Is there any reason to build single engine fighters over two engine other than "My nation is too poor to afford it"?
>>28878951
Yeah, the f-35.
>>28878957
Ok, also besides "My nation is too stupid to realize this is a bad idea"
>>28878951
Yes
>>28878951
people saying that single engine is more reliable
but i dount that
our Mig-21 keep burning in mid air
and we aren't indian
>>28878951
US confirmed poor.
>>28878951
Single engine fighters have much better short-term acceleration over two engine, which could make a difference in a dog fight.
Now, whether dog fights matter, well...
Also, two engines means more maintenance hours per every hour in the air, but I guess that could be filed under the poor excuse since it's balanced out by just having a larger fleet and more mechanics on hand.
Because even if you AREN'T too poor to afford it, you can still afford to acquire and operate more single-engine fighters than twin-engine fighters.
>>28878951
Yep. For starters, a single engine is far easier to maintain. It is cheaper. It generally speaking uses less fuel. If you have a light enough plane, you don't need two engines. There is such a thing as too much thrust. Once you go over a certain level excess thrust isn't very useful for maneuvering.
So, generally speaking, if a single engine can provide the same performance that two engines can, you want to go with the single engine.
>>28878984
>flying MiGs
That's your problem.
>>28879006
>So, generally speaking, if a single engine can provide the same performance that two engines can, you want to go with the single engine.
There is no engine in the world that can do better than two of itself.
>>28878951
Sweden made Gripen with one engine to keep it small (they want to be able to operate from strips of highway and Gripen already has a maximum load of some 5 metric tons of munitions), sure FiAF operates twin-engine Hornets from highways as well, but that's besides the point.
Well yeah,
A lightweight fighter will ussually have one very powerful engine while a heavy fighter will have two relatively poweful engines.
Kinda comes down to the type of fighter and country is making it imo
From my understanding western engines are almost at the peak of their performance and have become very, very powerful so one engined fighters are becoming more attractive
But fuck do i know im on 4chan
>>28879012
Mig-21 is a fine bird anon
>>28879029
agreed
Easier to maintain mi familia
>>28879019
>There is no engine in the world that can do better than two of itself.
Notice I never claimed it was the same engine.
>>28879029
Not really, what with it's whole negative KDR given a full service timeline.
>>28878951
>Is there any reason to build single engine fighters over two engine other than "My nation is too poor to afford it"?
Single engine planes are cheaper. But you pay in performance and reliability department.
When that since engine dies, the whole plane is lost.
Also, heavy, single engine planes, really suck at dogfighting. That's why F-35 maneuvers like a fucking rock.
>>28879152
never post again
>>28879152
>When that since engine dies, the whole plane is lost.
Because when an engine dies it never destroys the other engine, and having wildly asymmetric trust doesn't crash a plane.
Nope having two makes it impossible to crash due to engine failure.
my city airport insists on dual engine helicopters and light aircraft
on the basis that a single engine failure will not take them down
is having redundant engines relevant to fighter design
or is there some other reason its so common
>>28879152
>F35 maneuvers like a fucking rock that can outperform the F16 in every way
>>28879225
It's pretty sad that Americans actually think the F-16 is some kind of standard for maneuverability.
Which is ESPECIALLY sad because the F-16 shits all over the F-35 in most training scenarios.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html
>>28878951
Cheap alternative. Great for value.
US replacing true 'light fighters' with drones now.
>>28879182
Try and stop me
>>28879379
hejsan, hur mår du?
>>28879399
Foutre le camp
>>28879233
meanwhile in the real world........
>>28879450
>Air Force PA
Yes, the least bias of sources.
Truly a source that would have no reason to lie about the F-35.
If you can achive enough thrust with a single engine you should use one if not then two. Single engine is cheaper, lighter and requiers less room and maintanence. So you could make the plane smaller or use the leftover room for fuel.
At the fighter scale a single big engine is generally more efficient than two smaller engines.
A single F135 delivers more thrust than 2 Eurojets 200's and is lighter.
>>28879460
I trust the USAF more than online tabloids, anon. And you should too. The F-35 is a great plane which will make the world a better place.
>>28879233
>daily mail
I heard from Weekly World News that Batboy is flying an F35 now because it's so good.
>>28879515
it certainly seems to be lining Locheed-Martin's pockets quite nicely
>>28879533
You realize all you fags hating on the 35 had counterparts that used all the exact same arguments against the 22, right?
>>28879540
I've never once heard anyone argue that the F-22 would have been better without the VTOL requirement.
>>28879540
if JSF is such hot shit, why is it available for export when "inferior" Raptor is still exclusive to USAF?
>>28879533
Why wouldn't it? People don't work for free.
>>28879211
In the old days people just didn't really care if jets crashed; that's what ejector seats were for. These days we're more anal retentive about safety, but engines have also become much more reliable since the start of the 90s thanks to CAD and simulations (and new materials science).
>>28879550
Because when the Raptor was introduced, it was 30 years ahead of everything else and the us government wanted to guard that power like a hawk.
Now the circumstances have changed. The DoD wants to give 5th generation fighters to all of America's strategic partners so we can all fighter together as an unstoppable team if the need were to arise.
>>28879550
Because anyone with a maintenance laptop can copy+paste the F-22's software and run off with it, whereas the F-35's is fully encrypted. Also, because F-22 production (and the hopes of selling it to others) was cancelled before the world knew that the T-50 and J-20 were about to be put into production / testing.
>>28879561
and Japan still can't buy Raptor even though they clearly would prefer it over F-35 & going as far as to build their own 5th gen fighter rather than buy Lightning II
>>28879574
Japan has their own 5th gen in the works, why would they want to buy even more foreign aircraft?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwXAcYCUlTc
>>28879574
They're building F-35's right now retard.
>>28879584
from what I have heard things went like this:
Japan: "We'd like to buy Raptor, pretty plz?"
USA: "No, how about you buy Lightning II instead?"
Japan: "Fuck Lightning II, if we can't have Raptor we will be building our own 5th gen"
>>28879605
But they are buying the F-35
>>28879593
apparently you are right, a whopping 42 of them were planned before they decided to go with a domestic design, not sure how many they'll actually buy/manufacture
>>28878951
A "poor" military spending doesn't necessarily mean that a nation will get shittier aircraft. It's not like an individual buying a car, and having to get the cheaper option over the more expensive one. Hell, even NK has Su-35s in the pipe. A shit nation with shit military spending is, however, going to get far fewer expensive aircraft.
Single engine fighters have the primary advantage of being cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. This benefit alone far outweighs the practical disadvantages of single engine designs when compared to two engines. This makes them far more cost effective. So instead of having 254 F-15s, the US can, for a slightly higher cost, have 701 F-16s. There's a pretty obvious bonus to having double or even triple the number of planes. Sometimes Quantity > Quality.
Single engine fighters have a lot of other advantages too inherent to the design. Faster maintenance means less downtime for each bird, smaller size, better aerodynamics, etc
So yes. There's plenty of reasons
>>28879629
the domestic design was already long in the works before the f35 buy
it's part of the japs' long term effort to keep their aviation industry going
>>28879584
That's a tech demo aircraft; their actual operational fighter will look different and come into service in the 2030s. Also, that jet is *smaller* than the F-35.
>>28879642
if you say so, I don't really care as long as our 200 idiots who other idiots voted for don't get blinded by hype from Locheed-Martin when it's time to find a replacement for F/A-18C/D, plenty of countries are replacing their current fighters with Gripen NG around the same time...
>>28879682
You do realise the F-35C replaces the F/A-18C/D right?
>>28879682
they'd be bigger idiots if they buy gripens over f35s
>>28879694
that's only for burgerland
>>28879694
some Hornet operators have made that decision, yes, but it doesn't mean others have to follow suit.
>>28879695
our airforce will probably want to have the option of using highways to quickly refuel and rearm fighters in future as well, F-35's weight and the fact that all munitions are in internal bays might make that challenging. Gripen is faster than Hornet, carries almost as much munitions and was specifically designed to operate from highway bases
>>28879719
plus with Gripens if we were to suddenly need say 10 replacements, they could be dusted off and flown directly from Flygvapnet's storage facilities to our air bases (the Swedes have plenty of older Gripens in reserves ready to be upgraded & leased to other countries as needed), replacement F-35s would almost certainly have to come from USA.
>>28879116
>F-104
>>28879750
Yes, the F-`104 is a piece of shit, what's new?
>How does one acquire a F-104?
>Buy some land in Germany and wait. One will crash on your property eventually!
>>28879753
kek
>>28879753
heh, in '60s FiAF bought some 21 Fouga Magisters, guess how many crashed before FiAF replaced the design?
21
>>28879719
>>28879745
Who are you talking about?
>>28879764
correction: bought 18 plus a manufacturing license, 21 crashed with 6 fatalities.
>>28879770
let's see, a country operating Hornets within ferry range from Sweden, that's a tough one, there neighborhood has like...Norway (F-16)...Denmark (F-16)...Germany (Eurofighter)...Netherlands (F-16)...UK (Eurofighter)...
>>28879116
That's true for every fighter in existence, though.
>>28879812
F-15 has never been shot down by an enemy fighter while still having many, many combat kills.
>>28879790
How about you just answer the question next time instead of getting passive aggressive about your irrelevant piss ant country?
>>28879820
there are exactly three countries operating Hornets in Europe, Spain operates F/A-18A/B and will probably replace them with Eurofighters, Switzerland which operates C/D just like Finland seems to have already decided to acquire Gripen NG (although it would replace F-5 rather than Hornet), so there really isn't any other choice but Finland.
>>28878951
Sears–Haack body is cylindrical in cross section.
Jet turbine is also cylindrical in cross section.
Two jet turbines side by side, however, are not cylindrical in cross section
>>28879029
>Mig-21 is a fine turd anon
fixed
>>28878951
generally:
smaller
lighter
cheaper
>>28879753
>>Buy some land near an airbase in Germany and wait.
fixed
>>28879006
this.
>>28879152
most of the time in a twin-engined fighter, if one engine dies the whole plane is still lost. Because in modern engines in modern jets flying at high speeds, a failure will often be catastrophic. Also, with two engines, you have more probability of a failure.
And the F-35 is comparable in maneuverability to the F/A-18 but with better acceleration. Says the people who fly it. So gtfo with your Pierre Sprey shit posting. What next, you're gonna call it a turkey?
>>28879233
that now-infamous test wasn't a dogfight simulation. They were testing the high AoA control laws in the FBW system of the F-35, which had some issues. So yeah, the F-35 spent the whole fight at lower energy because it was purposefully trying to make tons of high AoA turns to test the controls.
Also, the F-16 on internal fuel has a third the range of the F-35. So let's either load up an F-16 with enough fuel tanks to equal the F-35, or run the F-35 on a 1/3rd fuel load and have an actual dogfight test. I bet the F-35 at least equals it.
>>28879460
and what's your source saying the F-35 isn't maneuverable? Pierre Sprey? John Boyd? War is Boring? lol
>>28879719
the F-35B has STOVL. infinitely better for highway operations than any non-STOVL plane.
>>28878951
>Is there a reason to build small/cheap aircraft?
Stop beeing retarded OP.
Also, posting pics of the statistically safest (lost airframes/flight hours) current fighter jet.
>>28880523
>the F-35B has STOVL. infinitely better for highway operations than any non-STOVL plane.
provided the highway can handle the weight, and even if it can, rearming a plane with internal weapons bay is still going to take more time than one with wing hardpoints
>>28880589
empty weight of an F-35 is almost the same as a Gripen.
inb4 you say "but carrying fuel and weapons it is heavier!!!", because having the ability to carry more is somehow a bad thing when if it needed to, it could just take a light load when using a highway.
and who says rearming an internal bay takes significantly more time?
Seriously, with a STOVL plane, forget highway operations, you could operate out of a fucking parking lot.
>>28879029
https://youtu.be/Qu0bA-PhW9I?t=2m20s
YEAAAAAAAAH
>>28880608
>Seriously, with a STOVL plane, forget highway operations, you could operate out of a fucking parking lot.
and burn fuel faster than opening a hatch in a half-full tanker truck and lighting a match.
>>28880589
Has to be concrete highways, else the F135 would melt away the asphalt and make it real sticky for the next plane.
>>28880608
uhh, no, not even close.
F-35 is about as heavy empty as Gripen is at max take off.
F-35A empty : 13.1 tons
Gripen MTOW : 14 tons
B and C are actually heavier than Gripen MTOW empty.
If there is one thing to be said about the F-35 is that it is not a light plane, and Gripen is a very light plane. To give you an idea of how big the difference is, F-35 carries an empty Gripen in internal fuel.
>>28880621
ok, so you've now moved the goalposts twice. First you said that the gripen would be better at operating from highways. When I pointed out that STOVL is great for highways, you then tried to say that the F-35 was too heavy. When I pointed out that the F-35 weighs about the same as the Gripen, you are now saying that it would burn more fuel to use the F-35 on highways with STOVL. Got a source for that?
>>28880608
>Considering the F-35B for anything else than operations from small carriers.
>Ever.
The F-35A is the only variant considered by the spurdos AFAIK.
F-35 (A variant) empty weight: 13,2 t
JAS 39 (C variant) empty weight 6,8 t.
Not what I would call "almost the same"
>>28880633
my bad, switched units around.
>>28880634
You confused the Gripen max takeoff weight with F-35A empty. F-35 about twice as heavy a Gripen, with twice the thrust and payload.
>>28880634
actually I thought the weight limit was obvious from the beginning, so mentioning that didn't change anything.
as for the STOVL, it's a fact that vertical take-off and landing uses way more fuel that CTOL, there's a reason why only three countries have developed VTOL/STOVL -aircraft & why only countries with aircraft carriers operate them.
>>28880654
was even more stupid than that. was looking at kg for the F-35 and lb for the Gripen. derp.
>>28880663
fair enough. I don't know how important highway operation is to Finnish doctrine, so idk how much that will factor in.
>>28879238
POO IN LOO
O
O
>>28880647
But it lacks an arresting hook or does it?
>>28880676
the 35A has a hook, used by the Navy for the full-sized carriers.
35B is STOVL, used by the USMC on their mini carriers, like they use the Harrier
>>28880669
>fair enough. I don't know how important highway operation is to Finnish doctrine, so idk how much that will factor in.
when WWII started & before we were pulled into it our fighter squadrons were already dispersed on three or four airfields each to make sure the enemy couldn't take them all out with a single strike: we fully expect the enemy to destroy our regular air bases and/or any air fields capable of servicing fighters in the opening hours of an open conflict, there are dozens of strips of highways all across the country designated as highway bases & operations on them are practiced every year.
>>28880676
Both the F-35A and the Gripen lacks an arresting hook I think.
>>28880686
>used by the Navy for the full-sized carriers.
USN is supposed to only operate the F-35C. F-35A is for the Air Force.
>>28880686
Cool. We can get the cheapest variant with the pew pew.
>>28880696
a video (there are at least two more that I can't find right now)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1piR6LPJ6I
>>28880708
yes. C not A. dunno why I typed A.
guess that's what happens when /k/ posting while fapping
>>28880742
>k posting while fapping.
Is this as tragic as I imagine it to be?
>>28880752
lol naw. day off, fiancee at work, bored at home, browsing /k/, decide to fap.
>>28878951
Bigger engines have better fuel economy.
Single engine craft has less surface area, less skin drag.
>>28880769
It should also roll like a mother fucker
>>28880789
Well F-35 doesn't roll as well because it has so much mass away from the axis with those big side intakes and bulges near the wing root.
F-16 however rolls like a motherfucker when clean. Add bags and the rotational inertia goes way up.
>>28880980
f-16 is the most energy positive fighter in the world when clean.
Thing is a god damn crotch rocket in the sky.
Just saying, out of the latest four Hornet crashes, three of them were almost certainly engine failures. Two of those were catastrophic, one killing the pilot and the other blowing up on the deck of a carrier injuring 11.
>>28880698
Gripen doesn't need one to operate in icy conditions, F-35 on the other hand (Norway, Canada if they ever get it) needs to be retrofitted with an external drag chute pod
>>28879695
I just remembered: one of the options for F/A-18 C/Ds' replacement is F/A-18 E/F "Super Hornet", while the argument over "Gripen vs F-35" can be carried out to no end, "Super Hornet vs. Gripen" is another matter, while FiAF does use arrestor cables in highway bases just in case, the strips are long enough that the cables are just that: a precautionary measure.
>>28881320
So we can assume that carrier hooks are just redundant? Future fighter doesn't necessarily have to have one as air force hook is ok?
>>28881352
dunno, I am Army LCpl, I figure since there's no shortage of runway in highway bases & the list of potential contenders includes aircraft that lack arrestor hooks that the presence of the hook isn't a deciding factor, we certainly managed to do without before we bought Hornet (the practice of using highway bases was already established when our fighter fleet consisted of MiGs and Drakens)
>>28880980
well it probably won't roll as well as an F-16, but few planes do. But I'm sure it can roll extremely well.
>>28878957
Rekt
>>28880686
What
>>28881427
keep reading, the poster in question meant C -model
>>28881427
typo. just meant C model. The F-35C has bigger wings and a hook and reinforced landing gear.
A is the "vanilla" model
>>28878957
That's not a reason, that's the result of a poor decision and that decision was listening to the Marines when they said they wanted a VTOL jet.
>>28881518
the F-35 started out as a STOVL aircraft. From the very beginning. It wasn't some compromise just to make the marines happy.
It just turned out that the aircraft was so good and the idea of having one aircraft for all branches was so good for production that they said "hey, we can turn this thing into an airforce and navy plane"
>>28879006
>a single engine is far easier to maintain
No one will bring one back with an engine out and say, "Fix this."
>>28881395
Both 21's and Drakens however used dragchutes.
From the list of current contenders for FiAF only F-35 needs to be modified with a stopping device. Gripen doesn't need one, EF has chute and F-15, SuperDuper Hornet and Rafale come with hooks (F-15's is a less robust emergency only version tho)
>>28881554
1) modern engines have exceptional mechanical reliability
2) human maintenance errors are way more prevalent
3) twice the engines means at least twice the amount of failures
4) F-16's with one F100 engine have significantly less accidents and failures than the F-15's with two F100's.
5) if one engine fails in a modern jet, it is rare for them to be able to return on a single engine
>>28881533
Well no, JAST was only considering having a STO/VL version when Congress merged the Darpa STO/VL program into it.
F-35 A and C could probably benefit a decent bit from not having the B variant designed. Even thou the lift fan space is used for extra fuel, there's probably a better use to that space or not needing it to be that big to start.
>>28881563
fair enough, in any case I still vote for Gripen, though I wouldn't say anything if they chose Super Hornet, Rafale looks cool but I am suspicious since it has lost almost all competitions it has entered, F-15 is easily oldest of the bunch and after all the flak Eurofighter has received I am not exactly a fan, looks like it's just a 4th gen version of the sad story that is JSF -program...
>>28881609
well yeah, but that was pretty much before any prototypes were made.
How would the fuselage look any different without the lift fan? It needs to be a certain width due to the weapons bay and the engine and the cockpit, and the fuselage needs to be a certain length for aerodynamic reasons.
People keep saying that the A and C would be better without the B, but they never say how.
>>28881629
Super Hornet as is doesn't really offer anything new, just a slightly bigger air frame, and given its small and soon to be dwindling customer base even an updated version F-15E would make far more sense as it has at least had few recent customers who would be sharing the cost of future updating of the platform.
>>28881609
>F-35 A and C could probably benefit a decent bit from not having the B variant designed. Even thou the lift fan space is used for extra fuel, there's probably a better use to that space or not needing it to be that big to start.
The benefit would be marginal at best. The only reason the A/STOVL program was folded into the JAST in the first place was because Lockheed's new lift fan system provided a way to retain a conventional layout with minimal drawbacks for a non-STOVL derivative.
>>28881609
>F-35 A and C could probably benefit a decent bit from not having the B variant designed.
Nope. I'm convinced that even if the B never existed, never was conceived, never ordered, never funded, the marines don't even have aviation, no actually they USMC doesn't even exist, then the F-35A and C would look extremely similar to how they look now.
If you're building a stealth fighter, your options for shaping are very constrained. That's why the J-31 ends up looking so much like the F-35 when you put them up against each other (except you can always tell which is the J-31 from the ploom of smoke behind it) .
>>28882196
It could be more sleek and smexy like the 22 without the lift fan space making it so fat.
>>28882212
>F-35
>Fat
go to bed Pierre Sprey. It's nap time.
>>28878957
Kek.
Suck dick, India
>>28882212
The F-35 is fat because it can internally hold two 2000 lb bombs + two AIM-120s for an air-to-ground loadout. The F-22 cannot do that. It can carry two extra missiles though, which is a nice feature for a dedicated ASF, but the F-35 is more versatile and can carry a wider variety of ordinance internally. I know that people say they want it to look more like the F-16 but that's an aesthetic thing. A slimmer body would not be consistent with the needs of a stealth fighter which needs to be able to carry a substantial load of ordinance and fuel internally.
>>28882287
this "F-35 is fat" crap needs to stop. It's not fat at all.
>>28882855
see pic 2. similar frontal profile as the F/A-18
Only reason it looks "fat" is that it's more streamlined and stealth-friendly instead of the narrow cylinder fuselage, bubble canopy, and flat wings of 4th gen fighters.
>>28882212
part of the reason the JAST and VTOL aircraft projects were merged was that LM had this new lift fan design that didn't take up much space.
If the F-35 had been designed without a lift fan, it would look pretty much the same.
>>28879006
That's why you control speed while maneuvering dumb ass. There is no such thing as too much high end until you start ripping the plane apart. More speed decreases your time in danger zones and increases your missile range.
>>28882855
>>28883430
how about no.
>>28883800
t. angry tumblerina
>>28880542
A sword left upon the mantle is hardly a sword at all.
Single-engines will always beat two-engines in close-in dogfights, given pilots of similar skill, no matter the "gen" difference.
>>28881579
>5) if one engine fails in a modern jet, it is rare for them to be able to return on a single engine
>>28882196
>I'm convinced that even if the B never existed, never was conceived, never ordered, never funded, the marines don't even have aviation, no actually they USMC doesn't even exist, then the F-35A and C would look extremely similar to how they look now.
That's some hardcore delusion right there
>>28883942
what planes are fighting here?
>>28883966
Then prove it faggot.
Redesign the F-35A into a superior version. It must carry the exact same amount of fuel and ordinance. Same fuel fraction as well, because increased range was one of core objectives of the JSF project.
No matter what, the result is going to end up looking extremely similar to the F-35A, because form follows function.
>>28884059
Yes, you shall be the victor here unless someone can design for you what took professional companies decades to produce.
What wonderful win conditions.
You honestly don't believe that the entire F-35 project was built AROUND the VTOL requirement and that EVERYTHING in the A and C models came secondary?
>>28884022
It's a simulated guns-only dogfight between a luneberged F-22 and a Rafale that took place during a Red Flag event.
>>28884098
>Yes, you shall be the victor here unless someone can design for you what took professional companies decades to produce.
That's kind of the point. Of course you can't come up with better design than Lockheed-Martin, a professional aerospace corporation with a stock value of $207.70 USD per share. So then you should trust LM to do a good job and stop worrying so much.
>>28883430
saved
>>28883913
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>28883800
Well anon, we could always check their actual weight if you'd like.
>>28884135
don't know what luneberging is, is it that little piece of electronics attached to the outside of things like the F22 and 35 so that they can have recognizable RCSs?
>>28878951
Yes. Two engines double the odds of one going out. With the reliability of modern turbines, this will make the two-engine plane less reliable and/or available
>>28884234
It's not a piece of electronics, but rather some specially shaped lumps that they bolt on for flights through civilian airspace / places where they want to have a high RCS.
>>28884098
Even if it was (which I don't agree with), why would it matter? It's not like that space isn't being used on the f35a and c.
>>28883357
Throttle changes like that lower the life of the engine substantially.
>>28884253
>will double the odds of one giving out
So it's nothing then.
>>28879019
Yes, but there is a law of diminishing returns. You can only push an engine so hard, and you can only push 2 engines so hard, and after a while if you keep adding more engines you find the peak performance plateauing.
>>28879818
Most problems that cause an engine to fail cause both to fail.
>>28883430
>fat vs curvy
>you mean stealth vs not stealth
>>28883800
>what is a lifting body design
>>28884098
what compromises were made? What could be improved? What would be changed? How would the A model be any different if the B model never existed?
>>28884535
wrong.
two engines times zero chance of mechanical failure is still zero. But two engines equals twice the chances of human error happening. So with modern engines that push mechanical reliability to extremely high levels, human error becomes the primary cause of failures, which means 2 engines is more
>>28881990
I think that one of the main reasons for the replacement in mid-2020s is the wear and tear of the current C/D -airframes, though since I am no expert on maintenance of modern fighter aircraft I can only speculate as to how long an F/A-18C/D -airframe can keep up with constant use, from what I have heard FiAF's fighter pilots' training pushes the limits of both the pilots *and* the airframes pretty much until something gives in.
>>28879399
Which bomb/missile is that with the black tip?
>>28884568
>But two engines equals twice the chances of human error happening.
And four engines is twice the chance of human error than two. So ask the Air Force why Air Force One has to be an (old technology) 747 instead of a newer 777 or 787.
Because they want to bring back POTUS even after some battle damage. Marine pilots are expendable. You scratch the plane, you might as well fly it into a mountain.
>>28884653
not absolutely sure (yes I am the one who posted the pic), but I think its' RBS-15 anti-ship missile.
>>28884682
Seems you're right. Thanks.
>>28884667
Not all engines are created equal, m8.
You're comparing apples and oranges at this point.
>>28884698
var så god - you are welcome
/k/, I got a question to ask ITT
>How many instances of fighters with two engines returning to base with only one engine functional exist?
For me that would sum up the thread nicely. Everything but that scenario can be worked around before the plane is even built. Two engines are only better than one if the plane is built around having two engines. You couldn't just strap a second engine onto a fighter and claim it's better.
>>28884745
more than anyone cares to count (since you didn't specify the type of engine nor a timeframe, I assume any twin-engine fighter counts, starting from at least WWII)
>>28884745
If we take the F-18 Hornet as an example, and these are just ones that had a pilot eject
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_type/f_18_hornet.htm
>Returned to base on single engine: 1
>Crashed due to problem with one engine: 10
>>28884568
>human error on single engine=crash
>human error half as likely to cause a crash on twin engines
It's like you're digging this hole on purpose.
>>28884801
>using ejection records to measure successful returns of a fighter
THIS FUCKING HOLE YOU'RE DIGGING HOLY FUCK
>>28884998
:^)
>>28884974
Most twin engine fighters can't sustain lift on a single engine and since they're not centered, there's a large danger of them going into an irrecoverable flat spin.
>>28884745
If you have anomalies in one engine on a twin engine plane you'd just shut down the other one and RTB
In a single engine plane you'd push to land if it provides thrust.
>>28885011
>If you have anomalies in one engine on a twin engine plane you'd just shut down the other one and RTB
Thats not what happens most of the time.
>>28884667
oh good grief.
>comparing maintenance and reliability of Air Force One to front line combat aircraft
>comparing passenger jet turbine engines to afterburning turbofans
>>28884714
>Not all engines are created equal, m8.
Between a 747, 777 and 787, they re practically the same. Only differences are what minor advances were available for one model design but not an earlier one.
And yet, 4 engines better than two.
>>28885022
>if you have anomalies in one engine on a twin engine plane you just shut down the other one and pull the ejection seat lever
Happy now?
>>28879238
>>28880673
There's a hole in the seat that goes out into the bottom of the cockpit. That way the pilot can poo as he flies.
>>28884974
except it's not half as likely to cause a crash on a twin engine. Most engine failures on modern engines/modern jets are quite catastrophic and usually force an ejection anyways.
see: >>28884801
1 instance of a jet surviving on one engine, 10 of one engine failing causing the entire plane to crash
>>28884207
>what is a lifting body design
worse than having a (better shaped) lifting body and/or a larger wing. other than the extra lift, you'd have more space for fuel and won't have to resort to hax like fuel tanks in tailplanes.
>>28885040
>comparing passenger jet turbine engines to afterburning turbofans
No. Comparing one engine to two identical engines. Or two to four. The MTBFs are different between the different types, but the effect of one failure among N identical, redundant units is proportionally similar.
>>28885046
Passenger jets are built on completely different standards from jet fighters. Its apples and oranges.
>>28885022
>you'd just shut down the other one
Only on a 737
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster
>>28885092
The mathematics behind combining probabilities is still the same.
You guys have really driven the point home when I asked that. It's pretty clear that the advantage of "getting back on one engine if one engine fails" falls flat on its ass all too often and is not really an advantage at all. It might be different in older piston operated bombers where a catastrophic engine failure won't compromise the plane but we're talking fighters, and engine failures do compromise the plane.
So as far as I'm concerned if you can get the needed thrust out of one engine, use one engine. There isn't really an advantage to using two.
>>28885076
I pointed out the lifting body design because someone was basically asking why the F-35 looks fat compared to the Eurofighter.
>>28885145
Look, I doubt that passenger jet engines are at the same reliability as modern fighter jet engines like the F135 or F100.
>>28885145
Except thats only a fraction of the story, niglet.
>>28885009
Are the rudders really that flimsy? Passenger planes handle one engine out even during takeoff and the asymmetry is way more off center.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE
>>28885092
>Passenger jets are built on completely different standards from jet fighters.
I'll agree with this. With fighters, the plane and the pilot are expendable. You take some battle damage and we don't want either the plane (too expensive to fix) or the pilot (PTSD) back.
With passenger planes, it still pays to bring the airframe and SLF back.
>>28885203
Passenger planes are designed with entirely different goals in mind. They are not comparible, and do not perform in the same way at all.
>>28885156
And then you will make these shitty posts in more threads, and we will all laugh as we know the F-35 could do with some more speed and energy.
>>28881150
Are you counting the one that lost both engines and plowed into an apartment building in Virginia? There were no fatalities, but if I remember correctly the cause of the crash was a complete loss of power after one engine failed catastrophically and took the other with it.
>>28885165
that was rafale. this is eurofighter.
low wing loading beats lifting body.
>>28885224
For some reason i have trouble buying that fighters that can accelerate vertically don't have enough thrust with one engine to fly.
>>28885322
I'm glad you're not an aeronautics engineer
>>28885156
>It's pretty clear that the advantage of "getting back on one engine if one engine fails" falls flat on its ass all too often and is not really an advantage at all.
Except that this has been Navy doctrine for years. Where pilot survival following an ejection at sea is a lot lower than over land.
Until the people pushing the 'one size fits all' solution just told them to go fuck themselves and learn to like what they get.
I'm going to assume that naval operations research is a lot smarter than the collective wisdom of /k/. And they considered all this very carefully.
>>28882879
>>28882855
frontal profile is misleading. draw a curve of cross-section areas and then we'll talk.
>>28880980
>when clean
>>28885367
>Except that this has been Navy doctrine for years
So has using single engine fighters
and they're adopting the F-35C, a single engine fighter
So.. what the fuck are you talking about
>>28883922
What kind of bullshit statement is this you nigger
A gun is still a gun, even though you don't shoot anybody with it.
That's the kind of pseudo intellectual statement that makes me want to punch people.
>>28885367
Bullshit. It's a myth the Navy came up with because they didn't want the F-16.
The Navy operated numerous single engined jet planes successfully for decades, like the A-4, F-7, A-7 and more.
>>28885409
When your statement is "This gun has had zero accidents" it's perfectly acceptable to counter with "That gun only shoots after extensive maintenance before and after, and it's never been in a combat situation"
Fuck off with your I'm too smart for you shit, faggot
>>28885367
>pushing the 'one size fits all'
This right here is the problem. The navy wants a twin engine plane, but they're getting a F-35 if they want to or not. I'm not going to argue about the merits of the F-35, but it's not ideal and it's not "exactly what the navy wants". They probably just want a more technology advanced Super Hornet, really.
F-35 to supplement that in smaller carriers, to escort and provide multi-role capability. Super Hornets for carrying big fat ASMs and doing long range interception
(cont.)
>>28885431
I wasn't the same as the guy who posted the picture of the SAAB-shit, I was the guy above.
I think what you're saying is retarded, it's a claim that is totally ridiculous because these weapon systems are REGULARLY trained with, and operationally they're totally functional. You don't need to be constantly invading people to provide proof that your equipment functions properly. ????
>>28885449
>F-35 to supplement that in smaller carriers, to escort and provide multi-role capability. Super Hornets for carrying big fat ASMs and doing long range interception
The F-35 can do both, and do both better you silly shitstick.
>>28885472
>????
Literally fuck off if you think a bird from a nation that never see's war has anywhere NEAR the flight hours and exercise intensity of a bird from a nation that actually faces enemy fire.
>>28885401
They've operated both and spoken about which one they prefer. You may now crawl back in your hole and try to come up with another angle.
>>28885472
>????
back to Tumblr
>>28885179
Passenger jet engines are much more reliable in terms of failures per flight hour. How many military jets operate continuously for days at a time with only a short turn around to load/unload passengers.
And maintenance errors are rare as well. Screw-ups by mechanics are well documented, attract FAA attention and can risk getting a maintenence facilities operating permit pulled.
>>28885514
You're right anon, some general with a personal agenda trumps statistics and history every time
>>28885449
>The navy wants a twin engine plane
Literally never happened after the F-16 was made. Nice historical revisionism
>>28885531
>ejecting statistics
OH FUCK I FORGOT ABOUT THOSE
>>28885273
That's nice. Have a reply.
>>28885367
That falls into the "design a fighter around two engines" category. It too will fall flat on its ass if a fighters "good" engine can't handle a "bad" engine failing, which is almost always the case. In this entire thread, we have one confirmed case where a twin engine jet lost one engine and survived long enough to get home. On the flip side, there are far more cases where a twin engine fighter is lost because of a failure in a single engine that would take out a single engine fighter anyway.
I get it. The navy's done their homework. They're worried about their pilots and logically two engines are better than one when shit gets bad. All they need to do now is design a fighter that can actually survive losing a single engine, which hasn't happened yet.
>>28885543
Just like you forgot to source them saying which ones they prefer to use, right? :^)
>>28885449
From what I can find online, (which I had difficulty with for the Super Hornet for some reason)
Max Takeoff weight - empty weight = liftin' potential
Super Hornet: 66,000 - 32,000 = 34,000 lbs
F35 A: 70,000 - 29098 = 40,902 lbs
I can't find info for the B & C, and couldn't find "loaded weight" for the superhornet. But according to this, the F35 can lift ~7,000 more pounds. I think the F-35B has a max takeoff weight of 60,000, so it would still only be lifting ~3,000 lbs less than the Super Hornet.
>>28885449
>I'm not going to argue about the merits of the F-35, but it's not ideal and it's not "exactly what the navy wants". They probably just want a more technology advanced Super Hornet, really.
There is some truth in what you are saying there - of all the services Navy is prioritizing it the least. AF is salivating for theirs and USMC is already sprouting a willy about being able to have an actual decent fighter on their LH* instead of the ancient subsonic attacker they are retiring. And Navy certainly does love their Super Bugs, but you are a bit off in saying the Navy doesn't want F-35. If having a VLO deck fighter to take over the role of legacy Hornet wasn't needed, Navy would have pulled out of the program long ago and there would be no F-35C.
Here's what it offers that branch: it's VLO and it's available now. F-18 airframe is not suited to a full VLO redesign. UCLASS won't be available for a while and for now it appears to be turning into an unmanned refueller instead of an actual combat drone. That leaves F-35C, and Navy has chosen to go with it. If the threat situation advances to the point where Navy wants to have an all-VLO fighter fleet, they will need something to replace the Super Bug. Until then, the F-18/F-35 combo looks to be an efficient* way of balancing capabilities available to the CSG.
*by US Mil standards
>>28885156
exactly. On old prop planes especially, sure, they could easily survive a single engine failing.
Yes, if you can get the thrust you need out of one engine, use one.
>>28885316
>low wing loading beats lifint body
at what?
>>28885322
passenger jets are designed to be great gliders. Long thing wings, long narrow bodies, etc. TOTALLY different designs from fighter jets.
>>28885367
except the navy has used plenty of single-engine fighters in history.
Again, things change with changing technology. engines today are different from engines in the 70's.
>>28885369
it's not fucking magic. Just look at the pictures and dimensions of the aircraft. People saying it's "fat" are just fucking retards. It is a small single-engine stealth fighter. It has the same kind of shape as an F-22, but smaller because it's one engine.
>>28885525
still comparing apples and oranges.
>>28885671
and on top of that, they're working on the F/A-XX program, which may end up being twin-engine
>>28885702
>F/A-XX program
goddamnit there isn't any new news on this lately
>>28885702
>It has the same kind of shape as an F-22, but smaller because it's one engine.
>what is wing loading
>>28885559
Their preference is so public that Northrops 6th gen proposal has two engines for the naval variant and one for the air force. Just shut the fuck up you knuckle dragging dim wit.
>>28885890
You don't understand the Navy and AF very well, do you
also source, haven't seen that yet.
>>28885779
what's your point? And why are you obsessed with wing loading?
>>28885890
the northrop 6th gen proposal probably has 2 engines just because it's going to be a bigger aircraft than the F-35, not because of some magical navy need for two engines despite a single engine being more reliable.
>>28885918
Look at the two pictures and then promptly start sucking on my dick.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/01/15/northrop-cyber-resilient-next-gen-fighter/78833308/
>>28885890
>Northrops 6th gen proposal
Do you happen to have a source for that beyond concept art? Because "official" concept art tends to change most of the details of the design for secrecy's sake.
>>28886387
>it's just concept art
Oh sorry I'll go find some pictures of the prototypes.
>>28886465
You say that as though it isn't just concept art.
>>28886500
Who knows why they would make a specific one for the Navy.
>>28878964
>>28880619
>overrated Bon Jovi song
This kills the video. Everything else is great but ruined by having music drown out the voice.
>>28878995
>>28879006
>>28879637
These! Less maintenance means more availability, and a smaller logistical train.
>>28879637
It's also the simple fact that even if you have a lot of resources it makes sense to use them intelligently.
For many missions a light single engine fighter like an F-16 can perform just as well as a large twin engine like an F-15.
>>28887972
Is right, the F-16 is also less demanding to support, something that, beyond pure cost, also makes it easier to operate in the field.
>>28878995
You say that, but the f35 is notorious for having the acceleration rate of a Daihatsu Charade.
>>28888141
[citation required]
>>28879540
And the 18, and 16, and 15, and 14, and 4...
The hate on the 111 was justified, though. Heh, "Switchblade Edsel."
More sortie rate. Less engines to maintain. One engine INOP = non FMC.= hangar queen
>>28888141
except that's wrong.
it has a TWR comparable to other fighter jets. Also, when looking up TWRs, be aware that the F-35 often looks like it has a lower TWR than other jets because it carries much more internal fuel (proportionally). So sure, a fully loaded F-35 has a lower TWR than other aircraft, but that's because it's carrying as much fuel as those aircraft loaded down with a full load of fuel tanks. Stick those fuel tanks on the other aircraft and their performance greatly drops, not just in TWR but in maneuvering ability too.
For example, a clean F-16 has around 1/3rd the range of a clean F-35. So load an F-35 with a 1/3rd internal fuel load and then compare the two in a dogfight.
>>28889420
By the same load standards other fighters get rated at (minimal payload, 50% fuel) the F-35 still manages 1.07 T/W.
