F-35B

[Melvin]

I thought that flying a single engined aircraft over large expanses of water was considered a no-no.

Oh well, the risk of aircrew survivability must be heavily outweighed by the desire to have the "coolest toy on the block".

 

[RTHolmes]

The Brits will still use the ski ramp. VTO will rarely be used. It is more suited for landing these days. The craft will still be used as STO so it can carry more ords and fuel..... so STOVL.

yup, just like the harriers. earlier this year we have cancelled our C order and swapped them for the B again ... I wouldnt bet against it changing again though.

[Widewing]

That is fairly old... before the more recent and concerning news, it's failed (as in I don't think it's successfuly made one) all attempted carrier landing trials via hook so far to date, but that was a few months ago...

You're confusing the F-35B and F-35C.....

[Widewing]

I thought that flying a single engined aircraft over large expanses of water was considered a no-no.

Oh well, the risk of aircrew survivability must be heavily outweighed by the desire to have the "coolest toy on the block".

 

What about the F-8 Crusader, A-4 series and the A-7E? All were single-engine and had very good reliability. The number of single-engine carrier jets just about equals the number of twins... Two engines is nice, but you trade complexity and higher levels of maintenance for that extra safety.

[bcadoo]

Interesting squadron.  I think the lowest rank I saw was Major.  Lots of Lt. Col's.

[eagl]

I thought that flying a single engined aircraft over large expanses of water was considered a no-no.

Oh well, the risk of aircrew survivability must be heavily outweighed by the desire to have the "coolest toy on the block".

 

Lots of single engine naval fighters in the past, props and jets.  I like dual engine fighters and think it's a bit shortsighted how the F-35 was sized to basically be an F-16 and F-18A-D replacement, but I'm not in charge of anything so my opinion means squat.  Still, the dramatic cost increases pretty much proves that the single engine and small size criteria to keep down costs was pretty much a total waste.  The STOVL design might have actually been simplified by the single engine, but making 3 variants didn't really keep costs down at all.  Maybe long-term there will be some benefit, but it won't be any better long-term than any savings the Navy and USAF got with sharing the basic F-4 Phantom design.

And no matter what it costs, they ended up with a really nice viper re-design that can land on a boat, meaning the super hornets and strike eagles will be around as long as we need to carry more than an hour's worth of gas, 2 bombs, and 4 missiles to the fight.

[Wagger]

What a mechanical nightmare!

You think that is a nightmare.  Check out the older models which had two doors which opened to the left and right.  By making just one door it simplified it.

[Widewing]

Lots of single engine naval fighters in the past, props and jets.  I like dual engine fighters and think it's a bit shortsighted how the F-35 was sized to basically be an F-16 and F-18A-D replacement, but I'm not in charge of anything so my opinion means squat.  Still, the dramatic cost increases pretty much proves that the single engine and small size criteria to keep down costs was pretty much a total waste.  The STOVL design might have actually been simplified by the single engine, but making 3 variants didn't really keep costs down at all.  Maybe long-term there will be some benefit, but it won't be any better long-term than any savings the Navy and USAF got with sharing the basic F-4 Phantom design.

And no matter what it costs, they ended up with a really nice viper re-design that can land on a boat, meaning the super hornets and strike eagles will be around as long as we need to carry more than an hour's worth of gas, 2 bombs, and 4 missiles to the fight.

The F-35B can carry up to 18,000 lb of ordnance and fuel, by using six external racks. Obviously, this pretty much negates its stealth capability. The racks can be jettisoned if need be. However, at around $115,000 each, dumping the bomb racks without really good cause, would not be smiled upon. My company (I'm one of three Lead Engineers) designed and manufactures the pneumatic power modules for these racks. No pyrotechnics used to kick ordnance off of the racks anymore... ITT builds the actual racks.

[Babalonian]

The F-35B did fine on the sea trials.  It was the F-35C that failed some tests, and it was only one barrier engagement profile that failed, a roll-on engagement where the plane lands short of the cable and rolls over the cables.  In that test, the hook skipped, so they're trying a re-design of the hook tip and the bits that hold it down and dampen out impact and bouncing.

Ahh, glad more (and accurate) information is available about it now, thanks for that. 

[Babalonian]

You're confusing the F-35B and F-35C.....

Probabley will for a while, I'm always mixing one with the other, I know they both fit on a carrier, and one uses a slingshot and the other a hair dryer to start their day. 

[Shuffler]

I thought that flying a single engined aircraft over large expanses of water was considered a no-no.

Oh well, the risk of aircrew survivability must be heavily outweighed by the desire to have the "coolest toy on the block".

 

The newer engines have been proven to be much more dependable so they do not require 2.

[Babalonian]

The newer engines have been proven to be much more dependable so they do not require 2.

Just quoting someone else who explained it to me - The competition really made/pushed P&W step up their game.  The engine before that added pressure was injected into them is LEAPS behind where the current one is sitting at.  The project litteraly went from "just another contract" to "OK boys, our balls, reputation, the kush contract and our !@#$ is now on the block", internal resources and assets went to unlimited to beat and top what GE was comming out with. 


GE saw this and was still trying to secure the contract so they also stepped up their game to match, and that is what really touched off the war in congress - you had two mega defence contractors going balls-to-the-wall in R&D of these engines for a period of time that was vastly being funded purely on the companies own dime up-front and then turning around to the government for compensation.  Both wanted to at least secure the promise of being recompensated up to date if not full funding for the complete development and ultimate production.  Finally, after numerous extensions, they said enough, and so if GE wanted to continue forward internaly with it they had no promise of seeing another dime from the government for it.

While I think the GE engine shouldn't of been nixed and may of even been better, and that book may well be written by now, it has done its job in arguabley the good/best ol' fashion competitive American way...  the bean counters will never forget the numbers involved, but it will/has payed off.

[bozon]

What about the F-8 Crusader, A-4 series and the A-7E? All were single-engine and had very good reliability. The number of single-engine carrier jets just about equals the number of twins... Two engines is nice, but you trade complexity and higher levels of maintenance for that extra safety.

Ahhh the A-4 Skyhawk, one of the greatest planes ever that was completely misunderstood and got way to little credit. 50 years later it is still flying in some airforces. If that is not success, I don't know what is.

Here is a plane that was not the best in anything usually looked at. It was not even "jack of all trades master of none" either. Heck, it was a subsonic jet in the days when mach 2 was the word of the day. What it had was the exact amount which is required - no more, no less. The key was to make it as cheap and as simple as possible - the exact opposite of the F-35 which is as expensive and complicated as possible. F-35 is an over designed monster. It is supposed to do everything without compromise and when you ask for too much performance and gimmicks you pay - pay in $$$ and pay in maintenance and penalized in having a small fleet.

In comparison, the beauty of the A-4 was that it was a simple attack plane that did not have anything it did not need. This left a lot of room for future improvements as the need rose and technology matured. Being cheap and small meant that the platform could be relegated to second and third roles over the years and still be useful and economic. It still flies in the IAF as a trainer (about to be replaced soon due to lack of spares after 50 years) and even still has combat support roles. The F-35 will go straight to the garbage bin once a successor arrives - what will likely lengthen the service time of  the F-35 is that a successor is not likely to arrive.

[Zeagle]

That speed brake (er..lift fan door) just looks all wrong on takeoff. Yes its a mechanical nightmare.

[rpm]

That speed brake (er..lift fan door) just looks all wrong on takeoff. Yes its a mechanical nightmare.

I'm thinking it's one gust away from losing controlled flight. Fortunately there are no wind gusts underway.