some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


If an engine is running, its always at the risk of failure. No matter how well designed and maintained. For the Navy, two engines are always better than none.
 
syscom3 said:
If an engine is running, its always at the risk of failure. No matter how well designed and maintained. For the Navy, two engines are always better than none.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Two engines add extra weight, they add complexity, most twin engine carrier aircraft would not be allowed to land on a carrier with one engine the crew would be told to eject. What are the benefits in the modern era when a single engine produces the power that's needed and reliability is so much improved? There limited at best, most twin fighters were designed because a singe engine didn't produce the power required.

While your are considering things why discount the experience of other nations who operated carrier aircraft. They all had the same operating considerations.

I should also add that they require an increase in the spares as there are twice as many engines to be supported and in the Grey Funnel Line, space is an absolute limiting factor.
 
syscom3 said:
If an engine is running, its always at the risk of failure. No matter how well designed and maintained. For the Navy, two engines are always better than none.
Click to expand...

So why not three engines? How about four? There have been double engine failures in numerous aircraft and the fact is the current generation of high performance turbine engines have reliability models better than earlier turbine engines paired together, but you just don't get that. These are airforce statistics but more than prove this point.

Air Force Safety Center - Engine Statistics
 

couldn't agree more especially if you have a deckload of aircraft already and control issues arise. you just would not risk it.

Maybe having 2 engines does provide a marginal safety benefit, but its not the critical deciding factor for safety. Better engines are probably a safer bet, and in that regard youd have to say the jury is out on the F-35b.
 

50 years of twin engined carrier fighters and attack jets says you are wrong.
 
Not to throw a candle on a fire but ...

Regarding the single / twin losses, I am under the impression that the F-105 had one of the highest loss rates (not losses) in the war. I think the best measure of losses is loss RATE. I could be wrong.

I know we lost 445 USAF F-4's in Viet Nam and 338 in combat, but the important number would be missions, and I don't have that at this time. The Navy lost 138 with 75 in combat. That adds up to 476 losses … but I don't have the mission counts at this time.

We lost 47 F-105's with 37 being in combat. Again, this is NOT the loss rate, it is losses.

True modern turbines have much better reliability, but they are NOT more damage resistant in combat than pistons are. If you shoot and HIT a turbine, it will more likely malfunction quicker than a piston will.

I have no axe to grind here, but I DO think the Navy wants twin engine aircraft just from what they have ordered in recent (50 years) history. The Navy had the F-35 shoved down it's throat and the brass didn't fall on their respective swords and commit Hari Kari, they bought the aircraft when directed to do so. Like most major weapon systems, the F-35 (I am NOT a fan) will likely turn into a decent aircraft with a decent service record … we'll see. What I'm not sure of is whether it will make a good COMBAT aircraft. Again, as a citizen I surely hope so as it will be in front line service. I think that if left to their own choice, the Navy would have bought a twin.

Time will tell us whether or not the powers-that-be made a good choice. At least the F-35 has better avionics by LONG SHOT than any legacy aircraft. The intent, as far as I can tell, is to never get into visual-range close combat, but to handle it BVR and take them out with vastly superior sensors and standoff weapons. It's a good game plan as long as politics doesn't render the BVR stuff unworkable. If that happens, we are in serious trouble with the F-35. It needs to be able to handle combat from the side of its strengths, not from the traditional older side of "fly alongside and identify the enemy." Hopefully the "brass" and the President will take that into account before strangling the aircraft with old-style restrictions.

Perhaps that can lead to a very successful F-35 service life ... I'm hoping so anyway since we're gonna' be flying it.



Hey Joe,

Hope Reno was good. I am in the middle of getting a job and couldn't attend. Hope you had a great time! Sorry you didn't get to see a good duel between Voodoo and Strega, but one year out of seven for Stevo to have engine issues ins't bad considering the power levels they put out. Maybe next time! If Stevo had to lose, I can't think of a better, nicer guy than Hoot to win. Glad to see the Bear back running healthy, too. Maybe you could give us a "Reno Summary Post" since YOU were there and on a team? Just from your viewpoint?
 
Last edited:
I went and had a straw poll look at tyhe causes for the 11 A4s over that 18 year period (actually the losses stretched over 22 year period, because 1 of the losses was whilst the aircraft were serving with the Kiwi AF). All this stuff is available from the ADF serials website. None of the 11 losses on the carrier were related to engine failures on return. There was one flame out on catapult launch, and a whole bunch of catapult failures on the old girl, but not one loss due to an engine failure as such.

Not much to go on, but really, this just adds weight to the notion that losses are more due to circumstances than technological faults. In the case of our A-4s, there was nothing wrong with our a/c. The problem was the dodgy catapult and stresses arising from operating from an inadequate platform.

If we'd had a two engine a/c aboard, it wouldnt have made much difference to the loss rate.
 
syscom3 said:
50 years of twin engined carrier fighters and attack jets says you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Maybe. it would be foolish to dismiss the USN experience, given that the USN has more carrier experience than everybody else combined in that period. but the question isn't that the USN has operated twin engine a/c in that period, its why they operated twin engine a/c, and was it related to safety and reliability or some other reason?

There isn't a lot of opposition to the F-35a as a land based platform, and our brass is completely untroubled by its single engine configuration. weve had high performance single engine jets before, and not a great deal of difference safety wise between that configuration and a twin engine configuration. if you've got information that suggests differently, love to hear from you.

The USN and as I understand it the RN now, with the f-35C, the full blown carrier version are not phased by the safety aspects of the type. ive never really looked at the C subtype, but I just note its got a fair bit of acceptance by the people that matter.

of the three subtypes, its the B that's the most problematic, but AFAIK, no-one is too phased about the safety aspects of this type. its having trouble meeting range and payload specs as I understand it, but the company keeps giving assurance they can solve those issues, and ive got nothing in front of me not to believe that.

So, whilst there is indeed 50 years of twin engine useage with the USN to give a broad credence to your claims, we don't have any real details as to why they have gone down the pathway of a twin engine configuration so faithfully. Do you have any information, any reports or the like to say why this approach was made? Would like to know.....
 
The main people who have a grave issue with single-engine carrier airplanes are pilots who are in an airborne single-einge aircraft that has an engine problem. I think we all know turbines are very reliable in peacetime operation.

I do NOT think they have good battle damage resistance compared with piston engines, but are otherise so much more reliable that it more than makes up for the difference. I doubt you'd find many aviators who would willingly swap a turbine for a piston to do the same job, particularly helicopter pilots.

I also think the Navy leaders whould rather have twins if given a free choice, They mostly aren't given that these last 50 years, particularly the last 20 - 25 years. It's a sad commentary that the last people the politicians ask about what aircraft to buy are the pilots who will fly them.

That being said, single or twin these days won't make a big difference in peacetime operations. My own opposition to the F-35 comes from the cost and the lack of ability to defend itself in a dogfight. And I was around when that was being touted as a primary attribute. Later it started to take on less and less importance and I KNEW what that meant ... exactly what we now know. It can't defend itself against a close-in 4th-gen opponent with or without internal stores.

Assuming the F-35's are allowed to operate as designed ... BVR, it won't make a huge difference. If they are hamstrung by outmoded rules of engagement, then we will have a lot of losses in combat situations. Perhaps we will be smart for a change. If so, the F-35 has a really good chance of never having a combat loss to an enemy A/C. That still leaves AAA and surface to air missiles to contend with and the F-35 is a bit stealthy, but not when really close, as it will be to a gunner or a surface-to-air missile. Again, I hope we are smarter than to just fly into ground traps. If we ARE smart, the F-35 may be a very good one.

If it isn't, we maybe should examine the employment methodology and change it.
 
Last edited:
I keep seeing the subject of dogfighting popping up in the discussion and I have to wonder, when was the last time two modern opposing fighters actually engaged in a 20th century style furball?

With the modern systems and stand-off capabilities, enabling a kill beyond or at max-visual, why is the issue of a dog-fighter looming so large in the judgement of the F-35? Isn't it possible that the F-35 may detect hostiles inbound long before they get into range and the pilots react accordingly?

I really suspect that the threadworn commentary of the F-35 versus F-16 keeps tilting public sentiment. That encounter was so skewed and one-sided, it shouldn't have even been put into print and yet, it was and the news just ate it up. The reality of it all, is that the F-16 ONLY had the upper hand on the F-35 in that encounter, because the F-35 in question was actually the test and trials airframe: AF-2. It did not have the advanced electronics, it did not have the flight upgrades of the later production airframes and it did not have the pilot's enhanced helmet system onboard. So yes, the F-16 got the better of it, because AF-2 is not, nor will it ever be, combat capable. We cannot set the bar of the F-35's absolute performance by the performance of a prototype.

This would be like judging all P-51 production aircraft by the performance of the NA-73X.
 
Dogfighting skills are important, but far less so than is often assumed. If dogfighting skills and close in fighting capability were important, then the numerous clashes between Phantoms and the more agile MiG 17, 19 and 21s during the 1960s-80s would have resulted in very different outcomes.

F-35 is a bunch of compromises like any other aircraft design, and we have a long record of knowing that close in fighting whilst nice to have is far less important to stand off capability and what you might label air superiority qualities....and those qualities in the modern sense have more to do with non traditional aspects like radar signitures, ECM capability, lock on capability, stuff that I know of, but very little about, if you get my drift.

One example of dogfighting in the real modern world:

"The fact that the Israeli military held the lead in air-to-air combat during the Yom Kippur War was proven spectacularly when a force of 20 MiG-17s and an escort of eight, more modern MiG-21s launched a bombing raid on Ofira Air Base on October 6, 1973. They were engaged by a pair of startled Israeli F-4 Phantom pilots, who had jumped into their aircraft just in time to take off from their runway before it was destroyed. Despite the heavy odds against them, the Phantoms trounced the more agile MiGs in a close-range battle, shooting down a total of seven planes with no losses. Although it certainly wasn't the first time that Phantoms defeated MiGs in a dogfight, it may have been the occasion when the odds were most stacked against them but they still pulled through"....and for its time, the phantom had no reputation as a close in dogfighter....
 
The fight over Iraq generated dogfights between jets and the F-15's and other Allied jets did very well. Every single time someone asks that exact same question ... when was the last dogfight ... the result comes out the same. If you don't design for the dogfight, you LOSE it next time around.

It has been happening that exact same way since WWII ended. The first-gen subsonic jets weren't going to have anyone sneak up behind them so they mostly had poor rear visibility. Then we encountered the MiG-15 in Korea. The first-gen Mach 2 planes were NEVER going to have anyone sneak up behind them, so they had no rear visibility and no guns. Then we found out in Viet Nam that the MiG-17 and MiG-21 were not only NOT obsolete, but were fast being reappraised as potent dogfighters. Result? The F-4E FINALLY got a gun and some greatly improved aerodynamics when the horizontal tail got slats for maneuverability reasons and to avoid "The Thing" when it departed controlled flight if you pulled too hard. We lost more than few to high-speed stalls at low altitude over Viet Nam.

The we got the F-15 and F-16 and things got better. Now we get the F-35 that really should not BE in a close-in dogfight. If we manage to avoid a dogfight, it may do OK. If we get into them, it won't.

I have no idea why we can't learn the lesson for good and produce primary fighters that have a gun, great rearward visibility, and can turn, climb, and accelerate with the best ever made. Go ahead and add the missiles and avionics but at LEAST give us a good fighter airframe to work with. I'd rather send in more good fighters with fewer bombs on them than fewer bomb trucks that can't fight when they need to. Alternately, send in the drones to bomb and fight fighters with FIGHTERS. I wouldn't trust a drone in a dogfight because it has never yet been demonstrated they can identify friendlies within a snap shot in a dogfight. We are too busy trying to make them attack well and can't seem to concentrate on making them into good fighters with discrimination abilities that make friendly manned aircraft safe. I couldn't care less if the drones shoot each other down, but would blow them all up with no regrets if they kill a friendly pilot. I KNOW they will sooner or later. The only reason it hasn't happened to date is we haven't made drone fighters and deployed them yet. We're mighty quick to say we have it figured out and then the machines go and verify the software in service. When there is a glitch, it usually hurts someone.

Ask the guys in F-22's when the oxygen quit. Ask the passengers on the airbus over the Altlantic when the computers couldn't figure out the plane was descending at an alarming rate ... from 35.000+ plus feet! Surely that's enough time when the CPU can proccess megaflops in a second. The crew didn't figure it out either, but the computers SHOULD have if they were programmed corectly. Obviously they weren't programmed correctly to account for loss of a few simple, basic instruments. To me, that seems criminal.

But the turbine in an F-35 should not be a cause for concern. Not sure the autpilot is good to go after 3 months at a tropical jungle aistrip, but the turbine should be running just fine when it hits a mountain due to fungus on the autopilot circuit board. So carrier operations should not really be an issue with the F-35. Cost and potential one-on-one dogfights will be of much more concern along with what happens when the fuel remaining in the tanks heats up enough causing the computers to shut down, causing the otherwise-reliable turbine to stop being quite so reliable. If that happens, the other reliable turbine wouldn't be of much help as it would be running on the same hot fuel. The real answer is not to use the fuel as a heat sink ... just as the real answer in cars was not to put the fuel pump INSIDE the gas tank with the auto fuel as the coolant! They found that out more than 25 years ago, but the information never got to the F-35 designers.

Go figure. We can't seem to learn lessons and pass them on to the next generation of designers. Maybe the old craft system of apprenticeship wasn't so bad after all. At least the primary lessons weren't lost to the next generation of craft apprentices like they seem to be to engineers sometimes.

Talk to the automotive engineers at Volkswagon about that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
804
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
843
mjfur
M
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
752
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
908
Gnomey
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
556
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register