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

71–80 of 88 posts

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

#71

Post by pxmpxm »

pohuing wrote: post #59
enterprise_cog wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The is the kind of delusional thinking that has NATO forcing Ukraine to use western strategy and then getting slaughtered for it. The US has never defeated a peer army since WW2, in which the USSR did most of the work. Russia has fifth gen fighters, the S400, and very capable EW and artillery. To pretend they would roll over is pure fantasy.

And yet they struggle to take one of the poorest countries in Europe with a fraction of the population of the US. But I'm sure their dozen maybe kinda stealthy fighters with little training will be able take on literally hundreds of jets with competently trained pilots.

> struggle to take

I wonder if the couple hundred billion dollars we're sending there, along with "volunteers" that all seem to have CIA operator type resumes, are in any way connected to that.

This has been by far the most successful war-marketing campaign I've seen in my life though. Who would've thought that to sell left leaning/"progressive" people on a military conflict, all you need is social media heavy campaign memes (russian warship, ghost of Kiev etc) with google-translate Cyrillic typeface, and wrap everything in yellow and blue.

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

#72

Post by credit_guy »

It's left out of the article that the US Air Force already has the perfect blended wing body they could dream of. It's the B-21 Raider. Its range is classified, but there are quotes from some USAF generals that it exceeds expectations, which can be taken to mean it easily exceeds the range of B-2 (about 11000km without refueling).

Of course, the problem with B-21 is that it's quite expensive. If you made a life size replica entirely out of gold, it would be only 5 times as expensive as the real thing.

That's what the USAF is looking for here: an affordable long range aircraft that does not need to go in the heat of the battle like B-21, but can be used for refueling, cargo movements, etc.

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

#73

Post by marcosdumay »

notahacker wrote: post #19
marcosdumay wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you also have more places to put evacuation corridors and extra doors.

There are fewer viable spots to put evacuation doors than a conventional tube. The greater internal space means a lot more potential redundancy and width and not necessarily more distance for evacuation routes, but traditional airline economics means packing it with seats.

Well, yeah, if you pack every space available for evacuation with seats, you won't be able to evacuate the airplane.

That doesn't change the fact that there is space for more corridors.

Airline economics depends on a lot of factors (like fast boarding), and being allowed to fly the plane is one of them. Satisfying that requirement to flying is patently possible, but unless you have some non-public data, none of us can tell if it's profitable.

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

#74

Post by jqpabc123 »

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…

For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight.

The modern solution to the "window seat" is an exterior camera(s) feed accessible from the LCD touch screen in the seatback in front of you.

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

#75

Post by pohuing »

pxmpxm wrote: post #71
pohuing wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet they struggle to take one of the poorest countries in Europe with a fraction of the population of the US. But I'm sure their dozen maybe kinda stealthy fighters with little training will be able take on literally hundreds of jets with competently trained pilots.

> struggle to take I wonder if the couple hundred billion dollars we're sending there, along with "volunteers" that all seem to have CIA operator type resumes, are in any way connected to that. This has been by far the most successful war-marketing campaign I've seen in my life though. Who would've thought that to sell left leaning/"progressive" people on a military conflict, all you need is social media heavy campai…

I wonder how the current support measures up to NATO's forces and the wartime production capabilities of its members. Iirc the support to Ukraine is a fraction of what the coalition employed in the first gulf war.

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

#76

Post by nradov »

barnabask wrote: post #14
xwdv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would fail because people farther from the center of the plain would feel more extreme movement as the plane banks on turns.

Maybe that’s where the luggage should go then…?

That would make it difficult to have space for the required emergency exits.

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

#77

Post by sfifs »

xvector wrote: post #66
luuurker wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The US enjoys a massively strong dollar as the world's reserve currency and all the economic discounts that entails primarily because governments around the world believe they will deal with trade disruptions through their unrivaled monopoly on violence. The US would face significant trouble economically if that goes away.

Already the lessons taken by all senior politicians and bureaucrats globally from the US and Western Europe turning a blind eye to the original occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is that everyone needs access to an option to rapidly acquire nuclear weapons and to never give them up if you have them. You may have forgotten amidst the news cycles that the first inclination of the West was to offer Zelensky a ride out of Kyiv rather than defend it from Putin's occupation but I assure you no government has forgotten.

Why do you think Saudi Arabia is now actively establishing relationships with Iran - because they somehow suddenly realised that they should put aside their 1300 year old Shia - Sunni conflict for humanitarian reasons?

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

#78

Post by vpribish »

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…

Ok, Vladimir

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

#79

Post by vpribish »

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…

xvector is a troll or a tankie. No use talking to them, but thank you for responding so the impressionable don’t think their ideas are normal.

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

#80

Post by luuurker »

xvector wrote: post #66
luuurker wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You'll understand how it's your problem when you try to buy the latest SoC and can't because the TSMC fabs were destroyed during the invasion of Taiwan (or something like that).
Post reply on HN