F-35B will have the most complex single engine for a jet
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 919
- Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
- Location: Canada
Reliability relative to what?
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 01:52
So what single engine fighter do you believe is blessed with the most reliable engine? The MiG-21 perhaps?
The early F-16/F100 years weren't marked by stellar reliability and I don't imagine the JF-17 and J-10 are setting any records. I don't know how the various Dassault products fare, but I honestly suspect the current F-16 versions are somewhat more reliable than the M2000 (because they get a lot more debugging and overall investment due to the larger number in service and successive growth).
I predict there will be several engine-related incidents over the first ten years of service and much hyperbolic press coverage will accompany them. (Twin-engine advocates will crow that the predicted doom has arrived across many a forum.) Then we WILL see the most reliable single-engine fighter engine deliver on its promise reliability. Any new engine takes a little bit of time to get the last kinks worked out, but both Pratt and GE have delivered successively more reliable engines year after year. I see no reason to think the F135 will break that trend.
The early F-16/F100 years weren't marked by stellar reliability and I don't imagine the JF-17 and J-10 are setting any records. I don't know how the various Dassault products fare, but I honestly suspect the current F-16 versions are somewhat more reliable than the M2000 (because they get a lot more debugging and overall investment due to the larger number in service and successive growth).
I predict there will be several engine-related incidents over the first ten years of service and much hyperbolic press coverage will accompany them. (Twin-engine advocates will crow that the predicted doom has arrived across many a forum.) Then we WILL see the most reliable single-engine fighter engine deliver on its promise reliability. Any new engine takes a little bit of time to get the last kinks worked out, but both Pratt and GE have delivered successively more reliable engines year after year. I see no reason to think the F135 will break that trend.
- Senior member
- Posts: 252
- Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 01:18
- Location: Your six-O-clock
hcobb wrote:Raise your hand if you think the F-35B will have the most reliable engine for a single engine jet fighter, as promised.
Your poll dosn't have a yes so I guess it can't be. TSFG
Stealth, so the bad guys don't know your there till they start blowing up. Have a nice day!
- Active Member
- Posts: 171
- Joined: 25 Apr 2009, 04:21
- Location: Chicago
It depends. How good are the engine maintainers in service with your particular country?
hcobb wrote:I meant in relation to other single engine jet fighters. The F-35B adds lots of lovely complexity:
* All that gearing and ductwork.
* Highly weight constrained.
* Using all sorts of brand new processes and materials.
After the development is completed about Block 3.0? The steady-state production should be optimised. Those planes, at that time, will experience IHMO greater reliability than previous single engine fighters. This is enhanced by the new maintenance system "Autonomic Logistics Information System" (ALIS) and Computerized Maintenance Management System which can download and analyze the inflight records from each system. Those A-799 "gripes" (nothing found) can now be identified as "which" loose connection that only occurs above 7gs, etc.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 919
- Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
- Location: Canada
hcobb is right, we should stop developing all new technology!
- Banned
- Posts: 220
- Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
- Location: North California
The absence is tongue in cheek, really.hcobb...is there a reason you won't let anybody vote "yes"?
I personally have grave doubts about how well the F-35B will work, once the Marines get it down in the mud and the gravel.
Surely the same service can not be proudly stating both of these things:
The Marines are planning to use the F-35B from "unimproved surfaces at austere bases" and are preparing landing spots with "special, high-temperature concrete designed to handle the heat from the JSF".
Some of the issues described by hcobb above are overstated. There are quite a few threads on this forum describing how USMC intend to use their F-35Bs both ashore and afloat. Simply put no aircraft does well down in the mud and gravel. So what gives there? The reporter suggesting 'heat issues' for concrete was repeating the self praise of the concreter. That heat issue has been covered in the vertical landing threads. The F-35B heat/exhaust environment is similar to the AV-8b, which is well known to the Marines. They know how to deal with it - even if some find that difficult to understand.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 919
- Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
- Location: Canada
@ hcobb... Because the F-35B has a 450 NM combat radius vs the AV-8B's 300 NM combat radius it is not going to need as austere basing very often. Their aren't very many places in the world that are more then 800 KM away from a paved runway.
Really should have had some "yes" answers in this poll (even if the "yes" came with some caveat's)! I agree with Shaken and alloycowboy all new technology will have it's "teething" phase, but I believe the F-35A & C will prove to have a good single engine track record. And the F-35B will be light years beyond the AV-8 Harriers once they get all the kinks worked out of the lift fan doors, auxiliary air inlets, etc. see http://www.aviationweek.com/media/image ... taway.html
Last edited by FlightDreamz on 31 Dec 2011, 01:39, edited 1 time in total.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests