The Iranians have still their old TF-30s. Some people do not differ between the problems with the first examples and the much more reliable ones from the mid 70s. Most F-14As kept that TF30-P-412A improved till the end of their service-live, because there was no longer an urgent need to replace that.
By the way, the F100 had similar problems at first, when there were no longer similar complains about the later built variants any longer.
Like your weekly patch from Microsoft all that engines were bettered every year by new parts introduced.
When someone has any complains about an engine he has to note what building year he had in mind and the related modification standard f.e..
Contrary to some military many poster here stick to their outdated infos for decades. :diablo:

The TF-30 series were modified over there service life, no doubt about that. However throughout their service life they continued to fail, catastrophically in some cases. In 1996, NAVAIR testified in Congress that they lost over 30 F-14’s since 1991 alone.

Here is some of the testimony: “Over the past several years we have ‘looked’ at many different ways to improve the F-14A. We made the decision not to upgrade the engines because they would be too expensive to put in an aircraft which would be removed from service a few years [starting in FY2001] after being re-engined. Through extensive in-service engineering analysis, we are installing a low cost, but very effective means of alerting aircrew of impending catastrophic TF30 engine failure. This cockpit warning light will alert the aircrew to a sudden rise in engine breather pressure [an indication of impending engine failure] in time to reduce engine power and safely land the aircraft. This new system will greatly increase aircrew awareness and further contribute to safe F-14A operations.”

This really wasn’t even an engine mod per se, it was a warning system to alert the crew that an engine was about to fail – so clearly the TF-30’s were still experiencing failures 20+ years into the program, even with the upgrades. Also note that the decision was made not to re-engine all the F-14’s for cost reasons – why spend the cash to re-engine an airplane that was to be retired in 5 years later in FY2001?

I think that there are other factors involved as to why the Iranians still “operate” their F-14’s with the TF-30 other than their satisfaction with the engine.

Actually the threshold numbers seem to be wrong aswell. Various pdfs give 590nm (A), 450nm (B), 600nm (C), and projected radius is ~100nm more for all. Thats more than 700nm for the F-35C.

Agreed, it doesn’t adress the need for a long range strike fighter. But the F-35 is much more capable than the legacy Hornets it replaces and its also more capable than the SH offering +/- twice the range versus legacy Hornets and more range than SHs. I.e. an F-35/F-18E airwing offers more range (and survivability) compared to an all F-18E wing.
Of course it would be an option to start with something new immediately, but that would mean the USN is stuck with a short legged SH force for quite a long time… 10 years seem very optimistic to me…
It would also lead to SHs replacing SHs as the first examples are now in service for 11 years…
Both would be the preferred option no doubt. 😉

Inexpensive for 60s standards? Compared to the high end surely, but I don’t think the USN regarded them as throw away junk. 😉 Obviously, two engines are safer, but you also have to consider the accident rate of modern engines like the F100-229 or the F119 which are without accident iirc.
I think there was a study done by one of the European F-16 users regarding cost effectiveness of single vs. twin engined fighter fleets. The result was that a single engined fleet is cheaper over its life cycle for fleets over 72 jets. Can’t find it obviously… 🙁

– About the numbers: The numbers are from the Department of the Navy -Research, Development and Acquisition. PEO Joint Strike Fighter (the JSF program office) is part of this organization – which certainly lends a lot of credibility to the numbers that they publish. The threshold numbers do not appear to be projected final performance figures, rather milestones or goals that the aircraft must meet to move forward in the acquisition process. I have seen specs for the F-35 from various sources, some more optimistic than others. Currently I consider the LM’s 2010 specs the most current, and find these Navy stats interesting.

– I would expect that a 125m aircraft would exceed the performance of a 30m F/A-18C or a 55m -E/F, and it will. But is it worth the cost for the modest increase in performance that the F-35C offers vs. the F/A-18E/F on the 2nd and subsequent days of war? Would it be more cost effective to buy just enough F-35C’s to fill a few squadrons to use on the initial strikes?

– 10 years is very optimistic on my part, I agree. But the Navy has fast-tracked aircraft programs before, so if they started development next year, they could field a NGAD / F/A-XX type by the 2024 timeframe. Lower the risks by picking the right engine, incorporate proven F-18/35 avionics and systems, and don’t go too crazy on the stealth.

– According to Vought, the “A-7A’s cost a little over one million dollars each.” (the A-7 was an A-4 replacement.) They also say “Unfortunately, DOD’s desire for multi-role supersonic fighter/attack aircraft with stealth capabilities spelled doom for the A-7 and for low-cost combat aircraft in general. The day of the single-purpose combat aircraft that cost under $5M gave way to the $50M fighter/attack machine, at least in the United States.” Little did they know that the F-35 will cost more than twice that figure.

– The latest engines have an impressive reliability rate according to the USAF Safety Center and I’m sure that stat played prominently into the design decision to make the F-35 series a single-engined aircraft (along with range / fuel consumption considerations.) I have not seen similar studies about naval aircraft engines – does their operating environment make them any less reliable? Anyway, I share the belief that a naval aircraft requires two engines simply because it operates in a unforgiving and unique maritime environment. I will grant you that it is probably less expensive for land air forces to operate a single-engined fleet – but interestingly enough, some of the most recent european designs are twin-engined – case-in-point the French Navy’s Rafale.

sh will require it more
but i think there will be always jamming platforms, uav-j and maud-j etc with the f-35, even f35 jammers in contested air
it just makes the job easier

Agreed.

Confident in an all Super Hornet force, or confident that Super Hornets augmented by F-35Cs will be effective? The Super Hornet is always going to have issues of survivability against long range SAMs vs. the F-35. How many Super Hornets/Growlers will it take to conduct the same mission is the question you need to be asking, and that’s where you’re not really saving money.

Confident in the Super Hornet. Growlers will support the both the F/A-18’s – and the F-35’s. at least according to Maj. Gen. David J. Scott, head of Air Force operational capability requirements. Find the earlier post for what he said.

Check out the other variants:
F-35A: 626 nm
F-35B: 648 nm
F-35C: 499 nm
They mixed up the B and C figures.

Yes, F-35 is shorter ranged than A/F-X. But its not its fault as it wasn’t designed as A/F-X but as an F-18A-D replacement. As such, it is the right aircraft because it offers significantly more range. The Super Hornet is the wrong aircraft if you want.
If money wasn’t an issue, I bet the USN would have ditched the F-35C, or even better, developed an A/F-X replacement at the same time to get an F-35/F-X airwing.

About the single engine issue: A-4, A-7, F-8 were good enough and if the USAF would have chosen the F-17 over the F-16, the YF-16 might have ended up as F-18 😮

– As for the mixed up figures: that is certainly a possibility. But what I found interesting is the way they presented the numbers, threshold vs. current assessment. The threshold numbers are in line across all the types: shorter ranges for the aircraft which carry the least fuel, highest for the -C. Curiously, both the A & B current assessments are significantly higher than their threshold numbers, suggesting that they are bettering a performance milestone of some sort. However, the current assessment of the -C is significantly below its threshold number, suggesting it is not performing as well as it should be at this point. Which supports the nagging rumors around DC about the -C’s.

– My position is the F-35C doesn’t address the Navy’s need for a long range strike fighter, and gives the Navy an expensive to build and operate, single engined, singled crewed aircraft that is only incrementally more capable (notwithstanding stealth) than a much cheaper, proven F/A-18E/F that could be procured to replace legacy Hornets. Furthermore, the Navy needs to start the development of the NGAD / F/A-XX now and fund it by plowing in its share of F-35 development and procurement funds. The danger of this strategy is leaving the fleet without a 5G stealthy strike fighter for another 10 years. Is it worth the gamble to wait and procure a proper naval aircraft, or buy a compromise (in terms of engining/crewing) now. Maybe both avenues should be pursued.

The A-4, A-7, and F-8 were relatively simple and comparatively inexpensive aircraft. Losing more than a few to engine failures over water was expected and accepted as a cost of doing business. The F-35 is an extraordinarily expensive aircraft, and the loss of just one to engine failure (or any cause) would be a big deal. The Navy worked hard to clear its decks of single engined aircraft for a reason. The chances of landing a single engined jet with its engine out on a carrier – even in good weather – are not good. At all.

I would think that the DOD and the end users feelings matter more than Congress, with regards to this matter. Congress is hardly the subject matter expert on such things, and often force the military to buy things they don’t want, as it keeps constituents in their respective districts happy.

Members of the HASC / SASC, are well briefed and knowledgeable, particularly certain subcommittee members. Congress as a whole, sadly, is not. One of the challenges that the supporters of F136 funding has is convincing less informed non-committee members of the importance of an alternate engine source and maintaining an adequately diverse defense industrial base. Granted, the Congress sometimes forces the military to buy things they don’t want, and operate bases it doesn’t need. But the Congress has appropriated additional aircraft that the services need, but for various reasons does not request – like F/A-18E/F’s which are desperately needed; C-130J which are needed; C-17’s which are needed, etc.

First of all, if you’re using those numbers, it’s no wonder you have such negative views. The F-35A has a combat radius of ~673nm or more on internal fuel, and the C variant is >700nm.

The CVBG can still stay 200-300nm off shore, and leave the F-35C the ability to fly 400-500nm inland, and with JSOW/JASSM hit targets another 200-600nm further. This gives the F-35C the ability to hit targets over 1300nm inland. This is all first day of war capabilities. This doesn’t include EFTs or tanking on the backend of the mission, to further increase the distance inland, that targets can be hit.

I am only using the numbers provided by the Navy. But lets say the F-35C will be capable of ~650nm flying certain combat profiles – which makes it a medium ranged aircraft. But it’s legs are still not long enough considering the capabilities of mobile ASM / ASBM’s and the threat of coastal subs. JSOW’s and JASSM’s will work fine killing fixed targets and in the case of the JASSM, certain types of relocatable targets. Mobile launchers are difficult targets that need the timeliness of a direct and flexible strike. The CV’s will need to stand farther offshore than 2-300nm, and the Navy needs a different aircraft than the F-35C.

The F-35C has more range than the F/A-18A-D it is replacing. Even the A-6E / F/A-18E/F it is NOT replacing need external tanks to obtain the reach the F-35C has on internal fuel! The F/A-18E/F is what became of the cancelled A-X / A/F-X. The JSF is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT program to replace the F/A-18A-D, NOT the A-6 / A-12 / A-X / A/F-X / F/A-18E/F line. THAT is what the NGAD (formerlly known as F/A-XX) is for.

The F-35C brings a whole new generation of capabilties over the F/A-18E/F (which it is not replacing anyway). Stealth is just ONE of them.

Exactly. So drop the BS of P&W sucks based on a 1960s engine that was not even designed for the F-14.

And the intended engine for the F-14 was the F401 (a cousin to the F100) there is/was no such thing as a TF-100.

– Fact: The F-35C is designed to have more range than the F/A-18A-D. However, the Navy Acquisition says:

“Range: Current assessment 499 nm (Threshold 600 nm)”

Source: https://acquisition.navy.mil/rda/home/programs/air/f_35_jsf

In any event, it does not promise the range of the A/F-X design – and the long range is what will be needed against enemies armed with coastal / long ranged ASM’s and coastal subs. The A/F-X should have been developed, but was not – and leaves the Navy with a range problem. Instead, the Navy’s requirement was changed when the A/F-X program was closed and merged with the MRF program to eventually become the JAST (JSF.) The F-35C, even if it meets its design goals, is the wrong aircraft for the Navy. The Navy should buy more Supers in the interim, and begin development on the NGAD (F/A-XX) now – not in 2015. Buy as few F-35C’s as possible. Yesterday, the GAO posited just this sort of approach, sans the NGAD which was not part of their study.

– Fact: The F/A-18E/F was not developed to replace either the A-6 or the F-14, but inherited their missions when those airframes were retired / not further developed. The Super Hornet was developed as a low risk solution to address the shortcomings of the F/A-18A-D’s, and had it’s beginnings prior to the A/F-X.

– Fact: The Super Hornet still has room for development, and can incorporate many of the systems currently being developed for the F-35 series. In fact, many systems planned for the F-35 series are developments of F/A-18E/F systems.

– Sorry, the TF-30 was crap, there was not a competing powerplant available, and it took almost 2 decades to fix the F-14’s engine problems – with a totally new engine. If the DoD had followed through with development of another engine in the class – the TF-100 derivative* – many lives, aircraft, and money would have saved. Not BS. Not only my opinion.

See: “Tomcat! The Grumman F-14 Story,” Paul T. Gillcrist, RADM, Chapter 9 “The Little Engine That Couldn’t.” *

This gentleman is a legend in naval aviation, and a F-14 expert. I believe the experts. They tend to be correct.

*This is the source for the TF-100 nomenclature, not me.