some F35 info (1 Viewer)

[parsifal]

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

.

This probably highlights the differences in doctrine. The forces Im familiar with have virtually no interest in the mission profile you've described. We are relying on our air defence assets to shoot down enemy aircraft....our air defence destroyers mostly, our CIWs to bring down the ordinance, including the drones. Our aircraft will be primarily about offensive capability....the ability to get in, deliver the precision strike, take pout the target and then get out of trouble. the era of the climactic air battle with fighters engaging fighters is great stuff, but represents a failed strategy if it develops. if an opponent is airborne, with his fighters escorting his bombers to attack your assets, you might as well throw your hands up in surrender. if he is attacking stuff that you are not defending, it better be because you don't need to. if you do need to defend it, and he is attacking it with that sort of force structure, you've basically lost anyway.

that's why offensive capability is so important. you want your guys to be the pointy end of a system that has outsmarted your opponent, crept up on him without him even knowing it and delivering a precision strike to take out his assets as required.

Wars seldom allow for each side to ride out and line up on their shining white chargers as they face off on each other on opposing hillsides. air warfare is all about trying to get the jump on an opponent, finding an edge and exploiting it. Defensive is about fixed defences, surface to air missile, passive defences, ECM, detection, having your assets airborne and out of harms way whilst the shooting is going on.

its been like that for at least 40 years whats more. im the first to admit that things don't always work as planned, but you don't design your hardware with failure in mind.

I can remember back during one of the numerous exercises we had with the Americans....Kitty hawk I think it was. We had a mixed force of F-111s, F-4s and A-4s taking on a CAG of F-14s and F-4s. We also had several Oxley class subs to play with. It was assumed that we had harpoon capability (which we didn't). The Americans came charging across the ocean twice for the same exercise. first time, Melbourne put the hammers down and ran like crazy, to bring the Kitty hawk into Harpoon range. cheeky sub skipper sent a message to the 'blue' fleet, with the blessing of the onboard referee......"oops." It was judged the Kitty Hawk had had its superstructure remodelled with 6 harpoons apparently. so we re-set the exercise and did it again. this time feints were made by the f-111s and f-4s with stand off weaponary so as to draw the CAP away and also pull the air defence assets to one side of the fleet. Ive seen the footage of our A-4s coming in at wavetop height with just bombs only and deliver another attack in the simulation, this time from the other direction. low tech, high skill, and deadly according to the refs.

if an opponent has been allowed the opportunity to get over your vital assets without getting shot down, you are in a world of pain, or at least is likely to. That's why the hardware is part of your armoury of ideas, and should be designed primarily to give you the best chance of success in that environment.

im not talking from the standpoint of US tactics and procedures here, they may well be different. but our techniques are ideally served by the way the f-35 is configured....provided it can deliver what it claims.

 

[Lucky13]

Regarding losses of twin engined aircraft in Vietnam, I'm sure that quite a few were due to many other technical mishaps besides engine failures, but then again....how many crews saved their *rses becuase of the twin engine configuration, is there a way to find out how many landed on one engine, which in case of a single engine aircraft would have been a total loss, instead for something that could be fixed...
I think that it would be a waste of money to dump something that can be fixed on an aircraft carrier, which I'm sure can perform some serious repairs, to fly again another day....but then again, when hasn't the DOD (in any country) wasted money....
Another thing that I think interesting (or funny) is how people fixate(?), stirrar sig blind på as we say in Sweden, is this with stealth, it's asking for trouble putting doors over your weapons, as I said earlier, before....you had the guns could jam and the missiles malfunctioning, with these doors you only add more things for them there gremlins to play with....plus, those that can't afford to build or buy today's modern sneaky fighters, do anything in their powers to contradict(?) this disadvantage by building such weapon systems that can see in one way or another this shadowy bugger....and then we're back to WWI/WWII again with dogfights and guns!

But then again, what do I know, besides that I enjoy this discussion.....beer anyone?

 

[Lucky13]

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.

Could be because that the F-35 is not perfect, no fighter is (well, maybe the F-15... ) and they might at some point experience somekind of malfunction, in a rumble with something similar to the F-16 (Gripen?) or something built east of Berlin where this might happen....and the odds are more even, instead for 10/1 in the F-35's favour it could be 5/7....
Then again, with all these money, the media will swallow anything....

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the media would swallow that they're designing F-35 for lefthanded and righthanded pilots as well!

 

[Lucky13]

Can't help but think what Robin Olds said in 'Dogfights' about this with politicians etc., desk pilots designing fighters and regarding this with missiles only, no guns, he just said....what do they know, or something similar....and he should know, well...he did!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Great intelligent discussion guys, at least some of you could back your opinions with facts!

A few thing - remember when you look at USAF losses in Vietnam you have to consider the idiotic ROE's which probably resulted in at least half of the looses incurred. The only good recorded VR furball fight I could recall was between Cesar Rodriguez and Captain Jameel Sayhood where Rodriguez basically drove Sayhood into the ground.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAjoSWraCyc

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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?

Greg - Although I was super busy I did get a chance to see the duels Between Rare Bear, Strega and Voodoo. All around it was a great event, no one got hurt and all the races were pretty exciting, even the T-6s were fun to watch. I'll post more about this on the thread I started a few weeks ago, I don't want to hijack this thread.

 

[GregP]

Parsifal,

I think we've been here before. All I can say is I'm glad you aren't running our Military. Your ideas probably work for yours since you're still around to talk about it. We have to prepare for capabilities, not intentions. Intentions can change in a short time. If your enemy has the capability to attack you with bombers and fighters, then you have to be prepared for it or you will lose when it comes. You have to able to credibly honor the threat.

But there is no real argument here. I just don't think the way you do. If we all thought the same it would be a dull world, huh?

Stealth is a fleeting asset. When someone finds a way to detect your stealthy airplane, then it must fall back on airframe performance. Unfortunately the F-35 doesn't have much there. But it DOES have probably the best sensors on the planet and a very good computer system, so it can take action before the defense closes to visual range. If you send in a bunch of them, they can converge from many directions all coordinated together and attack about anything quite efectively.

Of course, when they fire missiles, you know where they came from and if you have fast maneuverable fighters, you may be able to catch and shoot down an unarmed F-35 as he tries to egress, so the missiles the F-35 carries should be good ones with decent range. Maybe we need stealthy air-to-air missiles so the defenders get the minimum warning.

Whatever else, the USA must be prepared to defined against the biggest military threat on the planet. Whether that is Russia or China, I can't say, but what if they joined forces? Maybe the biggest curent threat is North Korea. What do we do if they suddenly break the armistice and resume the Korean War?

So we have different things to think about as countries. While I am not an F-35 fan, I can see scenarios in which it is VERY effective. But I can also see scenarios in which it gets slaughtered. The difference could easily come from the rules of engagement (ROE), which hsitorically in the last 35 years have NOT favored the capabilities of the US military assets involved. Mostly they favor the enemy's right to not be attacked. That's what I'm worried about ... the ROE when the F-35 is our primary attack asset. The ROE are set by politicians and they generally don't seem to have much regard for our own military lives.

I'm a big believer in the old "carry a Big Stick" philosophy for non-war operations. Annouce your intentions and tell the world in advance what you are going to do and where. Then tell them if you see any opposition in front of you ... you will shoot first and possibly send apologies later. That way, the ROE are simple. The only military opposition is not friendly.

It's not that way in a declared war, but it can be in an operation to achieve some objective without war. If you need secrecy, then so be it, but make the ROE so your own forces are protected, not the enemy's forces, and so your own forces operate using their strengths.

Most people don't seem to realize that the military are the LAST people in the world who want to go fight because it's THEM doing it. The Military wants the politicians to succeed in making agreements. When reasonability fails, then the military needs to be allowed to plan their moves without political interference after the politicians have set the objectives. The civilian leaders should tell them what the objectives are when the miliitary is needed, stand back, and watch it happen. But is usually doesn't quite work out that way. The civilians seem to need to get in the way with stupid conditions and ROE. Military science has evloved considerably in the last 50 years, but most politicians have never studied the first course in it, much less have any idea how to achieve a military objective, particularly without loss.



Hey Joe,

I think the Navy wants twins ... but I never said they were right, I think it just what the top Navy brass wants because it's what they grew up with. Personally, I have no issue with single engine Naval aircraft as fighters, attack planes, or trainers.

As far as the F-35 goes, I know it's here and going into service whether or not it should, so I want it to succeed. That's the best scenario I can see come down the pike. Not shackling it with stupid ROE is part of the way it CAN succeed. I hope we can SEE that and DO it up in the positions that make the rules.

I've seen that F-14 incident many times and have always wondered what happened. My surmise is a burst fuel line ... maybe in the afterburner section or a broken fuel pump housing or possibly an oil-related fire, maybe hydraulic oil, perhaps even the hydraulic line to the turkey feathers. What's yours?

Whatever it was, it happend fast and sprayed a considerable quantity of flamable liquid in the wrong place. I doubt that has anything to do with twin engine- design, but it DID happen to a twin. I've seen singles with much the same failure, usually after battle damage. I saw an F-105 go in when his engine quit on the turn to final in Viet Nam coming into Da Nang. The pilot ejected, but had rolled too far toward inverted and he didn't make it. The F-105 just dropped when the engine quit.

 

[gjs238]

.I can remember back during one of the numerous exercises we had with the Americans....Kitty hawk I think it was. We had a mixed force of F-111s, F-4s and A-4s taking on a CAG of F-14s and F-4s. We also had several Oxley class subs to play with. It was assumed that we had harpoon capability (which we didn't). The Americans came charging across the ocean twice for the same exercise. first time, Melbourne put the hammers down and ran like crazy, to bring the Kitty hawk into Harpoon range. cheeky sub skipper sent a message to the 'blue' fleet, with the blessing of the onboard referee......"oops." It was judged the Kitty Hawk had had its superstructure remodelled with 6 harpoons apparently. so we re-set the exercise and did it again. this time feints were made by the f-111s and f-4s with stand off weaponary so as to draw the CAP away and also pull the air defence assets to one side of the fleet. Ive seen the footage of our A-4s coming in at wavetop height with just bombs only and deliver another attack in the simulation, this time from the other direction. low tech, high skill, and deadly according to the refs.

Sounds like the Argentinian use of A-4's in the Falklands War.

 

[Glider]

50 years of twin engined carrier fighters and attack jets says you are wrong.

I don't know how many years I admit but the A7, F8, A4 and Harrier operations let alone F9 Panther, F9 Cougar and F86 naval fighters probably top your totals covering the first naval jet aircraft to the present day. Then if you throw in the Seahawk, various French naval aircraft fighters would prove to most people that single engine naval operations are quite feasible.

You make statements but without evidence and don't address any questions with facts, just more statements. The above list shows that the single engine naval fighter has a place in the front line as does the twin engine fighter. To insist otherwise is simply absurd.

Anyone with any knowledge of aviation would agree that training aircraft have a very tough life. They cycle more landings that any other type, the pilots are not fully trained, they tend to have more hard lands as a result and the engines are operated less smoothly than with fully trained pilots, but what do the USN use, yes you've guessed it, a single engine aircraft.

These are facts and are without question accurate. now if you can supply facts, not statements then we can have a debate.

Feel free to prove our facts wrong, the ball is firmly in your court

 

[syscom3]

I don't know how many years I admit but the A7, F8, A4 and Harrier operations let alone F9 Panther, F9 Cougar and F86 naval fighters probably top your totals covering the first naval jet aircraft to the present day. Then if you throw in the Seahawk, various French naval aircraft fighters would prove to most people that single engine naval operations are quite feasible.

You make statements but without evidence and don't address any questions with facts, just more statements. The above list shows that the single engine naval fighter has a place in the front line as does the twin engine fighter. To insist otherwise is simply absurd.

Anyone with any knowledge of aviation would agree that training aircraft have a very tough life. They cycle more landings that any other type, the pilots are not fully trained, they tend to have more hard lands as a result and the engines are operated less smoothly than with fully trained pilots, but what do the USN use, yes you've guessed it, a single engine aircraft.

These are facts and are without question accurate. now if you can supply facts, not statements then we can have a debate.

Feel free to prove our facts wrong, the ball is firmly in your court

Let me simplify it.

For naval aircraft, fighters and attack:
Two engines gives you more thrust to safely launch from a catapult.
Two engines lets you carry more payload when launched from a catapult.
Two engines gives you the ability to get back to home or a safe place if the other engine starts acting up.

Losing a single engine means you're going down. And inevitably it will be over the ocean in bad weather, high waves and in cold water. Not good for the pilot. And lots of twin engined naval aircraft have returned back to their carrier on one engine.

Since the F4 entered the fleet in the early 60's, all fighter and attack designs have been twin engines. And as I noted multiple times, the A7 was designed from the onset as for light attack and low cost.

All of the single engined aircraft you mentioned; they were all cheap and disposable. Products of a different age. I will not include the Harrier in the mix because it has a unique mission. And the F35 is probably a good fit for the marines, if solely because of what its requirements are.

And trainers are just that. Trainers.

 

[Lucky13]

Is there any way, to figure out, of those single engined lost in operations, due to any and whatever reason, would have made their way home and landed safely (somewhat) to be repaired and fight another day, had they had a second engine?

Just curious, nothing else....

Great thread, not much for modern jets, but I'm all for learning, which you're never to old for!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is there any way, to figure out, of those single engined lost in combat, due to any and whatever reason, would have made their way home and landed safely (somewhat) to be repaired and fight another day, had they had a second engine?

Just curious, nothing else....

Great thread, not much for modern jets, but I'm all for learning, which you're never to old for!

http://asmameeting.org/asma2013_mp/pdfs/asma2013_present_469.pdf

BTW, for the year shown, there was NOT one Class A mishap involving a fighter suffering an engine failure over water.

 

[GregP]

Back in WWII we had combat losses and operational losses. Combat is self explanatory except if we had a fighter get hit and survive to start home, and if he then exited combat but couldn't make it home, it was classed as an operational loss since it wasn't in combat. But the loss was as a result of damage sustained in combat.

So "operation al losses" for the USA include: 1) running out of fuel or oil, 2) carburetor icing around the carrier (see F4U for that one), 3) losses from damage sustained in combat taht wasn't mortal at the time the damage was received, 4) losses due to running out of oxygen while too high, 5) losses due to the pilot having a medical problem from either a combat wound AFTER combat was over or some other medical emergency, 6) losses due to mechanical or electrical failure, 7)losses due the pilot simply getting lost ... and probably some others, 8 ) losses from getting into weather and flying into the ground or mountains, 9) losses from overstressing the airframe in a pullout or perhaps in a thunderstorm, 10) losses from accidents on the ground or in the air, 11) losses due to friendly mis-handling of ordnance, 12) losses incurred from simply repositioning assets, 13) losses on essential but non-combat missions, like recon where no enemy was sighted, etc.

So the problem is finding out what the reason for the loss was and that information seems very hard to track down, at least for me to date.

If anyone has a good list from ANY war, but especially WWII and wants to share it, please DO. Doesn't matter which side or nationality ...

 

[Lucky13]

Much obliged Joe!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Let me simplify it.

For naval aircraft, fighters and attack:
Two engines gives you more thrust to safely launch from a catapult.
Two engines lets you carry more payload when launched from a catapult.
Two engines gives you the ability to get back to home or a safe place if the other engine starts acting up.

A simpleton explanation.

Two engines DON'T mean you'll have the same performance parameters because a combat aircraft built with two engines will have to be larger, carry more fuel and more than likely have higher stall speeds because of this. In designs like the F-14/15/16 if you "shell" one engine, there's a good possibility you're going to partially or fully take out the other engine. There could also be asymmetrical control issues that could have you depart flight especially during landing. The F-18 that crashed in Virginia a few years ago had a double engine failure.

Losing a single engine means you're going down. And inevitably it will be over the ocean in bad weather, high waves and in cold water. Not good for the pilot. And lots of twin engined naval aircraft have returned back to their carrier on one engine.

the same MAY happen in a larger and more costly twin engine aircraft

Since the F4 entered the fleet in the early 60's, all fighter and attack designs have been twin engines. And as I noted multiple times, the A7 was designed from the onset as for light attack and low cost.

And the US Navy used them extensively. They had one of the best operational records during the Vietnam war.

All of the single engined aircraft you mentioned; they were all cheap and disposable.

By who's definition, yours?

Products of a different age. I will not include the Harrier in the mix because it has a unique mission. And the F35 is probably a good fit for the marines, if solely because of what its requirements are.

How convenient!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

WELL KICK MY ASS! I just came across this little piece, it's soooo good here's the text copied. The bold text is my input. Lucky, don't get too excited with the last paragraph!

Best Fighter for Canada: Mythbuster: Single engine safety

There was a decent crown at the air show today. It was a beautiful August Saturday, with just the slightest wisps of clouds high up.

"Time to start the show." Captain Buster said to himself as he throttled his trusty CF-18 Hornet demonstrator up and off the tarmac. Buster had a privilege of following The Snowbirds that day, so he knew he had his work cut out for him. "No problem." he thought, those 50-year-old CT-114s may have their precision, but the ol' Hornet had raw power on its side.

Captain Buster imagined he could hear the crowd's "Ooohhs!" and "Aahhhs!" over the roar of this after burning GE404 turbofans. Even after 30 years of service, the Hornet was still an impressive plane. Its high thrust and high angle-of-attack performance allowed it to perform maneuvers that seemed to contradict the laws of physics. "Not bad for an old girl..." thought Buster with a smile. "Even that duck seems impressed. Looks like its trying to get a closer look..."

That smile quickly turned clenched teeth when Captain Buster heard a "THUNK" quickly followed by alarm klaxons going off and lights flickering all over his cockpit. His controls violently started to shake as his CF-18 shuddered and then started losing altitude in a lazy roll. A quick scan of the gauges confirmed Buster's suspicions: That duck just wrecked one of his engines.

"MAYDAY! MAYDAY! MAYDAY!"

Thinking fast, Captain Buster immediately throttled up his one remaining engine while applying a slight amour of opposite rudder to compensate. With white knuckles and sweaty palms he managed to get his aircraft straight and level again. Gingerly, he slowed the aircraft down, extended his landing gear, and approached the runway. Landing a CF-18 on a single engine was not easy, and the pressure was made worse by the fact that a large crowd was uncomfortable close.

Sweating enough to saturate his flight suit, Captain Buster managed to put his wheels down on the tarmac and slowly bring his wounded fighter to a stop. His CF-18's jet roar was replaced with the sounds of approaching sirens as a fire crew raced to his smoking aircraft and started dousing it with foam.

Looking at the crowd, Captain Buster noticed that every single one of them was clapping their hands. Captain Buster shook his head and waved. "Good thing I still had that second engine." he thought. "This could have gone a whole lot worse for me AND them."

Two engines are safer than one. Better to have a backup. That extra engine could make the difference between life or death, especially over Canada's unforgiving wilderness. Better to limp home on one engine, allowing both the aircraft and pilot to fly another day, than to have a pilot ditch their aircraft hundreds of miles away from civilization.

Many believe that the lack of a second engine should automatically disqualify fighters like the F-35 and Gripen as Canada's CF-18 replacement. It simply is not worth the risk.

History would seem to back up this statement. Canada's last foray into the world of single-engined fighters, the CF-104 Starfighter, had a bit of a reputation. During its 25 year stint in the RCAF, the CF-104 had 110 major mishaps, resulting in 37 pilot fatalities. Clearly, it would seem that single engine aircraft are dangerous.

That is... Until one takes a closer look at both the numbers and the context surrounding the CF-104's dismal safety record.

The CF-104 Starfighter was used by the RCAF as a low-level strike and reconnaissance aircraft. This was completely at odds with the F-104's intended role as a high altitude interceptor. Its distinctive razor thin wings and needle-like shape made it an impressive performer in this role. These same features made it extremely unforgiving in other aspects, however. The F-104 became unflyable at high-angles of attack and it had a rather high stall speed.

Despite this, it was decided that RCAF CF-104s would be stripped of any air-to-air missiles, and even their 20mm cannon in earlier models. Instead, Canadian Starfighters would carry bombs, rockets, and even American supplied nuclear weapons. In hindsight, this decision to take a high-altitude interceptor, load it with heavy bombs, then force it fly at treetop level seems... Regrettable.

Believe it or not, the CF-104 actually had a superior safety record to its predecessor, the CF-86 Sabre (also a single-engine fighter). This despite the fact that the Sabre was flown at altitude.

Of the 110 major mishaps that occurred with the CF-104 Starfighter, only 14 were caused due to engine failures. The rest were caused by foreign object damage (FOD), pilot error, and the like.

The USAF had an aircraft that fulfilled a near identical role to the CF-104: The single-engined F-105 Thunderchief. Like the CF-104, it was armed with heavy bombs and flown at low level. Yet it had a much better safety record thanks to its more robust design an benign handling characteristics. Unfortunately, most F-105 losses were due to combat losses over Vietnam.

When Canada selected its CF-104 replacement, it selected the F/A-18 Hornet over the cheaper F-16 Fighting Falcon. Prevailing wisdom would suggest this was because the F/A-18 had two smaller GE F404 engines instead of the F-16's single, but larger P&W F100.

This is not the case however.

At the time, the F-16A was still considered a day fighter, tasked only with the air-superiority role. Earlier models lacked sufficient strike capability or even BVR weapons weapons like the AIM-7 Sparrow. It would not become the multirole fighter we know of today until the introduction of the F-16C in 1984.

The F/A-18 had all of these features from the start. Not only that, but it came with a more substantial offset package. General Dynamics (the F-16's manufacturer at the time) was already committed to the F-16's European partners.

Over the years, both aircraft have undertaken similar roles. Both aircraft have near-identical safety records as well. The F-16 actually has a lower accident rate than the F/A-18 when you consider that the Viper outnumbers the Hornet more than three to one. Early F-16 controversy was centered more on "wire chafing" causing its fly-by-wire controls to short out. Current F-16 problems tend to be more related to aging airframes and overworked maintenance personnel, rather than any engine defect.

It is reasonable to assume that the F/A-18 would have a spottier safety record than the F-16, regardless of engines. After all, the majority of F/A-18s operate from USN supercarriers, not pristine airfields. They also use different engines. Comparing their safety records to each other may not be fair.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to compare two similar aircraft, using identical engines, used for similar missions, by the same air force. Conveniently, there is an example of just that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F-100 Super Sabre and the F-100 Voodoo (A and C variants) were powered by the Pratt Whitney J57 turbojet engine. Both aircraft were used as fighter bombers in the USAF, flying similar missions.

Similarly, the F-101 Delta Dart interceptor was also powered by a single P&W J57 turbojet. I performed a similar mission to the interceptor version of the Voodoo, the F-101B.

What is telling is that the incident rate of both single-engine aircraft, the F-100 and the F-102, were near identical to the twin-engine F-101 when flown on similar missions. Keep in mind that these are all 50s era aircraft using technology far more primitive than that of today's jet engines.


While modern jet engines do look nearly identical to their older counterparts, they are in a different league when it comes to refinement, efficiency, and durability. Advances to metallurgy allows for more durable components. Computer aided design and manufacturing (CADCAM) allows for tighter tolerances and less manufacturing defects. Improved diagnostic systems allow the pilots and ground crew to locate issues before they become problems and, in many cases, before the aircraft even leaves the ground.

Modern aircraft engines are thoroughly tested to ensure continued operation throughout the harshest conditions. This includes water ingestion, hail, ice, and the occasional large bird. As you can see from the videos above, some damage may occur, but not enough to result in catastrophic failure.

So why do so many fighter aircraft have two engines?

Packaging and power.

You will notice that most two engine fighters are larger, multi-mission types that need to carry heavier loads yet still need lots of performance. The F-15C and F-14 need two large engines in order to carry copious amounts of internal fuel for an intercept mission. The F-111 and A-6 need two engines to carry copious amount of bombs. Even the F-18 needs its two engines because it is a heavier fighter (1.5 tonnes more) than the F-16, yet requires a slower stall speed.

If you need a single engine to make more power, you simply need to make it bigger. Currently, the most powerful turbofan engine placed in a fighter is the F-35's P&W F135. At 43,000lbs of thrust (with afterburner), the F-35 makes more power than the both CF-18 engines put together. It is just slightly less than that of the Super Hornet's twin GE-F414s. While a single engine design does maker for less maintenance issues and such, it can cause a new set of issues. For example, the F-35C's engine is simply too big to fit inside the USN's C-2 Greyhound transport aircraft. This makes aircraft carrier deliveries a bit tricky. Luckily, the Super Hornet's smaller engine fits just fine.

Twin-engine aircraft are built as twin-engined aircraft. Both turbines work together to propel the aircraft as a single propulsion system. One engine does not work as a "spare" to the other. A catastrophic failure in one would result in a near-instantaneous sudden loss of power and an extremely ill-handling airplane. The malfunctioning engine would act as "dead weight", contributing to extra drag while adding power to the opposite engine to compensate would result in the aircraft rotating on its yaw axis.

On top of all this, there is the underlying cause of the engine malfunction to worry about. A fire or structural failure could easily spread to the remaining engine. As could a loss in fuel pressure. In some cases, the loss of one engine is simply a precursor to the second engine following suit.

My little fictional story at the start of this post was very loosely based on real life events. While practicing for an air show in Lethbridge, Alberta, Captain Brian Bews' CF-18 demonstrator suffered from a starboard engine failure due to a stuck fuel piston. This kept the right engine from throttling up alongside the port (left) side engine when maximum afterburner was selected.

"The large thrust imbalance between the left and the right engines caused the aircraft to depart controlled flight and the aircraft was unrecoverable within the altitude available."

Despite Captain Bews' best efforts, he could not regain control of the aircraft. Given the nature of the problem, there is little guarantee he could have even if the altitude was higher.

Are twin-engined aircraft safer? Maybe... But not significantly so.

The single-engined Saab Gripen (which uses a variant of the F404 used in the CF-18 ) has enjoyed a near flawless safety record. Out of a mere 11 major incidents, none were engine related. This, despite the fact that Sweden operates the Gripen in severe conditions with one Gripen airbase located in the arctic circle. They even perform arctic patrols with them and everything.

Too bad Canada would never buy a European-sourced aircraft for the RCAF. Would they?

 

[Lucky13]

The F-100 Super Sabre and the F-100 Voodoo (A and C variants) were powered by the Pratt Whitney J57 turbojet engine. Both aircraft were used as fighter bombers in the USAF, flying similar missions.

Similarly, the F-101 Delta Dart interceptor......

Say what now....did I miss something?

 

[Lucky13]

The Gripen NG or upcoming E/F is using the F414G engine, same as the Super Hornet, which Volvo Flygmotor helped to develop....if I remember correctly.
Seem to be good engine....

 

[gumbyk]

Two engines - twice the trouble...