F-35 - Another News Article - NO politics Please !

[Truro Model Builder]

Personally, I'd much prefer to be flying an F-35 today over Syria than a Tonka or a Typhoon.

Call me old fashioned, but knowing the likely outcome in the event of a Martin-Baker let down over Syria, I'd much rather be in a Typhoon or a Tornado than a Lightning.

Why?

'Cos they got two of these:

I know that there are single engined aircraft operating over Syria, including Mirage 2000s and F-16s, but given the nature of the enemy I would far sooner be flying an aircraft that can suffer an engine failure and still get me home -or at least away from enemy territory.

[mhaselden]

I suspect whether the aircraft has one or two engines will make little difference if the aircraft is hit by an S400 missile. I'm just hoping and praying that the Syria situation doesn't get any more complicated than it already is...complex operational environments increase the risk of human error and the stakes in this game are too high for there to be any whoopsies.

[bentwaters81tfw]

But..but..but.. don't forget, you are in absolutely no danger form an S400. Not only will you be invisible, and your a/c be so good it can do it all from beyond BVR, you can probably run your attack whilst drinking your Starbucks* and are using your iPhone 6** to tweet your No2 about how much collateral damage you avoided.

Oh, I forgot, drone drivers already do that!

* Other throat varnish is available

** other means of being totally oblivious of your surroundings are available.

And before anyone blows a fuse, this is tongue firmly in cheek.

[VMA131Marine]

Call me old fashioned, but knowing the likely outcome in the event of a Martin-Baker let down over Syria, I'd much rather be in a Typhoon or a Tornado than a Lightning.

I'd much rather be flying an MQ-9 Reaper. No need for Martin-Baker in that case. Get shot down; go make yourself a cup of coffee while they line up the next aircraft for you.

[Alan P]

I know that there are single engined aircraft operating over Syria, including Mirage 2000s and F-16s, but given the nature of the enemy I would far sooner be flying an aircraft that can suffer an engine failure and still get me home -or at least away from enemy territory

You can gloss over the role of the single-engined F-16 for rhetorical purposes if you want, but if you actually consider its participation over the past 20 years of limited wars, you'll realise what a non-argument that is.

[Giorgio N]

While the presence of 2 engines instead of 1 gives a better chance of returning home in case of a mechanical failure, there's no clear evidence of any superiority of 2-engined aircrafts over single engined ones in terms of better survavibility. In types like the Tornado or the Typhoon the engines are installed so close that damage from a missile to one engine can easily affect the other engine too. Only a design with well spaced engines can try to guarantee a higher survivability, however even these can suffer from issues in case of sudden loss of one engine (as too many Tomcat drivers found out).

[Knight_Flyer]

I seem to recall from distant memory and someone can correct me, that having two engines was the theory towards better survivability at the time. the reason for the F-16 is because the USAF realized it couldn't afford to buy the number of F-15's it wanted. Hence the F-16 was developed as a budget option with a single engine to plug the gap.

[steelpillow]

The problem with two engines wide apart (whether side by side or vertically) is that you have to build in a lot of extra stability and control authority for the one-engine-out condition. That and the extra roll inertia slow you down too much. Cheesepare on the survivability to maintain performance and you might as well not have bothered.

One advantage of fully vectoring nozzles is that the surviving nozzle can be turned hard outwards to bring its thrust line closer to the centre of pressure and reduce the scale of the problem.

Some of the Sukhoi designs seem to come close to this approach.

Edited December 4, 2015 by steelpillow

[mhaselden]

Giorgio,

Entirely agree, although I would add that a catastrophic mechanical failure will also probably take out both engines. There is a balance to be struck between cost and risk. In the case of the F-35, one has to assume that the risk of non-catastrophic failure was so small as to make any increase in survivability from having 2 engines impractical from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.

Cheers,

Mark

[raptormodeller]

Current Typhoon radar is mechanically scanned whereas F-35 has an electronically scanned array which immediately puts advantage in the F-35's court. The following from Wikipedia (yeah...I know) "Announced on 22 June 2010: The radar met and exceeded its performance objectives successfully tracking long-range targets as part of the first mission systems test flights of the F-35 Lightning II BF-4 aircraft. The AN/APG-81 team won the 2010 David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award for performance against jammers." Haven't seen performance metrics as they're likely classified but I'm not sure what else you can base your assessment of the radar system as it seems to me that the F-35 radar will be very effective.

Wasn't the RAF integrating AESA radar on the tiffies or are my facts slightly wonky?

About the F-35 debate. Right now, few people like it (that's what it seems like anyway) but remember the Harrier? The RAF didn't exactly like it, but they accepted it and after 1982 everyone loves the Harrier. Mark my words in a few years time everyone will love the turkey like they did with the Harrier. It just needs to prove itself.

(I'm pretty sure air-strikes against IS with a turkey is enough for anyone to like it)

[mhaselden]

Wasn't the RAF integrating AESA radar on the tiffies or are my facts slightly wonky?

About the F-35 debate. Right now, few people like it (that's what it seems like anyway) but remember the Harrier? The RAF didn't exactly like it, but they accepted it and after 1982 everyone loves the Harrier. Mark my words in a few years time everyone will love the turkey like they did with the Harrier. It just needs to prove itself.

(I'm pretty sure air-strikes against IS with a turkey is enough for anyone to like it)

Contract was apparently let to develop the Captor-E AESA radar in November 2014...so it'll be a while before it hits the front line.

I try to focus on the reports from pilots who've actually flown the F-35 and every one of them seems to love it. While the schedule delays and cost are eye-watering, 'fraid that's what happens when Government bureaucracy gets in the way of sensible decision-making. I'm working a contract right now that lacks a small amount of travel funding. We could easily reallocate labour hours to cover that cost but the Government customer is forcing us to increase the overall cost of the contract...and spend hundreds of hours to do it. The other nay-sayers tend to be those who drink in every bad press item that's released, irrespective of the veracity of the article(s).

[raptormodeller]

Now if VTOL enters the equation because the FAA will need some aircraft to fly from carriers that don't have catapults, then if we only expect to fight terrorists, why not build a modern turboprop capable of carrying a good load, A-1 style ? This could be launched without catapults and still be much more cost effective than a Harrier in that kind of mission. Of course it would be useless for anything else

I'm pretty sure we can design a capable super/sea tucano with a low enough stall speed so it can land/take off from our current carriers without needing catapults OR arrester wires. C'mon BAE and Embraer, give us something!

Edited December 4, 2015 by raptormodeller

[Slater]

The A-10's engines are fairly widely spaced to improve survivability and far enough off the ground to avoid FOD ingestion, but that was in the original "you're probably going to be shot to Hell anyway" design specs.

[Truro Model Builder]

I suspect whether the aircraft has one or two engines will make little difference if the aircraft is hit by an S400 missile.

I agree entirely, though I really don't understand why the concern about our aircraft being targeted by Russian SAMs, particularly while in the circuit at Akrotiri. Not even Putin's that dumb.

Swiftly steering away from politics and back to the subject, I am not talking about battle damage to the aircraft. Tornados and Typhoons have countermeasures for any guided weapons IS can throw at them, and they won't be low enough to worry about AAA. I am talking about plain and simple mechanical problems and birdstrikes, or engine fires. Shut one engine down, turn for home and spend an uncomfortable hour or so transiting back to Akrotiri.

I know the F-35 is the answer to all the world's problems, but it cannot do any of it with one engine out. And for all the arguments about single engined aircraft being as good as two engined aircraft yadda yadda, try telling that to the single engined fighter puke whose engine warning panel has suddenly taken on the appearance of a Christmas tree while he is 200 miles from safety.

[Alan P]

I've edited this post in its entirety. Sorry folks, I'm getting a bit snappy about these things.

All are welcome to their opinions. I freely admit I disagree with most of the views expressed against the F-35 in this thread as they are mostly misinformed and based on fallacy. But I also know that people believe whatever they choose to believe, and it isn't my place to correct anyone who expresses their opinion.

I find it hard to walk past any thread on the F-35, so if you see me in here again, tell me to go somewhere else

Cheers, Al

Edited December 4, 2015 by Alan P

[mhaselden]

I agree entirely, though I really don't understand why the concern about our aircraft being targeted by Russian SAMs, particularly while in the circuit at Akrotiri. Not even Putin's that dumb.

Swiftly steering away from politics and back to the subject, I am not talking about battle damage to the aircraft. Tornados and Typhoons have countermeasures for any guided weapons IS can throw at them, and they won't be low enough to worry about AAA. I am talking about plain and simple mechanical problems and birdstrikes, or engine fires. Shut one engine down, turn for home and spend an uncomfortable hour or so transiting back to Akrotiri.

I know the F-35 is the answer to all the world's problems, but it cannot do any of it with one engine out. And for all the arguments about single engined aircraft being as good as two engined aircraft yadda yadda, try telling that to the single engined fighter puke whose engine warning panel has suddenly taken on the appearance of a Christmas tree while he is 200 miles from safety.

Ok, the Akrotiri comment was a little glib. I was simply observing that the S400 is now in theatre and it has the reach to get that far. I'm not suggesting they would deliberately target RAF aircraft...but in a complex operational environment, accidents happen.

Tornados and Typhoons do have countermeasures, but then so does the F-35 so what's your point?

Agree a birdstrike down the intake may (or may not) cause the loss of the aircraft. Same-same for an engine fire. A birdstrike into the cockpit may (or may not) result in the loss of any combat aircraft, regardless of the number of engines. By way of statistics, of 19 Norwegian F-16s lost since 1981, 3 were to birdstrikes.

I've never said the F-35 is the answer to the world's problems - I presume you're painting me as an apologist for the programme? My frustration is that so much nonsense gets spouted from people who (A) don't understand the operational environment, (B ) don't understand the military procurement process or © have a vested interest in publishing bad-news stories. I have genuine concerns about the F-35B - I think it's the wrong variant for the UK's needs. However, the willingness of many to jump on any bad-news story, regardless of it's veracity, is truly incredible. I'm happy to discuss real shortfalls in performance or capability but there's just so much noise that it's often hard to separate wheat from chaff (of the non-metallic variety).

Edited December 4, 2015 by mhaselden

[raptormodeller]

Ok, the Akrotiri comment was a little glib. I was simply observing that the S400 is now in theatre and it has the reach to get that far. I'm not suggesting they would deliberately target RAF aircraft...but in a complex operational environment, accidents happen.

Why would the russians do such a thing?? I know the 'coalition' against IS doesn't officialy exist

But isn't one of the common goals from both countries to destroy and eradicate IS from this planet?

Edited December 5, 2015 by raptormodeller

[mhaselden]

The S400 surface-to-air missile system makes no contribution towards defeating ISIS. Russia faces no airborne threat from ISIS or Assad. The only reason for deploying S400s was in response to Turkey, a member of NATO, shooting down a Russian aircraft resulting in the deaths of 2 Russian military personnel.

This is a massively complex operational environment with factional fighting on the ground (all are bombing ISIS but ISIS isn't the only target for some of the powers involved). Biggest issue is the lack of a Combined Air Ops Centre (CAOC). The US and Russia have been trying to coordinate air activities to prevent accidents but the risk remains of a split-second decision, made under pressure, having major consequences...with NATO aircraft at risk of being shot down.

This is an absolute powder keg just waiting to explode...and I truly hope and pray that it doesn't.

Edited December 5, 2015 by mhaselden

[steelpillow]

Al, don't know if you will read this, but It was good to read your input - it really helped balance the discussion and keep up the interest for me.

[Nigel Foster60]

Gentlemen,

Firstly can I say I enjoy hearing everybodies opinion, if I agree with it or I disagree with it. It leads to a rounded understanding. As with many things in life the 'truth' will probablly graduate towards the middle somewhere, BUT everybodies opinion is valuable.

I am not sitting with a fense post up my a#s#. I will be honest, I think the F35B is not the best aircraft for the FAA or RAF but I value my 'friends' other opinions, it may even modify my own thoughts.

The second thing is last Saterday there was a large collective move to the naughty step because some of us over stepped the mark. We have to Say PLEASE NO POLITICS, though I think it is hard to discuss these subjects with absolutly none.

I think in tacit aknowledgement of this the moderators allow is a great deal of latitude.

Please can we behave like gentlemen and treat them and each other with respect.

For my part I like it here, life would be just a little less without it, lets continue to enjoy without getting shut down.

Nigel

[mhaselden]

Thanks for the reminder, Nigel. I've (hopefully) removed the political content from my last post and focused it more on operational issues.

[-Neu-]

Call me old fashioned, but knowing the likely outcome in the event of a Martin-Baker let down over Syria, I'd much rather be in a Typhoon or a Tornado than a Lightning.

Why?

'Cos they got two of these:

I know that there are single engined aircraft operating over Syria, including Mirage 2000s and F-16s, but given the nature of the enemy I would far sooner be flying an aircraft that can suffer an engine failure and still get me home -or at least away from enemy territory.

So as some of you may know, I have had some involvement in the program in Canada, where northern defence is a major component of our capability requirements. One of the biggest concerns I get, especially from pilots who haven't been briefed about the program is the twin engine "issue." One of the first things I show them is this:

That's right the PW-100-229 has experienced no Class A mishaps linked to engine failure, and it is the precursor to the F135. While that engine has had a engine failure, It is very likely to continue with the trend line of improving engine safety, to below 1.0 incidents per 100,000 hours.

With the advent of FADEC, and electronic diagnostic systems that can identify potential problems several flights before they actually impact performance or alter the engine's operation to work around a fault, you're seeing some pretty impressive improvements in engine safety. Moreover the USN insisted on an even greater number of redundancies than what would be normally required for an aircraft in order to meet Carrier suitability. The F135 has the ability to go into safe mode, where it can operate in a degraded state for quite some time.

Moreover it is important to note the risk of operating a less capable aircraft, which is requiring more airframes to undertake a given task. So instead of two or four F-35s, you might need six or eight EA-18Gs and Super Hornets to carry out the same task. That means you're putting more pilots at risk to be shot down and less flexibility.

I know that's not likely to sway you... I've had many discussions with individuals who always fall back to the two engines are always better than one viewpoint, despite the data, but that is the reality on this situation.

I'd also like to echo Mhaselden's earlier statements: I'm not unaware of the program's failings and issues. I've detailed and analyzed them in my professional role. However so much of the criticism surrounding this program is based on falsehoods and misinformation, which completely obscures the reality of the program and the real areas of issues. Its disheartening to see.

[bentwaters81tfw]

I think a lot of the dislike for the programme is the fact that we are buying the wrong variant because of the launch platform choice*. If USMC can use ordinary carrier based fixed wing assets like the Prowler, they could equally operate the F-35C. Had that option been pursued we would have gone the same way and our carriers would have been conventional. For the kind of bucks we are investing, we deserve the most capable platform. Although the F-35 has much promise, and I'm sure it has certain capabilities we are unaware of, it falls into the same category as other designs that were touted to be all things to all men. From what we have seen in the past, the only way is compromise in one or more fields. Previously we have had multiple designs to ensure we had all the bases covered, especially when specifications were 'written down' when it was obvious they could not be met. From here on in, rightly or wrongly, we are going to be putting all our eggs in one basket. Single engine reliability? Engines are improving all the time, but would you like to be in a knife fight and your engine goes into 'limp mode'? It's a 'combat aircraft' and at some point it is going to be involved in just that, some of it at close quarters, BVR not withstanding if it's giving 'close support'. One's chances of survival with two engines must be greater, and personally I would be happier with two if I was in harm's way or operating over water; an extended glide with that shape looks a bit suspect. There has always been a saying in aerospace circles - 'If it looks right, it'll fly right' . I also remember that during the selection process, Boeing lost because they produced two options. I find it strange that LM get the contract with 'one' design, yet ended up with three!

*Beyond the remit of LM, after our carrier design was not what it could have been, both in propulsion and consequent lack of options.

[colin]

It now keeps going back to it's only got one engine,as the main fault,didn't the Harrier have 'one' engine and it seemed to manage in hostile airspace just fine with that 'one' engine

[Knight_Flyer]

It now keeps going back to it's only got one engine,as the main fault,didn't the Harrier have 'one' engine and it seemed to manage in hostile airspace just fine with that 'one' engine

there's also the one engine F-16 which is generally regarded as a successful combat plane.