Real Engineering: Insane Engineering of the F-35B.

[BrianHG]

This F-35B fighter is insane...

[jonpaul]

insane cost F-35B Supe tech and super complex. Will NOT made USA any safer

Our Taxpayer money wasted to the defense firms and crooked politicians that are in these firms or big investors (BHO, Hillary, Nancy,  Def Sec)


Boondoggle



j

[BrianHG]

  How did a tech engineering forum post look at a technical marvel generate a first response being political in nature.

[james_s]

Oh give me a break, it's an airplane, airplanes are fascinating, especially military airplanes and very relevant to engineering discussion. There's no need to bring politics into it.

[pcprogrammer]

Yes from a technical point of view this is amazing. So much advanced technology both mechanical and electrical is a delight for any engineer.

[Infraviolet]

fascinating technically, but the F35 project really has fallen far behind schedule and far above cost. Unfortunately the project has got so big, and has such dreadful (clearly politically planned) elements to it as making all buyers of the F35 reliant on both each other and on the USA for servicing, spares, software updates... that one can't escape politics when discussing it. And the rumour always has been it was designed specifically to be inferior to the (older) F22 raptor (which the USA never sells abroad), so the USA's allies all abandon fighter production programmes of their own and then have a plane that can't beat the USA.

[wraper]

Jack of all trades, master of none. So much compromises were made for all that super tech, it's super slow for a fighter and cannot even cruise at supersonic speeds.

[coppice]

How did a tech engineering forum post look at a technical marvel generate a first response being political in nature.

Because the F35 is not an engineering program, but a political program? Every design decision was based on its political impact.

[coppice]

Jack of all trades, master of none. So much compromises were made for all that super tech, it's super slow for a fighter and cannot even cruise at supersonic speeds.

Yep. Its another Tornado. Sold with idea that a multi-role aircraft would be cheaper and more flexible than several separate ground up designs for different roles. It never seems to work out in practice, but it does create employment in a large number of locations.

[Infraviolet]

Post #7, super slow is apparently not so bad. I saw a very interesting video recently (forgot the link, please post if anyone else finds it) arguing that as virtually all recorded air combat since the Korean war has taken place at low speeds, maximum speed isn't too important. But we all know the F35 has many problems not related to speed.

[BrianHG]

How did a tech engineering forum post look at a technical marvel generate a first response being political in nature.

Because the F35 is not an engineering program, but a political program? Every design decision was based on its political impact.

Funny, none of my Nasa Apollo videos got this treatment.  Do you think the Apollo moon landing wasn't a political vehicle for the cold war?

[coppice]

How did a tech engineering forum post look at a technical marvel generate a first response being political in nature.

Because the F35 is not an engineering program, but a political program? Every design decision was based on its political impact.

Funny, none of my Nasa Apollo videos got this treatment.  Do you think the Apollo moon landing wasn't a political vehicle for the cold war?

Apollo was a wartime project in an actual war. It was built for a propaganda purpose and succeeded. Why would anyone complain about it? Especially when it was highly inspirational to a generation of engineering minded youngsters.

[BrianHG]

How did a tech engineering forum post look at a technical marvel generate a first response being political in nature.

Because the F35 is not an engineering program, but a political program? Every design decision was based on its political impact.

Funny, none of my Nasa Apollo videos got this treatment.  Do you think the Apollo moon landing wasn't a political vehicle for the cold war?

Apollo was a wartime project in an actual war. It was built for a propaganda purpose and succeeded. Why would anyone complain about it? Especially when it was highly inspirational to a generation of engineering minded youngsters.

It was a political decision to put US tax payer dollars to fund it.
What if it failed?  What would we be saying now...
Enough.  No more political BS.

[tszaboo]

Jack of all trades, master of none. So much compromises were made for all that super tech, it's super slow for a fighter and cannot even cruise at supersonic speeds.

So what. Next thing will be that it would loose a dogfight for a F4 or some other irrelevant plane.
It shoots the enemy from the sky before they see the F35. It shoots the T-72  on the ground if someone with the new M5 rifle's pings it with the advanced optics. There is enough of them to destroy the 2nd 3rd largest army at the same time in a week. That's all we need to know about it.

[langwadt]

fascinating technically, but the F35 project really has fallen far behind schedule and far above cost. Unfortunately the project has got so big, and has such dreadful (clearly politically planned) elements to it as making all buyers of the F35 reliant on both each other and on the USA for servicing, spares, software updates... that one can't escape politics when discussing it. And the rumour always has been it was designed specifically to be inferior to the (older) F22 raptor (which the USA never sells abroad), so the USA's allies all abandon fighter production programmes of their own and then have a plane that can't beat the USA.

afaiu those advanced fighters are so expensive to run that to use one someone has to explain why an F16 can't do it

[james_s]

fascinating technically, but the F35 project really has fallen far behind schedule and far above cost. Unfortunately the project has got so big, and has such dreadful (clearly politically planned) elements to it as making all buyers of the F35 reliant on both each other and on the USA for servicing, spares, software updates... that one can't escape politics when discussing it. And the rumour always has been it was designed specifically to be inferior to the (older) F22 raptor (which the USA never sells abroad), so the USA's allies all abandon fighter production programmes of their own and then have a plane that can't beat the USA.

Agreed, but it's perfectly possible to discuss the engineering aspect without getting into the political aspect.

[wraper]

[pcprogrammer]

... but it's perfectly possible to discuss the engineering aspect without getting into the political aspect.

Seems to be very difficult 

My electronics education started at a school that also had avionics in its curriculum and had some fighter planes in the big hall in the middle of the school. Always had some interest in the whole flying mechanics but never worked in the field.

For the F35 I really find the way they constructed the exhaust nozzle fascinating. Think of the temperatures and pressure the joints need to withstand and still be able to rotate when needed.

I also wonder if the choice for making the vertical lift rotors with blades from a single piece instead of loose blades has something to do with safety. Imagine a blade coming loose as the high RPM right behind your seat.

A class photo in front of one of the planes. Still very young on this picture 

[coppice]

fascinating technically, but the F35 project really has fallen far behind schedule and far above cost. Unfortunately the project has got so big, and has such dreadful (clearly politically planned) elements to it as making all buyers of the F35 reliant on both each other and on the USA for servicing, spares, software updates... that one can't escape politics when discussing it. And the rumour always has been it was designed specifically to be inferior to the (older) F22 raptor (which the USA never sells abroad), so the USA's allies all abandon fighter production programmes of their own and then have a plane that can't beat the USA.

Agreed, but it's perfectly possible to discuss the engineering aspect without getting into the political aspect.

How? The thing has been entirely engineered to satisfy political, rather than operational, demands, Most defence programs which are a horrible mess are that way due to political issues. If you look at something like Apollo, where a real and immediate need to show the US could compete with USSR technology, the politicians were kept at bay. The project progressed very smoothly. especially considering the number of very new and novel things which had to be achieved from scratch, with all the risks that involves.

[2N3055]

F35 is fighter jet analogue of Internet of things, synergistic, universal, artificial intelligence, web enabled, JSON empowered, solar compatible, green energy inducing, ergonomically designed, future proof, invisible but with exquisite design, color adaptable cordless drill...

They took a very focused thing with very clear and defined purpose and threw a bullshit brigade at it. So it's primary goal was to put in all the buzzwords in a design, and then they kept patching it with a duct tape until it flew and was able to shoot weapons.

[iMo]

Frankly, I do not understand why the pilots are still sitting there in the F35..
You can fly it from your home-office..

[jfiresto]

What amazes me about the F-35 is that nearly 12 years after the first delivery, the U.S. DoD and friends have still not validated the design (with the Joint Simulation Environment).

[coppice]

Frankly, I do not understand why the pilots are still sitting there in the F35..
You can fly it from your home-office..

Its easy to do that when nobody is trying to stop you. It turns out to be very hard to keep communication with an air vehicle rock solid when people are trying to stop you. Drones have been working great in situations where the enemy is not very sophisticated. When they are, perhaps its a less effective approach. The approach being sought for next generation pilotless fighters is to make them sufficiently smart that they can act on their own for much of the time, doing more sophisticated things than just avoiding a crash when there is no real time input from the comms links.

[KE5FX]

The approach being sought for next generation pilotless fighters is to make them sufficiently smart that they can act on their own for much of the time, doing more sophisticated things than just avoiding a crash when there is no real time input from the comms links.

[tszaboo]

Frankly, I do not understand why the pilots are still sitting there in the F35..
You can fly it from your home-office..

Its easy to do that when nobody is trying to stop you. It turns out to be very hard to keep communication with an air vehicle rock solid when people are trying to stop you. Drones have been working great in situations where the enemy is not very sophisticated. When they are, perhaps its a less effective approach. The approach being sought for next generation pilotless fighters is to make them sufficiently smart that they can act on their own for much of the time, doing more sophisticated things than just avoiding a crash when there is no real time input from the comms links.

Even F18s have direct laser communication with satellites. The only way to block that is with an object in between. Or a cloud, but that's not the point. Why wouldn't have the F35 a pilot in it? I think pilotless aircraft has a place, and they have been sending these aircrafts in when it was cheaper, or there is no air superiority but loosing them is no big deal. In which way would a pilotless aircraft be better? It can pull more Gs. Otherwise that's it, having the pilot is not a drawback. And pulling Gs is not what you do with this aircraft. You fly in, launch some rockets to targets at 30km range. Nobody is shooting at your plane, they don't even know you are there unless you turn on the transponder. There is no dogfight, since it's not the 70s anymore.
Not even with a SU-57, since the radar signature of it is so bad, they don't allow them to fly against MIG-29s, or to fly into contested airspace. in fear that a simple manpads will shoot it down. It has similar radar signature than a F-18 except from the front. And then it comes the: "comrade we don't have rokets for the internal bay we fly external yes?" part.