We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of change left over... ...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.
Will that cover all future student debt as well?
F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
51–60 of 77 posts
Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#5290 - 120 hours is the target MTBF for a jet engine? _mind blown_ glad I am not in aeronautics.
What sucks even more is that the F35 is a single engine. It's going to be replace a lot of jets that currently have 2 engines.
Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#53Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a very illuminating video on Youtube by designer of F-16 and A-10 about F-35. Please remember F-22 is a very expensive plane and great for Air superiority, but you need planes in other roles. The Airforce in their sexy trip are trying to replace the reliable A-10 with the F-35. F-35 for ground support, bad bad bad idea, but the guys in Airforce have careers and they will have to move the needle, if you think…
This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
Affirmative.
Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#55We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of change left over... ...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.
The plane flies; but I wonder what we're doing putting humans in an airplane at all at this point. The amount of additional engineering that has to be done to support a human in the cockpit is crazy -- life support systems, multiple redundant flight control systems, etc. All of these have maintenance schedules, checklists and protocols that make them very expensive to operate. By the time this weapons system is opera…
The F-35 started life in 1996 with the Joint Strike Fighter Program. That's almost 2 decades ago, and long before the idea of using drones instead of humans was feasible.
That doesn't mean that the F35 program shouldn't be scrapped and the useful technology used elsewhere but the program goals were reasonable when they started. Or at least not completely ridiculous... I personally think it's a bad idea to have one type of aircraft for everything because if anything happens to cause the fleet to be grounded there is nothing else to step in to fill the gap.
Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#56It's kind of amusing that the one Air Force in the world that has the most means to have different super-specialized planes for every use case has decided to sink a historic amount of money into an all-purpose plane that's not particularly good at one task. You would understand if a place like Panama decided "We can only afford 6 fighter jets and one maintenance team/infrastructure, so let's get F-35s because they'll…
We had a specialized plane, the F22- but it cost $150M each and people thought "that's crazy" so they said: let's save money by building a new plane in bulk that can be customized for each branch! So while the costs upfront were/are high, in the end once we start stamping them out in bulk the price per place will be much lower.
And here we are. Intentions were good, execution has been bad.
Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#57We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of change left over... ...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.
The plane flies; but I wonder what we're doing putting humans in an airplane at all at this point. The amount of additional engineering that has to be done to support a human in the cockpit is crazy -- life support systems, multiple redundant flight control systems, etc. All of these have maintenance schedules, checklists and protocols that make them very expensive to operate. By the time this weapons system is opera…
A human pilot can't be simply disconnected of reprogrammed to turn around and bomb Washington. I think that's a major consideration.
Yes, there are drones that work quite well against countries like Afghanistan but good luck using these against China or Russia. (not that I'd want to see that ever happen)
Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
The X-47B is pretty damn cool, makes one wonder with the rate of advancement they had why we would need to develop manned craft much longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
Considering we (and around the world) still fly jets from the 1970's and prior (although heavily updated) I'd say we have a handful of decades of human operation left.
To some extent however most of the changes since the 60's have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, pilotless aircraft are revolutionary.
Even putting modern electronics into an ancient design like the Mig-21 produces a very capable aircraft (the Mig-21 Bison has held it's own against F16's and even F15C's) putting a pilotless control system into something like a modern F15 would create one hell of a fighter.
Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
The X-47B is pretty damn cool, makes one wonder with the rate of advancement they had why we would need to develop manned craft much longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
The US Navy has said the F-35 is probably that last manned fighter for them. The X-47B is done after the refuel testing so it makes one wonder what is the next test aircraft.
No, the USN has said the F-35 will be the last manned "strike" aircraft for them. They are developing the F/Axx to replace the F-18, and this will definitely be manned.
Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering we (and around the world) still fly jets from the 1970's and prior (although heavily updated) I'd say we have a handful of decades of human operation left.
To some extent however most of the changes since the 60's have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, pilotless aircraft are revolutionary. Even putting modern electronics into an ancient design like the Mig-21 produces a very capable aircraft (the Mig-21 Bison has held it's own against F16's and even F15C's) putting a pilotless control system into something like a modern F15 would create one hell of a fighter.
Inserting a "pilotless control system" into a previously manned fighter does nothing to improve its performance, and degrades it in many ways (i.e. situational awareness). Where unmanned systems do better is in size and weight since they don't have to carry all the gear to support a human. Although you can remove ejection seats, oxygen gear etc from a manned fighter, unmanned really needs to be designed from the ground up.