Navy retires F/A-18C Hornet from combat as F-35C nears operational status

Article:

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-retires-f-a-18c-hornet-from-combat-as-f-35c-nears-operational-status-1.522981 (dated 20 April 2018 )

So I guess the Super Hornet wont be simulated - or declassified - by ED until the E/F's are, too, close to retirement from active military operations..?:noexpression:

The Navy certainly got it's money's worth with the C. It was a very reliable plane when I flew her. It was rare to hear of a mech failure with the plane even though I experienced one myself.

I would imagine it is easier to get more accurate data now that the C is no longer a main-line fighter.

Creating an accurate rhino-sim with available public data would be hard.

.... It was rare to hear of a mech failure with the plane even though I experienced one myself.

I will never forget 18s doing a show of force in afghan at around 500 AGL, those gun runs and bombing runs will forever be fond in my memory.

Qualified Airframes are going to Cecil to be reborn as F/A-18C+.

The rest will be scrapped for spare parts for the A+ And Cs they have sitting on the ramp.

Still seems a little silly to me having to go with a single engine jet for the Navy. I know I would rather have the backup when flying around out in the middle of the ocean.:cry:

Definitely have an epirb strapped to my ass.

The Navy's F-35s Finally Have a Deployment Date

.

Well the T-45 is a training aircraft so your not really flying miles and miles into battle and then back again. The only one in your list I would be more happy flying is the AV-8. The it's OK statistics from the rest were OK I guess? Unless you were one of the statistics that is.:cry:

"Significantly more reliable" I know right! I would just rather 2 that's all and we are talking a singe "turbofan with afterburner" engine here with the F35.

What would have happen in this situation below with just one? Apu and highway landing and at sea? I know the Navy may have better or more inspections, still S happens sometimes. Did you remember to tighten that nut or clamp? After working 12 hour shifts 7 days a week.

.

Still seems a little silly to me having to go with a single engine jet for the Navy. I know I would rather have the backup when flying around out in the middle of the ocean.:cry:

Definitely have an epirb strapped to my ass.

 

The Navy's F-35s Finally Have a Deployment Date

 

.

Ahhhh, the old 2 is better then one argument. The reliability of the F-16 puts that to bed!

Ahhhh, the old 2 is better then one argument. The reliability of the F-16 puts that to bed!

Quite sure even neofightr mentioned here that even he saw a few single engine F/A-18 landings on the carrier in his time. Like I said they are reliable these days, I would just prefer two, out in the ocean.

.

Quite sure even neofightr mentioned here that even he saw a few single engine F/A-18 landings on the carrier in his time. Like I said they are reliable these days, I would just prefer two, out in the ocean.

 

.

Yeah, but that aircraft more or less exists already - it's called the F22. The second engine adds to the price tag, and we all saw how that one went (hugely capable but also expensive jet, tiny fleet size) :closedeyes:

I believe the F-16 is not comparable here since it does not operate from carriers where like (guesswork) 50-100% of your fuel is spent flying overwaters with no real emergency landing sites around. That‘s quite different with land-based Vipers and other single engine jets.

And even though it is absolutely true that engine reliability has come a long way, still there is a reason why the civil aviation has something like ETOPS (or EROPS if you wish) in place when planning to go long-range without any suitabke landing sites reachable within 1-hour. Just check websites like avherald.com and you will find out how many engine shutdowns occur every week. And we‘re not talking about high-performance afterburner engines that are flown in extreme conditions...

Also, I doubt that is the second engine that drovevthe F-22 costs up. There is a mulitude of reasons, one which you already mentioned is the largely reduced fleet size. Would there have been 200+ B-2s built, the price for a single one would be far away from the 1 billion, mainly because you simply divide your development and certifications costs by 200 iso 20.

Ahhhh, the old 2 is better then one argument. The reliability of the F-16 puts that to bed!

Evidently, you weren't paying attention to the news during the early 2000s. The vipers were falling out of the sky due to a mysterious engine failure rate. I lived near there at the time so I was watching it unfold. Pilots had no choice but to eject. I think it had something to do with the oil system.

In the one eng failure I witnessed with the hornet, the pilot had no issues bringing her back on the other engine. Needless to say millions saved.

I have discussed the two-engine philosophy at leangth in other threads. The only reason Navy has a single-engine jet as the future mainline FA for service is due to money.

No self-respecting naval aviator would pick a single-engine over a two-engine design. Even the marines wanted to go away from it due to lessons learned with the harrier.

Bottom line: money

Yeah, but that aircraft more or less exists already - it's called the F22. The second engine adds to the price tag, and we all saw how that one went (hugely capable but also expensive jet, tiny fleet size) :closedeyes:

Cost had everything to do with the single-engine F35 because the original plans set back in the 90s were to have dual-engine variants for the marines and navy and a single engine for the AF. Since the AF variant came online first and was way over budget the other services had no choice but to settle on a compromise and use the established AF variant as their baseline for the program to continue.

Bottome line: cost is what forced the single-engine design.

The costs of the F22 was way more than just the extra engine. It had to do with the cutting edge performance requirements. The F22 is still the best out there not only because of the powerful engines but everything else it has going for it (cutting edge avionics, airframe design etc).

There is no way the the given F22 design could have been made with one engine. Performance would have tanked.

I believe the F-16 is not comparable here since it does not operate from carriers where like (guesswork) 50-100% of your fuel is spent flying overwaters with no real emergency landing sites around. That‘s quite different with land-based Vipers and other single engine jets......

You are correct. By definition bluewater operations indicates there are no alternate airfields for the carrier aircraft so during an engine emergency, any single engine aircraft has one decision to make, eject if the engine does not have enough power due to damage etc.

Whereas two-engine aircraft have options and a decent chance of bringing the plane back onboard the ship depending on engine damage.

These scenarios do not apply to air forces because there is always an alternate airfield in friendly territory so if the engine can be handled correctly buying time there is a chance to land at a close by airfield.

Cost had everything to do with the single-engine F35 because the original plans set back in the 90s were to have dual-engine variants for the marines and navy and a single engine for the AF. Since the AF variant came online first and was way over budget the other services had no choice but to settle on a compromise and use the established AF variant as their baseline for the program to continue.

 

Bottome line: cost is what forced the single-engine design.

 

 

The costs of the F22 was way more than just the extra engine. It had to do with the cutting edge performance requirements. The F22 is still the best out there not only because of the powerful engines but everything else it has going for it (cutting edge avionics, airframe design etc).

 

There is no way the the given F22 design could have been made with one engine. Performance would have tanked.

Cutting Edge Avionics that isnt compatible w/ today's weapons due to the 80s processors

Cutting Edge Avionics that isnt compatible w/ today's weapons due to the 80s processors

The F18C had "cutting edge" avionics based on 80s processors and I watched them get upgraded all the time.

One of the major reasons of the limited inventory of F22s was because of the foreseen upgrade costs for the avionics which was more of a priority then increasing the inventory.

Doesn't this post belong in the "reality" section of the forums?

The costs of the F22 was way more than just the extra engine. It had to do with the cutting edge performance requirements. The F22 is still the best out there not only because of the powerful engines but everything else it has going for it (cutting edge avionics, airframe design etc).

Also, I doubt that is the second engine that drovevthe F-22 costs up. There is a mulitude of reasons, one which you already mentioned is the largely reduced fleet size. Would there have been 200+ B-2s built, the price for a single one would be far away from the 1 billion, mainly because you simply divide your development and certifications costs by 200 iso 20.

Not saying that the second engine is what drove F22 costs up so dramatically (of course not - there were many contributing factors) simply pointing out (as Neofightr has) that a twin engine alternative would probably have been even more costly than the F35C. You're essentially talking about either a Raptor derivative or a clean sheet design with all the inevitable teething issues and cost overruns that would have entailed.

"The reliability of the F-16 puts that to bed!"

Sure, except if you read any bios or auto bio's of USAF guys who have had to fly across a "pond" you'll always come across blurbs about them worrying about an engine failure before reaching an island outpost base, or sour tankers/bad probes, and imagining noises from underneath because they sweated their one engine crapping out. GE makes a fine engine, but the ol' two vs one argument still stands...IF you are cross oceanic AND your only engine fails you're swimming for it.

Simple; ask any pilot if he prefers a 2 engine or 1 engine if his plane is to fly over oceans.

I venture to bet that almost all pilots would choose a 2-engine fighter; Cost of plane design notwithstanding, including (supposed) MTBF of 1-engine designs.

Simple; ask any pilot if he prefers a 2 engine or 1 engine if his plane is to fly over oceans.

 

I venture to bet that almost all pilots would choose a 2-engine fighter; Cost of plane design notwithstanding, including (supposed) MTBF of 1-engine designs.

When the choice, realistically, is between a brand new F35C and a geriatric legacy Hornet, though, I suspect the 2 engine fighter might not win out quite so much... ;)

When the choice, realistically, is between a brand new F35C and a geriatric legacy Hornet, though, I suspect the 2 engine fighter might not win out quite so much... ;)

I get that. The "boy" in any navy pilot dictates he will be very eager to get his hands on a cutting-edge fighter, single -engine or not. ;)

I was actually referring to the new design for both a 1 and 2 engine fighter, pilot input paramount in design.

Cost not being a factor in such designs choosing between 1 or 2 engines for aircraft over big ponds...

Alas, it usually is a compromise between higher risk for the pilot and less costly design methods. Supposedly the higher tolerance standards and MTBF's of single engine craft has increased. And they have.

Much like having a modern single HDD; having zero redundancy on backup when your Western Digital/Seagate spiffy new drive fails ... ;)

I get that. The "boy" in any navy pilot dictates he will be very eager to get his hands on a cutting-edge fighter, single -engine or not. ;)

 

I was actually referring to the new design for both a 1 and 2 engine fighter, pilot input paramount in design.

 

Cost not being a factor in such designs choosing between 1 or 2 engines..

 

Alas, it usually is a compromise between higher risk for the pilot and lesst costly design methods. Supposedly the highe tolerance standards and MTBF's of single engine craft has increased.

 

Much like having a single HDD ad having zero redundancy on backup when your Western Digital/Seagate driv fails... ;)

More like getting the latest M.2 drive with no backup, she's fast, top of the range, the only problem is I ran out of money for a backup drive. :)

We have ETOPS for a reason when ocean flying for safety.

Quote

ETOPS stands for Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards, a rule which permits twin engine aircrafts to fly routes which, at some point, is more than 60 minutes flying time away from the nearest airport suitable for emergency landing. ETOPS may also be interpreted as Engines Turn or Passengers Swim. love that last line LOL link

"For the aircraft, the manufacturer must demonstrate that flying with only one engine is relatively easy for the flight crew, safe for the airframe, and an extremely remote event."

So no self-respecting Naval Aviator would choose to fly the Crusader, Scooter, or Corsair? What about all those single-engine piston fighters the navy flew in WWII? Were they terrible, unsafe fighters?

 

It seems twin-engine fighters weren't really a thing until we got those unreliable and underpowered first generation jets. I'm not a naval historian, so I can only speculate why the trend contined thereafter. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, there have been several very successful single-engine navy fighters in service from the 50s through the 90s.

They had what they had back then in WWII technology wise, the engine performance vs weight was just not there at the time to fly off carriers with 2 engines. They did manage to stripped down the twin engine B-25 Mitchel Bombers for the Tokyo raid.

.

 

"Significantly more reliable" I know right! I would just rather 2 that's all and we are talking a singe "turbofan with afterburner" engine here with the F35.

 

What would have happen in this situation below with just one? Apu and highway landing and at sea? I know the Navy may have better or more inspections, still S happens sometimes. Did you remember to tighten that nut or clamp? After working 12 hour shifts 7 days a week.

 

.

Bad example. In case of uncontained engine failure like that in a small fighter, both engines would be damaged and you'll be dead anyway.

And, technically, with two engines you increase the chance that something will go wrong twofold. You have twice as many parts to service and twice as many stuff to break. Sure you have redundancy in the second engine, but not every kind of failure can be contained to one engine. In other words, the risk that 'something' will go wrong adds up, the risk that the failure would cause aircraft loss is reduced, but not twofold.

Simple; ask any pilot if he prefers a 2 engine or 1 engine if his plane is to fly over oceans.

 

I venture to bet that almost all pilots would choose a 2-engine fighter; Cost of plane design notwithstanding, including (supposed) MTBF of 1-engine designs.

Ask them if they want a second engine, or more fuel and ordnance over target in a more agile single-engined airplane. Because that's what you have to sacrifice if you put the second engine on an airframe. It's never a clear choice.

I don't see the relevance? Almost any pilot would also say he wants another 10,000 pounds of fuel; another pair of Mk-84s, another pair of AMRAAMs; another 1,000 rounds of ammo; and another hour of playtime.

 

I understand the desire for redundancy. I also understand it's ingrained in pilots to always want an additional safety pad. You know, for the wife and kids.

 

But the F119 engine - upon which the F135 is based - achieved an in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate six times better than the most recent F100 variant, according to a report by the US Senate Committee on Armed Services. A 600% increase in engine reliability over contemporary fighter engines. Oh, and by the way, the F135 makes 2.4 times as much thrust as the F404.

Relevance? As one pilot of the F18 mentioned already, the latest single engine cutting edge plane was already a compromise between the AF's requirements and escalating cost and the eventual Navy's "watered-down" want for a 2-engine variant.

There was a very valid design reason for initially wanting a 2-engine craft for the Navy's purpose, not? If cost was taken out of the equation, I venture to believe that reliability alone of any single engine would not have swayed the designers to stick with a single engine future design for the Navy's purpose.