Reverse Engineering the B-2 to keep all 20 air-worthy.

turkeydance

turkeydance

Well-Known Member
Life Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
4,551
Location
nc
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
quote:
While it’s hard to say exactly why this approach is being taken now,
it indicates that the original plans for these components
are unavailable or the manufacturing processes
and tooling used to produce them no longer exists.

www.thedrive.com

The Air Force Is Having To Reverse Engineer Parts Of Its Own Stealth Bomber

Twenty-one years after the last Spirit was delivered, the Air Force is working out how to build the exotic spare parts the bomber requires.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
I retired a year ago from the Department of Defense as a CNC Programmer, writing 5 axis programs to manufacture parts for several existing aircraft platforms including fixed wing fighter jets, several rotary wing, and several cargo planes, both new and some pretty old and reverse engineering is and has been common practice for many years now. Ironically, AV-8's and Ospreys are among the most common, seems the DOD didn't want to buy all the blueprints for them.
 
In a previous life, the company I worked for had a bunch of small test fixtures and a whole (386 if I remember) PC in a roll around locked cage. Some Air Force officer would come by once per year and make sure it was all still in the cage. Once the officer couldn't find one piece and a whole group of folks including (I think) a General came to inspect our nether orifices to locate the missing piece. The fixture was on a bench because it had been in use when the first inspection happened but was back in the cage for the second. One day we got word to pack all the equipment up for return to the AF for destruction since they didn't need any of it anymore! Hope they don't need any more of those parts for the B2!
 
I recall reading that Lockheed's Skunk Works had to fabricate their tooling for the SR-71 and F-117, and was required by the Air Force to destroy the tools and blueprints when they retired the aircraft. I do not know if that is standard procedure but it sure is wasteful.
 
Frank Powers said:
I retired a year ago from the Department of Defense as a CNC Programmer, writing 5 axis programs to manufacture parts for several existing aircraft platforms including fixed wing fighter jets, several rotary wing, and several cargo planes, both new and some pretty old and reverse engineering is and has been common practice for many years now. Ironically, AV-8's and Ospreys are among the most common, seems the DOD didn't want to buy all the blueprints for them.
Click to expand...
I live a few miles from Camp LeJuene and love watching the Ospreys flying low over us.
 
MikeS. said:
I live a few miles from Camp LeJuene and love watching the Ospreys flying low over us.
Click to expand...

Were you there when the Osprey crashed 12/11/2000? That was on my one-year anniversary, but ironically I had flown on that same aircraft not long before.
 
Chuckman said:
I recall reading that Lockheed's Skunk Works had to fabricate their tooling for the SR-71 and F-117, and was required by the Air Force to destroy the tools and blueprints when they retired the aircraft. I do not know if that is standard procedure but it sure is wasteful.
Click to expand...

Not wasteful, just prudent security to help keep stealth technology out of the wrong hands. If they haven't already, the Chicoms are desperately trying to reverse-engineer what we've been able to accomplish with the technology, especially with regards to submarine materials.
The F-14 Tomcats currently in museums and such have had all their avionics and other internals removed just because the Iranians are still flying the ones they have left from 1979, which begs the question; who's supplying them with parts? Or are they 'Franken-Cats' with a mix of MiG/SU parts/engines, etc...... :D
 
LTC Don said:
Not wasteful, just prudent security to help keep stealth technology out of the wrong hands. If they haven't already, the Chicoms are desperately trying to reverse-engineer what we've been able to accomplish with the technology, especially with regards to submarine materials.
The F-14 Tomcats currently in museums and such have had all their avionics and other internals removed just because the Iranians are still flying the ones they have left from 1979, which begs the question; who's supplying them with parts? Or are they 'Franken-Cats' with a mix of MiG/SU parts/engines, etc...... :D
Click to expand...

I have the book Skunk Works by Ben Rich, the former president (following Kelly Johnson); in it he wrote about how they pleaded to retain the tooling for future repairs and manufacturing, the CIA and Air Force said 'nope.'

We sold Iran a bill of goods with the F-14...designed to carry the Phoenix, the sold them basically airframes and engines with old, outdated avionics. Great question, how are they repairing and supplying them?
 
MikeS. said:
No we didn’t move here until 17.
Click to expand...

I grew up on Lejeune (grandmother and a few relatives lived there, too), then stationed there myself. I love that area. I have lived in the Triangle for most of my life now, but that will always be 'home' to me.
 
Chuckman said:
I recall reading that Lockheed's Skunk Works had to fabricate their tooling for the SR-71 and F-117, and was required by the Air Force to destroy the tools and blueprints when they retired the aircraft. I do not know if that is standard procedure but it sure is wasteful.
Click to expand...
I read the same thing recently. Not just wasteful. Stupid.
 
Chuckman said:
I recall reading that Lockheed's Skunk Works had to fabricate their tooling for the SR-71 and F-117, and was required by the Air Force to destroy the tools and blueprints when they retired the aircraft. I do not know if that is standard procedure but it sure is wasteful.
Click to expand...

JimP42 said:
I read the same thing recently. Not just wasteful. Stupid.
Click to expand...

The SR-71 tooling was destroyed immediately following final production.

I don't know about the F-117.

It wasn't stupid, nor wasteful. It was security. And it worked.
 
Seriously? We couldn’t have kept it in a high security warehouse somewhere?

It isn’t like we’ve never maintained aircraft longer than they were intended or designed to be used (cough, B-52, cough).

Given the near assurance that we will need it again,
a) from a cost standpoint recreating it is insane.
b) same for quality since we won’t have all the info that went into the designs, and
c) security is worse too. Sitting in crates in a guarded warehouse (like, say nuclear stockpile) has to be safer than hiring people (companies) to reverse engineer it all. Probably hundreds of people would be involved for a simple part, and thousands for major airframe parts. Each one is a possible leak. And that creates LOTS of paper and digital records. WAY easier to steal than large heavy tooling to build an aircraft.

Maybe not. But I would bet I am right.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
The SR-71 tooling was destroyed immediately following final production.

I don't know about the F-117.

It wasn't stupid, nor wasteful. It was security. And it worked.
Click to expand...

C'mon, Chief....you are telling me destroying tooling, plans, and tool production equipment is the only way to prevent stealing state secrets? Color me dubious....

There are several reasons they retired the SR-71...overall operating costs, the proliferation of U-2 variants, satellites, drone technology. But also, the Air Force wanted another 3 aircraft and wanted to keep the fleet flying, but they would not invest (nor would Lockheed) in 'reinventing' the tooling for maintenance and production.
 
Interesting video on a similar subject. Why we can recreate the Saturn rocket engines.

 
From Wikipedia

"In May 2016, the United States Government Accountability Office released a report that covered the need to upgrade or replace legacy computer systems within federal agencies. According to this document, old IBM Series/1 minicomputers running on 8-inch floppy disks are still used to coordinate "the operational functions of the United States' nuclear forces". The government planned to update some of the technology by the end of the 2017 fiscal year.[15][16]"
 
JimP42 said:
Seriously? We couldn’t have kept it in a high security warehouse somewhere?

It isn’t like we’ve never maintained aircraft longer than they were intended or designed to be used (cough, B-52, cough).

Given the near assurance that we will need it again,
a) from a cost standpoint recreating it is insane.
b) same for quality since we won’t have all the info that went into the designs, and
c) security is worse too. Sitting in crates in a guarded warehouse (like, say nuclear stockpile) has to be safer than hiring people (companies) to reverse engineer it all. Probably hundreds of people would be involved for a simple part, and thousands for major airframe parts. Each one is a possible leak. And that creates LOTS of paper and digital records. WAY easier to steal than large heavy tooling to build an aircraft.

Maybe not. But I would bet I am right.
Click to expand...

The media makes this out to be a "big deal" about the part availability. But trust me...it's not. Every supply/parts system has it's pros and cons, and for COTS, one of the cons happens when parts are no longer available commercially. We deal with it all the time.

The component was not a high cost item in the first place...about $13,000, if I recall it correctly when I looked it up on LogiQuest when I first heard about it. Last procurement was 2018, in fact, and the company it was obtained from is still around.

So the specifications, and the drawings ARE around somewhere. And even if it wasn't...it's a heat exchanger. I don't know the specific application, because I don't work on the B-2, or aircraft at all. I work on the nuclear systems on submarines and aircraft carriers.

As for security...it's a heat exchanger, and it's not a controlled item. If it were, I would be able to tell when I looked the part up at work.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
From Wikipedia

"In May 2016, the United States Government Accountability Office released a report that covered the need to upgrade or replace legacy computer systems within federal agencies. According to this document, old IBM Series/1 minicomputers running on 8-inch floppy disks are still used to coordinate "the operational functions of the United States' nuclear forces". The government planned to update some of the technology by the end of the 2017 fiscal year.[15][16]"
Click to expand...

There was a really, REALLY important reason for these not changing. And it has to do with security.

So this example is not a big deal.

Now, in the field where I work is a different story.
 
Chuckman said:
C'mon, Chief....you are telling me destroying tooling, plans, and tool production equipment is the only way to prevent stealing state secrets? Color me dubious....

There are several reasons they retired the SR-71...overall operating costs, the proliferation of U-2 variants, satellites, drone technology. But also, the Air Force wanted another 3 aircraft and wanted to keep the fleet flying, but they would not invest (nor would Lockheed) in 'reinventing' the tooling for maintenance and production.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't the "only" way.

But it's the absolute, most secure way when it comes to ensuring foreign powers are not capable of either getting their hands on the technical information (drawings, specifications, files, etc.) or physical components they can use to reverse engineer.

Keep in mine, with respect to the SR-71, that this particular project has its origins in the late 1950s, and was developed and deployed in the 1960s. And to this day, there have been no other aircraft created ANYWHERE else in the world which has been able to match the capabilities of the SR-71, or her predecessors and related variant craft (A-11, YF-11, M-21, and D-21).

Whether we may think it a shame that such an act was performed, the the fact remains that it was exceptionally effective.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Of course it isn't the "only" way.

But it's the absolute, most secure way when it comes to ensuring foreign powers are not capable of either getting their hands on the technical information (drawings, specifications, files, etc.) or physical components they can use to reverse engineer.

Keep in mine, with respect to the SR-71, that this particular project has its origins in the late 1950s, and was developed and deployed in the 1960s. And to this day, there have been no other aircraft created ANYWHERE else in the world which has been able to match the capabilities of the SR-71, or her predecessors and related variant craft (A-11, YF-11, M-21, and D-21).

Whether we may think it a shame that such an act was performed, the the fact remains that it was exceptionally effective.
Click to expand...

It IS effective, no argument. The effectiveness ends when they want to build more or maintain the ones that have; in the SR-71's case it's a non-issue since it's long retired, but in the B-2's case, it seems to be a problem. Lack of far-sighted vision, I think.
 
Chuckman said:
It IS effective, no argument. The effectiveness ends when they want to build more or maintain the ones that have; in the SR-71's case it's a non-issue since it's long retired, but in the B-2's case, it seems to be a problem. Lack of far-sighted vision, I think.
Click to expand...

No, the B-2 is a different case. That component is not a "sensitive" component with respect to security.
 
Hollywood is Hollywood, and this is about a show produced by Hollywood, in Hollywood, so I would hope the stereotype isn't actually for reals. But, again, I'm not taking what follows as gospel, just very, very interesting.

There was a show, that's actually available now on Prime called 'The Americans', about a family where the wife and husband are deep cover spies for the former USSR, about the time the USSR is slowly imploding, back in the mid to late eighties. It is a great show although I didn't see the last season.

There is one episode where the mission is to infiltrate a submarine shipyard and steal the plans for a propeller, which is one of the most closely guarded components on a sub (Meaning - noise kills). The mission is a success, but, expecting the plans to be a hot item for theft, the plans were deliberately sabotaged with fake specifications. The soviets didn't detect the fake data in the plans by doing due diligence and testing, and so made the defective propeller and installed it on a sub for trials. The defective propeller caused the sub to sink (or something to that effect), killing the crew. What do the soviets do? They blamed the Navy/Shipyard for planting defective plans to be stolen rather than take responsibility for stealing state secrets from another country, and making sure the data was legit (Read = It was our fault their crew got killed, not the soviets). Absolutely bizarre mindset.

The soviets were/are notorious for stealing other countries' technology. Their version of the Concorde (TU-144) - didn't work and never went operational, looks almost identical to the real Concorde (The only remaining copy sits on a tarmac southeast of Moscow). Their version of the Space Shuttle (the Buran), never made it to orbit or went operational. The remaining 'Buran' shuttle rots in a hangar in Kazakhstan at the space launch facility (although I think their may still be another on that same tarmac with the TU-144 not sure). They have a version of our B-1 bomber also, but I'm not sure of it's operational readiness. As I recall, they reverse engineered the B-29 from an actual one that crash landed towards the end of World War II.

The weapons systems are designed with an expected life expectancy in mind, it's when we do too good of a job and the political winds shift that the planned life expectancy (which usually gets extended) goes out the window, kind of like the 'plan' when combat actually starts. As mentioned already, the B-52 airframe is the classic example.

But for the Grace of God, we managed to 'get' the best of the German scientists at the end of World War II, as distasteful as that notion is. If the soviets had gotten them, life would be very, very different now.

All that said, I'm OK if we have to spend some bucks paying for some re-engineered (and hopefully better quality) gadgets and gizmos for the military. It's not wasted when compared to the pork overdose that just got passed by the Senate. :rolleyes:


Yup, just confirmed, that the TU-144, Buran, and a copy of the B-1 (sans tail) sits here, viewable through Google Maps -- Zhukovskiy, Moscow Oblast, Russia <Will take some looking around the northern tarmac area.
 
Last edited:
LTC Don said:
Yup, just confirmed, that the TU-144, Buran, and a copy of the B-1 (sans tail) sits here, viewable through Google Maps -- Zhukovskiy, Moscow Oblast, Russia <Will take some looking around the northern tarmac area.
Click to expand...

Very cool. Always knew they copied a lot of our tech, but it's interesting that they keep 3 of their copies so close to each other.
 
LTC Don said:
Hollywood is Hollywood, and this is about a show produced by Hollywood, in Hollywood, so I would hope the stereotype isn't actually for reals. But, again, I'm not taking what follows as gospel, just very, very interesting.

There was a show, that's actually available now on Prime called 'The Americans', about a family where the wife and husband are deep cover spies for the former USSR, about the time the USSR is slowly imploding, back in the mid to late eighties. It is a great show although I didn't see the last season.

There is one episode where the mission is to infiltrate a submarine shipyard and steal the plans for a propeller, which is one of the most closely guarded components on a sub (Meaning - noise kills). The mission is a success, but, expecting the plans to be a hot item for theft, the plans were deliberately sabotaged with fake specifications. The soviets didn't detect the fake data in the plans by doing due diligence and testing, and so made the defective propeller and installed it on a sub for trials. The defective propeller caused the sub to sink (or something to that effect), killing the crew. What do the soviets do? They blamed the Navy/Shipyard for planting defective plans to be stolen rather than take responsibility for stealing state secrets from another country, and making sure the data was legit (Read = It was our fault their crew got killed, not the soviets). Absolutely bizarre mindset.

The soviets were/are notorious for stealing other countries' technology. Their version of the Concorde (TU-144) - didn't work and never went operational, looks almost identical to the real Concorde (The only remaining copy sits on a tarmac southeast of Moscow). Their version of the Space Shuttle (the Buran), never made it to orbit or went operational. The remaining 'Buran' shuttle rots in a hangar in Kazakhstan at the space launch facility (although I think their may still be another on that same tarmac with the TU-144 not sure). They have a version of our B-1 bomber also, but I'm not sure of it's operational readiness. As I recall, they reverse engineered the B-29 from an actual one that crash landed towards the end of World War II.

The weapons systems are designed with an expected life expectancy in mind, it's when we do too good of a job and the political winds shift that the planned life expectancy (which usually gets extended) goes out the window, kind of like the 'plan' when combat actually starts. As mentioned already, the B-52 airframe is the classic example.

But for the Grace of God, we managed to 'get' the best of the German scientists at the end of World War II, as distasteful as that notion is. If the soviets had gotten them, life would be very, very different now.

All that said, I'm OK if we have to spend some bucks paying for some re-engineered (and hopefully better quality) gadgets and gizmos for the military. It's not wasted when compared to the pork overdose that just got passed by the Senate. :rolleyes:


Yup, just confirmed, that the TU-144, Buran, and a copy of the B-1 (sans tail) sits here, viewable through Google Maps -- Zhukovskiy, Moscow Oblast, Russia <Will take some looking around the northern tarmac area.
Click to expand...

I loved that show, The Americans.

There was a good documentary about how Russian 'agents' stole Concorde tech at the Paris Air Show. China is a well-known thief as well. Espionage and stealing tech is their MO.
 
papa_smurf said:
Very cool. Always knew they copied a lot of our tech, but it's interesting that they keep 3 of their copies so close to each other.
Click to expand...

Also viewable on Google Maps, confirmed still visible today --

Iran > 2 F-14 Tomcat airframes visible at the Tehran Int'l Airport northern tarmac area, 8 F-14 airframes visible at the Isfahan airport ENE of the city, all parked outside of the hangars/revetments. Not sure why are parked outside the hangars they way they are, if not to make a statement, or just for show.

The Iranians also still have some F-4 Phantoms. There is one visible outside it's hangar at the airport in Qom, and there is recent imagery visible in Google Images as well.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9167909
 
thumb_the-last-b2-bomber-is-retired-from-service-in-2060-56756443.png
 
LTC Don said:
Also viewable on Google Maps, confirmed still visible today --

Iran > 2 F-14 Tomcat airframes visible at the Tehran Int'l Airport northern tarmac area, 8 F-14 airframes visible at the Isfahan airport ENE of the city, all parked outside of the hangars/revetments. Not sure why are parked outside the hangars they way they are, if not to make a statement, or just for show.

The Iranians also still have some F-4 Phantoms. There is one visible outside it's hangar at the airport in Qom, and there is recent imagery visible in Google Images as well.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9167909
Click to expand...

big difference in having air frames and actually knowing how to employ them in combat
 
Chuckman said:
It is different in that respect, but same in that the parts are exotic and no longer in production.
Click to expand...

But this isn't really a "problem", per se. It's more of a "nature of the beast".

Before COTS became the new acronym of the day, when we built a ship or an aircraft we did so with a certain parts allowance, some of which are ordered and maintained in the supply system periodically.

We still do this for a lot of material, in fact, as COTS doesn't cover everything.

But for equipment that's intended to have a service life spanning decades, you're going to run into these problems for some components at some point or other, regardless.

It's not "new"...it's simply the nature of the beast.

The B-2 first flew in 1989, more than three decades ago. It'll be around for a number of years yet. You can bet that at some point some components will be "difficult" to obtain. Those that service the craft know this and, in all likelihood, have already dealt with this on some other components once in a while.

I work on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, which are designed to last 33 years (submarines) and 50 years (aircraft carriers), with the Ohio class submarines having been extended to 42 years. Issues like this crop up on these, as well.

You own a house of any age? You think original equipment that was installed in a house built decades ago still exists unchanged? I've done plenty of work on houses where replacing a water heater involved modifications to plumbing, power, or gas fittings because they don't make the exact same water heater any more. I've worked on houses where the codes the house was originally built under have changed enough that I've had to upgrade a lot of stuff to meet the new code. Had custom wood cut to match the existing (now non-standard sized) wood siding or wall studs.

The cars we own aren't designed to last the decades the military equipment we're talking about are designed to. If we have a car of any age, we know the parts get progressively more difficult (and expensive) to obtain because of this.
 
Chuckman said:
It is different in that respect, but same in that the parts are exotic and no longer in production.
Click to expand...
Everything is in production, or can be in short order, I made aircraft parts since 1981, just retired last year. The government has multiple shops that manufacture supposedly irreplaceable parts every day. Reverse engineering is in many cases more feasible than the original production was. There is no need for the original tooling and in many cases blueprints either. Reverse Engineering technology is amazingly accurate and machine tool technology has outgrown old manufacturing practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom