The Evolution of US Navy Jets from an Engine Architecture Perspective

The most dramatic transformation in aviation technology since the mid-20th century is undoubtedly the integration of jet propulsion systems into aircraft carrier operations. This process was not merely a change of engine; it had profound effects on airframe design, materials science, ship logistics and operational doctrines. The take-off and landing cycles occurring within seconds on an aircraft carrier’s confined deck have pushed jet engines to their absolute limits in terms of thermodynamics and structural durability. This article analyses the process from the early jet aircraft of the 1950s to today’s fifth-generation platforms from a technical perspective, focusing on engine architecture and operational requirements.

Cover image: An F/A-18E Super Hornet taking off from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Photo: US Navy

Section 1: Chronological Overview and Engine Architecture Analysis

At the dawn of the jet age, the primary challenge for naval aviation was addressing the jet engines’ insufficient thrust at low speeds and high fuel consumption. The first generation of jets, which replaced piston-engined aircraft, retained aerodynamically straight-wing designs whilst oscillating between centrifugal flow and early axial flow designs in terms of engine architecture.

Early Jet Development: From Centrifugal to Axial Flow

The Grumman F9F Panther served as a successful transition platform for the US Navy. The Pratt & Whitney J42-P-8 engine, at the heart of the aircraft, is a licensed version of the Rolls-Royce Nene and features a centrifugal flow design. Despite its durability, this engine architecture had a structure that increased aerodynamic drag on the fuselage due to its large diameter. The F9F-2 variant was capable of temporarily increasing thrust from the standard 22.24 kN to 25.58 kN during take-off by utilising a pure water injection system. This technical solution was of critical importance for reducing take-off distances during aircraft carrier operations.

The image above shows the Pratt & Whitney J42-P-8 engine that powered the Grumman F9F Panther.

The McDonnell F2H Banshee, however, adopted a twin-engine configuration, thereby introducing a different safety philosophy. Equipped with two Westinghouse J34-WE-38 turbojet engines, the Banshee provided pilots with the advantage of being able to cruise at high altitude on a single engine, particularly during long patrol missions over the sea. However, the 3,600 lb of static thrust produced by the J34 engines proved limited in the face of the aircraft’s increasing gross weight. The Douglas F4D Skyray, meanwhile, emerged during this period as an ‘interceptor’ that prioritised speed and climb rate above all else. Following the failure of the Westinghouse J40 engine, the Skyray switched to the Pratt & Whitney J57-P-2 axial-flow engine. The J57, through the effective use of afterburner technology, gave the Skyray a thrust-to-weight (T/W) ratio of 0.71—a revolutionary figure for the time.

Vietnam and the Cold War: The Golden Age of Turbojets

The Vietnam War era marked a period in which carrier-based jets gained multi-role capabilities and engine thrust levels increased significantly. The F-4 Phantom II, powered by two General Electric J79 turbojet engines, became the symbol of this era. Each engine, equipped with an afterburner, produced 17,900 lbf of thrust, enabling the Phantom to reach a speed of Mach 2.2. The most notable feature of the J79 is its variable stator vanes, used to prevent the engine from stalling at low speeds. However, the J79’s exhaust plume created a tactical disadvantage by making the aircraft visually detectable from long distances. This issue was resolved in later variants of the J79.

The image above shows the General Electric J79 turbojet engine that powers the F-4 Phantom II.

For attack missions, however, different engine philosophies were adopted. The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was designed according to the principle of ‘simplicity and lightness’ and utilised an afterburner-less but extremely reliable engine such as the Pratt & Whitney J52. The Grumman A-6 Intruder, equipped with two J52 engines, offered the capability to carry heavy ordnance loads in all weather conditions; whilst the LTV A-7 Corsair II set a new standard in fuel efficiency with its Allison TF41 turbofan engine. The TF41’s turbofan architecture granted the A-7 a range of over 3,000 miles thanks to its low specific fuel consumption (SFC).

The Late Cold War and Modernisation: The Turbofan Era

In the 1970s, the US Navy combined variable-geometry wing technology with advanced turbofan engines in the F-14 Tomcat. The Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines used on the F-14A were incompatible with the aircraft’s airframe and were criticised by John Lehman as “the worst example of aircraft-engine mismatch”. The TF30’s tendency to compressor stall at high angles of attack (AoA) was responsible for 28% of F-14 accidents. This issue was resolved in the F-14B and D variants by switching to General Electric F110-GE-400 engines. The F110, with its 26,950 lbf of thrust, gave the aircraft a thrust-to-weight (T/W) ratio of over 1:1 and rendered the use of afterburners during catapult launches almost unnecessary.

The image above shows the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engine used on the F-14A.

The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet series, on the other hand, adopted an approach focused on ‘ease of maintenance and operational readiness’ with the General Electric F404 and F414 engines. The F414 provides 35% more thrust than its predecessor, the F404, whilst reducing the pilot’s workload in engine management thanks to the digital engine control system (Full Authority Digital Engine Control – FADEC). The Lockheed S-3 Viking, meanwhile, utilised high-bypass-ratio GE TF34 turbofans to provide the low noise and high fuel efficiency required for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missions.

5th Generation: The F-35C and the Power of a Single Engine

Today, the F-35C Lightning II represents a radical return to a single-engine configuration in naval aviation. The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, with its 43,000 lbf afterburner thrust, is the most powerful fighter aircraft engine ever produced. The F135 not only delivers high thrust but also generates a massive amount of electrical power for the aircraft’s advanced sensors and electronic warfare systems.

The image above shows the F-35C’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine

Comparative Technical Data Table

The table below summarises the engine characteristics and performance parameters of the platforms analysed:

Table 1: Engine and Thrust Characteristics of US Navy Aircraft Carrier-Based Jet Aircraft

Platform Number of Engines Engine Model Afterburner Dry Thrust (lb) Wet Thrust (lb) T/W (MTOW)

F9F Panther 1 P&W J42-P-8 None* 5,000 5,750 0.30

F2H Banshee 2 West. J34-WE-38 None 3,600 (x2) - 0.25

F4D Skyray 1 P&W J57-P-2 Yes 9,700 14,500 0.71

F-4E Phantom 2 GE J79-GE-17A Available 11,905 (x2) 17,900 (x2) 0.86

A-4E Skyhawk 1 P&W J52-P-6A None 8,500 - 0.34

A-6E Intruder 2 P&W J52-P8B None 9,300 (x2) - 0.31

A-7E Corsair II 1 Allison TF41-A-2 None 15,000 - 0.36

F-14D Tomcat 2 GE F110-GE-400 Yes 16,610 (x2) 26,950 (x2) 0.88

F/A-18E Super Hornet 2 GE F414-GE-400 Available 13,000 (x2) 22,000 (x2) 0.93

S-3B Viking 2 GE TF34-GE-2 Not available 9,275 (x2) - 0.35

F-35C Lightning 1 P&W F135-PW-400 Available 28,000 43,000 0.87

*The F9F provides increased thrust via water injection.

To better understand the technical table above, I would like to make a few notes.

-T/W: Thrust-to-Weight Ratio

-MTOW: Maximum Take-off Weight

When read as a whole: it means the Thrust-to-Weight Ratio at Maximum Take-off Weight.

Translated into Turkish as ‘Maksimum Kalkış Ağırlığındaki İtki-Ağırlık Oranı’, this term is a dimensionless performance metric indicating the ratio of the total thrust produced by an aircraft’s engines to the aircraft’s maximum permitted take-off weight (MTOW).

In aviation, this ratio is of critical importance for the following reasons:

-Flight Performance: The higher this ratio (the closer it is to or exceeds 1), the greater the aircraft’s acceleration, rate of climb and manoeuvrability.

-Take-off Distance: A high ratio enables the aircraft to reach take-off speed on the runway in a much shorter time. This value is of vital importance, particularly for naval aircraft taking off from aircraft carriers (such as the platforms in the table you shared).

-Vertical Climb Capability: If an aircraft’s wet thrust-to-weight (T/W) ratio is above 1, it means the aircraft can generate more thrust than its own weight. This means the aircraft can climb vertically (at a 90-degree angle) into the sky without losing speed (e.g., the F-15, F-16, or the F/A-18E at the upper limit in your table).

A Simple Calculation Example:

Looking at the F-35C in the table: at maximum take-off weight, the wet thrust produced by the engine is equivalent to 87% (0.87) of the aircraft’s total weight. As the aircraft consumes fuel and becomes lighter, this ratio will rise above 1.

The Effects of the Marine Environment on Engine Materials Science

Aircraft carrier operations present one of the world’s most demanding thermodynamic and chemical environments for engines. During operations at sea level, the air is filled with aerosols containing high concentrations of sodium chloride (NaCl) and sulphates.

-Hot Corrosion and Oxidation: Turbine blades in the engine’s hot zones are exposed to sulphur and salt attack at temperatures ranging from 1250°F to 1250°F. This triggers ‘Type I and Type II Hot Corrosion’ processes, eroding the alloys’ protective oxide layers. In modern engines, nickel-based superalloys and cobalt-containing coatings are used to mitigate this effect.

-TBO and Engine Overhaul: The corrosive effects of the marine environment and the structural shocks caused by catapult launches reduce engine overhaul intervals (TBO) by 20–30 per cent compared to land-based aircraft. The US Navy employs advanced anti-corrosion compounds such as NavGuard and a procedure to wash the engine with fresh water after every flight to prevent corrosion.21

-Catapult Shock: During a catapult launch, the aircraft reaches an acceleration of 4g within seconds. This acceleration creates axial loads on the engine’s bearings and rotating components. Modern engines such as the F135 feature reinforced structural frames to absorb these shocks and prevent the compressor blades from rubbing against the casing.

Section 2: Effects on Mission Configuration and Operational Flexibility

In aircraft carrier operations, the engine’s role is the key factor determining the aircraft’s payload capacity and the amount of munitions it can bring back to the ship.

CATOBAR Operations and Engine Selection

The Catapult Assisted Take-Off Barrier Assisted Recovery (CATOBAR) system directly influences engine architecture.

-Single Engine and Twin Engine: Twin-engine aircraft (F-14, F/A-18) possess reserve thrust capable of keeping the aircraft airborne in the event of a single engine failure during take-off. However, the single-engine F-35C can achieve a safe climb angle after a catapult launch without engaging the afterburner, thanks to the immense 28,000 lb dry thrust provided by the F135 engine. This protects personnel on the flight deck from excessive heat and saves fuel.

The US Navy’s acceptance of the single-engine F-35C reflects a belief that modern engine reliability has improved. However, engineering data indicates that the risk in carrier operations is not only mechanical failure but also Foreign Object Damage (Foreign Object Damage – FOD). In a twin-engine aircraft, if one engine fails due to a bird strike or deck debris, the remaining engine can save the aircraft; in a single-engine aircraft, this situation immediately necessitates the use of the ejection seat.

-Wind Tunnel and Approach Limits: During landing on a ship, the aircraft’s approach speed must exceed the aircraft’s stall speed. The time taken for the engine to respond to throttle commands (spool-up time) is crucial (bolter) is critical for the aircraft to regain speed and take off again. Twin-engine aircraft possess asymmetric thrust management capabilities that provide better control surface authority at low speeds.

Bringback Capacity: An Operational Requirement

‘Bringback’ refers to an aircraft’s ability to land safely on the ship with unused munitions and fuel.

-Strategic Importance: The cost of precision-guided munitions (PGM) has made it impossible for aircraft to jettison unused bombs into the sea upon returning from a mission.

-Determining Limits: Landing weight is limited by the maximum stress that the arresting cables and the aircraft’s landing gear can withstand. Whilst the F/A-18E Super Hornet boasts an impressive bringback capacity of 9,900 lb, the older F-14A models were often forced to jettison their munitions or drop expensive missiles into the sea. The F-35C’s large wing structure and powerful engine provide the aircraft with a safe glide angle and low approach speed even at high landing weights.

Changes in Mission Roles

-Air Superiority and Fleet Defence: The F-14 Tomcat focused on high thrust and speed (Mach 2.34) to carry AIM-54 Phoenix missiles over distances of 90 miles and intercept Soviet bombers.

-Deep Strike: The A-6 Intruder optimised its engines not for speed, but to carry a 18,000 lb payload over long distances.

-Close Air Support (CAS): Aircraft such as the A-4 and A-7 have been successful in these roles thanks to engines that offer low-altitude manoeuvrability and high fuel efficiency.

Shipboard Logistics and Maintenance Requirements

An aircraft carrier is a limited ‘floating hangar’. The twin-engine architecture places a significant burden on the logistics chain.

-Personnel and Spare Parts: A twin-engine F/A-18 fleet requires approximately 30–40% more engine technicians and twice the spare engine storage capacity compared to a single-engine fleet.

-Jet Engine Test Cell (JETC): The test cells located at the stern of the aircraft carrier enable revised engines to be tested at full power. The engines of twin-engine aircraft are typically tested individually, which extends the turnaround time. The F-14’s maintenance requirement of 50 hours per flight hour is proof of just how heavy the aircraft’s logistical burden is on the carrier.

Section 3: Pilot and Platform Survivability and Power Management

In aircraft carrier operations, pilot safety is directly linked to engine reliability. Whilst a single-engine failure at sea may result in the pilot having to abandon the aircraft, the chances of a ‘home-it’ (return to base) are high in twin-engine systems.

Reliability Statistics and Asymmetric Thrust

Historical data shows that, as engine technology has matured, the safety gap between single-engine and twin-engine aircraft has narrowed.

-F-15 and F-16 Comparison: A 25-year study conducted by the USAF revealed that the engine-related accident rates for the single-engine F-16 and the twin-engine F-15 are very similar. The reason for this is that the margin for error in modern engines has decreased, and a catastrophic failure in one engine (fire or shrapnel) usually disables the adjacent engine as well.

-Asymmetric Thrust Management: In a twin-engine aircraft, when one engine fails, the pilot must control the yaw moment generated by the aircraft. In the F-14B/D models, the dry thrust of the F110 engines is so high that the pilot can land safely on the carrier using a single engine without even engaging the afterburner.

Stealth and Thermal Management

In fifth-generation aircraft, the role of the engine has evolved beyond simply generating thrust to managing the aircraft’s low-observability (stealth) characteristics.

-Radar Cross-Section (RCS): The F-35C’s engine is positioned deep within the fuselage, and the engine’s front fan blades are concealed from radar by S-shaped air ducts (S-ducts). The exhaust nozzle, meanwhile, features a specially designed sawtooth structure to disperse radar waves.

-Infrared (IR) Signature: The F135 engine features an advanced cooling system that cools the exhaust gases by mixing them with bypass air. This makes it more difficult for the aircraft to be detected by IR-guided missiles.

Power Supply and Thermal Management of Subsystems

AESA radars and electronic warfare (EW) systems in modern aircraft consume vast amounts of electrical energy and generate heat as a by-product of this energy.

-Power Generation: The F135 engine is equipped with a generator capable of supplying over 80 kW of electrical power to the aircraft’s avionics systems.

-PTMS (Power and Thermal Management System): Developed by Honeywell, the PTMS utilises the F-35C’s engine as a heat sink. The aircraft’s fuel acts as a coolant to absorb heat from the electronic systems. This system is far more efficient than traditional air-cooled systems but introduces operational limitations such as fuel overheating.

Section 4: Doctrinal and Strategic Assessment

Historically, the US Navy has sought to strike a balance between technological capabilities and budgetary constraints.

From the ‘High-Low Mix’ Doctrine to Multi-Role Capabilities

During the Cold War, the US Navy struck a balance between sophisticated and expensive twin-engine aircraft (F-4, F-14) and simpler, cheaper single-engine aircraft (A-4, A-7).

-Balance Point: Whilst the F-14 protected the fleet and strike group, the A-7 formed the strike force. However, the decline of the Soviet threat and rising maintenance costs in the 1990s drove the US Navy to seek a ‘multi-role’ platform.

-The Super Hornet Transition: The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ushered in an era where a single aircraft could perform all missions, thereby reducing logistical complexity.

F-35C: Confidence in the Future and Controversies

The return to a single engine with the F-35C symbolises confidence in engine technology.

-Technological Confidence: The F135 engine features a modular design that allows parts to be replaced without disassembly, and a health monitoring system that transmits data to the ground during flight. This system has the potential to reduce maintenance time by 94 per cent.

-Strategic Risk Analysis: Critics argue that a single engine remains a ‘single point of failure’ in naval operations. However, the stealth capability and network-centric warfare capacity offered by the F-35C provide a tactical advantage far exceeding the risks associated with the number of engines.

Conclusion: The Future of the Engine and Naval Aviation

The 70-year evolution of US Navy carrier-based jet aircraft serves as evidence of how engine architecture has defined operational limits. From the water-injected early-generation jets of the 1950s to today’s smart engines producing 43,000 lbf of thrust, the T/W ratio, fuel efficiency and corrosion resistance have formed the core axes of development.

In modern naval aviation, the engine is no longer merely a source of thrust, but also the aircraft’s “power plant” and “thermal management centre”. The single-engine configuration, cemented by the F-35C, demonstrates the level of maturity achieved in engine reliability. In the future, with the introduction of adaptive-cycle engines, the combination of turbojet efficiency at supersonic speeds and turbofan economy at low speeds on a single platform will further increase the range and endurance of aircraft carrier operations. New-generation ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) and digital twin technologies, developed to withstand the corrosive effects of the marine environment, are expected to extend engine overhaul intervals, thereby ensuring the sustainability of the US Navy’s global power projection capabilities.

If you haven’t read the first article in our Naval Aviation series, I highly recommend you do so. I’ve included the relevant link below.

Take-off and Landing Configurations on Naval Aviation Platforms: CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL

https://strasam.org/savunma/deniz-silah-ve-sistemleri/deniz-havaciligi-platformlarinda-inis-kalkis-konfigurasyonlari-catobar-stobar-ve-stovl-4160

References

1. Grumman F9F Panther (1948) - Naval Aviation, https://naval-aviation.com/cold-war/USN/grumman-f9f-panther.php
2. F2H-4 Banshee - Naval History and Heritage Command, https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nnam/explore/collections/aircraft/f/f2h-4-banshee.html
3. McDonnell F2H Banshee - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_F2H_Banshee
4. Douglas F4D Skyray - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F4D_Skyray
5. Global Aircraft -- F4D Skyray, https://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f4d_skyray.pl
6. Technical Specification - Heatblur F-4E Phantom II, https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/intro/specification.html
7. F-4E Phantom II Fighter - Full Specifications | TheDefenseWatch.com, https://thedefensewatch.com/product/f-4e-phantom-ii-fighter/
8. Global Aircraft -- A-6 Intruder, https://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-6_intruder.pl
9. Global Aircraft -- A-7 Corsair II (Print Version), https://www.globalaircraft.org/print_this.pl?Page2Print=/planes/a-7_corsair_ii.pl
10. LTV A-7 Corsair II: The U.S. Navy's Most Reliable Attack Jet - Defense Feeds, https://defensefeeds.com/military-tech/air-force/attack-aircraft/a-7-corsair-ii/
11. Grumman F-14 Tomcat - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat
12. F-14A Tomcat - Naval History and Heritage Command, https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nnam/explore/collections/aircraft/f/f-14a-tomcat. html
13. F/A-18 Super Hornet & EA-18 Growler - Boeing, https://www.boeing.com/defense/fighters-and-bombers/fa-18-super-hornet-and-ea-18-growler
14. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet | NAVAIR, https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/FA-18EF-Super-Hornet
15. S-3 Specifications / Capabilities - Viking Association, https://www.vikingassociation.org/s-3-historyf76bca6c
16. Pratt & Whitney F135 - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135
17. F-35C Lightning II Fighter Jet - Full Specifications | TheDefenseWatch.com, https://thedefensewatch.com/product/f-35c-lightning-ii-fighter-jet/
18. F135 Engine | Pratt & Whitney - RTX, https://www.rtx.com/en/prattwhitney/products/military-engines/f135
19. F-35 Lightning II - Honeywell Aerospace, https://aerospace.honeywell.com/us/en/industry/defense/f-35
20. Thermal Barrier Coatings for Long Life in Marine Gas Turbine Engines - Navy SBIR, https://www.navysbir.com/n16_a/N16A-T019.htm
21. How Naval Aviation is Solving Its Billion-dollar Corrosion Problem - Navy.mil, https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/display-news/Article/3025210/how-naval-aviation-is-solving-its-billion-dollar-corrosion-problem/
22. Atmospheric Corrosion Severity and the Role of the Environment ..., https://dsiac.dtic.mil/articles/atmospheric-corrosion-severity-and-the-role-of-the-environment-determining-a-direct-correlation/
23. U.S. Navy Aircraft Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme, https://media.defense.gov/1997/Jun/30/2001715465/-1/-1/1/97-181.pdf
24. What is the force exerted by the catapult on aircraft carriers? - Aviation Stack Exchange, https://aviation. stackexchange.com/questions/25084/what-is-the-force-exerted-by-the-catapult-on-aircraft-carriers
25. Single vs Twin - SP's Aviation, https://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=2046
26. Single engine vs twin engine jets #shorts - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/r1lcjCSWsDY
27. Do Fighter Jets Use Afterburners During Aircraft Carrier Takeoff | WION Podcast - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5dO6wFLWTM
28. What is ‘bringback’, and why do naval jets have it? : r/WarCollege - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1iuz1nn/what_is_bringback_and_why_do_naval_jets_have_it/
29. How much “CATOBAR-worthy” weight is on the F-35C? If that weight were removed, could a “land-based F-35C” use a shorter runway and fly longer due to its larger wings and fuel tanks? And with a lower wing load, could it be more agile? - Quora, https://www.quora.com/How-much-CATOBAR-worthy-weight-is-on-F-35C-If-those-weight-is-lifted-could-land-based-F-35C-use-shorter-runway-and-fly-longer-due-to-larger-wing-and-tank -And-with-lower-wing-load-could-it-be-more-agile
30. Grumman A-6E Intruder - Aviation History & Technology Center, https://ahtc360.org/grumman-a-6e-intruder/
31. Military Aircraft Maintenance Costs - Jeremy D. Zawodny, https://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/006345.html
32. When it is said that the F-14 required 50 man-hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time, what exactly needs to be maintained? How is that sustainable? : r/aviation - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/n0tgks/when_it_is_said_that_the_f14_required_50_manhours/
33. One Engine or Two? The Fighter Debate That Never Dies | MiGFlug.com Blog, https://migflug.com/jetflights/one-engine-or-two-the-fighter-debate-that-never-dies/
34. What are the pros and cons of single versus dual jet fighter engines if they have the same total thrust? - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/ouh51c/what_is_the_pros_and_cons_of_single_vs_dual_jet/
35. F-35 Power and Thermal Management System | Collins Aerospace - RTX, https://www.rtx.com/collinsaerospace/what-we-do/industries/military-and-defense/power-and-thermal-management/enhanced-power-and-cooling-system-epacs
36. Origins-The Story Of The Legendary F-14 Tomcat - Defencyclopedia, https://defencyclopedia.com/2015/02/14/origins-the-story-of-the-legendary-f-14-tomcat/
37. https://www.marvellouswings.com/Aircraft/Engine/Turbofan/F030/F030.html
38. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197630/general-electric-j79-turbojet/
39. https://www.aero-mag.com/f-35-engines-to-be-manufactured-in-finland-following-new-agreement
40. https://www.reddit.com/r/ThingsCutInHalfPorn/comments/8a99hr/j42_turbojet_engine_they_have_tons_of_old_engines/
41. https://www.twz.com/air/super-hornet-crashed-landing-on-uss-harry-s-truman-its-second-f-a-18-loss-in-a-week