Canada's next Jet Fighter?

gf0012-aust said:
re F16's and their claim to reliability (USAF claims) - ratio they have a higher availability rate than any twin, irrespective of engine version.

RAAF pilots are on exchange and have been flying off carriers. It was in the RAAF news rag some time ago.

Some of the early BACC pilots were also flying USN seats
Click to expand...

Sure but availability does not necessarily tie in to engine reliability / argument on the merits of singles vs twins. It suggests that the F-16 avionics, airframe, engine, radar, hydraulics package etc as a whole is more reliable than x type, which given that it was designed and built 10 years later than the F-15C's is hardly surprising..

I know RAAF Pilots are/have been on exchange but the intention is not that they are going to be deploying on carriers. Their exposure is extremely limited to USN at sea ops.
 
Doesn't having 2 engines double the work of the Mx folks and also double the chances of some engine glitch resulting in an unavailable a/c?
 
south said:
I know RAAF Pilots are/have been on exchange but the intention is not that they are going to be deploying on carriers. Their exposure is extremely limited to USN at sea ops.
Click to expand...

not even remotely suggesting that - its the issue that RAAF is closely tied in with the USN - and I'd argue that we have a closer relationship with USN than USAF.

USN has greater impact on our future doctrine, so we stay close for a number of reasons. the exchange program is not for pilot jollies, its for them to understand and come back with input on interoperability issues.
 
5 cents worth here on modern jet engine reliability. I don't recall where I saw the point made - probably on another aviation related forum I frequent. This same argument is often made on why airlines are trusting big twins (777, A330's etc) on long haul overwater flights (ETOPS certification) whereas you'd think that 747's A380's and A340's would be the safer option as they have 4 engines, not just 2.

One of the pilots pointed out that you could have had 12 engines on that BA flight that went through the ash cloud and flamed out all of the 747's engines - it would not have made a difference - all 12 would have flamed out. That was a perfect demonstration that the 4 engines are safer than 2 argument was fallacious.

Apparently modern jets are so reliable that despite the incredible number of hours an airline pilot is likely to do over a 30 or 40 year career, he or she will have only a 50% chance of ever experiencing an engine failure necessitating an in flight shut-down (as opposed to a precautionary shutdown). Powerplants have come a long way from when the Lockheed Constellation used to be jokingly referred to as "the finest 3 engined airplane in the world".

OT: Additionally (and this is in a comercial airliner context - something to make those who are nervous a little more comfortable) an airliner must be able to continue its takeoff run if it loses one donk after V1 (that's the speed when it is safer to take off than to try to abort the takeoff in the runway space remaining). So, in a 747, that means that when the jumbo loses 25% of its thrust it must be able to still perform the fully loaded takeoff (MTOW) with its remaining 3 engines. This is one of the reasons the A340-300's takeoff roll is usually so long that the joke goes the only reason they take off is due to the curvature of the earth - the runway 'falls away'. In a 777, the one remaining engine still must be able to do this - hence many of the big twins are very much overpowered - to allow for the engine out scenario. More thrust is always a better bet than less when you are taking off - particularly if the conditions are hot and high at high gross weights - ergo it has been pointed out that it is probably a safer bet taking off on a long overwater flight in a twin, than a 4 engined airliner. /OT
 
The whole one engine / two engine fighter discussion is a complete waste of time.

The Canadian Air Force (and every other service) intending on operating F-35's has studied the issue of the aircraft's reliability and are clearly satisified with it.

NONE are concerned about the aircraft only having 1 engine or they wouldn't be looking to acquire it. Just like anyone who looks at buying F-16's, Gripens, Kaveri's, JF-17's, Mirage 2000's or whatever.

Why is it that suddenly their competence is no longer valid? If the professionals recommend a twin jet they're competent but if they recommend a single they've somehow lost their competence?

That sounds more like YOUR issues, than their's...

Edit: ("Your" in general terms, not directed at any specific individual).
 
Marc 1 said:
One of the pilots pointed out that you could have had 12 engines on that BA flight that went through the ash cloud and flamed out all of the 747's engines - it would not have made a difference - all 12 would have flamed out. That was a perfect demonstration that the 4 engines are safer than 2 argument was fallacious.
Click to expand...

No, that is a perfectly isolated argument to say that if you fly into an ash cloud the engines are going to stop....

MARC - comparing a military fast jet engine to a commercial transport engine is like comparing a V8 Supercar engine to a Kenworth Road train. Yeah they both use the same means to get the job done but they are pretty dissimilar.. The fast jet engine gets put under a lot more cycles for one in something like BFM where it getting a lot more throttle abuse / slam accelerations deccelerations, where your modern commercial engine is never even really set to full thrust even for takeoff, maintains the same power setting throughout the climb, sits at cruise power for 8 hours and then sits at idle for the descent.

I do agree with what AD has said, and yes the technology has off course moved on, but the point stands.. In a single engine jet, when that engine craps the bed for whatever reason (and yes, jet engines are more reliable but it does still happen ), unless you happen to be within gliding range of an airfield (good luck) you are stepping out and hopefully get to wear a nice martin baker tie.. If you have a twin engine jet, you still have an option.

Dislike what I'm saying all you like but if you look at the links that I provided earlier for the Class A mishaps from the USAF the F-16 is having engine related class A's at about three to four times the rate of F-15's. Will we suffer increased attrition because of this... Probably. Is it going to be like the Mirage III where we lost 40 or so out of just over 100. No, of course not.

To myself fact of the matter boils down more to the roles the aircraft is designed for anyhoo. Aircraft designed to go a long way and carry more load are going to be bigger to carry the fuel and stores. And until now they have had two engines to do this. The F-35 is the first fighter in its weight class that has had a sufficiently powerful engine to do what it is trying to do with one engine, as opposed to having two smaller engines. The fact that it has two vs one widgets I dont care about as long as what it can do what they say it will on the box....
 
south, after multiple posts....it may be time you did some research and show us the comparison between single and twin engine crashes per flight hours over the last 10 years to prove your point
If you can show me that the f-16 has sufficiently more crashes because of engine failure, I will agree with you, change my mind and conclude what I have read was wrong
 
Jack, have you tried looking at the links I posted on the previous page?? Alternatively how about you tell me anywhere where I have been significantly in error.

edited to add this is the website that I sourced it from
http://www.afsc.af.mil/organizations/aviation/enginestatistics/index.asp

Notes:
1. "Engine-related" excludes mishaps caused by FOD, birdstrike, or failure of support systems external to the engine (ex. fuel starvation)
2. Aircraft flight-rate producing mishaps only.
3. Rates are Class A mishaps/100,000 Engine Flight Hours (EFH) by calendar year
4. F-16/F100-PW-200 is no longer in use in the USAF
Click to expand...
 
there needs to be some context on this as well,

eg a twin on a jetfighter is not the same as dispersed multi's on a large jet

colocated twins on jets like BAC-111's, B-52's OTOH are a fairer comparison, but still not relevant as the engine management systems are of a different generation.

apples with apples etc.....
 
south, yes I have, you have an accumulative and a 6 quarterly, the 6 quarterly/18 mths shows no air crashes by engine
using data from the accumulative 80's isnt relative, is it. Which is why I suggested the last 10 years using the most reliable engine data

using the F-15/F100-PW-220 to the same engined f-16, the f-16 is safer
which kind of puts a big hole in your argument
http://www.stratpost.com/how-many-engines-for-the-mmrca

not relavent to fighters but I know that single/twin in cessna type is the near enough the same
FAQ :: Single Engine vs Double Engine
 
And from one POV and according to those charts, we don't actually know how safe F-16's running F100-PW-229's are, because they haven't yet had a single Class A mishap, whereas the F-15 with 2 of the exact same engine has...

Oh yeah, those 2 engines are keeping our pilots alive...
 
jack412 said:
south, yes I have, you have an accumulative and a 6 quarterly, the 6 quarterly/18 mths shows no air crashes by engine
using data from the accumulative 80's isnt relative, is it. Which is why I suggested the last 10 years using the most reliable engine data

using the F-15/F100-PW-220 to the same engined f-16, the f-16 is safer
which kind of puts a big hole in your argument
Click to expand...

F-15 PW 220 http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080819-032.pdf (0.27)
F=16 PW 220 http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080819-032.pdf (1.08 ). four times more likely... hmmmmmm.

Although I reckon you could be trying to talk about the 229 engine variants.... So there you have it folks, for the F-15/F-16 types with similar engines, the 229 is the choice to make if you are a F-16 driver (all other types have a significantly worse incident/100000EFH ratio, including the GE-129 which is the parallel type to the PW-229. Oh btw if you have a single F-16 PW-229 Class A you are near enough to the same ratio that it doesnt matter... )

There are a couple of other things that I will note here, one is that FOD/birdstrike are not counted in Engine related mishaps however if that was the cause of engine damage / failure it certainly supports the argument for having two engines. The second is that if you cook one of these engines, that is going to cost $1M US and hence you have a class a incident. It does not necessarily relate to the loss of the aircraft and unfortunately that data does not seem to be available.

jack412 said:
not relavent to fighters but I know that single/twin in cessna type is the near enough the same
FAQ :: Single Engine vs Double Engine
Click to expand...

Secondly their are a myriad of issues and differences that appear with a single/twin in GA, and you are correct in that it is completely irrelevant and in no way supports your position. I fail to see why you included it?

All that I am saying is
1) you cant compare civvie jet engines to mil fast jet as much as you cant compare a F-18 to a 787.
2) it is rare in a twin engine type that it will let go and frag the other, more frequently you know you have a problem so you shut the sucker down before anything happens. You don't have that option in a single.
3) fuel starvation or volcanic cloud ingestion is not a valid argument either way.
4) if you have two engines and one is ferked, you at least have a chance to get home.
5) Statistically in the long term attrition during training favours twin engine types.
6) we will most likely lose a couple of JSF during our operation due to engine failure.

WRT 6) is it a big deal to lose 2 JSF over a 25-35-50 year life of type, nah not really?, might be a big deal if you are the guy in the seat...

as a case in point I know of a couple of RAAF FA-18 drivers who would have a nice tie and a sore back if they were driving F-16's.
 
sorry, I copied the wrong engine from the article, that was an early one but it does show the lower reliability of the earlier engine, doesnt it, the later is the F100-PW-229
F100-PW-229 is the one that has a higher safety record on the f-16 than the f-15 per flight hour flown

with modern engines, engine failure isn't a big enough issue to get in a huff about, what is it, about 1 in 1,000-1,500 flight years for the f-15 and the better f-16 rate
statistically you have to fly a fighter for at least a 1,000 years before you have a class A

edit...
f-15, 859,542 hrs 4 class A
f-16, 244,846 hrs 0 class A
total,1,104,388/4 = 276,097 hrs per class A / 220 hrs year av fighter pilot = 1254.9 flight years

ps there would be more cooked engines than crashes in the class A, dont you think ?

so to try and say the f-35 is at severe risk because it has one engine is straight out rubbish, isn't it
 
Last edited:
south said:
I do agree with what AD has said, and yes the technology has off course moved on, but the point stands.. In a single engine jet, when that engine craps the bed for whatever reason (and yes, jet engines are more reliable but it does still happen ), unless you happen to be within gliding range of an airfield (good luck) you are stepping out and hopefully get to wear a nice martin baker tie.. If you have a twin engine jet, you still have an option.

Dislike what I'm saying all you like but if you look at the links that I provided earlier for the Class A mishaps from the USAF the F-16 is having engine related class A's at about three to four times the rate of F-15's. Will we suffer increased attrition because of this... Probably. Is it going to be like the Mirage III where we lost 40 or so out of just over 100. No, of course not.

....
Click to expand...

Sorry to suggest these losses were mostly due to the single engine as a main factor is just wrong. Another major cause was under carriage failure (which was more frequent than engine failure) and pilot error. The fate of each can be found here

ADF Serials - RAAF A3 GAF Mirage III
 
PhilTheBeloved said:
Hopefully not F-35. Canada should make an indigenous fighter and name it Arrow II ;)
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. although it could take a while as you would need to develope the technology and infrastructure to produce a modern front line air craft and I suspect this would make your proposition both very expensive and time consuming.
 
alexsa said:
Good luck with that. although it could take a while as you would need to develope the technology and infrastructure to produce a modern front line air craft and I suspect this would make your proposition both very expensive and time consuming.
Click to expand...

Too expensive from scratch but if we build the Gripen NG in Canada then we will develop all those industries for next time.

What happened to layered defence anyway? I said in another blog we should have 80 Gripen NGs to defend Canada and if the CF really want stealth for third world adventures / layered defence they can buy 15 or 20 F-22s. This single platform thing everyone seems to be into these days locks everyone into a jack-of-all-traits, master of none situation.

Gripens to defend Canada and F-22s to blow up third world country radar installations. Or how about just Gripens and our international fighter obligations won't be performing front line door crashing roles.
 
@future Fleet.
Pls read the rules of this forum.
I'm sure the Mod will step in here shortly.


F-22 export cannot, will not and should not be used as a yardstick in threads like these, for obvious reasons..
 
Last edited:
Future Fleet - CREF Havaarla's prev comment and advice.

I've stated before that our toleration for threads where basic research has not been conducted and where answers abound will generate a short leash.

If you persist on travelling down a path of not making the effort, and asking questions where basic research would have yielded most of your answers - then the question of laziness or trolling starts to spring to mind.

Change your approach real soon.

You're on a very very short leash
 
alexsa said:
Good luck with that. although it could take a while as you would need to develope the technology and infrastructure to produce a modern front line air craft and I suspect this would make your proposition both very expensive and time consuming.
Click to expand...

Or they could contract APA to do a CF-105S for them, just imagine it the Super Arrow slaying SU-25s left right and center while delivering PGMs against hardened defended targets. The USAF will probably order it to replace the F-22.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top