Home » Air » F-35B ready for ‘high alpha’ tests

F-35B ready for ‘high alpha’ tests

by Mike Hoffman on September 4, 2012

It’s hard to imagine a much scarier scenario than turning off the engine to an aircraft in flight to test if it’ll restart.

That’s just what Navy test pilots did with the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter this summer. And lucky for those pilots and the Joint Strike Fighter program, the F-35B and its F135 engines turned back on.

Navy officials announced the F-35B passed  it’s “air start” tests meaning the program can move on to “high alpha, or angle-of-attack tests” — the maneuvers that set the fifth generation fighters apart from their 4th generation (F-15 and F-16) peers when it comes to a dog fight

“High alpha, or angle-of-attack tests, are important for us to fully evaluate the aircraft’s handling characteristics and warfighting capability,” Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly said in a statement. “Maximizing the performance of the airplane around the very slow edges of the flight envelope is probably some of the most challenging testing we will conduct. After we get through it, we’ll know a lot more about how this aircraft will perform during combat within visual range.”

Test pilots completed 27 engine restarts at different altitudes of flight, Navy officials announced Tuesday. The Navy completed the tests at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., over the Rogers and Rosamond Dry Lakes.

Air Force officials have already completed air start testing on the F-35A. Navy leaders said they were able to benefit from the Air Force’s experience.

“We’ve recently completed air start testing on the F-35A, so we’re able to share some of our expertise with the Pax team as well,” said Lt. Col. George N. Schwartz, Commander of the 461st Flight Test Squadron and Government Site Director, in a statement.

Share |

{ 91 comments… read them below or add one }

Benjamin September 4, 2012 at 5:59 pm

Finally some good news about the F-35

Reply

octopusmagnificens September 4, 2012 at 6:02 pm

Not too scary when you have two engines.

Reply

ChuckYeager September 5, 2012 at 4:26 am

LOL.

Reply

Menzie September 5, 2012 at 12:51 pm

What? You think they leave one running? The whole is simulate failiure geez.

Reply

tiger September 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm

The 2nd engine on the "B" is for landing, not forward flight.

Reply

cs4 September 6, 2012 at 4:46 am

That "second engine" is tied to the first engine for power.

Reply

Vyger September 5, 2012 at 11:13 pm

Wow! – maybe you guys need to do a little simple research to find out the F-35 is a single engined aircraft with the one engine also driving a lift fan! – face palm!!!!!

Reply

Nate September 7, 2012 at 12:50 pm

I assume that was the joke.

Reply

Wayne September 11, 2012 at 5:58 pm

The F-35A-B-C are all single engine aircraft.

Reply

Pilgrimman September 4, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Glad to hear it. Can't wait for this baby to enter service!

Reply

ghostwhowalks September 4, 2012 at 6:03 pm

I say all credit to the test pilots who take on the risks

Reply

Johnny Ranger September 5, 2012 at 10:31 am

No kidding. I don't like to turn my CAR engine off!!!

Reply

Skyepapa September 4, 2012 at 6:09 pm

This is one of those tests that hits a milestone no matter what. If the test succeeds, we've hit the air-start milestone; if it fails, we've live-tested the ejection seat. Win/win!

Reply

Curt September 5, 2012 at 10:57 am

While I am not a test pilot, I would assume the reason they do the tests at Edwards is that in the event of a failed restart, they can make a deadstick landing on the lake bed. Not a win-win, but a win-win-win since they probably have a checkpoint for deadstick landings as well.

Reply

tee September 4, 2012 at 7:35 pm

With all the buffeting that has been reported with the the F-35 on shallow dives the next set of test make or brake the program.

Reply

Ed September 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm

Well, didn’t they use to tout that it was all about BVR and stealth? Probably it’ll go on regardless of the results (for as far as reality will deviate from predictions – I doubt it’ll be that much)

Reply

4FingersOfBourbon September 4, 2012 at 7:48 pm

Que Black Owl….

Reply

4FingersOfBourbon September 4, 2012 at 7:49 pm

Que Black Owl…."The F-18 Did that test back in 79'….come on! POS!"

Reply

Skyepapa September 4, 2012 at 7:54 pm

barefoot and in the snow, no less

Reply

Riceball September 11, 2012 at 11:51 am

In the Super Duper Hornet the engine will restart itself.

Reply

Naska1 September 4, 2012 at 8:37 pm

Canada is getting a squadren of 60 f-35 jets !

Reply

Menzie September 5, 2012 at 12:52 pm

No squadron is made of 60 jets….geez. That many makes multiple squadrons.

Reply

Josh September 4, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Good news finally. Major props to the balls of steel test pilots aswell. Hopefully this thing keeps up with the good news.

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 4, 2012 at 8:53 pm

@ 4FingersOfBourbon and Skyepapa, in the words of Bane from the Dark Knight Rises, "speak of the devil and he shall appear."

I am not impressed. The F/A-18 series has two engines and not only was it able to conduct this test earlier in its program; it was able to do the same test twice in the same flight. Two engines are always better and when the F/A-18 did this test it was much less risky because of the second engine. These test pilots had balls, but the only reason everyone thinks doing this in the F-35 was so scary is because of the fact that it has only one engine, which doesn't have all the kinks worked out yet. The danger to the pilot's life was greater for this test than it was for the F/A-18. Think about what that means for Navy pilots who have to fly over the water all the time. From my point of view this test just made the Super Hornet look and feel much safer to fly than the F-35.

I would also like to point out that the Navy has not done this test yet with the F-35C. The C-model is the one that I am most critical of and the fact that it hasn't even done this test shows how slow its progress is as well as the Navy's reluctance to continue with it. Pretty certain the Navy's using more effort to try to get out of the program than they are to actually move it forward, partially because moving it forward seems too expensive and not worth the return even if they actually did get it going.

Apart from that, this test is nothing. The F-35 still hasn't performed spins testing and of the vast arsenal of fighter jet weapons that we use and can use in the theater of war it has only released a few bombs. It hasn't fired any missiles or any of the special munitions like JASSM. The gun pod for the F-35B hasn't been fired yet. The dropping of two bombs means almost nothing in terms of the fighter's usability in a combat environment. It still hasn't trapped a wire, the helmet still doesn't work, and the F-35B still has structural integrity issues involved with vertical flight. These are the problems that get my special attention. This jet still hasn't done anything worthy of note and it is still nowhere near its worth in cost. The only way to save the program is to cancel the F-35B and F-35C, then let the USAF focus on developing the cheapest and simplest version, the F-35A. Silent Hornets armed with better anti-radar missiles would satisfy the needs of the USN more cost effectively and an upgraded Harrier III would do the same for the USMC.

Reply

DeuxSchnozz September 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm

While I thumbs-upped you for the most of this, I'm very curious as to what this "Silent Hornet" and "upgraded Harrier III" are.

Reply

SirSapo September 4, 2012 at 9:29 pm

So the fact that it successfully passed its air-start testing makes you feel worse about it for some reason? The whole reason they do these tests is to ensure that they can get a restart during the high-alpha testing if the aircraft departs and the engine stalls. You do know that during multi-engine aircraft departure testing they practice dual engine shutdown's and air-starts, putting the jet under the same amount of "danger" as a single engine airplane right?

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 5, 2012 at 9:11 am

I now know that you are not an Aeronautical Engineer like you claim to be. Two shut off engines means that there is an increased probability that at the very least one of them will turn on. That's the whole point of having two engines. The risk was not the same. Even the simplest mathematician could figure that out. I have no idea who you are, but you are not who you claim to be and I have lost respect for you.

Reply

Johnny Ranger September 5, 2012 at 10:36 am

Didn't work out that way for Maverick and Goose…

Reply

blight_ September 5, 2012 at 11:45 am

The Tomcat's engines were notorious.

From raw probability alone, assuming aircraft A has two of engine X and aircraft B has one of engine X, the probability of total engine failure in aircraft A is lower than the probability of problems in aircraft B arising from the engines. Then again, it introduces the probability of a one-engine fail, one-engine intact situation, which has to be designed and planned for as well.

I imagine the jury is still out on F-35 engine failures, and we'll probably find out more once we put on the flight hours and use mass production engines instead of special-build or low-volume orders.

BlackOwl18E September 5, 2012 at 1:13 pm

The F414s are much different. They build on the reliable engines already in the Legacy Hornets. These are engines that hadn't had a dual unrelated engine failure until the recent incident in Virginia. Simply building on the technology was one of the most low risk options to provide increased capability. The F-35's engine is the most powerful jet engine on earth in terms of dry thrust/weight ratio, but it is also complex and uses new technology that hasn't yet proven to be reliable. All I'm saying is that the risk was greater and that two engines does make a difference in the amount of risk taken. If the F-35 had two engines of the same type that it's using now there is an increased chance the pilot would achieve engine start up.

SirSapo September 5, 2012 at 8:37 pm

Personal insults aside, I think you are confused as to why we do airstart testing, and specifically, why they are doing them on the F-35 before high-alpha and departure tests.

The reason for the test is they want to have confidence that they can get an engine relit if they suffer a flameout during a more violent than expected departure. Modern engines are very very stall resistant, but if you start feeding them really messed up air (due to some violent post-stall gyrations or something of the sort), they might stall or flameout. If that is the case, you need to either restart it in flight, or glide to a suitable landing location (ie. the Edwards Lake Bed).

The point I was making was that you are somehow less confident in the F-35 after this successful test of an inflight shutdown and restart, when it is a normal procedure for any fighter aircraft to go through.

Reply

Ron September 4, 2012 at 9:42 pm

It's spawned of Lockheed Martin not Northrop.Wake up Northrop!!!!Get busy-we need your help!

Reply

Ethan September 4, 2012 at 10:50 pm

Northrop makes a large portion of the fuselage, IIRC

Reply

platypusfriend September 5, 2012 at 2:00 am

After all the "cue Black Owl" posts, above, I was sloowly mousewheel-scrolling down, waiting..just waiting!..to see a blue "BlackOwl18E" peek into the bottom of my screen.

I had to give the man a thumbs-up.

Reply

brad September 6, 2012 at 8:52 am

I agree. Given future projected costs of the all three variant's, it would have been much smarter for the USAF to keep producing the F-22, expanding the capacities of the F-18 (future updates to growler,etc.) and trying to build a market for the F-15 SE (Silent Eagle Variant) both domestically and abroad. The rising costs of the F-35 is insane…. Hope its worth it in the end I really do, because I honestly see our foreign buyers, at least beyond the tier 1 partner level, reducing their orders drastically, or pulling out of the program all together. After all; one can buy a hell of a lot of 4th gen planes for only a handful of these sensor packed bad boys… and someone wanting the perception of force projection is going with numbers, not quality.

Reply

brad September 6, 2012 at 8:53 am

I meant of course the USN in regards to the F-18… but I'm sure on this site, that goes without saying ;)

Reply

ST Dog September 6, 2012 at 9:11 am

Insane you say. Compare to historical programs since WWII. Use percentage on delays and cost overruns.

I think a lot of people forget just haw costly and off schedule past programs were. They also forget the growing pains of the now established programs.

Look back at the history of acquisition reforms in the DoD and why the were implemented. Even though less than successful, the causes were the same stuff we are griping about now.

And I think a lot of that "bad memory" of the past is because the industry wasn't as open as it is now. 40yrs ago we couldn't easily find out what was going on.
There is a much higher level of scrutiny now, especially by the public.

Reply

brad September 6, 2012 at 9:34 am

Ya… if people knew the cost of black projects throughout the 1940's-well into the 1970's they probably would have been in disbelief. But no one complained because we had a reason to build these weapons… we had our eastern demon… now we have a new eastern demon… PLA

Reply

jamesb September 5, 2012 at 12:11 am

When does this a/c go to the fleet?

When does it go to the oversea's customers?

Reply

Chuck September 5, 2012 at 3:16 pm

Two international F-35s have already been delivered. One to the UK and another to the Dutch. While the F-35C version is still developing slowly, there are 19 birds at least dedicated to training at Eglin AFB. The F-35 variants still have considerable weapons and handling testing and a lot of software work, but testing has been moving rapidly as of late. The aircraft will be in a much better position in another year, barring major structural problems found in the upcoming high AoA testing.

Reply

matheusdiasuk September 5, 2012 at 8:02 am

Royal Navy liked it

Reply

BlackOwl18E September 5, 2012 at 8:53 am

They can't afford it. They're experiencing harsher defense cuts than we are.

Reply

PrometheusGoneWild September 5, 2012 at 10:05 am

Why can't the UK just admit it and disband their Navy.
They prefer "investment" into social programs more than having a Navy.
They should just get it over with and get rid of the Navy and roll what money is left over into the Air Force and Army.
Or take the money and order out some fast food for Parliament. If there is that much…..

Reply

Tiger September 5, 2012 at 6:34 pm

Now, now. If they can pull off the London Games, I’m sure they have a few Euros for a Royal Navy.

Reply

eaglemmoomin September 6, 2012 at 3:00 pm

Oh dear pounds not euros now you just look ignorant!

matheusdiasuk September 5, 2012 at 7:40 pm

If there is something to be disbanded in UK, is political incompetence.

Reply

PolicyWonk September 5, 2012 at 10:03 am

While I agree that especially in the naval context, two engines are better than one, the US (and many other countries) has (have) been operating the F-16, also a single engine fighter for decades.

How many of these over the years have suffered failures and been lost due to having only one engine?

Reply

Curt September 5, 2012 at 11:11 am

The simple fact of the matter is that jet engines have become so reliable that the number of engines has very little to do with how many aircraft are lost. Usually it is pilot error, which all the engines in the world can't save you from.

Reply

tiger September 5, 2012 at 6:44 pm

We have come a long way since the weak jets of the 1950's. No engineer would need 8 engines on a B-52 today. Even tri jets like the 727 & L1011 have faded from Airline service for twin designs.

Reply

Charley A. September 5, 2012 at 8:07 pm

And yet, you don't see commercial airliners with one engine, and even twin engined jetliners have restrictions/rules about how far they can be from suitable airfields when operating on transoceanic routes.

Reply

Tiger September 6, 2012 at 7:27 am

That is due more to size and plane configuration. A single jet typically is inside the fuselage. Way too noisy for passengers.

Reply

Riceball September 11, 2012 at 1:03 pm

My thoughts exactly, the reason why there's no single engine passenger jet is because the engine would have to be stuck inside the fuselage which would take up passenger and/or cargo space. Either that or you stick it up on top like the Germans did w/the V1s and the Voksjaeger fighters but I imagine that would probably result in a lot of noise and vibration being transmitted to inside the fuselage and I'm not entirely certain how well mounting it like that would work on a large jetliner.

Charley A. September 5, 2012 at 8:02 pm

More than you think. There have also be a number of engine-out recoveries of F-16s that glided deadstick into airfields – which is something that you cannot do with a naval aircraft out of gliding range of land. Plus recovery is next to impossible on a carrier with zero or severely degraded thrust. Hence the concern of naval aviators that have proven the Hornet/Super Hornet is the safest jet that the Navy has ever operated.

Reply

Ed Cahill September 5, 2012 at 11:54 am

On the B is the pilot going to be able to adjust the trust angle —"viffing" like the Harrier? If so I would think that this plane might have a few nasty tricks up it's sleeve in dogfight.

Reply

Ed September 5, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Would that work without using the fan? It would be just like a limited kind of TVC otherwise, right? I don’t think they designed the lift fan door for operation in dogfighting.

Reply

Chuck September 5, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Don't think I want all those doors opening and nozzles turning during a dogfight. The nozzles on the wingtips mights be useful with a lot of training, but not really the same as the Harrier experience.

Reply

Johnny Ranger September 5, 2012 at 11:59 am

You, sir, are a reckless thrillseeker.

Reply

blight_ September 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm

I still have engine vacuum for the brakes.

Not like I'm turning the engine off…oh man, that would suck.

Edit: The prospect of slamming a brake pedal without vacuum assist is a Hail-Mary one…

Reply

Rod September 5, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Can an Aeronautical Engineer please explain to my why an engine restart is necessary for stalls at high angles of attack? I thought stalls at high alphas were caused by the orientation of the wings not being suitable for lift because of Bernoulli's Principle (i.e. the air flow across the top surface of the wing no longer experiences higher velocities and therefore no lower pressures that cause lift). I mean isn't that why they use thrust vectoring- to increase airspeed at high alphas?

Blackowl, it seems to me, from my limited understanding, that the C variant isn't being rushed into high alpha testing because it has a bigger wing surface than the others. The fact that the B variant has a more complex engine setup used for VTOL maybe the reasons engineers wanted to test an air start.

Also having two engines might not exactly be "safe" considering if only one comes on, it will cause the aircraft to yaw and spin.

Reply

Sufa Viper September 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm

I wouldn't call myself an Aeronautical Engineer, but I do have some understanding and insight concerning your questions. When you get to a high alpha the flow starts seperating from the top of the wing and the engine inlet. The result is a turbulent flow or if the angle is steep enough it can theoretically reduce the flow into the engine to near zero. This starves the engine and can choke/stall the engine. Once you have a stalled engine you need to nose over to get the airflow going again and allow your engine to breath and hopefully restart.

Reply

tiger September 5, 2012 at 6:37 pm

Stalls happen for different reasons. Lack of lift and lack of thrust are both causes.

Reply

Charley A. September 5, 2012 at 8:42 pm

SV is essentially correct – there is a better chance for the airflow entering the inlet to become *disturbed* when the aircraft is operating at high AOA, which could cause a compressor stall or surge, or a flameout. Hence the need to prove the aircraft can be airstarted before it begins flight testing in the high AOA regime. The Navy's Charlie will also require airstart testing before high AOA flight is approved. One operating engine is *always* better than no operating engine. Losing one engine in a twin engined aircraft certainly would cause a yawing (and rolling) moment, but rarely results in a departure except in extreme attitudes and regimes.

Reply

SirSapo September 5, 2012 at 8:45 pm

Rod:

A stall in an engine occurs when the blades of the compressor (which are essentially rotary wings) experience an aerodynamic stall like SufaViper described. The issue in the engine is that the jet is relying on the very high pressure generated by the compressor to keep the hot gas from the combustor going out the back of the motor. Once the compressor "stalls", this high pressure goes away, and there is nothing keeping the hot burned fuel air mixture from going back out the inlet of the engine, rather than the exhaust. This obviously really screws up the flow into the engine and in some very violent cases can flameout the engine, necessitating a restart.

Sorry if thats too technical of an explanation.

Reply

Rod September 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm

Thank you all for your insight, especially the more technical ones. My field deals with fluid dynamics, compressors, combustion, and engines but in relatively static systems. I had trouble making that leap of logic.

Reply

Tribulationtime September 5, 2012 at 1:32 pm

-Triyiing Inglish- How do many years late is the program?. How do many millions aircraft price is reached today?. It Is, right now; over the price of full operational F22?. What do are advantages points of F35 vs F22, head to head?.

Reply

Chuck September 5, 2012 at 3:28 pm

The price will fall considerably as aircraft buys go up. They are already buing more than the F-22 at its highest production rate (20 a year for the F-22, compared to 30+ for current LRIP buys of the F-35). Factor in inflation of course and it is not too bad really. If production even doubles, we could see aircaft below $100 million. If we buy over 100 a year, we will be well below that figure. Considering the greatly increased capability, it would be well worth it. For all you guys wanting improved F-16s or F/A-18s, consider that adding all the mods you want would greatly increase the price, require a long development period (longer than the F-35 has to complete its testing), and you still have a design that began in the 70s with all the problems that comes with it.

Reply

tiger September 5, 2012 at 6:34 pm

The F-35 has a different mission. Fighter/Attack over The Air superiority role of the F-22.

Reply

Tribulationtime September 6, 2012 at 2:15 pm

I know her different "multirole". But diferent intended purpouse don´t neglect a comparision. A) F-15 derived in F-15E, Can you compare a F-15E with a F-16 50/52 (f-35 will be the susbtitute), in a roughly way Yes. F-18E/F is more focus on attack, Can we compare it (must be) in a fight against a MIG29A.? Typhoon is air superiority plane, today; next tranches adds ground attack features. And go on. The cuestion arise by itself What do f35 better?. Range, stealh, payload, sensors, fly performance, maintenance cost, weapons integration, failure rate, endure damage, speed, fuel comsuption, cheaper sparfe parts from china(joke). What F35 adds to the Global Superpower?

Reply

Robert Fritts September 8, 2012 at 6:25 pm

Your answer is that the F-35 will not add much to Global Security. Reguardless of all the rosy forecasts by its fans, every quarter LM rolls out its press releases. These releases all have one theme capabilities are ALWAYS reduced , problems and cost ALWAYS increase. The wishful thinking of some, "if we can produce 100 a year the prices will fall" is sophmoric. If we build 35 Aircraft Carriers a year the cost will go down too, but it aint gonna happen.

Reply

Chuck September 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Also, when you think of growth potential, the F-35 has vastly more potential than older F-16s and F/A-18s. As the F-35 is software enabled, it will see much more in the way of upgrades than any other aircraft we have yet developed. And, BlackOwl18E might be interested to note that a twin engine variant with expanded weapons payload is not out of the question. As it would be similar to the F-22 in many respects (interestingly built by the same manufacturer) it would probably be easier to build. Most of the subsystems would remain, with the added engine and larger size being the only differences. Therefore, mission system and software testing would be less difficult, and aerodynamics and some weapons drop testing would be the major requirement.

Reply

tiger September 5, 2012 at 6:30 pm

Uh, it's not quite that easy. It's not like photoshop. A 2nd engine requires a long redesign.

Reply

Charley A. September 5, 2012 at 8:46 pm

There will be no twin engined F-35.

Reply

ltfunk2 September 5, 2012 at 9:55 pm

LOL a second engine, why not, its not like they havet redesigned the whole aircraft a couple times already .

Reply

TJRedneck September 6, 2012 at 6:59 am

Chuck, if there is a possibility for a twin engine variant, then why not just build more F-22s?

Reply

Mat September 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm

Hi alpha preformance set 4th generation(F16, F15 ) apart from 3rd generation(F4,F104) that was built around faster and higher , 5gen F35 has yet to prove better agility than F15 or F16

Reply

ltfunk2 September 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm

The F-35 is a real shot in the air for all thopse refusrbished MIG-21s out there. Suddenly what was a marginal obsolete fighter has superioir performance to thousands of front line American fighters.

Reply

William C. September 6, 2012 at 1:39 am

Superior performance? Yeah, maybe it can go faster in a straight line for a short time before running out of fuel. That should help a lot… /sarcasm

Reply

TJRedneck September 6, 2012 at 6:56 am

There are a lot of comments here criticizing the F-35 for not having 2 engines. On the one hand I understand that criticism because obviously 2 engines are better than one. On the other hand, the F-35 supposed to be to the F-22 what the F-16 is to the F-15. I.E. a "cheaper" aircraft that can supplement the F-22 like the F-16 does for the F-15. Problem here is that the development of the F-16 went a lot faster and smoother than the F-35 and the F-35 has turned out to be more expensive than it should be. I DO hope that the F-35 succeeds and turns out to be a great aircraft since we have sank so many taxpayer dollars into the program, so I am happy to finally here some good news.
Here is the F-35B Sea Trials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&f

Reply

Formerly Skeptic September 6, 2012 at 12:48 pm

One data point missing from the discussion of one versus two engines is the fact that the F-35 was designed from the outset with a vertical lift variant. The normal truism that two engines are better than one is stood on its head when you consider an aircraft which must hover on engine power. The hover transition to landing is a critical phase of flight at which time engine failure guarantees the loss of the aircraft. Unless the aircraft can maintain the hover on one engine, a two engine design doubles the probability of failure. For a smaller aircraft, this drives you to a one engine design. A larger aircraft must rely on other approaches like large engine performance margins and cross-shafting to allow for engine-out operation (see V-22).

Reply

dee September 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm

A single engine test such as this isn't new the F-16 has a single engine and would have undergone the same test decades ago.

Reply

Dave September 8, 2012 at 5:07 pm

It is sad that Navy brass is attacking the single engine concept. Yes, the F4, F14 and F18 were and are successful warbirds. However, there are still other single engine fighters that deserve mention: F8 Crusader, F9F Panther, A4 Skyhawk, F11F Tiger. By the way, the F11F and A4 were flown by the Blue Angels for years.

Yes, there are cost overruns on this project. If I recall, the F18 had it's share of mishaps during it's trials. Is the DoD grabbing for too much in this little fighter? Maybe. Only time will tell.

Reply

Arthur September 8, 2012 at 8:43 pm

If you watched some of the video's available, the complete 360 deg situtional awareness lets the pilot know everything going on around him. It allows him to shoot the guy on his tail even before he is seen. The software to do all of this is a magnitude greater that anything that has been done previously.

Reply

ghostwhowalks September 4, 2012 at 10:01 pm

YF17 begat F18 which begat Super Hornet which begat Silent Hornet.

And yet McDD at the time didnt even make it to JSF flyoff stage being piped by Lockheed + and Boeing +.

Perhaps they had used up their energies just putting old wine in new bottles

Reply

blight_ September 5, 2012 at 10:00 am

I would wait for the hypothetical EDE or EPE to re-engine the Hornet fleet…

2,3 will require systems integration work: on paper straightforward, but can the defense industry deliver?

4 is looong overdue. Nobody ever insisted on stealthy pods, even for the F-22. Why would they do it for the Hornet?

7 is a little interesting. Parasite fighters have been tried before, and I suppose as long as we aren't crazy enough to launch them from the dorsal aspect of a aircraft (oh Lockheed, you silly…!)

I'm surprised subcontractors for the various systems aren't lobbying to protect their products. Hey, if you buy lots of IRST/DAS for your Hornets, it'll bring the price point down for JSF…and if JSF gets tanked, that's okay, my lines are still open!

Reply

Charley A. September 5, 2012 at 7:47 pm

The glass pit that Boeing proposes for the notional Blk III is *better* than the one LM has in the F-35 – if bigger is better.

Reply

Brandon September 5, 2012 at 10:02 am

Classic. ha ha ha

Reply

Atomic Walrus September 5, 2012 at 2:19 pm

The failure rate on modern engine technology is incredibly low as it is – no need to toss in "dual unrelated" as well. About the only thing twin engines will do for you is add some robustness to damage in combat. Even that's not assured, though. You should also consider that dual engines means dual inlets, with only one inlet per engine. The single engine F-35 has got twin inlets, making the propulsion system more robust to inlet unstarts. That would tend to reduce the need to engine restarts in flight compared with a twin engined aircraft.

Reply

Chuck September 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm

While two engines provide a degree of additional reliability, they also add weight and size. You essentially double all the equipment while adding less trust to weight ratio. This also adds to maintainence costs, requiring twice as much time to keep them running. The F-35 engine is an improved version of the F-22 engine, so it is not completely new. Actually more like the early F/A-18C/D engine to that used by the F/A-18E/F. The engine has already been tested to death by the contractor, and it has worked well enough for DoD to call for only one engine supplier. While I appreciate your love for the F/A-18, the F-16, with significant combat action, has proven that a single engined aircraft is not significantly more dangerous than twin engine jets.

Reply

Atomic Walrus September 5, 2012 at 2:21 pm

VIFFing was hyped a lot in the 1970s, but rarely used in combat. "Sharkey" Ward wrote a good book about flying the Sea Harrier in the Falklands War with more details.

Reply

blight_ September 5, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Interesting point.

I suppose one way or another, Some of BlackOwl's argument rests on the fact that the F414's are already in the system. However, the "new engine" argument would apply to any attempt to re-engine the Super Hornet. The EDE/EPE engines would carry some degree of risk moving forwards.

The F-135/F-136 are in turn somewhat based on the F-119, which is in turn based on an older, trustworthy engine…

Reply

STDog September 11, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Lots of 3 engine airliners, like the 727, DC-10, and MD-11.

The reason for no single engine airliners is FAA regulations.
And you won't see one either.

In the 50's, the FAA limited 2 and 3 engines to stay within 60 minutes of an airfield in case one engine was lost. (quads were not limited like that). In the mid 60s that rule was waived for 3 engine craft.

In the mid 80s, the FAA allowed twins to go to 90, then 120 minutes from an airfield, and in the late 80s now that was extended to 180 minutes. All have strict design and qualification requirements to get ETOPS ratings.

In '07 the FAA opened up a longer rating, to design limit. Last Dec the 777 was rated for 330 minutes.

The rating means the aircraft can fly at full load for the listed time on just one engine.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: