Jump to content

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


WineCape

Recommended Posts

All Good Josef P. Bagodonuts, it just make sense to me to have 2 like ETOPS etc. Plus listening to the USN pilots and what they have to say about it.

 

Great write up here about all this, with pro's and con's

 

One if by Land, Two if by Sea

 

Interesting first comment for 2010

"T: Nice piece. The Navy's thoughts and preference for twin engine aircraft were once again reinforced during Desert Storm (the last aerial campaign with a viable fixed-wing anti-aircraft threat) where the highest loss rates were suffered by Air Force F-16s and the Marine AV-8s. Their common denominator: single engine. We had several F-18's with one or both hot sections completely shot off return to base. I suppose we'll have to wait and see on the F-35."

 

Wasn't aware of the loss rate? will have to look that up.

 

Also great read of an F/A-18 with an engine out on takeoff. HERE

 

.

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this before and the guy had a very good breakdown of the Certification for all this.

 

"As engineers gained more experience in jets, they slowly recognized that jet engines are much more reliable than their piston counterparts. The FAA began to approve flying twin engines 120 minutes away from a suitable airport. This made twin engine aircrafts popular, because the fuel efficiency of flying a twin is much better than flying a 4-engine 747 or A340."

 

"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."

 

Read more here or we could lookup the Certification

 

"Also, I'm not sure why we're comparing civil aviation - where aircraft and passenger safety is the overriding concern - to tactical aviation. "

 

That just means cost cutting vs risk assessment, that's ok as long as your not the one flying the aircraft.

 

This guy nailed it anyway....we will see.

Interesting first comment for 2010

"T: Nice piece. The Navy's thoughts and preference for twin engine aircraft were once again reinforced during Desert Storm (the last aerial campaign with a viable fixed-wing anti-aircraft threat) where the highest loss rates were suffered by Air Force F-16s and the Marine AV-8s. Their common denominator: single engine. We had several F-18's with one or both hot sections completely shot off return to base. I suppose we'll have to wait and see on the F-35."

 

.


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good, what do I know? it just seems right to me to have 2 engines.

 

Let the guy's who have been there and done it give you an answer.

 

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

 

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.

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the one asking questions, actually. The post you're now quoting was rhetorical. I know the answer.

 

So you understand this then?

 

Neofightr is basically talking about ETOPS right...

 

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.

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see, another pro with and ego that won't listen to anyone else, including an ex USN pilot and just wants to beat his chest some. OK I'm done here too.

 

It seems all you're prepared to offer is that it "feels right" to put two engines on everything. That doesn't fly, so to speak. I even proved your assertion that Vipers rained from the skies while Hornets RTB'd safely during ODS to be false. But you haven't addressed anything of substance I've posted thus far.

 

So like I said, if all you're going to do is quote the same posts repeatedly as if I didn't comprehend them the first time, I have nothing else to add.

 

He was probably taking about all the incidents back then to damaged returning aircraft etc. You can read a few here F-16 Accident Reports for 1991

 

.


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my response to his post re: self-respecting Navy pilots stands on its merits, and my point was made.

 

You're assuming that if someone is saying a plane with two engines is good then they are also saying that a plane with a single engine is bad. That was never the point neo or anyone else was making from what I can see, and in my opinion you've fallen into the trap of an association fallacy.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make; either that twin engines do nothing to improve safety margins, or that those margins aren't worth the trade off in terms of money and effort?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I recommend you study the naval aviation history a little closer and you will see the pattern emerge.

 

Skim the surface and yup, many successful single-engine jet planes.

Peel away and you will see why the Navy went with dual-engines after the corsair II ran it's course.

 

Not sure how piston engines reliability applies to jets reliability.

No self-respecting WW2 Naval Aviator fighter pilot would chose a twin-engine design unless it was something unique like the Army's "lightning" was.

 

Single-engine ww2 planes offered great performance, reliability and offered a small footprint on the carrier deck.

 

When I talk about reliability I am talking about both non-combat and combat reliability. Some of the naval air designs took a beating and kept going for quite some time with single-engine damage (flight controls weren't relying solely on hydraulic pressure etc).

Also a factor was that WW2 a/c were no where near as complex as modern jet design hence the material loss was no where near as impacting as today's craft.


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize that ETOPS exists precisely because we went from four-engine airplanes to two-engine airplanes on long-haul trans-oceanic flights, right? And the reason we were able to cut the number of engines in half is precisely because of how reliable they've become, right?

 

Also, I'm not sure why we're comparing civil aviation - where aircraft and passenger safety is the overriding concern - to tactical aviation.

 

Edit to add: I'm not sure who made that statement you quoted, but no airplane with "both hot sections completely shot off" has ever flown home. The hot section is the engine core, aft of the combustion chamber, including the entire turbine section - without which a jet engine cannot operate. So, I wouldn't put too much faith in that person's assessment.

 

Yeah, I am scratching my head as to how civil engine reliability trumps all.

Combat survival is the primary factor, if one engine suffers light damage and causes hydraulic/engine oil leak the odds of getting back is much greater with the other engine then the one damaged engine.

 

This is why the F18's essential systems were redundantly matched up to both engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reference to ETOPS was only referring to having no Alternate airport close by and the "ability" to keep fly over the ocean to and not swimming for it. This was only to explain how I see part of the reasoning behind it (Just like ETOPS) to have two engines to Josef P. Bagodonuts.

 

Whether it's engine damage from battle or just an engine out, you still have a much better chance to save the pilot and how many million dollars of aircraft (F-35 $100M?) it's the way I see it anyway.

 

I think my response to his post re: self-respecting Navy pilots stands on its merits, and my point was made.

You're assuming that if someone is saying a plane with two engines is good then they are also saying that a plane with a single engine is bad. That was never the point neo or anyone else was making from what I can see, and in my opinion you've fallen into the trap of an association fallacy.

 

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make; either that twin engines do nothing to improve safety margins, or that those margins aren't worth the trade off in terms of money and effort?

 

I do agree Flamin_Squirrel, nicely said. Even from the first post on the first page there was no real counter to what I said about having two engines and more on the border of trolling for an argument.

 

The F-8, A-4, A-7, and AV-8 were/are all single-engine carrier-based aircraft. So is the T-45, if you're feeling charitable with the "carrier-based" title.

 

Considering today's turbofan engines are significantly more reliable than engines of the past, I don't think the single-engine argument is one worth making.

 

.

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Yeah, I am scratching my head as to how civil engine reliability trumps all.

Combat survival is the primary factor, if one engine suffers light damage and causes hydraulic/engine oil leak the odds of getting back is much greater with the other engine then the one damaged engine.

 

This is why the F18's essential systems were redundantly matched up to both engines.

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9347

Ex Alto Vincimus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Not necessarily

 

block 1 super hornets use 90% of the same software suite as a comparable era legacy c.

 

from avionics point of view the noticeable feature one to get accustomed to is the touchscreen ufcd and s new fuel display. And if it's the lot 23 sh then the only new integrated feature is the towable decoy.

 

while it may seem like confirmation bias I am already more than convinced that I will feel the same way ( but vice versa) going from another sim that has rhino and flying a legacy here in dcs

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily

 

block 1 super hornets use 90% of the same software suite as a comparable era legacy c.

 

from avionics point of view the noticeable feature one to get accustomed to is the touchscreen ufcd and s new fuel display. And if it's the lot 23 sh then the only new integrated feature is the towable decoy.

 

while it may seem like confirmation bias I am already more than convinced that I will feel the same way ( but vice versa) going from another sim that has rhino and flying a legacy here in dcs

 

 

Transition from F/A-18C to Any Block F/A-18E is an easy step, most of the sytems are the same, and the cockpit layout is the same w/ exception to the UFCD and a few other things.

 

The F/A-18Cs that aren't trapped out will be retained as Reserve and Training Aircraft, Pilots fresh out of training program can start flying the F/A-18C Before moving onto Super Hornets. The Rest will goto Cecil to be Rebuilt to C+ for the Marines.

 

Trapped Out Legacy Birds will be Mothballed/Stripped for Parts for the Navy and to restore the USMC A++/C's and

 

There aren't Many Block I Super Hornets left, they've either all been trapped out and in storage for parts, or converted to Block II, and the Navy is about to buy 100+ Block III Super Hornets and Upgrade at least 250 of the 500~ Block I/II Super Hornets to Block III. I suspect the ones about to be trapped out will goto fleet reserve.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...