F-35 looking more like white elephant

[Moose47]

Rockie- did you ever fly with Jean-Marc Bryzinski, Dan Trynchuck, Eric Matheson or Spanky Argue?

Cheers...Chris

[2R]

More thread drift:
Does anyone know which aircraft will be used in Top Gun 2.
We will see the older (not necessarily wiser) maverick saying he no longer feels the need for speed and they should give him a slower less able fighter.Something like a F-35.
You better know how to fight in such a slow airplane as you cannot run and the enemy WILL see you coming

[ragbagflyer]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -f-35-too/

[trampbike]

Quite bold statements about the F-35 performance in this article. I went to the "source" used for this article. Here is what i found, with my comments in bold:

This grotesquely unpromising plan has already resulted in multitudes of problems -- and 80 percent of the flight testing remains. A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode What is the source of such a claim? Pierre Sprey analysis. With the same model he used for this prediction, he also "found" that the F-22 turning ability would be much worse than the F-15's. Turns out this model was quite wrong and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat. I guess it's a good thing that the F-35 will not be doing LOW ALTITUDE close air support. Worse yet, it won't be able to get into the air as often to perform any mission -- or just as importantly, to train pilots -- because its complexity prolongs maintenance and limits availability. The aircraft most like the F-35, the F-22, was able to get into the air on average for only 15 hours per month in 2010 when it was fully operational. (In 2011, the F-22 was grounded for almost five months and flew even less.) The F-22 is being retrofitted with many technologies developped for the F-35 (the coating comes to mind), so it is totally unknown if the F-35 will be a hangar queen or not.

This mediocrity is not overcome by the F-35's "fifth-generation" characteristics, the most prominent of which is its "stealth." Who said that stealth was the most prominent characteristic of a 5th gen aircraft? I thought sensor fusion and drastically improved situational awareness were also major things... Despite what many believe, "stealth" is not invisibility to radar; seriously, who really believes that stealth = invisible to radar?? it is limited-detection ranges against some radar types at some angles. Put another way, certain radars, some of them quite antiquated, can see "stealthy" aircraft at quite long ranges yet less than a non stealthy airframe, and even the susceptible radars can see the F-35 at certain angles again, way less than with a non stealthy airframe. The ultimate demonstration of this shortcoming occurred in the 1999 Kosovo war, when 1960s vintage Soviet radar and missile equipment shot down a "stealthy" F-117 bomber and severely damaged a second. Any ideas on how many missions and the level of risks of these mission the F117 flew during that war and during the Gulf War? Isn't it weird that stealth seems so lame, yet China and Russia work quite hard to developp their own stealth fighter

Seriously, there are many things to say against the F-35. It is possible to either show that Canada could change the mission statement of the RCAF and then it might not need the F-35 anymore, or that the delays could mean Canada would have to wait for too long for peak production, causing either a gap of operational capabilities or costs increases. We could also argue that the government and the DND did a very poor job managing this project and informing parliament and the population.
Such concerns are valid concerns.
This article however, is just a poor media report based on hot air.

[Rockie]

Rockie- did you ever fly with Jean-Marc Bryzinski, Dan Trynchuck, Eric Matheson or Spanky Argue?

Cheers...Chris

Trynny I did, but I haven't had the pleasure of meeting the others.

[Moose47]

"Trynny I did, but I haven't had the pleasure of meeting the others."

His father Joe and I did some flying together in Greenwood. As a reward for punching out of a CF-5 at the Cool Pool, Dan got himself loaded on the very first Hornet course.

Cheers...Chris

[Tom H]

Don't care how good the tech is when it eats a bird it's all over.

How many birds are there in the Arctic flying at 30,000ft? You are the same type of people who thought that 4 engines were safer than 2 when crossing the ponds. The only people who really should be concerned are pilots, and right now the pilot trade in the CF is full of applicants. Fighter jet engine technology has come a long way since the starfighter days, some people just need to get with reality.

Yes some people need to get with reality.

What the (fill in your own adjective) does eating a bird or other form of ingestion have to do with how high tech the engine is?

Nothing...

Yet you somehow think it does so share...the intakes have no additional protection, they are larger, draw more air, but nothing to control ingestion.

And just how did the aircraft get to that magic 30,000ft...transporter?

[trampbike]

@Tom H: Different engines react differently to bird ingestion...
As far as I know, blade design and strenght, bypass ratio and other stuff I have no expertise in can make an engine very resilient to bird ingestion. I don't think any of us here is involved in the PW F135 development or has enough expertise on the latest turbofans to be able to say "Don't care how good the tech is when it eats a bird it's all over."

Certainly the F135 will fail at some point, everything can fail (except abstract logic and axiomatic deductions), but I am constantly amazed at how everyone here seems to have it all figured out before the real experts...

[frosti]

Don't care how good the tech is when it eats a bird it's all over.

How many birds are there in the Arctic flying at 30,000ft? You are the same type of people who thought that 4 engines were safer than 2 when crossing the ponds. The only people who really should be concerned are pilots, and right now the pilot trade in the CF is full of applicants. Fighter jet engine technology has come a long way since the starfighter days, some people just need to get with reality.

Yes some people need to get with reality.

What the (fill in your own adjective) does eating a bird or other form of ingestion have to do with how high tech the engine is?

Nothing...

Yet you somehow think it does so share...the intakes have no additional protection, they are larger, draw more air, but nothing to control ingestion.

And just how did the aircraft get to that magic 30,000ft...transporter?

What is your experience with bird ingestion and high performance fighter jet engines?

[AuxBatOn]

Tom H,

I took 4 birds in the GE404 and the engine was just running fine did not even have to shut it down..... I imagine the PW135 will do at the very least as good, most likely much, much better....

[shitdisturber]

Tom H,

I took 4 birds in the GE404 and the engine was just running fine did not even have to shut it down..... I imagine the PW135 will do at the very least as good, most likely much, much better....

But you had the option to shut it down if necessary; in the F-35 you get to pick where you want to eject. I personally know of at least a couple of engine shutdowns caused by bird ingestion during my time on the Hornet; if memory serves, one of the guys involved was a test pilot at AETE and got a hero cookie for not ejecting. I could be wrong though, it was a long time ago. Another Hornet pilot, who eventually became my CO ejected after a double engine failure right after takeoff. While I have no idea as to the cause of the failures, bird ingestion seems reasonable. You've probably heard of him, he was in your squadron at the time.

[Rockie]

Why all the emphasis on birds? They are only one of countless things that can trash an engine...ANY engine.

The notion that high performance fighters are immune to birds or any of the other things is absurd. Anybody who thinks differently I suggest hasn't been around long enough.

[shitdisturber]

Why all the emphasis on birds? They are only one of countless things that can trash an engine...ANY engine.

The notion that high performance fighters are immune to birds or any of the other things is absurd. Anybody who thinks differently I suggest hasn't been around long enough.

Absolutely! While installing a transducer on a J-85 during my days in Flight test at AETE I found a misrigged throttle cable; which would have failed sooner or later if I hadn't spotted it and got the fitters to look at it. That'd be all it would take on an F-35, one small mistake by one person and a pilot has to punch out. People/materials fail, it's a fact of life. Bird strikes are just an easy example of what can go wrong with a single engine fighter.

[Colonel Sanders]

It's funny how all the youngsters have forgotten that Canada used to have a single-engine fighter (actually, it was really an interceptor), the F-104.

If you care to learn about the facts, click here:

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Airc ... CF-104.htm

Notice all the engine failures that lead to ejections? Now, people will tell you that the F-35 has a magical new engine that will never fail. You can take that promise to the bank, just like the fake low price for the F-35's

misrigged throttle cable

A friend of mine ejected in Europe when his -104 throttle cable broke. A guy on the ground took a marvellous picture of the airplane, him and the canopy in formation.

[Tom H]

What is your experience with bird ingestion and high performance fighter jet engines?

3 Friends funerals

[Tom H]

Tom H,

I took 4 birds in the GE404 and the engine was just running fine did not even have to shut it down..... I imagine the PW135 will do at the very least as good, most likely much, much better....

I'm glad your experience was successful.

Unfortunately there are many whose experience was not.

[Tom H]

Why all the emphasis on birds? They are only one of countless things that can trash an engine...ANY engine.

The notion that high performance fighters are immune to birds or any of the other things is absurd. Anybody who thinks differently I suggest hasn't been around long enough.

Exactly

Which is why I have said bird or other forms of ingestion.

[trampbike]

Why all the emphasis on birds? They are only one of countless things that can trash an engine...ANY engine.

The notion that high performance fighters are immune to birds or any of the other things is absurd. Anybody who thinks differently I suggest hasn't been around long enough.

Exactly

Which is why I have said bird or other forms of ingestion.

You also said this:

Don't care how good the tech is when it eats a bird it's all over.

Which led to the discussion about birds...
I'll ask again: do you think that all turbofans react the same to bird ingestion?

Also, who here said that the F135 will never fail? So far I've only read people saying that the higher reliability (which does not mean 0 risk!) makes it a risk worth taking.

CS: who exaclty do you assume doesn't know Canada operated and crashed many F-104? Also, do you seriously think that the failure rate of the PW F135 will be as high as that of the GE J79?

[frosti]

Of course there are risk involved with a single engine fighter. Still, most of the private civilian aircraft are single-engined, does that stop people from flying? Hell no.

[Rockie]

I'll ask again: do you think that all turbofans react the same to bird ingestion?

When a large object meets high speed metal there WILL be damage unless we're talking about the armoured side of a battleship. Modern engines incorporate technology that makes them better able to survive such an event, but they are never immune. I doubt you would want to stake your life on it.

Of course there are risk involved with a single engine fighter. Still, most of the private civilian aircraft are single-engined, does that stop people from flying? Hell no.

Single engine private civilian aircraft don't air refuel and intercept aircraft over the high arctic possibly very far out over a frigid ocean. Nor are they equipped with an ejection seat (ever wonder what that's for?) and seat pan filled with a life raft and basic survival equipment.

[frosti]

When a large object meets high speed metal there WILL be damage unless we're talking about the armoured side of a battleship.

Many boroscope inspections after bird ingestions told otherwise. Granted, I've seen engines come back with bent fan blades without the pilot even knowing that he ran into something until the HUD tape was reviewed.

I doubt you would want to stake your life on it.

I'd rather stake my life on a single engined F35 than any previous single-engined jet post WWII.

Single engine private civilian aircraft don't air refuel and intercept aircraft over the high arctic possibly very far out over a frigid ocean. Nor are they equipped with an ejection seat (ever wonder what that's for?) and seat pan filled with a life raft and basic survival equipment.

Meaning what?

[trampbike]

I doubt you would want to stake your life on it.

So far, with the PW F119 perfect track record and assuming that the PW F135 will be as good or better, yes I would.
I might not end up flying F35s, I think that, if I get there, I'd have more fun flying TacHel or instructing, but if I do and no new information comes up about the F135 reliability, I would be glad to fly F35s anywhere, knowing full well there is only one engine that could indeed fail.

[Rockie]

I'd rather stake my life on a single engined F35 than any previous single-engined jet post WWII.

So would I, but that wasn't what I was saying. No mechanical device is immune from failure, and up in the high arctic with one engine you have no redundancy. That engine quits for any reason and you are likely toast because where you land in your parachute will be over a thousand miles from the nearest rescue aircraft and it might not even be on land.

Meaning what?

Meaning people have occasion to jettison those kinds of airplanes which is why it has an escape mechanism. Before you say the seat is necessary to escape a battle damaged aircraft, how many ejections in the last 40 years were caused by enemy fire? Include the CF-18 in your numbers please because that engine is unbelievably reliable in all flight regimes. As I said, in my case there is one less ejection precisely because I had a spare attached to the airframe.

Nothing is more reliable than GE turbofan engines mounted on airliners but guess what? They occasionally stop working for all kinds of reasons. One went into the Hudson river not too long ago after losing both to birds. Not the sparrows you imagine hitting, but big honking birds. I know of an engine that ran out of oil because a maintenance worker didn't close the engine covers properly. I know of a B777 that crashed short because of ice build up that nobody imagined could happen.

Stuff happens when and where you least expect it.

I think that, if I get there, I'd have more fun flying TacHel or instructing, but if I do and no new information comes up about the F135 reliability, I would be glad to fly F35s anywhere, knowing full well there is only one engine that could indeed fail.

This is not meant to be belittling so please don't take it as such, but you obviously haven't been there yet. When you have been and experienced what can happen I would be interested in hearing your opinion then.

[Colonel Sanders]

It's kind of sad that the youngsters are bound and determined to not learn from the lessons of history, but instead repeat them.

[Old Dog Flying]

I wonder what the thread would have been like in 1947 when we were just getting into the jet age..had there been an internet, the only difference between then and now would have been the name of the aircraft.

" Mr Prime Minister, why are we expected to buy the Gloster Meteor MkIII when the lovely little DeHavilland Vampire can be had for a lot less????"

"The reason is very simple, the Meteor has two engines while the Vampire only has one and everyone knows that two are better than one particularly when flying over the vast uninhabited country of ours"

"But sir, with all due respect, we can buy more Vampires for less and they are available right now from Britain".

"Well you know how much trouble that we had when we took delivery of HMCS Warrior."

"But Sir, we could buy British and get a big enough deal that there would be enough left over to fix Warrior and still have only slightly used jets."

So we bought 85 Vampire MkIIIs and the Meteor being flown from Edmonton to Trenton had a double engine fart and a very lucky F/L McKenzie ditched..YES Ditched...the Meteor in a lake in northern Ontario. He walked out after 27 days.

And we traded the Warrior in on HMCS Magnificent, another MGB..not the car but still more garbage from Britain.

And so ended the lesson.

Barney Old Air Force