Fórum Defesa Brasil

engelbertestrada:
I was in the Navy. I worked in aviation electronics on the flightdeck.

The F-14 Tomcat is a fantastic piece of machinery. It can out-manuever just about any other jet. The main problem is keeping up with maintenance. The complex hydraulics that operate the sweeping wings leak regularly. The massive engines have so many moving parts it begs to break. Tomcats are well known for leaking terribly on ground, but they a superior once in flight. In a squadron of 14 Tomcats, the average number of flight ready jets is 6. Most of the Tomcats in a squadron are grounded for various problems. The hydraulics, engine problems...

Mostly, the Navy is replacing the Tomcat due to cost issues. The F/A-18 Hornet has a better maintenance record. However, the manueverability does not match that of the Tomcat. Hornets was known to crash in the earlier part of its service, earning it the nickname "lawn-dart." The Hornet is also much easier to work on, for us maintenance guys. The aircraft has a complex computer system that can actually pinpoint where the problems might originate. The Navy has introduced a new aircraft in service, the SuperHornet. This aircraft features a much larger engine than its predecessor. It is more electronics ladden. It can also substitute the soon-to-be discontinued S-3 Viking as an In-Flight Refueling Platform (it is no secret the Viking was replaced long ago as a sub-hunter). The SuperHornet was still under observation when I was in service, but I was impressed. It rumbled like a Harley (not as dooming as the Hornet). Currently, Lockheed Martin is working on a Joint Strike Fighter (an all-service aircraft). It is dubbed the F-35. It will meet the needs of every branch. VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) for the USMC. Carrier landing for the Navy. It will officially replace the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, F-14, and AV-8. It can break the sound barrier (no VTOL harrier can do that). I saw a test of the jet, and it did a VTOL take-off, flew at Tomcat speeds, and did a VTOL landing. It is funded by militaries around the globe. Amazing. Google it (F-35).

The biggest problem with TOP GUN is the portrayal of the Tomcat. All ejection seats are designed in a shape to purposely break the canopy and protect the pilot. Goose would never have broken his neck.

Jetfire59:
Well, Engel, thanks very much for your fascinating explanation of the Tomcat's faults. I'll miss the old girl, won't you? I'm not in the military (I've never even seen one in real life), but its always been my favorite modern fighter plane.
I've been excited about the F-35 since I first heard about it. A VTOL craft with supersonic capabilities? YYYYYESSSSSSSSSSS!!!!! Are you familiar with the old British TV series Thunderbirds? I've been wondering how long it would take to have a real aircraft like that. Last I heard, the JSF looked a lot like the F-22 Raptor. Has it changed any?

engelbertestrada:
It still looks quite the same.
And, yes, I've seen Thunderbirds. I own an episode on VHS.

ellerca:
One thing I know about military movies, is that they have to have some things wrong-rank, uniforms, etc. My husband and I watch military movies, and in each of them there is something wrong.

burnerbud:
Apparently the producers didn't want to represent a real squadron so they mixed squadron logos and designations, using the VAW-110 (Firebirds) logo with VF-1 designation and the VFA-25 (Fist of the Fleet) logo with VF-213 designation.

engelbertestrada:
Why not create a fictional logo?

Before I left the navy, my squadron went through a change of command. When a squadron CO changes, the tail art sometimes changes. A few of us submitted design ideas. I won. I'm also the one who hand-painted the design on the CAG bird*... I sketch and paint. It took four days.

The patch insignia rarely changes, but the tail art does.

* I remember someone mentioning how overly colorful a jet was in TOP GUN.
Explanation: the CAG bird is the one that's all colorful. This is the "show plane." When the Carrier Air Group commander flies a plane (he can fly anyone in his group he wants), this is the one made fancy for his use... it is always the Double-0 bird. This plane is painted with more colors, and glossy to boot. President Bush flew a CAG plane (VS-35 Blue Wolves). Standard colors are flat.

The name printed on the port side of this bird is the CAG's name. The starboard name is the DCAG (D for Deputy). The names printed on every other bird is in hierarchy (the CO and XO go on the Zero-1 bird). The name on any plane does not mean that jet is designated for that person. As any given jet might be grounded for any number of maintenance problems, or scheduled check-ups (every 300 days or so a plane is stripped, cleaned, analyzed over every square inch and put back together- it takes a couple weeks), the pilots would fall behind on flight hours. A pilot might rarely fly 'his' plane.

"MAVERICK"
1--- A pilot does not get to pick his own call-sign. It is given to him while still a rookie in his first squadron. It sticks with him throughout his career. The nicknames are usually a reference to something very personal, embarrassing, or funny. It won't be degrading... unless you know the story. There was a "Jethro" in my squadron. He looked and sounded like Jethro from the Beverly Hillbillies (he's now a commercial pilot).
2--- Maverick's fly-by would get him in an astounding amount of trouble. He'd be grounded by the squadron CO, locked up by the ship CO, and possibly have his wings taken by the CAG. Then, he'd find himself in charge of something less than macho. Yelling at him would be an understatement. As an electronic technician, I issued codes to jets. I was on-call to flight deck control. I was sitting in there when trash flew up on the deck (during flight-ops). They had to cease ops long enough to pick up every scrap of paper. Every piece was brought to flight deck control. The flight deck controller, a senior chief, looked through the papers and determined who tossed them. The papers flew up from a space on the starboard side, forward of the island. A lot of the papers identified the squadron as a VMFA (marine F/A-18). Guess where their offices are. The CO (lt.colonel) of the MARINE squadron was summoned to flight deck control... where he was yelled at by the senior chief. A senior chief is an enlisted man, the CO is an officer, but the senior chief has control of the flight deck (he positions the jets for access, coordinates fueling/ elevator runs, ensures safety, and handles the cleaning of the deck). The CO had to take it because the senior chief was in his right. I wonder what happened when they found out who tried to throw out trash from the forward half of the ship (wind whips things up and around--- all trash dumps are aft, daytime and not during flight ops).

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
--- The CAG is in charge of every squadron on a carrier and its adjoining battle group (only one carrier per battle group). The boss of the entire battle group is an admiral. He is usually stationed on the most protected ship in the group, the carrier. The boss of the ship is a captain. The CAG is a captain. The CO of a squadron is a Commander (lt. colonel equivalent).

--- The Navy's aircraft number, written in large numbers on the fuselage, tells you what kind of plane it is. 100 refers to F-14 Tomcats. 200-400 refers to F/A-18 Hornets. The numbers 500 and higher tend to shift as they are currently older aircrafts. For instance, 700 belonged to S-3 Vikings when I was in, the Viking is leaving service slowly but surely. The number will go on to newer aircraft designs. The numbers after the 00 just say how many planes the squadron possess. A squadron can have as many as 14 planes (the highest numbered plane might be 114). Fighters outnumber the others. The biggest squadron on my ship was the Tomcat one. However, there were three Hornet squadrons with about 8-10 planes each. Vikings- 8. Prowlers- 8. Hawkeyes- 3. Greyhounds- 2 or 3. Seahawks- 4 or 5. There are more than 70 planes on any carrier... about half of which are on the flightdeck, the rest are in the hangar bays.

--- When you watch a documentary about flight decks:
The writing on the helmets tell you everything. The number tells you what squadron a person belongs to, and the accompanying letter tells you his/her job. J= mechanists; E= electricians (power); M= airframers (flight controls, landing gear, most of the fuselage skin); W= weapons handlers (ordnance); T= electronics techs (computers and anything that transmitted or received information); L= life support (oxygen, ejection seats, temperature); Q= quality assurance (inspect maintenance and flight deck safety). People worked only on their own squadrons planes. The only people who had anything to do with all planes, besides moving and fueling, where the weapons handlers and electronics. Bombs/missiles were loaded and unloaded by a team of ordnance people from every squadron. Classified codes were loaded by a rotation of electronics tech (like me). So, a guy with 1T written on his helmet is part of the 100 squadron (F-14 Tomcats) and is an electronics tech.

---Walking around on a flight deck during flight-ops is an acquired skill. Newbies are required to accompany veterans (they gotta pass a test to go it alone). Besides being aware of the basic terrain, a person has to know how to walk from one side to the other without getting killed/maimed or taking forever. Steer clear of all props and blades! Walking around jets depends on the jet, usually 20ft forward of the nose. Walking behind varies. Prowlers- WAY back (Its engine points down and can bounce off the deck throwing a person up and back). Vikings- about 40 ft (run and lean in). Hornets- the twin exhausts are high enough and small enough to crouch under at a few feet (duck and run). Tomcats- short people might do the same as the Hornet, tall people go back 40 feet (run and lean). Prop planes- go back 40 feet (run and lean). PAY ATTENTION to hand signals, they can tell you its safe to go behind or not. PAY ATTENTION to procedure (things might be chaotic, but they try to do it the same way each time). Mastering the flight deck taught me to walk through busy intersections like no ones business.

THAT IS ALL!

marendil:
was in the Navy. I worked in aviation electronics on the flightdeck.

The F-14 Tomcat is a fantastic piece of machinery. It can out-manuever just about any other jet. The main problem is keeping up with maintenance. The complex hydraulics that operate the sweeping wings leak regularly. The massive engines have so many moving parts it begs to break. Tomcats are well known for leaking terribly on ground, but they a superior once in flight. In a squadron of 14 Tomcats, the average number of flight ready jets is 6. Most of the Tomcats in a squadron are grounded for various problems. The hydraulics, engine problems...

Mostly, the Navy is replacing the Tomcat due to cost issues. The F/A-18 Hornet has a better maintenance record. However, the manueverability does not match that of the Tomcat. Hornets was known to crash in the earlier part of its service, earning it the nickname "lawn-dart." The Hornet is also much easier to work on, for us maintenance guys. The aircraft has a complex computer system that can actually pinpoint where the problems might originate.

Great post, I worked on Tomcats too, as well as Hornets, (and the Phantom too for a little while--we were the last active duty Navy squadron to fly the F-4 operationally) and I worked on aviation electronics as well. I was an AQ, Aviation Fire Control technician, but as I was getting out they folded my rate into AT. We were basically radar technicians.

You're damn right about the Tomcat being a high maintenance bird. It was great performance-wise, but geez, just keeping it in the air was a major pain in the ass. We were a test squadron, so we had more than one type of bird, and compared to the Hornets the Tomcat musta had at least five times as many gripes. Coulda been more, it was typical for the Hornets to come back with no problems, that was rare for a Tomcat. Hell, for that matter the Phantoms had less problems!

Whereas the Hornet you just opened the nose and basically all you needed to work on was right there--easy to remove--and something like six main boxes were all that would could go wrong generally, with the Tomcan it was like 43 and they were all over everywhere and that transmitter was a real pain in the ass. The AWG-9 had self diagnostic checks too, but they weren't really helpful like the ones for the Hornets whuich generally would troubleshoot themselves. I still recall the transmitter test was number 6. We also got the F-14 Delta early too and I worked on that some, but they seldom broke as they were all brand new, thus I didn't do a whole lot of fixing them.

Thinking about that damn trasmitter reminds me of the worst gripe we ever had to fix. It was a transmitter gripe and we simply could not figure it out! We worked on it all night, at first replacing the likely items, eventually in frustration shotgunning the thing shamelessly. We broke out the schematics, tested all the wires--nothing worked. We put three different transmitters in that thing on the off chance the ones we replaced it with were bad. We were pulling out our hair, and as we had a missile shoot the next day we couldn't give up--it was the Captain's bird too. We usually secured at 11 PM, but by 3 AM we were so frustrated the radio station we were listening too played 'Radar Love' by Golden Earrring and we all started screaming the main verse ("We've got a thing we call Radar Love") at the top of our lungs for the duration of the song, from our security cage--the only shop that had one.

You know what it turned out to be? The bloody Phoenix rail! There was this inexplicable little wire that ran through the rail and it had broken inside the rail which somehow affected transmitter function. The last thing you'd think that could cause a transmitter gripe!

Boy was that bird a pain in the ass to work on.

Sniper escreveu:Guilherme, o amigo podería fazer um resumo ( se não for incomodar ) para aqueles que não sabem Inglês ?

Abraço!

Sniper escreveu:Guilherme, o amigo podería fazer um resumo ( se não for incomodar ) para aqueles que não sabem Inglês ?

Abraço!

Patton escreveu:

Sniper escreveu:Guilherme, o amigo podería fazer um resumo ( se não for incomodar ) para aqueles que não sabem Inglês ?

Abraço!

Basicamente eles falam sobre o F-14 e o F-18. Dissem que o F-14 e' melhor do que o F-18 em todos os aspectos alem de manutencao. De acordo com o que foi escrito, em geral uma esqadrao de 14 F-14s tinha apenas 6 operacionais em condicoes de voo.