The F-35 thread

[video=youtube_share;21ETvx7jPLM]https://youtu.be/21ETvx7jPLM[/video]
 
The thread's title should be changed to "F-35 continues to surprise".

Here's a Norwegian pilot's view about dogfight performance vs F-16. It's in Norwegian, but scroll down for English translation.

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/ka...-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/

I write more specifically about my experiences with the F-35 when it does end up in a dogfight. Again, I use the F-16 as my reference. As an F-35-user I still have a lot to learn, but I am left with several impressions. For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FoXtroT said:
Harrier only has one engine...
Click to expand...

Did I say amphibious assault ship? And it is also one of the reasons the Harrier is considered the most dangerous military aircraft to fly. Single engined aircraft over the open ocean is a bad idea.
 
Compton_effect said:
You mean had. No-one operates it anymore because it was a extremely inefficient platform that guzzled immense amounts of fuel.
Click to expand...

Umm...US, Spain, Italy & India (until just last year) and of course the British used for 40 odd years.

Did I say amphibious assault ship? And it is also one of the reasons the Harrier is considered the most dangerous military aircraft to fly. Single engined aircraft over the open ocean is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Semantics, the British operated them off carriers for 40 something years and the Spanish and Italians still do. Just because the Americans call them Amphibious Assault ships doesn't make the fact they are launched off a ship in the ocean any different.

You guys really think the US Navy is stupid enough to go with something they would know from the beginning would be a problem?
 
FoXtroT said:
Umm...US, Spain, Italy & India (until just last year) and of course the British used for 40 odd years.



Semantics, the British operated them off carriers for 40 something years and the Spanish and Italians still do. Just because the Americans call them Amphibious Assault ships doesn't make the fact they are launched off a ship in the ocean any different.

You guys really think the US Navy is stupid enough to go with something they would know from the beginning would be a problem?
Click to expand...

Name the last operational aircraft in the US navy that had one engine and then ask why the defacto standard for carrier aircraft is twin engined?
 
Blu82 said:
Name the last operational aircraft in the US navy that had one engine and then ask why the defacto standard for carrier aircraft is twin engined?
Click to expand...

I know exactly why its the de facto standard. But then, why do you think so many other Navy's (and the USMC) use single engine aircraft?

And you haven't answered my question, why do you think you know more than the US Navy?

Edit: And to answer your question. It was the A7 Corsair, retired from full USN service in '91.
 
Last edited:
FoXtroT said:
I know exactly why its the de facto standard. But then, why do you think so many other Navy's (and the USMC) use single engine aircraft?

And you haven't answered my question, why do you think you know more than the US Navy?
Click to expand...

France's Super Étendard got replaced by a twin engined Rafael. Britain has no more operational carriers. Brazil just scrapped theirs. Russia uses their carrier as an aircraft transport ship. China uses a twin engined aircraft.

I have no idea what the US Navy selection criteria was but that the aircraft also had to satisfy the USMC and USAF. The decision to use a single engined navy aircraft will however kill pilots. Just note the US Navy specified two engines for their stealth aircraft concept A-12.
 
Blu82 said:
France's Super Étendard got replaced by a twin engined Rafael. Britain has no more operational carriers. Brazil just scrapped theirs. Russia uses their carrier as an aircraft transport ship. China uses a twin engined aircraft.

I have no idea what the US Navy selection criteria was but that the aircraft also had to satisfy the USMC and USAF. The decision to use a single engined navy aircraft will however kill pilots. Just note the US Navy specified two engines for their stealth aircraft concept A-12.
Click to expand...

You just keep on proving my point by bringing up France & Brazil. Both have been using single engine aircraft off their respective carriers for decades.

The fact Brazil has decommissioned its carrier and that Rafale has replaced the Etendard is irrelevant since neither of the decisions were due to the single engine attribute of their respective, existing aircraft.

And again you show your ignorance with your Russia and China comment. The Russian carrier, Kusnetzov, although pretty terrible is not just an aircraft transport ship; but a fully functional carrier able to launch and recover its air-wing. How this has anything to do with single engined carrier aircraft I will never know.

You know why China is using a twin engined carrier aircraft? Because they copied the Russian SU-33, their carrier aircraft, for use on a Russian aircraft carrier.

Really now, bring some proper arguments next time.
 
Blu82 said:
France's Super Étendard got replaced by a twin engined Rafael. Britain has no more operational carriers. Brazil just scrapped theirs. Russia uses their carrier as an aircraft transport ship. China uses a twin engined aircraft.

I have no idea what the US Navy selection criteria was but that the aircraft also had to satisfy the USMC and USAF. The decision to use a single engined navy aircraft will however kill pilots. Just note the US Navy specified two engines for their stealth aircraft concept A-12.
Click to expand...

How confusing, the shared designations of the A-12 Mach 3 capable CIA spyplane (looks similar to SR-71) and this A-12 carrier-borne stealth bomber concept...
 
Blu82 said:
It also needs two engines to make sense as a carrier borne aircraft.
Click to expand...
Needed in the old days, because reliability was an issue so needed over oceans. Just like 4 engines for commercial airliners over sea. But if you can get a more reliable and powerful engine, the advantages of single engine are significant: lighter weight hence more weapons and fuel, better range, easier and cheaper maintenance, etc.

The F-35 moves beyond last-century thinking.

A very considerable portion of the F-35 dev cost is in that spectacular F135 engine. There's nothing like it anywhere on the planet. The best Russian engine has half the thrust, and the revved Saturn 117 has had embarrassing failures. The new Izdeliye 30 designed for the PAK, currently scheduled for 2020, has yet to fly.
 
Last edited:
Proper arguments? Russia transferred most of their carrier aircraft to the Syrian airbase after loosing two during carrier operations, that is 13% of its air wing. They flew most of their operational sorties from a tar runway. The carrier and its air wing is currently back in Russia for retrofit and with no timeline when its going to be "operational" again

Many of the fast jets that were embarked on the Russia aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov have been flown to the main Russian air base in Syria, Airbus Defence and Space satellite imagery obtained by IHS Jane's shows.
Click to expand...
Two of its 15 aircraft crashed while trying to land on the carrier. In both cases, the pilots ejected and survived. The remaining planes operated for a time from the Russian air base at Latakia, on land in western Syria, rather than from the carrier.
Click to expand...

Source
Source
 
Arthur said:
Needed in the old days, because reliability was an issue so needed over oceans. Just like 4 engines for commercial airliners over sea. But if you can get a more reliable and powerful engine, the advantages of single engine are significant: lighter weight hence more weapons and fuel, better range, easier and cheaper maintenance, etc.

The F-35 moves beyond last-century thinking.

A very considerable portion of the F-35 dev cost is in that spectacular F135 engine. There's nothing like it anywhere on the planet. The best Russian engine has half the thrust, and the revved Saturn 117 has had embarrassing failures. The new Izdeliye 30 designed for the PAK, currently scheduled for 2020, has yet to fly.
Click to expand...

Single engine still means you are still gambling with the most expensive part of your aircraft. How long did it take for the modern A380 engines to start failing, luckily those aircraft had four?
 
Blu82 said:
Proper arguments? Russia transferred most of their carrier aircraft to the Syrian airbase after loosing two during carrier operations, that is 13% of its air wing. They flew most of their operational sorties from a tar runway. The carrier and its air wing is currently back in Russia for retrofit and with no timeline when its going to be "operational" again




Source
Source
Click to expand...

How the Russian carrier has anything to do with what we were discussing I still do not understand, but I'll bite.

So what? I already said in my previous reply how terrible the Kusnetzov is. It can still function as a carrier and not just a 'aircraft transport ship'. The fact it is so poorly maintained is neither here nor there.

Funnily enough your sources show that one of those accidents was a result as a "dual engine failure"...

You are still unable to give any substantive reply to any of the points I have raised in opposition to your argument.
 
Last edited:
You mentioned that Russia had a functioning carrier which is something the Russian media tells the world. The first aircraft to crash ran out of fuel while they were repairing a broken cable on the carrier deck if I recall correctly hence dual engine failure.

Single engined carrier fighters are cheaper to buy and fly (definitely not the F-35C) but they won't survive a flame out during catapult launch as in the following two examples F18 and
F14.
 

Attachments

  • Compressor-surge.jpg
    Compressor-surge.jpg
    74.9 KB · Views: 67
Blu82 said:
You mentioned that Russia had a functioning carrier which is something the Russian media tells the world. The first aircraft to crash ran out of fuel while they were repairing a broken cable on the carrier deck if I recall correctly hence dual engine failure.

Single engined carrier fighters are cheaper to buy and fly (definitely not the F-35C) but they won't survive a flame out during catapult launch as in the following two examples F18 and
F14.
Click to expand...

Your source says nothing of the sort, just "dual engine failure".

Again, just because the Kutsnetzov is terribly maintained does not invalidate the fact its an aircraft carrier of which similar classes are in use by both India and China.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X