I don't know quite how to approach this one. So when in doubt run full speed ahead.
ARES ran a story about the F-35's being grounded and GAVE in my opinion, the impression that the generators/back up generators failed on the airplane...Ole Bill likes to dance on the head of a pin when making some of his statements so pay close attention.
Luckily a commenter on the blog gave me food for thought...
Atomic Walrus is exactly right.Atomic Walrus wrote:Hang on a second, here - many of the comments on this article seem to be assuming that the dual generator is intended to be a redundant design. Is that accurate? A closer reading on some of the news reports from the program suggest that it's more like 2 generators ganged up to provide the desired electrical output, with the integrated power pack providing the back-up system. This doesn't mitigate the fact that there was a generator failure due to a simple maintenance issue, but it's a far cry from asserting that LockMart is so foolish as to allow primary and backup of a critical system to be taken out by a single event.3/26/2011 11:48 PM CDT
This is one of Sweetmans statements found on line 3...
Now when I say pay attention...thats what I mean!Bill Sweetman wrote:I think that what is interesting about this thread is how pro-JSF people can't accept a very straightforward observation: that if you have two widgets that are there to provide redundancy in a flight-critical function, and one failure (technical or human+technical) takes both of them out, you have an issue that bears further investigation.
Bill DID NOT say that the generators involved were there to provide backup emergency power. Quite honestly when I first read Atomic Walrus's statement I was high and to the right ... when I finally caught on to the wordsmithing going on... I was still high and to the right.
This one neat, tidy, simple---heck even elegant statement was constructed in such a way as to have a casual reader believe that the primary and backup generators had failed and that the airplane was mere seconds away from falling out of the sky.
That wasn't the case and the issue was quickly solved and resolved.
The entire point is this-- PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO ANY DEBATE INVOLVING THE JSF. FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN THE ANTI-JSF CAMP THIS IS A WIN AT ANY COST ENDEAVOUR!
Even the neutral (at least I think he is...he hasn't exactly stated a position and I have yet to detect one in his writing) Graham Warwick made a curious statement in the comments section...
But the redundancy of the system isn't in the dual generators...its in the back up to those generators....Graham Warwick wrote:If I can be permitted to comment on my own post...this will not be news to ardent JSF watchers who caught the story by Steve Trimble of Flightglobal which appeared - briefly - earlier this week.
When it did, my colleague Bill Sweetman made the very valid point that a single maintenance action resulting in the failure of both engine-driven generators must call into question the redundancy of the system, which mounts both generators on a single line-replaceable unit.
Want a balanced reporting of this story? Lets check out our friends at F-16.net...
The grounding appears to have occurred because of the potential for loss of control posed by such a combination.Again...pay careful attention when reading news on the F-35.
Unlike previous fighter jets, the F-35's flight control surfaces are controlled by electro-hydrostatic actuators. If they don't have power then the pilot can lose control. In this case, the back-up power system — the Integrated Power Package which also serves as the starter and air conditioner — kicked in as designed, allowing the pilot to return to base.
UPDATE:
Commenter BowlWeavel said it best...
All I can say is wow
listen to some of you people
Do you have any idea how many different ways there are to wreck an aircraft and/or kill someone with a maintenance error or by failing to follow proper procedures?
give it a rest already
this wasn't the problem you hoped it was
Some folks stepped on your favorite pet again, didn't they? ROFL!
ReplyDeleteI've pretty much given up expecting things like integrity and objectivity out of Ares when it comes to the F-35, and Bill is by far the worst of the bunch. He's said he feels that the success of the F-35 would mean the end of European fighter development and he's doing everything in his power, damn the torpedos, to bring it down, even if he has to lie or decieve. I'm surprised McGraw Hill lets him get away with it but maybe all they see is "controversy sells" and it doesn't matter if there's any actual truth to it or not. Like Jim Jones, Bill whips his sycophants into a frenzy and they're all to happy to brainlessly pile on. Most of them haven't got the first clue how RDT&E works and couldn't care less. You ask them why they hate the F-35 religiously and they spew back Bills talking points. You ask them what they would substitute it with, and without two seconds of actual though they spit back whatever jet they think is cool today with the only justification being that it's "proven". (I never get tired of asking ELP how he plans to operate Super Hornets from Gators. ;-) ) In short, for the most part, they're a waste of effort.
ReplyDelete-sferrin
yeah i'm feeling the same way sferrin.
ReplyDeleteas a matter of fact i'm weighing setting up a separate page on this blog for F-35 issues so it doesn't clog up my main page...as a matter of fact i think i'll probably do it.
i just can't get over how hard he splits hairs to make his points...its crazy!
RE: Warwick's 'defense' of Sweetman, specifically:
ReplyDelete"a single maintenance action resulting in the failure of both engine-driven generators must call into question the redundancy of the system"
That had to have Maintenance Officers all over the world rolling in stitches. I don't think there is an airplane flying anywhere that has not fallen nor is vulnerable to a maintenance faux pas. The defense also seems to avoid the recognition that the redundancy and backup system DID work since the IPP apparently kicked in and prevented loss of aircraft. there is nothing that is 'Maintenance Proof'.
i also think that as a new system we expect to see issues such as this and be able to correct them thats why its in the TEST phases. i rather we find glitches now and fix them than have to wait until we put these into a combat situation.
ReplyDeleteSferrin - Need to work on those anger issues. Though you're in Utah, maybe LDS, some of you get wound a little tight... Sol - develop some reading skills. Nobody's saying OMG THE GENERATOR FAILED SCRAP THE PROGRAM...
ReplyDelete^----Average quaility of one of Bill's followers. (I say "followers" because most of them can't think for themselves.)
ReplyDelete