6 ms·

I love hearing about these engineering challenges. Media loves to point to these design iterations as proof that the F-35 is over-hyped or inferior to existing

by foxyv 3y ago

I love hearing about these engineering challenges. Media loves to point to these design iterations as proof that the F-35 is over-hyped or inferior to existing jets. But what I see is innovation and trying new stuff. Sometimes failing, but in the end making an amazing jet. I just kind of wish we lived in a world where we didn't NEED a new fighter jet and could instead invest this time and effort into peaceful pursuits.

rkagerer 3y ago
But what I see is innovation and trying new stuff. I like your positive attitude. Though I think there were some engineering shortfalls that should have been avoided with common sense. Eg. The original hook didn't work because the shoe was angled up too high to catch the wire. The engineers designed it based on a flawed simulation model. The guys field testing took one look and knew it wouldn't work. Heck, I showed this photo to my partner (non-engineer) and the first thing she said was "it's not pointing right". https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboard-4283089921.png https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboa... You can see the original (blue) vs revised (red): https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboard-1418549673.png https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboa...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hef19898 3y ago
  Looking at the image, and knowing designers assumed the cable would rebound before being cought by the hook, the original design of the hook itself makes sense: catch the cable in the air and make sure it doesn't slip down the hook. Obviously it doesn't work to catch cable lying flat on the ground. Which was, again, not the initial design requirement. In another thread about Boeing, the topic of good sources to learn about real engineering came up. Well, this is a great example. Just assume the engineers designing the initial hook were not complete clueless idiots.
- foxyv 3y ago
  My first class in Calculus based physics, my professor did an interesting thing. We would be asked to intuit the answer to problems before we did the math to know for certain. Physics is simply not intuitive. Now, with regards to the simulation, the thing I think they failed on wasn't a lack of common sense. I think what they should have done is reproduce the results in real life using a similar jet. They relied on the model a bit too much and "Tested in production." However, as far as mistakes go, this is a pretty small one.
  - euler_angles 3y ago
    There isn't a similar carrier aircraft in the inventory that could have been used, as far as I know.
    - foxyv 3y ago
      I was thinking something like the Goshawk. Then use the video to compare with the model.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > The guys field testing took one look and knew it wouldn't work. You have a hearsay, hindsight story (no offense to the author) that one person thought it wouldn't work. And now we have a hindsight HN comment that they would have known it all along. I'm guessing the people who worked on it weren't idiots, though people seem to delight in supposing they are smarter than all the dumb people whose plans don't work out perfectly.
  - euler_angles 3y ago
    No offense taken. The observation of an instrumentation technician and an engineer (me) definitely counted for not much at all in the grand scheme of things. And we could have just as easily been proven wrong.
    - the_af 3y ago
      Yes, that's what I'm thinking. Since you're the author: can you remember any cases where the person with "common sense" thought "this crap ain't gonna work" but it worked anyway? Surely people only remember those cases when common sense won, and selectively forget those where it didn't?
      - krisoft 3y ago
        > can you remember any cases where the person with "common sense" thought "this crap ain't gonna work" but it worked anyway I have one! Totally different field though. Cruise ships (and roro ferries) look sooo ungainly in water that regular people frequently ask how do they not just roll over. The Icon of the Seas goes 9 meter underwater and 20 stories over the water. It does not feel or look right. Yet it is right, and keeps upright :), because it does not have uniform density. The engines and machinery, and tanks at the bottom of it keeps the center of gravity low enough to make it stable. The funny twist is that vehicle carrier ships also look unstable the same way and there the intuition is more correct. There have been multiple accidents where such ships capsized. But the intuition there is still not correct about the reasons why they flip over. (It is not that they don’t have enough draft, but due to free surface effects and the cargo destabilising).
ckozlowski 3y ago
It's true, and it often forgets that most other aircraft go through the same teething problems. As the article skillfully shows, there's a lot of work that goes into seemingly simple things like a hook. Other elements can be really complex to work out. The F-35's integrated power pack[1] was the source of quite a few issues if I recall correctly. But it was developments like that which allowed the plane to keep weight under control such that we now have a supersonic STOVL jet in the F-35B. It's a pet peeve of mine when commentators say "that's stupid, they should just do <this>!" . Well, if it were so easy... I get your sentiment regarding the need for new fighter jets. At the very least, some of these engineering developments end up helping commercial applications as well. A good example is the C-5 Galaxy, which went through torturous development. But lead to the development of the TF-39 engine, which was revolutionary in concept. It then became the CF6, which then went on to power a long line of successful airliners. [1] https://www.defenseadvancement.com/feature/3-aircraft-systems-in-1-why-honeywells-ptms-for-the-f-35-is-so-effective/ https://www.defenseadvancement.com/feature/3-aircraft-system...
- MadnessASAP 3y ago
  > It's a pet peeve of mine when commentators say "that's stupid, they should just do <this>!" . Well, if it were so easy... Why don't they just put windows in the submarine... It's good to remind ourselves and occasionally others that if the answer to a problem in a domain we don't have much knowledge on seems simple. Chances are the people with the knowledge are well aware of your answer and know why it won't work.
helpfulContrib 3y ago
The cost of a single F35 could fund so much peace in the world. The only reason this isn't happening is because the people making sure the American people keep endlessly funding these programs have no intention whatsoever to make peace. They just don't have the intention to do so. They intend for there to be endless war, which is what these machines produce. It is the only thing they can be used for..
- foxyv 3y ago
  I would love to live in a world where I can know for a fact that war will never again happen. However, the path to that world is a very long one. In the meantime I want to know that the acquisitive psychopaths that run many of the countries in the world have a very good reason to not line me up in front of a wall and shoot me. Should we be taking steps to a more peaceful world that we aren't right now? Yes, very much so. However, unless you want to imitate the path of Tibet or Ukraine, then you better spend some money on guns and fighter jets.
  - helpfulContrib 3y ago
    [dead]
- avalys 3y ago
  This is such nonsense. Could the USA have won WWII by paying off Hitler?
  - foxyv 3y ago
    Possibly, but the world would be much worse off for it.
  - helpfulContrib 3y ago
    [dead]
- marcinzm 3y ago
  Yes, America funded Russia's recent invasions. Yup. All America.
mardifoufs 3y ago
Yeah it's amazing how it is currently the best jet in the world considering how reviled and criticized it was in the media. And said criticism had real consequences, here in Canada we basically got stuck buying 1970s trash just because the f-35 became a taboo and a meme due to projected costs, even if it means that we will pay even more for the alternatives for much much less capabilities.
- foxyv 3y ago
  To be honest, I think the F/A-18 is an excellent jet for Canada's needs. Also Canada currently has 88 F-35s on order and will get their first ones in 2026.
  - dralley 3y ago
    The ancient F/A-18s airframes Canada purchased however, were not. >Canada expects to receive its first four F-35As beginning in 2026, another six in 2027, and six more in 2028, with the full fleet to arrive in time to enable the phase out of the CF-18s by the end of 2032. But its CF-18 fleet, even bolstered by the purchase of 18 ex-Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18A-Bs, may not be able to effectively hang on until then. They wasted a lot of time and money setting up supply chains and training pipelines for a fleet of near-end-of-life airframes that required constant maintenance, provide only the bare minimum capabilities and won't end up in service for very long. And they're having so many retention issues with their pilots that even that is wasted.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      The world changed significantly since that initial order, with the threats greatly increasing (from China and Russia). F/A-18 jets might have made sense in a more peaceful world. Now Canada has bigger problems and needs to better interoperate with NATO allies. Many countries switched their plans to F-35's after Russia invaded Ukraine.
      - mardifoufs 3y ago
lmm 3y ago
Making a new experimental jet design is great. It's the committing to buy and pay for thousands of them before you've even confirmed whether that design works that I object to.
- foxyv 3y ago
  This is literally the only way you can do these mega projects. Otherwise they just wouldn't happen. If the design doesn't work, then they just move on to the next one. EG: The Future Combat System, RAH66 Comanche, The Airborne Laser, The Kinetic Interceptor, The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, etc...
davidjytang 3y ago
Some would argue that arming oneself is the pursuit of peace.
- foxyv 3y ago
  I agree wholeheartedly. But it is definitely a hard pill to swallow.

by foxyv 3y ago

rkagerer 3y ago

But what I see is innovation and trying new stuff. I like your positive attitude. Though I think there were some engineering shortfalls that should have been avoided with common sense. Eg. The original hook didn't work because the shoe was angled up too high to catch the wire. The engineers designed it based on a flawed simulation model. The guys field testing took one look and knew it wouldn't work. Heck, I showed this photo to my partner (non-engineer) and the first thing she said was "it's not pointing right". https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboard-4283089921.png https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboa... You can see the original (blue) vs revised (red): https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboard-1418549673.png https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboa...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hef19898 3y ago
Looking at the image, and knowing designers assumed the cable would rebound before being cought by the hook, the original design of the hook itself makes sense: catch the cable in the air and make sure it doesn't slip down the hook. Obviously it doesn't work to catch cable lying flat on the ground. Which was, again, not the initial design requirement. In another thread about Boeing, the topic of good sources to learn about real engineering came up. Well, this is a great example. Just assume the engineers designing the initial hook were not complete clueless idiots.
foxyv 3y ago
My first class in Calculus based physics, my professor did an interesting thing. We would be asked to intuit the answer to problems before we did the math to know for certain. Physics is simply not intuitive. Now, with regards to the simulation, the thing I think they failed on wasn't a lack of common sense. I think what they should have done is reproduce the results in real life using a similar jet. They relied on the model a bit too much and "Tested in production." However, as far as mistakes go, this is a pretty small one.
- euler_angles 3y ago
  There isn't a similar carrier aircraft in the inventory that could have been used, as far as I know.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    I was thinking something like the Goshawk. Then use the video to compare with the model.
wolverine876 3y ago
> The guys field testing took one look and knew it wouldn't work. You have a hearsay, hindsight story (no offense to the author) that one person thought it wouldn't work. And now we have a hindsight HN comment that they would have known it all along. I'm guessing the people who worked on it weren't idiots, though people seem to delight in supposing they are smarter than all the dumb people whose plans don't work out perfectly.
- euler_angles 3y ago
  No offense taken. The observation of an instrumentation technician and an engineer (me) definitely counted for not much at all in the grand scheme of things. And we could have just as easily been proven wrong.
  - the_af 3y ago
    Yes, that's what I'm thinking. Since you're the author: can you remember any cases where the person with "common sense" thought "this crap ain't gonna work" but it worked anyway? Surely people only remember those cases when common sense won, and selectively forget those where it didn't?
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > can you remember any cases where the person with "common sense" thought "this crap ain't gonna work" but it worked anyway I have one! Totally different field though. Cruise ships (and roro ferries) look sooo ungainly in water that regular people frequently ask how do they not just roll over. The Icon of the Seas goes 9 meter underwater and 20 stories over the water. It does not feel or look right. Yet it is right, and keeps upright :), because it does not have uniform density. The engines and machinery, and tanks at the bottom of it keeps the center of gravity low enough to make it stable. The funny twist is that vehicle carrier ships also look unstable the same way and there the intuition is more correct. There have been multiple accidents where such ships capsized. But the intuition there is still not correct about the reasons why they flip over. (It is not that they don’t have enough draft, but due to free surface effects and the cargo destabilising).

ckozlowski 3y ago

It's true, and it often forgets that most other aircraft go through the same teething problems. As the article skillfully shows, there's a lot of work that goes into seemingly simple things like a hook. Other elements can be really complex to work out. The F-35's integrated power pack[1] was the source of quite a few issues if I recall correctly. But it was developments like that which allowed the plane to keep weight under control such that we now have a supersonic STOVL jet in the F-35B. It's a pet peeve of mine when commentators say "that's stupid, they should just do <this>!" . Well, if it were so easy... I get your sentiment regarding the need for new fighter jets. At the very least, some of these engineering developments end up helping commercial applications as well. A good example is the C-5 Galaxy, which went through torturous development. But lead to the development of the TF-39 engine, which was revolutionary in concept. It then became the CF6, which then went on to power a long line of successful airliners. [1] https://www.defenseadvancement.com/feature/3-aircraft-systems-in-1-why-honeywells-ptms-for-the-f-35-is-so-effective/ https://www.defenseadvancement.com/feature/3-aircraft-system...

MadnessASAP 3y ago
> It's a pet peeve of mine when commentators say "that's stupid, they should just do <this>!" . Well, if it were so easy... Why don't they just put windows in the submarine... It's good to remind ourselves and occasionally others that if the answer to a problem in a domain we don't have much knowledge on seems simple. Chances are the people with the knowledge are well aware of your answer and know why it won't work.

helpfulContrib 3y ago

The cost of a single F35 could fund so much peace in the world. The only reason this isn't happening is because the people making sure the American people keep endlessly funding these programs have no intention whatsoever to make peace. They just don't have the intention to do so. They intend for there to be endless war, which is what these machines produce. It is the only thing they can be used for..

foxyv 3y ago
I would love to live in a world where I can know for a fact that war will never again happen. However, the path to that world is a very long one. In the meantime I want to know that the acquisitive psychopaths that run many of the countries in the world have a very good reason to not line me up in front of a wall and shoot me. Should we be taking steps to a more peaceful world that we aren't right now? Yes, very much so. However, unless you want to imitate the path of Tibet or Ukraine, then you better spend some money on guns and fighter jets.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  [dead]
avalys 3y ago
This is such nonsense. Could the USA have won WWII by paying off Hitler?
- foxyv 3y ago
  Possibly, but the world would be much worse off for it.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  [dead]
marcinzm 3y ago
Yes, America funded Russia's recent invasions. Yup. All America.

mardifoufs 3y ago

Yeah it's amazing how it is currently the best jet in the world considering how reviled and criticized it was in the media. And said criticism had real consequences, here in Canada we basically got stuck buying 1970s trash just because the f-35 became a taboo and a meme due to projected costs, even if it means that we will pay even more for the alternatives for much much less capabilities.

foxyv 3y ago
To be honest, I think the F/A-18 is an excellent jet for Canada's needs. Also Canada currently has 88 F-35s on order and will get their first ones in 2026.
- dralley 3y ago
  The ancient F/A-18s airframes Canada purchased however, were not. >Canada expects to receive its first four F-35As beginning in 2026, another six in 2027, and six more in 2028, with the full fleet to arrive in time to enable the phase out of the CF-18s by the end of 2032. But its CF-18 fleet, even bolstered by the purchase of 18 ex-Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18A-Bs, may not be able to effectively hang on until then. They wasted a lot of time and money setting up supply chains and training pipelines for a fleet of near-end-of-life airframes that required constant maintenance, provide only the bare minimum capabilities and won't end up in service for very long. And they're having so many retention issues with their pilots that even that is wasted.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    The world changed significantly since that initial order, with the threats greatly increasing (from China and Russia). F/A-18 jets might have made sense in a more peaceful world. Now Canada has bigger problems and needs to better interoperate with NATO allies. Many countries switched their plans to F-35's after Russia invaded Ukraine.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

Making a new experimental jet design is great. It's the committing to buy and pay for thousands of them before you've even confirmed whether that design works that I object to.

foxyv 3y ago
This is literally the only way you can do these mega projects. Otherwise they just wouldn't happen. If the design doesn't work, then they just move on to the next one. EG: The Future Combat System, RAH66 Comanche, The Airborne Laser, The Kinetic Interceptor, The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, etc...

davidjytang 3y ago

Some would argue that arming oneself is the pursuit of peace.

foxyv 3y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. But it is definitely a hard pill to swallow.