Diceman

No attack on you. You just happened to use that exact wording that I heard in the 1995 timeframe from our head aviation Admiral. It was irritating when he said it, and as it turned out time proved him wrong. I guess your wording just happened to bring all those memories back for me. Sorry if it seemed like an attack.

Very Respectfully,

Chunx, I didn't take it wrong and I completly understand your feelings on the matter!

My previous post about single engine aircraft was more for prompting discussion and exploration of the issue, rather than a true belief of them being better. As I said, too many other hugely qualified people around the aviation industry have studied this arguement to death, where someone of my puny intelligence will not have a hope of winning the arguement.

Two seaters are just so cool. What is better than the F-15E anyway?

The F-35, although useful and stealthy, is nothing more than a overly complicated bomb truck with one engine. Not even a bomb truck, as this suggests that a large load can be carried, and insults 'trucks' in the politically correct age we live in. It is more like a ute version but on a Micro Machine level.

That is what will make the F-15E and the F/A-18F so special over the next 40 years. They will be so much more flexible in what they can do for their operator. How far they can fly. What ordnance they can carry. How far they can carry it. Plus they has two brains aloft, providing even more flexibility than those crappy UCAVs being drawn up as we speak. Oops, I just opened another discussion box. "Get back in the box you little...!"

Little Ditty.

"If you're an accountant....."

Hey hey HEY!!!! I'm an accountant, and the Mudhen is my favorite currently operational aircraft. Mission success and RTB with living crew and operational aircraft are part of any cost/benefit analysis in my mind. Avionics have come a long way, but a two-man crew can look in two different directions at the same time, affording better target acquisition which is universally the number one success factor given by top fighter pilots throughout history(well, after aggressiveness). As for flying over water with one engine, that's just scary.

I wouldn't turn down any job that put me in a fighter, one engine or two, but If I were going to war, two engines and a GIB would sure help me think clearer.

Yeah, I was bound to hit someone with that dart. Sorry, I meant to say "beancounters" ... er ... I guess you are a beancounter. Nevermind ...

Little Ditty, I couldn't agree more about the combat capability of the F-15E and the SuperBug. I've never understood the USAF rationale for the F-16, and the F-35 makes even less sense. Why spend billions on airplanes with no payload and range? In the Viper you can pick one or the other but not both, and the F-35 will be worse -- since it has to carry everything internally to remain stealthy.

All man I'm really itchin to open up that F-18E vs F-14 debate again, but I won't, lol. But uhma anyway, I do wan't to make two comments. About the A-7, sure it could lug a hell of load, but didn't it have a high carrier accident rate, and alot pilots although they loved it, said it was dangerous to operate around the boat.(now thats what I have heard, not sure if its all true)

Also with the JSF and F-16. Well it all goes back to what to what you said ealier, #'s. The F-16 is hella cheap. A wine-o could buy a "A" model with pocket change. Though up to now the JSF program has put a big dent in the military's wallet, once production starts it to is also supposed to be cheap(well for a sealth plane anyway.) So what does it boil down to well simply this $$$$$$$$.

Remember murphy's law of combat, "Your equipment was built by the lowest bidder."

whoops

Yeah, but you forgot one thing. It has always been proven that a light, basic and cheap aircraft over the years developes into a larger and heavier beast. This also increases cost. What starts out at 1 unit of cost after a decade of upgrades and weight penalties turns into 1.5 units of cost per airplane.

The most classic example of this being the F-16A and C. What starts out as a lightweight fighter and secondary daylight fighter/bomber turns into a medium weight fighter, with all of the performance penalties that such a mission variance entails.

You will see the same thing happening with the F-35. Mark my words. And if that is going to be the case 10 or 20 years from now, why not just purchase the dual role F-15E or F/A-18E in the first place? At least you get the better performance out of the aircraft up front.

LD.

Ehhhh......?????

Surely that was meant as a joke!!....Ehhh, right??

20 years from now the JSF fighter will have just finnished perforamce testing and add ten years to that the first example will go into service.
Also by then congress will allow the USAF to have two more F-22 squadrons, totaling USAF F-22s to a grand number of 5.

LD, while that's true for light fighters, isn't this also true for heavy ones too? You know, like the Phantom, Eagle and Flanker?

Rick.50cal,

My point is that over time, a government expects to get more and more out of a lighter aircraft in terms of payload, when by all fairness it should never be asked to fulfil these roles. What initially made a smaller aircraft great (i.e. speed, manoueverability) goes out the window and it esentially ends up as a short range bomb truck.

Yes the Eagle and Phantom started their lives as lighter aircraft. Well, a bit lighter I suppose. But in my opinion, it is expected that a large aircraft has by design the necessary "future proofing" to accept as part of it's mission such inconveniences. That kind of mission change is exactly why larger aircraft are designed and built. With that internal fuel and engine power, it lets you do more with them. They are more mission flexible.

For the smaller single engine aircraft, it is not expected during it's initial design phase to have to have its gross weight increased by 30 to 50%. It is unfair. And I really think that the F-35 will end up like this. Does anyone here even like the F-35? Or is it just me that finds the whole JSF programme uninspiring?

LD.

Hi guys!

Great discussion! Steve...good to see you here!

Regards the single engine A-4, A-7, F-8 questions...I imagine much of the decision to go with these designs had to do with the need to keep airframes small due to the limited space on a carrier...and the entrenched thinking of the folks that made these calls.

The F-35...I was reading an interesting bit yesterday about why the jet is the "F-35" and not the "F-24" (the "24" designation being the next one to be used after the aborted F-23). The thinking was that the jet got stuck with the "35" because some high muckety-muck had referred to it publicly as such...and no one wanted to embarass him by correcting him. Shades of RS-71!

As much as I enjoyed flying the F-104, I'm sold on two seat/two engine fighters...particularly with today's technological advances. Having two sets of eyes and two brains working the problem is an advantage that cannot be overstated, at least IMO. Having experienced a little of the "fog of war", I was happy to have a second opinion when things got murky. Not that I had to follow it necessarily...but it was nice to have the input.

Yeah, the USAF has kind of gotten out of control with the numerical designations lately.

F-117? What's up with that?

First off, an airplane that can only carry two 2000 lb bombs isn't a fighter, it's an Attack aircraft at a stretch or a really small Bomber. Second, 117? I realize that's a continuation of the Century Series where the F-4 was designated the F-110 in USAF numbers (makes you wonder what the 112-116 were), but we did away with that system in like 1962 when the "Tri-Service System" was adopted.

F/A-22

I wouldn't even call the F-117 a bomber, as a bomber brings to mind all the traditional hallmarks of an aircraft that carries larger payloads of multiple bommbs.

You are unquestionably right about the fighter part. The "F" in the name is a joke.

So the only real alternative that means anything is an attack aircraft. As is A-10, this aircraft would better have been called the A-117 (assuming you want to keep the silly "117" designation).

When that aircraft was rumoured to be in operation out in Nevada USA, the press and others at the time gave the aircraft the F-19 monicker, as during the late '70s and early '80s, it's developement fit somewhere between the F-18 Hornet and the F-20 Tigershark.

This would have made much more sense I think. But since when does the government, and particularly the high-ups in the military, make much sense?

Ditty.

Pretty cool disscusion lets keep it rolling.


Bump

Seems from what I've read here the twin engine vs single engine debate comes down to how much you value the life of the pilot.

I think I remember hearing that the reason the Nighhawk has three digits (F-117) was because they wanted it to be confusing to someone trying to figure out what the program was...like a spy or someone that was curious but didn't have clearance (meaning a lot of people).

Thing is, how did the F-111 get named anyway? See, both the F-117 and F-111 have a role of long range precision bombing at night, and I wonder if they thought of the '117 as being a modern equivalent to the 'vark? Still not sure about that one.

From what I've read (and this is Sweetman's work) when the Air Force went with the Falcon over the Tigershark, even though the -20 outpaced it in many regards, they already had the infrastructure for the Falcon in place, and it would have required an extra outlay of cash to support the Tigershark.

Shame, I always like the F-20. I liked the airframe from the Tiger, even if it did offer less cockpit visibility. Just a pretty plane.

Pfunk