|
|
Post by dude on Apr 2, 2009 8:52:26 GMT 9
 This isn't a war story per seh. But its fairly recent. Just a couple years back I found my self in a position where I needed to get some face time with LGen John Handy, then the CC for USAF/IL. Well you don't just go trotting on down to the Pentagon and show up at the door. So I hired one of his predecessors, retired LGen Leo Marquez to sponsor me in. I met up with Leo in Crystal City and we taxied over to the Pentagon and made our way to Handy's offices. When Leo introduced me he didn't say, "This is Dude. He's a VP with Company X." Instead he said, "This is Dude. He was an MA-1 techician on the F-106." Now I'm standing there thinking, "What the $#% has that got to do with anything and why would this three bagger come even close to caring?" when Handy looks at me with all seriousness and says, "The most sophisticated fighter this country has ever produced." Well the meeting was suppose to run about 15 minutes. An hour and a half later we come walking out of Handy's office. During that time I'd say we talked 10% my business, 10% other business, and 80% F-106. Handy was really interested in the features of the MA-1; especially CCM. Back in our taxi I told Leo I was really surprised with Handy's interest in the Six. Leo smiled and said, "You shouldn't be. Check out the features on the F-22." So I did. Hmmmm....
|
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Apr 2, 2009 9:14:37 GMT 9
Lots of similarities, especially when you throw in the 40 years of advances in electronics and flight technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Apr 2, 2009 9:48:55 GMT 9
For sure. weapons concealed in the fuselage agile radar infra red data link Course on the flip side a Six was about as stealthy as a Las Vegas marquee. If interested in the 22 check out www.f22fighter.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by ma1marv on Apr 2, 2009 11:50:02 GMT 9
You forgot a couple of things!
Try rapid tune, hydraulic driven, electrical positioned magnetron capable of over 200 NMI range with extended capability of additional 20 NME when you engaged "Spotlite mode"
Oh, how about First to use TEC (Thermo Electric Cooldown) for Ir. Finalized after at least three generations of IR systems, all functioning with the same Seeker head.
Try "HOME" function for the radar when jamming got to be too bad, along with the ability to change received video thresh hold when all jamming bins were indicating max jamming levels.
I'm not so sure the F-22 can sustain Mach 2, and as well, I don't think it can carry a Nuke Weapon, but in this day and age, that does not really matter anymore.
Am I a fan of the F-22 and what it can do??? Would I like to get a chance to work on that system??? You bet, but in comparison to the "6", call me when the Raptor sets the new speed record for a single engine aircraft.
Still MA-1 -- Always MA-1! :green-beer :green-beer
MArv :patriotic-flagwaver
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Apr 2, 2009 12:58:55 GMT 9
Actually Marv I think you'ld be bored to tears working a Raptor. Avionics maintenance today has been dummied down to the point where you're either looking for a fault light or diagnostics is just flat out telling you what's wrong on your handy dandy IETMS (Integrated Electronic Technical Manuals). Yep they've come a long way from SSGCs. Today it's just box swapping with a lot fewer boxes. No we were the last of a breed to walk a flightline with a cadillac cart full of test equipment. I've worked with both F-4 and F-15 avionics since. Not the same animals. Oh let us not forget the anti-chaff (e.g. edge-angle bias) and the artificial lobing frequencies. I still think the ferrite modulator was really Hughes code for "Here's the trap door we open to pour the magic in." The Six was a specialist. There'll never be another. As far as Mach 2. Well I'm not sure how long a Six would want to do that either. But that F119 engine in the F-22 is one powerful mother. And yes its got two of em so the single engine record will live on. I was visiting Langley about a year after they got their first F-22s. First Fighter was still doing their little mini single plane airshow on Friday thing with the 22 just like they used to with the F-15. I have to tell you to see an airplane sitting a couple hundred feet off the ground on its tail with nose straight up and holding a stationary position for what seemed like forever just on sheer brute thrust ... and then push on straight up vertical .... well I was impressed enough to go running to my physics books. :tailed-devil
|
|
|
|
Post by falconkeeper on Jun 18, 2009 1:12:11 GMT 9
I knew that the avionic troop's job had finished when I read about the F-15.
If any box fails for more than 150 milliseconds (I think that is the time period) during flight, an enunciator flag in the nose wheel well will drop and latch into the fault position. Upon landing, the crew chief will note which flags are in fault mode, call for replacement boxes and clear the faults. The replacement boxes are brought out to the AC and installed by avionics. The avionics troop then sits in the cockpit and runs the BIT (built in test). Any further fault codes displayed are checked against the code list and, if necessary, additional boxes are replaced until the BIT (not the avionics troop) is satisfied.
Malfunctioning boxes are taken to mock-up, where they are cycled for 24 hours by a computer. At the end of that time, the computer spits out a problem report detailing the bad components. Field replaceable boards are swapped out, per the report and the box is retested, or the box is sent to depot for repair.
I was at Tyndall Field Training Detachment when we transitioned to the F-15. The reasoning behind this change was; for every hour of flight in the Six, the plane took 13 hours (not man-hours) for repair, while an F-15 took a lot less time. I had, and still have, great respect for MA-1. You guys HAD to know your stuff. Now, avionics is down to parts changers. Better for wartime surges, but a lot less pride of ownership. Munitions has changed to the same idea. Load the bullet (missile, bomb), fly the mission, and, if not used, store the bullet. They can't take away our memories of the good times, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Jun 18, 2009 5:35:23 GMT 9
And therein lies the reason I got out when I did. I DID NOT want to work on the F-15!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Jun 18, 2009 9:03:15 GMT 9
Now, avionics is down to parts changers. Better for wartime surges, but a lot less pride of ownership. You got that right. When I first visited the 134th Air Refueling Wing (KC-135E's at the time,KC-135R's now, Tennessee ANG) the recruiter was trying to get avionics guys. They were short and that was the sell. He drove me over to the avionics back-shop, introduced me to some TSgt there and asked the guy to give me a tour. That guy gave me the most depressing story I've heard in maintenance... "Oh well, this used to be a good job in the Air Force but all we do now is swap out boxes." Blah, blah, blah. I listened to him for about a half hour just to be polite but I'd heard enough and asked him where I could go to chat with the crew chiefs. No offense to the avionics guys but that conversation sucked! I ended up as a crew chief on KC-135's! Mark |
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jun 18, 2009 13:04:15 GMT 9
I had an ex-MA-1 super that retired but stayed at Langley as an F-15 avionics tech rep. Ran into him a few years later when I was down there on another job and listened to him lamenting how the F-15 avionics tech school was knocked down to 6 weeks and all they taught them was how to read fault lights. Didn't even get trained on how to ohms check wiring. Once the 1553 bus came into play, it all became a software game.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimpadgett on Aug 23, 2009 22:13:50 GMT 9
Well,you started it! A significant portion of the people in this site are here because the loved the six. despite the fact that working it they were often up to their a** in snow or alligators and freezing their butts off in some god forsaken part of the planet. The challenges were unique and extraordinary. I am confident that virtually everyone here worked other jets and bugsmashers as well. Yes it was a challenge but, these folks were into it and up to it, not looking for something easier. The "rose" tint to the lenses derives from fond memories of a demanding job done outstandingly under severe conditions with little recognition from the rest of the flying or maintenance community. I personally will never get over it. It is an integral and vital part of my character and life. I have moved on but not forgotten where I started.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 24, 2009 0:58:53 GMT 9
Well, well, From a tire kicker, (weenies' term for apg types, especially crew chiefs) that never crewed a SIX, but supervised the accomplishing of periodic inspections on them and did post dock trim runs- DUY it seems you bit off quite a chunk.............. When a lot of us got the SIX, it was brand new and none of us knew anymore than what we learned in school. Some of us had prior Deuce experience which helped a lot... The fast acting doors,flight controls,and a few other systems were the same...... The MG-10 and the MA-1 had only one thing -in reality , in common, they were both what we unenlightend people called fire control systems...... I never considered Langley, Dickey Guber, Bunker Hill and one or two other SIX bases south of the Mason-Dickson line really part of ADC, because they didn't experience 30degrees below zero,with 20 plus miles an hour winds or 3-4 feet of snow in 24 hours.................. None of us considered it FUN, but we do have memories that we remember fondly and with pride......... Sure we were envious of the guys at Tyndall, after all they had a different set of seasons-summer and snowbirds........ Even though you were a WEEEEENNNNIIIEEE, you might not realize just how big that fraternity really was and still is............ The older that bird got, the more skillfull people had to be to keep it flying......I, in a way envy you that came along later, because you got go places and do things and have your skills tested to the utmost..................... How did that guy that refused to go to Minot get to be a WEEEEENNNNIIIIEEE, I thought you had to be smart to get tob e one---at least that is what you weenies were always quick to point out................ The Old Sarge :salute To you weenies.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Aug 24, 2009 8:34:35 GMT 9
Granted, I did opt out because I didn't want to work on the F-15. I enjoy being a tech, even today, almost 25 years later.
I continued to work on display systems and radar systems for the next 5 years after I got out at Texas Instruments, and during that time got into the air guard working on combat comm gear.
Now I work for the FAA, on instrument landing systems in the Chicago area. Being a tech is something I'm good at. I knew it then and I know it now. I'm fairly confident that I've kept my troubleshooting skills sharp because I still have to use them.
Oh, and the reason I got into the guard was that I missed the comradre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 24, 2009 9:39:58 GMT 9
PS I forgot some loose ends. The guy who did not reenlist because he did not want to go to Minot, and did not want to work F15's, later tried to get back in the Air Force, but they wouldn't take him back.  The crew chief posts that the MA1 weenies were bragging how smart they were! I DID NOT SAY OR POST THAT, HE DID!!! I think my Zero Kharma is going to dip into the negative numbers!!!  DUY, don't know the time frame that you served, but there was a time when there was a thing called Pro Pay and we in fields other than any part of the MA-1 field were constantly told that the Pro stood for professional and Proficient.....It was a very sore spot............. But that is water over the dam.............. Didn't accuse you of saying it..........Since I joined this forum(more years ago than what my profile states) I have had the privelege of riding you MA-1 weenies, especially more rewarding because there are so many more of you than there are of us......... Not to happen DUY, you have been exalted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your posts help to breath life in here.......... The Old Sarge |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 24, 2009 11:12:52 GMT 9
Mellowing isn't bad DUY, it generally comes with age and a beer or two, so listen to the Irish tenors and have one on me............  .... The Old Sarge BTW, NO APOLOGY NEEDED MY FRIEND  Besides, your writin makes good readin |
|
|
|
Post by jimpadgett on Aug 24, 2009 11:55:01 GMT 9
"Well, you started it" came from an AGE puke (even lower on the pecking order than the tire kickers or weenies). And I thought the blood feud was between MA-1 and AGE. Later I learned that AGE was not high enough on the evolutionary scale to even be held in contempt. As time passed I learned that pride can be derived from any job well done. It just so happened that of the over 26 years I spent at it consisted of 1 with F-102, 1 with F-4C, 2 with F-4E, 2 with C-5, 2 with C-130E, 2 with E-3A, 18 months with TM-76B Mace, and 14 with the six. Of those, all but 4.5 were in Air Defense and tenant on someone else's base(any wonder I have a 'tude?).
|
|
tmbak
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 37
Location:
Joined: October 2005
|
Post by tmbak on Aug 24, 2009 12:12:39 GMT 9
The Old Sarge is right on there is no apology needed. I worked on several different aircraft through out my career, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-105, F-106, F-4 and the F-16 (for 18 years) but without a doubt the best a most advanced aircraft for it's time was the F-106. There were systems on the Dart that were not on the F-16 until just a few year ago.
When I first started as a crew chief on 59-057 back in 1963 there was an inspection every 25 hours to tune up the MA1 system. The MA1 tech for my aircraft was A1C Wingo (three stripes back then). He taught me several neat tricks on how to fix problems on the system. He showed me where to hit the black box with the handle of the screwdriver and if that did not work what box to pull out and what cards to reseat. Of course you also had to tap them with the screwdriver handle to make sure they were seated good once they were reinstalled. I was able to fix many radar problems with these good tips!!
There is one thing the F-106 had that the other aircraft did not and that was it was a real clean aircraft to work on.
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Sept 11, 2009 13:35:10 GMT 9
Man, I come back off a consulting gig and find this. Ok Duy try this on for size. After my six on the Six in uniform as an MA-1 WEENIE. I did the GI bill thing and finished first in my class at Purdue school of electrical engineering. Then went to work for the company that built that yellow barrel FDT you used and for the next 8-10 years did 90% of the weapon systems analysis for the FDT software updates on MA-1 until the Six was retired. Did the same thing for F-4C/D/E/G. Later worked the improved radar simulator, down sized tester and advance boresight equipment for the F-15. Did some nav work on the A-6, F-14 and F-18. And a whole bunch of other crap. We all know the Six had a finite mission, which enabled it to have a very specialized weapons system. But the other thing to consider is the fact that along the way, the missiles got smarter. So instead of prepping an AIM-4 that had to actually hit the target up to its fin before it would explode, a system today preps a beam rider that only has to get close enough for the doppler shift to trigger it. The Six was a continuous learning experience. I don't care what base you were at, I'm willing to bet that if you walked into the MA-1 shop, the odds were pretty good you would find one or more tech with his/her face in the books. More often than not, any discussion had to do with how the sytem worked. In my later years when I was working it more from an engineering angle, I can honestly say the more I learned, the more I respected the MA-1. I'll finish with the way I started this thread. If a three star general, who by the way went on to his fourth star and commanded USTRANSCOM and AMC during the early days of OEF and OIF), can find room in his psyche to have a high regard for the MA-1, well that's good enough for me. :patriotic-flagwaver
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Sept 13, 2009 12:18:11 GMT 9
For anyone interested in what lies in store for the F-15 now that the F-22 is taking the field, there's a pretty good article in this month's Air Force magazine called "The F-22 Playbook".
|
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Sept 14, 2009 4:46:48 GMT 9
We'll need to keep the 15s and 16s as "twelveth men". 187 F22's ain't enough!!
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Sept 14, 2009 8:07:22 GMT 9
Yep. A lot of the article was a treatise on "how to make do" when your leadership has its head up its proverbial tailpipe. Per the article they won't even have enough to put one full squadron in each AEF. Makes me sick that we can throw $750B to the wind, but pull up short when it comes to giving our boys the best equipment we can. If you think I'm off base consider this... approx. 5% of the $750B is for administration (a.k.a. grow the gov). That's $37.5B that could have bought about 230-240 more F-22s. Oh well...  As far as the F-15's role in combined tactics... can you spell BAIT?
|
|
This isn't a war story per seh. But its fairly recent.
