11–20 of 77 posts
90 - 120 hours is the target MTBF for a jet engine? _mind blown_ glad I am not in aeronautics.
UAVs are the future. They are more affordable, they can be stealther, they can be smaller, they can stay flying for longer, and they require less ground support. I can not believe the F-35 hasn't been completely cancelled yet. Every partner of the US doesn't really want these expensive beasts.
Not trying to justify the F-35, it's a cluster fuck, but manned aircraft will be around for a while. Unless the operator is local, the communication latency for UAVs makes them unsuitable for some types of combat missions.
Also, 'Unmanned' does not necessarily means "remote-controlled". They can be autonomous.
We are making progress: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-navys-x-47b-cond...
This is after carrier landings and takeoffs and formation flying with manned aircraft.
And all that developed at a fraction of what the F-35 program will spend on engines alone
UAVs are the future. They are more affordable, they can be stealther, they can be smaller, they can stay flying for longer, and they require less ground support. I can not believe the F-35 hasn't been completely cancelled yet. Every partner of the US doesn't really want these expensive beasts.
Nobody in the military will take seriously a "warrior" that runs a joystick on a RPV, and when these things gain more autonomy it's going to eliminate the necessity for whole ranks of command. So the Air Force will fight to the bitter end for these things, long after they are will be effective solely as air show entertainment.
I think the F-35 isn't real, that all the videos of it are CGI, and that all these reports are supposed to convince us that this money has been lost, all while the government is secretly using the entire F-35 budget to build a flock of flying drones, walking and talking robots, and rail guns for the next major war. I have to believe such contrivances to avoid thinking about how my tax dollars are wasted.
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
I think the F-35 isn't real, that all the videos of it are CGI, and that all these reports are supposed to convince us that this money has been lost, all while the government is secretly using the entire F-35 budget to build a flock of flying drones, walking and talking robots, and rail guns for the next major war. I have to believe such contrivances to avoid thinking about how my tax dollars are wasted.
Is there anyone happy with the F35 program who does not have a fiscal/political stake in it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to justify the F-35, it's a cluster fuck, but manned aircraft will be around for a while. Unless the operator is local, the communication latency for UAVs makes them unsuitable for some types of combat missions.
Make them semi-autonomous. For the amount of money spent on the F35, surely we can make the UAV's smarter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to justify the F-35, it's a cluster fuck, but manned aircraft will be around for a while. Unless the operator is local, the communication latency for UAVs makes them unsuitable for some types of combat missions.
For some types, not all of them. Also, 'Unmanned' does not necessarily means "remote-controlled". They can be autonomous. We are making progress: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-navys-x-47b-cond... This is after carrier landings and takeoffs and formation flying with manned aircraft. And all that developed at a fraction of what the F-35 program will spend on engines alone
...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Procurement is often not about warfighting but about politics. That's why they split construction up among multiple locations -- that's multiple congressmen who have a vested incentive in seeing that money continue to roll into their district and provide jobs.
It's basically "New Deal"-type spending that is acceptable to the right wing (which, for the most part these days, includes the Democrats). The economy is in shambles, so you have to do something about it. But fixing the economy would involve breaking from your orthodoxy and upsetting your wealthy sponsors. So what do you do? Pay the unemployed to build killing machines, everyone loves those.
There's a whole psychology there which is missed by the usual "blame everything on the rich" reflexes. It's a problem which will have to be addressed if any social reforms are actually going to stick, as opposed to being pissed away in tax cuts and whinging about how much more deserving the poor were back before they could afford to treat two major diseases a lifetime.