
The blog is a view of life, science, politics and education from an engineering perspective. As engineers, we are taught to view the world objectively. We can hope, believe and calculate a particular outcome, but natural laws are inflexible and pay no heed to who we are or what we believe. We must approach the objective dispassionately, while compensating for our own distorted perceptions. Balance is also a key element; balancing between the ideal and the pragmatic, balancing cost and functionality, balancing analysis with action, etc.
Scheduling routine critical self-analysis is the foundation to objectivity. If we do not fully understand and compensate for our own failures, tendencies, habits and skewed thought processes, we will not see the world as it is. Without a regular critical self-analysis we will see the world as we are and then fall prey to self-delusion.
Failure is a great teacher. When failure is coupled with perseverance, it produces the fruit of patience and humility. An engineer, fresh out of engineering school is typically set up for failure early and often. The failure breaks the new engineer of any ideas of self-importance, arrogance and book smarts. Only then can the new engineer be formed and molded into a productive element in the industry.
Thanks,
Bernie
F-35 update
The news regarding the trillion dollar F-35 program is getting worse. The fleet has been grounded following the discovery of cracks during routine inspections.
The F-35 conjures up images of bloat; extremely costly, poor performance, over weight and only kept alive through pork barrel spending.
A watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, said the grounding is not likely to mean a significant delay in the effort to field the stealthy aircraft. “The Pentagon’s current management is hooked on the airplane and refuses to admit it is a failure,” claimed the watchdog group.
"The F-35 is a huge problem because of its growing, already unaffordable, cost and its gigantically disappointing performance," the group's Winslow Wheeler said. "That performance would be unacceptable even if the aircraft met its far-too-modest requirements, but it is not."
The turbine problem, first reported by Politico Pro, arose as the Pentagon has sought to persuade Congress to cancel the automatic cuts, which could force the military to reduce its budgets by about $500 billion over the next 10 years. The first installment of the cuts is scheduled to start on Friday, and it may force the Pentagon to delay buying three of the approximately 30 F-35 planes it had planned to order this year.
Its weight stems from the desire for this aircraft to serve in every role ever conceived by all branches of the military. About 550 lbs of extra air frame is needed to accommodate the impact of carrier landings. Extra avionics is needed for surveillance programs. The low radar signature also adds weight. The result is an aircraft with considerably lower performance levels than the F-22; the aircraft launched 10 years ago.
- F-22A carries twice as many air-to-air missiles as the F-35A
- F-22A tactically employs at nearly twice the altitude and at 50% greater airspeed than the F-35A
- Gives air-to-air missiles a 40% greater employment range and increased lethality
- Increases air-to-ground weapons employment range
- F-22A can control more than twice the battle space of the F-35A
- F-22A AESA radar has more T/R elements than F-35 radar
- F-22A in production...F-35A initial operational capability date is 2013…key in considering F-15Cs need to be replaced now
- Only the F-22 features vectored thrust, giving it twice the maneuverability of an F-35
- The F-22 can turn at twice the rate of an F-35
- The F-22 is more expensive than the original projection of the F-35 but the gap is narrowing.
The F-35 did not hit the desired performance targets. Instead of revising the aircraft, the targets were reduced.
The F-35 is only capable of a turn performance of 4.6g down from 5g, which was downgraded from the plan of a 6g plane (which is less than an F-4, Mirage IIIE, or a Mig-17).
It is also slower in acceleration tests from mach 0.8 to 1.2 than planned (it is now 43 secs, which slower than an F-4, Mirage IIIE or Mig-17)
It also has a much lower top speed than the Mirage IIIE, a plane that was retired from the RAAF in 1988, and it is also slower than the Navy’s current main aircraft the F/A-18.
An Australian pilot commented on the F-35 after a test flight, “Compared to our first supersonic fighter (the Mirage), the F-35 has less range, it is slower, it is less agile at most heights, all of which mean it has less survivability. Due to the low weapons volume it can take, the chances of it surviving a visual fight with the 4th gen fighters is pretty poor, and stealth will not save it. Currently JORN (our over the horizon radar system) can spot one of these pretty easy. JORN has a little trouble tracking it, but more than enough to narrow down an area and get fighter in visual range, pretty sure other countries will be able to do the same. More to the point; it would mean the tankers (needed to support the F-35) would also be exposed or require more assets to protect it.”
The response from Lockheed Martin is that the F-35 not an air superiority fighter, such as the F22, but rather it is a multirole aircraft. The evaluation criteria as a pure fighter (maneuverability, acceleration, top speed) are not based on the original scope of the F-35.
The F-35 is also designed to have a low radar signature. Its shape has no right angles, which reflect radar waves, and a special “fiber” coating make it difficult to detect on any enemy radar. Low heat emissions and an ability to carry armaments in an internal weapons bay instead of mounted on wings and underneath the fuselage further enhances its stealth capabilities.
A spokesman for Lockheed Martin said: "“The F-35 is a stealth aircraft and by definition it is less vulnerable than any fourth generation fighter flying today. We don’t consider this a major issue. We have demonstrated very good vulnerability performance and we continue to work this with the Joint Program Office.”
New technology doesn’t come easily or cheaply. In many occasions we will need to limp along with the new technology before running. However, at some point the determination needs to be made on whether or not the technology is mature enough to use on a mass production basis. In the case of the F-35, the technology issues are exacerbated by poor tactical decisions and implementation.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.





14 Comments
Carl Hicks - Mar 02, 2013 2:15 AM
The first ever supersonic stealth jumpjet to be built for the British armed forces has rolled off the assembly line. There's just one snag: Britain decided last year that it would no longer have jumpjets, meaning that the aircraft will never serve with the Royal Navy or RAF
ever since the 1990s, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had planned to replace the famous Harrier jumpjet with the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the upcoming F-35 stealth fighter-attack aircraft, now in flight test, which will equip US forces and many others in coming years. In fact, Britain's interest in the F-35B meant that the lead test pilot on the type is a Brit
But before the decision last year, the UK had already ordered three F-35Bs, and it is the first of these that has just come off the production line in the USA. Blighty will still get three jumpjets to replace the lost Harriers – now sold off at bargain prices to the US Marines, who can't believe their luck – even if they never go operational. ®
Carl Hicks - Mar 02, 2013 4:15 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153741/Languishing-Arizona-mighty-fleet-Harriers--sold-price-just-ONE-US-replacements.html
"Then last month, the Government announced a U-turn over the type of fighters it was ordering for the Royal Navy’s new super-carriers.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed in a defence review that the Government would be buying the F-35B jump jet after all, rather than the F-35C "
And my favorite new discovery of today...
"More than 4,000 mothballed or retired aircraft are at the ‘Boneyard’, which has featured in Hollywood films including Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, and covers 2,600 acres of baking desert.
The site’s high altitude and arid conditions mean aircraft can be left outdoors without deteriorating too rapidly. The estimated value of its collection, including B-52 Stratofortresses, F-14 Tomcats and A-10 Thunderbolt ‘tank-busters’, is an incredible £17.5 billion"
F-14 Tomcats !!! they haven't all been destroyed as I was once informed.... :)
Carl Hicks - Mar 02, 2013 2:16 PM
Sorry if you only see them as a killing machine. They are a part of my history having once been a Navy Airman.
WFB resident - Mar 03, 2013 8:21 AM
Pierre Del Norte - Mar 04, 2013 12:11 PM
You should try being on the receiving end of one of those "it's just an airplane."
Bernie Ziebart - Mar 04, 2013 12:26 PM
It was a revolutionary aircraft; well ahead of it's time.
Note: The only country still using the F-14 in active service is Iran. Iran had received an order of 44 F-14's in 1976 prior to the Shaw being overthrown. These F-14s were then used heavily in the border wars with Iraq.
WFB resident - Mar 04, 2013 5:05 PM
in cars ? Do you allow them in your neighborhood ? Do you allowe them to be driven
by 16 year olds ? Yet it was built to move that was all yet it kills more people than
those so called killing machines that you talk about ! Why are you so blinded to that ?
Bernie Ziebart - Mar 05, 2013 11:17 AM
I have a habit of writing about things that interest me.
Pierre Del Norte - Mar 05, 2013 11:52 AM
I would suggest try taking a Hellfire missile up your rather ponderous backside - just to see what it is like.
I know that you, along with the leadership of the NRA, won't agree with me on this, but I think we should prohibit 16 year-old's from flying a fully loaded F-35.
But, you never know when you might find yourself in an "active shooter" situation.
WFB resident - Mar 05, 2013 4:06 PM
weaponry taken off ! What is your point ?
WFB resident - Mar 05, 2013 4:07 PM
may be younger !!
Carl Hicks - Mar 07, 2013 1:51 PM
With incredible results, their kill to loss ratio was close to 25 to 1 , Iraqs MIGs were useless against the F-14 and after they bought Mirages they didn't fair much better.
Pierre Del Norte - Mar 08, 2013 5:00 PM
Here are two interesting sets of data points dealing with the rise of right-wing anti-government group and domestic terrorism.
The first is from April of 2009 produced by the Department of Homeland Security titled -
"Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling
Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
The second is from the Southern Poverty Law Center titled "New Report: Radical anti-government movement continues explosive growth; SPLC urges government to review resources devoted to domestic terrorism."
http://www.splcenter.org/home/splc-report-antigovernment-patriot-movement-continues-explosive-growth-poses-rising-threat-of-v
That which was predicted by DHS four years ago has been happening - at an alarming rate.
I know it is off this current topic, but I would be interested in your take.