PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   F-35: wise spending of our dollars? (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/611338-f-35-wise-spending-our-dollars.html)

itsnotthatbloodyhard 31st Jul 2018 11:37


Originally Posted by imperial shifter (Post 10210886)
How about ones with two engines?

Here’s your twin-engined MiG 29 after taking a bird down one engine:
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...82caee4cb.jpeg

itsnotthatbloodyhard 31st Jul 2018 12:12


Originally Posted by imperial shifter (Post 10210925)
Ha. Nice shot. As I said, play the ball and not the man.

’Playing the man’ clearly has a much broader definition than I thought.

josephfeatherweight 31st Jul 2018 12:28


If the loss rate of the F35 due to having one engine is considered OK by the powers that be then that's that.
What are you on about, imperial shifter? What "loss rate" due to "having one engine" are you referring to?
Clearly the "powers that be" do consider it "OK".
How many Hawk 127s have the RAAF lost due to FOD/Bird Ingestion - leading to engine failure?
How many Macchis did they lose due to such events?
You're making it hard to play the ball, as I can't see past the goose running around on the footy field flapping his arms.
I'll add this - I have only a basic knowledge of the F35 programme, and I have my doubts that the F35 represents good value given the HORRENDOUS cost blowouts and the HUGE delays - but my doubts have nothing to do with the fact it only has one donk...

mattyj 31st Jul 2018 16:14

The Aussie defense forces have operated A4 Skyhawks and Mirage IIIs before..there is a single engine precedent (also Vampires and Sabres..etc etc)

Heathrow Harry 31st Jul 2018 18:08

I think someone on the F-35 thread in MILITARY on here said the US armed forces determined they couldn't afford to develop a new twin and buy enough of them to make it worth while....... especially when you factored in stealth . It woul d have cost more than an F-22

Going Boeing 1st Aug 2018 03:21

The F35, due to its stealth characteristics, won't have to operate close to the ground very often and thus won't be exposed to birdstrikes to the same degree as non steath fighter/attack aircraft. This significantly reduces the risk associated with operating a single engine fighter.

On the tanker issue, there is no doubt that the tankers will be targeted so, it would not surprise me if the RAAF follows the development of stealthy UAV tankers currently being designed to operate from US Navy carriers. These UAV tankers could eventually refuel from the larger, manned tankers and then sent into higher risk areas in support of F35 missions.

TBM-Legend 1st Aug 2018 04:53

How many F-35's have been lost todate with engine/bird issues? A. Zero, including prototypes, which is unheard of in previous fighter types. Speaking of twin engine safety, the RAAF EA-18G Growler was a write-off at Red Flag recently, due to a catastrophic engine failure on take-off that destroyed the aircraft. Cat 5 and it was a twin engined aircraft...

Mk 1 1st Aug 2018 06:04


Originally Posted by josephfeatherweight (Post 10206417)
Sounds legit...
(PS. I don't disagree that these things are hideously expensive.)

Meh... Is he in the engineering dept? If they are only making some parts, how does he know what the other parts are worth? Does he know how much research was needed to achieve the degree of performance and LO characteristics? The cost per airframe in bits and pieces may be a fraction of the cost but the extensive design, testing etc doesn't come for free....

Mk 1 1st Aug 2018 06:09


Originally Posted by imperial shifter (Post 10210845)
How about playing the ball and not the man. The Mig 29 has an intake setup where when on the ground the "flight" intakes are blocked and inlets from above (put very simply!) are open to mitigate against FOD when taxiing on dodgy soviet strips. What defence / capability to withstand does the F35 have against bird ingestion or FOD? Serious question!

Given the size of the mainwheels and 'mudguards' on the nose wheels I'd say the aircraft was designed to operate onto austere fields on occasion. That probably meant they needed and engineering solution to block the main intakes. The F35A is not designed to operate on anything other than a conventional well maintained runway - it therefore doesn't need the same solution. Incidentally - extra complexity, weight and the potential issues with signature are also reasons to avoid using it on the F35. If you do need to operate from an austere field, LM would point you towards the F35B.
'

josephfeatherweight 1st Aug 2018 10:20

MK1 - I was being sarcastic (sorry, should have made it more obvious)
To me, it read along the lines of "my best mate's, neighbour's plumber reckons..."

JPJP 1st Aug 2018 17:32


Originally Posted by Going Boeing (Post 10211575)
The F35, due to its stealth characteristics, won't have to operate close to the ground very often and thus won't be exposed to birdstrikes to the same degree as non steath fighter/attack aircraft. This significantly reduces the risk associated with operating a single engine fighter..

Three letters - C A S

Going Boeing 1st Aug 2018 18:55

C A S in a F35 would probably involve throwing smarter bombs from a greater height & distance. Gunnery would be an option that would be used less than with current fighters.

JPJP 2nd Aug 2018 04:20


Originally Posted by Going Boeing (Post 10212189)
Gunnery would be an option that would be used less than with current fighters.

Uhhhhh huh. Providing CAS is an option ?




Jetstarpilot 3rd Aug 2018 04:12

My perfed option wuz alwayz a six sec bust on the cannons up the pipe...... the dirty commies never new what hit em��

mattyj 3rd Aug 2018 12:03

6 seconds would be just about the whole drum wouldn’t it??

Heathrow Harry 5th Aug 2018 16:06

The Mirage dates back to 1956... things have moved on a bit since then..........


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.