CheckGear Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 I know the TCS physically replaced the IRST, but did the F-14 retain some sort of infrared-tracking capability after the change? I know the F-14D featured a combination TCS/IRST, so I'm referring to the F-14A and B. And when did the TCS first come into service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkbrotherhood7 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 AFAIK, no, it didn't. Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probad Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151631 forum search strikes again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheckGear Posted October 21, 2016 Author Share Posted October 21, 2016 Wow, so the initial Tomcats didn't even have an IRST either, huh? What was the ALQ-100 used for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkbrotherhood7 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 What was the ALQ-100 used for? ECM, IIRC. :) Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyre Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Wow, so the initial Tomcats didn't even have an IRST either, huh? What was the ALQ-100 used for? It's a Radar track breaker for the E/F/G/H bands. 1 Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWind Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheckGear Posted October 23, 2016 Author Share Posted October 23, 2016 Thanks for all the information! This is all very enlightening. One more, somewhat unrelated, question. Anyone know the man hours required to maintain the F-14 and keep them flying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bC3660 Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Google says 40-60 man hours per flight hour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheckGear Posted October 24, 2016 Author Share Posted October 24, 2016 Google says 40-60 man hours per flight hour How does that compare to other U.S. fighters? I ask because maintenance was a big issue in terms of why the F-14 was retired early. It was unique in the sense it wasn't a cheap platform up front and it was also expensive to keep in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion213 Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 How does that compare to other U.S. fighters? I ask because maintenance was a big issue in terms of why the F-14 was retired early. It was unique in the sense it wasn't a cheap platform up front and it was also expensive to keep in the air. From what I heard, VF-154's jets (final cruise - 2003) required about twice as many maintenance hours as the F/A-18Cs on the same cruise. VF-154 actually managed better airframe availability, but took a lot more man hours. However, rumor has it that the F-14D required about the same maintenance hours per flight hour as the Charlie Hornet. Converting from analog to digital avioncs seemed to make a big difference. Maintenance hours per flight hour also seems pretty dependent on airframe age. When I spoke to an S-3 pilot in 2006, he said that every cat shot caused a failure of something electrical. Things were just worn out. Also, one book I read stated that the VX-5 Phantoms at Pt Mugu required ~350 maintenance hours/flight hour just before they retired in the early 1980s. Part of the need to retire the F-14 a bit earlier was a severe parts shortage by the mid-2000s. That made the maintenance issue seem even worse. -Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bC3660 Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 How does that compare to other U.S. fighters? I ask because maintenance was a big issue in terms of why the F-14 was retired early. It was unique in the sense it wasn't a cheap platform up front and it was also expensive to keep in the air. 20 man hours per flight hour for the F/A-18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheckGear Posted October 25, 2016 Author Share Posted October 25, 2016 20 man hours per flight hour for the F/A-18 Damn, no wonder they kept the Hornet! Is that for the Super Hornet as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeydriver Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 Maintenance man hours per flight hour are easily fudged. That 20 man hours per flight isn't anything near realistic as so many can't even get in the air right now. The squadrons swap jets to get enough up jets for cruise, they base your allowed man-power on how much your jet takes to maintain. If youre smart youll load up as many hours as you can in the hopes that they plus up your types squadron with more people. Theere isn't an F/A-18 built that is 20mmh/fh. Not a single legacy, super, or Growler. VF-2 Bounty Hunters https://www.csg-1.com/ DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord: https://discord.gg/6bbthxk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyre Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 Maintenance man hours per flight hour are easily fudged. That 20 man hours per flight isn't anything near realistic as so many can't even get in the air right now. The squadrons swap jets to get enough up jets for cruise, they base your allowed man-power on how much your jet takes to maintain. If youre smart youll load up as many hours as you can in the hopes that they plus up your types squadron with more people. Theere isn't an F/A-18 built that is 20mmh/fh. Not a single legacy, super, or Growler. This is true of the older Nalcomis OMA but with OOMA it's close to impossible to fudge the numbers for manpower purposes. I'm not sure where the 20 MMH per FH number came from but it is definitely way low for the Hornets in the fleet right now. The jets have aged and are becoming much more maintenance intensive... and they are not ageing well as they were only meant to last to 6k flight hours and many of them are passing 8k flight hours and some now approaching 10k. Also keep in mind that the lower hour jets were the ones that spent a lot of time as hangar queens... and still really are hangar queens. Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheckGear Posted October 26, 2016 Author Share Posted October 26, 2016 Maintenance man hours per flight hour are easily fudged. That 20 man hours per flight isn't anything near realistic as so many can't even get in the air right now. The squadrons swap jets to get enough up jets for cruise, they base your allowed man-power on how much your jet takes to maintain. If youre smart youll load up as many hours as you can in the hopes that they plus up your types squadron with more people. Theere isn't an F/A-18 built that is 20mmh/fh. Not a single legacy, super, or Growler. This is true of the older Nalcomis OMA but with OOMA it's close to impossible to fudge the numbers for manpower purposes. I'm not sure where the 20 MMH per FH number came from but it is definitely way low for the Hornets in the fleet right now. The jets have aged and are becoming much more maintenance intensive... and they are not ageing well as they were only meant to last to 6k flight hours and many of them are passing 8k flight hours and some now approaching 10k. Also keep in mind that the lower hour jets were the ones that spent a lot of time as hangar queens... and still really are hangar queens. Would it be a safe assumption to say that the Tomcat's maintenance man hours are much higher than what was written on paper, then? If even the Hornet wasn't as easy to maintain as its proponents spun it, then surely the Tomcat took even more effort? I'm trying to wrap my head around why the F-14 was retired, especially if the F-15C is still flying. The Eagle wasn't an easy aircraft to maintain either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 (edited) Would it be a safe assumption to say that the Tomcat's maintenance man hours are much higher than what was written on paper, then? If even the Hornet wasn't as easy to maintain as its proponents spun it, then surely the Tomcat took even more effort? I'm trying to wrap my head around why the F-14 was retired, especially if the F-15C is still flying. The Eagle wasn't an easy aircraft to maintain either. Why was it retired? As mentioned already, the F-14A's and B's were getting very old with hard to maintain avionics, while the D was produced in too insignificant numbers (37 plus 18 upgrades) for the type to be kept in service. Thus, your question should be 'why wasn't D procured in planned numbers' and the short answer IIRC is that those in power (e.g. SecDef Cheney) went for the newer Super Hornet. Regarding the F-15C, it was supposed to have been replaced by F-22's by now, but since only 187 of those were made in the end, that didn't happen so they're still around. Edited October 26, 2016 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 I'm trying to wrap my head around why the F-14 was retired, especially if the F-15C is still flying. The Eagle wasn't an easy aircraft to maintain either. As I understand the gist of it, it was politically motivated with the financial aspects used as the excuse, though the financial aspects were what drove the political motivations. That means the money was going to the wrong people. Punk [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 How does that compare to other U.S. fighters? I ask because maintenance was a big issue in terms of why the F-14 was retired early. It was unique in the sense it wasn't a cheap platform up front and it was also expensive to keep in the air. As others have said........ the maintenance may have been used as a public excuse for it being retired, however to get behind the more likely reasons, you should get back to the early 90's. In my opinion, this is where the Turkey was really killed. After that it was just a slow dying process. With the lack of spare parts, no production line, and no (at the time) perceived use for them, it was only a matter of time before they were all out. Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion213 Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I'm trying to wrap my head around why the F-14 was retired, especially if the F-15C is still flying. The Eagle wasn't an easy aircraft to maintain either. Agreed, though life is very different taking off from 10,000' runways versus frequent cat shots and arrested landings. Navy airplanes simply don't have the life expectancy of their USAF counterparts - rode hard and put away wet...literally. As I understand the gist of it, it was politically motivated with the financial aspects used as the excuse, though the financial aspects were what drove the political motivations. That means the money was going to the wrong people. As others have said........ the maintenance may have been used as a public excuse for it being retired, however to get behind the more likely reasons, you should get back to the early 90's. In my opinion, this is where the Turkey was really killed. After that it was just a slow dying process. With the lack of spare parts, no production line, and no (at the time) perceived use for them, it was only a matter of time before they were all out. Exactly, there were a few instances where an expensive contract was required to custom make F-14 parts that couldn't be found by scrounging or cannibalizing (like access doors - simple things), simply because manufacturing of all parts ceased in the early 90s and the tooling was destroyed. It would have been possible to keep the F-14 if politics were on it's side and the F-14D was just as maintainable as the Hornet (from what I have read). But that's not what history had in store for the F-14, no getting around that fact. Still, with the way the Hornets are wearing out and breaking is very creative ways, the Tomcat would have needed ongoing production to stick around much longer than it did. Between the hard life with the USN and the reality of what fighters do (compared to say a B-52 or KC-135), the airframes would never have lasted long enough to keep flying till now. Machines have their time and the world moves on - that's why we have DCS and LNS to support those memories. :) -Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcdata Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 You close an assembly line of any aircraft the man-hours will always go up because of the shortage of parts Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeydriver Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 This is true of the older Nalcomis OMA but with OOMA it's close to impossible to fudge the numbers for manpower purposes. I'm not sure where the 20 MMH per FH number came from but it is definitely way low for the Hornets in the fleet right now. The jets have aged and are becoming much more maintenance intensive... and they are not ageing well as they were only meant to last to 6k flight hours and many of them are passing 8k flight hours and some now approaching 10k. Also keep in mind that the lower hour jets were the ones that spent a lot of time as hangar queens... and still really are hangar queens. Just as easy- only cant use extra bodies to do it, just keep a MAF open the entire shift and sign it off at the end even if it only took 1.5 hours for repair. I don't do this, but I know in the 1990s when the F-14 man-hours were so "high" the mantra was to put as many people as possible on a MAF to get man-hours. VF-2 Bounty Hunters https://www.csg-1.com/ DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord: https://discord.gg/6bbthxk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyre Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just as easy- only cant use extra bodies to do it, just keep a MAF open the entire shift and sign it off at the end even if it only took 1.5 hours for repair. I don't do this, but I know in the 1990s when the F-14 man-hours were so "high" the mantra was to put as many people as possible on a MAF to get man-hours. That only works if you have the bodies to do it with and a light workload. OOMA makes it so you can only use what you have available and a good maintenance controller won't let that happen anyway. The bluescreen Nalcomis OMA would let you put as many people in work as you wanted by just putting a name then plus XX many sailors. OOMA won't let you do that anymore and the maintenance man hours are much more realistic now simply because the program won't let you fudge the numbers. Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts