9 ms·

Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

77 points by webmaven 3y ago

heisenbit 3y ago
Isn‘t such a design a recipe for lot‘s of ice getting into the engine in the winter if one is not super careful?
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  No. Why would it?
  - ledauphin 3y ago
    this was a common problem with the older tail-mounted engines. ice would come off the wings during takeoff and go straight back into them.
- m3kw9 3y ago
  How
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  This is a superior design for operating off unpaved airstrips. If the landing gear is robust enough, this could handily supplement the C130's capabilities. They can always place heaters on top to manage any ice accumulation.
- ledauphin 3y ago
  there will be any number of design issues for them to solve and this will certainly be one of them. it doesn't seem insurmountable, though.
- thrill 3y ago
  Ice usually forms on the leading edges, so if they are kept warm it will greatly reduce this risk.
ggm 3y ago
It used to be said this would fail in passenger markets because windows. The reality of long haul travel these days is that windows are really only "I can lean here" choices which restrict access to the aisle, for any trans-oceanic journey. For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more of them, this is just a non issue. If a BWB design permits reasonable density, aisle access, fuel efficiency and a pleasant flight experience (speed, noise) then I'm all for it. If it has to be a freight or logistics/materiel/fuel aircraft for the forces before general service, so be it.
- pintxo 3y ago
  The real problems seem to be the outside dimensions (primarily width) of the BWB and the question of how to evacuate such a geometry effectively.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Well, you also have more places to put evacuation corridors and extra doors.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      There are fewer viable spots to put evacuation doors than a conventional tube. The greater internal space means a lot more potential redundancy and width and not necessarily more distance for evacuation routes, but traditional airline economics means packing it with seats.
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        Well, yeah, if you pack every space available for evacuation with seats, you won't be able to evacuate the airplane. That doesn't change the fact that there is space for more corridors. Airline economics depends on a lot of factors (like fast boarding), and being allowed to fly the plane is one of them. Satisfying that requirement to flying is patently possible, but unless you have some non-public data, none of us can tell if it's profitable.
whalesalad 3y ago
Reminds me of the X33, a program I remember my dad was working on during my childhood like 20+ years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33
- micah94 3y ago
  Looking at the cost spent back then vs. what this startup is getting, it doesn't seem like the JetZero guys have even a remote shot at making this happen.
b800h 3y ago
It looks like Thunderbird 2.
Animats 3y ago
Nice. NASA and Airbus have both flown blended-wing unmanned test aircraft. Not sure what role this serves for the USAF. It's a transport. Wider loads? Stealth? The US has had total air superiority in every conflict since the Korean War. That's over. The Ukraine war makes it clear. Against a competent opponent, most of what flies will die. There are just too many man-portable and truck-mounted systems that can take down aircraft. Zipping over hostile territory in helicopters is pretty much out. Flying big, fat transports over contested territory is out. Anything that flies over hostile terrain had better be able to hide, evade, counter, and fight back.
- anonymoose4 3y ago
  All of the above, you can’t wage an air-war without tankers, logistics, and large, antenna covered advanced warning and control aircraft (see the AWACS). It’s well known that the CCP has specifically targeted development of long-range air to air missiles so that they could target these types of aircraft behind the front line. Unfortunately I’m less than optimistic about this particular program actually producing a functional aircraft. The company here is asking for way too little time and too little money to produce a full-sized manned demonstrator IMHO. Especially for a company that has no track record of actually producing full-scale, manned aircraft. It seems like they’re trying to get additional private investment to build their demonstrator but who knows.
- coryrc 3y ago
  Russia would fall like Iraq if we were to attack. Their ground-based anti-air would be hit as soon as even one missile is fired, every radar would be hit within minutes of powering on, their aircraft wiped out as soon as they were within range. With air supremacy we'd be able to fire a precision strike on every piece of active artillery and supply truck. They'd be left with nothing but men starving in trenches and running out of bullets, waiting for death as the sappers close in. It's a crying shame we don't send Ukraine even a tenth of our equipment.
  - enterprise_cog 3y ago
    The is the kind of delusional thinking that has NATO forcing Ukraine to use western strategy and then getting slaughtered for it. The US has never defeated a peer army since WW2, in which the USSR did most of the work. Russia has fifth gen fighters, the S400, and very capable EW and artillery. To pretend they would roll over is pure fantasy.
killjoywashere 3y ago
Is the B-21 not a blended wing body?
- nradov 3y ago
  No, the B-21 is generally considered to be a flying wing.
reilly3000 3y ago
The CCP has straight up stolen many billions worth of IP for US military equipment, most notably the C-17 transport plane. The ability of the US military to rapidly deploy people and resources lazily around the globe is one of its biggest strengths and why so many smaller bases is critical - think CDNs. Now that their main adversary has cloned that advantage, a new generation approach is imperative. Who knows if this is indeed the future of US air logistics or a diversionary press release to mislead the development roadmaps of foes.
ChatGTP 3y ago
What about instead of doing this, we take the billions it will cost to develop a new plane and build renewables.
camillomiller 3y ago
How can an introduction like this not create disgust and shame? >> The Pacific Ocean is vast, and when it comes to planning for how to fight a war in and across it, the United States is turning to a new airframe design—one that promises more efficient flight. In an event put on by the Air And Space Forces Association on August 16, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Ravi I Chaudhary announced the award of a contract, worth up to $230 million through 2026, for the development and production of a prototype “Blended Wing Body” airplane. War! Such a fun thing to write about in an enthusiastic article opening! Yay!
credit_guy 3y ago
It's left out of the article that the US Air Force already has the perfect blended wing body they could dream of. It's the B-21 Raider. Its range is classified, but there are quotes from some USAF generals that it exceeds expectations, which can be taken to mean it easily exceeds the range of B-2 (about 11000km without refueling). Of course, the problem with B-21 is that it's quite expensive. If you made a life size replica entirely out of gold, it would be only 5 times as expensive as the real thing. That's what the USAF is looking for here: an affordable long range aircraft that does not need to go in the heat of the battle like B-21, but can be used for refueling, cargo movements, etc.

77 points by webmaven 3y ago

heisenbit 3y ago

Isn‘t such a design a recipe for lot‘s of ice getting into the engine in the winter if one is not super careful?

JimtheCoder 3y ago
No. Why would it?
- ledauphin 3y ago
  this was a common problem with the older tail-mounted engines. ice would come off the wings during takeoff and go straight back into them.
m3kw9 3y ago
How
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
This is a superior design for operating off unpaved airstrips. If the landing gear is robust enough, this could handily supplement the C130's capabilities. They can always place heaters on top to manage any ice accumulation.
ledauphin 3y ago
there will be any number of design issues for them to solve and this will certainly be one of them. it doesn't seem insurmountable, though.
thrill 3y ago
Ice usually forms on the leading edges, so if they are kept warm it will greatly reduce this risk.

ggm 3y ago

It used to be said this would fail in passenger markets because windows. The reality of long haul travel these days is that windows are really only "I can lean here" choices which restrict access to the aisle, for any trans-oceanic journey. For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more of them, this is just a non issue. If a BWB design permits reasonable density, aisle access, fuel efficiency and a pleasant flight experience (speed, noise) then I'm all for it. If it has to be a freight or logistics/materiel/fuel aircraft for the forces before general service, so be it.

pintxo 3y ago
The real problems seem to be the outside dimensions (primarily width) of the BWB and the question of how to evacuate such a geometry effectively.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Well, you also have more places to put evacuation corridors and extra doors.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    There are fewer viable spots to put evacuation doors than a conventional tube. The greater internal space means a lot more potential redundancy and width and not necessarily more distance for evacuation routes, but traditional airline economics means packing it with seats.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      Well, yeah, if you pack every space available for evacuation with seats, you won't be able to evacuate the airplane. That doesn't change the fact that there is space for more corridors. Airline economics depends on a lot of factors (like fast boarding), and being allowed to fly the plane is one of them. Satisfying that requirement to flying is patently possible, but unless you have some non-public data, none of us can tell if it's profitable.

whalesalad 3y ago

Reminds me of the X33, a program I remember my dad was working on during my childhood like 20+ years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

micah94 3y ago
Looking at the cost spent back then vs. what this startup is getting, it doesn't seem like the JetZero guys have even a remote shot at making this happen.

b800h 3y ago

It looks like Thunderbird 2.

Animats 3y ago

Nice. NASA and Airbus have both flown blended-wing unmanned test aircraft. Not sure what role this serves for the USAF. It's a transport. Wider loads? Stealth? The US has had total air superiority in every conflict since the Korean War. That's over. The Ukraine war makes it clear. Against a competent opponent, most of what flies will die. There are just too many man-portable and truck-mounted systems that can take down aircraft. Zipping over hostile territory in helicopters is pretty much out. Flying big, fat transports over contested territory is out. Anything that flies over hostile terrain had better be able to hide, evade, counter, and fight back.

anonymoose4 3y ago
All of the above, you can’t wage an air-war without tankers, logistics, and large, antenna covered advanced warning and control aircraft (see the AWACS). It’s well known that the CCP has specifically targeted development of long-range air to air missiles so that they could target these types of aircraft behind the front line. Unfortunately I’m less than optimistic about this particular program actually producing a functional aircraft. The company here is asking for way too little time and too little money to produce a full-sized manned demonstrator IMHO. Especially for a company that has no track record of actually producing full-scale, manned aircraft. It seems like they’re trying to get additional private investment to build their demonstrator but who knows.
coryrc 3y ago
Russia would fall like Iraq if we were to attack. Their ground-based anti-air would be hit as soon as even one missile is fired, every radar would be hit within minutes of powering on, their aircraft wiped out as soon as they were within range. With air supremacy we'd be able to fire a precision strike on every piece of active artillery and supply truck. They'd be left with nothing but men starving in trenches and running out of bullets, waiting for death as the sappers close in. It's a crying shame we don't send Ukraine even a tenth of our equipment.
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  The is the kind of delusional thinking that has NATO forcing Ukraine to use western strategy and then getting slaughtered for it. The US has never defeated a peer army since WW2, in which the USSR did most of the work. Russia has fifth gen fighters, the S400, and very capable EW and artillery. To pretend they would roll over is pure fantasy.

killjoywashere 3y ago

Is the B-21 not a blended wing body?

nradov 3y ago
No, the B-21 is generally considered to be a flying wing.

reilly3000 3y ago

The CCP has straight up stolen many billions worth of IP for US military equipment, most notably the C-17 transport plane. The ability of the US military to rapidly deploy people and resources lazily around the globe is one of its biggest strengths and why so many smaller bases is critical - think CDNs. Now that their main adversary has cloned that advantage, a new generation approach is imperative. Who knows if this is indeed the future of US air logistics or a diversionary press release to mislead the development roadmaps of foes.

ChatGTP 3y ago

What about instead of doing this, we take the billions it will cost to develop a new plane and build renewables.

camillomiller 3y ago

How can an introduction like this not create disgust and shame? >> The Pacific Ocean is vast, and when it comes to planning for how to fight a war in and across it, the United States is turning to a new airframe design—one that promises more efficient flight. In an event put on by the Air And Space Forces Association on August 16, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Ravi I Chaudhary announced the award of a contract, worth up to $230 million through 2026, for the development and production of a prototype “Blended Wing Body” airplane. War! Such a fun thing to write about in an enthusiastic article opening! Yay!

credit_guy 3y ago

It's left out of the article that the US Air Force already has the perfect blended wing body they could dream of. It's the B-21 Raider. Its range is classified, but there are quotes from some USAF generals that it exceeds expectations, which can be taken to mean it easily exceeds the range of B-2 (about 11000km without refueling). Of course, the problem with B-21 is that it's quite expensive. If you made a life size replica entirely out of gold, it would be only 5 times as expensive as the real thing. That's what the USAF is looking for here: an affordable long range aircraft that does not need to go in the heat of the battle like B-21, but can be used for refueling, cargo movements, etc.