A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

[Kev2go]

 

 

and that's more or less what i said a few posts prior.

 

read much? 2 engines just because of navy requirements/ preferences, otherwise F16 was a better performing aircraft. Its proably a peace of mind, having an extr engine But Its not a deal breaker. Engines dont often magically fail for no apparent reason. Far more often it would be Pilot or Mechanic error to cause such an event. the navy is accepting the F35 for service, and not pulling " Muh second engine or bust card"

 

But then what if two engines fail? does this mean for those niche instances we need to start designing tripple or Quad engine powered fighter aircraft , i think not. it wouldn't be practical anyhow.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Kev2go

[dimitrischal]

and thats more ore less what i siad a few posts prior.

 

read much? 2 engines just because of navy requirements/ preferences, otherwise F16 was a better performing aircraft. , But Its not a deal breaker. Engines dont often magically fail for no apparent reason. Far more often it would be Pilot or Mechanic error to cause such an event. the navy is accepting the F35 for service, and not pulling " Muh second engine or bust card"

 

Like I said easier to build a good fighter around one big engine rather than 2 smaller ones. It's also cheaper and easier to maintain.

I don't think anyone argues the f16 is a better fighter but in the naval environment the hornet was a more logical airframe. I don't think any of the two were ever matched or beaten in an actual combat environment by any enemy fighter so picking at stats and details is pretty futile anyway.

 

I don't think the navy has a choice now anyway regarding the f35.

Edited April 30, 2017 by dimitrischal

[Bearfoot]

Soooooooo ........

 

How about that A6?

[AndytotheD]

Nah an F/A-18 was killed by a MiG-25, despite what the official U.S. line likes to believe. An F-16 was also killed by a Mirage 2000

 

But I digress, we must return to the topic at hand.

[BlackLion213]

and thats more ore less what i siad a few posts prior.

 

read much? 2 engines just because of navy requirements/ preferences, otherwise F16 was a better performing aircraft. Its proably a peace of mind, having an extr engine But Its not a deal breaker.

 

Indeed, the Navy has fielded many single-engine aircraft, including the A-7 that the F/A-18 replaced. Twin engine is a nice feature for Navy aircraft, namely because emergency landings for engine failure is not as readily available as it is for the USAF. Viper pilots spend a fair bit of time practicing engine-out emergencies, but USN aircraft have to contend with an airfield that is often unavailable (deck needs to be respotted, delayed or behind schedule launch, carrier needs WOD, but is running out of operating area) and CV aircraft have a draggy approach config that really does not facilitate a engine-out approach.

 

For single-engine Navy aircraft, engine failure means ejection, no other options are viable.

 

But there are other reasons that the F-16 was not a great choice for the USN, even if it is perhaps the best combination of capability, cost, and flexibility of any fighter available today (IMHO).

 

First, the single-engine nature was probably a deal breaker, but do to inadequate thrust with a single engine once the airframe was scaled up to USN requirements. The F-16A that the USN would be looking at had 23,000 lbs of thrust from a single engine - which was one of the most powerful military turbofans available. The Navy would need 30,000+ and no powerplant existed. The Navy already learned their lesson with Westinghouse and building aircraft around "expected" engine performance.

 

Most USN aircraft carry a 25-30% dry weight penalty compared to similar land-based aircraft. This is a combination of chassis reinforcements, larger/higher-lift wings, heavy lift gear (flaps/slats), very robust landing gear, etc. So getting enough thrust probably compelled designers to choose twin engines, especially since the Navy likes twin engine designs for safety. Plus, there is more growth potential in a twin engine design for increasing thrust - it may not seem like it in an era where the F-35 has a 43,000 lb engine, but things were different once.

 

Also, the original F-16 was a really simple aircraft from a weapons stand-point. Only IR missiles and iron bombs, the Navy needed to replace a light attack aircraft with a much broader scope of capability than the original F-16. So choosing the YF-17, which was already the larger of the two options, seemed logical when you have to put a bunch of equipment onboard (original F-16A was 16,000 lbs while the YF-17 was 21,000 lbs). In fact, the Hornet would grow another 10% while becoming an operational fighter (even while forgetting about little things...like fuel:)).

 

The F-16 would grow to have a very wide variety of sensors and capabilities (thanks to technology and miniaturization), but it probably looked like a higher risk program in the late-70s. The Hornet has a lot more room for growth and equipment. In the F-16, the pilot doesn't even fit without leaning back the seat to 30 deg (vs ~12 for most aircraft). I know that General Dynamics claims it helps G-forces, but this is probably isn't meaningful and not other aircraft has made similar choices. Plus, most Viper pilots complain about having to lean forward to look around, it is not a loved feature of the aircraft.

 

Perhaps the F-16 could have been navalized, but by the time the airframes is reinforced, larger wings are added, and room for more equipment, and likely twin engines to keep a reasonably comparable T/W ratio - it would have been a totally new aircraft and probably would have looked and operated like the Hornet.

 

-Nick

Edited May 1, 2017 by BlackLion213

[Robert31178]

"For Navy aircraft, engine failure means ejection, no other options are viable."

 

Yes, but where would you rather eject, right there over the target area, or over your carrier after your one remaining engine got you there?

[BlackLion213]

"For Navy aircraft, engine failure means ejection, no other options are viable."

 

Yes, but where would you rather eject, right there over the target area, or over your carrier after your one remaining engine got you there?

 

I meant for single-engine Navy aircraft. :)

 

Many F-14As have landed aboard ship with one engine (wasn't a rare failure, but not common either) along with scores of other twin engine Navy airplanes. For the USN, twin engine is the better way to go if you have a choice, but I don't think that single engine aircraft should be excluded from the naval environment (and they haven't).

 

I'll clarify my above post.

 

-Nick

[AesclepiusCrow]

I remember when Razbam was working on an A-6.

[Dehuman]

I remember when Razbam was working on an A-6.

 

Was there a discussion thread about that?

[Zeus67]

Was there a discussion thread about that?

 

Folks if we started talking about all the aircraft we want to develop for DCS, we will never end.

 

We will talk about the A-7, A-6 and other aircrafts in due time.

[Dehuman]

Folks if we started talking about all the aircraft we want to develop for DCS, we will never end.

 

We will talk about the A-7, A-6 and other aircrafts in due time.

 

:thumbup:

 

I was being sarcastic as to how off topic this thread has gotten, turning into another this vs that measuring contest.

[DoomEngine]

Time to recall this ;) :

 

 

 

Just watched this last night- great film. If anyone is interested, Amazon instant video has it to rent or buy. Not a plug, just trying to help if anyone has never seen this film. It has some great aircraft footage, and probably one of Danny Glover's better roles. :thumbup:

[AG-51_Razor]

:thumbup:

 

I was being sarcastic as to how off topic this thread has gotten, turning into another this vs that measuring contest.

 

LOL! More often than not, it's more like "mine vs yours" measuring contest! :doh:

[Zeus67]

Just watched this last night- great film. If anyone is interested, Amazon instant video has it to rent or buy. Not a plug, just trying to help if anyone has never seen this film. It has some great aircraft footage, and probably one of Danny Glover's better roles. :thumbup:

 

The book is 1000% better.

[Vampyre]

The book is 1000% better.

 

The book is always better than the movie.

[jojo]

Yet I rate this movie above Top Gun :thumbup:

[Vampyre]

Yet I rate this movie above Top Gun :thumbup:

 

Top Gun didn't come from a book... it was a article from a magazine. I wouldn't have minded seeing a movie made of the book Final Flight.

 

Looking forward to the A-6E and A-7E to populate the virtual carrier decks.

[Zeus67]

Yet I rate this movie above Top Gun :thumbup:

 

The only good thing about Top Gun is watching F-14s fly.

[jojo]

The only good thing about Top Gun is watching F-14s fly.

 

I agree :thumbup:

 

A little bit off topic, but here is the beginning of Tomcat at Top Gun...without Maverick and Iceman :smilewink:

Some footage will remind you of the movie...

 

Another one about Tomcat and Phoenix

Edited May 3, 2017 by jojo

[USSInchon]

The only good thing about Top Gun is watching F-14s fly.

 

I'd say the same for Flight of the Intruder. The acting is absolutely terrible, but man those action scenes....

[Kev2go]

Yet I rate this movie above Top Gun :thumbup:

 

I agree. the setting alone made it more likable than top gun ( real war in SE vs fictional skirmishes over the pacific) ,action sequences , and even the story is better.

 

Tough even top gun was nice to watch. really havent seen any half decent aviation flicks since top gun and Flight of the intruder.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Kev2go

[Robert31178]

Firebirds?

[Kev2go]

Firebirds?

 

oh yea that one with nic cage ( usual over the top Cage isms). I know i said aviation but was thinking more akin to fixed wing. besides Helicopters Dog fighting of Supporting troops or ground striking.. didn't really fit. IF you want air support/ Escort you send in Fixed winged fast movers.

 

I know there was also Iron eagle... but more of a teen fantasy flick.

 

Behind enemy lines wasnt really a aviation flick, nice seeing a Super Hornet fly but SAM scene was just cringe worthy to watch.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Kev2go

[Robert31178]

Firebird was RAD!!!

 

Bat-21 Is another great one.

[Guitrz]

An aviation movie with Nicolas Cage? It must be so bad why haven't I watched it yet