Quicksand Fans

USAF F-35 Low Level Flight Mach Loop, First Time

I've always wanted to go there, but ...
I gotta say, looking pretty badass here, look to be in Mil power only, but pulling some serious Gs in some of the turns. And not poking along, either I am beginning to suspect, that like a lot of systems that took a long time to get right, this thing might be hitting it's stride (No, I don't include the LCS - ever)

Plus, it passes one key marker:
If it looks good, it probably is

Yeah, it looks pretty cool. might be going up to Lakenheath to see them next week if the weather's OK. Mind you, they're still not as good looking as an F-104G !

It is actually a little more impressive to watch than I had anticipated. will be interesting to see how all of the star wars inspired gadgets hold up in combat

"Good against Remotes is one thing. Good against the Living? That's Something Else."

Sooner or later, we will get to see that datum

It's a sleek looking aircraft, no doubt... wondering what you all think of the single versus twin engine debate. I know critics of the program here in Canada wonder if it is wise to not have a spare in case one blows out over our Arctic airspace, for instance. Not being an expert, but an interested amateur, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Also curious if this discussion ever came up in naval aviation. Losing an engine would be a tad problematic I would presume when one is flying over the Pacific....

Engine reliability these days is such as to make it a non-issue. It always WAS. The Starfighter only had one J-79, yet we somehow managed to operate those for a quarter century. We would have had about 50% more F-16 airframes on cost alone. So if you really want spare engines, go wild.

As far as Naval Aviation goes, single-engine birds were a thing even when jet engines DID suck. The A-7 and F-8 both were only single engine, and the SLUF was a solid light-attack bird I wished they still had. And The Crusader? Last of the Gunfighters, one badass fighing machine

Single vs. twin engine has been and will continue to be a topic of disagreement among many...but realistically, the single engine F-16 has a similar loss ratio to that of the F-15 with engine failure as a leading cause of the losses.
The A-7 and F-8 were both successfully deployed to carriers despite being 'one holers' and had a remarkable career despite the lack of a backup engine.
Personally, I think engine technology and reliability has advanced to the point where the need for a second engine as a safety measure is no longer needed.
One cannot forget the lessons of the past, however....taking the gun out of the F-4 because missile technology had advanced was also from these same folks....

One cannot forget the lessons of the past, however....taking the gun out of the F-4 because missile technology had advanced was also from these same folks....

You're too late
The C-model has no gun, other than a pod which would take up the centreline station. Everything is 1959 again. Fucking MORONS

kham wrote:

One cannot forget the lessons of the past, however....taking the gun out of the F-4 because missile technology had advanced was also from these same folks....

You're too late
The C-model has no gun, other than a pod which would take up the centreline station. Everything is 1959 again. Fucking MORONS

No internal gun? Madness! What the hell are pilots to use in case their fancy missile systems aren't suitable for the situation.... harsh language?

BTW, thanks all of the insights on the single v double engine debate. As usual, I learned things.

"You'll never need to use a gun. Don't you know dogfighting is obsolete??"


Yeah, sure
So what now, Norvel, when you're out of missiles, but there are still bad guys in the fight? Hope they won't shoot you when you give them a jaunty wave??