|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 5, 2017 22:04:40 GMT -6
One of the problems with flight hours, is that it is just a number calculated by higher math to determine using the stresses of flight and how they are going to affect the structure of the aircraft. Combat will overstress every aircraft. We saw this after Vietnam and Desert Storm. What is tragic about this issue of the Harrier and F-18's is that the pilots will pay the ultimate price for structural failures during flight. It's easy to make judgements about which aircraft to buy and which to just overhaul, but there is only so much work that can be accomplished on the structure of a bird before it is now a hazard. They might, now, put flight restrictions on many of these birds as to how many G's they can push which now translates to combat tactics. What may also make the difference is that the Hornets have probably all made plenty of cats and traps over their careers - the USN and USMC reserve and FRS units still have F/A-18A+ birds, which are over 30 years old at this point. STOVL may inflict a very hefty price on performance and maintenance (I'm sure it doesn't do the engine any favors), but it's arguably easier on the airframe: www.youtube.com/watch?v=btm3k9Z69yM
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 6, 2017 7:54:25 GMT -6
One of the problems with flight hours, is that it is just a number calculated by higher math to determine using the stresses of flight and how they are going to affect the structure of the aircraft. Combat will overstress every aircraft. We saw this after Vietnam and Desert Storm. What is tragic about this issue of the Harrier and F-18's is that the pilots will pay the ultimate price for structural failures during flight. It's easy to make judgements about which aircraft to buy and which to just overhaul, but there is only so much work that can be accomplished on the structure of a bird before it is now a hazard. They might, now, put flight restrictions on many of these birds as to how many G's they can push which now translates to combat tactics. What may also make the difference is that the Hornets have probably all made plenty of cats and traps over their careers - the USN and USMC reserve and FRS units still have F/A-18A+ birds, which are over 30 years old at this point. STOVL may inflict a very hefty price on performance and maintenance (I'm sure it doesn't do the engine any favors), but it's arguably easier on the airframe: www.youtube.com/watch?v=btm3k9Z69yMVTOL aircraft always have structural issues because of their hard landings. It isn't as easy and soft as movies would depict. STOVAL will be much easier on the airframes since their vertical descent is offset by a horizontal component and hence, much of the downward force is absorbed. It's still has landing gear issues which all heavy aircraft have, not matter how they land. Fatigue cracks generally start at some local stress areas such as bolt holes, fillets, flanges, rivets or where a tool has been used and left a mark. They will propagate and generally you can see them, or test for them with Magnafluxing but many times you miss it and that's when you have a catastrophic failure. The repair and replacement of fatigued parts can be expensive and time consuming especially if the aircraft has been out of production for a long time. That's where the bone yard comes in.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on May 15, 2017 18:24:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 16, 2017 6:59:32 GMT -6
Well, it is an interesting solution and if you don't have the funds to replace badly needed aircraft, why not. My concern, and I am certain that the pilots have the same concern, is flight safety. I believe that sharing knowledge of aeronautical engineering between both sides is valuable and could keep our costs down. Interesting piece, but the US military standards are a little stricter because of various reasons. We can't do some types of maintenance to naval aircraft because of the issues of landing and takeoffs from pitching decks. The Israeli's don't have that problem.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 1, 2017 19:21:06 GMT -6
Interesting development in the F-35 program. This would seem to be an excellent upgrade for the bird. Better engines, less fuel, means longer ranges and better combat capability. I know the pilots will like it, possibly the poor maintenance tech's if the flight time between engine overhauls can be reduced. www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26733/f-35-improved-engine/
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 7, 2017 20:52:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 7, 2017 21:07:48 GMT -6
No and it's pretty stupid of the Indian Navy to buy a jet that is not designed to land on carriers. Ruggedized? They are going to have to start from scratch and build the airframe resilient enough to withstand carrier landing, along with anodizing the structure against salt spray along with establishing depots to routinely do a complete test for cracks. It won't be cheap and get used to retiring planes early because it will happen. This is silly.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 15, 2018 8:31:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 15, 2018 8:47:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 15, 2018 10:16:12 GMT -6
Well, as to the first article, it is about time for that bird to bye-bye. Nice to see that it will be retired one of these days. With combat, flight hours increase dramatically and of course maintenance goes up. Those planes have been through the depot many times, but you can only fix so many items. If cracks appear, a judgement has to be made whether it is really cost effective to continue with the aircraft. This is what will happen to those going to the aggressor squadrons at Fallon and the transitioning squadrons. BTW, I was stationed at Fallon in the early '70's so I know what goes on in the mountains east of base. Interesting article number 2. The Navy always passes its junk to the Marines. Of course, their maintenance isn't the greatest work I've ever seen. However, they do work with a minimum budget, so they do their best to adapt. Oh Boy, an F-14 manual, just what I needed. Yuch!!! BTW, I have the NATOPS Flight Manual for the F-14D......
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 23, 2018 21:16:11 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 7:17:42 GMT -6
Bomb truck extraordinaire, that's all. Super bug kite that stays basically stationary at 40deg AoA, balanced by the un-jettisonable centerline counterweight. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 24, 2018 8:29:04 GMT -6
Bomb truck extraordinaire, that's all. Super bug kite that stays basically stationary at 40deg AoA, balanced by the un-jettisonable centerline counterweight. Sigh. It is interesting that they don't mention that the 9000 hrs. is without combat because that will halve that figure very quickly. I also noticed that they did not put new engines in these aircraft, I sure that will cause problems. With all this new equipment for dropping smart bombs, whose going to fly top cover and barrier patrols, to protect the fleet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 9:21:25 GMT -6
Probably a lotta roles will be handed over to the f-35 now. ...along dev paths jets usually become "fat" but the bug seems to suffer the most, and it is already very draggy to begin with, nowadays it's surely the most kinetically deficit among contemporary peers.
F-14A->D Greatly up-engined, better avionics, AG ability, all around improvement. F-15A->E E is heavy, but it's the real bomb truck extraordinaire. A had more power but check "hangar queen". C is still good today BVR kinetic wise. Strap on an AESA, datalink, EWS, the latest AMRAAM and whatnot and we're still a heavy hitter. F-16A15->C50 Heavier but also up-engined. Performance goes to Block30 but Block50 all around best. Arguably still second best knife fighter in USAF inventory and arguably world's best SEAD platform. F-18A->E up-engined but fuel consumption, acceleration, top speed all dropped. It was a kite at original inception and became more and more kite as time went on. The C could still simulate the fulcrum as adversary but E not so much! edit: only guy it could beat probably was Tornado ADV... even Mirage2000 is a lot better, the M53 isn't a power house but the delta wings make up for it. Talk of F414EPE upgrade was there like 2008 and 2018 it is still on paper and the SH's prime years are fading. My view is very pilot centric. If Robin Olds were alive today I'm sure he'd agree. Others in the community prolly have different things to say - liked the Hornet for it had some good innovations but what they did to it weren't so likable.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 24, 2018 11:42:03 GMT -6
Probably a lotta roles will be handed over to the f-35 now. ...along dev paths jets usually become "fat" but the bug seems to suffer the most, and it is already very draggy to begin with, nowadays it's surely the most kinetically deficit among contemporary peers. F-14A->D Greatly up-engined, better avionics, AG ability, all around improvement. F-15A->E E is heavy, but it's the real bomb truck extraordinaire. A had more power but check "hangar queen". C is still good today BVR kinetic wise. Strap on an AESA, datalink, EWS, the latest AMRAAM and whatnot and we're still a heavy hitter. F-16A15->C50 Heavier but also up-engined. Performance goes to Block30 but Block50 all around best. Arguably still second best knife fighter in USAF inventory and arguably world's best SEAD platform. F-18A->E up-engined but fuel consumption, acceleration, top speed all dropped. It was a kite at original inception and became more and more kite as time went on. The C could still simulate the fulcrum as adversary but E not so much! edit: only guy it could beat probably was Tornado ADV... even Mirage2000 is a lot better, the M53 isn't a power house but the delta wings make up for it. Talk of F414EPE upgrade was there like 2008 and 2018 it is still on paper and the SH's prime years are fading. My view is very pilot centric. If Robin Olds were alive today I'm sure he'd agree. Others in the community prolly have different things to say - liked the Hornet for it had some good innovations but what they did to it weren't so likable. I worked on the F-14A and F-18A, both were good fighters but the F-14A was underpowered and it leaked. The later version was good, but too heavy. The Navy aircraft are almost all bomb trucks because the Navy doesn't expect to face any real manned aircraft threats, just missile threats. One question that I have is how are they going to handle the excess stress on the wing roots and center barrel with the conformal's on the upper portion of the wing root. Pilots normally like to drop all weapons and external tanks when they are engaged in air to air combat, now they won't be able to. I also wonder if they are still going to drain those tanks first in the first and second internal fuel tanks as always.
|
|