Two engines is no guarantee

In combat, nothing is guaranteed.

But probability? Different story.

The F-16 had an engine failure. Can’t quote source, take it or not. Merry Xmas.

I’ve got a great idea – lets make all attack aircraft… even better, lets make all attack and carrierborne aircraft in the future single engined.

So any failure of parts or damage will result in an airframe loss and potentially pilot loss too.

[/sarcasm]

Thanks to everyone for their input. It just seems to me that when an Airbus get into storms they have a high rate of failure.

It seems to me, with this and your subsequent post, you drew your conclusions before ever starting this thread and are hoping for posts that align with your preconception.

Define high rate of failure please. When was the last fatal A330 crash before AF447? Or the last fatal A321 crash before QZ8501?

My question is can an Airbus be recovered from a stall?

Yes… but the pilot has to recognise he is in a stall.

Given this seems to be beyond some…

A possible feedback fix would be, if the plane thinks its stalling* – shake the f__k out of the stick as well as audible warnings – and have the flight computer power down all other displays from the apart from artificial horizon, radar altimeter, compass and engine info. Then the folks in the driving seats will have no choice but to do what they should do. Focus on attitude and power in the immediate, then avoiding the ground, then course.

After the plane senses recovery to a more stable environment, power back up the other instruments so the pilots can then determine what caused their stall. They can then also correct their speed, course and pressure altitude as necessary.

*feedback from the loads on the wing control surfaces should be sufficient to tell if the flow above the wing is massively detached or not – also variation in the radar altimeter would help given the pilots should know what kind of terrain they are flying over.

It is “almost a given that directed energy weapons will be in play for these future platforms,” says McCormick. He anticipates a power offtake requirement for at least 1 megawatt. “We are trying to define the design space.

The 787 has 2x 250 kVA generators per engine (which is about 2x 180 kW on the 787). That is a 280 kN engine (yes not apples for apples with fighters, but the combustor power and turbine draw relate). [360/280 = 1.29 W/N]

The F-22 has by contrast has 2x 116 kN engines (no reheat) and generates 130 kW through 2 generators. [1.12 W/N]
The F-35 has 1x 125 kN engine giving 160 kW through the generator. [1.28 W/N]

So… to get 1MW (assuming 2 engines), and assuming the engine non reheat thrust jumps to 2x 150 kN, the W/N coefficient has to more than double to 3.3. In a fighter?

Aye. Good luck with that.

DEW power requirements will be balanced out by using super-capacitors to hold energy for discharge.

Of course, number of shots and recharge time then becomes dependent on capacitor size and generator capacity.

Furthermore, laser shielding will come with a weight penalty of its own. Even if such shielding is not available or viable at this time, a significant weight budget should be reserved for such materials existing nearer the time of build.

It also only called for 35k pounds of thrust, the F135 puts out 43k

Did the wing area change?