Are there any concerns over having a single engine JSF?

[El Cid]

After an invigerating brief on the future of Naval Aviation it finally dawned on me that the JSF has a single engine. I know I'm freak'n rocket scientist for figuring that one out but isn't anyone concerned about shooting a single engine aircraft off of a CVN? If I'm not mistaken a lot of 14's and 18's have had engines trashed on take off due to foreign object damage but at least they had a second engine to get them back around to a landing or to push them far enough away from the ship before bailing.

Can anyone help enlighten me to the professionals concern over this? Are there any jet jockeys out there that have heard any meaningful debate over this?

 

[Pags]

There have been succesful single engined Navy jets in the past: the A-4, A-7, F-8, to name a few.

 

[El Cid]

There have been succesful single engined Navy jets in the past: the A-4, A-7, F-8, to name a few.

True, but weren't those designs abandoned for similiar reason? I dunno. I was talking to a Tomcat to Superhornet guy and he got me a little miffed. That's the only reason that I bring it up, I was hoping to here from other jet guys.

 

[Fly Navy]

There is no doubt about it, 2 engines over water is ALWAYS better than 1.

However, the single-engine designs of the past were very successful, and they were phased out due to age.

 

[zuggerat]

more afterburner = more fun!

 

[El Cid]

There is no doubt about it, 2 engines over water is ALWAYS better than 1.

However, the single-engine designs of the past were very successful, and they were phased out due to age.

Copy...

more afterburner = more fun!

and roger that!

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Well, remember that when the Navy was looking for a replacement for the A-7s and F-4s, they preferred the YF-17 design to the YF-16... largely because of the twin-engine design.

I would venture to guess that the Chair Force was so terrified that their precious F-22 would be cancelled that the selling point of the Raptor had to be its air superiority capability. If the JSF came out and rocked the house and killed everything in the sky, you'd see the Raptor go down the tubes as part of budget cuts. So you limit its performance in areas like acceleration or thrust/weight ratio and say "We need BOTH types of planes! One for air superiority, another for interdiction/strike!" How do you do that? Give it a single engine instead of the two that the F-22, F-15C, F-15E, Hornet, Rhino or Tomcat show...

Personally, I'm just miffed that the JSF is single-seat. Meh, no matter...

 

[jarhead]

Personally, I'm just miffed that the JSF is single-seat.

why?

s/f

 

[EODDave]

UH, I think that you have the Navy and AF fly off mixed up. The AF decided on the YF-16 over the YF-17 (later to become the F-18). The F-16 was picked due to its lower operating costs. The AF actually told their pilots that they (the AF) new that there would be more crashes due to the single engine. They said that even losing X pilots and X planes over 30 years, the F-16 would still be cheaper.

The YF-16 and YF-17 were never designed for carrier use. The gear and overall structure was just way to light weight to take the beatings of carrier work. After the YF-17 lost the AF flyoff, the Navy eventually picked it as a LWF to replace the aging A-4's, A-7's and F-4's.

Northrop beefed up the gear, made the internal fuel tanks larger and I believe put 16,000 lb engines in it up from the YF-17's 10 or 12,000 lb YJ101-GE-100 engines. The 17 was then redesignated the F-18.

 

[ben]

I've got a book on the evolution of the F-18 and Dave is right on. The Hornet started life as the plane that nobody wanted. After a lot of modifications it became the Navy's choice, and if I remember correctly it was because the F-16 just didn't have the room to beef up the parts enough to handle carrier landings.

 

[El Cid]

EODDave:
Ben:

Since the YF-17 went through such serious mods do you thing there might be some to the JSF? I mean the MC has put it back to the drawing board more than a few times. Could there be a "simple" design change to have two smaller engines put in (two smaller but with over all the same or more thrust to the single)?

I dunno I guess I'm just institutionalized by modern trends of dual engines (sans the F-16).

 

[squeeze]

why?

s/f

'cause w/ only one seat, there is nowhere for the self-loading baggage.

 

[EODDave]

The YF-17 was designed with two engines. They just put in more powerful ones for the 18. You couldnt just put two motors into the JSF. That isnt a little change, that would be a new aircraft. I think its called the F-22. The first jsf has been on the production line for about a month or two. The overweight problem was fixed a while back.

 

[El Cid]

The YF-17 was designed with two engines. They just put in more powerful ones for the 18. You couldnt just put two motors into the JSF. That isnt a little change, that would be a new aircraft. I think its called the F-22. The first jsf has been on the production line for about a month or two. The overweight problem was fixed a while back.

Oh, don't I feel like a POS! Thanks for the info... BTW does anybody know the releasable specs on performance of this beast? Also, is there going to be an upgrade to the name? JSF seems kind of dry.

 

[EODDave]

The F-35 and not sure of what it will be called.