Posted on 07/13/2010 9:43:54 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The second great engine war, in which we are currently embroiled, offers many components of a fabulous story: national security, jet fighters, three great and combative companies, politicians and congressional experts and lobbyists and lots of cash. (So far we don’t have any sex, but a reporter can only hope.) Into that mix boldly strides a former F-16 pilot who just can’t keep his mouth shut while the second engine for the Joint Strike fighter’s fate is still uncertain. Read Robert Newton’s commentary on why he thinks the F-136 is a must have.
Single engine fighter pilots have a special perspective on their engines. From the life and death nature of their mission to the broader implications on the battle, they count on the engine to get them to the fight and win.
Today there is a dogfight between the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress over the alternative engine program for the largest defense program ever, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
For those of us who lived the F-16 “Viper” experience with the Pratt & Whitney F100 and the General Electric F110 engines, silence is not an option. Too much is at stake and the relevant real-world lessons learned over decades of hard work, billions invested, and successful
(Excerpt) Read more at dodbuzz.com ...
Ping
In the 1990’s I worked with an Air Guard F-16 driver. We flew the Gulfstream for a west coast based company and I woulds ask him on trips we took, to Hawaii, Asia and Europe where we spent a substantial amount of time over water.
I’d ask him how he coped with all that over water time, single engine.
He answered back, prayer... lots of prayer.
Put the AF back in the Army where it belongs (where the fight happens, on the ground).
Take pilots out of the equation. Let advanced electronics fly the AC.
NCO technicians, under the orders of Officers are perfectly capable of winning the Battle for Britan in the skies over Europe, all part of the Army. Which is what happened.
And that setup would work just as well today.
Certain oxes would get gored. I understand that.
Donning a parachute, kevlar overpants, and asbestos underpants in anticipation of the reaction.
/johnny
Ping
The F-100 engine has a pretty good record, as those things go.
I'd rather rely on a properly maintained F-100 engine in an F-16 than say... Anything a democrat says.
Much more reliable.
Statistically speaking.
/johnny
I remember my brother picked up a brand new F-16 in Dallas and was flying it to Germany when the engine started to die. He was able to get to Canada fortunately. He was in Canada for about two weeks, with no warm clothes, while waiting for an engine replacement. The good thing in all of this is he got to fly a Canadian F-18 while he was waiting for his plane to be fixed. He said he loved the plane, enjoyed doing the “funky chicken”.
Engine competition is good.
CAS yes CAP no.....:o)
Who is repsonsible for close air support?
The CO of the guys that is near the gooks.
Who is repsonsible for combat air patrol? Radar, mainly these days, nobody patrols much since WWII and the Brits almost ran out of Spitfires and pilots.
So they used a pre-DEWs system that worked well enough. And sent out pilots in planes as needed.
Overwhelming air superiority can be obtained by several routes.
Putting Christian men into explosive deathtraps seems a little outdated.
But if you are going to do it, don't go McNamara, and give them some damn guns.
/johnny
Goes without saying........
I have to think ROE’s has driven a bunch of bad press against the end users be it any branch of service.
Your always going to have a combat controller / FAC on the ground directing the drops etc in all but extreme cases IMO.
Primary goal for Air be it Navy or USAF in any war is to keep enemy air off the grunts and surface ships. Destroy their airfields and logistical infrastructure to replace it.
Grunts need IMO 10 times as many Apaches or Cobras, A-10 (A1E) style CAS, aka slow movers with lots of loiter and ordnance capacity.
ROE’s are our problems IMO.
What this nation needs to stick to is the 100 hour war. Kick the crap out of em with everything we have and let the UN warm and fuzzy’s clean it up. They get froggy again , stir and repeat the process.
In this day of modern combat you will no doubt the pointy end of the spear has no business in nation building or political peacekeeping/ policing of thrid world shitholes.
But that is a different subject than what we debate here my friend.
I honestly think lots of opinions of late are “Rules of Engagement” driven...... in a very unfair way.
Not the GI’s fault. It’s the political gamers using real lives as their players from the safety of the White House situation room.
Army should not be limited to rotor air resources. Hell I would love as stated to see em with A-10’s and Apaches and UCAV’s as well as AC-130’s. Doctrine is then service related and training is joint service for drivers and the mechanics.
Everything else is a shared NSN catalog and a good supply NCO that knows how to trade paper clips for helicopters.
Just think about my comments regarding ROE’s woes and where the recent advances of technology has been made before we make a change.
Hope yer well.......Stay safe !
They fly over this house daily. And other cool stuff that they have seriously integrated into their boots-vs-boots on the ground philosophy.
That needs studied.
It is past time to have a serious discussion and a probable rethink of how we fight wars, why we fight wars, what is a 'just war' today, and many other things.
I agree with your assesment of a rapid entry, and clear finality to any military goal. 'Carthage delenda est' may need rinse and repeat on other targets today.
How we get there, that needs a serious debate without the fighter mafia controlling the discussion.
/johnny
Yep.....A-10 IMO needs to be part of any services CSAR . I am a big fan of that critter.
It has saved my bacon before.
The AC-130 Gunship is also a key role I would give the Army and Marines.
We always seem to prep for our next fight based on the last fight. That is IMO a massive mistake that costs us each and every time. A basic doctrine / SOP with ability to modify to environment and type of engagement be it low intensity conflict, insurgents / terrorists or all out conventional / nuclear conflict with a standing enemy force HAS to be established under single integrated operating plans for combined forces.
I am sure there is such yet it seems to be only for the guys in the think tank basements with the red staplers who never see the light of day. Polidiots are handed such and toss it aside without thought or care except for their re-election and public / world opinion.
A shame........
oh well........nite JRF !
"The difference between then an now is that we are moving toward a TACAIR fleet comprise almost entirely of F-35s. What does this mean? First you are handing a monopoly over to P&W if you go the one engine route. WIth little R&D money going out to anything but the F135 GE may be unable to fully compete for future military fighter attack engine competitions (assuming that something comes after F-35)."
"Next, a single engine problem no longer affect a single service. So if the Air Force is going through a major engine problem then the Navy can't pick up the slack as easily. They too will have aircraft availability problems."
"Lastly in that single service, as previosly pointed out, the F-15s could with P&W engines could pick up the slack for an F-16 GE fleet with a problem or vice versa. With so few F-22s that's not a realistic option for the USAF. The Navy will have F/A-18E/F/Gs, but if "Gen 5" is so indespensible they'll be SOL for the tougher missions."
"So is it worth $2.9B of development costs to get an F136 qualified on a program with 2443 aircraft to avoid monopoly price gouging, keep the supplier base, and mitigate the problems caused by a single engine TACAIR fleet? When you consider that no one cared when the program went $150B to $180B over budeget , this is a drop in the bucket that provides many benefits in my opinion."
Single Engine Aircraft Training: If you have enough altitude and airspeed, you can always make it to the scene of the crash if your engine quits.
Monopoly bad, competition good. Establishing performance criteria, sticking to them and saving money better.
but
Two is one and one is none when it comes to engines in combat aircraft that have the glide slope of a brick or that fly over water. We did it for a long time with the A-4, F-8, A-7 and older aircraft but we didn’t like it.
In another article you posted, it was noted that the F35’s were grounded while P&W fixed a defective turbine blade design. With an alternate engine, the Flt Testing program could have moved forward while Pratt figured it out.
Same if it had happened with a GE engine.
I heard a pretty offensive radio ad yesterday where UTC (parent co. of P&W) was chastising Congress for moving forward with an alternate engine at the expense of the troops on the ground.
Essentially saying that troops were gonna die because $$’s that could be used to buy them equipment was going to be spent on the second engine.
One thing to keep in mind, this program is attempting to manage a supply chain in a Real Time Delivery method. Essentially, the jet reports its problem and the part is waiting for it when it lands. Also, deployable footprint is another consideration. The amount of airlift you’d need to move alternate pieces of support equipment is a factor as well.
The F16’s, with their two engine types, managed quite nicely, I suppose similar methods could be used for the F35’s.
One poster mentioned another service being able to pick up some slack if one service’s engine is having problems. This was a concept that was used on the Navy F18 and USAF F117 program. Both used the F404 engine, the Navy had the AB, but the basic engine was the same. We shared information, parts, some costs and even used the NADEP JAX facility to overhaul our engines. It worked very well.
Twin Engine Aircraft Training: If one of your engines quits, the other one will make sure you're first to arrive at the scene of the crash.
There is nothing wrong with the F-35 original engine. The engine has become a political issue.
Ping
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.