If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie   (youtube.com) divider line 253
    More: Cool, F-35B, external fuel tank, goal post, F-18, nozzles, landing, hurling, sci-fi  
•       •       •

19975 clicks; posted to Video » on 06 Apr 2013 at 5:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-06 08:12:44 PM

way south: hasty ambush: IF UCAV technology proves out the will probably be America's last manned fighter.

[psk.blog.24heures.ch image 460x315]

This is a very big IF being brought to us by the same people who thought fighters would no longer need guns or the ability to turn back in the sixties.

Its going to be a long time before drones are allowed to issue their own kill orders. Which means a drone cant be relied on to deal with any enemy that could jam communications, which also happens to be any enemy with an air defense network or fighters.

These aircraft will physically last for maybe thirty years in service, not counting upgrades. So unless we keep producing them or have hundreds of spares, they won't be the last two fighters we buy.

/Considering that it takes a decade or two just to develop a new fighters, their replacements are probably in the works now.


When I was "on the inside" less than a year ago, there was no replacement on the drawing boards for the F-35 or F-22, and nothing scheduled.

Interesting bits that stuck in my head: The F-35 carries only 500 rounds for the gun. They go through those pretty quickly. The computer system has the ability to project into the helmet so that the pilot can effectively see through the airplane like it isn't even there. Many things are controlled by voice. The F-35 is being built by many countries. They will each get some.

The F-22 we aren't sharing, so I know which one I would rather have on my side in a fight.
 
2013-04-06 08:40:07 PM
Heh. Done that 50 years ago, yanks. Try to keep up.

wdict.net
 
2013-04-06 08:41:11 PM

MurphyMurphy: In a parallel universe, that video could have been testing for a next-gen medical evac vehicle better than a helicopter in every way... all made possible by the advancements towards a lightweight recoverable/reusable lander. Of course that's straight from my ass, but as long as all we focus on is better ways of blowing each other up we'll never know.



Anything that's going to be performing medivac missions will require a bay for passengers.  That's going to result in a significant increase in the size and span of the aircraft which will not only limit viable landing locations but will also require a significant increase in thrust.  Thrust from jet engines is a fairly significant hazard and poses a threat to the people you're trying to evacuate as well as any structures or unimproved areas (e.g. landing on grass or dry foliage) you try to land on.
 
2013-04-06 08:42:09 PM

aerojockey: The boundary layer tricks are uses mostly with turbine blades, which, although the air is cooler there, it's more of a problem because the turbines are under high centrifugal force and will deform well under the melting point.


Do you mean the compressor blades? The turbine blades are single crystal, they don't deform...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_crystal
 
2013-04-06 08:57:08 PM

Elegy: That's an airbrake/flap covering the lift fan that sits behind the cockpit. Here it is in daylight.

[i.imgur.com image 600x400]


Thanks for explaining, I was wondering what that big bump in the silhouette was.
 
2013-04-06 09:26:40 PM

kabar: Alphakronik: I'm not much of an aviation guy, but that was very cool to watch.

One question I have about it however.  In what types of situation would this feature be used?  I'm trying to think of anytime a plane would be needed for vertical landing would be necessary.  It would seem that unless it can take off vertically, they would need a runway to get it back out of wherever it landed.

Am I wrong?  Please help me understand this better.

Every single time it comes back to the boat.  L-class Amphibs (LHDs and the upcoming new LHAs) don't have catapult or arresting wire systems.  Every takeoff is a "short takeoff" or STO as the max deck run is ~800 ft.  Every landing is a vertical landing.  On your average LHD/LHA on a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) there are 6 Harriers (someday JSFs).  During OIF one, we had 2 "Harrier Carriers" that were nothing but AV-8s.  You can multiple your strike capability and flexibility without having to build $2 billion aircraft carriers.  LHD/LHAs are a lot cheaper.

That help?


So true. It also is nice to know you can take a few maintainers, fuelers and ordanance bubbas, and turn an empty small stretch of road into a forward operating base if need be.

/1391
 
2013-04-06 09:39:07 PM

Curt Blizzah: SacriliciousBeerSwiller

The Osprey is awesome as long as no one shoots/throws rocks or pointy sticks at it.

When I worked in news, they would crash very often on the North Carolina coast during test runs.  Many pilots gave their lives for it.

The designers really want this:

[cdn.ttgtmedia.com image 500x323]

But, I'd prefer this:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x252]


Pffft: Matt Trakker had no problem stopping that
 
2013-04-06 09:42:24 PM

Publikwerks: randomjsa: In this thread...

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.

To be fair, in 20-30 years, it's gonna be drones, drones and more drones. Why put a guy in a plane when a high performance drone will be able to pull more Gs, weight less, spend more time airborne  and require far less logistics and consideration(don't have to worry about rescuing a pilot, ect...)


I've heard talk that the 35 was designed with drone interface in mind from the get-go, and that if the current climate surrounding drones wasn't so negative, that it would have been announced by now.
 
2013-04-06 09:56:36 PM

ha-ha-guy: I'm still waiting for the mass produced, drone version of the B-2.  Now that will be useful.

/the big problem is the F-15 Strike Eagle actually carries a larger ground attack payload
//the the Silent Eagle has a better anti-air payload
/while the F-35 is supposed to be stealthier than the Silent Eagle, it keeps getting reclassified as less and less stealthy
/definitely going to be a huge upgrade over the Harriers though


Take everything we learned in the Agile Eagle program, slap it on top of the Silent Eagle program and... BAM!  Best fighter jet ever invented at almost off the shelf prices.

/Makes too much sense
//Won't ever happen.
 
2013-04-06 10:16:08 PM

italie: Even if Boeing had the better plane


They may have. If Lockheed didn't get the F-35 contract, they were going to get out of the military aircraft business altogether, which would leave the US military with one supplier - Boeing. The US military likes having multiple options for suppliers, because (at least in theory) the competitive bidding process keeps costs down and increases quality.

I worked for LM when this competition was underway - not on aircraft development, but I did have the inside scoop just by being on the LM payroll at the time. And yeah, this may have been nothing more than a negotiating tactic. But that was the word in the trenches.
 
2013-04-06 10:33:02 PM
While I agree we probably spend too much on the military... you need to keep in mind that Rich people pay most of the taxes, and government contractors and the military hire people who are in fact, not rich.  So its practically a wealth transfer/welfare system, but with the benefit of the fact that rich people really, really like having the worlds best military, and its one thing they dont mind being taxed for.

So... there you have it.
 
2013-04-06 10:33:10 PM
Oh yeah,  totally worth the amount of money in 2012 dollars that would have gotten us the entire freaking Apollo program one-and-a-half times over again. We could have been to Mars and back, or had a semi-permanent presence on the Moon, for what that colossally-priced boondoggle will end up running us.

Fark that airplane.
 
2013-04-07 12:36:59 AM

enforcerpsu: The F35 is an interesting aircraft but the kicker is the more stealthy, more maneuverable, faster, F22 is now cheaper to build and maintain.

Slap some bombing hard points on that thing (yes, that hurts the stealth) and be done with it while we work the busted F35.


This. And the new "budget" Virginia class subs are more expensive than their vastly superior Seawolf class they were designed to be cheaper than.

Stop farking around with defense spending and pic a goddamn project.
 
2013-04-07 12:42:11 AM

Publikwerks: MurphyMurphy: n a parallel universe, that video could have been testing for a next-gen medical evac vehicle better than a helicopter in every way..

[www.military-today.com image 600x376]


The object is to respond to crashes faster, not cause more of them...
 
2013-04-07 12:49:48 AM

Lonestar: 30 years ago noone was thinking that wireless tech would evolve to the point that we could fly a plane remotely from the us.


We have been remotely guiding things since WWII and that includes planes.
 
2013-04-07 12:58:59 AM

Lord Summerisle: Heh. Done that 50 years ago, yanks. Try to keep up.

[wdict.net image 750x562]


That's because 75 years ago we gave you the technology, equipment, and resources to keep you alive.

Also, we fly those pictured Harriers better than you do. (And helped to refine them for the II version.)

But you can pretend you have a military as capable and advanced as ours. You are, after all, our ally, we'll protect you just as we protect others who can't do so for themselves. It is simple facts when I point out the superiority of our military and our many weapons and it isn't nationalism or pride. We might not be good for much these days but we can kill people very well.
 
2013-04-07 01:02:45 AM

UnspokenVoice: Lonestar: 30 years ago noone was thinking that wireless tech would evolve to the point that we could fly a plane remotely from the us.

We have been remotely guiding things since WWII and that includes planes.


The key phrase in his sentence was 'from the US'. Nobody was remotely piloting jack shiat across the span of the Atlantic Ocean up until recently. If you gotta sit above the target (and thusly, its anti-air defenses) in order to remotely pilot your aircraft, you still arent gaining anything.
 
2013-04-07 01:21:14 AM

DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.


Ok I'm with you on cutting the Defense budget but let's be real here. Closing all those foreign bases means we lose our ability to be anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds if shiat does get real. I'm neither a Righty or  Lefty, I'm about as middle of the road as they come, but god damn you sound like an idiot. Americas greatest assett as far as the military goes is our Navy, specifically our carrier fleet and the fact that we have a presence everywhere.I wish we would quit giving the military so much damn money and instead spend it on NASA or alternative energy, hell even some updated nuclear plants. But shutting down our over seas bases is not something I want to see. I'm not worried about our country militarily. It's just cool to visit any country on earth and see someone I know...
 
2013-04-07 01:21:37 AM
Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie

Well, yes, sci-fi movies often have scenes with completely normal, non-sci-fi-looking planes in them, so I guess this is true.
 
2013-04-07 01:40:22 AM

Emposter: Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie

Well, yes, sci-fi movies often have scenes with completely normal, non-sci-fi-looking planes in them, so I guess this is true.


I donno, A plane with full afterburner going pointed straight down is pretty out there.
 
2013-04-07 01:41:21 AM
Aviationweek.com had something to say about the F-35B melting runways

The newly released [Air Force] document, hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B's exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it's not trivial. Vertical-landing "pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust," the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and "is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL." (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)

Not only does the VL pad have to be made of heat-resistant concrete, but currently known sealants can't stand the heat either, so the pad has to be one continuous piece of concrete, with continuous reinforcement in all directions so that cracks and joints remain closed. The reinforced pad has to be 100 feet by 100 feet, with a 50-foot paved area around it.

By the way, any area where an F-35B may be stopped with the engine running - runway ends, hold-shorts on taxiways, and ramps - also has to be made of heat-resistant concrete to tolerate the exhaust from the Integrated Power Pack (IPP), which is acting as a small gas turbine whenever the aircraft is stopped.

[...]
What do "very small" and "significant" mean? In VL mode the main engine on the F-35B is producing some 15,700 pounds of thrust, while a Harrier's aft nozzles deliver about 12,000 pounds of thrust. (The fore-aft split is roughly equal.)

But the F-35's overall pressure ratio is almost twice as high, which would point to a much higher jet velocity (which LockMart doesn't mention), the JSF nozzle is much closer to the ground, and the Harrier has two nozzles, several feet apart.

End

They're redesigning the F-35's nozzle so that its output doesn't warp the structure of aircraft carriers (and other naval craft) through the steel deck plates
But there isn't much they can do for concrete and asphalt other than repave everything, which limits where these can be deployed.

Oh, and they had to redesign the fuel tank since it was at risk of exploding if the plane was struck by lightning.
This is the kind of clusterfark that you get from a bad procurement process where they're still designing the plan as it's being built.
 
2013-04-07 01:49:12 AM

Malicious Bastard: from a bad procurement process where they're still designing the plan as it's being built.


That's a feature, not a bug. It makes it so there aren't any definitive stop points, and ensures that at any given point, cancelling the program incurs higher immediate costs than continuing it. There's even a term in the Defense industry for that kind of structuring: "Political Engineering".

Making a program politically impossible to cancel isn't just an art now, it's a science. And the F-35 is generally considered to be a masterpiece.

\Did like how they had to redesign the entire airframe to make the tailhook work on the navy version.
\\To us inside the beltway cynics, a lot of this is funny.
 
2013-04-07 02:09:27 AM

fluffy2097: Emposter: Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movie

Well, yes, sci-fi movies often have scenes with completely normal, non-sci-fi-looking planes in them, so I guess this is true.

I donno, A plane with full afterburner going pointed straight down is pretty out there.


It's cool, but it's barely even a novel use of decades old technology.  I expect a bit more from my science fiction.
 
2013-04-07 02:12:39 AM

Emposter: It's cool, but it's barely even a novel use of decades old technology. I expect a bit more from my science fiction.


Fark, where airplanes are sci-fi, and sci-fi is real technology...
 
2013-04-07 03:55:07 AM
Nothing to see here. Move along.
img687.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-07 04:23:27 AM

randomjsa: In this thread...

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.


The keyword is proportion. U.S. military spending and power is absurdly disproportionate compared to the rest of the world and no country really comes near in both spending and military power. Sure, you have to keep developing, but is the military spending really proportionate, and couldn't at least part of money be spent on something more useful, such as better education, environment, high speed rail, programs to support entrepreneurship etc.?  Of course you can't do that overnight as indeed a lot of people depend on the military budget for their jobs, but therein of course lies the biggest danger.

By making the military so important for the economy and the small very powerful group of businesses, businessmen and politicians that run the country, you are in fact creating an internal need for occasional conflict, in order to create profit as well as to promote patriotism to make sure the citizens don't start seeing what kind of country they are really living in.

You say it correctly, you never know how the world will look like in 20-30 years. But, then you also have to realize that this same argument is exactly why most of the world actually sees the U.S. as the biggest threat for the next 20-30 years (with China next), as you can never be sure how far the people will let their country go towards olicharchy and/or fascism, and what target will be next in order the fund the corporations and keep the people happy and patriotic.  You just have to look at example like Germany and Japan to see what happens if countries over the course of a few decades grow ever more militaristic: eventually it leads to war.

With all your hero worshipping, flag waving, gun-loving and authoritarianism there is no doubt that US culture is basically militaristic and the largest potential threat to world peace. Not now, but things can change. Iraq showed how easy it is for a small number of powerful people to fool their own citizens.

Spending such a ridiculous amount of money on military is not only a waste of money, it is potentially dangerous.
 
2013-04-07 10:48:36 AM

Dansker: Some of us Europeans have actually contributed to the development:
While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.[1] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion (underwritten largely by the United States), while the purchase of an estimated 2,400 planes is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[2] Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime.[3] The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035,[4] which, if delivered will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.
Wikipedia


Someone probably mentioned this down thread from the original comment but just in case no one has:

Do you think you are getting an F35 with the same capabilities as the US domestic versions? If so, I have some lovely bridges for sale you might be interested in....

/We don't export the good stuff, even to our best allies like the UK, just a watered down version of the good stuff. Enjoy a watered down version of a POS that will be obsolete by the time it enters service.
 
2013-04-07 10:48:59 AM
look, we need fighter jets, i get it!

we need to keep making the best fighter jets before anyone else to maintain our edge.

unfortunately we also have to do it in a reasonably intelligent and responsible way and that's where we have failed.

whats worse than having no new jet is spending a trillion dollars on a jet that sucks.

the problem isn't military spending. the problem is ridiculously stupid military spending.

we fund airborne lasers but not veteran affairs, that tells us everything we need to know about our priorities

our military has become a corporate welfare system that is crippling our society.
 
2013-04-07 11:00:36 AM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 324x289]

wejash: Thank god we're prepared to defeat the 21st Century Soviet Air Force.  Damn, I was worried they were getting a tech leap forward on us.

Whew!

[i1172.photobucket.com image 800x433]
[i1172.photobucket.com image 276x183]

[i1172.photobucket.com image 850x542]
[i1172.photobucket.com image 300x200]
[i1172.photobucket.com image 640x360]


I don't think India is really a threat to the US.  Nor do they want to be.
 
2013-04-07 12:01:21 PM

Emposter: It's cool, but it's barely even a novel use of decades old technology. I expect a bit more from my science fiction.


well the  internet is just an automated telegraph machine. It's barely a novel use of electrical switching at all. It only even has 2 modes, on or off! IT's so goddamn basis you cant put a dimmer on it!

How totally un sci-fi.
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
 
2013-04-07 12:07:00 PM

fluffy2097: Emposter: It's cool, but it's barely even a novel use of decades old technology. I expect a bit more from my science fiction.

well the  internet is just an automated telegraph machine. It's barely a novel use of electrical switching at all. It only even has 2 modes, on or off! IT's so goddamn basis you cant put a dimmer on it!

How totally un sci-fi.
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ


We use billions of times more bits than telegraphy. How many times more thrust do jet engines have compared to a few decades ago? Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?
 
2013-04-07 12:09:30 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?


I think your sarcasm detector needs calibration.
 
2013-04-07 12:30:33 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: We use billions of times more bits than telegraphy. How many times more thrust do jet engines have compared to a few decades ago? Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?


there are 2 bits.

on and off.

forum-img.pinside.com
 
2013-04-07 12:41:39 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: Quantum Apostrophe: Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?

I think your sarcasm detector needs calibration.


No, some people need to stop comparing information processing to moving mass.
 
2013-04-07 01:19:12 PM
Fake and gay
 
2013-04-07 01:22:23 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Fuggin Bizzy: Quantum Apostrophe: Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?

I think your sarcasm detector needs calibration.

No, some people need to stop comparing information processing to moving mass.


Hows your research on living forever going QA?
 
2013-04-07 05:10:55 PM

MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.


Image too big and too proprietary to post directly
 
2013-04-07 06:33:27 PM

fluffy2097: Hows your research on living forever going QA?


Pretty good, how's your Mars condo coming along, fluffster?
 
2013-04-07 07:50:04 PM

enforcerpsu: d yes, I know its not that simple. They did, however, design the F22 to carry A2G weaponry just in case...


No they didn't; they tacked on that capability as an afterthought to make it at least slightly relevant in the current war.

To which it has never deployed anyway.
 
2013-04-07 09:33:20 PM

basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.


That was my first question too...

Wow. The conservatives handling of the F-35 is one of the few bad marks i would give the conservatives here in Canada. The operating cost should damn well be factored into the "price estimate" -- what kind of trucking business buys a new fleet of peterbuilts without factoring in the fuel consumption or how expensive it is to get them changed constantly for interstate trucking?

my rough numbers put a tank of gas for that sucker at 8 grand and i bet an hour of use adds about 40 grand in labor for inspections and maintenance per hour its in the air...

We are talking about a plane that costs about 40-50 thousand dollars to just take out of the hanger to practice using it for an afternoon. How could you think that price shouldnt be factored into the overall purchase price? Nobody in real estate would think about buying property without factoring in costs like utilities and property tax...

Everyone knows the future is in swarms of unmanned bombs swarming above the battlefield like some cloud of surveillance and death from above.
 
2013-04-08 01:35:54 AM
Please tell me that thing doesn't have to land using the afterburner.
 
2013-04-08 01:37:06 AM

GAT_00: These things first flew at the end of 2006.  How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?


The F-22 took years and years for delivery to operational squadrons.  I think congress had a bit to do with it.  For a while we had to call it the F/A-22 to ensure congress understood that it has a fighter and attack role.  If you called it an F-22 it would get corrected.
 
2013-04-08 01:42:44 AM
It looks like attempting a vertical landing on an umimproved field would result in the aircraft digging its own grave.

/ glass parking lot
 
2013-04-08 01:42:50 AM

Publikwerks: randomjsa: In this thread...

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.

To be fair, in 20-30 years, it's gonna be drones, drones and more drones. Why put a guy in a plane when a high performance drone will be able to pull more Gs, weight less, spend more time airborne  and require far less logistics and consideration(don't have to worry about rescuing a pilot, ect...)


I am hearing it will be the last manned fighter we build.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:37 AM
well that'll show the rest of the world we'll have no chinks in our armor
 
2013-04-08 12:51:43 PM

Lord Summerisle: Heh. Done that 50 years ago, yanks. Try to keep up.

[wdict.net image 750x562]


Try to keep up with this, bloke.
Sod off, wanker.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-08 07:50:12 PM
Begoggle

Fake and gay

Not fake, and no gay would design something that lousy, knowing full well his boyfriend might have to fly it.

It looks like a classic "horse designed by committee" trying to be everything instead of just performing a few roles really well.  And it appears we're now going to have to throw insane amounts of money at it to make it work.  The end state of machines like this tends to be sitting around unused, either because as mentioned earlier cost per flight hour both in terms of maintenance and amortized development costs is going to be some totally insane number like 50-70k or it just won't really be what mission planners want to use because of manpower needed to keep it going.

/ And as was also mentioned, the flying bomb is going to rule the skies here before too long.
 
2013-04-09 02:14:58 PM

Full Blown Jimbo: Sci-Fi is just stuff we haven't figured out how to do yet, right? I get what people say about the military industrial complex and how it costs too much, and I agree with them, but when I worked on the flightline at Ellsworth AFB and they spooled one of the B1-B engines up to full power it was hard not to stand up and salute.


Last year I went to the Cocoa Beach Air Show and saw a pilot putting an F-22 through its paces. Even knowing what I know about the cost overruns, schedule overruns, and problems with the pilot oxygen systems, it was still amazing to see what that aircraft can do.

/The V-22 was cool, too.
 
2013-04-09 03:25:14 PM

mikefinch: Everyone knows the future is in swarms of unmanned bombs swarming above the battlefield like some cloud of surveillance and death from above.


How many global SATCOM networks does Canada operate?

Good luck getting that cloud of drones to go anywhere.
 
2013-04-09 05:05:34 PM

Thurston Howell: How many global SATCOM networks does Canada operate?

Good luck getting that cloud of drones to go anywhere.


You dont need all that -- heres how i think it would look: The swarm of say 100 grenade sized bots would not all be bombs. Some of the tiny drones scan the surroundings so they all know what their flying environment looks like. A few do targeting and handle the maths regarding how its blows something up. A few are master drones that the rest swarm around and these would feed info back and forth between real people in control rooms who could tell it where to head or whether or not  it should fire.

Out of 100 drones only half or so would actually be bombs -- and those could be of different payloads or whatever for anti personel or anti air or whatev. The other half would provide substance to the swarm while taking the brunt of the guidance and stuff off the actual weapons.

Like one of those rc helicopters. No satellites needed. Just have a whack of those teamed up to every group you put on the battle field. Needs work still but the concepts are all proven and workable.

Also -- low blow concerning the Radarsat.
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report