Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 12th Aug 2014, 21:24
  #5061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,157
John,
As for open source references I donít have any to hand but I believe they would not be hard to find. The Alpha Jet was in Egypt and the Typhoon of course in Spain.
Here is some data from the USAF based on their experience where you can compare both the F-16 (single engine) and F-15 (twin engine) as to engine mishaps. The data, as I recall, does not include bird strikes or support system failures but actual engine caused failures. I think you will see an advantage to having two engines besides the propulsion power two provide verses one. Be sure to check out the data charts below the notes that are very interesting.

http://www.afsec.af.mil/organization...inestatistics/
The design of high performance military aircraft is not a simple matter with many compromises involved. The teams involved are not thick either.
There are compromises and then there are compromises. The F-35 is a compromise gone too far resulting in a sub-performing aircraft across the board, IMHO.

TD
Turbine D is online now  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 22:13
  #5062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,157
Original quote by John Farley:
In my view it is not a 'liitle awkward' but plain wrong. The reason why the F35 should be a single engine design is down to engineering facts not "modern engineering is so advanced".

The engineering facts are that if you can fit a single engine that has enough thrust to meet the spec the aircraft will be safer (in respect of engine failure) than a twin design of the same total thrust.
I respectfully disagree with your statements here.

The F-35 premise going in that one could design a three service aircraft where only one service required VTOL or STOL using the same airframe was erroneous. The result of this was an aircraft design that required one engine because of the lift fan placement location. In fact, this lift fan feature caused the fuselage to become "fatter" to preserve the ability to carry armaments internally to preserve stealth characteristics that actually became compromised because of the resulting fuselage design. Also, the area rule became compromised, adding to drag and resulting in the F-35 being underpowered and lacking in speed. It will probably require two engine upgrades to increase thrust level overcoming the drag penalty.

Had the airframe been designed around only Air Force and Navy requirements, you would have seen a two engine aircraft, pencil like fuselage, plenty of speed and un-compromised stealth characteristics, but smaller and more agile than the F-22.

TD
Turbine D is online now  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 03:41
  #5063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Naval aviation has been a whole lot safer in the past 40 years or so mainly due to twin engine aircraft. The argument that two engines double your chances for an engine failure could just as easily be construed as doubling your chance for survival.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 08:59
  #5064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,887
Had the airframe been designed around only Air Force and Navy requirements, you would have seen a two engine aircraft, pencil like fuselage, plenty of speed and un-compromised stealth characteristics, but smaller and more agile than the F-22.
And quite probably with all 3 versions in service by now too.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 09:53
  #5065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 57
Posts: 552
Quote:
Had the airframe been designed around only Air Force and Navy requirements, you would have seen a two engine aircraft, pencil like fuselage, plenty of speed and un-compromised stealth characteristics, but smaller and more agile than the F-22.

And quite probably with all 3 versions in service by now too.
I some how doubt it...

The P.1154 story

More specifically ...

As the design of the P.1154 was adapted to meet the needs of the two Services the respective variants diverged from each other to an ever-greater degree. The preliminary brochure submitted in August 1962 saw the RAF and Royal Navy aircraft as being 80% common. By the time of the more detailed brochure of May 1963 the situation had reversed, with only 20% commonality between the two designs. This growing divergence was mostly caused by the Royal Navy's demands. AW406's insistence on two seats, large AI radar and two-shock inlets to achieve Mach 2 at altitude led to considerable weight growth, necessitating larger wings, while the catapult requirement led to a new undercarriage layout. The waters were further muddied by a Rolls-Royce proposal to substitute twin Spey engines, modified to use vectored thrust and PCB, in place of the BS.100. Despite all this, the design for the RAF remained fairly constant, being essentially the same as that proposed for NBMR-3. While the naval aircraft remained fluid, Hawker began detail design and mock-up construction of the RAF variant.
Also talks about a catapault variant!
althenick is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 10:12
  #5066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,887
Not what I meant.

Should've written all three 'types'. But then I suspect you knew that...
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 10:20
  #5067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,381
I'll believe one engine is safer than two when they authorise single engine ETOPS!
Wander00 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 10:42
  #5068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
I agree, Wander. There seem to be a lot of folk here that confuse safety with probability of failure. Single engine, lower probability of failure, far more of a safety issue when it happens. Simples.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 14:39
  #5069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 470
I sometimes wonder how it is possible to stop ones enemies from knowing what the capabilities of some aircraft are. There seems to be so much public domain knowledge. I presume that you want them to believe it's either better or worse than it really is so that their planning cannot cater for it adequately. If I was in charge of this now, I'd want to create lots of doubt in every direction - confusing comparisons of price and performance which don't add up. At the same time one must convince the public that their money isn't being wasted. Seems like a very difficult job to me.

Another thought that struck me was that it's great to have a big, late, wildly overbudget programme in which one might be able to hide spending that's really aimed at something else. Not that I'm suggesting this is the case now - I just can't help but think it.
t43562 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2014, 22:13
  #5070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 26
Posts: 259
From everything I've read about this aircraft, it does seem a bit crap. Lockheed Martin is trying to do too many things without first establishing what the package is good at.

The F-15 Eagle is a superb aircraft, it's fast, it turns very well, it's very good for gaining air superiority and holding air superiority (isn't that the point of a fighter?), it can be flown high or low depending on the mission and it can even be a good close, fast air support weapon for troops on the ground. Most importantly it has been tried and tested in front line combat both air-to-air and for ground strike roles and it has dominated, I don't believe a single aircraft has been lost in air-to-air engagements. In my opinion it's the perfect fast jet, although I am slightly biased as it is my favourite.

The F-15SE is an upgraded version, plus it has stealth capabilities. It's also a lot cheaper. So why did the MOD decide to go with the F-35's as one of our main air assets when there are other, cheaper, and proven more effective options? The F-35's will be great for defending the fleet, I have no doubt. Although I can't understand why the MOD have ordered these aircraft to work alongside the Typhoon in both conventional roles and carrier-based roles. There is no logic there for me.

If you're going to hybridise a bomber/close support aircraft with a fighter, then in my view it would be good logic to go with something that already works and is known to work. In the process you'd save a lot of money.
Typhoon93 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 09:34
  #5071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
And, er, what mark of Spitfire would we have been on by now?
ColdCollation is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 10:36
  #5072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
The swept-wing, twin-engined, twin-tailed, AESA, single-canon, 4x4, Spifire XXXIV. Obviously.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 15:49
  #5073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
T93 - Back when the main JSF decision was taken in 2000-01:

The F-35 was supposed to be in service by now, cost about half as much to acquire and operate as now seems likely, and weigh 2000 pounds less empty into the bargain, even with a 9 g airframe.

STOVL was supposed to be the magic trick that made it possible to have a sub-50000-ton carrier, which would be much less expensive than a Catobar carrier.

The Typhoon looked comparatively expensive and was still struggling with some basic technological issues.

So the decision was based on valid data at the time.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 16:16
  #5074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 62
Posts: 371
CM surely we would be buying Seafires not Spitfires, for the aircraft carriers, totally agree as regards the marque etc....
PhilipG is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 19:45
  #5075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 26
Posts: 259
Thanks LO.

Do you agree with the current UK trend to have aircraft with multiple roles?

Should we go back to bombers and specialist close (ground) support aircraft like the B-1 and A-10, and leave the fast jets with huge wings for possible air-to-air engagements, or a show of force to the enemy?
Typhoon93 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 20:14
  #5076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
T93, good questions, but you seem to have burst upon the scene with some slightly grand ideas, reminiscent of some of our past members.

You tell me. Do you think F-35B can take on all the roles of dedicated fighters, strategic and tactical bombers, CAS, recce, SEAD, etc, etc?

Discuss...
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 20:14
  #5077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 394
Typhoon93.


I was going to ask what planet you are on. But now I see you are 21.


Perhaps improving your knowledge could come before posting?
typerated is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 20:21
  #5078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Philip, no. We'd have a dedicated XXXIVb for carrier work. Same but with one of the engines, gun, a tail, a load of wing area, hook and fuel capacity removed. But they'd have covered it in magic plastic to make it invisible.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2014, 20:36
  #5079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 26
Posts: 259
Yes Courtney, I guess it could be, and it seems that other aircraft have already been used for multiple roles.

It's quite interesting how a single package can be used for different things, although should it be?
Typhoon93 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2014, 00:56
  #5080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Courtney, I've been informed that in the modern age, the number of posts a forum member has is apparently proportional to said members implied credibility (much like other modern day institutions where the number of words someone says carries more weight than someone elses experience...). Hence why we see our newer members attempt to get a post or two on every single thread in the forum, regardless of the merit of the post itself. T93 isn't on his lonesome in this regard, but it always sort of screams 'walt' to me when I see it happening.

I've not heard from Engines or the others lately, what is the current state of affairs regarding the F135? A little bird tells me there is go/no go decision to be made regarding the engine and a no go is a potential 'show stopper'.

Any truth on a serious redesign? Is this even viable this late in the project or has the Hydra already grown too many heads to kill?
Hempy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.