MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
How many engines on the interceptors?Guess how many engines the aircraft the US uses to intercept Russian aircraft in the Arctic and off-shore. Two, of course. » www.businessinsider.com/ ··· a-2014-6This is exactly the sort of mission Canada is buying new fighters for. Fly a single-engine interceptor in a role/place like these and lose your engine due to mechanical malfunction or missile debris, and you aren't coming home any time soon (or at all). So why are we going to get fighters with just one engine? |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON
1 recommendation |
not this silly debate again? |
|
koiraHey Siri Walk Me Premium Member join:2004-02-16 |
to MaynardKrebs
We're so good the decision makers believe we can take a knife to a gun fight and still win it? |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to dirtyjeffer0
If we're only going to be able to afford 60 or so F-35's and we will likely lose about 50% of them to engine failure or bird strikes, we wind up with a wholly ineffective air force for projecting sovereignty on any coast over time. If we are going to buy a single engine plane, make it the Gripen NG. We can afford nearly 300 of those for the same money as the F-35, and unlike the the F-35 [In 2008, the RAND Corporation said: "It can't turn, can't climb, can't run."] the Gripen can do those things. It also means that a Gripen has a better chance of out-manouvering an incoming missile. With more aircraft available, we can base some of them closer to the high Arctic - where presumably they are needed - and still have plenty left for Atlantic/Pacific patrols & still have some available for NATO use overseas. On the other hand, a twin-engine plane makes much more sense for Canadian needs and our vast borders. As one former CF-18 pilot told FrontLine Defence magazine in May 2011: "A single engine is stupid. There's no backup. If it fails, you're dead." |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON
1 recommendation |
well, it's a good thing those twin engine aircraft never have engine failures which result in loss of aircraft and life...oh, wait. |
|
MarkI stand with my feet join:2009-07-11 Canada |
Mark
Member
2014-Jun-13 12:46 am
And how many were saved that wouldn't have been had their only been 1 engine to begin with? I'm sure a few.
I'll second the Gripen, but the fix is in and the deal is done. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
i just find it funny a few people are arguing about all these potential lost aircraft, none of which we have bought any of anyway...i am curious, how many modern single engine aircraft have been lost to engine failures...and perhaps compared to twin engine models??...are such stats available, or do people just continue that argument just for something to bitch about? |
|
Robert4 Premium Member join:2002-03-11 St John'S, NL |
Robert4
Premium Member
2014-Jun-13 5:36 am
|
|
AsherN Premium Member join:2010-08-23 Thornhill, ON |
AsherN
Premium Member
2014-Jun-13 6:21 am
The F-104's issue was not the single engine. It was not being used in the role it was designed for. The F-104 was designed to be a high speed, high altitude interceptor. It was then used as a multi role aircraft. That thing was a bitch to maneuver at slow speed. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to dirtyjeffer0
Because the fix is in, they'll pick the f35 despite it not being the best plane for our needs. |
|
yabos join:2003-02-16 London, ON |
to MaynardKrebs
|
|
MarkI stand with my feet join:2009-07-11 Canada |
to dirtyjeffer0
Not sure, but we lost 110 (YIKES!!!) CF-104s, following the cite on wiki goes here: » www.globalresearch.ca/th ··· da/24519which alleges most of those losses were single engine flameouts. So unlike AsherN, I'd say that a single engine on the 104 was indeed an issue. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
said by Mark:Not sure, but we lost 110 (YIKES!!!) CF-104s, following the cite on wiki goes here:
»www.globalresearch.ca/th ··· da/24519
which alleges most of those losses were single engine flameouts. So unlike AsherN, I'd say that a single engine on the 104 was indeed an issue. ok, but to be fair, that aircraft was from 1961...anything more current to compare?...53 years ago is a long time technologically...i mean, think about the cars we were driving back then...heck, most people in here weren't even born yet. |
|
MarkI stand with my feet join:2009-07-11 Canada |
Mark
Member
2014-Jun-13 6:10 pm
No, but from what I've heard the nanny state is alive and well within the cockpit of a modern fighter and thus any pilot induced flameouts are unlikely. Also, modern CnC design means an aircraft engine MTTF is now measured in the hundreds of thousands of hours and some even in the millions!
So, it basically boils down to FODs and bird strikes, either are a virtual lock to bring down a single engine aircraft. And given this one in particular doesn't fly very well to begin with...
Hey, the F-16 has done yeomans work for many forces...if we are utterly intent on the F-35 then so be it as it looks like that is the fighter we are going to get.
I just hope it works 2/3rds as well as advertised. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
look, i'm not defending the F-35, or single engined aircraft either...i'd just prefer to stick to facts than made up hyperbole pushed forward by media organizations with an everlasting axe to grind.
as well, the government is currently reviewing 4 aircraft and a decision will be out in the near future. |
|
|
to MaynardKrebs
Waste of money, all we need is chickens.
With lasers. Pew pew. |
|
AsherN Premium Member join:2010-08-23 Thornhill, ON |
to Mark
said by Mark:Hey, the F-16 has done yeomans work for many forces...if we are utterly intent on the F-35 then so be it as it looks like that is the fighter we are going to get. Remind me again how many engines in a F-16? |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
» www.military.com/NewsCon ··· ,00.htmlThe dreaded BANG! came from deep within the F-16's lone engine, shaking the warplane as it made passes over an Arizona bombing range last December. Then came the alarming loss of thrust. Two attempts to restart the engine failed. Having exhausted their options, the pilot and his student bailed out, parachuting to safety before the plane slammed into the Sonoran Desert, a $21 million loss for taxpayers. Not all F-16 pilots have been so lucky recently. The accident rate for this workhorse fighter has risen over the past few years, and two pilots have died in the past year, according to an Associated Press review of Air Force documents. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, there were 10 "Class A" F-16 accidents - crashes that resulted in death, loss of the aircraft or damage of more than $1 million. (An 11th F-16 crash was counted separately as a combat loss by the military because the pilot was strafing enemy trucks at the time.) The total was up from nine the previous year, five the year before that and just two the year before that. The number of crashes has gone up even though the total number of hours flown has dropped steadily over the past five years. An Air Force official said that one factor appears to be human error, and that pilots and maintenance crews must stay on guard against complacency. Pilot error was blamed for three accidents .......... The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the "lawn dart" for its tendency to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor. But pilot error was responsible for about the same number of F-16 accidents as engine failure in the past year. ----- At that sort of rate we'll blow through our contemplated sixty-five F-35's in about 6 years, and we'll have an air force which is combat ineffective/not deployable in any strength within about 3 years due to attrition. Yep, that seems like a great way to piss away $20 billion (that number is less than the life-cycle budget numbers because the fleet will never live to be old enough to see a mid-life upgrade or extensive operating hours). |
|
rody_44 Premium Member join:2004-02-20 Quakertown, PA |
to MaynardKrebs
» www.youtube.com/watch?fe ··· wm0mXqlsPretty sure only a f35 can pull this off. |
|
MarkI stand with my feet join:2009-07-11 Canada |
to AsherN
Just one. The difference is they (the Americans) have about a dozen different platforms from which to choose and we have and will likely only ever be able to afford a single type.
If all you can buy is one model, it had better be redundant and right off the hop our replacement will down an engine.
If $$$ were no object, a F-22/F-35 tag team would be a potentially potent mix. |
|
|
said by Mark:If all you can buy is one model, it had better be redundant.... Perhaps all the more so because of birds and also arctic weather.... » motherboard.vice.com/rea ··· as-birdsNot sure if that was mentioned yet. |
|
MarkI stand with my feet join:2009-07-11 Canada |
Mark
Member
2014-Jun-14 12:03 am
It has, but this clarified a few things already mentioned: Because that mission entails cruising thousands of Arctic kilometres of barren land, reliability is a must. Byers argues that if something goes wrong, that one engine will be a liability.
Citing the brutal history of the CF-104 Starfighter, another Lockheed product in service for Canada between 1961-1987 and a plane he actively compares to the modern F-35, Byers sounds the alarm on single-engine aircraft.
The Starfighter had just one engine, any failure of which would lead to a crash, Byers said. The single engine also made it vulnerable to crashes involving bird strikes. As a tactical strike aircraft, the Starfighters flew fast at low altitudes, exacerbating this risk. During the 26 years of operation, about one-quarter of Canadas 110 Starfighter crashes were attributed to bird strikes.
Byers points out that although the plane never saw combat, 39 Canadian pilots died and nearly half the fleet (110 out of 239 aircraft) were lost over the plane's lifespan. (Unsurprisingly that fighter gained the moniker Widow Maker.) The plane's single engine was one of the very reasons Canada followed it with the purchase of twin-engine CF-18s, which are now ready for replacement. So 25% of losses were bird strikes, no # figures listed for other engine failure related losses. We are guaranteed to loose F-35s due to this, the question is how many and more importantly, how many pilots will die? |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
We all recall the landing US Airways Flight 1549 made on the Hudson River following striking a flock of geese, which killed both engines. I have searched high and low for an estimate of how many geese each engine ingested, but could only find reports that DNA evidence pointed to Canada geese there has been no mention of an estimated number per engine.
According to the US NTSB, the turbofan engines used on the Airbus A-320 are certified to "withstand the ingestion of a four-pound bird without catching fire, without releasing hazardous fragments through the engine case, without generating loads high enough to potentially compromise aircraft structural components, or without losing the capability of being shut down."
Any single bird or combined weight of multiple birds bigger than that, and all bets are off.
So, given that Harper wants to use our F-35's as both sovereignty patrol/interceptors & as ground attack craft, and that for both roles the real possibility exists of bird strikes is much higher at altitudes of under 3,000 feet [think every landing/takeoff], and that ground attack will involve high-speed low-level ingress/egress which is sure to spook birds into the air, we are sure to lose a good percentage of our small fighter fleet to bird strikes while in the portion of the flight envelope which offers little/no change of saving the aircraft. |
|
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
meh...we've lost 10 CF-18s too, so having a twin engine aircraft is no guarantee we won't lose them. |
|
FaxCap join:2002-05-25 Surrey, BC |
to MaynardKrebs
Personally I think Canada needs two fighters. A long range twin engine two crew interceptor to patrol the edge of Canadian airspace and a fighter to be used for our NATO roll plus back up the long range fighter.
The F-15SE Silent Eagle Eagle could be the long range aircraft....the debate continues on the NATO roll aircraft.
FaxCap |
|
|
to rody_44
The question is, why would you need to unless you're in an airshow? |
|
|
to rody_44
|
|
linicxCaveat Emptor Premium Member join:2002-12-03 United State |
to MaynardKrebs
My pov which comes from cousins who are fighter pilots... the twin engine seems safer. A pilot like Sully can land it safely in tree tops or water with little or no loss of life.
As to geese. There are four flyways in the US. In the late spring the geese and duck begin flight to summer in Canada. In the fall they begin flight to winter in Mexico. It is always dicey for pilots when the flyways are active.
Flyway activity should be part of the NOAA weather announcement. By the end of August the birds are beginning to arrive on Grand Lake in NE OK to rest and feed until late Oct or early Nov depending on the weather. If it unseasonably warm they may stay to after Thanksgiving.
Birds begin appearing on the Mississippi and adjunct IL Rivers in mid-Illinois around Peoria in mid to late Sept and are usually gone by mid to late October depending upon how early the first snow or freeze occurs. In 1981 it snowed beginning in late September and continued until after Easter. Few birds rested here that year.
Other flyways and flyway destinations may be very different. I think it is critical for pilots to know. |
|
rody_44 Premium Member join:2004-02-20 Quakertown, PA 1 edit |
to puzz1ed
Its not from a video game. Its real, the pilot actually lost control of the airplane
A supremely well-trained US Navy pilot, ice running in his veins instead of blood (AND SCARED SHITLESS!), fully regains control of his $70 million, F-35 joint strike force fighter, after a problematic vertical take-off attempt... Watch as the rear vertical thruster fires to cause the problem.
There's nothing about this the pilot enjoys. If he could have ejected at 100' upside down and lived, he would have. Looks like the afterburner kicks in while still vectored for verticaltakeoff. Lockheed would call this a "software malfunction" and do a little more "regressive testing". This is a good demonstration of power-to-weight ratio of this aircraft! And talk about stability control..
Just kidding its from a video game. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to dirtyjeffer0
said by dirtyjeffer0:meh...we've lost 10 CF-18s too, so having a twin engine aircraft is no guarantee we won't lose them. Our total purchase of CF-18's was 138 - some of which were 2 seat trainers. Our current remaining fleet is about 65 planes. Most have retired as a result of structural fatigue. The remainder were lost to accidents, including about 4 due to engine failure/bird strikes. There have been plenty of instances of single-engine failure on the CF-18 which did NOT result in loss of the aircraft - but would result in the loss of any single-engined aircraft. Reasons for the selection of the twin-engined CF-18 listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols), an excellent radar set, while being considerably more affordable than the F-14 and the F-15. |
|