The F-35 Thread

[SkateZilla]

Im aware of that, being a Navy Brat and all...

 

I enjoy rubbing my Airforce buddies nose in the fact that the navy took what they discarded and transformed it into a mainstay in the Navy for appraching now 40 years.

[NineLine]

You guys should start an F/A-18 discussion thread?

[SkateZilla]

The F-35C's cant get to NAS Oceana soon enough..

[Sweep]

The F-35C's cant get to NAS Oceana soon enough..

 

Standby for noise complaints...

[SkateZilla]

Standby for noise complaints...

 

We already get them, But it's from people that buy houses not understanding the area, same old lady lives at the end of runway 14R, leading the "Anti Jet Noise Movement"

 

They recently (2014?) Integrated a new Law requiring Real Estate Listings to AICUZ Noise and Zone Data.

 

I watched property I was interested in drop from 275K to 69K as a result of AICUZ Noise 75+ and AICUZ APZ Zone 2 Ratings were added to it's Listing.

[Tirak]

Im aware of that, being a Navy Brat and all...

 

I enjoy rubbing my Airforce buddies nose in the fact that the navy took what they discarded and transformed it into a mainstay in the Navy for appraching now 40 years.

 

Um, but can't the F-16 outclimb, out accelerate and out sustained turn the F-18? Wouldn't your airforce buddy laugh at the fact that the Navy took the tablescraps the Air Force didn't even want? :megalol:

[Pilotasso]

Technically the YF-17 and F-18 are totally different aircraft, kinda like comparing the Mig-29 with the Su-27.

[NineLine]

Technically the YF-17 and F-18 are totally different aircraft, kinda like comparing the Mig-29 with the Su-27.

 

And totally different than the F-35, which is what the thread is about...

[Hummingbird]

Im aware of that, being a Navy Brat and all...

 

I enjoy rubbing my Airforce buddies nose in the fact that the navy took what they discarded and transformed it into a mainstay in the Navy for appraching now 40 years.

 

:thumbup: Always admired the Navy more myself as well.

[NineLine]

[SkateZilla]

That GBU looked a lil Wobbly, But nice to see the -35 Dropping some Boombs.

[Itkovian]

Um, but can't the F-16 outclimb, out accelerate and out sustained turn the F-18? Wouldn't your airforce buddy laugh at the fact that the Navy took the tablescraps the Air Force didn't even want? :megalol:

 

What's scary is that one of the main reasons they went for the 18 was its twin engines... F-35 is single engine.

 

Heck, I remember reading "Viper Pilot", where in between french jokes the author mentions how Viper training constantly stressed and practiced flame-out landings... something which came in handy in actual flight several times in his career.

 

Now imagine doing this off of an aircraft carrier, how many airframes would this have cost the Navy?

 

I wonder how the Navy is calculating its wastage rate for single-engined F-35s? They have GOT to be considering a significantly higher rate than the twin-engined F-18, no?

[sobek]

With FADEC and better engine instrumentation, the MBTF should be good enough to make up for the redundancy. We'll see how that works out.

[Pilotasso]

they had single engines in the navy for a long time and several times. F-8, A-7 just to name a few.

[Tirak]

What's scary is that one of the main reasons they went for the 18 was its twin engines... F-35 is single engine.

...

I wonder how the Navy is calculating its wastage rate for single-engined F-35s? They have GOT to be considering a significantly higher rate than the twin-engined F-18, no?

 

A-1: Single Engine

A-4: Single Engine

A-5: Twin Engine

A-6: Twin Engine

A-7: Single Engine

F-8: Single Engine

F-4: Twin Engine

F-14: Twin Engine

F-18: Twin Engine

F-35 Single Engine

 

A list of navy attack and fighter aircraft since the Vietnam War. As you can see, the Navy hops back and forth between twin and single engines constantly. If we extend this list back to WWII, the number of single engine aircraft vastly outweighs multi engine.

 

Even when engine reliability was suspect, the Navy had no problem trusting single engine aircraft, the operative requirement was power. Modern engines are vastly more reliable, and with the advanced monitoring and management systems on the F-35, engine reliability post testing phase is projected to be very good.

[SkateZilla]

and a F-18A->G w/ a Engine Flame out on take off = Ejection and Dump into the Drink.

 

Twin Engines will help with keeping the aircraft in air if an Engine fails mid Flight.

 

however, if a engine eats itself on launch/take off or right after, wave goodbye to that Airframe.

 

 

So it'll be the same for the Navy Regardless of Single/Twin Engine for Engine Failure During Launch.

[Vampyre]

A-1: Single Engine

A-4: Single Engine

A-5: Twin Engine

A-6: Twin Engine

A-7: Single Engine

F-8: Single Engine

F-4: Twin Engine

F-14: Twin Engine

F-18: Twin Engine

F-35 Single Engine

 

A list of navy attack and fighter aircraft since the Vietnam War. As you can see, the Navy hops back and forth between twin and single engines constantly. If we extend this list back to WWII, the number of single engine aircraft vastly outweighs multi engine.

 

Even when engine reliability was suspect, the Navy had no problem trusting single engine aircraft, the operative requirement was power. Modern engines are vastly more reliable, and with the advanced monitoring and management systems on the F-35, engine reliability post testing phase is projected to be very good.

 

That list might mean something if there were additional information that included strikes due to engine failure and aircraft single engine recoveries for the aircraft with two powerplants. The older jets were a lot cheaper than the F-35 is even with inflation factored in so the loss of those airframes was deemed to be acceptable attrition. I have not been on a single cruise without having an aircraft do a single engine recovery due to engine problems. Additionally, the Navy has not purchased any single engine attack or fighter aircraft for over 30 years and stopped using the Corsair, the last single engine attack type, in 1991. The majority of the single engine designs on the list predate the end of the Vietnam war and upgraded versions of those designs continued to be produced until the F/A-18 took their place. That said, the acquisitions bean counters seem to believe that single engine is the way to go so we will see. Key word "projected".

[aaron886]

I tried but failed to find the statistic I read recently that gave the single-engine F-16 lower Class-A rates/hull losses than comparable multi-engined fighters. Not necessarily a direct answer to your search. Either way, I tend to be a little nervous about seeing single-engine aircraft on Navy carriers.

 

For what it's worth, aircraft are (especially historically,) designed with two engines to solve power problems, not reliability problems.

[Andrei]

For what it's worth, aircraft are (especially historically,) designed with two engines to solve power problems, not reliability problems.

 

True. I remember back on civil aviation side there were lots of discussions whether quads (four engine aircraft) are more reliable than twins. There was never a 100% convincing case for quads. Modern jet engines are notoriously reliable. I would dare to assume that throughout operational lifespan there would not be many cases where second engine would make a significant difference in terms of saving the aircraft.

[CoNa]

The old saying, "the second engine will fly you to the accident site"

 

As I recall it, there has been a requirement for commercial flights over the atlanticmore or less to be quad engined, but that changed as the reliability of engines has increased so much the past 30 years so twins are now ETOPS certified.

[Emu]

I tried but failed to find the statistic I read recently that gave the single-engine F-16 lower Class-A rates/hull losses than comparable multi-engined fighters.

F-16

[ame]http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131209-032.pdf[/ame]

 

F-15

[ame]http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf[/ame]

[SkateZilla]

F-16A had several teething issues...

Google: f-16 wire chafing

[EasyEB]

I heard an arguement somewhere (quoting statistics) that when modern engines fail, they fail so dramatically that the second engine is also destroyed, in most cases. And therefor the argument that the second engine will get the plane home no longer applies.

 

Come to think of it I think it was some F-35 spokesperson that said it, and those guys will say anything to make their product look good. They are even worse than Apple ;)

[SkateZilla]

if the Engine Eats itself or has a Huge Bird Strike, yeah.

 

But if it stalls completely, it stalls, and you limp home on one engine.

[DUSTY]

I often read the US Navy safety magazine 'Approach' and over the years there have been many many stories where one engine has had to be shut down for one reason or another. As they always say, 'the Hornet flies great on one engine' and it gets their aircrew home to the boat.