some F35 info (1 Viewer)

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


Let me take it one step at a time:-
Two engines gives you more thrust to safely launch from a catapult.
Wrong - The aircraft needs two engines because the size of the aircraft needs two engines.
Two engines lets you carry more payload when launched from a catapult
Correct - Because the design was dictated by the requirements which include payload
Two engines gives you the ability to get back to home or a safe place if the other engine starts acting up
Correct - a major factor when engines were not as reliable

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
The first part is clearly wrong as the second part proves. All aircraft are designed to the lowest cost possible to meet the need, the requirement didn't need two engines so the aircraft didn't get two engines.

All of the single engined aircraft you mentioned; they were all cheap and disposable. Products of a different age.
Totally wrong. No carrier aircraft is disposable and I would argue that no aircraft of any type is disposable. The investment in the aircraft crew and support staff is huge. At sea there are no spares, no easy replacements as you could be the other side of the world.
You cannot and have not tried to argue that the aircraft mentioned are not combat worthy as they have proved themselves in combat and aren proven carrier aircraft, all you try to do is dismiss the evidence as it isn't convenient or fit your belief. This is supported in your own words by the next bit.

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.

Can I ask what was the unique mission of the FRS Harriers, the dedicated fighter type that made you exclude it. The Harrier, the aircraft that operated so far from home in the South Atlantic Seas. The one that always did well in Red Flag exercises against the F15 which was the fighter everyone measured themselves against. Also the Harrier the one operated by the US and the UK, not forgetting India and Spain. Why exclude it.

And now your final bit
And trainers are just that. Trainers
Correct Trainers are just that, trainers. And they do have a much harder life than operational aircraft and the USN do use a single engine trainer, which is a little inconvenient for you and your argument so I would like your views as to why that aircraft was chosen when there were so many twin engine trainers to chose from?
 
Id very much like to see some statistics that shows a clear trend of twins being safer or better than an SE a/c. I would hardly call an aircraft like the SAAB 39 Gripen a product of a different age neither is it cheap and disposable. Its cheap(er) than the F-35 and whether it is less effective is a matter of debate. It certainly is comparable to superior to the F-18, probably would now outdo both the F-14 and F-15, and perhaps a maximum of 10 years younger at most in terms of design and development.

One that probably might fit the bill is the new HAL Tejas, but it is what it is because the Indians are working from a fairly low technology base, not because single engined a/c are "cheap and disposable". At $30 million a copy, you can have 4 of these babies for every one F-35, but the Indians settled on the single engine configuration because they wanted a lightweight fighter agile and could extract more than enough power out of one engine. For them this new aircraft is anything but low tech. Designed to replace their ageing MiG 21s is cutting edge for an emerging technological power like India

I certainly would not like to deal with an Indian AF battle problem where they will probably have 3 or 4 times the force size that we have and aircraft like the Tejas, and try and P*ss into the wind by saying their a/c are cheap and disposable......reportedly one reason they have opted for a single engine configuration along with a unique composite material for the airframe is related to minimising the radar signature. Similar reasons for the F-35 configuration i might add, though I doubt they have done it as effectively, by all accounts its still a hard a/c to track and lock on to.
 
Last edited:
Gripens new screen....well, the E/F..



AEL Sistemas Deliver WAD And HUD For Gripen NG

21 Sep 2015in

AEL Sistemas (AEL) has now delivered the first wide area display (WAD) and the head-up display (HUD), which will be integrated in the Gripen NG for Brazil, reports Defesanet.

Saab had announced in February this year that it had selected AEL Sistemas (AEL) as a new supplier for the Gripen NG in Brazil.

The WAD for Brazil's Gripen NG aircraft is a single intelligent and full-redundant multi-purpose display system, full-colour, large-screen (19 x 8 in) with continuous image presentation and the state-of-the-art touch-screen controls capability. It is the primary source of all flight and mission information in the cockpit. The HUD, on the other hand, provides essential flight and mission information to the pilot when looking 'heads up' out of the cockpit. With HUD, the pilot does not need to look down into the cockpit to read instruments which makes it easier to focus on the mission.

"This is a very important step in the development of Gripen NG for Brazil. It shows a very efficient cooperation between AEL and Saab and is a successful step in the industrial cooperation between Brazilian industry and Saab in the Gripen NG program", says Mikael Franzén, Program Director for Gripen Brazil.

To demonstrate and validate the new equipment, an extensive flight test campaign will be conducted in Linköping, Sweden.

Edit: The above screen is for the Brazilian Gripen variant, the screen below is the 'normal' E/F version...

 
Last edited:
Is the '35, using the same Link 16 orwhatyacallit system as the Gripen?

Also saw this on the SAAB page...

Saab had recognized the importance of a linked flow of secure electronic combat data long back in fact. Saab's J 35 Draken was equipped with one of the world's first operational datalink systems. The practice continued with the addition of more powerful datalink capabilities to Draken and Viggen and of course Gripen now.
 
Lucky13 said:
I don't know but, would engines of today be, 50% more reliable than those 25+ years ago?
Click to expand...

Dunno about 25 years ago but get much more than 30 and I think engines are hugely more reliable today than they were. Just look at automotive engines. Remember having to "run in" a new engine? Not to mention some of the maintenance horrors from the 1970s and into the early 1980s. Getting north of 120,000 miles was considered good going back then whereas today's engines are barely getting into their stride at that point.

I know we can't directly extrapolate from auto engines to aviation but there are a number of technology "families" - computer-based management and monitoring systems, better metallurgy, more reliable actuators etc. - that have applicability to both environments. I'm with Joe on this one...I think modern engines are vastly more reliable compared to 25+ years ago (and that improvement becomes more marked the further back in time one looks).
 
Can't help but think about that Volvo P1800 in New York or where it was, was is it now 2,000,000+ miles,.with the same engine etc.,?

Edit: Just checked, Irv Gordon's '66 Volvo P1800 reached 3,000,000 miles two years ago....
 
Last edited:
I'd say that there's quite a few, the same as with other old Volvo's, Amazon, PV, Duett, the 140 series...we say here, that those more often than not, survive their owners!
 
we are off topic, but new cars are more reliable than old ones because of improvements in technology. computer controlled ignitions for example are superior to the old rotor and points system, delivering far more accurate ignition timing.

But in terms of build quality and general durability old cars are much better. An old car was designed to last 20-30 years, so long as you dont mind fixing it all the time, and put up with inferior performance. They also hold their resale value much better. My old Austin Healy Sprite I used as my daily drive for
14 years, spent around $5000 on it, paid $4000 for it, and sold it for over $16000 at the end.

New cars are designed with what is called 'engineered obsolescence". They are designed to last 5-7 years and then everything about them just falls apart and off them. An old (new) car is a liability

Maybe planes are designed the same???
 

Usually a time life cycle is part of the design spec
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

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
753
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