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

British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 332 posts

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#171

Post by smcl »

justin66 wrote: post #160
smcl wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an non-expert like me the Gripen just seems so well-suited for Ukraine's Air Force in this conflict - relatively inexpensive, can land/operate in tougher conditions, can be serviced nearby (Czechia), outfitted to handle Western/NATO missile tech. I wonder what caused them to push so hard for F-16 instead.

Sweden was publicly clear they weren't going to make the Gripen available to Ukraine, the planes exist in small enough quantities that some new manufacturing would need to happen in order for any of its operators to swap their existing inventory out and give it to Ukraine (not impossible in the long run since there is a new variant that some countries might want to acquire someday, but not happening in the short term…

I think the question of which ally would supply what to Ukraine was generally pretty flexible - there were various statements about not supplying hardware like Bradley, Leopard, Challenger and F-16, I guess due to Russian threats about how it'd consider that an "escalation". But those appear to have melted away, so I just figured such statements were to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#172

Post by ethbr0 »

meepmorp wrote: post #126
ethbr0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30405/behold-sikorskys...

Dunno, the V280 was selected for FVL and FLRAA at the end of 2022; if only for pilot training and maintenance logistics, it probably makes more sense for FARA to go that way, as well.

We'll see. Afaik, the Sikorsky bid screwed FLRAA by being insufficiently detailed with their architecture in the proposal.

They claimed it would be half the price of the V280.

Since the Raider X is based on the same platform, it doesn't seem unreasonable it'd be competitive after they fix the documentation. And there might be a tendency to split the winners to sustain multiple builders.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#173

Post by Theodores »

tomaytotomato wrote: post #89

Has the RAF actually surveyed some of the motorways in the north of England recently? I nearly broke a spring from a dipped pothole on the M6 south. Not to forget all the smart motorway signs every 100 meters and signboards overhead, will make a landing "interesting".

It is never going to be for the UK.

With Ukraine you want the plane to take off from Ukraine, not the UK, or else it is seen as direct involvement. So the plane takes off from the UK, lands in the motorway somewhere near Keeeev and then the Ukrainian pilot hops on, to carry out the mission.

He then lands on the highway again, the plane stays still for the British pilot to get in, he does so, flying up to meet a tanker over Poo land to then get home by teatime.

He lands on a regular runway.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#174

Post by aardvarkr »

phil21 wrote: post #125
koheripbal wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true in the US and Canada as well.

> This is true in the US As far as I could tell after a bar argument, this is more or less an urban legend[0]. While the referenced article only debunks the "Every 5 miles" myth, further (brief) reading led me to believe if there were ever any designed airstrips into the interstate system they were short-lived and likely very one-offish style programs. [0] - https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjune-2000/one-mile…

Instead the government funds thousands of unprofitable municipal airports to ensure that we have airstrips everywhere in case we were ever invaded

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#175

Post by kunwon1 »

aardvarkr wrote: post #174
phil21 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is true in the US As far as I could tell after a bar argument, this is more or less an urban legend[0]. While the referenced article only debunks the "Every 5 miles" myth, further (brief) reading led me to believe if there were ever any designed airstrips into the interstate system they were short-lived and likely very one-offish style programs. [0] - https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjune-2000/one-mile…

Instead the government funds thousands of unprofitable municipal airports to ensure that we have airstrips everywhere in case we were ever invaded

Are airports supposed to be profitable, or are they there to provide a service? Should airports that are not profitable be shut down? Does the public good factor into that decision?

Sorry for offtopic, but I (evidently) got triggered by the inclusion of the word 'unprofitable' in your reply

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#176

Post by meepmorp »

ethbr0 wrote: post #172
meepmorp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno, the V280 was selected for FVL and FLRAA at the end of 2022; if only for pilot training and maintenance logistics, it probably makes more sense for FARA to go that way, as well.

We'll see. Afaik, the Sikorsky bid screwed FLRAA by being insufficiently detailed with their architecture in the proposal. They claimed it would be half the price of the V280. Since the Raider X is based on the same platform, it doesn't seem unreasonable it'd be competitive after they fix the documentation. And there might be a tendency to split the winners to sustain multiple builders.

They also didn't come close to the required lift capacity in FVL, but that matters less here.

I'd probably also have some concerns about the counter-rotating blades, as they've given the Ka-50/52 some serious problems with vibration - I've heard of them losing munitions from the winglets and experiencing airframe damage. I know Sikorsky isn't Kamov, but still.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#177

Post by solardev »

t43562 wrote: post #151

The F-35 obviously needs more preparation so they're really going to do it first with Typhoons and those are cool and potent aircraft even if they're not completely "Made in the USA (TM)". There's an internal BAE project to give them updatable computers which can be ripped out and replaced every few years. Like the Gripen the idea is to separate the flight critical software, which needs lots of certification, from ev…

Out of curiosity, in a fighter jet, what software ISN'T flight critical? Doesn't it all work together?

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#178

Post by dharmab »

solardev wrote: post #177
t43562 wrote: post #151

The F-35 obviously needs more preparation so they're really going to do it first with Typhoons and those are cool and potent aircraft even if they're not completely "Made in the USA (TM)". There's an internal BAE project to give them updatable computers which can be ripped out and replaced every few years. Like the Gripen the idea is to separate the flight critical software, which needs lots of certification, from ev…

Out of curiosity, in a fighter jet, what software ISN'T flight critical? Doesn't it all work together?

Some of the software is mission critical but not flight critical. If your targeting pod is down, it'll be harder to see the ground target or visually ID aircraft from afar, but there is no safety issue to the plane.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#179

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

phil21 wrote: post #125
koheripbal wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true in the US and Canada as well.

> This is true in the US As far as I could tell after a bar argument, this is more or less an urban legend[0]. While the referenced article only debunks the "Every 5 miles" myth, further (brief) reading led me to believe if there were ever any designed airstrips into the interstate system they were short-lived and likely very one-offish style programs. [0] - https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjune-2000/one-mile…

Bush planes in Alaska can use active highways. Literally merging with road vehicle traffic for takeoff and landing.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#180

Post by leetcrew »

kunwon1 wrote: post #175
aardvarkr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead the government funds thousands of unprofitable municipal airports to ensure that we have airstrips everywhere in case we were ever invaded

Are airports supposed to be profitable, or are they there to provide a service? Should airports that are not profitable be shut down? Does the public good factor into that decision? Sorry for offtopic, but I (evidently) got triggered by the inclusion of the word 'unprofitable' in your reply

I can see the value in operating airports at a loss in truly remote areas. sometimes it's the only way to maintain connectivity to the rest of the world. for example there are communities in alaska that are literally not connected to the contiguous US by road or train.

but otherwise yes? I don't think airports like IAD should run at a loss. they are very expensive to operate and primarily serve commercial airlines. the gate fees and retail rents should absolutely offset that, and if they don't, the airport should be closed.

Post reply on HN