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

Lockheed Martin Taps Red Hat to Accelerate F-22 Raptor Upgrades

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Lockheed Martin Taps Red Hat to Accelerate F-22 Raptor Upgrades

#101

Post by jki275 »

burfog wrote: post #99
jki275 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JATO is for takeoff, thrust in the aft direction is not the same as trying to rocket assist a landing. Completely different. It's also extremely hard on airframes. The idea is not feasible. Also your list of "carrier aircraft requirements" is incorrect, the JSF is a single engine aircraft, and landing gear is a major requirement of a carrier aircraft. The F22 is not a naval aircraft, was not designed to be, and never…

He is correct about carrier aircraft requirements. The navy was forced to accept the JSF. As produced, the F-22 is obviously not a naval aircraft. The tail hook is single-use, the landing gear is not reinforced, and the more modern stuff for carrier approach is probably not installed. All of that would be easy to change, and in fact a carrier version was proposed.

The Navy spearheaded the JSF for both its CVN fleet and for the USMC. The JSF is not the first single engine Naval aircraft, and its engine is reliable enough that it's not an issue. People look at the tomcat and hornet and make up requirements that have never existed.

There is no such thing as "easy to change", you would have to redesign the aircraft from the ground up. You don't "navalize" an air force asset, you have the air force use Naval aircraft if you want dual use. The F22 is not and never will be a carrier aircraft.

Re: Lockheed Martin Taps Red Hat to Accelerate F-22 Raptor Upgrades

#102

Post by jki275 »

burfog wrote: post #100
jki275 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL. Sounds like a great thing for a scifi novel, but not useful to do something like that in real life.

This was said about recovering orbital rocket boosters, yet now SpaceX does it most of the time. Doing that for fighter jets is actually much easier. The speeds are much slower and the distance is much lower.

Carrier decks are not drone ships. People work on them, they conduct hundreds of launch & trap cycles per day.

It's absurd, as anyone who spent 9+ years on CVNs would know...

Re: Lockheed Martin Taps Red Hat to Accelerate F-22 Raptor Upgrades

#103

Post by burfog »

jki275 wrote: post #102
burfog wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was said about recovering orbital rocket boosters, yet now SpaceX does it most of the time. Doing that for fighter jets is actually much easier. The speeds are much slower and the distance is much lower.

Carrier decks are not drone ships. People work on them, they conduct hundreds of launch & trap cycles per day. It's absurd, as anyone who spent 9+ years on CVNs would know...

Oh come on. You're just dismissing it, seemingly with the assumption that we'd have manned aircraft dropping into tight aircraft parking spaces with all the grace of the very first SpaceX landing attempt.

Obviously there is no reason to bother with vertical landings on a fully functional full-sized US aircraft carrier. This would be for other ships, clearings in jungles, and cleared-out parking lots.

You'd descend toward an area that has been cleared of debris and personal. It's not more absurd than flying toward a ship at 135 kts and expecting to grab a cable without crashing into things and people on deck. Compared to what we do on a CATOBAR ship, rocket-enabled descent is really tame and safe.

Vertical landing with the F-35 isn't exactly safe. This is the standard for comparison. Rockets can respond faster. This allows better stability and faster shut-down.

Re: Lockheed Martin Taps Red Hat to Accelerate F-22 Raptor Upgrades

#104

Post by jki275 »

burfog wrote: post #103
jki275 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carrier decks are not drone ships. People work on them, they conduct hundreds of launch & trap cycles per day. It's absurd, as anyone who spent 9+ years on CVNs would know...

Oh come on. You're just dismissing it, seemingly with the assumption that we'd have manned aircraft dropping into tight aircraft parking spaces with all the grace of the very first SpaceX landing attempt. Obviously there is no reason to bother with vertical landings on a fully functional full-sized US aircraft carrier. This would be for other ships, clearings in jungles, and cleared-out parking lots. You'd descend to…

We have aircraft designed to do stovl and do it correctly.

Vertical landing with the F35 is exactly safe. It's the definition of safe, it's been done thousands of times with zero incidents. It was done hundreds of thousands of times in the Harrier before, and they applied the safety lessons learned from the Harrier to the JSF. How many rockets has spacex lost already?

rockets are for a completely different use case.

This is a ridiculous discussion. It's absurd.

Re: Lockheed Martin Taps Red Hat to Accelerate F-22 Raptor Upgrades

#105

Post by foobarrio »

smileysteve wrote: post #95
foobarrio wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons why I sometimes don't like the term "tech debt" is because you can take it on without knowing it. This is not true for financial debt. When you borrow money, even if you're not tracking it, the lender is 100% tracking the debt. If you are in a team that discourages upgrading build systems, code reviews, code quality, testing etc there isn't really anyone that can point to instances where tech debt…

> This is not true for financial debt. It is however true with assets; The housing crisis provides a great example; housing is an asset when it is always appreciating; however, if it starts depreciating (2008), it quickly became a liability. This translates nicely to product. Each feature is an asset for selling; until it is found to have liabilities (pii data storage, inability to scale), then the feature either nee…

That's a good comparison I haven't thought of before!

Re: Lockheed Martin Taps Red Hat to Accelerate F-22 Raptor Upgrades

#106

Post by p_l »

jki275 wrote: post #91
p_l wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F-22 has datalinks, including the one datalink that appears to be ultimately the only one really used - Link-16. F-35's MADL wasn't added to F-22 because Air Force deemed it "not ready to use" and cited maturity problems with the whole stack. A lot of JSF sensors are to patch over its horrible pilot situational awareness, mostly a legacy of the STOVL variant (which is responsible for most issues) and which exists onl…

All incorrect. The JSF was designed around sensor fusion to give the pilot situational awareness like no other aircraft. Stovl has been used by the USMC in every conflict since they got the Harrier. They flew off of highways in OIF. Japan hasn’t purchased the B model yet, they likely will. But the B model has doubled our carrier force by giving the ARG strike capability. You do not “refit” a non naval aircraft for ca…

The F-18 is navalized YF-17 (specifically, it's based on YF-17 model 267). It's competitor was literally F-16 "navalised" by team up of General Dynamics and Vought Aerospace, with resulting model being Vought Model 1600.

You don't usually already produced units to "navalize", but making a derivative is the norm, and was the case for both.

F-22N was proposed but never went far.

As for JSF sensor fusion - the helmet itself comes form pretty bad visibility from the cockpit. Incorporating modern passive sensors was an obvious choice, though.

(I'm still waiting on reports of "sensor fusion finally works", given our local idiots in charge decided to jump on the Lockheed Welfare project)

And outside of F-35, everything talks Link-16 with possible tunnelling/subnetting, and MADL was considered "too immature" to start fitting on F-22 despite Congress "ordering" it.

Re: Lockheed Martin Taps Red Hat to Accelerate F-22 Raptor Upgrades

#107

Post by jki275 »

p_l wrote: post #106
jki275 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All incorrect. The JSF was designed around sensor fusion to give the pilot situational awareness like no other aircraft. Stovl has been used by the USMC in every conflict since they got the Harrier. They flew off of highways in OIF. Japan hasn’t purchased the B model yet, they likely will. But the B model has doubled our carrier force by giving the ARG strike capability. You do not “refit” a non naval aircraft for ca…

The F-18 is navalized YF-17 (specifically, it's based on YF-17 model 267). It's competitor was literally F-16 "navalised" by team up of General Dynamics and Vought Aerospace, with resulting model being Vought Model 1600. You don't usually already produced units to "navalize", but making a derivative is the norm, and was the case for both. F-22N was proposed but never went far. As for JSF sensor fusion - the helmet it…

The F18 has some roots in the YF-17 program, but it is not a YF-17. It was a new development effort that used some of the tech developed from the YF-17 program. And even at that, the modern F18 is a totally new aircraft that vaguely resembles the previous models and retains the name for funding and programmatic purposes.

The JSF's sensor fusion is not a result of "bad visibility". It's how the aircraft was designed.

F22 also does not talk Link 16, for obvious reasons.

Post reply on HN