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

F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#61

Post by josefresco »

noir_lord wrote: post #58
josefresco wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering we (and around the world) still fly jets from the 1970's and prior (although heavily updated) I'd say we have a handful of decades of human operation left.

To some extent however most of the changes since the 60's have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, pilotless aircraft are revolutionary. Even putting modern electronics into an ancient design like the Mig-21 produces a very capable aircraft (the Mig-21 Bison has held it's own against F16's and even F15C's) putting a pilotless control system into something like a modern F15 would create one hell of a fighter.

An RC F-15 exists and is used for training I believe (no link handy) however I think moving forward, it would be more reasonable to expect them to make an RC/autonomous F-35 or F-22 or comparable fifth generation fighter.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#62

Post by noir_lord »

josefresco wrote: post #61
noir_lord wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some extent however most of the changes since the 60's have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, pilotless aircraft are revolutionary. Even putting modern electronics into an ancient design like the Mig-21 produces a very capable aircraft (the Mig-21 Bison has held it's own against F16's and even F15C's) putting a pilotless control system into something like a modern F15 would create one hell of a fighter.

An RC F-15 exists and is used for training I believe (no link handy) however I think moving forward, it would be more reasonable to expect them to make an RC/autonomous F-35 or F-22 or comparable fifth generation fighter.

They'd certainly be the start platform but without the human in the cockpit you can do stuff you simply can't do now like push the G-envelope right out, modern planes are often computer limited to the G's to prevent injuring the pilot.

If you know you aren't going to exceed 9G you don't design the airframe for more than that, if you know the pilot is going to be a computer then you can push that out way more.

You can also make them much smaller (removing the human, his seat, the redundant controls, environmental control) and somewhat more stealthy.

Quite frankly they'd be terrifying as a weapons platform, they'd re-write the rules of air warfare and I suspect they'd be used a lot more than normal piloted planes because no risk of body bags on the evening news :|.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#63

Post by protomyth »

greedo wrote: post #59
protomyth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the USN has said the F-35 will be the last manned "strike" aircraft for them. They are developing the F/Axx to replace the F-18, and this will definitely be manned.

Yes, I should have added strike fighter, but the F/Axx is listed as manned or unmanned. I have my doubts about the duality they think they are going to get. On the technical side the F-35 is replacing the F/A-18C while the F/Axx is replacing the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#64

Post by talmand »

DominikR wrote: post #57
exelius wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plane flies; but I wonder what we're doing putting humans in an airplane at all at this point. The amount of additional engineering that has to be done to support a human in the cockpit is crazy -- life support systems, multiple redundant flight control systems, etc. All of these have maintenance schedules, checklists and protocols that make them very expensive to operate. By the time this weapons system is opera…

A human pilot can't be simply disconnected of reprogrammed to turn around and bomb Washington. I think that's a major consideration. Yes, there are drones that work quite well against countries like Afghanistan but good luck using these against China or Russia. (not that I'd want to see that ever happen)

Well, to be fair, a human pilot can decide to do those things on their own. Plus, most drones I'm aware of still have a human pilot, just not on board.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#65

Post by protomyth »

dsr_ wrote: post #6

Is there anyone happy with the F35 program who does not have a fiscal/political stake in it?

China

They look like they got some valuable technical information via espionage and built themselves a version that doesn't have some of the design flaws.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#66

Post by Lancey »

pekk wrote: post #51
Lancey wrote: post #19

We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of change left over... ...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.

Will that cover all future student debt as well?

Actually yeah, probably.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#67

Post by Lancey »

exelius wrote: post #37
Lancey wrote: post #19

We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of change left over... ...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.

The plane flies; but I wonder what we're doing putting humans in an airplane at all at this point. The amount of additional engineering that has to be done to support a human in the cockpit is crazy -- life support systems, multiple redundant flight control systems, etc. All of these have maintenance schedules, checklists and protocols that make them very expensive to operate. By the time this weapons system is opera…

I guess I should rephrase it as "a plane that flies 50% of the time and does everything we can already do but worse"

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#68

Post by exelius »

DominikR wrote: post #57
exelius wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plane flies; but I wonder what we're doing putting humans in an airplane at all at this point. The amount of additional engineering that has to be done to support a human in the cockpit is crazy -- life support systems, multiple redundant flight control systems, etc. All of these have maintenance schedules, checklists and protocols that make them very expensive to operate. By the time this weapons system is opera…

A human pilot can't be simply disconnected of reprogrammed to turn around and bomb Washington. I think that's a major consideration. Yes, there are drones that work quite well against countries like Afghanistan but good luck using these against China or Russia. (not that I'd want to see that ever happen)

Drones, like any other aircraft, would be used only after air superiority has been established.

That means that by the time we're sending drones in, the enemy doesn't even have sufficient radar capabilities to know what planes are there. Radar sites are one of the first targets in the process of establishing air superiority because they direct anti-aircraft defenses. They wouldn't even know there are drones to hack, just that missiles are raining down from above.

If we haven't established air superiority yet, we just use cruise missiles. But a cruise missile looks a lot like a missile fired from a drone if you're standing on the ground.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#69

Post by greedo »

protomyth wrote: post #63
greedo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the USN has said the F-35 will be the last manned "strike" aircraft for them. They are developing the F/Axx to replace the F-18, and this will definitely be manned.

Yes, I should have added strike fighter, but the F/Axx is listed as manned or unmanned. I have my doubts about the duality they think they are going to get. On the technical side the F-35 is replacing the F/A-18C while the F/Axx is replacing the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The problem for the USN is that the F-35 isn't coming along fast enough, and the cost will make the airwing even smaller than currently deployed. I think they Navy would love to ditch the F-35, let the Marines suffer with the F-35B, and push on to F/Axx. Of course the really smart thing would be pushing UCLASS hard, but that would conflict with a lot of their ideas about piloted aircraft.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#70

Post by outworlder »

aqme28 wrote: post #28
outworlder wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is an interesting definition of "progress."

The technical progress is indeed impressive. Maybe not in the ethics department.
Post reply on HN