Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "C.W. Lemoine" channel.

  1. CNC doesn't guarantee precision if a monkey does the setup. Considerable manual work goes into making CNC-machined parts to spec, it's far from just pushing buttons. No one wants to be a machinist because the pay is typically shit. It's like the trucking industry bending over new truckers then wondering why they don't become old truckers. I enjoy machining but I didn't choose it for a living because being able to retire was far more important and job satisfaction doesn't pay off my house.
    2
  2. Every public display of hardware has other motives. Apologist shills are working hard for Glavset today.
    1
  3. HAS are cheaper than airframes but fools resent building them even during a long-established shooting war. Concrete is cheap so why doesn't every NATO base have wall-to-wall HAS? Why does (this is not secret and obvious to any of many civilians who work near/on PACAF bases) the US not have MODERN HAS for all aircraft including airlifters? (Flow-throughs with no end doors were stupid when they were built.) AssUming total air dominance is adorable but every base needs ubiquitous SHORAD (and) HAS.
    1
  4.  @GoonyMclinux  Wing replacements on Vipers don't take years of training. It HELPS to have a few years experience but they're not hard to work on and mechanics from older aircraft make excellent trainees because they already have extended mechanical experience. I was one! I worked comm/nav on Bronco (Sembach) and Phantom (Moody) then engines and TAMS on F-16 A/B/C/D/CJ models (Shaw, Pope, Shaw, Kunsan, Shaw) so this is not speculation. Most of electronic troubleshooting is BIT checks and continuity testing. F-16s are a breeze to work on (I was run qual'ed, Red X/IPI all systems) and easy to maintain in a deployed environment (I did Shield/Storm/Southern Watch/Northern Watch). What PRECISELY is YOUR F-16 combat aviation and maintenance background?
    1
  5.  @CarlAlex2  F-16s are easy to learn because I did.
    1
  6. You cannot double dip but that should be allowed and encouraged. I enjoyed actual aircraft maintenance but the rest of the BS SNCOs deal with seemed designed to chase us out the gate. Hire civilian maintainers freeing us to double dip and retirees could work places like engine backshop which rarely deploy (and we could deploy given suitable compensation). USAF manning is always REACTIVE and done the same way since my mentors (whose careers began in the 1950s!) were junior enlisted. All us retirees lived through feast or famine manning cycles because procurement matters and people do not. I'm sure they'll get flooded with SecFo eager to dump their civilian careers....
    1
  7.  @soonerfrac4611  That applies to the little cheap attack drones but there is no tech barrier 360-degree awareness. Networked drones can share inputs and of course drones can loiter far longer than manned aircraft. Helos are delicate MANPAD bait and require horrifically expensive CSAR. Meat in the seat requires glacially slow development times and systems like life support UAS do not need. The lay person idea of drones is far too narrow.
    1
  8. Humans thrive on discipline and decay without imposed disciple to reinforce self-discipline. I served with many former SAC maintainers who predicted a decline in quality after TAC devoured SAC. With them long retired along with aircrew is there anyone left who knows what right really looks like and has the throw weight to enforce it?
    1
  9. If the USAF sent something like that to an airshow I'd not want my name in its forms... Former career fighter fixer (Bronco, Phantom, F-16 A/B/C/D/CJ, comm/nav then engines then merged to crew dog) here. In what alternate universe does being a "prototype" excuse SLOPPY WORK, especially on a highly visible display bird INTENDED to be seen by millions (modern cameras easily capture the visible errors without needing to get very close)? Sloppy sealant was a CHOICE. Any maintainer has seen some horrors but properly applying faying sealant (or RAM if that's its role) is not difficult nor is using masking tape on the panels before sealing. If a USAF outfit sent that hot mess to display they'd have invested at least the single shift (because cure time) to do it right before showing the world where billions of dollars are on the line. Cosmetics don't matter in combat but function does. Cosmetics do matter when showing off the supposed pride of a nation at war while trying to recover the reputation of Russian Federation hardware in order to sell more overseas. Fighters like sports cars are "halo" vehicles whose rep affects other marketing so doing airshows right in every detail s expected. Enthusiasts who caught the issues at first glance I see failure to rig those doors so they fully close which is the most basic assembly (or much worse, design) error inexcusable since the advent of retractable landing gear doors. This may be incredibly, excruciatingly difficult for some to understand but it being a prototype and test mule does not mean it cannot get the basic pre-airshow prep given other nations aircraft for generations because none of that work is hard. If your panel doesn't cleanly mate with adjacent surfaces that is an error in manufacture and/or assembly which can be fixed in the field by factory techs or ordinary maintainers given factory tech data and phone support. If doors are not adjusted to fully close someone just didn't care. A new USAF Airman straight out of tech school would know better (thousands do every year) and would be working under supervisors who sign off their work. These are simple dumbazz mistakes so who signed off on all that? The choice of Phillips head panel screws suggest the designers wife ran off with a maintainer. The heads wear and get worse over time as panels are removed and installed. You can replace slightly worn panel screws before most heads strip but even the rich USAF doesn't have infinite bench stock on hand. Phillips were invented before affordable torque-limiting installation tools so they rely on the bit camming out of the head under load rather than damaging (other) parts. That was fine on the ground for consumer crap but to use them on a modern aircraft is fiercely stupid because that will slow and delay maintenance for as long as they're used. If you drill out even one screw per panel that's about a half hour minimum and more if you have to dispatch a tech from backshop (some air forces don't trust everyone to drill fasteners which isn't horrible but must be done correctly or you get more problems). Combat aircraft exist to produce as many mission-effective sorties as practical in environments where if your bird doesn't launch on time your ground troops relying on it may die. Every detail matters. What does lack of attention to detail by Russian (factory no less!) techs tell observers? Others point out later SU pics look better, but everything everyone noted reflects rushed, sloppy work on THIS one so if a high-viz jet gets no love what OTHER corners are cut? US techs make mistakes too and thanks to the internet we roast those online too because jet mechs should be held to high standards.
    1