Originally posted by Jetjock
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
New Scorpion Fighter Jet Finally Within IAC Budget Perhaps
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostAre you taking the piss or what? Why would we need a navalised variant?'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html
- Likes 1
Comment
-
My opinion is that we are an island nation, in the North Atlantic. I would not like to be a pilot going up there in a single engine jet. Two engines would be a necessity. The Rafale offers the best capabilities in terms of range, speed, radar suite and cost. No need to be a condescending a**What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ODIN View PostMy opinion is that we are an island nation, in the North Atlantic. I would not like to be a pilot going up there in a single engine jet. Two engines would be a necessity. The Rafale offers the best capabilities in terms of range, speed, radar suite and cost. No need to be a condescending a**
Comment
-
Originally posted by hptmurphy View PostNo one is going anywhere with F35s of late given there all on the deck after a series of engine fires.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ODIN View PostMy opinion is that we are an island nation, in the North Atlantic. I would not like to be a pilot going up there in a single engine jet. Two engines would be a necessity. The Rafale offers the best capabilities in terms of range, speed, radar suite and cost. No need to be a condescending a**
To address the two v one engine debate: Firstly engine reliability is massively improved over the last 75 years of jet flight. The probability of a catostrophic sudden engine failure during the cruise segment, typically where overwater flight occurs is nearly zero. If a problem did manifest during cruise the rarity of it being an immediate total failure is hard to overstate. The take off and approach segments carry higher risk but even then the probability is very remote. This is when the engines hit high power for the first time or are in danger of ingestion of a bird or other debris. Both of these segments occur over land.
Furthermore take a look at what other countries with over water intercept operations deep into the Atlantic fly and you'll find Norway, The Netherlands, Portugal all operate single engine F-16s. The first two have also ordered the F-35.
Finally, if you are as yet unconvinced rest easy: there has never been a Saab Gripen lost to engine failure. In over 20 years of front line operations. (Just don't let your rarely flying high ranking officers sign them out for a jolly as the Hungarians have recently found out, but that applies to any type).
If you really must insist on a twin engine type that would drive the cost past the prohibitive threshold, both the initial outlay and the hourly cost. Gripen is roughly €4250 per hour to operate . Miserly, affordable and realistic. Rafale for comparison costs €13700.
The statistics don't support the cost differential.Last edited by Jetjock; 20 June 2015, 02:59.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
-
Any air force that operates a single engined fighter (or any other single engined type) has already made the mental leap that there will be a loss rate thru engine failure and the belief is that the system will cope, unless the loss rate become unbearable in aircraft and human terms (see Indian AF Mig -21s as an example. Chronic loss rate despite huge improvement in engine life). As JJ pointed out, modern engines are so reliable that air arms are prepared to take on and use single engined aircraft for duties previously considered the province of twins, such as Caravans and PC-12s. It's essentially a toss-up between operating costs for a twin-engined aircraft and potential loss rate.
Comment
-
Danish and Norwegian F-16's fly waaaaaaaaaay out into the north Atlantic when chasing BEAR's and BLACKJACK's, both from home and from Iceland. single engine reliability just isn't an issue.
the Czechs have already done an Icelandic deployment with Gripens, and Sweden and Finland have decided that they too will do a deployment (i think its been done actually..), presumably with Gripens and F-16's.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Afterburners
Originally posted by ropebag View PostDanish and Norwegian F-16's fly waaaaaaaaaay out into the north Atlantic when chasing BEAR's and BLACKJACK's, both from home and from Iceland. single engine reliability just isn't an issue.
the Czechs have already done an Icelandic deployment with Gripens, and Sweden and Finland have decided that they too will do a deployment (i think its been done actually..), presumably with Gripens and F-16's.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostThe M346, of course has two engines and can be fitted with whatever including radar. The mach 1.2 capability without afterburners means in flight refuelling, although available on the aircraft isnt as critical as it would be with a mach2 aircraft. It is stated to be as near the real thing as to be capable of frontline counter insurgency and ground attack. The endurance is higher than would ever be used in any kind of fighter operations. Our needs are PDF support and chasing intruders.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
@ropebag, they are confident enough to fly single-engine overwater because they are constantly monitoring the aircraft on radar and the aircraft's data is fed live back to base so that any glitch that shows up can generate an instant recall or diversion. This does not mean that they haven't had close calls (same with the Don and the PC-9s) and I recall several conversations with former fast jet pilots who came very close to losing the aircraft because of engines running down or showing hydraulic or fuel failures. At least NATO pilots know that any unfavourable event over water will generate a quick SAR response. It's the age-old tradeoff between utility and loss rate per thousands of flight hours.
Comment
Comment