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

81–88 of 88 posts

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

#81

Post by xvector »

luuurker wrote: post #80
xvector wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Okay, so we protect TSMC. What does Ukraine offer us?

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

#82

Post by coryrc »

xvector wrote: post #81
luuurker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Okay, so we protect TSMC. What does Ukraine offer us?

There's nothing more aligned with the US's moral reason for being than to defend a sovereign democratic country from being invaded by a nasty, brutish dictatorship.

Something to atone for our sins (invading Iraq the second time and hanging the Kurds out to dry the first time, among others) and build back goodwill among other nations.

We spend almost a trillion dollars a year on the military and equipment that's untested in battle, so let's see how well it would really work -- we're learning a lot already but we don't know if our good stuff is really as good as we think.

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

#83

Post by luuurker »

pxmpxm wrote: post #70
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…

> 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.

I'm not saying that some guy won't try to make a buck, but the incentive for those in power to allow that to happen is small when they depend on the west to maintain current weapons and get new ones. The F-16's won't fly for long without spare parts.

Turkey bought the S400 and got kicked out of the F-35 program (even after paying for the planes)... and they're NATO members.

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

#84

Post by maxcan »

coryrc wrote: post #25
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…

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…

This is all assuming that Russia doesn't resort to nuclear, biological, or chemical attack.

In a conventional war, its true. NATO, or the US alone, or even some individual NATO members on their own, would cakewalk over Russia faster than the coalition did in the Gulf War.

Unfortunately, its pretty hard to tell what their actual red line is for going nuclear which radically invalidates the preceding paragraph.

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

#85

Post by luuurker »

xvector wrote: post #81
luuurker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Okay, so we protect TSMC. What does Ukraine offer us?

Yes, "we" protect TSMC and others like them by providing Taiwan with weapons that makes a war/invasion very expensive and show that anyone that does that will have a though time.

But you "have no interest in funding proxy wars with [your] tax dollars" or to "return to a Cold War era", so I guess fuck Taiwan and TSMC.

Ukraine? I'm less familiar with Ukraine, but on top of having a friendly country in that part of the world and US influence (which is part of what makes the US the country it is, something you benefit from), didn't the US and the EU use some of their rocket engines or something like that? Not saying we can't survive without them, but to say there's nothing there also doesn't make sense.

After reading some of Putin's reasoning to invade Ukraine and what he said about other countries in eastern Ukraine being essentially part of Russia, I have to ask what's cheaper (since you care about your tax dollars)? To send them equipment or to be dragged to a proper war with Russia after they decide to invade NATO countries? What's hit to the global economy and how much will it affect your wallet? Assuming that you care about anyone other than yourself, how much will this affect people around you?

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

#86

Post by xvector »

vpribish wrote: post #79
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…

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.

"Everyone that disagrees with me is a Russian bot!" Okay.

Not getting involved in irrelevant, needless wars isn't exactly a fringe take.

Anyways, your comment history shows that you're such an angry/bitter/dismissive person that I don't expect you to engage in any discussion in good faith. So that'll be all from my end. Have a good day.

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

#87

Post by neltnerb »

notahacker wrote: post #40
neltnerb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military. I think this assumption is wrong, for airplanes. Higher fuel efficiency means longer range for the same amount of fuel, so it's an increase to range for the same weight carried (or an increase in weight carried to the same range, presumably). I think this is ex…

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…

Why then? Stealth can't be that good. Cost seems impossibly unlikely at a development stage, but are they somehow lower cost to manufacture? Seems unlikely.

I am welcome to alternatives, but the announcement included:

“Blended wing body aircraft have the potential to significantly reduce fuel demand and increase global reach,” said Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. “Moving forces and cargo quickly, efficiently, and over long distance is a critical capability to enable national security strategy.”

It could be cleverly written to suggest it is about fuel efficiency and range, but that these straightforward and public explanations aren't the real reason. Totally possible, but what are they then? I know I don't know enough to second guess the public statements of the Secretary of the Air Force and the plain reading is that the first sentence is directly related to the second.

But we all know that's not how it works. Both sentences are just always true, they aren't necessarily related. I don't know what else it would mean though.

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

#88

Post by Turskarama »

twic wrote: post #33
moffkalast wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is the only practical solution for hydrogen fuelled aircraft, then it can't fail in passenger markets because there will be no other alternative to compete against once kerosene is too ecologically taxed.

If you can make carbon-neutral hydrogen, you can combine it with atmospheric CO2 to make synthetic hydrocarbons (or methanol) that are carbon-neutral. There's an energy cost to doing this, but I'm willing to bet it far outweighs the costs of running an airliner on hydrogen.

I'm not so sure. The big issue with Hydrogen is transport, it's an absolute pain to deliver it to fuel stations all over the country.

With planes though, you only need to deliver it to an airport. Airports are also very frequently placed next to large bodies of water, so with enough electricity you could make it on site.

I'm willing to bet that Hydrogen will never take off for cars, but I think it could have a place for planes and ships, and even trucks in some situations.

Post reply on HN