Are there any concerns over having a single engine JSF?

[TurnandBurn55]

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.

Interesting information... although kind of tangental to my point.

As you say, neither the YF-16 or YF-17 were designed for carrier ops. The Navy could well have taken either model and modified it to fit there needs. The point I'm making is that the USN was looking for a replacement for a variety of different-- and, incidentally, single-seat aircraft-- and chose a development model known as the YF-17.

What was the rationale behind passing on the YF-16, another aircraft determined capable and lower-cost (and you mentioned)? A large part of that was the twin-engine capability.

So nice to have squeeze's professional insight on the NFO community again. I guess we earn our right to be a condescending little tool before our wings, right little man?

 

[trongod46]

first patmack i luv the picture of the twins, that is a reason to get my voter right there!,
on the topic, jet engine technology has improved so greatly since the 10-15 years that single engine reliability isnt so much a factor, in commercial aviation you used to have 3 engines to cross the pond, DC-10's L1011 and so on, FAA cut it two with the proven reliability,

 

[trongod46]

speaking about the yf-17 and -16 anyone read a book called BOYD, about John Boyd, it is a must read for all aviators and Marines. I was amazed by the information in it.

 

[zab1001]

So nice to have squeeze's professional insight on the NFO community again. I guess we earn our right to be a condescending little tool before our wings, right little man?

Right, no one on here has ever done that... Come on man, you throw the term "stickmonkey" left and right, but my favorite had to be:

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?p=97327#post97327

QUOTE: "Or you could be a pilot... fly helos... pick stuff up, set it down... if you're lucky pick some more stuff up on the way back..."

"Pot, this is kettle, standing by for tasking"

"Roger kettle, you are black, repeat, you are black"

My point is, I don't think he was trying to be condescending, the "self loading baggage" quip is one of the oldest in aviation. It's only gonna get tougher in the Fleet, thicken up that skin.

(Sorry for the threadjack all, back to JSF or something...)

 

[Texan]

another perspective

I guess this is a good one for me to chime in on as I'm currently working on a 'weight reduction program' for the JSF.

First - Dave, the piggy problem hasnt been fixed completely - the JSF is still several thousand lbs overweight... but I'm working on that .

Next, the engine technology that's going into the F35 is WAY beyond anything that's out there right now. Pratt & Whitney has done A LOT of work getting the F135 engine to work right under the most stressful conditions. GE actually is doing the same with the F136 engine; they are supposed to be completely interchangable.

As far as FOD is concerned, yes, it's always going to be a problem... but the Aerospace industry has had one thing on it's mind for the last 8 - 10 years: FOD... well, that and lean manufacturing, but that's a whole story unto itself. While I cant go into specifics - mostly cause I dont know them - there are several anti-Fod measures built into this engine both for the CL and STOVL versions.


As far as the single seat is concerned, its on it's way out too. You might enjoy this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/index.html

Lucky for us, they're targeting the boys in blue and F22's with this one.

Blue Skies-
Ian

 

[EODDave]

Texan,

Nice to hear from someone working on the project. I talked with the Director of the JSF, Navy, and he said that the weight issue had been delt with in the loss of weight, reduction of drag in some areas and higher out put on the engines. Was this in just the C or B model? Or is it an issue with all of them? Now all we need is to shave a little time off getting them into the fleet!

 

[Pags]

I think the official name of the F-35 is the "Musketeer". Which will deffinetely will awards for the gayest jet name ever.

 

[Texan]

Dave,

I actually heard 2nd hand today (yes, we could have a serious case of Telephone going) that they are within a hundred lbs or so on the CL variants, but still about 2K lbs off on the STOVL variant. I dont remember off hand which letter designation is which, but for the rest of you, there are three (maybe four now) versions of the JSF being produced.

The first is a conventional landing (CL) version for the AF.
The second is a conventional landing (CL) version for the Navy with a beefed up frame and gear for carrier landings.
And a third with short take-off / vertical landing (STOVL) for the Marines and possibly Navy as well.

As far as timing goes... I like it like this, cause maybe by the time I get selected, I'll get to be in the first class or two of these planes (That's what dreams are for right?)

-Texan

 

[Clux4]

Texan,
Thanks for the info. What would be the purpose of the 4th variant? Also if the USMC is looking at swaping its 18's with the JSF in a short while(stick a couple years in), are we then talking about the possibility of some of the Navy's version or it is just going to be STOVL all the way?

 

[bch]

Oh jesus... get over it. Just a little poking fun... man grow a thicker skin,TALKING NAV BAG! And I heard that FROM a RIO. :tongue2_1

Let us not forget "talking Knee Board"

 

[El Cid]

Here's some information from the Lockheed Martin website:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11173&rsbci=12982&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/7318.pdf