15 ms·
British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways
- carabiner 3y agoSikorsky is gonna bring back the Comanche. I can feel it. Yeah baby!
- ethbr0 3y agoThat's the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30405/behold-sikorskys-raider-x-future-high-speed-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30405/behold-sikorskys...
- Aeolun 3y agoThis looks like real life Airwolf
- meepmorp 3y agoDunno, 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.
- ethbr0 3y agoWe'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.
- meepmorp 3y agoThey 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.
- sillywalk 3y ago"FTA: they would involve placing aluminum AM-2 mats along a strip of highway, up to 1,500 feet long. This will be sufficient for the stealth jets to carry out short takeoffs and vertical landings while protecting the road beneath them." "AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles coated with a epoxy nonskid material, available in both 6 and 12 foot lengths, and are assembled in a brickwork pattern to form runways, taxiways, parking and other areas required for aircraft operations and maintenance. Thirty ISO containers can be constructed to form a 1,500 square foot vertical, short landing and take off airfield and can accommodate up to a total of eleven CH53, UH1, AH1 and AV8B aircraft. " [1] I wonder about FOD. i.e. all the crap in and around a highway that could damage the engines.. [1] http://www.cassholdings.com/AM2.htm http://www.cassholdings.com/AM2.htm
- chinathrow 3y ago> I wonder about FOD. i.e. all the crap in and around a highway that could damage the engines.. They would send out personal to remove FOD (foreign object debris) before any operations and before laying those mats, I assume.
- sillywalk 3y agoJust some musing on the logistics and difficulties etc. of theoretical "distributed" highway F-35b operations.. [Numbers found by google search :_) ] 30 ISO containers for just the runway, = 30+ vehicles, + munitions, spare parts, maintenance personnel, that computerized logistics thing - ODIN/ALIS, food and water, security for the personnel, generators to power all the computers to support the aircraft, . would there need to be SAM support? anti-drone support? Fuel would seem to be a real issue especially - an upgraded refuelling tanker-truck holds ~20k litres, and an F-35b can take ~10k litres I think. One refuelling tanker-truck = two air sorties.
- Aeolun 3y agoI think this is one of those options you use after some of your airfields have been rendered inoperable. Then you transition the remaining personnel to your highways with a stack of containers from a random storage location.
- koube 3y agoWhen I want to know more about the future of warfare as a hacker news reader I base my opinion on a few cherry picked twitter/reddit videos (plus literal Russian propaganda) and this makes me more knowledgable than military leaders and qualified to dictate the direction of military procurement.
- Mat3777 3y agoHow would you know who is qualified for what?
- koube 3y agoI 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 usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates. - Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. I have seen no such thing although I am open to being proven wrong here. My understanding is that jamming has been effective for both Russia and Ukraine EXCEPT for offensives where the attackers need to extend beyond the protection of EW. - Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today.
- tudorw 3y agoWould this make highways a legitimate military target?
- amitport 3y agoThey always were.
- dumpsterdiver 3y agoAs another poster mentioned, fuck yes it does. They always were. Roads transport war machines.
- marvin 3y agoThis is in the context of fighting Russia, and current events demonstrate that the legitimacy of a target is moot. But of course highways, infrastructure, is a relevant thing to destroy in war.
- hajile 3y agoDo you have any evidence to back this up? Look at Civilian vs Soldier dead for various major wars. Only ONE war has WAY more soldiers killed than civilians. If Russia is trying to target Ukrainians, they are doing a worse job than any war you can name. Civilians Soldiers WW1 10M 7M WW2 50-55M 21-25M Korea 2.7M 0.8M Vietnam 2.5M 1.1M Kosovo 1-5K 0.5-1K Afghanistan 500K[1] 100K Iraq 135K[2] 40K Ukraine[3] 9K 65-250K [1] I don't trust US numbers in Afghanistan. There are prominent cases like the US claiming 25 casualties in a village when there was video evidence of many more bodies not mentioning all the bodies vaporized by the bomb. [2] Another definite lie. Studies done in 2004 and 2006 published in Lancet showed around 1M excess deaths of which almost all were directly attributable to the war and at least 31% were directly attributable to US forces. Who knows how many people died in all the conflicts that followed in the next 15 years. The US officially rejects these studies as flawed, but the British MoD considered it to be robust and adhering to best practices. Further, it used the same methodology and team the US considered to be stellar when doing the exact same thing the exact same way in the Congo. [3] From the Ukrainian MoD and/or Ukraine-leaning groups, so the likely bias is to overstate Civilian deaths, overstate Russian KIA, and understate Ukrainian KIA.
- Thoeu388 3y agoHighway landing and take-off on its own is useless. F35 requires extensive machinery to maintain, in needs proper airport and hangars. It is not possible to operate it somewhere from forest! And vertical landing/takeoff can not support any load, it can not even be fully fuelled! In Czechia we are replacing Gripens that can operate from almost anywhere. It only needs a few hundred meters of road, and single truck to refuel and restock ammunition. Our new F35 will only be able to operate from a single runway in entire country!
- prmoustache 3y agoIt still saves you on cost and space to host backup airstrips in case your country enter at war if you can share part of it with civil use.
- hef19898 3y agoThose motorway strips were all over the place in Geany during the Cold War. Most, if not all, got built back since. The idea of operating modern milizary aircraft from ad-hoc and improbvised airfields is nothing new. Easier to do with s/vtols so, added bonus for aircraft being carrier rated.
- chipsa 3y agoIt's vertical landing, not vertical take off. It's still a short rolling take off. I actually wouldn't be suprised to find they do a short rolling landing too (rather than go full hover, use the lift fan to allow them to land at lower than normal stall speed would be). They've tested the rolling landing on board the HMS QE And yes, for full maintenance, you do need need a proper airport and hangars. But for a quick refuel/arm and launch, you don't need that much. It's a trade off in capabilities: do you want to have a highway strip launch capability, or do you want something that is much less likely to get shot down. It's doubtful that the F-35 will only be able to operate at a single runway, unless your country only has one runway. It should be capable of operating off nearly any concrete runway you have (highways are typically not constructed to the same standards as a runway).
- 3y ago
- fmajid 3y agoParking lots would make more sense than highways.
- Sharlin 3y agoParking lots would make no sense whatsoever, and I fail to see how you’d even get the idea that they would.
- moffkalast 3y agoI assume OP means because it's a VTOL? It doesn't need a runway, just a large enough flat spot.
- Sharlin 3y agoYes, I realized that afterwards, but it’s not VTOL but STOVL. I believe it can take off vertically but mostly for airshow demonstration purposes, with minimal fuel and armament. In any case, highways make much more sense logistically and operationally.
- adolfojp 3y agoThey're STOVL airplanes. Short Take Off Vertical Landing. They can only take off vertically on exhibitions, when they're carrying no weapons and little fuel. For normal operations they need a short runway.
- hajile 3y agoI believe they also have a VTOL capacity of about 5,000lbs (vs 2,500lbs for the Harrier). The second you switch it to STOVL though, that capacity increases dramatically, so there's generally not going to be a reason to attempt VTOL in combat. Off-topic, but the F-35 VTOL design is amusing to me in that it was designed by Russia, but they never made more than a prototype and sold the tech to the US where we've now used it to make planes to take on Russia.
- fomine3 3y ago
- tomaytotomato 3y agoHas 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".
- Shrezzing 3y agoVertical landing drops staight in from the sky, and comes to an immediate halt. These planes just need a strip of concrete wider & longer than the plane itself. Realistically you could comfortably put one down on a motorway service station carpark, and then lay a short portable runway along its off-ramp for takeoff.
- nicholassmith 3y ago> Realistically you could comfortably put one down on a motorway service station carpark I'm sure the exceptionally canny operators of motorway service stations would find a way to make some extra money off them then. Come for a coffee, stay for a jet launch.
- tomaytotomato 3y agoOr get a parking fine for staying longer than 2 hours with your jet...
- martin8412 3y agoClamp the tires for illegal parking
- Theodores 3y agoIt 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.
- cyclecount 3y agoAs long as our global society puts this much carbon in the atmosphere for "defence" purposes, we have no chance of maintaining a human-friendly climate on Earth in 20-30 years.
- tremon 3y agoHighways will be able to land vertically with this technology?
- wongarsu 3y agoCold-War West Germany had about 30 "Emergency Airstrips", about 3km long Autobahn sections that could be converted to airports for military use. Complete with parking lots designed for aircraft parking, mobile air control towers, etc. Large enough that we landed C-130 Hercules on them. Similar strips exist in Finland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. Though most of the German locations are now retired and removed.
- koheripbal 3y agoThis is true in the US and Canada as well.
- H8crilA 3y agoCrucially this is also true in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Air Force has found a new clever way to keep using normal air bases. After a hangar got bombed by cruise/ballistic missiles they would print a 1:1 aerial/satellite picture of the rubble, hang it over the actual rubble and then clean up under the print. It took quite a few weeks for the Russians to understand this ruse. The doctrine of always having air superiority in NATO (and thus not needing makeshift runways) is so far rather justified given the hilarious level of incompetence shown by the VKS. Although the RAF seems to be more anxious about it, they definitely know much more than me. We do need a lot more air defense though, it's clear that before the next NATO-Russia confrontation they will have a rich arsenal of flying trashcans like the Shahed, as well as some decent missiles.
- VWWHFSfQ 3y ago> After a hangar got bombed by cruise/ballistic missiles they would print a 1:1 aerial/satellite picture of the rubble, hang it over the actual rubble and then clean up under the print. It took quite a few weeks for the Russians to understand this ruse. This sounds very interesting! Any sources?
- H8crilA 3y agoRUSI wrote about it, page 25 of this report: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022 https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-r... BTW, if you like reading longer reports on the technical/military aspects of this war then I can recommend RUSI. I haven't seen a better source so far. They release a report every now and then.
- canbus 3y agoFunnily enough, just came back from RIAT yesterday after seeing one of these pretty much hover in mid air... what a sight! amazing machines.
- Pixie_Dust 3y ago“in light of potential Russian aggression in Europe” Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border. Despite repeated statements from the Russians that there would be push-back. -- coob > “NATO have always been on Russia’s border.” (deleted) On the Soviet Unions border. When the Soviets relinquished control of the client states to the west, they were given an understanding that NATO would not expand east. (and modded down)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fsloth 3y agoModded down for a good reason. 1. The client states weren't client states. They were de-facto annexed polities with centuries of distinct characteristics. After Soviet Union fell these countries could resume their legitimate existence. 2. Russia has always been an imperialistic, genocidal and brutal country, incapable of creating anything of lasting value. A country on the Russia's border has no reason to be categorized under "russian dominion". Legitimate states have unalienable right under international law to guide their own path, regardless who their neighbours are. If your neighbour is Russia, you really want to ally with a larger party. "Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border." Nobody PUSHED NATO. This is what is wrong about the posting above. The CCE countries, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, knew very wall what Russia was and that it had not changed. They wanted to join NATO exactly because they knew Russia would one day again attempt to annex them. Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn.
- D_Alex 3y ago>Russia has always been an imperialistic, genocidal and brutal country, incapable of creating anything of lasting value. Wow dude, that is quite deranged. >Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn. Russia borders 14 countries, and I don't think it fought with any except over the issue of NATO membership.
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- PedroBatista 3y agoYeah cool, and can the support necessary to keep an F-35 active be performed on a road? The Harrier and Gripens can and kinda were designed with that in mind. The F-35? I doubt it. I'm sure on paper someone will write and another one will approve, but in reality and in a real war scenario I have serious reservations.
- smcl 3y agoTo 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.
- fsloth 3y agoI would guess the F-16 fleet is easier to quickly expand than one based on Gripens as the supply of F-16:s is larger. Also creates a direct link to US military industrial complex which will help with US support in coming years (good business). The intake in f-16 seems really troublesome for takeoffs in ruddy envorinments.
- PedroBatista 3y agoOne of the reasons is there are much more F-16s both in number of units and consequently support ( of all kinds ) and know-how from many operator countries. Unfortunately the Gripen is the plane everyone talks and loves but "nobody" buys them. The Rafale is in a similar situation. AFAIK there are many minor reasons but the main one is: "Nobody got fired for buying IBM", aka the F-16, it's all fine and good, NATO, etc, etc, but America has A LOT of pull when someone wants to buy planes, they tend to be "persuasive"..
- hef19898 3y agoAnd Lockheed was really good at direct-to-decision-maker-marketing.
- syntaxing 3y agoIf you ever been to Xiamen (city close to Taiwan across the ocean in China), the highways near the coast have long stretches of straight with extremely low side barriers. I wouldn’t be surprised if these highways were designed specifically to land aircrafts during times of need.
- t43562 3y agoThe 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 everything else which can then be updated much more easily and rapidly. They've also been flight testing a radar that can do electronic warfare as well as its normal job and the Typhoon, like the Gripen and Rafale carries the Meteor BVRAAM which is exceptionally good because it has a long range and a lot of energy to maneuver at the point where its nearing its target.
- sidewndr46 3y agoThe Typhoon has a vertical landing variant?
- t43562 3y agoThe article is about landing on roads, not landing vertically.
- solardev 3y agoOut of curiosity, in a fighter jet, what software ISN'T flight critical? Doesn't it all work together?
- dharmab 3y agoSome 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.
- t43562 3y agoFor example the aircraft is unstable by design and software keeps it responding and making changes N times a second (IIRC 40times/sec or something like that) without which it might crash - so that system would be one you don't want to change frequently.
- nawitus 3y agoFor reference here's a video of F-18 doing it (with conventional landing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj_eJxy8ojk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj_eJxy8ojk
- wonderwonder 3y agoI 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 platform?
- ata_aman 3y agoShort 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.
- mrguyorama 3y agoThe 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.
- ianburrell 3y agoThe F-22 and F-35 are different. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, it is stealthy F-15. The F-35 is a smaller multi-role fighter, it is sort of stealthy F-16 or F-18. The F-35 is significantly cheaper; the F-22 was cancelled because of the expense. Lots of countries are buying the F-35. It hits a sweet spot of multi-role fighter with a big bonus of stealth. Also, there is VTOL F-35 variant that the US Marines and other countries with smaller carriers are buying. The F-22 is still better in many ways. The F-35 is what is available now. The Air Force and Navy are working in two separate programs for replacing F-22 and F/A-18E/F respectively. The result should be much better than F-35, but also more expensive.
- callalex 3y agoIt has been hugely successful at what it was designed to do: remove untold dollars from the American taxpayer and put them in the pockets of political donors.
- Bayart 3y agoWouldn'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.
- NikkiA 3y agoThe 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 need a defensive air force to be able to use make-shift airbases, you've almost certainly already lost.
- 7952 3y agoIt 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.
- NikkiA 3y agoWe're talking about the UK though - and I don't think the US has given us the license to sell our F35s to anyone else (not that they're any different from the USMC's F35B) - so if you're at the point where you need to defend from invaded land, we really have 'already lost'.
- nirse 3y agoHmm, never knew they have highways in the UK.
- darkclouds 3y ago[flagged]
- gonzo41 3y agoI disagree. Being able to put a pilot inside a weapon and then have them fly, react, deploy and return is a lot better than building stacks of drones and then just hitting a wall of RF jamming, which will soon be everywhere on the battlefield, even more so than was in Iraq for counter IED work.
- pengaru 3y agoA lot of good RF jamming is going to do to that swarm of autonomous kamikaze drones homing right in on the RF sources...
- lnsru 3y agoUkraine deployed some nice German canon designed against drone swarms. USA has laser version of it. It will be interesting fights of the future for sure.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago>Ukraine deployed some nice German canon designed against drone swarms Bruh, the German Ghepard wasn't some fancy drone cannon but an obsolete anti aircraft cannon designed in the 50's which they scrapped because present day jets fly much faster and higher than those from the '50's but it's perfect for Iranian drones.
- lnsru 3y agoThe thing is called Skynex I think. With fancy demo videos on YouTube. It’s new development.
- paganel 3y agoIt's "soon" (which is always 5 to 7 years out) vs cheap $35k drones taking out German Leopard II tanks [1] in an active war right now. The drones are already here and are winning. [1] https://twitter.com/colonelcassad/status/1677615793956171776 https://twitter.com/colonelcassad/status/1677615793956171776