F-35 is dead

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Locked
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by teacher »

Colonel Sanders wrote:
if the guys building this thing are confident in it's ability to only require 1 engine
Heh - they're not the guys that are going to have to fly it.

Do you have any idea how many bits and pieces go into
a turbine? You are trusting your life to thousands of
people, and you hope that not one of them ever
makes a mistake.
I do that every day as I didn't build, repair, fuel, load or de-ice my plane, someone else did.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by teacher on Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Colonel Sanders »

This reminds me. I read in the newspaper that
1 in 6 Canadians are planning to retire on their
lottery winnings. Seriously.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Doc »

teacher wrote:
Doc wrote:
teacher wrote:The single engine debate is long dead and proven to be a dud Cat. Whether it's single engine turbine IFR or over the arctic it has be proven time time time time and time again that you are no longer safer with 2 than 1.
Teacher, usually I can see your point of view. I don't always admit ti though.......but did you really hit "submit" after typing this? Give your head a shake mate. " You are no longer safer with 2 than 1." Get back to us on that thought when the ONE quits.
That is all. Frankly, I grow tired with most of the drivel here....but C'MON MAN!
I'll take 2 please.
I've already researched and posted the stats for a previous thread a year or so back so I won't be doing it again. The accident rates are almost identical. You are no safer, perception in the cockpit aside. In the last few years I can think of no fatal single engine turbine accidents BUT at least 2 engine failure accidents on twins that resulted in fatalities in Canada. I hate to bring it up but those are the facts. Regardless, I can only assume that a 5th generation fighter jet with the latest FADEC and engine technology would be just fine. Comparing it to the current hornet is just plain incorrect.

Having 1 or 2 engines should not be a deciding factor. There are so many other issues like cost, usefulness (do we actually need this kind of fighter plane or will another do just fine for what we use it for), range, payload, parts availability, interoperability with allies and the list goes on and on. The single engine debate is a red hearing.

Truth is almost nobody posting here has any idea what the frig they're talking about. Is ANYONE here a fighter pilot? Is anyone hear actually privy to the REAL insider information about the F35? Can anyone actually compare this jets accurately? Nope.

We're comparing the F35 to a frik'n airliner or bush planes. This discussion should be about so much more. Pilots, good god......
Ouch! Sorry there Teach. I know very little about fighter jets. I lost interest in them after they retired the F4, which I think was rather a cool beast. I do KNOW that Canada could do without spending the kind of $$$ required to "keep up with the Joneses". I do know we'd be better served with a good coast guard than the most expensive fighter jet out there? My age old comment about two engines is more or less the fact that I, personally, would like a second one when one quits, I'm aware of most of the stats. Lots of pilots crash just as many twins as singles. I'm not a stat. Yet. Hope to keep it that way. So should we all?

Most of these threads tend to go on, and on, with opinions by folks who have NO clue. That shouldn't come as a shock to anybody. We're not allowed to discuss topics of which we are knowledgeable, therefore most try to pontificate as best they can on the subject of aviation. Me? I like to spout off on subjects of safety, and how not to kill one's own ass. Trying to reel in my opinionated self, but I'd still rater have two engines than one. Screw the statistics.
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by xsbank »

Why was the latest G650 built with 2 engines, 4 generators, lots of hydraulic pumps and redundant instrumentation? Because the passengers it carries are more important than your average fighter pilot. All of the technology is similar, except perhaps for weapons and after-burn, but the chance of a failure in a fighter where the pilot is ejected is much more likely than on the G650 with its redundancies. Even the ejector seat is not a perfect device; I have a friend who ejected from a 104 and is in permanent pain from compressed discs in his back. So what. Put him on disability and train more pilots, buy another jet.
Those who chose a single engine know the training and support (refuelling and crash support and rescue, ready supply of parts and mechanics) usually will make up for lower reliability, especially if you operate over the continental US, where the F35 was intended to be used. Shoot a 20-year-old out over the arctic ice (or cold water) and guess what? He agreed to serve his country. Here's a flag and our thanks. Do that to the CEO of Monster Bank?
So twins are better than singles, no question. The technology is still not good enough or you can bet your Air Miles there would only be one engine and one pilot on all airliners by now because profits are important. We can make big engines now whereas once we couldn't so we needed lots. Not an issue now.
On a fighter, you buy what you're told will be best for the job and hope they don't regularly flame out and end up piles of flaming junk in your neighborhood. Tough about the pilot.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by frosti »

xsbank wrote:Why was the latest G650 built with 2 engines,
I stopped reading there. Comparing an airliner to a fighter jet. This forum is getting stupider every day.
---------- ADS -----------
 
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by shimmydampner »

And if people continue to read only half of the first sentence of a post, and then tell us that, that trend will continue.
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by xsbank »

Frosti, you are an asshole. Now that I feel better, try and sit still and listen for a moment. There is no question that multiple engines are better than one. None.

Fighter jets are disposable and so are their pilots. If a fighter could get the job done with a large rubber band, we would buy them. Get the job done then think of the pilot. Oh right, give him an ejector seat and maybe he'll buy the first round tonight.

All of this is specious anyway as well before this fighter reaches the end of its useful life it will be facing drones. The pilots have been the weak link since the 60s. Let's see, did I call you an asshole? Check.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Cat Driver »

I do that every day as I didn't build, repair, fuel, load or de-ice my plane, someone else did.
When are you going to demand that someone else pulls your wheelie bag through the terminal to your airplane, while you glance at your gold bars reflecting off the windows as you pass by them?

Don't forget money isn't everything in your WAWCON, image is important to.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Doc »

frosti wrote:
xsbank wrote:Why was the latest G650 built with 2 engines,
I stopped reading there. Comparing an airliner to a fighter jet. This forum is getting stupider every day.
You stopped reading there, because there were no pictures, and the words were too big for you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Doc »

Drones? Why not? They don't cater to our egos? So? Lets buy drones. Cant touch them for border patrol. You can take out targets from the comfort of your living room. Compared to an F35, they have to be almost FREE! Somebody show me a down side.
---------- ADS -----------
 
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by teacher »

Cat Driver wrote:
I do that every day as I didn't build, repair, fuel, load or de-ice my plane, someone else did.
When are you going to demand that someone else pulls your wheelie bag through the terminal to your airplane, while you glance at your gold bars reflecting off the windows as you pass by them?

Don't forget money isn't everything in your WAWCON, image is important to.
Not like I haven't done it before just not anymore. This though shows how disconnected, unrealistic and irrelevant you are to today's industry.

Money is everything in this business if you haven't noticed so getting your pilots to load, repair and de-ice their own planes is not the most efficient way to do business. 20 minute turns would be a little difficult to accomplish if we did it your way.

I know you're being sarcastic but man, do you ever know how to bring a thread down.

I'm done with this thread so I'll finish by saying I hope the right choice is made for our men and woman in uniform. Hopefully this decision, if the wrong one is made, doesn't come back to haunt us in the future.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Expat
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:58 am
Location: Central Asia

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Expat »

It seems to me that this tread is about more than the number of engines in a plane. It seems that the 40 bn price tag is an important discussion point, polarizing opinions. The lefties, as they are called, can probably see a better way to spend such a sum, saving many lives, if invested in health care, than they would, doing the job the F-18s did.
We, Canadians, know better, we understand better what this world needs now. We have been active in Peace-Keeping since it started, we have been successful in defending our shores, our Arctic borders, and we have supported our allies when they needed us.
We may have to look back a little to understand our political logic.
I remember P.E.T. and his ideology. He knew that the USSR, or China, were not our ennemies, and would not attack us. He was treated badly for his views, but his smarts shaped the politics of a generation. He reduced the size of the Armed Forces, based on his feelings that we were not threatened.
Yes, he was a lefty, but he understood world politics.
We now have to show as Canadians, our understanding of the world, and its possible threats. That may lead us to make knowledgeable decisions about future weapon purchases.
Who is our ennemy now? I mean Canada's ennemy? Iran? North Korea? BS!!! They are not ennemies of Canada. Then, who is? Arming ourselves without knowing our ennemies is simply foolish.
Let's spend the money home, taking care of our citizens, and the country will be better off!
I spent enough time in war zones to have learned that the whole concept of war and weaponry is big business, and big politics.
Good night from Af.
Expat.
---------- ADS -----------
 
RVgrin
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:12 am

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by RVgrin »

YYZSaabGuy wrote:
trampbike wrote:BUT, the probability to have an engine failure on a twin is almost doubled compared to a single.
I've probably got less of a statistical background than anybody on this site, but I'm not sure that's correct.
If you fly the exact same engine type on both a single and on a twin (although the twin obviously has two of them mounted), and there's a 1% chance of an engine failure on any given departure, then the twin has the same 1% chance of an engine failure as does the single - each engine has a 1% chance of failing, not 2*1% in the case of the twin. It's not cumulative - neither engine knows there's another mounted on the other wing.

I think that's correct, but local stats experts please correct me if I'm off base here.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. If the failures are considered as independent events then you indeed have a greater chance of "at least one engine failing".

In your example, the chance of a single engine *not* failing is .99 (i.e 99%). The chance of two not failing is (.99)(.99) = .9801 Therefore the chance of "at least one failing" is 1- .9801 = .0199 or approximately 2%.

If you are not convinced, try a couple mental exercises. Imagine your plane has a million engines. Still think you have the same chance that none fails?. Or instead imagine flipping a coin. What is the chance of getting one head? Now flip two coins. Still 50% chance of getting at least one head? The coins don't need to "know" about each other to have the aggregate chance of a specific success (or failure) accumulate with multiple trials.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by RVgrin on Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by frosti »

Expat wrote: We, Canadians, know better,
You don't speak for Canadians, you speak for the left socialist anti-war crowd - the minority. FFS, its 65 of the worlds most advanced fighters to cover Canadian airspace for the next 40 years. Its a small price to pay considering we waste more on things like the CBC, Native treaties and bilingualism in Canada.
Compared to an F35, they have to be almost FREE! Somebody show me a down side.
Wow. :lol: Drones don't replace fighter jets, they compliment them. Drone tech is still decades away from being fully capable to do the roll of a fighter jet. The US is working on a F-22 replacement with, guess what, a MANNED fighter.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Hey frosty, how many engines does a top-of-the-line F-22 have?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Rockie »

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/can ... story.html

I especially like this line repeated by some here:

"They say there is no statistical evidence to indicate single-engine fighters are any less safe than those with two engines."

I'll bet there's no statistical evidence to prove that walking down the middle of a highway in the middle of the night blindfolded and wearing dark clothing is more dangerous than a sidewalk either. Some things are just plainly obvious and don't need to be statistically proven.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Doc »

frosti wrote: Wow. :lol: Drones don't replace fighter jets, they compliment them. Drone tech is still decades away from being fully capable to do the roll of a fighter jet. The US is working on a F-22 replacement with, guess what, a MANNED fighter.
Laugh it up all you want there frosti! Fact is, Canada doesn't NEED fighter jets! Oh, our EGO may NEED them, but our country sure as shit does not! We see ourselves as Walter Mitty. However, we can live in perfect harmony with the rest of the world WITHOUT fighter jets. W live in a fantasy land, if we think we NEED modern fighter jets. We could cloth and feed more people. We could house more people. We could actually spend money in more responsible areas than catering to some government A-Hole's ego, by spending many billions of tax dollars on a fleet of very $$$$$ fighter jets. Or, are we about to be invaded by Vermont?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Canada doesn't NEED fighter jets!
That's a good point, Doc. No one ever bothers to list
the different things that Canada does with it's supersonic
fighters. As a result, people think there aren't any.
---------- ADS -----------
 
azimuthaviation
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:34 pm

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by azimuthaviation »

Colonel Sanders wrote: No one ever bothers to list
the different things that Canada does with it's supersonic
fighters.
Try to list something beneficial Canada does with its supersonic fighters. Not so easy.

I mean beneficial for Canadians, not the KLA, the Emir of Kuwait, or our new friends in the Libyan National Transitional Council, the only three entities Canada's F-18's came to the aid of in my lifetime.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Colonel Sanders »

I see that didn't work very well. I'll try again.

Ok, what should we do when a foreign nation flies
armed military aircraft into our airspace without our
knowledge or permission?

And what about when a hijacked airliner heads our
way?

Should we just ignore both of the above and hope
for the best?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Doc »

Colonel Sanders wrote:I see that didn't work very well. I'll try again.

Ok, what should we do when a foreign nation flies
armed military aircraft into our airspace without our
knowledge or permission?

And what about when a hijacked airliner heads our
way?

Should we just ignore both of the above and hope
for the best?
I'm sorry CS, but how many have we had to shoot down in the recent past? And the hijacked airliner. There's an every day occurrence to be sure. And we'd need anything more modern than an F86 to deal with that? Or an old CF5? Sure. How do we justify that? We don't need "leading edge" fighters.....except to feed our egos?
---------- ADS -----------
 
azimuthaviation
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:34 pm

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by azimuthaviation »

Colonel Sanders wrote:I see that didn't work very well. I'll try again.

Ok, what should we do when a foreign nation flies
armed military aircraft into our airspace without our
knowledge or permission?

And what about when a hijacked airliner heads our
way?

Should we just ignore both of the above and hope
for the best?
Yeah, things like that happen so often here in Canada.
And if they did, and we had to rely on the DND to deal with it, it would probably end up in another blunder.
Maybe the best way to deal with the above cases would be AA batteries, that should put a stop to it pretty quick.
But to back off a little bit I shouldnt say Canada doesnt NEED any supersonic fighters, but practically speaking what Canada does need them for can be accomplished with a much smaller number, and at a much smaller cost. The economy isnt so great, there needs to be an actual ROI to justify every cost these days, and going forward.
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by xsbank »

That's quite neat! If you block Frosti, there's some actual logic and some interesting opinions on this site!

Now I shall repair to the estate where I shall rake leaves with my single-engine rake. TTFN
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by Colonel Sanders »

The really funny thing is that the people who think
we should rely the most on the USA for our defense
inevitably hate them the most.

Irony is definitely a basis for humour and you guys
are funny as heck.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
mike123
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: F-35 is dead

Post by mike123 »

I remember P.E.T. and his ideology. He knew that the USSR, or China, were not our ennemies, and would not attack us. He was treated badly for his views, but his smarts shaped the politics of a generation. He reduced the size of the Armed Forces, based on his feelings that we were not threatened.
We were not threatened because we had the big mighty US of A taking care of our defense. Now that the American power is slowly but surely reducing we need to start either taking care of our own defense or learn Russian.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Locked

Return to “General Comments”