Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[DogOnPorch]

Oh...hint...the F-18 doesn't perform well on one engine...usually a cause to eject.

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Gee...what is that jet doing to that other jet??

I didn't watch the video, but I can guess. The point is that the range without checking into a flying Sunoco station is still important and especially so in the barren north. You would need at least 2 of those operating in the area in case one fails and had to return to base. We might as well order up an entire fleet of Airbus 310's to tack onto the F-35 bill.

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Oh...hint...the F-18 doesn't perform well on one engine...usually a cause to eject.

It will still get a lot more pilots back to base, or at least much closer to base so they don't have to eject a billion miles from nowhere. The larger challenge with the F-18 performance on a single engine is landing, and that is an issue for carrier pilots - how many of them do we have?

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I didn't watch the video, but I can guess. The point is that the range without checking into a flying Sunoco station is still important and especially so in the barren north. You would need at least 2 of those operating in the area in case one fails and had to return to base. We might as well order up an entire fleet of Airbus 310's to tack onto the F-35 bill.

It will still get a lot more pilots back to base, or at least much closer to base so they don't have to eject a billion miles from nowhere. The larger challenge with the F-18 performance on a single engine is landing, and that is an issue for carrier pilots - how many of them do we have?

 

I'll take the USAF's opinion over yours, thanks.

The F-16 works just fine in Alaska...and range is effectively unlimited.

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I didn't watch the video, but I can guess. The point is that the range without checking into a flying Sunoco station is still important and especially so in the barren north. You would need at least 2 of those operating in the area in case one fails and had to return to base. We might as well order up an entire fleet of Airbus 310's to tack onto the F-35 bill.

It will still get a lot more pilots back to base, or at least much closer to base so they don't have to eject a billion miles from nowhere. The larger challenge with the F-18 performance on a single engine is landing, and that is an issue for carrier pilots - how many of them do we have?

Are you saying that the super hornet has more range than the F-35...because that is not what both companies are advertising, nor is the Canadian airforce stats for it's aircraft....

CF-18 stats are is 330 km on a combat radius, and a 3330 km ferry range no wpns

F-35 stats are 1407 km combat radius air to air config and 1158 kms for interdiction mission.....with a ferry range of 2220 km on internal fuel no wpns....

Note that these numbers would increase if the added external fuel tanks....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

You mention the twin engine safety model, one that at one time was true and played a role in our choice of the F-18, however safety ratings on single engine aircraft have improved dramatically to the point they are better or on par with twin engine safety records....Having multi engines does not mean your that much safer over the artic...infact many multi engine aircraft have met their fate in the arctic, including aircraft with 4 engines.....

 

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

CF-18 stats are is 330 km on a combat radius, and a 3330 km ferry range no wpns

Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.

 

ref: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Are you saying that the super hornet has more range than the F-35...because that is not what both companies are advertising, nor is the Canadian airforce stats for it's aircraft....

CF-18 stats are is 330 km on a combat radius, and a 3330 km ferry range no wpns

F-35 stats are 1407 km combat radius air to air config and 1158 kms for interdiction mission.....with a ferry range of 2220 km on internal fuel no wpns....

Note that these numbers would increase if the added external fuel tanks....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

You mention the twin engine safety model, one that at one time was true and played a role in our choice of the F-18, however safety ratings on single engine aircraft have improved dramatically to the point they are better or on par with twin engine safety records....Having multi engines does not mean your that much safer over the artic...infact many multi engine aircraft have met their fate in the arctic, including aircraft with 4 engines.....

 

And more than 4 engines.

Not far from my abode is a B-36 wreck that went down due to icing of the engine carb intake ducts...three iced-up and then caused fires. Nice ol' reliable piston engines...as opposed to jets. Having the other three working didn't help...

Moral of Story: Aircraft are built to certain specs...if it comes with two engines...it needs two engines.

[Army Guy]

22 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.

 

ref: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

My source takes it's data from DND, not the US navy.....and is is for the A and B model....the ones currently serving....

yours are for C, D, E, F.....

One question yours also includes the use of 3 drop tanks.....the F-35 is clean, only internal fuel, is your going to compare then please do apples with apples.... because the F-35 is capable of also using drop tanks as well to increase it's stats....

 

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israel-to-double-attack-range-of-f-35-stealth-fighter-1001068513

Edited March 16, 2017 by Army Guy

[DogOnPorch]

So you're sitting in your West-Jet 737 (hypothetical) and the captain informs passengers that #2 just quit but we're proceeding to Winnipeg on one.

How many nervous flyers? A few? All?

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

So you're sitting in your West-Jet 737 (hypothetical) and the captain informs passengers that #2 just quit but we're proceeding to Winnipeg on one.

I can't imagine that scenario on a single engine plane. In fact I can't imagine a single engine commercial jet because to the best of my knowledge there is none. There was an attempt to create a single engine executive jet, but the company has been struggling for decades to get it to market. They built a prototype in the late 90's, got sold to another company that changed to dual engines, got bought again and returned to their single engine, but so far over 20 years later and they have not produced anything beyond the original prototype.

[PIK]

People seem to think the F-35 is the only fighter ever built with one engine. But going against 5th gen fighters, it does not matter how many engines the hornets have.

[Wilber]

6 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

So you're sitting in your West-Jet 737 (hypothetical) and the captain informs passengers that #2 just quit but we're proceeding to Winnipeg on one.

How many nervous flyers? A few? All?

Well you would have to go somewhere and it would likely be the nearest suitable airport. On the other hand ETOPS rules allow many twins to fly for extended periods without being in range of an airport with one engine out. The aircraft have to be certified for it and there are minimum equipment list limitations that don't apply to shorter flights. 120 minutes was pretty standard when I retired but I see that some airlines have received 330 minute certification for B777 and B787. A hell of a long time to be out over the ocean on one engine but particularly important for southern hemisphere countries. 330 min ETOPs now allow these twins to fly from Perth to Johannesburg direct and Air New Zealand now operates a B777-200 direct from Auckland to Buenos Aires.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Wilber said:

Well you would have to go somewhere and it would likely be the nearest suitable airport. On the other hand ETOPS rules allow many twins to fly for extended periods without being in range of an airport with one engine out. The aircraft have to be certified for it and there are minimum equipment list limitations that don't apply to shorter flights. 120 minutes was pretty standard when I retired but I see that some airlines have received 330 minute certification for B777 and B787. A hell of a long time to be out over the ocean on one engine but particularly important for southern hemisphere countries. 330 min ETOPs now allow these twins to fly from Perth to Johannesburg direct and Air New Zealand now operates a B777-200 direct from Auckland to Buenos Aires.

 

I've seen some demos of single engine take-offs and taxis that really put the plane through the ol' paces. These newer engines on airliners do allow a lot of leeway for power. Longer ETOPS makes a lot of sense now. ETOPS: Something we needn't worry about in dad's Piper 180. I suppose in the Southern Hemisphere, a suitable 330 alternate could be a grass strip maintained by a Cargo Cult.

 

[GostHacked]

On 12/31/2016 at 3:51 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed.....Canada can't afford either of these aircraft.   That's why it doesn't have any.

And yet the US gave Israel a damn good deal on the F-35s and gave them some rights to modify them to their standards.   Seems like the US cares about Israel more than it's closest and biggest trading partner.

[GostHacked]

4 hours ago, PIK said:

People seem to think the F-35 is the only fighter ever built with one engine. But going against 5th gen fighters, it does not matter how many engines the hornets have.

It's just that with having so much open space in Canada, you'd want to have two engines, because 'shit happens'. Take into account that you want to make sure the 20 million you spent on the plane, that it comes back in one piece.

[GostHacked]

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

One question yours also includes the use of 3 drop tanks.....the F-35 is clean, only internal fuel, is your going to compare then please do apples with apples.... because the F-35 is capable of also using drop tanks as well to increase it's stats....

The drop tanks would severely compromise the stealth ability of the F-35. So what's the point of having them? So, what is the point of acquiring the F-35 in the first place?

[Wilber]

24 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I've seen some demos of single engine take-offs and taxis that really put the plane through the ol' paces. These newer engines on airliners do allow a lot of leeway for power. Longer ETOPS makes a lot of sense now. ETOPS: Something we needn't worry about in dad's Piper 180. I suppose in the Southern Hemisphere, a suitable 330 alternate could be a grass strip maintained by a Cargo Cult.

 

Twins have always had lots of takeoff performance because the minimum takeoff criteria with an engine failure at V1 is the same for a twin as it is for a four engine aircraft.

[Wilber]

18 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

The drop tanks would severely compromise the stealth ability of the F-35. So what's the point of having them? So, what is the point of acquiring the F-35 in the first place?

The purpose is endurance, fighters don't go into combat carrying their drop tanks, they can get rid of them and still have full internal fuel.

[?Impact]

34 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Twins have always had lots of takeoff performance because the minimum takeoff criteria with an engine failure at V1 is the same for a twin as it is for a four engine aircraft.

That is probably an issue for commercial jets, but does it apply to fighter jets? Regardless, a fighter jet should have a lot more thrust than is necessary for takeoff because it needs the speed and acceleration for combat maneuvers; the thrust:weight ratio is much higher. While the thrust to engine weight ratio can be similar (make sure that is not what you compare), the thrust to airplane weight ratio is about 150% to 300% in fighter jets compared to airliners. 

[Wilber]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is probably an issue for commercial jets, but does it apply to fighter jets? Regardless, a fighter jet should have a lot more thrust than is necessary for takeoff because it needs the speed and acceleration for combat maneuvers; the thrust:weight ratio is much higher. While the thrust to engine weight ratio can be similar (make sure that is not what you compare), the thrust to airplane weight ratio is about 150% to 300% in fighter jets compared to airliners. 

Yes they do have a much higher thrust to weight ratio but they also have higher wing loading. You can't compare the two. Really the only consideration when it comes to how many engines a fighter has is perceived reliability. As has been pointed out, the Americans have been operating F-16's in the north for decades. Saab's fighters have always been single engine.

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, Wilber said:

 the Americans have been operating F-16's in the north for decades. Saab's fighters have always been single engine.

How many major air force bases do the Americans operate out of Alaska? At least 2, possibly 3. They also have major airports there along with coast guard stations. Where do we have to fly out of? Cold lake is in the southern half of Alberta, barely north of Edmonton.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

How many major air force bases do the Americans operate out of Alaska? At least 2, possibly 3. They also have major airports there along with coast guard stations. Where do we have to fly out of? Cold lake is in the southern half of Alberta, barely north of Edmonton.

They operate F-16's out of Fairbanks and F-22's out of Elmendorf. There really isn't much north of Fairbanks.

[overthere]

14 hours ago, ?Impact said:

That is probably an issue for commercial jets, but does it apply to fighter jets? Regardless, a fighter jet should have a lot more thrust than is necessary for takeoff because it needs the speed and acceleration for combat maneuvers; the thrust:weight ratio is much higher. While the thrust to engine weight ratio can be similar (make sure that is not what you compare), the thrust to airplane weight ratio is about 150% to 300% in fighter jets compared to airliners. 

Damn.  That eliminates the secret Liberal plan to use leased Westjet 737s as giant sluggish combat fighters.

[Army Guy]

On 3/16/2017 at 10:31 PM, GostHacked said:

The drop tanks would severely compromise the stealth ability of the F-35. So what's the point of having them? So, what is the point of acquiring the F-35 in the first place?

Yes it would but there are plenty of situations when stealth is not the prime consideration.

[Army Guy]

On 3/16/2017 at 11:57 PM, ?Impact said:

How many major air force bases do the Americans operate out of Alaska? At least 2, possibly 3. They also have major airports there along with coast guard stations. Where do we have to fly out of? Cold lake is in the southern half of Alberta, barely north of Edmonton.

There is a an paved airstrip in yellowknife with military air force presence, meaning refueling assets etc....along with other airstrips in the north that can be used year round and could be used as FOB's for jet aircraft. CFS Alert is one, there are others.

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes it would but there are plenty of situations when stealth is not the prime consideration.

Agreed. Not every target is defended by SAMs and AAA.

Stealth is essential when facing multiple SAM threats from rigs like the S-300/S-400...if those beasts can't see you....gold. And they are fairly effective...beasts.