Posted on 07/28/2009 6:39:56 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
F-35C meets US Navy's single-engine derision
By Stephen Trimble
When Lockheed Martin rolls out the F-35C on July 28, US Navy pilots will be one step closer to operating a single-engine fighter off a carrier deck. The DEW Line contributor Dave Majumdar explores this issue with an active F/A-18 pilot with more than 1,700 flying hours, who asked to remain anonymous.
If there is any doubt that the US Navy aviation community will accept a single-engine fighter, such as the F-35C, one pilot has a clear answer: That "decision has been made" already and, after all, "the Navy is not a democracy".
But concerns about the issue among rank-and-file pilots clearly linger.
The F/A-18 pilot says the Navy has worked hard to get to a point where only twin-engine jets were serving on the decks of carriers. In a single engine aircraft such as the Lockheed F-16, "a failure in any engine component that leads to a loss of thrust or flame-out equates to a quick attempt to try to troubleshoot the problem for a few seconds before making the decision to eject. In a Hornet, by contrast, even a total single engine failure can be ignored" if the situation warrants it, the pilot says.
Ideally, he adds, in the event of an engine failure, "flight can easily be maintained at a safe altitude while carrying out emergency procedures".
When the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter programme was formed in the late 1990s, however, one area in which the Navy was forced to accept compromise was propulsion.
"The only way to meet the requirement was with one engine", says Steve Weatherspoon, Lockheed Martin's Deputy Test Verification officer for the F-35 Integrated Test Force.
Weatherspoon says the Lockheed-led team has worked hard to increase the reliability of the sub-systems surrounding the engine.
For example, the F-35's Integrated Power Package (IPP) provides constant backup power to the control systems, he noted. Similar redundancies are found throughout the aircraft he said, minimizing risks. Weatherspoon also points out that the reliability of single engine fighters has significantly improved in recent years while mishap rates have gone down.
But Lockheed must overcome perceptions of propulsion-induced mishaps accumulated and passed down among naval aviators since World War II. While single engine aircraft have come a long way with regard to reliability, on many occasions the loss of an engine is due to external causes.
During his early years flying with the Navy (piloting the F-14 Tomcat), for instance, the F/A-18 pilot described one particular incident. While aerial refueling the cover for the aircraft's probe broke off on contact with the "basket" and was ingested into an engine -- totally destroying the machinery. "Flames shot out from that engine", he says.
During another incident, he says he had witnessed a Hornet from his air wing land on a carrier with one engine shut down while the other engine, severely damaged, brought the stricken aircraft home. Upon launch from one of the catapults earlier, the aircraft had ingested foreign object debris into both engines. Only the twin-engine configuration had saved the aircraft from disaster, he says.
While the Hornet pilot was less than enthusiastic about the single engine configuration, other facets of the F-35C intrigued him. This was especially true of jet's stealth and sensors.
The conclusion writes itself.
World War II never happened, either.
F-35 is a decent aircraft, F-22 will destroy it but still the F-35 will help against any other nation’s air force at a cheaper cost.
Ideally, he adds, in the event of an engine failure, "flight can easily be maintained at a safe altitude while carrying out emergency procedures".
Ping for later
Yes, well, I'll take the survivability of a multi-row radial over a turbine any day.
This is a bad idea. They can design in all the subsystem hardening they want, but when bad things happen (these are warplanes, after all), some aviator is going for a swim.
On the bright side, my ship was 3 for 3 during planeguard.
meant to say “carrier based” fighter aircraft/ :P
You beat me to it...
What F-22? I thought they’d just cut funding for it... or did they recant? Or is it in limbo? {Ah, the sweet insecurity of bureaucracy. [/sarc]}
F-8 Crusader and A-7 Corsair II had single P&W engines.
Actually, the Navy has been pretty consistent on this point, with regard to design choices. In WWII and into Korea, the Navy chose air-cooled radial engines due to their better ability to survive severe battle damage, compared with the liquid-cooled V-12s. More than a few of those big Pratt & Whitney engines brought fighter planes back from missions with entire cylinders shot away.
It sounds like they’re (media) going after the F35 now that the F22 got axed. Start writing articles explaining how the pilots don’t like the plane, etc. I’m not sure, it’s just something about the negative tone of the article.
I fail to see how any of this could be helped seeing as how the DOD set the requirements for the aircraft. I think they learned their lesson from the F22 and did their best to not change and revise their requirements during development.
The last line of the article does say alot though.
Personally, I tend to agree that if a pilot is over water and has an engine problem, it sure would be nice to have that second one spinning to give him/her a chance.
SZ
ping
Pictures of pilots that were shot down makes a good point. Well done.
I don’t know...I remember hearing the F-35 is a turd 2 years or so ago, long before this mess and while the Raptor was in full swing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.