Single engine fighters have much better short-term acceleration over two engine, which could make a difference in a dog fight.
Now, whether dog fights matter, well...
Also, two engines means more maintenance hours per every hour in the air, but I guess that could be filed under the poor excuse since it's balanced out by just having a larger fleet and more mechanics on hand.
>>28878951 Yep. For starters, a single engine is far easier to maintain. It is cheaper. It generally speaking uses less fuel. If you have a light enough plane, you don't need two engines. There is such a thing as too much thrust. Once you go over a certain level excess thrust isn't very useful for maneuvering.
So, generally speaking, if a single engine can provide the same performance that two engines can, you want to go with the single engine.
>>28878951 Sweden made Gripen with one engine to keep it small (they want to be able to operate from strips of highway and Gripen already has a maximum load of some 5 metric tons of munitions), sure FiAF operates twin-engine Hornets from highways as well, but that's besides the point.
>>28878951 >Is there any reason to build single engine fighters over two engine other than "My nation is too poor to afford it"? Single engine planes are cheaper. But you pay in performance and reliability department.
When that since engine dies, the whole plane is lost.
Also, heavy, single engine planes, really suck at dogfighting. That's why F-35 maneuvers like a fucking rock.
If you can achive enough thrust with a single engine you should use one if not then two. Single engine is cheaper, lighter and requiers less room and maintanence. So you could make the plane smaller or use the leftover room for fuel.
>>28879211 In the old days people just didn't really care if jets crashed; that's what ejector seats were for. These days we're more anal retentive about safety, but engines have also become much more reliable since the start of the 90s thanks to CAD and simulations (and new materials science).
Because when the Raptor was introduced, it was 30 years ahead of everything else and the us government wanted to guard that power like a hawk.
Now the circumstances have changed. The DoD wants to give 5th generation fighters to all of America's strategic partners so we can all fighter together as an unstoppable team if the need were to arise.
>>28879550 Because anyone with a maintenance laptop can copy+paste the F-22's software and run off with it, whereas the F-35's is fully encrypted. Also, because F-22 production (and the hopes of selling it to others) was cancelled before the world knew that the T-50 and J-20 were about to be put into production / testing.
>>28879584 from what I have heard things went like this: Japan: "We'd like to buy Raptor, pretty plz?" USA: "No, how about you buy Lightning II instead?" Japan: "Fuck Lightning II, if we can't have Raptor we will be building our own 5th gen"
>>28878951 A "poor" military spending doesn't necessarily mean that a nation will get shittier aircraft. It's not like an individual buying a car, and having to get the cheaper option over the more expensive one. Hell, even NK has Su-35s in the pipe. A shit nation with shit military spending is, however, going to get far fewer expensive aircraft.
Single engine fighters have the primary advantage of being cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. This benefit alone far outweighs the practical disadvantages of single engine designs when compared to two engines. This makes them far more cost effective. So instead of having 254 F-15s, the US can, for a slightly higher cost, have 701 F-16s. There's a pretty obvious bonus to having double or even triple the number of planes. Sometimes Quantity > Quality.
Single engine fighters have a lot of other advantages too inherent to the design. Faster maintenance means less downtime for each bird, smaller size, better aerodynamics, etc
>>28879642 if you say so, I don't really care as long as our 200 idiots who other idiots voted for don't get blinded by hype from Locheed-Martin when it's time to find a replacement for F/A-18C/D, plenty of countries are replacing their current fighters with Gripen NG around the same time...
>>28879694 some Hornet operators have made that decision, yes, but it doesn't mean others have to follow suit.
>>28879695 our airforce will probably want to have the option of using highways to quickly refuel and rearm fighters in future as well, F-35's weight and the fact that all munitions are in internal bays might make that challenging. Gripen is faster than Hornet, carries almost as much munitions and was specifically designed to operate from highway bases
>>28879719 plus with Gripens if we were to suddenly need say 10 replacements, they could be dusted off and flown directly from Flygvapnet's storage facilities to our air bases (the Swedes have plenty of older Gripens in reserves ready to be upgraded & leased to other countries as needed), replacement F-35s would almost certainly have to come from USA.
>>28879770 let's see, a country operating Hornets within ferry range from Sweden, that's a tough one, there neighborhood has like...Norway (F-16)...Denmark (F-16)...Germany (Eurofighter)...Netherlands (F-16)...UK (Eurofighter)...
>>28879820 there are exactly three countries operating Hornets in Europe, Spain operates F/A-18A/B and will probably replace them with Eurofighters, Switzerland which operates C/D just like Finland seems to have already decided to acquire Gripen NG (although it would replace F-5 rather than Hornet), so there really isn't any other choice but Finland.
>>28879152 most of the time in a twin-engined fighter, if one engine dies the whole plane is still lost. Because in modern engines in modern jets flying at high speeds, a failure will often be catastrophic. Also, with two engines, you have more probability of a failure.
And the F-35 is comparable in maneuverability to the F/A-18 but with better acceleration. Says the people who fly it. So gtfo with your Pierre Sprey shit posting. What next, you're gonna call it a turkey?
>>28879233 that now-infamous test wasn't a dogfight simulation. They were testing the high AoA control laws in the FBW system of the F-35, which had some issues. So yeah, the F-35 spent the whole fight at lower energy because it was purposefully trying to make tons of high AoA turns to test the controls.
Also, the F-16 on internal fuel has a third the range of the F-35. So let's either load up an F-16 with enough fuel tanks to equal the F-35, or run the F-35 on a 1/3rd fuel load and have an actual dogfight test. I bet the F-35 at least equals it.
>>28879460 and what's your source saying the F-35 isn't maneuverable? Pierre Sprey? John Boyd? War is Boring? lol
>>28879719 the F-35B has STOVL. infinitely better for highway operations than any non-STOVL plane.
>>28880589 empty weight of an F-35 is almost the same as a Gripen.
inb4 you say "but carrying fuel and weapons it is heavier!!!", because having the ability to carry more is somehow a bad thing when if it needed to, it could just take a light load when using a highway.
and who says rearming an internal bay takes significantly more time?
Seriously, with a STOVL plane, forget highway operations, you could operate out of a fucking parking lot.
F-35 is about as heavy empty as Gripen is at max take off.
F-35A empty : 13.1 tons Gripen MTOW : 14 tons
B and C are actually heavier than Gripen MTOW empty.
If there is one thing to be said about the F-35 is that it is not a light plane, and Gripen is a very light plane. To give you an idea of how big the difference is, F-35 carries an empty Gripen in internal fuel.
>>28880621 ok, so you've now moved the goalposts twice. First you said that the gripen would be better at operating from highways. When I pointed out that STOVL is great for highways, you then tried to say that the F-35 was too heavy. When I pointed out that the F-35 weighs about the same as the Gripen, you are now saying that it would burn more fuel to use the F-35 on highways with STOVL. Got a source for that?
>>28880634 actually I thought the weight limit was obvious from the beginning, so mentioning that didn't change anything.
as for the STOVL, it's a fact that vertical take-off and landing uses way more fuel that CTOL, there's a reason why only three countries have developed VTOL/STOVL -aircraft & why only countries with aircraft carriers operate them.
>>28880669 >fair enough. I don't know how important highway operation is to Finnish doctrine, so idk how much that will factor in.
when WWII started & before we were pulled into it our fighter squadrons were already dispersed on three or four airfields each to make sure the enemy couldn't take them all out with a single strike: we fully expect the enemy to destroy our regular air bases and/or any air fields capable of servicing fighters in the opening hours of an open conflict, there are dozens of strips of highways all across the country designated as highway bases & operations on them are practiced every year.
Just saying, out of the latest four Hornet crashes, three of them were almost certainly engine failures. Two of those were catastrophic, one killing the pilot and the other blowing up on the deck of a carrier injuring 11.
>>28879695 I just remembered: one of the options for F/A-18 C/Ds' replacement is F/A-18 E/F "Super Hornet", while the argument over "Gripen vs F-35" can be carried out to no end, "Super Hornet vs. Gripen" is another matter, while FiAF does use arrestor cables in highway bases just in case, the strips are long enough that the cables are just that: a precautionary measure.
>>28881352 dunno, I am Army LCpl, I figure since there's no shortage of runway in highway bases & the list of potential contenders includes aircraft that lack arrestor hooks that the presence of the hook isn't a deciding factor, we certainly managed to do without before we bought Hornet (the practice of using highway bases was already established when our fighter fleet consisted of MiGs and Drakens)
>>28881518 the F-35 started out as a STOVL aircraft. From the very beginning. It wasn't some compromise just to make the marines happy.
It just turned out that the aircraft was so good and the idea of having one aircraft for all branches was so good for production that they said "hey, we can turn this thing into an airforce and navy plane"
>>28881395 Both 21's and Drakens however used dragchutes.
From the list of current contenders for FiAF only F-35 needs to be modified with a stopping device. Gripen doesn't need one, EF has chute and F-15, SuperDuper Hornet and Rafale come with hooks (F-15's is a less robust emergency only version tho)
>>28881554 1) modern engines have exceptional mechanical reliability 2) human maintenance errors are way more prevalent 3) twice the engines means at least twice the amount of failures 4) F-16's with one F100 engine have significantly less accidents and failures than the F-15's with two F100's. 5) if one engine fails in a modern jet, it is rare for them to be able to return on a single engine
Well no, JAST was only considering having a STO/VL version when Congress merged the Darpa STO/VL program into it.
F-35 A and C could probably benefit a decent bit from not having the B variant designed. Even thou the lift fan space is used for extra fuel, there's probably a better use to that space or not needing it to be that big to start.
>>28881563 fair enough, in any case I still vote for Gripen, though I wouldn't say anything if they chose Super Hornet, Rafale looks cool but I am suspicious since it has lost almost all competitions it has entered, F-15 is easily oldest of the bunch and after all the flak Eurofighter has received I am not exactly a fan, looks like it's just a 4th gen version of the sad story that is JSF -program...
>>28881609 well yeah, but that was pretty much before any prototypes were made.
How would the fuselage look any different without the lift fan? It needs to be a certain width due to the weapons bay and the engine and the cockpit, and the fuselage needs to be a certain length for aerodynamic reasons.
People keep saying that the A and C would be better without the B, but they never say how.
>>28881629 Super Hornet as is doesn't really offer anything new, just a slightly bigger air frame, and given its small and soon to be dwindling customer base even an updated version F-15E would make far more sense as it has at least had few recent customers who would be sharing the cost of future updating of the platform.
>>28881609 >F-35 A and C could probably benefit a decent bit from not having the B variant designed. Even thou the lift fan space is used for extra fuel, there's probably a better use to that space or not needing it to be that big to start. The benefit would be marginal at best. The only reason the A/STOVL program was folded into the JAST in the first place was because Lockheed's new lift fan system provided a way to retain a conventional layout with minimal drawbacks for a non-STOVL derivative.
>F-35 A and C could probably benefit a decent bit from not having the B variant designed.
Nope. I'm convinced that even if the B never existed, never was conceived, never ordered, never funded, the marines don't even have aviation, no actually they USMC doesn't even exist, then the F-35A and C would look extremely similar to how they look now.
If you're building a stealth fighter, your options for shaping are very constrained. That's why the J-31 ends up looking so much like the F-35 when you put them up against each other (except you can always tell which is the J-31 from the ploom of smoke behind it) .
The F-35 is fat because it can internally hold two 2000 lb bombs + two AIM-120s for an air-to-ground loadout. The F-22 cannot do that. It can carry two extra missiles though, which is a nice feature for a dedicated ASF, but the F-35 is more versatile and can carry a wider variety of ordinance internally. I know that people say they want it to look more like the F-16 but that's an aesthetic thing. A slimmer body would not be consistent with the needs of a stealth fighter which needs to be able to carry a substantial load of ordinance and fuel internally.
>>28879006 That's why you control speed while maneuvering dumb ass. There is no such thing as too much high end until you start ripping the plane apart. More speed decreases your time in danger zones and increases your missile range.
>>28882196 >I'm convinced that even if the B never existed, never was conceived, never ordered, never funded, the marines don't even have aviation, no actually they USMC doesn't even exist, then the F-35A and C would look extremely similar to how they look now.
Redesign the F-35A into a superior version. It must carry the exact same amount of fuel and ordinance. Same fuel fraction as well, because increased range was one of core objectives of the JSF project.
No matter what, the result is going to end up looking extremely similar to the F-35A, because form follows function.
>Yes, you shall be the victor here unless someone can design for you what took professional companies decades to produce.
That's kind of the point. Of course you can't come up with better design than Lockheed-Martin, a professional aerospace corporation with a stock value of $207.70 USD per share. So then you should trust LM to do a good job and stop worrying so much.
>>28879019 Yes, but there is a law of diminishing returns. You can only push an engine so hard, and you can only push 2 engines so hard, and after a while if you keep adding more engines you find the peak performance plateauing.
two engines times zero chance of mechanical failure is still zero. But two engines equals twice the chances of human error happening. So with modern engines that push mechanical reliability to extremely high levels, human error becomes the primary cause of failures, which means 2 engines is more
>>28881990 I think that one of the main reasons for the replacement in mid-2020s is the wear and tear of the current C/D -airframes, though since I am no expert on maintenance of modern fighter aircraft I can only speculate as to how long an F/A-18C/D -airframe can keep up with constant use, from what I have heard FiAF's fighter pilots' training pushes the limits of both the pilots *and* the airframes pretty much until something gives in.
/k/, I got a question to ask ITT >How many instances of fighters with two engines returning to base with only one engine functional exist? For me that would sum up the thread nicely. Everything but that scenario can be worked around before the plane is even built. Two engines are only better than one if the plane is built around having two engines. You couldn't just strap a second engine onto a fighter and claim it's better.
>>28884207 >what is a lifting body design worse than having a (better shaped) lifting body and/or a larger wing. other than the extra lift, you'd have more space for fuel and won't have to resort to hax like fuel tanks in tailplanes.
>>28885040 >comparing passenger jet turbine engines to afterburning turbofans
No. Comparing one engine to two identical engines. Or two to four. The MTBFs are different between the different types, but the effect of one failure among N identical, redundant units is proportionally similar.
You guys have really driven the point home when I asked that. It's pretty clear that the advantage of "getting back on one engine if one engine fails" falls flat on its ass all too often and is not really an advantage at all. It might be different in older piston operated bombers where a catastrophic engine failure won't compromise the plane but we're talking fighters, and engine failures do compromise the plane.
So as far as I'm concerned if you can get the needed thrust out of one engine, use one engine. There isn't really an advantage to using two.
>>28881150 Are you counting the one that lost both engines and plowed into an apartment building in Virginia? There were no fatalities, but if I remember correctly the cause of the crash was a complete loss of power after one engine failed catastrophically and took the other with it.
When your statement is "This gun has had zero accidents" it's perfectly acceptable to counter with "That gun only shoots after extensive maintenance before and after, and it's never been in a combat situation"
Fuck off with your I'm too smart for you shit, faggot
This right here is the problem. The navy wants a twin engine plane, but they're getting a F-35 if they want to or not. I'm not going to argue about the merits of the F-35, but it's not ideal and it's not "exactly what the navy wants". They probably just want a more technology advanced Super Hornet, really.
F-35 to supplement that in smaller carriers, to escort and provide multi-role capability. Super Hornets for carrying big fat ASMs and doing long range interception
>>28885431 I wasn't the same as the guy who posted the picture of the SAAB-shit, I was the guy above.
I think what you're saying is retarded, it's a claim that is totally ridiculous because these weapon systems are REGULARLY trained with, and operationally they're totally functional. You don't need to be constantly invading people to provide proof that your equipment functions properly. ????
Passenger jet engines are much more reliable in terms of failures per flight hour. How many military jets operate continuously for days at a time with only a short turn around to load/unload passengers.
And maintenance errors are rare as well. Screw-ups by mechanics are well documented, attract FAA attention and can risk getting a maintenence facilities operating permit pulled.
>>28885367 That falls into the "design a fighter around two engines" category. It too will fall flat on its ass if a fighters "good" engine can't handle a "bad" engine failing, which is almost always the case. In this entire thread, we have one confirmed case where a twin engine jet lost one engine and survived long enough to get home. On the flip side, there are far more cases where a twin engine fighter is lost because of a failure in a single engine that would take out a single engine fighter anyway.
I get it. The navy's done their homework. They're worried about their pilots and logically two engines are better than one when shit gets bad. All they need to do now is design a fighter that can actually survive losing a single engine, which hasn't happened yet.
>>28885449 From what I can find online, (which I had difficulty with for the Super Hornet for some reason) Max Takeoff weight - empty weight = liftin' potential Super Hornet: 66,000 - 32,000 = 34,000 lbs F35 A: 70,000 - 29098 = 40,902 lbs
I can't find info for the B & C, and couldn't find "loaded weight" for the superhornet. But according to this, the F35 can lift ~7,000 more pounds. I think the F-35B has a max takeoff weight of 60,000, so it would still only be lifting ~3,000 lbs less than the Super Hornet.
>>28885449 >I'm not going to argue about the merits of the F-35, but it's not ideal and it's not "exactly what the navy wants". They probably just want a more technology advanced Super Hornet, really. There is some truth in what you are saying there - of all the services Navy is prioritizing it the least. AF is salivating for theirs and USMC is already sprouting a willy about being able to have an actual decent fighter on their LH* instead of the ancient subsonic attacker they are retiring. And Navy certainly does love their Super Bugs, but you are a bit off in saying the Navy doesn't want F-35. If having a VLO deck fighter to take over the role of legacy Hornet wasn't needed, Navy would have pulled out of the program long ago and there would be no F-35C.
Here's what it offers that branch: it's VLO and it's available now. F-18 airframe is not suited to a full VLO redesign. UCLASS won't be available for a while and for now it appears to be turning into an unmanned refueller instead of an actual combat drone. That leaves F-35C, and Navy has chosen to go with it. If the threat situation advances to the point where Navy wants to have an all-VLO fighter fleet, they will need something to replace the Super Bug. Until then, the F-18/F-35 combo looks to be an efficient* way of balancing capabilities available to the CSG.
>>28885156 exactly. On old prop planes especially, sure, they could easily survive a single engine failing.
Yes, if you can get the thrust you need out of one engine, use one.
>>28885316 >low wing loading beats lifint body at what?
>>28885322 passenger jets are designed to be great gliders. Long thing wings, long narrow bodies, etc. TOTALLY different designs from fighter jets.
>>28885367 except the navy has used plenty of single-engine fighters in history.
Again, things change with changing technology. engines today are different from engines in the 70's.
>>28885369 it's not fucking magic. Just look at the pictures and dimensions of the aircraft. People saying it's "fat" are just fucking retards. It is a small single-engine stealth fighter. It has the same kind of shape as an F-22, but smaller because it's one engine.
>>28885779 what's your point? And why are you obsessed with wing loading?
>>28885890 the northrop 6th gen proposal probably has 2 engines just because it's going to be a bigger aircraft than the F-35, not because of some magical navy need for two engines despite a single engine being more reliable.
it has a TWR comparable to other fighter jets. Also, when looking up TWRs, be aware that the F-35 often looks like it has a lower TWR than other jets because it carries much more internal fuel (proportionally). So sure, a fully loaded F-35 has a lower TWR than other aircraft, but that's because it's carrying as much fuel as those aircraft loaded down with a full load of fuel tanks. Stick those fuel tanks on the other aircraft and their performance greatly drops, not just in TWR but in maneuvering ability too.
For example, a clean F-16 has around 1/3rd the range of a clean F-35. So load an F-35 with a 1/3rd internal fuel load and then compare the two in a dogfight.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.