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

191–200 of 332 posts

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

#191

Post by luuurker »

Thoeu388 wrote: post #117
thunderbird120 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle! I don't know where you heard that but it's completely untrue. Some older radar absorbent material required intensive maintenance but the F-35 is not like that. It's not that much more difficult to maintain than a previous generation fighter. It would b…

Right now that is not verifiable. It is a clasiffied information, only supported by claims from manufacturer. And maintaince cost is already dispuded at court in Switzerland. >It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight. And? Maybe it is every 2nd or 10th flight, that does not make it much more practical. Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. Old Soviet airplan…

What's your source for "it also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating"?

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

#192

Post by dragonwriter »

hajile wrote: post #185
kunwon1 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Only if you assume the nonexistence of (or perfect ability to internalize through regulation) externalities (specifically, here, positive externalities.)

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

#193

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

hef19898 wrote: post #157
PedroBatista wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons is there are much more F-16s both in number of units and consequently support ( of all kinds ) and know-how from many operator countries. Unfortunately the Gripen is the plane everyone talks and loves but "nobody" buys them. The Rafale is in a similar situation. AFAIK there are many minor reasons but the main one is: "Nobody got fired for buying IBM", aka the F-16, it's all fine and good, NATO, etc…

And Lockheed was really good at direct-to-decision-maker-marketing.

The F-16 is not a Lockheed plane, which why it's so popular. Lockheed planes are expensive and high maintenance. The FB-111, B1B (8% readiness rate), OV-102 (space shuttle, 40% of which failed), and of course the F-35.

EDIT: Guess it's a bait-and-swtich -- LM got their hands on the F16 somehow: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2619834/air-...

The manufacturer makes a big difference, even if the design is the same. For example, the F-111 (later the EF-111), built by GD and Grumman was a reliable, low maintenance plane. On the other hand, the FB-111 built by Lockheed was a maintenance hog with a 30% readiness rating, even with extensive cannibalization of parts.

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

#194

Post by unethical_ban »

hajile wrote: post #185
kunwon1 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. Service to society is not always a money maker. Value does not imply profit.

Now, not every unprofitable service is worthy of government funding.

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

#195

Post by gostsamo »

lumost wrote: post #168
gostsamo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the ai plane can fly higher and faster than the rocket or at least a human plane because it does not have to care about a human body, then you have scenarios where the rocket must be shot significantly closer to catch the plane. Not much into military stuff, but seems logical that more options create more margins for success. Savings on inner space, human training, and equipment are only a bonus.

In most modern aircraft, the aircraft over g's long before the human body. When aircraft are pushed to the limit in a combat situation, you'll hear the warning alarm blaring "over-g, over-g" as continued operation in that domain will either tear the wings off - or permanently degrade the airframe. The main advantage of a drone is expendability - sending a pilot to certain death is not something the military wants to…

Sure, but you base the assumption on the ai being deployed on a current design, and not on something developed without that constraint. I'm not sure if such designs are viable, but someone is sure to look into it.

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

#196

Post by gostsamo »

nradov wrote: post #186
Thoeu388 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

The EU can freeze Hungary's membership if the polls were not stopping it.

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

#197

Post by mcpackieh »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #40
crote wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having AI kill humans on their own without any supervision is an extremely controversial move. It will result in friendly fire sooner or later, and the resulting controversy is pretty much guaranteed to terminate the program. Laser comms are neat, but they suffer from things like clouds or smokescreens. And once you figure out the wavelength, a hostile laser comms sat can trivially jam it.

"resulting controversy is pretty much guaranteed to terminate the program." I'm not aware of any controversy that stopped weapon progress. We have biological weapon research, atomic weapons and the US used chemical agents in Vietnam. The US stopped tactical nuclear weapons because it thought they were not useful, not because of the protests in Europe. SDI was cancelled because laser weapons were not feasable in the 8…

> The US stopped tactical nuclear weapons because it thought they were not useful, not because of the protests in Europe.

This didn't happen... most of America's tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn when the Cold War ended, but America still has several hundred of them and has continued to upgrade them with new guidance systems.

See the B61, specifically the Mod 3, 4, 10 and 12 varients. These are tactical nuclear weapons with 'dial-a-yield' down to 0.3 kilotons. The mod 12 was developed during the 2010s and is in production now.

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

#198

Post by D_Alex »

fsloth wrote: post #162
Pixie_Dust wrote: post #129

“in light of potential Russian aggression in Europe” Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border. Despite repeated statements from the Russians that there would be push-back. -- coob > “NATO have always been on Russia’s border.” (deleted) On the Soviet Unions border. When the Soviets relinquished control of the client states to the west, they were given an understanding that NATO would not expand east. (a…

Modded down for a good reason. 1. The client states weren't client states. They were de-facto annexed polities with centuries of distinct characteristics. After Soviet Union fell these countries could resume their legitimate existence. 2. Russia has always been an imperialistic, genocidal and brutal country, incapable of creating anything of lasting value. A country on the Russia's border has no reason to be categori…

>Russia has always been an imperialistic, genocidal and brutal country, incapable of creating anything of lasting value.

Wow dude, that is quite deranged.

>Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn.

Russia borders 14 countries, and I don't think it fought with any except over the issue of NATO membership.

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

#199

Post by adolph »

sillywalk wrote: post #18

"FTA: they would involve placing aluminum AM-2 mats along a strip of highway, up to 1,500 feet long. This will be sufficient for the stealth jets to carry out short takeoffs and vertical landings while protecting the road beneath them." "AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles coated with a epoxy nonskid material, available in both 6 and 12 foot lengths, and are assembled in a brickwork pattern to form…

The headline says vertical but this describes short takeoff on a well prepared surface.

I wonder if the F35B’s thrust would rip up a highway like SpaceX’s first starship launch.

https://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-co...

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

#200

Post by ben7799 »

hylaride wrote: post #142
thunderbird120 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle! I don't know where you heard that but it's completely untrue. Some older radar absorbent material required intensive maintenance but the F-35 is not like that. It's not that much more difficult to maintain than a previous generation fighter. It would b…

Difficult, no. But it does require different and new support mechanisms for long term use (eg not a temporary site). A lot of the controversy in Canada with our F-35 purchase is that we're going to have to completely overhaul our military airports with new maintenance and storage hangars, though honestly we didn't keep them as up to date as we should have.

That probably would have happened with any new aircraft that was purchased.

Some of overhaul is buying and installing all the new tools and support systems, etc..

Post reply on HN