21–30 of 77 posts
90 - 120 hours is the target MTBF for a jet engine? _mind blown_ glad I am not in aeronautics.
An engine for a military application has very different characteristics from that of a commercial passenger plane. The MTBF for the latter is in the 100k+ hours, with servicing usually performed around 10k.
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.
Every air force in the world wants these expensive beasts, it's the entire identity of the service - TOP GUN knights of old jousting for supremacy. The command structure of most air forces comes from the fighter pilots, it's a common complaint in USAF that transport, which is maybe the most useful day to day function, is a career dead-end. Nobody in the military will take seriously a "warrior" that runs a joystick on…
I agree that these are shiny new tools for the airforce and its pilots. Here in Canada it has been a public shitstorm of rapidly increasing procurement costs and quality issues.
Canada has officially delayed purchasing F-35 for the foreseeable future:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/f-35-faces-further-de...
It (the purchase of the F-35s) may still happen after the next election, but it isn't something the public wants.
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
While the F-35 budgets looks atrocious now - in a couple decades we'll look back and think "how cheap!".
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
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/house-votes-to-kill...
Not looking like such a great idea now ehh?
Oh yeah, we're supposed to forget these things.
Earlier 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.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_Carrier-Launched_Airbo...
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
Let us not forget that the "backup" engine program was cut http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/house-votes-to-kill... Not looking like such a great idea now ehh? Oh yeah, we're supposed to forget these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An engine for a military application has very different characteristics from that of a commercial passenger plane. The MTBF for the latter is in the 100k+ hours, with servicing usually performed around 10k.
you service an aircraft engine after 416 days of non stop flying?
There are several different tiers of checks, ranging from short frequent ones, to expensive, time consuming, infrequent ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks
Usually, older aircraft that are being phased out are mothballed shortly before their next heavy maintenance check. And the resale value of used aircraft, especially older ones, is heavily influenced by how soon the next D check is.