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

Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#61

Post by nradov »

xvector wrote: post #36
coryrc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia would fall like Iraq if we were to attack. Their ground-based anti-air would be hit as soon as even one missile is fired, every radar would be hit within minutes of powering on, their aircraft wiped out as soon as they were within range. With air supremacy we'd be able to fire a precision strike on every piece of active artillery and supply truck. They'd be left with nothing but men starving in trenches and ru…

Ukraine used to be one of the most prolific black market military arms dealers. We should absolutely avoid sending Ukraine any modern equipment. As soon as the war is over, they'll sell it on the black market to countries that will gladly reverse engineer what we've built. And as an aside, I have no interest in funding proxy wars with my tax dollars. Let's not return to a Cold War era. Entering this conflict was abso…

Let's return to a Cold War era. Supporting Ukraine in a proxy war allows us to bleed Russia to death with zero US casualties and fairly minimal expense. We're not sending them any of the really secret stuff anyway.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#63

Post by [deleted] »

sbierwagen wrote: post #51
topspin wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure what role this serves for the USAF. Long range anti-ship missile deployment over the Pacific. A design like this can cover large areas and deploy autonomous weapons from long range. Weapon development of the US military is almost entirely focused on China and its growing fleet. There are several air launched anti-ship missile platforms under development right now, including swarm attack, stealth and hypers…

>There are several air launched anti-ship missile platforms under development right now Specifically, Rapid Dragon, a rack that lets a C-130 (or any cargo aircraft with a big enough bay) drop a dozen JASSM and LRASM stealthy cruise missiles at a time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)

[deleted]

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#64

Post by zarzavat »

ggm wrote: post #4

It used to be said this would fail in passenger markets because windows. The reality of long haul travel these days is that windows are really only "I can lean here" choices which restrict access to the aisle, for any trans-oceanic journey. For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more…

The windows are there for safety, not just passenger comfort. Pilots need to know what is going on outside on the aircraft.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#65

Post by Sakos »

Animats wrote: post #18

Nice. NASA and Airbus have both flown blended-wing unmanned test aircraft. Not sure what role this serves for the USAF. It's a transport. Wider loads? Stealth? The US has had total air superiority in every conflict since the Korean War. That's over. The Ukraine war makes it clear. Against a competent opponent, most of what flies will die. There are just too many man-portable and truck-mounted systems that can take do…

The Ukraine war doesn't show anything different from other wars in regards to air superiority. You think the US flew all their slow, vulnerable stuff over contested territory with lots of AA? No, they didn't and they don't. The Gulf War basically started with wiping out AA defenses. Establishing air superiority takes time and bombs. Ukraine simply doesn't have any of the equipment necessary to do it. Apparently neither does Russia, to the surprise of pretty much everybody. That has zero bearing on what the US/NATO is capable of.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#66

Post by xvector »

luuurker wrote: post #46
xvector wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine used to be one of the most prolific black market military arms dealers. We should absolutely avoid sending Ukraine any modern equipment. As soon as the war is over, they'll sell it on the black market to countries that will gladly reverse engineer what we've built. And as an aside, I have no interest in funding proxy wars with my tax dollars. Let's not return to a Cold War era. Entering this conflict was abso…

An Ukraine that relies on the West for most of its equipment, is under Russian threat, and wants to join the EU/NATO will go around selling the West's equipment? Makes little sense to me. The West, and more specifically the US, is doing what they said they would do if Russia invaded Ukraine. This was done publicly and apparently privately too. So if this is a proxy war, then it's different from most proxy wars. I don…

> I don't like war, but when you have someone that wants to expand their borders, sometimes you save a lot of money and lives by ending the problem at the start. If Ukraine goes well, why not do the Baltics next? What about all those ethnic Russians in need of "saving" in Kazakhstan? It might even give China some ideas.

So what? How is this our problem?

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#67

Post by camillomiller »

How can an introduction like this not create disgust and shame?

>> The Pacific Ocean is vast, and when it comes to planning for how to fight a war in and across it, the United States is turning to a new airframe design—one that promises more efficient flight. In an event put on by the Air And Space Forces Association on August 16, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Ravi I Chaudhary announced the award of a contract, worth up to $230 million through 2026, for the development and production of a prototype “Blended Wing Body” airplane.

War! Such a fun thing to write about in an enthusiastic article opening! Yay!

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#68

Post by TeMPOraL »

fbdab103 wrote: post #55
notahacker wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not completely useless, but the US military's existing transport aircraft are not exactly pushing the boundaries of fuel consumption. A regular 777 freighter will get quite a bit further. Ultimately the military don't care about the cost, have many refuelling options, and are relying on much shorter range aircraft in other aspects of any conflict. Plus unlike other areas of aviation, if you solve a range problem…

I could imagine that it makes a real impact to a bomber. I have read that WW2 planes essentially were loaded to the maximum allowable weight between the fuel + ammunition. If you can cut down the fuel for same range, that allows for more ammo.

That was, arguably, the consequence of poor accuracy and low bomb yields - those planes had to drop a lot of ordnance for there to be a chance something actually lands on the intended target. I recall reading somewhere that a single modern guided bomb would achieve the effect that, during WW2, required 100 to 1000 bombers.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#69

Post by inglor_cz »

pcardoso wrote: post #39
twic wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you could tilt everyone's seats forward during takeoff and landing. I've seen very high density seating in the far east where people are virtually standing. Maybe the seats could start off that way, stay that way through takeoff and ascent, then gently lower to a normal posture in level flight.

Like the pendolino trains? Perhaps it could work, but will make the seats more complicated.

I am right now sitting in a Pendolino train, not far from Prague :)

Pendolino is a nice technology, but expensive to maintain. And aircraft, unlike trains, is very sensitive to total weight; the actuators for the seats will be extra dead weight that you need to lift, and this extra weight may eat quite a bit of the fuel savings, if not all of them.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#70

Post by pxmpxm »

luuurker wrote: post #46
xvector wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine used to be one of the most prolific black market military arms dealers. We should absolutely avoid sending Ukraine any modern equipment. As soon as the war is over, they'll sell it on the black market to countries that will gladly reverse engineer what we've built. And as an aside, I have no interest in funding proxy wars with my tax dollars. Let's not return to a Cold War era. Entering this conflict was abso…

An Ukraine that relies on the West for most of its equipment, is under Russian threat, and wants to join the EU/NATO will go around selling the West's equipment? Makes little sense to me. The West, and more specifically the US, is doing what they said they would do if Russia invaded Ukraine. This was done publicly and apparently privately too. So if this is a proxy war, then it's different from most proxy wars. I don…

> wants to join the EU/NATO will go around selling the West's equipment

Yes, you clearly have never set foot in "eastern" Europe. And I'm saying that as someone that grew up there.

Post reply on HN