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

241–250 of 332 posts

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

#241

Post by troyvit »

dahfizz wrote: post #190
kunwon1 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Municipal airports are nothing like the large international airports you may be thinking of. Municipal airports have like two runways and are only used by tiny private planes, not commercial airliners. The only effect on the "public good" is to serve a handful of rich hobbyist. And potentially as national defense infrastructure, which I guess is why the feds fund them.

In Colorado municipal airports serve more "public good" purposes. One purpose is for less rich (but still pretty rich) people to go skydiving. Another is to stage aircraft for fire fighting in places that are closer to the fires. That last one is important, not just for saving the houses of the rich people who build mansions in fire zones, but also to help save whole towns.

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

#242

Post by dllthomas »

leetcrew wrote: post #222
dragonwriter wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit? Only if you assume the nonexistence of (or perfect ability to internalize through regulation) externalities (specifically, here, positive externalities.)

why would you assume there are positive externalities though? large airports overwhelmingly serve for-profit airlines and freight carriers. I'd argue a lot of this activity should really be moved to rail. but either way, it seems that the businesses involved should cover the cost to operate. smaller airports are mostly used by hobbyists. while cool, this is not a particularly accessible hobby, and I don't feel it is…

The fact that it's made it through a somewhat democratic process is plenty of reason to assume positive externalities in the very weak sense of noticing that you should be looking for them. Relying on the assumption for more than that would be silly, of course.

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

#243

Post by troyvit »

leetcrew wrote: post #222
dragonwriter wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit? Only if you assume the nonexistence of (or perfect ability to internalize through regulation) externalities (specifically, here, positive externalities.)

why would you assume there are positive externalities though? large airports overwhelmingly serve for-profit airlines and freight carriers. I'd argue a lot of this activity should really be moved to rail. but either way, it seems that the businesses involved should cover the cost to operate. smaller airports are mostly used by hobbyists. while cool, this is not a particularly accessible hobby, and I don't feel it is…

Firefighting.

Also many municipal airports serve as a beacon to help folks flying at night to get around.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodrome_beacon

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

#244

Post by justin66 »

smcl wrote: post #171
justin66 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Flexible is right, but with the weird caveat that the company which manufactures the hardware (and the nation in which it's headquartered) generally gets a veto when it comes to any one of its customers sending any given item to Ukraine, if they want it. That's about the contracts and terms military hardware is sold under, and the need for ongoing maintenance contracts. It's why Germany, after gifting Ukraine with some anti-aircraft equipment, couldn't send surplus Oerlikon ammo to Ukraine. Switzerland, where the ammo was manufactured, would not allow it.

(not because it was a Russia-provoking "escalation" but because they're a neutral country with something in their law prohibiting sending arms into conflict zones... which also has an export-oriented arms industry for some reason)

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

#245

Post by topkai22 »

ghaff wrote: post #227
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…

In general, the military connection to the interstate highway system is almost certainly overplayed. From what I've read, it's something Eisenhower wanted to do and the military aspect made it easier to sell to congress.

A major military aspect comes from a general logistics perspective. Eisenhower took part in a 1919 cross country motor convoy- it took 62 days to cross the United States, with many difficulties. That experience is regularly cited as a major influence on his desire to establish the interstate highways.

It’s not that they were built for the military, but the advantages to the military were also obvious.

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/...

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

#246

Post by 7952 »

NikkiA wrote: post #233
Bayart wrote: post #223

Wouldn't the F35-B be sensitive to random crap laying on the ground ? I don't know that its air intake was made for anything else than spotless surfaces. As far as I'm aware only the Soviets/Russians designed planes with that in mind.

The F35B is also known to have damaged existing aircraft carriers by melting the flight decks during testing. This won't work, it'll fail for the same reasons the proposals to use highways for the Harrier fell apart in reality - too much damage to use it at any time other than wartime, resulting in no training for landing on highways, so it'll never happen even in wartime. Besides which, if you're at war where you ne…

It could get a few extra sorties out of the airplanes before they are all shot down or out of action due to technical difficulties. For a small country with limited external support that could be worth the relatively small cost.

Also, the "almost certainly already lost" situation is exactly what small countries are facing if Russia attacks them. Their main air bases are going to be attacked. Regular relocation of equipment may be the only way to survive more than a few hours.

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

#247

Post by golergka »

gostsamo wrote: post #107
golergka wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time Serbia attempted to commit literal genocide, for the second time in less than a decade, for NATO to get involved. Do you think they'll start mass murders again?

What I know is that serbians who were assigned to northern Kosovo do not recognize the authority of Prishtina. This is still a major issue between Serbia and Kosovo and it is a regular reason for increased tension between the two. More than anything else, the perspective for EU membership keeps the tensions down, but do not expect that Serbia will disregard the problem just because.

Yes, there are border tensions, I'm well aware. Stupid things like car registration numbers. But thankfully, it's nowhere near actual mass murders of civilians, so I don't see any reason for NATO getting involved.

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

#248

Post by mrguyorama »

ata_aman wrote: post #230
wonderwonder wrote: post #209

I still have no idea what to expect from the F35. I'm not someone that knows a lot about fighter aircraft. The F22 was quickly hailed as the pinnacle of what it was designed to do, essentially unmatched today. Then they just stopped making them. Reviews of the F35 are vague. Israel is buying them but it's essentially getting them for free. So why not? Anyone have a true read on if the F35 is actually a dominant platf…

Short answer is different roles. F22 is specifically an air superiority platform, which is why only the Air Force has it. F35 is a multi role platform and a lot of its value comes from its ability to communicate with the infra surround its roles.

The F35 is also meant to be very flexible, so that we can slap new toys into it as the world turns. It's supposed to run it's own little "fleet" of networked drones and MALDs and similar so that it can grab all the intel of everything about the enemy and send that info back to a bunch of A-10s and/or B52s carrying long range munitions to actually fire.

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

#250

Post by mrguyorama »

koube wrote: post #34
Mat3777 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you know who is qualified for what?

I don't have perfect knowledge of this but disagreeing with military leaders based on a couple videos is definitely non-credible. Linking Russian drone propaganda is useful to let people know that drones exist perhaps, but not for much beyond that. Beyond that central theme, certain things don't pass the smell test in my opinion. For example: - Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usua…

>Lancets are winning the war.

This is a laughable claim. Lancets are awesome weapons, cost effective, accurate, and productive. But they cannot win the war on their own in any sense. They require certain intelligence to use effectively, intelligence that Russia is getting less of than Ukraine through NATO. More artillery is being destroyed by other artillery than Lancets. They just aren't made in the quantity that 152mm shells are.

>Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. Why do you state this and then immediately say you have seen zero evidence? You can't just release a swarm of RF seeking drones into the sky, you'll blow up all your own people and stuff too.

>Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.

Post reply on HN