-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Australia requests authority to purchase 24 more Super Hornets
- Thread starter Fog
- Start date
(Start sarcasm font) This just fills me with confidence (end sarcasm font)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35s-ability-to-evade-budget-cuts-illustrates-challenge-of-paring-defense-spending/2013/03/09/42a6085a-8776-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35s-ability-to-evade-budget-cuts-illustrates-challenge-of-paring-defense-spending/2013/03/09/42a6085a-8776-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html
Agreed pilot_man. Don't think that one-eyed jack will work out too well when I come aboard single oops I mean zero engine. Yep! ZERO time and hopefully it stays that way.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Very well put! You certainly make excellent points about the viability of single engine aircraft off carriers. Thanks for sharing your vast experience with those of us that can only dream (nightmare?) about such a risky venture.
How can the government do this to us?!?! There hasn't been a single successful naval aircraft without at least two engines. Never! And don't you bring up the F4F, F6F, F8F, F4U, FJ3,A-1,A-4, or A-7!! Those are just spurious examples that barely cover 70% of the span of naval aviation.
It'll never work. NEVER!!!! Planes will start falling from the sky any second now. We definitely should have stayed with a two engine setup. Because those never crash and all mishaps are engine failures.
Well done.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Unless its hauling pax/cargo for hire to exotic locales, it sure as hell won't be me.
I don't really have a dog in this fight. I have my own concerns with the future of naval aviation, but single engine ops are pretty far down the list.
I find it comical what certain people and communities choose to fixate on and deride in the evolution of aircraft. This is but one example of that.
Oh, and exponential increases in the reliability of jet engines over the last 70 or so years might be considered progress as well.
I am not a JSF hater. I love the tech involved. I just wish it had double the number of engines.
All of that reliability and we still have engine fires on pretty new Growlers that then have to recover single engine.
I too really could care less. In the grand scheme of things, the single engine JSF won't play into my decision to "stay Navy" or not.
All of that reliability and we still have engine fires on pretty new Growlers that then have to recover single engine.
I too really could care less. In the grand scheme of things, the single engine JSF won't play into my decision to "stay Navy" or not.
Hmmm, where have I heard that before... F-4 Pfantum development early '60s? Didn't work out so well.
BzB
This single engine phobia reminds me of a transitioning P-3 type, freakin' out because his new ride P-8... has ONLY 2 engines!
BzB
This single engine phobia reminds me of a transitioning P-3 type, freakin' out because his new ride P-8... has ONLY 2 engines!
BzB
I think most of the teeth gnashing is completely justified. I know we flew birds with one motor before off the carrier, but they didn't cost 200 mil a pop.
That motor better be a hoss that can pound thru some malfunctions, FOD, and icing and still get you back to the boat, or it's going to get real expensive when guys start giving them back to the taxpayers.
SB, agree with you completely... the F-35X is overpriced, overhyped, and plagued with problems/delays. My post was just poking fun at the handwringing (tho' justified) multi-motor crowd ranging from P-3s through F-18s, from a career "single-engine" carrier jock's viewpoint. In my day (A-4s), jettisoning a state of the art, top line A-4 cost the taxpayer ~$2 to 3M. The loss of 1 F-35 equates to nearly 7 12-plane A-4 Squadrons. In reality, losing even 1 F-35 simply isn't affordable.
BzB
The loss of 1 F-35 equates to nearly 7 12-plane A-4 Squadrons. In reality, losing even 1 F-35 simply isn't affordable.
BzB
Wow... I never thought of it that way before...
Presumably (and hopefully) you put a bit more thought into the relative merits of an aircraft than its engine out performance. I agree that dual engine is the way to go for carrier-based aviation, but isn't that kind of off-hand dismissal of an aircraft the same thing we make fun of when the newbs are arguing about what fighter is more/less bad-ass then the other?
BZB, that was my point exactly.
Brett, engine out performance is a contingency that should (hopefully) be considered. I never dismissed the platform just said I wished it had two engines. I'll fly it and love it if the time comes. I don't have to have first hand experience flying a JSF to know that I prefer 2 engines to one. I've flown both a 2 engine and single engine A/C at the boat. I will always prefer 2.
Brett, engine out performance is a contingency that should (hopefully) be considered. I never dismissed the platform just said I wished it had two engines. I'll fly it and love it if the time comes. I don't have to have first hand experience flying a JSF to know that I prefer 2 engines to one. I've flown both a 2 engine and single engine A/C at the boat. I will always prefer 2.
SB, agree with you completely... the F-35X is overpriced, overhyped, and plagued with problems/delays. My post was just poking fun at the handwringing (tho' justified) multi-motor crowd ranging from P-3s through F-18s, from a career "single-engine" carrier jock's viewpoint. In my day (A-4s), jettisoning a state of the art, top line A-4 cost the taxpayer ~$2 to 3M. The loss of 1 F-35 equates to nearly 7 12-plane A-4 Squadrons. In reality, losing even 1 F-35 simply isn't affordable.
BzB
Keep it up old man. I'll make the likes of you sit in holding with fuel low lights going off like christmas decorations while I do a dreaded 3 engine approach in a war pig.
