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.
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.
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]
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?
Curt Blizzah: SacriliciousBeerSwillerThe 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]
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...)
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
italie: Even if Boeing had the better plane
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.
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]
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.
Lord Summerisle: Heh. Done that 50 years ago, yanks. Try to keep up.[wdict.net image 750x562]
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.
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%.
Emposter: Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movieWell, yes, sci-fi movies often have scenes with completely normal, non-sci-fi-looking planes in them, so I guess this is true.
Malicious Bastard: from a bad procurement process where they're still designing the plan as it's being built.
fluffy2097: Emposter: Footage of first F-35B nighttime take off and landing tests looks like something straight out of a sci-fi movieWell, 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.
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.
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.
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. 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. Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime. The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035, which, if delivered will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.Wikipedia
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]
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_ಠಠ_ಠಠ_ಠಠ_ಠಠ_ಠಠ_ಠಠ_ಠ
Quantum Apostrophe: Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?
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?
Fuggin Bizzy: Quantum Apostrophe: Let's be generous and say twice. 2 = 1000000000 in your world?I think your sarcasm detector needs calibration.
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.
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.
fluffy2097: Hows your research on living forever going QA?
enforcerpsu: d yes, I know its not that simple. They did, however, design the F22 to carry A2G weaponry just in case...
basemetal: I wonder what kind of fuel consumption that is when doing vertical landings or hovering.
GAT_00: These things first flew at the end of 2006. How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?
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.
mikefinch: Everyone knows the future is in swarms of unmanned bombs swarming above the battlefield like some cloud of surveillance and death from above.
Thurston Howell: How many global SATCOM networks does Canada operate?Good luck getting that cloud of drones to go anywhere.
Thurston Howell: I hate to break it to you, but the bolded part is why you need the satellites. The problem is that without satellites, the people in the control rooms, the drone swarm, and the target all need to be within 2-3 miles of each other. The RC quadrotors in that video link have a radio range of about 500-1000 feet. Military swarms will obviously need better gear and range, but the basic principle applies. How are you going pass command-and-control signals from humans to the birds, and receive intel/output from them? Satellites. Or a string of ground antennas ringing enemy territory. Or one hell of a long USB cable.
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 18 2017 05:04:09
Runtime: 0.571 sec (570 ms)