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

British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 332 posts

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#181

Post by t43562 »

solardev wrote: post #177
t43562 wrote: post #151

The F-35 obviously needs more preparation so they're really going to do it first with Typhoons and those are cool and potent aircraft even if they're not completely "Made in the USA (TM)". There's an internal BAE project to give them updatable computers which can be ripped out and replaced every few years. Like the Gripen the idea is to separate the flight critical software, which needs lots of certification, from ev…

Out of curiosity, in a fighter jet, what software ISN'T flight critical? Doesn't it all work together?

For example the aircraft is unstable by design and software keeps it responding and making changes N times a second (IIRC 40times/sec or something like that) without which it might crash - so that system would be one you don't want to change frequently.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#182

Post by ceejayoz »

p_l wrote: post #97
madaxe_again wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t help but think it must be about protecting the aircraft rather than protecting the surface, as in ukraine roads are commonly built out of reinforced concrete slabs, and somewhat less commonly, but still frequently, they are built to take the weight of tanks, and are wide and straight enough to accommodate even large aircraft - there’s a strip of highway north of Mariupol that was originally built to accommoda…

It's really about the surface, which would be quickly destroyed by jet exhaust. One of the impulses for changing surfacing methods for runways in Soviet Union was early jets ripping asphalt off the surface, for example, though later planes had higher-mounted exhausts that caused less problems. As for road landing in Ukraine (and other Warsaw Pact countries, and Sweden), it's a mix of special road segments and special…

For a video example, here's a de Havilland Vampire destroying a runway on takeoff at an airshow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX3_mQZ4gY8

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#183

Post by aembleton »

Theodores wrote: post #173
tomaytotomato wrote: post #89

Has the RAF actually surveyed some of the motorways in the north of England recently? I nearly broke a spring from a dipped pothole on the M6 south. Not to forget all the smart motorway signs every 100 meters and signboards overhead, will make a landing "interesting".

It is never going to be for the UK. With Ukraine you want the plane to take off from Ukraine, not the UK, or else it is seen as direct involvement. So the plane takes off from the UK, lands in the motorway somewhere near Keeeev and then the Ukrainian pilot hops on, to carry out the mission. He then lands on the highway again, the plane stays still for the British pilot to get in, he does so, flying up to meet a tanke…

But what about if you want to disperse fighter jets away from runways so that its not so easy to destroy all of our planes?

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#184

Post by martin8412 »

tomaytotomato wrote: post #143
nicholassmith wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Realistically you could comfortably put one down on a motorway service station carpark I'm sure the exceptionally canny operators of motorway service stations would find a way to make some extra money off them then. Come for a coffee, stay for a jet launch.

Or get a parking fine for staying longer than 2 hours with your jet...

Clamp the tires for illegal parking

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#185

Post by hajile »

kunwon1 wrote: post #175
aardvarkr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead the government funds thousands of unprofitable municipal airports to ensure that we have airstrips everywhere in case we were ever invaded

Are airports supposed to be profitable, or are they there to provide a service? Should airports that are not profitable be shut down? Does the public good factor into that decision? Sorry for offtopic, but I (evidently) got triggered by the inclusion of the word 'unprofitable' in your reply

No.

If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit?

In all other cases, you are just taxing people who don't benefit from those airports to subsidize the few people who do benefit.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#186

Post by nradov »

Thoeu388 wrote: post #113
gostsamo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you are part of a NATO operation against Serbia. Mentioning it, because the conflict in Kosovo is not resolved yet.

Or Hungary, it has far right government sympathetic to Russia. And they may get kicked out of EU any time soon. Also Slovakia and Poland are wobling... And Ukraine might get conquered by Russians. 35 years ago we would fight Germany. F-35 are supposed to last until 2050!

There is no mechanism to kick Hungary out of the EU. The most that the EU can realistically do is suspend some funding.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/04/08/member-states-...

There is zero chance that Russia will be able to conquer the rest of Ukraine. Russia might be able to retain the currently occupied areas but their capability to conduct major new offensive operations is essentially gone and will take years to rebuild.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#187

Post by hajile »

PedroBatista wrote: post #145

Yeah cool, and can the support necessary to keep an F-35 active be performed on a road? The Harrier and Gripens can and kinda were designed with that in mind. The F-35? I doubt it. I'm sure on paper someone will write and another one will approve, but in reality and in a real war scenario I have serious reservations.

Ukraine has shown that when your airspace and airstrips are contested, the only real answer is limited CAS where you fly in low, drop your load from as far away as possible, then pop flares and head back. A plane that is highly survivable and resistant to MANPADS is going to be superior.

For this, the US has the A-10 which was designed with this exact war in mind. It takes off from a short runway (and it can be a pretty rough runway because the engines are so high), requires more basic maintenance, and is proven to take MANPADS hits then still make it back.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#188

Post by gte525u »

koheripbal wrote: post #118
wongarsu wrote: post #105

Cold-War West Germany had about 30 "Emergency Airstrips", about 3km long Autobahn sections that could be converted to airports for military use. Complete with parking lots designed for aircraft parking, mobile air control towers, etc. Large enough that we landed C-130 Hercules on them. Similar strips exist in Finland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. Though most of the German locations are now retired and removed.

This is true in the US and Canada as well.

The US trains for this but I'm not sure it's needed domestically. FAA funds local and regional airports - there are plenty of airstrips all over that could accommodate a fighter or a C130.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#189

Post by nradov »

gostsamo wrote: post #76
lumost wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the pilot isn't the expensive kit, although the flight-hours to train them may be. Even an unmanned NGAD will probably cost ~500MM.

People can withstand only certain G-s of acceleration. Remove them, and you have a much more manueverable craft.

Nope. In order to make the aircraft more maneuverable you also need a stronger (heavier) airframe, different inlet geometry (to avoid compressor stall), more powerful (less efficient) engines, etc. For a multirole aircraft those are bad tradeoffs to make. And removing the human pilot costs a lot of tactical flexibility: autonomous flight software and sensors can still only handle very limited missions, and remote piloting links are unreliable.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#190

Post by dahfizz »

kunwon1 wrote: post #175
aardvarkr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead the government funds thousands of unprofitable municipal airports to ensure that we have airstrips everywhere in case we were ever invaded

Are airports supposed to be profitable, or are they there to provide a service? Should airports that are not profitable be shut down? Does the public good factor into that decision? Sorry for offtopic, but I (evidently) got triggered by the inclusion of the word 'unprofitable' in your reply

Municipal airports are nothing like the large international airports you may be thinking of. Municipal airports have like two runways and are only used by tiny private planes, not commercial airliners.

The only effect on the "public good" is to serve a handful of rich hobbyist. And potentially as national defense infrastructure, which I guess is why the feds fund them.

Post reply on HN