The F-35 is not dead

[frosti]

Then we can buy the F-35 for operational, people-killing use.

I suspect the PAK FA will out perform the F-35 in almost all respects

Why, because the previous models looked good doing stunts at airshows that would otherwise get it killed in real combat with external tanks and weapons? The PAK FA is useless until they sort out their 5th gen engine.

[shimmydampner]

I'm sure we can buy one or two, throw on a maple leaf and call it good for the airshow going crowd. Then we can buy the F-35 for operational, people-killing use.

You sound tough. Are you a volleyball player by any chance?

[Rockie]

So many experts on here. I remember years ago reading a report on an encounter between a Flanker and two Norwegian F-16's that gave us all a very abrupt and frankly shocking glimpse into what it was capable of. Analyzing how potentially hostile aircraft will perform against the F-35 is far beyond anybody here including currently active fighter pilots. The F-35 isn't even done being developed yet for crying out loud.

And they still need to put another engine on it before it's suitable up north regardless of its combat capability. That at least is obvious to anybody.

[AuxBatOn]

Talking about Norwegian F-16... Only 1 engine, flying far over the Barent sea? Oh my god the horror.. And that encounter you are talking about has nothing special about it.. No manoevering involved past 2 Gs....

[DonutHole]

Norway has lost six F-16s due to the loss of its only powerplant

being that they only had like seventy of the things...

[Rockie]

Talking about Norwegian F-16... Only 1 engine, flying far over the Barent sea? Oh my god the horror.. And that encounter you are talking about has nothing special about it.. No manoevering involved past 2 Gs....

Ah, so you know of it. Who cares how much maneuvering there was? You said yourself maneuvering fights are extremely rare and are something to be avoided if at all possible. Most of a fighter's capability has nothing to do with its ability to maneuver as you no doubt know, so I find that statement from you puzzling. And it wasn't the maneuvering (or lack of) that we found so shocking, although subsequent airshow appearances have demonstrated the Flanker's superior maneuvering capability since then. Maybe reading it in the context of the time would help you understand it better but I doubt it. In any event my point stands...nobody here including with all due respect, you, is competent to analyze the F-35's combat capabilities against its potential adversaries. Especially since the F-35 isn't even operational yet.

I'm pretty sure you also know the difference between where those Norwegian F-16's were operating and the Canadian far north, and the respective SAR capabilities within each area.

[frosti]

That at least is obvious to anybody.

Only people who seem concerned are the internet arm-chair generals with no ties to fighter aviation whatsoever. The people developing, funding and flying the things aren't so concerned. I'm going to side with the latter since its their opinion that really matters.

[Rockie]

In the first place you haven't heard too many opinions from the people who will be flying it. You've mostly heard the political opinion led by Defense Minister Peter Mackay who personally guarantees the engine will never quit.

In the second place virtually none of the current fighter pilots you may have heard saying they have no problem flying a single engine fighter in Canada's far north - have actually flown a single engine fighter in Canada's far north. If we get this thing I'd wager their attitude will undergo some adjustment especially after the first aircraft and pilot are lost due to the complete absence of any SAR capability up there.

Thirdly, I'm not exactly an armchair general.

[shitdisturber]

In the first place you haven't heard too many opinions from the people who will be flying it. You've mostly heard the political opinion led by Defense Minister Peter Mackay who personally guarantees the engine will never quit.

In the second place virtually none of the current fighter pilots you may have heard saying they have no problem flying a single engine fighter in Canada's far north - have actually flown a single engine fighter in Canada's far north. If we get this thing I'd wager their attitude will undergo some adjustment especially after the first aircraft and pilot are lost due to the complete absence of any SAR capability up there.

Thirdly, I'm not exactly an armchair general.

You left out the part about how those current fighter pilots who say they'd have no problem flying the F-35 up north, will never have to actually do it; since they'll either be way up the food chain and no longer flying, or long gone from the military by the time the F-35 hits the ramps. I think back to the guys in my squadron in Germany at the end of our time there. To the best of my knowledge, two are left in the Air Force; one is our new CDS, the other should be getting a leaf for his uniform any time now. If he hasn't already.

[Rockie]

Sorry shitdisturber, I did forget that part. Thanks for correcting that oversight.

[shitdisturber]

Happy to help; especially since I agree with you whole heartedly about the single engine!

[Diadem]

In the first place you haven't heard too many opinions from the people who will be flying it. You've mostly heard the political opinion led by Defense Minister Peter Mackay who personally guarantees the engine will never quit.

In the second place virtually none of the current fighter pilots you may have heard saying they have no problem flying a single engine fighter in Canada's far north - have actually flown a single engine fighter in Canada's far north. If we get this thing I'd wager their attitude will undergo some adjustment especially after the first aircraft and pilot are lost due to the complete absence of any SAR capability up there.

Thirdly, I'm not exactly an armchair general.

I know quit a few CF pilots from my time in the military, including a few who already fly fighters and a few who are in the pipe to be flying fighters in a few years, and the consensus is that the F-35 is the only option at which we should be looking. Not one has a problem flying a single-engine aircraft in the Arctic if its engine is as reliable as the F-35's, and yes, they have been to the north and have seen how vast it is. Sure, the F-16 has had some engine failures, and so have Canada's F-18s, but those engines were designed in the '70s; by that logic, the 777 could never be ETOPS certified and would have to have three engines because the 727 had some engine failures.

[Rockie]

Not one has a problem flying a single-engine aircraft in the Arctic if its engine is as reliable as the F-35's, and yes, they have been to the north and have seen how vast it is.

How many have lost engines? How much time has been logged on the F-35 engine to make the kind of reliability claims civilian turbofans can make? Nobody can guarantee the engine won't fail due to some incorrect maintenance or some other external factor. The CF-18 engine is unbelievably reliable, but the one I lost was destroyed by the kind of external factor that no engine is immune to. Not even the F-35's.

[Diadem]

How many have lost engines?

Admittedly, none, but then how many engine failures has the CF-18 had in its service life? I've found ten instances of actual engine failures in the 24 years they've been operating, and 228 precautionary shutdowns which weren't absolutely necessary but were a good idea; in those situations the pilots could have kept the engine running if they needed to get back to an airport. That leaves ten failures - 10 - in 24 years. That's an outstanding statistic for a design from 35 years ago, and F135 is a far more modern design built on the back of the successes and failures of earlier generations. The fact that none of the CF pilots I know have had a single engine failure on any aircraft they've flown so far, including the CF-18, is a testament to the fact that it's an extraordinary rarity on even the most outdated aircraft in the fleet.

How much time has been logged on the F-35 engine to make the kind of reliability claims civilian turbofans can make?

By that reasoning the 787, A350 and CSeries shouldn't be approved for ETOPS until they've got a few years of actual service under their belts without problems; they all have brand-new powerplants which could fail over the North Atlantic or Arctic, but not having ETOPS certification prior to entering service would have just a bit of a detrimental effect on the operators and their desired routes. I haven't been able to find any stats on how many actual hours of testing the F135 has undergone, but it's had at least six years of testing so far, with further improvements made to enhance its durability in the meantime. That's already a year longer than the 787s engine options when they entered service, and one to two years longer than the Trent XWB when it goes into service on the A350, plus they haven't completed the testing phase. On top of that, it'll be at least four years before the F-35 is put into service by Canada, during which time any major engine problems will likely have been demonstrated by US operators.
The single-engine vs multi-engine debate has already been hashed out numerous times with regards to aircraft like the PC-12, which flies all over the Arctic for a variety of operators, and the F-16 operating in the Norwegian Arctic and Alaska. The PC-12 has had a couple of engine failures over the last few years, but the engine's reliability isn't expected to come close to that of the F135. Furthermore, the number of hours all the PC-12s in Canada rack up each year without incident is exponentially larger than the number of hours the F-35 would fly in the same period. USAF pilots aren't concerned about operating the F-35 over the Arctic Ocean intercepting Russian aircraft, and USN pilots aren't worried about operating it from carriers in the middle of the Pacific with absolutely nowhere to land and a high probability that they wouldn't be able to get back onto the carrier. Admittedly, their SAR capabilities are better than ours in the Arctic, but that should already be a concern for both military and civilian pilots; F-18s can go down for reasons other than engine failures, or could even theoretically suffer a dual engine failure, so the pilots should be equipped to handle survival in the Arctic for a few days anyway. I very much doubt the prevailing philosophy in the CF is "you won't crash, ever, if you have two engines, so don't take any survival equipment with you", and if they're already prepared for that I don't see how it would be any different on the F-35.

[Rockie]

and 228 precautionary shutdowns which weren't absolutely necessary but were a good idea; in those situations the pilots could have kept the engine running if they needed to get back to an airport.

Really? You were there when all those engine shutdowns occurred? How is it you know the engines in all those shutdowns would have made it back to base if it was the only one and couldn't be shut down? Why do you think they were shut down besides the fact they had another one running?

By that reasoning the 787, A350 and CSeries shouldn't be approved for ETOPS until they've got a few years of actual service under their belts

ETOPS stands for "Extended TWIN Engine Operations". That means there are two of them, and certification is predicated in part on the statistical likelihood of losing both of them, not just one. But since we're talking about it maybe you should look up the number of hard failures that have occurred just at Air Canada in the last five years or so. Fortunately in every case there was another engine to bring the airplane home on. It would have been very bad if there weren't.

The single-engine vs multi-engine debate has already been hashed out numerous times with regards to aircraft like the PC-12, which flies all over the Arctic for a variety of operators,

We aren't talking about a PC-12, we're talking about an extremely high performance tactical combat aircraft that frankly does things a PC-12 will never do. Canada has had many pilots eject out of CF-18's, none of which were caused by combat. There would have been many, many more if the jet didn't have two engines.

USAF pilots aren't concerned about operating the F-35 over the Arctic Ocean intercepting Russian aircraft, and USN pilots aren't worried about operating it from carriers in the middle of the Pacific with absolutely nowhere to land and a high probability that they wouldn't be able to get back onto the carrier.

It's all about the SAR. Alaska is riddled with it and a carrier task force is literally teeming with air and surface assets to affect any kind of rescue within minutes no matter how far away from shore they are.

Admittedly, their SAR capabilities are better than ours in the Arctic, but that should already be a concern for both military and civilian pilots;

Here you're starting to understand the issue and you're absolutely right, it should be a concern for both military and civilian pilots. To repeat myself it's all about the SAR which in Canada is nonexistent in the arctic. If we had the kind of SAR capability the US and Norwegians have in place I agree this would be much less of an issue, but we don't. Ergo...

[frosti]

Having dedicated SAR anywhere north of Yellowknife would be wasteful. Besides an all out war with Russia the F35s time up north, like the CF-18s, would be a tiny fraction of its overall flight time. Spending any meaningful time at the FOBs are rare so setting up dedicated SAR crews isn't worth it. Alaska is covered because of two massive USAF bases, we have no such installations north of Cold Lake.

[shimmydampner]

Yeah! All those civilian flights can suck it.
Not enough volleyball up there anyway.

[Diadem]

Really? You were there when all those engine shutdowns occurred? How is it you know the engines in all those shutdowns would have made it back to base if it was the only one and couldn't be shut down? Why do you think they were shut down besides the fact they had another one running?

That's according to a report prepared by the DND on CF-18 engine failures. It's explicit that the engines were shut down because the pilots thought it was a good idea, not because they failed catastrophically. If, for some reason, they needed to keep it running, such as to reach a safe place to land, they could have done so. That leaves one actual engine failure every 2.4 years on a design that's almost forty years old. I notice you ignored that point, which is the one that's actually relevant to the discussion of how likely it is that the aircraft would be left without any propulsion.

ETOPS stands for "Extended TWIN Engine Operations". That means there are two of them, and certification is predicated in part on the statistical likelihood of losing both of them, not just one. But since we're talking about it maybe you should look up the number of hard failures that have occurred just at Air Canada in the last five years or so. Fortunately in every case there was another engine to bring the airplane home on. It would have been very bad if there weren't.

I'm well aware of what ETOPS is, and the point I was making is that prior to ETOPS certification being an option aircraft designers were required to have three or more engines on any aircraft they wanted to send across unpopulated areas such as the oceans and poles because of the high probability of one failing. The increased reliability over the past forty years not only negated that requirement, but increased the distance at which these aircraft could fly from a suitable alternate because of the extraordinarily low probability of the second engine failing. Such improvement in reliability has also been made in military aircraft engines. However, that wasn't the reason I brought up ETOPS. You asked

How much time has been logged on the F-35 engine to make the kind of reliability claims civilian turbofans can make?

and the point I was making is that the A380, 787 and A350 all have new engines on them which had never been used in the real world before the aircraft were certified. There was no data on their actual reliability, and yet the FAA and EASA have no problem certifying these engines for ETOPS because it's known, before they enter service, that they are extraordinarily reliable. I would assume that P&W would be able to make the same assessment of the F135.

We aren't talking about a PC-12, we're talking about an extremely high performance tactical combat aircraft that frankly does things a PC-12 will never do.

You're right, and that's why the F135 is being subjected to rigorous testing far beyond anything to which the PT-6 has ever been subjected. The PC-12's reliability is far below that expected of the F-35, and yet there still hasn't been one instance of a Pilatus ending up on the sea ice because the engine failed. One engine isn't a guarantee of failure, and two aren't a guarantee of success.

It's all about the SAR. Alaska is riddled with it and a carrier task force is literally teeming with air and surface assets to affect any kind of rescue within minutes no matter how far away from shore they are.

That still doesn't change the fact that a USN pilot could find him/herself 1200 miles from the carrier floating alone in the ocean. It doesn't matter how capable the SAR teams on the carrier are, that's a speck in a massive body of water, and yet the Pentagon doesn't seem to think only having one engine is a major issue. Frankly, I'd rather parachute onto a frozen island in the Arctic with some survival equipment than try to stay afloat in the North Atlantic while a helicopter sweeps hundreds of square miles of ocean for me.

Here you're starting to understand the issue and you're absolutely right, it should be a concern for both military and civilian pilots. To repeat myself it's all about the SAR which in Canada is nonexistent in the arctic. If we had the kind of SAR capability the US and Norwegians have in place I agree this would be much less of an issue, but we don't. Ergo...

The only issue I have with this statement is that you cut it off just before my most important point, and thus utterly ignored a statement which I think is rather damning to the whole notion of a single-engine aircraft being unsuited for use in the Arctic:

F-18s can go down for reasons other than engine failures, or could even theoretically suffer a dual engine failure, so the pilots should be equipped to handle survival in the Arctic for a few days anyway. I very much doubt the prevailing philosophy in the CF is "you won't crash, ever, if you have two engines, so don't take any survival equipment with you", and if they're already prepared for that I don't see how it would be any different on the F-35.

So, if a CF-18 has a fuel leak and both engines flame out over, oh, let's say Melville Island, would the pilot not be prepared for an extended stay? Or would the RCAF have decided that having two engines is sufficient to guarantee that no aircraft would ever crash in a remote location, and thus no survival equipment is necessary? Is it not possible that our current fleet could have a crash in the Arctic, and would the pilots not therefore already be prepared for that scenario? What would it matter whether the cause is a fuel leak or having the only engine flame out? A crash in a remote location is a crash in a remote location. The pilots should be prepared for it no matter what aircraft they're flying.

[mcrit]

Yeah! All those civilian flights can suck it.

Well, if you want to pony up the extra taxes for a permanent SAR presence in the arctic, I'm sure it could be arranged. If you're really serious about go on a hunger strike and demand that Harper meet with you to discuss it for a week or two.

[shimmydampner]

I guess you're right. After all, my tax dollars are already spent on valuable projects in the north, such as keeping the liquor stores in business.
I just wish CBC North played more Kenny Loggins.