NSFE FLYING MIS-ADVENTURES

[tous]

27 minutes ago, janice6 said:

I was also on the SAE Committee that was defining the MIL-STD-1760 Stores Management System.  The F23 was proposed with a Stores Management System that met that evolving Standard.

The F-22 was proposed with a Coaxial Cable from the store stations to the Fuselage.  The argument was that the Stores Management System would be upgraded later.  This dropped the purchase price considerably, but made a future upgrade much more expensive.

The F-23 was deemed too expensive and the claim was that the performance far exceeded the F-22 and that of the anticipated adversaries, but the flyaway price was too high.

LockMart and everyone else in the industry knew that the F-22 was a temporary , single-service product until the specs for the JSF program could be completed.

Having the F-22 contract gave Lockheed a virtual lock (no pun intended) on the JSF competition and the much larger F-35 project. 

Plus it helped that Lockheed was in Maryland, right next door to the professional liars and Puzzle Palace.

As I have said before, if McDonnell Douglas doesn't make it, hope that Grumman (Northrop Grumman) does.

[jilverthor]

6 minutes ago, tous said:

LockMart and everyone else in the industry knew that the F-22 was a temporary , single-service product until the specs for the JSF program could be completed.

Having the F-22 contract gave Lockheed a virtual lock (no pun intended) on the JSF competition and the much larger F-35 project. 

Plus it helped that Lockheed was in Maryland, right next door to the professional liars and Puzzle Palace.

As I have said before, if McDonnell Douglas doesn't make it, hope that Grumman (Northrop Grumman) does.

Plus the air force has set up Lockheed as who they go to for fighters, Northrup  as who builds bombers, and I guess Boeing and who builds transports/tankers

[janice6]

1 minute ago, jilverthor said:

Plus the air force has set up Lockheed as who they go to for fighters, Northrup  as who builds bombers, and I guess Boeing and who builds transports/tankers

On one program to develop a joint technical paper, I was told that a joint venture with Boeing was forbidden.  The basis was that the Military had to use competitive bid for all major programs as mandated by Congress, and that a joint venture between "The only two major A/C suppliers would be seen as collusion, even for a technical paper.

[jilverthor]

4 minutes ago, janice6 said:

On one program to develop a joint technical paper, I was told that a joint venture with Boeing was forbidden.  The basis was that the Military had to use competitive bid for all major programs as mandated by Congress, and that a joint venture between "The only two major A/C suppliers would be seen as collusion, even for a technical paper.

I disagree with the logic, but can see where the idiot came from.  My problem with the production contracts is that the other companies seem to just be stalking horses to be knocked down  and it is a foregone conclusion who will build a given category of aircraft.  At least that is perception given the last few contracts (JSF, B-21, KC-46)

Edited August 22, 2018 by jilverthor

[janice6]

1 minute ago, jilverthor said:

I disagree with the logic, but can see where the idiot came from.  My problem with the production contracts is that the other companies seem to just be stalking horses to be knocked down  and it is a foregone conclusion who will build a given category of aircraft.  At least that is perception given the last few contracts (JSF, B-21, KC-46)

The amusing part is that when a major A/C contract is awarded, and the winning company is lauded as the best selection, the manufacturing is broken down into segments and some segments are built by the same company that lost the original program.  There are many reasons for this, but one reality is that each must look out for the well being of the other supplier. 

If they didn't, and they still had to invest hundreds of millions of their own money to present a working model to the military for consideration before the contract was awarded,  it is possible that one of the remaining two competitors could go broke.  Now the remaining supplier is screwed because of no "competitive" bids.  It's incestuous by necessity. 

[tous]

28 minutes ago, janice6 said:

On one program to develop a joint technical paper, I was told that a joint venture with Boeing was forbidden.  The basis was that the Military had to use competitive bid for all major programs as mandated by Congress, and that a joint venture between "The only two major A/C suppliers would be seen as collusion, even for a technical paper.

Back in the day, whichever company won the big contract, the losers were all given a piece via subcontracts to keep them in business.

LockMart basically said, screw you to McDonnell Douglas after the JSF contract was awarded and put us out of business.

And then, magically, Boeing Defense gets a big piece after they absorb MDAC. 

 

Ack!  6 of janice got in with an explanation before I could. 

 

NB Northrop Grumman was and still is  the prime sub-contractor for the F/A-18 and Super Hornet programs.

We like them.

They played fair.

Edited August 22, 2018 by tous

[jilverthor]

4 minutes ago, janice6 said:

The amusing part is that when a major A/C contract is awarded, and the winning company is lauded as the best selection, the manufacturing is broken down into segments and some segments are built by the same company that lost the original program.  There are many reasons for this, but one reality is that each must look out for the well being of the other supplier. 

If they didn't, and they still had to invest hundreds of millions of their own money to present a working model to the military for consideration before the contract was awarded,  it is possible that one of the remaining two competitors could go broke.  Now the remaining supplier is screwed because of no "competitive" bids.  It's incestuous by necessity. 

So many things wrong with our contracting situation, it isn't funny.  Maybe they can just tack the next one on to an IDIQ contract and avoid the issue that way.

[tous]

4 minutes ago, jilverthor said:

So many things wrong with our contracting situation, it isn't funny.  Maybe they can just tack the next one on to an IDIQ contract and avoid the issue that way.

Back in the day, one company could afford to design and build a prototype for the various competitions, but that became just too much investment, a roll of the dice with all in, as it were.

Plus, no one had manufacturing facilities to satisfy the often aggressive delivery schedule the service demanded, so we used everybody's and they used ours for pieces.

 

But, you are correct.  The contracting part is just sleazy, especially when Congress sticks its slimy fingers in.

Edited August 22, 2018 by tous

[tous]

Just a personal note.

aircarver and I have a few openings  to work on our superminal space plane.

Bring your own slide rules.

Meetings are held at Hooters.

aircarver pays, because he still gets a paycheck, however, rides in his Cherokee are $50.00 per hour and no screaming allowed.

[jilverthor]

4 minutes ago, tous said:

Just a personal note.

aircarver and I have a few openings  to work on our superminal space plane.

Bring your own slide rules.

Meetings are held at Hooters.

aircarver pays, because he still gets a paycheck, however, rides in his Cherokee are $50.00 per hour and no screaming allowed.

Will you supply the CRC Handbook or must I bring my own?

[tous]

We have multiple copies on hand, including my own trusted 1970 edition of Chemistry and Physics and Thermoelectrics.

aircarver has a complete set of the mathematics handbooks; probably never used.

Bring your own copy of the CRC Handbook of Discrete-Valued Time Series.

And Batman comics.

 

[janice6]

A last comment:

 

One of the reasons that the military/government goes with the "big guys", is that the excuse of "questionable ability to perform".  On a Billion Dollar program it's used to "down select" contractors.  On one program I remember Honeybits bid a avionics system that was performance far in excess of the stated RFP requirement (and the MIL-STD requirement for the avionics), and they were banned from the competition with the statement, "They  didn't understand the requirements".  I knew their design and it's a long story.

 

My point is, that the perception of meeting program timetables sometimes is more worrysome to the military than the cost.  They are afraid of Congress breathing down their necks.

 

 

[tous]

20 minutes ago, janice6 said:

A last comment:

 

One of the reasons that the military/government goes with the "big guys", is that the excuse of "questionable ability to perform".  On a Billion Dollar program it's used to "down select" contractors.  On one program I remember Honeybits bid a avionics system that was performance far in excess of the stated RFP requirement (and the MIL-STD requirement for the avionics), and they were banned from the competition with the statement, "They  didn't understand the requirements".  I knew their design and it's a long story.

 

My point is, that the perception of meeting program timetables sometimes is more worrysome to the military than the cost.  They are afraid of Congress breathing down their necks.

 

 

The process is absolutely rigged in favor of companies that have political muscle, usually a Senator looking for a job after they retire or get voted out or a Congressman looking to bring filthy lucre to their districts.

Also note well that, as 6 of janice mentioned, smaller companies with better ideas are ignored; until the contract is let and then they magically become a sub or the winner simply buys them.

Note as well that companies don't make money from the services contract, they make it in foreign sales and that is an ever bigger cesspool than Washington.

 

Now you know why I stayed on the geek side and ran from the business side as fast as I could.

[tous]

1 hour ago, jilverthor said:

Will you supply the CRC Handbook or must I bring my own?

We still can't agree on the Reynolds number for a craft traveling through the vacuum of space at superluminal velocity.

So, is the flow of nothing over the craft laminar or turbulent?

And, what about dark matter?

 

Oh, and if'n yer a-skeered of handling anti-matter, get over it.

 

 

[jilverthor]

7 minutes ago, tous said:

We still can't agree on the Reynolds number for a craft traveling through the vacuum of space at superluminal velocity.

So, is the flow of nothing over the craft laminar or turbulent?

And, what about dark matter?

 

Oh, and if'n yer a-skeered of handling anti-matter, get over it.

 

 

Are we designing for around a Lagrangian? Cause otherwise it doesn't matter in the scheme of things, the delta V budget will have to go from an outrageous number to perform any real maneuvers to a number that is only slightly more outrageous.  But I vote for tripping the boundary layer so that we know it will be turbulent but minimizing the nothingness flow separation.

[jilverthor]

10 minutes ago, tous said:

We still can't agree on the Reynolds number for a craft traveling through the vacuum of space at superluminal velocity.

So, is the flow of nothing over the craft laminar or turbulent?

And, what about dark matter?

 

Oh, and if'n yer a-skeered of handling anti-matter, get over it.

 

 

As for Reynolds number, what if we were to determine it empirically?  We could instrument a representative scale model (complete with tufts of course) and scale the  remaining values accordingly.

[jilverthor]

Oh and as I have said many times before, the important parts are the head and the coffee pot, all other aspects must be designed around that.  I don't want to be part of any design that lacks one of those two elements.  The venturi for relief tubes are not an option.  Yes, I get that we could use the vacuum of space, but it is messy regardless and who want to do an EVA to clean off the optics?

[tous]

aircarver is constructing a wind tunnel so we can test at superluminal velocity in nothing other than the stray hydrogen atom.

[jilverthor]

[tous]

Not hijacked.

 

Just gently nudged toward whimsy.

 

[jilverthor]

1 minute ago, tous said:

aircarver is constructing a wind tunnel so we can test at superluminal velocity in nothing other than the stray hydrogen atom.

Wait, how is he managing linear flow at those velocities?  And de we require continuous flow, or is this going to be a blow down wind tunnel only capable of operating for fractions of a second?

[jilverthor]

2 minutes ago, tous said:

Not hijacked.

 

Just gently nudged toward whimsy.

 

You haven't seen my next post yet.

[jilverthor]

3 minutes ago, jilverthor said:

And do we need to be considering space pirates with this design?  It seems like a compliment of Space Force personnel to defend against potential boarding parties might be wise.

[tous]

3 minutes ago, jilverthor said:

And do we need to be considering space pirates with this design?  It seems like a compliment of Space Force personnel to defend against potential boarding parties might be wise.

Good thinking.

You, sir, are now in charge of armament.

Think unlimited energy, but limited dimensions.

And, yes, we can make room for a GAU-8.

 

Before you ask, yes, the space plane does have a hook.

 

Fun to think about. 

[jilverthor]

And to make up for the hijack, one of my favorite stories of mis-adventure told about the SR-71.

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/that-time-an-sr-71-made-an-emergency-landing-in-norway-1765436508