Terrible Robot posted:

Terrible Robot posted:

Terrible Robot posted:

GIS-ing "flying wing concept" is a loving goldmine

Slo-Tek posted:

Note that Norman Bel Geddes pretty much smashed the blended wing bullshit out of the park in 1929. Yet to be exceeded.

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/BelGeddesAirlinerNo4Page.htm

FullMetalJacket posted:

If only your opinion was valid. Lifting bodies/blended wing designs offer big advantages over the conventional tube and stick. The lift coefficient and efficiency gains alone are enough reason to produce them instead of just being parasite/surface drag/dirty air factories.

engines on wing pylons are huge sources of parasite drag. it's much more efficient to place engines at the back of the airframe where they don't create dirty air for the airframe to sort out and not disturb the boundary layer of airflow on the wings.

benito posted:

Sky Whale!

Reminds me of something from Star Trek: TNG.

Slo-Tek posted:

One Eye Open posted:

Here are some of his other ideas.

darknrgy posted:

I HATE PLANES THAT STAY IN ONE PIECE


Oh, sweet! nevermind

Breakfast All Day posted:

These make the Sky Whale look pedestrian. A rocket with the diameter of a 747 launched from the top of a C5 with dildos on the wings.

One Eye Open posted:

Here are some of his other ideas.

Wiki posted:

The findings of the investigation stated that the B-2 crashed after "heavy, lashing rains" caused water to enter skin-flush air-data sensors. The data from the sensors are used to calculate numerous factors including airspeed, altitude, and attitude. Because three pressure transducers had been improperly calibrated by the maintenance crew due to condensation inside devices, the flight-control computers calculated inaccurate aircraft angle of attack and airspeed. Incorrect airspeed data on cockpit displays led to the aircraft rotating 12 knots slower than indicated. After the wheels lifted from the runway, which caused the flight control system to switch to different control laws, the erroneously sensed negative angle of attack caused the computers to inject a sudden, 1.6‑g, uncommanded 30-degree pitch-up maneuver. The combination of slow lift-off speed and the extreme angle of attack (and attendant drag) resulted in an unrecoverable stall, yaw, and descent. Both crew members successfully ejected from the aircraft soon after the left wing tip started to gouge the ground alongside the runway. The aircraft impacted the ground, tumbled, and burned after its fuel ignited.

quote:

A new U.S. Defense Department report warns that ongoing software, maintenance and reliability problems with Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter could delay the Marine Corps' plans to start using its F-35 jets by mid-2015.

The latest report by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester, Michael Gilmore, provides a detailed critique of the F-35's technical challenges, and focuses heavily on what it calls the "unacceptable" performance of the plane's software, according to a 25-page draft obtained by Reuters.

(...)

Gilmore's report acknowledged the F-35's progress in 2013 on flight testing, despite government furloughs and two fleet-wide groundings. But it said the program was still struggling to integrate the plane's "mission systems," or sensors, weapons and other equipment needed for use in military operations.

The current software generated too many nuisance warnings and resulted in poor sensor performance. Further work on software had been slowed by testing required to validate earlier fixes, the report said.

It said Lockheed had delivered F-35 jets with 50 percent or less of the software capabilities required by its production contracts with the Pentagon.

The computer-based logistics system known as ALIS was fielded with "serious deficiencies" and remained behind schedule, which affected servicing of existing jets needed for flight testing, the report said. It said the ALIS diagnostic system failed to meet even basic requirements.

But the most immediate concern involved the Block 2B version of the software that must be completed in order for the Marines to start using the jets from July 2015.

"Initial results with the new increment of Block 2B software indicate deficiencies still exist in fusion, radar, electronic warfare, navigation, electro-optical target system, distributed aperture system, helmet-mounted display system, and datalink," the report said, noting the problems could delay efforts to complete Block 2B development and flight test.

The report cited projections that the 2B software would not be completed until November 2015, 13 months later than planned. This would delay release to the F-35 fleet until July 2016, a year after the Marines want to start using the jets.

It said there is also little margin for any weight growth...

MH Knights posted:

buttcrackmenace posted:

x-posted from the GBS F-35 thread


what why how I don't even

ed: not timg'd because this shitshow is just as broken as your tables

Davin Valkri posted:

At this point it almost seems like it would have been better to keep pounding away at the air-superiority F-22, then retrofit ground strike improvements to that airframe later. If only because that seemed to work for the F-15 -> F-15E and the F-16 series. Or is there something very different about the two programs I'm missing?

Davin Valkri posted:

At this point it almost seems like it would have been better to keep pounding away at the air-superiority F-22, then retrofit ground strike improvements to that airframe later. If only because that seemed to work for the F-15 -> F-15E and the F-16 series. Or is there something very different about the two programs I'm missing?

MA-Horus posted:

Yeah if Canada ends up buying that thing I'll eat my hat because it'll be a loving political NIGHTMARE. Though the conservative government seems hell-bent in wasting as much money as possible on defence projects, like several billion dollars for a few tenders.

buttcrackmenace posted:

x-posted from the GBS F-35 thread


what why how I don't even

ed: not timg'd because this shitshow is just as broken as your tables

Davin Valkri posted:

At this point it almost seems like it would have been better to keep pounding away at the air-superiority F-22, then retrofit ground strike improvements to that airframe later. If only because that seemed to work for the F-15 -> F-15E and the F-16 series. Or is there something very different about the two programs I'm missing?

SCOTLAND posted:

Yo linedance, were you affected by the lhr staffing changes announced yesterday? Please say no

FrozenVent posted:

Don't get me started on that loving polar icebreaker.

You know we're going to end up with the F-35, though. There's no way Harper's going to budge on that.

St_Ides posted:

The CBC seems to think Dassault might have a chance.

I'd expect the Rafale is one of the cheaper options along with the Super Hornet, but I imagine it's still going to run in to "Buy American!" trouble.

iyaayas01 posted:

The question you should be asking is why we needed to put (lovely) LO capability on the aircraft that we're going to be using as a day 30 bomb truck, or put another way, why are we pretending that our bomb truck is going to be survivable on night 0? Just one of the many questions regarding the F-35.

WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:

Some idiots keep tossing out the idea that THE A-10 can't handle the MANPADS THREAT BRO. Which is obviously retarded as LO is designed as a radar threat defense, not IR. Slap some IR absorbant paint on an A-10 and it will handle the situation just as well as any other aircraft currently in the sky. We helicopters are down in the dirty every single day and we handle it - why do people think an A-10 is suddenly such a vulnerable shitheap?

The F-35 will have the exact same problem, when it comes to anything but an early war (pre SEAD/DEAD) situation.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the argument I've seen made numerous times?

iyaayas01 posted:

The F-22 is the night 0 kick in the door fighter. In addition to world beating air to air capability, it has (most of) the necessary air to mud capability to fill that specific role (SEAD/DEAD/Strategic Attack on night 0, basically what we used to use the F-117 for) with the recently fielded Increment 3.1...internal carriage of 8 SDBs (or 2 GBU-32s if you need something bigger), basic SAR capability, the ability to receive info via datalink for dynamic targeting, and the ability to execute on board retargeting. Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that pretty much everything that is missing here (transmit datalink capability with MADL, more advanced SAR capability, geolocation avionics) was either deleted from the spiral development program or delayed due to funding difficulties...difficulties largely resulting from the F-35. So while the Raptor isn't going to be a bomb truck in Afghanistan v3, it was never supposed to be. That's supposed to be the F-35's wicket.

The question you should be asking is why we needed to put (lovely) LO capability on the aircraft that we're going to be using as a day 30 bomb truck, or put another way, why are we pretending that our bomb truck is going to be survivable on night 0? Just one of the many questions regarding the F-35.

But Bob Gates is an airpower guru so clearly he made the right decision to cut Raptors in favor of more F-35s.

Also lol at the idea of STOVL fighters as aerospace herpes. They really are, in so many different ways.

e: That doesn't get into the point regarding export, which is valid insofar as we were never going to sell the Raptor to anyone. But it doesn't answer the question of why F-35s were necessary for our allies since they could've gotten new build Block 60s or Super Bugs or something for a fraction of the cost with the only loss being (lovely) LO...and it's not like any of them are going to need to go toe to toe with an advanced IADS unless they're just tagging along with another one of our misadventures.

e2: If ALIS is anything like the F-22's IMIS (and I assume it is), it can't be anything other than a steaming pile of dog poo poo. And I'm glad to see that the Marines are still pressing for a 2015 IOC date. After all, unnecessarily killing people through the introduction of underdeveloped and not fully tested equipment is kind of Marine Aviation's thing.

iyaayas01 posted:

it's going to be down in the weeds in a non-permissive environment (in which case, do you want the chunky plastic fighter or the one with a 30mm cannon and a titanium bathtub?)

iyaayas01 posted:

And I'm glad to see that the Marines are still pressing for a 2015 IOC date. After all, unnecessarily killing people through the introduction of underdeveloped and not fully tested equipment is kind of Marine Aviation's thing.

Snowdens Secret posted:

Or the one where the pilot is safe and sound in a fart-filled trailer in Nevada

(I know we do this over and over)

hobbesmaster posted:

Crazy thing is if we want a lower observability bomb truck the F-15SE is a thing that exists.

quote:

In the 1980s the U.S. Air Force planned to deploy 68 A-10 warplanes to each of six Forward Operating Locations in West Germany in the event of war with the Soviets. The twin-engine A-10s, with their 30-millimeter guns and Maverick missiles, were NATO’s main tank-killing weapon.

According to the latest issue of Combat Aircraft, the flying branch predicted that, if the A-10s went into action, seven percent of the jets would be lost per 100 sorties. Since each pilot was expected to fly at most four missions per day, each base would in theory generate more than 250 sorties daily. At this pace, a seven-percent loss rate per 100 flights equaled at least 10 A-10s shot down at each FOL every 24 hours — and that’s being conservative.

At that rate, in less than two weeks the entire A-10 force at the time — around 700 jets — would have been destroyed and the pilots killed, injured, captured or, at the very least, very shook up.