jet. It doesn't mean it's not still a great performer (when it's up). But it costs somewhere on the order of 4 or 5 times more per hour to operate than a Super Hornet. And it takes a lot more man hours to keep it 'up' than a Super Hornet. And it breaks in flight a lot more than a Super Hornet.
On my first cruise (1988-89) I flew the F-14A. We had old 158xxx and 159xxx BuNos (made in the 70s). Even back then, a big part of being a good RIO was being able to do airborne trouble-shooting on various avionics systems while in flight. Cycling system power, pulling and resetting various circuit breakers, and actually kicking or hitting components in certain areas. All to keep it working in the air. On top of that, you did your tactical RIO duties and your administrative co-pilot duties, which weren't that easy because the cockpit design wasn't very user-friendly.
What you might not understand is just how modular modern jets are and how often we R&R (remove and replace) avionics components. A modern avionics suite is made up of literally scores of "black boxes" called weapons replaceable assemblies. These get swapped into and out of jets all the time. A new plane may come from the factory with new boxes, but in a few months just about every box will have been changed out at least once for repair and reconditioning at either intermediate or depot level maintenance facilities. So you can take a malfunctioning old jet, swap out every box in it, and still have a malfunctioning old jet. Why? because of those miles and miles of wire that CJ mentioned. If you change out boxes but somewhere in the bowels of that jet the wiring is going bad, you'll chase problems forever.
Newer jets have newer technology. They don't have all that wiring, and the wiring they do have is easier to fix, easier to repair or replace, and less likely to break. So why not re-wire the Tomcat? Like CJ says, it would entail redesign of the entire jet, and that would be cost prohibitive. If you're going to go to that cost and trouble, I'd rather have the swing-wing, two-seat F-22N that Lockheed proposed back in the 90s.
Let's leave this argument alone, guys. It's just not productive. Whenever you feel the urge, just do a search for all the old arguments in these archives and re-read them, rather than dredge it up again.
</i>
Edited by - Tritonal on Jun 21 2003 5:36 PM
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
