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.
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-system...
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.
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/clipboa...
You can see the original (blue) vs revised (red):
https://the-engi-nerd.github.io/posts/welcome/images/clipboa...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
>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.
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.
So there was no point at all, we could've just bought actual replacements (f-35 or not) that would last for an entire generation back in 2p15. But hey, problem solved for the current government so who cares about what happens in 10 years! But then the issue got too big and we ended up circling back to buying the exact same f-35 that we wanted to have for the past 20 years. Just with a worse deal and even more clapped out f18 and pilot accidents.
So a couple old multi-role fighters are sort of okay for what they are doing. Mostly air to ground missions and demonstration flights. They need to up their defense spending a bit to meet NATO obligations, but not that much honestly. No one is going to kick out Canada, especially after the USA dragged them into Iraq.
That makes the mistake in not buying the F-35 the first time around all the worse.
>especially after the USA dragged them into Iraq
This is so not right, it's not even wrong.
[0] https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/11/18/f-35-costs-h...
I've heard this argument before about Canada's F-35 saga and it is now what it was then, massive copium overdose. By this logic Canada ought to wait until the F-35 is obsolete and other nations are selling airframes off for cheap.
That Canada did not have to use its air force in war during the Trudeau years does not mean that its 100% politically driven decision to shirk on the F-35 buy, then jump back on it again, was not a mistake.
Shimooka has a number of works chronicling the Canadian F-35 decision making process, e.g. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/assessing-damage-canadas-fighter...
Billie Flynn discussing the F-35 and the current state of the CAF on "The Merge" podcast: https://youtu.be/kibWNHr9hdg
Who benefited? I assumed that while criticism is healthy, some calls for cancelling the aircraft were from adversaries. Easiest way to defeat the plane is to get Congress to kill it.
EG: The Future Combat System, RAH66 Comanche, The Airborne Laser, The Kinetic Interceptor, The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, etc...
They intend for there to be endless war, which is what these machines produce. It is the only thing they can be used for..
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.
I wish I lived in a world where there's no need for any of this, but as far as I know, war is as old as the species.
Fighter planes are a significant export earner for the USA - it isn't just domestic demand.
Not spend very large sums of money on things piloted by 1-2 people that can end wars relatively quickly.