F-35 Report

[ragbagflyer]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/09 ... port-says/


To download the report:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites ... Choice.pdf

[Pop n Fresh]

Whatever, we have to buy them to appease the neighbors. I just hope we hurry up and get it over with.

[Gannet167]

A university political science professor, who was a former NDP candidate wrote that report, published by the Center for Canadian Policy Alternatives - a well known left wing think tank.

Its credibility as a study in military strategic defense is questionable at best. Comparing the 1950's technology in the Starfighter to the F-35 (and conveniently neglecting to compare any modern single engine aircraft such as the F-16) is a joke. Like saying "my pop had a 6 cylinder in his 1962 Plymouth. Therefore, we should/shouldn't but a car with a V6 today."

[Big Pistons Forever]

A university political science professor, who was a former NDP candidate wrote that report, published by the Center for Canadian Policy Alternatives - a well known left wing think tank.

Its credibility as a study in military strategic defense is questionable at best. Comparing the 1950's technology in the Starfighter to the F-35 (and conveniently neglecting to compare any modern single engine aircraft such as the F-16) is a joke. Like saying "my pop had a 6 cylinder in his 1962 Plymouth. Therefore, we should/shouldn't but a car with a V6 today."

There is one similarity between your 6 Cylinder 1962 Plymouth (CF 104) and your new V6 Acura (F 35). They both won't maintain altitude after the single engine eats a bird .........

[trampbike]

I have a strong feeling that the F-35 engine will be able to eat quite a bit more birds than the 104 engine could...

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have a strong feeling that the F-35 engine will be able to eat quite a bit more birds than the 104 engine could...

Based on what facts ?

[Mr. North]

Unless it's equipped with floats, skis, or tundra tires, a single engine aircraft has no business operating in the Arctic, whatever it's role.

[trampbike]

I have a strong feeling that the F-35 engine will be able to eat quite a bit more birds than the 104 engine could...

Based on what facts ?

I need facts to have feelings? This is a tough world.

But I don't know, looks like engineers generally improve stuff as time goes by... So I thought that MAYBE, just MAYBE, they also improved engine resistance to birdstrike since the the 1960s.
I know this is quite a stretch, but that is what I think.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Tramp

I have a "feeling" that when your single jet ingests a goose; you would really, really, really wish you had another engine......

[BGH]

And having 2 engines kept the airbus from ending up in the Hudson after ingesting geese.

Daryl

[CFR]

Does anyone know how many CF-188's that have had an engine failure have made successful returns?

[Colonel Sanders]

This one looks like everything worked out ok:




This guy had two engines, so this ejection
went well:



Marvellous photoshop, eh? Look at all the
time they spent, getting the shadows just
right.

Two engines was the key to this guy's success:

[iflyforpie]

I'm just guessing.... but I think that the average fighter jock is a bit better stick than the average Cessna driver.... or Jack Roush, and they probably don't do low level high alpha passes when flying up in the middle of nowhere....

[InAmig]

Drones will be patrolling and doing air defense of the artic in the future. If it takes a goose down the throat the pilot just bootsup the next one and takes off, or takes control of another one in the area.

[Tom H]

Comparing the 1950's technology in the Starfighter to the F-35 (and conveniently neglecting to compare any modern single engine aircraft such as the F-16) is a joke. Like saying "my pop had a 6 cylinder in his 1962 Plymouth. Therefore, we should/shouldn't but a car with a V6 today."

Actually I think it is more a case of the goose/pelican (which hasn't changed much since 1962) is going to fail a 2014 engine...like the airbus on the Hudson.

And having 2 engines kept the airbus from ending up in the Hudson after ingesting geese.

Daryl

And the odds on that incident were what? There is a record of twin engine jet airliners having double engine failure. Strawman argument at best.

This one looks like everything worked out ok:

Colonel, as someone with as much aerobatic experience as you have you are just stirring the pot with this one.

Low Speed high alpha demo hanging on the engines....he coulda had 4 with one failing and it would have been the same...not a regular maneuver, not a combat maneuver playing that game comes with risk not normally seen in any other flight envelope.

Long and short...there is lots in the report that makes sense, there is some that doesn't.

But as one former Starfighter driver told me..."when the engine eats 5 pelicans you' going down"

Read through the ejection history on the single engine types (I have), its on line, engine failure and FOD (including birds) have a real demonstrable history of bringing down aircraft that is not reflected in the twin engine ejection history.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Rockie]

A university political science professor, who was a former NDP candidate wrote that report, published by the Center for Canadian Policy Alternatives - a well known left wing think tank.

Its credibility as a study in military strategic defense is questionable at best. Comparing the 1950's technology in the Starfighter to the F-35 (and conveniently neglecting to compare any modern single engine aircraft such as the F-16) is a joke. Like saying "my pop had a 6 cylinder in his 1962 Plymouth. Therefore, we should/shouldn't but a car with a V6 today."

You don't need to be an expert in military strategic defence or a right-wing ideologue to do basic arithmetic.

2 - 1 = 1
1 - 1 = 0

Engines quit for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with their inherent reliability. Having another one to bring you home saves a very expensive aircraft that Canada cannot afford to replace and we are already contemplating getting fewer than we need because it costs so bloody much. More importantly it saves the pilot, and over Canada's vast arctic areas with absolutely zero SAR capability in place it's a no brainer.

BTW, the report mentions F-16's in use with the US Navy as aggressors but incorrectly states they are flown off carriers. F-16's have never been equipped with the launch bar mechanism, a tail hook robust enough for anything but emergency use, or landing gear designed for the punishment carrier operations subject them to. They are only flown from land bases.

[nothingbeatsflying]

It's not just having two engines either. Two engines equals two separate sources of power. Might be handy if you're IMC and have a single gen failure and a few hundred nautical miles from the nearest landing strip.

Also, down the in the US there are airstrips EVERYWHERE (with the exception of Alaska I guess). Canada is a different story.

[Rockie]

Low Speed high alpha demo hanging on the engines....he coulda had 4 with one failing and it would have been the same...not a regular maneuver, not a combat maneuver playing that game comes with risk not normally seen in any other flight envelope.

Recovering from a high alpha pass following an engine failure is possible, and had to be demonstrated by CF-18 demo pilots in Europe immediately following the 1989 Mig-29 crash in Paris or they could not fly the maneuver. Back then they were doing it at 25 degrees AOA though and I do not know what this pilot was doing.

[iflyforpie]

It's not just having two engines either. Two engines equals two separate sources of power. Might be handy if you're IMC and have a single gen failure and a few hundred nautical miles from the nearest landing strip.

Not necessarily. In fact... you'd be hard pressed to find a high-performance piston single these days without a dual alternator setup. Most single engine fighters have another generator on an APU or EPU (Emergency Power Unit).

[Tom H]

This is too good not to share.

From another forum:
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/sh ... post604159

(by Norwoodguy)

These charts are taken from the Air Force Safety Center website (http://www.afsec.af.mil/organizations/a ... tatistics/ ) and show Class A mishaps (loss of aircraft) due to engine failure. Suffice to say that jet engine reliability has improved over time. It's obviously too early to know what the reliability of the F35's new engines will be. But the question is what rate of loss is acceptable given the quantity of aircraft one has and the possible resulting loss of a human pilot.

The first four charts represent the best apples to apples comparison since they involve common engines.

(by Tom H)

Good post and in my eyes shows very much (2) engines provide the safety factor

Look at Flight mishaps

Chart 1/2
F-15 w PW 220 engine (9) aircraft lost in 3,713,111 hrs per the chart
F-16 w PW 220 engine(23) aircraft lost in 2,251,895 hrs per the chart

Pretty clear here the twin engine have the lower loss rate.

Chart 3/4
F-15 w PW 229 engine (5) aircraft lost in 1,005,782 hrs per the chart
F-16 w PW 229 engine (0) aircraft lost but 372,587 hrs per the chart

Not so clear here, but look at the hours flown, as the hours build it will likely balance out to the previous chart as the 229 is simply an upgrade of the 220 and the F-16 PW 229 has only a little more than 1/3 the hours of the F-15 PW 229.

Last 2 charts it becomes clear again
F-104 rate is high
F-4 Phantom with (2) of the same engines is low

Also note the in the single engine chart, other than the last version of the F-16 w PW229 and the F-35 (still testing and not in full service) are the only singles with a loss rate lower than the Twins.

Pretty much say it all.

And pretty much shatters that F-16 loss rate (overall) being lower than the Twins.

Seeing as the 15 and 16 use the same engine and the difference is so marked.

In my highly biased personal opinion

Thanks again for finding those charts Norwoodguy

Sorry for the length but seems to put to bed the "why do we need two engines discussion?" with statistical and historical evidence.

In my highly biased personal opinion