Comments by "ZIPZ" (@zipz8423) on "CBC News"
channel.
-
39
-
33
-
6
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Chris Black
Hell no sir!!! I wasn't that crazy, I am ex Navy (engineering tech, finished as a WO) and the Winged Harrier Gods (Pilots) never moaned about having one engine, they just wanted more fuel and weps and a real woman :P
Foreign object ingestion aside ie birds, geese , Dogs on one occasion i shit you not a very sad episode! (on the ground of course) the reliability is such today with turbines its really hard to tell people two engines are safer than one especially when you look at engine failure stats and the reasons thereof.
I think its a "pilot thang" and maybe subjective, mechanical failures are one thing but battle damage is something else entirely.
If you look at the A-10, there is a reason those turbofans are on top of the fuselage and not underneath , there's another reason they are also not side by side, they are spaced.
Stealth for the F-35 for sure has to be maintained, but right now the rear fuselage sections being built in the UK those guys are doing a heck of a lot of work in the factory with the aircraft not just from the base design but how they put the thing together to help with future maintenance and that centres around super high tolerances and quality control in the build.
If you get the initial build right, you make maintenance easier in the future, if you get the build to fabulous quality levels, its even better later.
Coatings and topcoats are much better now than they were cicra 1985 that they had for the F-117 which were notoriously troublesome.
The problems with the F-135 have been squarely with PW management which has been "difficult" to put it bluntly, and yes its an engine which has been developed using the F-119 core and new components, its pumping out near 45 K lbs of thrust, thats a shit load for a single engine I am not surprised they are having issues but a lot of new engines have problems, I have seen this for myself in service I am sure they will be ironed out but its going to be expensive.
The main issue with the F-135 technically is its operating at higher temps than PW envisaged, this is unforgivable for a manufacturer of their stature to be honest and calls their design modelling into question for the F-135.
Some say the issue was cost cutting at Pratt but i dont know for sure.
Trust me, there have been worse engines pressed into service with miserable failure rates comparative to the F-135 but when the jet gets to the squadrons it wouldnt be allowed to fly with that motor until its fixed.
2
-
2
-
Chris Black
Howdy Chris,
yep, I dont think there is anything better at CAS than a Hog but remember, we have been using fast air for a long time for CAS also.
The aircraft isnt the important factor, its the weapons they carry that make CAS possible for fast jets and their targeting systems.
Its not all about the Big Avenger cannon on the Hog.
The USAF is seriously looking at HVPWs which are basically rocket propelled Mk-xx iron bombs and if it can be done with a large capacity weapon it may be done with smaller ordnance such as the SDB. or similar.
This means greater penetration of hardened structures and better accuracy, then there is the UKs dual mode Brimstone, ROVER system on the Tornado which has enabled that aircraft to do sterling work in CAS everywhere it has been deployed.
Sensor fusion is where the F-35 is at, SAR, FLIR/IRST (EOTS) linked data etc etc.
Its going to be far in advance of anything we currently have in terms of sensor fusion and there are some interesting aspects regards the APG-81 in terms of transmitting a single aircrafts battlespace picture to other friendly platforms because of bandwidth capability.
The F-22 can already transmit a full SAR picture with only a small amount of latency depending on APG-77 version (lot 5 onwards)
if the USMC is operating you can bet your ass their brothers in the air wont be sitting on the decks of their LPDs:P
The F-35 right now is envisaged to work alongside the Superhornet directly replacing the legacy Hornets but I am scratching my head about that one, why fly a stealth aircraft in a strike package with non stealth aircraft? the opposition are going to see the strike package anyways.
Its going to have to be done with Growlers doing a lot of hard work kicking the crap out of the entire EM spectrum as cover.
For DCA or even OCA you need something better than a Suprhornet can provide against the mythical T-50 or J-31 if they ever go into serious production and that probably means something closer to an F-22 rather than an F-35.
Stealth can be deafeated with numbers if you look at the Taiwan straights scenario /wargame where F-22s killed a hell of a lot of Chinas airforce but those same F-22s still died because they ran out of fuel and missiles before China ran out of fighters.
Its basic attrition.
The Golden Egg is finding a way to detect and track Stealth aircraft with reliability and kill them.
I honestly dont know which airframe will be better for Canada, it is a unique case.
The Typhoon is not carrier capable that would take a Marinised version which is actually being designed right now buts its a paperweight until someone decides they want to spend megabucks developing it.
Right now the game is, the USN is worried about the airframe life left on the legacy Hornet models so they have to decide whether to buy more Superhornets , maybe stick CFTs on them to increase range which isn't great (hence buddy tanking) , maybe an engine upgrade to handle the increased weight because there are real issues with the delays into service of the F-35 C model.
Its not a great place to be I admit.
Bottom line for me is, anyone who actually thought that a stealth aircraft was ever going to be "cost effective" with 3 models wanted their heads testing, I laughed hard when I first heard that idea:)
I do think that the F-35 will be as good at least as the F-16 as a fighter , especially since the F-16 isnt the sleek light dogfighter it was when it first arrived, the baby has some fat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
*****
Lost multiple dogfights against what? You do realize that the FCLAWs are still being refined and the envelope explored and that the F-35 isnt the finished article dont ya?
It isnt a supermanoureable aircraft it isnt designed to be, the base design requirement was a flight envelope "comparable" to the F-16.
From reports I hve read, its actually been matching the F-16 which is no mean feat in WVR, in other areas like BVR combat, the F-35 has beat winning.
Before you ask for links, let me see yours as it is you who claimed the F-35 has been getting smoked first.
I have links, I hope you are ready with yours?
You do realise that in a twin engined jet if you lose one engine to damage, it is very likely that you damage the second engine too right because the engines are right next to each other, same goes for the type of damage, and engine fire or a loss of fuel pressure that will affect the reamining engine under certain circumstances, then there is the thrust imbalance, if you have no altititude you are are going to have yourself an unrecoverable jet with one engione or two.
A twin engined jet is built to power a heavier aircraft typically ie a multi role jet.
In reality if you look at accident stats and egnine failures, the two engined fighter is safer than a single engined fighter dont hold up at all.
Take the JAS-39 gripen, not a single accident due to engine failure and the F-16 has a fabulous record in that regard.
If you are in a part of the flight envelope and you lose one engine the chances of recovering the jet can be next to zero depending on where you are at, we are not talking multi engined transports with 4 engines evenly spaced along the wing where you can afford to lose one at altitude and still land.or an ariliner with similar configuration, here we are talking fighter jets.
The F-16 has had no problem serving air defence for dozens of nations so I dont really hold to this "we need two engines" debate and plenty of single engined jets have served perfectly fine over decades.
the twin engined jet myth is exactly that.
1
-
1
-
Chris Black
Horses for courses, you will find military pilots and commanders who share either opinion, neither one is wrong or right, I just happen to fall on the "myth" side of the argument.
You will be hard pressed to find a Class A engine failure for an F-16 from the C model onwards , not bad for a single engined fighter.
It IS about reliability and the advancement of technology, reliability has increased exponentially in jet turbines.
From the Sea Harrier to the F-104, single engined fighters have served with no reral issues, if you look at the terrible accident stats for the F-104 in German hands, of 100 crashes, only 11 were attributable to engine failures, then you have to look at where the jet operates, if you know how cannon shells work, if one engine is hit by trash fire on an aircraft with side by side engines, both engines are going to fail more than likely,.
The reasons for two engines are varied and more complex than some so called safety aspect and to be honest, if the F-35 was twin engined people who hate the jet would pick some other attribute to bash it over the head with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
furiousmat
You mean its pointless arguing with someone who doesn't actually agree with you?
Welcome to the planet earth.
I am entitled to my opinion, I respect yours but don`t have to agree with it.
Every aircraft program on the planet has had its detractors.
From the F-4 and before to the F-22 and beyond, someone will have an axe to grind.
"How can anyone say something so ludicrous as "that work is a long process"."
To not understand that comment is to not understand modern fly by wire aircraft development.
The Typhoon is still getting changes and upgrades , refinements to its flight control systems 15 years after it went into service, now do you understand?
Has the program taken a long time, certainly, take the Eurofighter consortium and the development of the Typhoon, its been tortuous because there are 4 partner nations involved, 5 governments and 4 sets of ideas on how the aircraft should take shape.
Thats bureaucracy and a no brainer, of course it was going to take eons.
Look at the Rafale, one government, two voices, the Marine Nationale and the Armee d`lair.
Out of that you got one aircraft , now a mature one and its getting new customers.
Now, look at the F-35, several partner nations / workshare pie slicing, politics and funding , times that by 3 for 3 different versions , add to that deciding to make it a stealth aircraft, if that isnt a recipe for a tortured development I dont know what is.
Never once have I denied any of that so you can get off that particular horse.
Talking of ludicrous comments....
"The aircraft has a shit range, shit manoeuverability, shit carrying capacity, and costs a fortune when the point of it was actually to create a cost efficient aircraft"
What do you consider "shit range"?
What do you consider shit manoeuverability?
What do you consider shit carrying capacity?
Measured against what and which sources are you using? Do you even know how each version is going to be employed?
Do yourself a favour and compare unrefueled range of the carrier version of the F-35 ( which carries 6,000lbs more internal fuel) and compare it with the Superhornet, you may be surprised when you see that all 3 versions of the F-35 have greater or similar range than the F-18 in any version so makes your "shit range" comment umm, ludicrous?
You are under informed.
Weapons load, - first day of war(not literally a single day). , weapons carried internally, nail primary targets, destroy command and control , dismantle the IADS in an integrated attack. that attack will consist of B-2 strikes, TLAM strikes, F-22 has taken out the opposing fighters.
"Second day" of war, carry weapons externally on hardpoints, no capacity issues, IFR close to the enemy border because you have broken the air defences on the first day.
I have never once thought a stealthy airframe was ever going to be cheap, more fool you for deluding yourself into believing that.
Its obvious you dislike the costs involved so hate everything about the airplane including believing every negative aspect regards the program.
There is a lot to bitch about but use some objectivity instead of spitting bile.
I still stand by my original thought and believe its going to be one hell of an aircraft in all 3 versions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1