Glider
Captain
People tend to forget the trainers used by the USN such as the T45 and even the first version of the T2 Buckeye although that was replaced by a twin engine version
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Anyhoo.....I'm sure that the F-35, is a half decent fighter on the paper.... 
parsifal
Colonel
Im still trying to work out why its irrelevant to look at the experiences of other nations. Last time i checed the F-35 was an international a/c designed to meet international needs. If we are prepared to look at foreign a/c, we would be able to examine a/c like the Mirage III as to accident rates
Some information that I have regarding accident rates.
About 114 RAAF Mirages served 5 sqns 1963 to 1988. They suffered about 1 loss per year overall, but as the fleet began to age, the loss rate began to climb to around two per year.
You can see the accident rate via this link
ADF Serials - Mirage III
The best print version for the RAAF Mirages that I know of is here
http://www.radschool.org.au/Books/the_raaf_mirage_story_opt.pdf
Not a specific accident related account, but gives a good service history just the same....
In the period 1965-73 the a/c with the highest accident rate per capita was the F4 phantom.
In 1965-73 the US lost to ACCIDENTS only in S E Asia
F-4 Phantom 162 aircraft
F-105 63
F-100 45
1975-93 the USAF had 204 F-16A "Class A" Accidents
The main reasons for losses were, according to a study by the USAF Formation position, phase of flight and primary cause of the mishap indicate that maneuvering, cruise and low-level phases account for the majority of the mishaps (71%),
air-to-air engagements associated with a higher proportion of pilot error (71%) than was air-to-ground (49%).
Engine failure was the number one cause of mishaps (35%),
collision with the ground the next most frequent (24%).
Pilot error was determined as causative in 55% of all the mishaps.
Pilot error was often associated with other non-pilot related causes. Channelized attention, loss of situational awareness, and spatial disorientation accounted for approximately 30% of the total pilot error causes found. Pilot demographics, flight hour/sortie profiles, and aircrew injuries are also listed.
Fatalities occurred in 27% of the mishaps, with 97% of those involving pilot errors.
The Indian AF is currently writing off a plane a month
Nowhere does the USAF study attribute a higher or better safety record to number of engines
according to Wikipedia :-
F-104 Starfighter Some operators lost a large proportion of their aircraft through accidents, although the accident rate varied widely depending on the user and operating conditions; the Luftwaffe lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career, and Canada lost over 50% of its F-104s.
The Spanish Air Force, however, lost none.
The Class A mishap rate (write off) of the F-104 in USAF service was 26.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977,(30.63 through the end of 2007]), the highest accident rate of any USAF Century Series fighter. By comparison, the rate of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger was 14.2/100,000 (13.69 through 2007), and the mishap rate for the North American F-100 Super Sabre was 16.25 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.
Some information that I have regarding accident rates.
About 114 RAAF Mirages served 5 sqns 1963 to 1988. They suffered about 1 loss per year overall, but as the fleet began to age, the loss rate began to climb to around two per year.
You can see the accident rate via this link
ADF Serials - Mirage III
The best print version for the RAAF Mirages that I know of is here
http://www.radschool.org.au/Books/the_raaf_mirage_story_opt.pdf
Not a specific accident related account, but gives a good service history just the same....
In the period 1965-73 the a/c with the highest accident rate per capita was the F4 phantom.
In 1965-73 the US lost to ACCIDENTS only in S E Asia
F-4 Phantom 162 aircraft
F-105 63
F-100 45
1975-93 the USAF had 204 F-16A "Class A" Accidents
The main reasons for losses were, according to a study by the USAF Formation position, phase of flight and primary cause of the mishap indicate that maneuvering, cruise and low-level phases account for the majority of the mishaps (71%),
air-to-air engagements associated with a higher proportion of pilot error (71%) than was air-to-ground (49%).
Engine failure was the number one cause of mishaps (35%),
collision with the ground the next most frequent (24%).
Pilot error was determined as causative in 55% of all the mishaps.
Pilot error was often associated with other non-pilot related causes. Channelized attention, loss of situational awareness, and spatial disorientation accounted for approximately 30% of the total pilot error causes found. Pilot demographics, flight hour/sortie profiles, and aircrew injuries are also listed.
Fatalities occurred in 27% of the mishaps, with 97% of those involving pilot errors.
The Indian AF is currently writing off a plane a month
Nowhere does the USAF study attribute a higher or better safety record to number of engines
according to Wikipedia :-
F-104 Starfighter Some operators lost a large proportion of their aircraft through accidents, although the accident rate varied widely depending on the user and operating conditions; the Luftwaffe lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career, and Canada lost over 50% of its F-104s.
The Spanish Air Force, however, lost none.
The Class A mishap rate (write off) of the F-104 in USAF service was 26.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977,(30.63 through the end of 2007]), the highest accident rate of any USAF Century Series fighter. By comparison, the rate of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger was 14.2/100,000 (13.69 through 2007), and the mishap rate for the North American F-100 Super Sabre was 16.25 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
This account of RCAF CF-104 operations and losses is insightful .... the more hours you fly the higher the loss numbers .... it's the price of the F-35 that is throwing folks off their comfort zone, IMHO, Parifal
The 104 Story
The 104 Story
parsifal
Colonel
I havent heard anything like that. As far as im aware we are buying a lot of F-35s, but want that singloe type to fill the roles current done by our Hornets, Super Hornets and F-111s.
I have serious doubts about it being able to fill all those roles. Biggest problems for us is range
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Can they not enlarge it, like they have done with Gripen and the Super Hornet, I think that they got a 50% increase in range out of the Gripen, I don't how much they improved on the later Hornets....
Rumours has it (which is why don't believe it until I see it) that SAAB is busy in the area here, testing Gripens with arrestor hooks(?) and other carrier based equipment....
Rumours has it (which is why don't believe it until I see it) that SAAB is busy in the area here, testing Gripens with arrestor hooks(?) and other carrier based equipment....
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I thought they had already done what when the Indian Navy was looking at it?
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
True....
You never know what them SAAB guys are up to!
Always fun to visit when back home....
You never know what them SAAB guys are up to!
Always fun to visit when back home....
michaelmaltby
Colonel
The F-35 has now become an election issue in Canada ... the Liberals want to walk away. Elections are no time for this kind of grandstanding.
parsifal
Colonel
you can say that again. Elections and defence policy....generally a race to the bottom as quickly as the atmosphere can take you
We don't have the F-35 as an election issue for now, but our recently departed PM was given a royal kicking because he suggested our new LPHs should consider usage of the f-35B (which we are not buying). the air force dominated defence establishment immediately turned on the idea, saying or claiming the LPHs would need a couple of gazillion dollars spent on them to strengthen the flight deck to take the stress of STOVL ops. Perfect impeccable logic until Dave Baddams (recently retired RN S/L Harrier jock and a classmate of mine0 pointed out convincingly that the Spanish versions of the same ship operate the same ship with AV-8s with no problem. all of sudden the spurious claims about costs disappeared from every govt publication on the issue, but the damage was already done. no F-35Bs for the RAN
This is not the latest ruling...the RAAF finished up closing ranks and fighting the concept to the bitter end, but it is a useful discussion
F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? | Australian Naval Institute
Australia and F-35Bs: Examining an Option for the Australian Defense Force | SLDInfo
this the article that reports the scrapping of the plan. most of the arguments are totally spurious from a technical and financial pov
Plans for F-35B Fighters on HMAS Canberra quietly scrapped
Another article by an RN vet which really puts questions around the LHD technical limits that were used to can this proposal
LHD and STOVL: an engineer’s view
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And your rationale is from the 60's and 70's. You have NO clue about the reliability studies of the F-35's (and other) engines and the advancement made in reliability technology. It's obvious since you're still making comments parroting the 2008 Rand report.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Excellent information! I'd wish other people would be as detailed about their information and not rely on media half truths and comic book logic.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
NO
parsifal
Colonel
thanks
The point im trying to illustrate isn't that I have a detailed answer to the attrition problem, more that losses are allover the shop and engine numbers just doesn't seem to be a decisive factor either way. The f104 story is particularly revealing. Some operators suffered diabolical loss rates, others suffered really low rates. You cannot explain away loss rates with glib one liners like one engine = higher loss rates. its a really hard question to answer....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
X
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Some operators suffered diabolical loss rates, others suffered really low rates...."
Spanish - low hours
Germans - low hours
RCAF - high hours flying low level ground strikes
It will be the same with allied use/deployment of the F-35 ..... it's the cost that has people numbed .... but I have confidence in the platform. Just wish Canada would acquire some F-18 Super Hornets as the RAAF has wisely done
Spanish - low hours
Germans - low hours
RCAF - high hours flying low level ground strikes
It will be the same with allied use/deployment of the F-35 ..... it's the cost that has people numbed .... but I have confidence in the platform. Just wish Canada would acquire some F-18 Super Hornets as the RAAF has wisely done
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
michaelmaltby
Colonel
I wonder if the high accident rate in Germany had something to do with the culture during and immediately post war.
NOT FLYING BY THE BOOK: SLOW ADOPTION OF CHECKLISTS AND PROCEDURES IN WW2 AVIATION. | Art and Science in Technology - Roger Bohn's Blog
Interesting paper on the subject. PDF in the link.
Page 81 for info on Germany.
