Comments on: F-35B STOVL Flight Tests Behind Schedule Due to Failing Parts http://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:06:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: dtyeclhhttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-252761 dtyeclh Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:32:04 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-252761 TYsoRi <a href="http://skiaxacbwzne.com/" rel="nofollow">skiaxacbwzne</a> TYsoRi skiaxacbwzne

]]> By: Gunny Jhttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-252688 Gunny J Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:39:05 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-252688 Really? When OTS items like "...door actuators, selected valves or switches or components of the power system.” are causing testing to fall behind, how can we really have confidence that the whiz-bang stuff is gonna have any better reliability? Really? When OTS items like “…door actuators, selected valves or switches or components of the power system.” are causing testing to fall behind, how can we really have confidence that the whiz-bang stuff is gonna have any better reliability?

]]> By: Katherinehttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-252682 Katherine Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:19:37 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-252682 I aprpeictae you taking to time to contribute That's very helpful. I aprpeictae you taking to time to contribute That’s very helpful.

]]> By: blighthttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-207818 blight Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:31:57 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-207818 speed is not the end all in air to air. MIG 25s have been shot down by much slower aircraft, for example. speed is not the end all in air to air. MIG 25s have been shot down by much slower aircraft, for example.

]]> By: gt350http://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-207785 gt350 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:39:36 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-207785 When A machine is asked to do many jobs. it becomes a master of none, like people. Why cant we make as fast as a SR-71--It does all this other stuff!? When A machine is asked to do many jobs. it becomes a master of none, like people. Why cant we make as fast as a SR-71–It does all this other stuff!?

]]> By: SMSgt Machttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-207648 SMSgt Mac Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:02:19 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-207648 I call Bulls***. We have GREAT experienced engineers in Aerospace, and the young ones coming on board will water your eyes as well. The trouble is, there are n't enough of them being made because of: 1. The lure of 'comparable' pay in other industries that don't have the same requirements for personal responsibility (potheads and flakes generally do not design/build very good airplanes) 2. Not enough new engineers in the first place. The lure of 'studies' BA programs that don't involve real math and science added to the ever popular Something-Lit programs is appealing as long as students aren't prepared in public schools to deal with the hard sciences. As to pay, Aerospace is second only to Petroleum Engineering: <a href="http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp" target="_blank">http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp</a> But don't tell anyone, because we want the moneygrubbers to keep looking for next "Dot.Com" bubble. I call Bulls***.
We have GREAT experienced engineers in Aerospace, and the young ones coming on board will water your eyes as well. The trouble is, there are n’t enough of them being made because of:
1. The lure of ‘comparable’ pay in other industries that don’t have the same requirements for personal responsibility (potheads and flakes generally do not design/build very good airplanes)
2. Not enough new engineers in the first place. The lure of ‘studies’ BA programs that don’t involve real math and science added to the ever popular Something-Lit programs is appealing as long as students aren’t prepared in public schools to deal with the hard sciences.
As to pay, Aerospace is second only to Petroleum Engineering: http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp
But don’t tell anyone, because we want the moneygrubbers to keep looking for next “Dot.Com” bubble.

]]> By: JimBohttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-207615 JimBo Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:57:57 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-207615 The simple truth is that the cream of the crop US engineers did not enter military contract companies for the last 20 years and the decent one's that did quickly left for greener pastures. When you can make3x salary in a fast paced relevant industry with the potential to make millions and not have your creative tendencies squashed vs. work at a company where the only value-add is senior executive political contacts and where every engineer is more or less the same, you get crappy development. Military procurement folks have only themselves to blame. They've been out of touch with commercial engineering for 30 years, have no idea when they're being fed a line of bull by the defense contractors and are under cut by shortsighted regulations. The simple truth is that the cream of the crop US engineers did not enter military contract companies for the last 20 years and the decent one’s that did quickly left for greener pastures. When you can make3x salary in a fast paced relevant industry with the potential to make millions and not have your creative tendencies squashed vs. work at a company where the only value-add is senior executive political contacts and where every engineer is more or less the same, you get crappy development.

Military procurement folks have only themselves to blame. They’ve been out of touch with commercial engineering for 30 years, have no idea when they’re being fed a line of bull by the defense contractors and are under cut by shortsighted regulations.

]]> By: joehttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-207562 joe Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:48:39 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-207562 Great I dea last think we need is F35 in the Mideast vs. F-22 raptors. Great I dea last think we need is F35 in the Mideast vs. F-22 raptors.

]]> By: Jacobhttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-207553 Jacob Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:27:25 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-207553 If you were a politician you'd have never gotten away with something like that ;-) If you were a politician you’d have never gotten away with something like that ;-)

]]> By: SMSgt Machttp://defensetech.org/2010/07/28/f-35b-stovl-flight-tests-behind-schedule-due-to-failing-parts/#comment-207542 SMSgt Mac Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:24:04 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=8425#comment-207542 And as an aside.... F-35 'gearbox' operation falls into the same category as the 'nothings' -- as in "nothing runs like a Deere". Your aversion to what you perceive in the design is understandable though. The success of the lift system, even with the missteps, has been the biggest surprise in the program for me. In the 90's I worked design issues on power transfer shafts and couplings that linked jet engines to airframe mounted accessory drives. A many-thousand RPM rotating mass linking two devices in a non-rigid assembly was bad enough, but a many-times larger rotating mass cantilevered off the front of your primary means of propulsion and driving the secondary means gave me the heebie jeebies at first. Anyhooo, the article clearly notes that the failures of concern are found in what one might categorize as support or secondary systems And as an aside.…
F-35 ‘gearbox’ operation falls into the same category as the ‘nothings’ — as in “nothing runs like a Deere”. Your aversion to what you perceive in the design is understandable though. The success of the lift system, even with the missteps, has been the biggest surprise in the program for me. In the 90’s I worked design issues on power transfer shafts and couplings that linked jet engines to airframe mounted accessory drives. A many-thousand RPM rotating mass linking two devices in a non-rigid assembly was bad enough, but a many-times larger rotating mass cantilevered off the front of your primary means of propulsion and driving the secondary means gave me the heebie jeebies at first. Anyhooo, the article clearly notes that the failures of concern are found in what one might categorize as support or secondary systems

]]>