Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 265 posts

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#31

Post by est31 »

tablespoon wrote: post #25
time0ut wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need the tinfoil hat. This sort of thing happens sometimes. Like the time we forgot how to may part of our thermonuclear weapons and had to reverse engineer that [0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOGBANK

> I don't think we need the tinfoil hat. This sort of thing happens sometimes. Like the time we forgot how to may part of our thermonuclear weapons and had to reverse engineer that [0]. The really interesting thing about that is one of the main things they had to reverse-engineer was an impurity in one of the ingredients that the original designers didn't even know they were depending on.

Reminds me of how NASA had to design completely new rocket engines for SLS because while they still had the plans for the Saturn-V rocket engines, back then plans weren't followed to such high accuracy as nowadays a 3D model would be followed. Each engine was custom tailored with small modifications here and there. The knowledge to custom tailor them was lost, so they went with designing new engines from scratch instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#32

Post by mgarfias »

Somethign I haven't seen mentioned here is that the technology used to design this thing is waaaaaaaaaaaay old. I know for a fact it was designed on an IBM mainframe (dad ran the one that the YF-22 was designed on). I can't remember what CAD package they used there, but its definitely conceivable that the software doesn't even exist anymore. How would you go about building a new one if you can't read the CAD files, if you have them.

Hell, the building in hawthorne where dad worked isn't even owned by northrop anymore. Its spacex.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#33

Post by whalesalad »

sailingparrot wrote: post #27
whalesalad wrote: post #4

The B-2 is ancient, doesn't seem very surprising.

It is by no mean ancient. The introduction of the B-2 in service was ~24 years ago, this is one of the most recent jet in the US air force. By military standard it's definitely young. There are only 2 planes in service in the US more recent than that, the F-22 and F-35 (not counting transport aircrafts). Those planes are designed for lifespans of 50-100 years.

My dad was at the Skunk Works for 20 years. He then went on to work at Northrop for a good chunk of time as well.

The B-2 was started in the 70s and the maiden flight occurred while I was still baking in the womb.

I realize aircraft can live a long time and can be retrofitted and upgraded with modern technology - but all things considered it is old.

Not saying ancient is bad, either, but as far as organizations go, org knowledge, handoffs of info and books and writing etc... I am not surprised to see the need for reverse engineering.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#34

Post by wwww4alll »

Unfortunately, this will result in failure.

This country simply does not have enough skilled engineers to design and produce original parts to requirements. Let alone reverse engineer a worn out part.

B2 is product of its time and the amount of engineering resources that went into design and development simply can not be replicated with current society.

Tik Tok stars make multi millions of dollars, so why would any smart person spend years in school and solve complex problems to build state of art Stealth Plane.

Boeing can’t even produce a simple jet without having it fall out of the sky few times, 737 Max.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#35

Post by smhinsey »

projektfu wrote: post #5

I read once that if you tried to build WWII-era aircraft according to specs and mechanical drawings, they wouldn't fly. The real design was found in the dies and jigs that were adapted after many iterations and test flights.

If you find this stuff interesting, pick up a book aimed at hobbyist metal lathes. Just reading a little about how you set up a tiny home version can give you a whole new level of understanding and respect for this kind of stuff. Structural components are different but in that era and even to some extent today, most precision parts were machined with two primary tools: the lathe and mill. Today both would be CNC and you'd add other modern tools but the CNC lathe is still a lathe and they work the metal in the same fundamental way.

Due to the dispersed mass production in WW2 it's probably not totally true that they wouldn't fly without a custom tooling setup (it'd be a maintenance nightmare if two examples of the same model from different plants diverged dramatically, altho of course it happened) but you can be certain that it's of critical importance.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#36

Post by godelski »

dmurray wrote: post #3

Reverse engineering seems like a good skillset for the DoD to nurture, anyway. Yes, the US is going to be at the cutting edge of weapons design at least through the medium term, but the leadership isn't arrogant enough to think that all engineering innovations will come domestically. If the US acquired a next-generation Chinese fighter, wouldn't it be handy if someone had the expertise to tell you exactly how its par…

Even if you're not innovating everything you want to reverse engineer enemy systems because you want to discover vulnerabilities. This is common practice.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#37

Post by wwww4alll »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #18

> ... Air Force’s Rapid Sustainment Office (RSO) was looking to industry for a “cutting-edge, automated 3D scanning system,” specifically intended to replicate aircraft parts that are no longer in production, including at maintenance depots. You see the real issue? Even if they have the blueprints, it will be difficult to even manufacture the parts here. There's so many more problems like this coming down the pipelin…

Unfortunately, your assessment is very correct. There will be no solution and only a slow decline as previous systems become obsolete and there no on to fix or upgrade to better systems.

This country is producing more Tik Tok stars than engineers that can sustain civilization.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#38

Post by pvarangot »

magtux wrote: post #13

This happens even outside Defense in all specialized industry. I was once asked if I could reverse engineer a part for a 30 year newspaper stacking machine in a printing press. Very interesting stuff and a consequence of being niche.

Large scale printing machine setups are insane. I've seen very old installations go for prices that are higher or comparable to a new setup just because you know the throughput and you know the civil engineering is sound.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#39

Post by TheCondor »

dmurray wrote: post #3

Reverse engineering seems like a good skillset for the DoD to nurture, anyway. Yes, the US is going to be at the cutting edge of weapons design at least through the medium term, but the leadership isn't arrogant enough to think that all engineering innovations will come domestically. If the US acquired a next-generation Chinese fighter, wouldn't it be handy if someone had the expertise to tell you exactly how its par…

I've heard from various acquaintances that it's not unusual for the contractor to be required to destroy documentation and tooling for certain classified projects upon completion.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#40

Post by lurquer »

For many reasons - limited production run, secrecy, and age — the need in this case for reverse engineering isn’t all that surprising.

Nevertheless, these things may become more common if we are at the apex of our civilization.

I could imagine a RFP in Rome from 300 AD or so soliciting bids to figuring out how the hell to make an aquaduct, amphitheater, or even cement!

Post reply on HN