Comments on: How the Joint Strike Fighter and Dreamliner 787 programs are compromised by similar project management failures

By: Jason Simonds

Jason Simonds — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:07:19 +0000

Quote:

“Quite correct, David. Credibility and cowering behind anonymity are mutually exclusive terms.”

That’s a rather curious viewpoint from someone who calls himself, Horde, or is it Occam, or others on a frequent basis isn’t it?

By: Peter Goon

Peter Goon — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:57:55 +0000

Quite correct, David. Credibility and cowering behind anonymity are mutually exclusive terms.

The last poster (not real name) pops up every so often

Such posts typify those who, when provided with data and facts or politely asked to substantiate their opinions with same, display a total indifference to what is real.

By: David Klein

David Klein — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:57:33 +0000

This has been an intriguing exchange of views by all, however from where I sit those wishing to enter a technical debate of this magnitude hoping to establish serious credibility and remain anonymous, are on a hiding to nothing.

By: Jason Simonds

Jason Simonds — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:47:35 +0000

Quote: “As for your reference to the 4Corners program ‘Flying Blind’, on a mild day in Darwin (28 degrees Centigrade), with a standard air-to-air combat load plus a centreline fuel tank (needed to get any useable range), the Super Hornet will struggle to go supersonic let alone get to any altitude that would make it useable, say circa 2012, against, let alone competitive with, any of the RTAs (reference threat aircraft); namely, the Su-30MK series, MiG-35, later generation Chinese J-11, let alone the Su-35-1 and the PAK-FA”.

Be that as it may, Mr Goon, I do not however wish to “test” this so-called evidence.

What I find interesting is how an F-111 would go in this scenario? Supersonic perhaps, but fast enough to outrun all those terribly nasty R-77’s that would be howling in-bound?

No way in hell. Also, what is One Squadron’s role within RAAF’s Orbat again?

Videmus Agamus????

By: Peter Goon

Peter Goon — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:39:02 +0000

Yep. Second cousin removed to Spike on me Mum’s side . . . Woy Woy and all.

By: battlensign

battlensign — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:10:37 +0000

Ah……the Goon show……Dad used to love watching it. Didn’t realise it has a real-life component!

Why we don’t just buy Sukhoi’s I’ll never know………..:P

Now where did I put that damn broken Mobile Phone……

By: Peter Goon

Peter Goon — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:14:14 +0000

Contrarian . .

What’s your real handle a.k.a. your real name?

Surely, no Engineer worth his/her salt and who is true to the profession needs to hide behind a nom-de-plume or other such artifice?

By: Peter Goon

Peter Goon — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:47:10 +0000

Oops . . just goes to show one shouldn’t just rely on memory – this should read:

“BTW – you can confirm much of this for yourself by taking a look at the Super Hornet Flight Manual, known as the Naval Aviation Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) Manual, A1-F18EA-NFM series, particularly the -200 Performance Volume of the Manual.”

The NATOPS A1-F18AC-NFM series is for the F/A-18 A/B/C/D models which, BTW, have a higher top end speed than the Super Hornets.

By: Peter Goon

Peter Goon — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:24:17 +0000

Au contraire, mon frère Engineer – if, of course, your profession is as you claim.
Bit hard to say at the moment, given the absence in understanding you display of such things as S&M and the importance of ‘real world data’.
BTW, what do you think is so hard about gathering flight test data at Mach 2? Can’t think of many, if any, Engineers who would make such a claim, certainly not in the Aerospace fraternity.
But you say you worked with CATIA (i.e. 3 D solid modelling design software) on a wing design for BA (presumably BAe Systems -the company), so could it be you are one of the “Young Turk” Design Engineers to which I refer in the short monograph above?
Nothing wrong with being a “Young Turk”. Far from being derogatory, the term is used with admiration – we all go through this phase of our careers (e.g. “Young Turk” Lawyers, Accountants, Indian Chiefs, etc.)
What’s important is the enthusiasm, keenness, energy and bright minds of the Young Turks be encouraged, guided, oversighted and, importantly, fulfilled in their work and efforts by those who have gone before; those who hold the knowledge and the wisdom, including having made the mistakes and learned from the experience; and, who can guide their efforts and hard work to produce an exemplary, simple design that is both operationally and economically effective. This is called mentoring which, in this day and age of ‘de-skilling’, is obvious by its paucity, if not absence.
The reasons for this are many; some of which are touched on in the monograph above.
However, the effects are obvious as evidenced by the somewhat shallow, emotive based and factually unsupportable opinions provided in your posts.
Thanks for confirming, by such a practical demonstration, the thesis on the absence of mentoring (Third Dot Point, above).
As for your reference to the 4Corners program ‘Flying Blind’, on a mild day in Darwin (28 degrees Centigrade), with a standard air-to-air combat load plus a centreline fuel tank (needed to get any useable range), the Super Hornet will struggle to go supersonic let alone get to any altitude that would make it useable, say circa 2012, against, let alone competitive with, any of the RTAs (reference threat aircraft); namely, the Su-30MK series, MiG-35, later generation Chinese J-11, let alone the Su-35-1 and the PAK-FA.
Also, the survivability of the Super Hornet against any of the modern day SAM (surface to air missile) systems is highly problematic. Sure, it has some ‘wonderful, wonderful’ sensor systems and a lovely set of cockpit displays, but as a number of USAF Generals (and other experts) are on record as saying, ” . . .all that techno-glitter is going to do is tell the Super Hornet pilot how and when he is going to die!”.
Some things to remember from my days at PAX USNTPS, “ . . sensors systems do not an aircraft, make!” and “Beware of the techno-glitter; and those who market same as being the Aircraft”.
BTW – you can confirm much of this for yourself by taking a look at the Super Hornet Flight Manual, known as the Naval Aviation Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) Manual, A1-F18AC-NFM series.
Looking forward to a strong debate on the merits of these matters. As an Engineer, I commend you to look at the data and the facts, then test the evidence. This is a lot safer than relying upon hearsay and the emotive based opinions of non experts such as Aircrew and other non-engineering types who make sweeping assertions and pronouncements about matters in the domains of Engineering and Science. Also, beware of those people who ‘don’t know what they don’t know about things they struggle to understand’. They are often the.

very same people who are artisans in ‘displaying a total indifference to reality’.

By: Contrarian

Contrarian — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:43:25 +0000

Well, I am not involved in the JSF program, nor do I have any insider information. So my point is not about the merits of the JSF (geez, you guys get really touchy sometimes).

So let me be clear, I actually don’t particularly like the JSF.

Now, having said that, I can recognise a bad generalisation when I see one (a la 4Corners Flying Blind), and that’s the only barrel that I am pushing.

The End.