Comments on: Caught on Tape: JSF http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Sat, 26 May 2012 02:10:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: decentweasel http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-188133 decentweasel Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:03:31 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-188133 Thank you! Finally we're getting some answers! See, I would've figured you'd want damage data on all possible components. Thank you! Finally we’re getting some answers! See, I would’ve figured you’d want damage data on all possible components.

]]> By: DualityOfMan http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-188066 DualityOfMan Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:49:00 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-188066 There's no point in damaging non-structural parts if you can just replace them with ballast. There’s no point in damaging non-structural parts if you can just replace them with ballast.

]]> By: decentweasel http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-188036 decentweasel Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:57:26 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-188036 Okay. Would actually be interested in seeing your list of weapon systems you like - it seemed to me, for what it was worth, that the best plane for a drop test would be one fully loaded with all features. I think it's damn important to pick apart BS, but it seems like there are a lot huger problems than drop-testing carrier-based aircraft. Okay. Would actually be interested in seeing your list of weapon systems you like — it seemed to me, for what it was worth, that the best plane for a drop test would be one fully loaded with all features. I think it’s damn important to pick apart BS, but it seems like there are a lot huger problems than drop-testing carrier-based aircraft.

]]> By: freefallingbomb http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-187961 freefallingbomb Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:34:52 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-187961 Part II : You wrote: "Knowing your history I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you - is your whole point here to nitpick everything that happens within the defense industry, whether there's a reason to or not? Anybody who had a real grievance would surely not squander their time and reputation quibbling every little thing." Ask me for a list of everything that I admire or recommend in the modern weapons world and I'll give it to you (preferrably in another thread, not here and now), but don't expect everything to be U.S. American-made. Plus: Unlike for example Defense Web-sites, who have to entertain us CONSTANTLY with new stuff (for which I don't envy them...), I sincerely don't feel the need to replace effective (including old and very old) weapons by new, untested ones, just for fashion's or the Economy's sake. I'm 100 % immune to publicity and Propaganda. My criteria to judge military organizations, fixed installations, means of transports, arms and ammunitions (but not wars) are 99 % technical and pragmatic. (But I thought that you "knew my history" already...) Part II :

You wrote: “Knowing your history I’m not sure why I’m arguing with you — is your whole point here to nitpick everything that happens within the defense industry, whether there’s a reason to or not? Anybody who had a real grievance would surely not squander their time and reputation quibbling every little thing.”

Ask me for a list of everything that I admire or recommend in the modern weapons world and I’ll give it to you (preferrably in another thread, not here and now), but don’t expect everything to be U.S. American-made.
Plus: Unlike for example Defense Web-sites, who have to entertain us CONSTANTLY with new stuff (for which I don’t envy them…), I sincerely don’t feel the need to replace effective (including old and very old) weapons by new, untested ones, just for fashion’s or the Economy’s sake. I’m 100 % immune to publicity and Propaganda. My criteria to judge military organizations, fixed installations, means of transports, arms and ammunitions (but not wars) are 99 % technical and pragmatic. (But I thought that you “knew my history” already…)

]]> By: freefallingbomb http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-187959 freefallingbomb Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:31:27 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-187959 Part I : To the poster "indecentweasel" : ................................................................................................................................................................ You wrote: "Cute, real cute. Stress, acceleration, and shocks delivered to the landing gear, one way or another, get transferred to the whole plane." Then why is it only a mock-up, maybe even without engines, fuel, arms (maximum payload!) and avionics? (Continued) Part I :

To the poster “indecentweasel” :

.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…

You wrote: “Cute, real cute. Stress, acceleration, and shocks delivered to the landing gear, one way or another, get transferred to the whole plane.”

Then why is it only a mock-up, maybe even without engines, fuel, arms (maximum payload!) and avionics?

(Continued)

]]> By: decentweasel http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-187936 decentweasel Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:10:52 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-187936 "deceasedweasel?" Cute, real cute. Stress, acceleration, and shocks delivered to the landing gear, one way or another, get transferred to the whole plane. Simple physics. Knowing your history I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you - is your whole point here to nitpick everything that happens within the defense industry, whether there's a reason to or not? Anybody who had a real grievance would surely not squander their time and reputation quibbling every little thing. “deceasedweasel?“
Cute, real cute.

Stress, acceleration, and shocks delivered to the landing gear, one way or another, get transferred to the whole plane. Simple physics.

Knowing your history I’m not sure why I’m arguing with you — is your whole point here to nitpick everything that happens within the defense industry, whether there’s a reason to or not? Anybody who had a real grievance would surely not squander their time and reputation quibbling every little thing.

]]> By: freefallingbomb http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-187935 freefallingbomb Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:05:06 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-187935 To the poster "deceasedweasel" : You wrote: "The stresses on the landing gear are going to be intense." Using a whole airframe to test a single component, when the few available airframes were allegedly needed to be subjected to overall fatigue tests, makes sense to you? This is like sinking whole warships just to test their lifeboats! To the poster “deceasedweasel” :

You wrote: “The stresses on the landing gear are going to be intense.”

Using a whole airframe to test a single component, when the few available airframes were allegedly needed to be subjected to overall fatigue tests, makes sense to you? This is like sinking whole warships just to test their lifeboats!

]]> By: decentweasel http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-187929 decentweasel Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:47:16 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-187929 So wait, are you skeptical of Lockheed's policies or angry that the space shuttle wasn't drop tested? Though the space shuttle comes down at an extreme angle, it flares before landing, and has a big, long runway to bleed off speed on. A carrier-based aircraft, on the other hand, has to land on a very short deck. Carrier aircraft can't flare, so there's nothing to bleed off vertical drop; they just slam into the deck. We haven't even gotten to the fact that carrier decks are often pitching violently in storm conditions, which is going to introduce a lot more vertical motion. The stresses on the landing gear are going to be intense. So the comparison's moot. Given there have been countless carrier mishaps, but no landing gear failures during space shuttle landings, I'm pretty confused as to why you're even drawing the comparison to begin with. Or are you saying that despite the huge number of carrier-landing mishaps that happen all the time, we don't actually need to harden aircraft to tolerate them? So wait, are you skeptical of Lockheed’s policies or angry that the space shuttle wasn’t drop tested?
Though the space shuttle comes down at an extreme angle, it flares before landing, and has a big, long runway to bleed off speed on.
A carrier-based aircraft, on the other hand, has to land on a very short deck. Carrier aircraft can’t flare, so there’s nothing to bleed off vertical drop; they just slam into the deck. We haven’t even gotten to the fact that carrier decks are often pitching violently in storm conditions, which is going to introduce a lot more vertical motion. The stresses on the landing gear are going to be intense.
So the comparison’s moot.

Given there have been countless carrier mishaps, but no landing gear failures during space shuttle landings, I’m pretty confused as to why you’re even drawing the comparison to begin with.
Or are you saying that despite the huge number of carrier-landing mishaps that happen all the time, we don’t actually need to harden aircraft to tolerate them?

]]> By: freefallingbomb http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-187927 freefallingbomb Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:36:48 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-187927 Part II : Sorry, but no carrier plane hits the deck with 343 km/h (213 mph). Even the rocket-like, almost wing-less Starfighters took off and landed from fixed runways with "only" 200 km/h = a consequence of that being new sets of tyres after each four flights. Since originally – in the cosmically dreaming 70's – hundreds of Space Shuttles were planned (before colder heads realized that there simply weren't enough missions even for a dozen Space Shuttles, no matter how cheap their unit cost), building enough prototypes to test every single flight phase, including touch-down, wouldn't have been SUCH A stupid idea. Part II :

Sorry, but no carrier plane hits the deck with 343 km/h (213 mph). Even the rocket-like, almost wing-less Starfighters took off and landed from fixed runways with “only” 200 km/h = a consequence of that being new sets of tyres after each four flights. Since originally – in the cosmically dreaming 70’s – hundreds of Space Shuttles were planned (before colder heads realized that there simply weren’t enough missions even for a dozen Space Shuttles, no matter how cheap their unit cost), building enough prototypes to test every single flight phase, including touch-down, wouldn’t have been SUCH A stupid idea.

]]> By: freefallingbomb http://defensetech.org/2009/11/09/caught-on-tape-jsf/#comment-187926 freefallingbomb Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:35:40 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=4939#comment-187926 To the poster "recentweasel" : Part I : You wrote: "The space shuttle does different things than the JSF. Therefore, it isn't built the same and they don't test it the same. Clear?" Fourteen. On a more serious note: The poster "Cagepete" wrote: "...drop tests were standard procedure for carrier based aircraft... The A-7, for example, was designed for a 30 ft/sec sink speed." 30 feet / second = ~ 10 meters / second. The Space Shuttle: 1) "In the lower atmosphere, the orbiter flies much like a conventional glider, except for a much higher descent rate, over 50 m/s (180 km/h; 110 mph) " = of VERTICAL SPEED !!! 2) "To assist the speed brakes, a 12 m (39 ft) drag chute is deployed either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 343 km/h (213 mph) " <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Re-entry_and_landing" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Re-ent...</a> (Continued) To the poster “recentweasel” :

Part I :

You wrote: “The space shuttle does different things than the JSF. Therefore, it isn’t built the same and they don’t test it the same. Clear?”

Fourteen.

On a more serious note: The poster “Cagepete” wrote: “…drop tests were standard procedure for carrier based aircraft… The A-7, for example, was designed for a 30 ft/sec sink speed.”

30 feet / second = ~ 10 meters / second.

The Space Shuttle:

1) “In the lower atmosphere, the orbiter flies much like a conventional glider, except for a much higher descent rate, over 50 m/s (180 km/h; 110 mph) ” = of VERTICAL SPEED !!!

2) “To assist the speed brakes, a 12 m (39 ft) drag chute is deployed either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 343 km/h (213 mph) ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Re-ent…

(Continued)

]]>