The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
- dragoongfa
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
- Location: Athens, Greece
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
The funny thing about the Zumwalt class is that its a warship that was obsolete before its design phase started. Its combat role was supposed to be 'inland fire support', the problem is that there are already FAR CHEAPER alternatives in place to provide both far greater and accurate firepower, at a far lower cost. Here are some far cheaper alternatives already in place:
A-10 Warthog (The firepower this bird delivers to the ground is beyond ludicrous)
M-270 MLRS (With smart munitions since 2006, only thing missing is Fuel-Air munitions)
And of course, the one weapon platform that they should have invested heavily in
M-109A7 Paladin with RAP rounds, which is essentially what they tried to do with the Zumwalt class of ships but on land and already in service without issues.
And lets not start with the issues of effective coordination between a naval asset and a ground unit engaged in combat. It took YEARS for the Air-force/Naval Air-force to put down the procedures necessary to effectively coordinate with ground units during combat. For the navy to do that with a brand new warship?
I would wager plenty of "Friendly fire ain't friendly" jokes to surface after the first few combat tours.
A-10 Warthog (The firepower this bird delivers to the ground is beyond ludicrous)
M-270 MLRS (With smart munitions since 2006, only thing missing is Fuel-Air munitions)
And of course, the one weapon platform that they should have invested heavily in
M-109A7 Paladin with RAP rounds, which is essentially what they tried to do with the Zumwalt class of ships but on land and already in service without issues.
And lets not start with the issues of effective coordination between a naval asset and a ground unit engaged in combat. It took YEARS for the Air-force/Naval Air-force to put down the procedures necessary to effectively coordinate with ground units during combat. For the navy to do that with a brand new warship?
I would wager plenty of "Friendly fire ain't friendly" jokes to surface after the first few combat tours.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
We're only going to have three of them, so I don't suppose it really matters what kind of ammunition they end up using. They would have been canceled outright if so much money hadn't already been sunk into their development.
I thought the suggestion in the article that they be converted to missiles seemed a little silly. Surface to surface warfare is not what they're designed for, and we have other (much less expensive) ships that are better suited to that task. It's not like we have a pressing need for them to be rushed into service; I don't mind waiting.
Hey, I'm just glad they're not actually going to pay $800,000 per round.
I thought the suggestion in the article that they be converted to missiles seemed a little silly. Surface to surface warfare is not what they're designed for, and we have other (much less expensive) ships that are better suited to that task. It's not like we have a pressing need for them to be rushed into service; I don't mind waiting.
Well, A-10's and various artillery pieces require that you already have forces or bases ashore. In the case where you don't, the carriers that you'd need to fly A-10's off of are quite expensive, and A-10's aren't that hard to shoot down. But A-10's don't fly off of carriers, so we'd be talking about jump jets or Apaches instead, which are even more expensive and vulnerable. Or F-35's which are less vulnerable but WAY more expensive. But I think what we'll see more of are drones with Hellfires and JDAM's; not only less expensive, but expendable.dragoongfa wrote:Its combat role was supposed to be 'inland fire support', the problem is that there are already FAR CHEAPER alternatives in place to provide both far greater and accurate firepower, at a far lower cost. Here are some far cheaper alternatives already in place:
Hey, I'm just glad they're not actually going to pay $800,000 per round.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
dragoongfa wrote:I would wager plenty of "Friendly fire ain't friendly" jokes to surface after the first few combat tours.
Naval gunfire support isn't new, and a CnC aboard a ship is typically better equipped to handle fire support calls than most of the mentioned supporting units.
Amusing. They deactivate the 16"/50 Mk7s because of the new supper cheap Zumwalts and their future tech guns. And now we have a naval gunfire ship with no guns. Yay.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/cg6udLhqxxc[/youtube]
Like we talked about before - we just need Erebus/Terror.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erebus_class_monitor
-
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:01 am
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
The only things you need to fly A-10s off carriers is to weld on an arresting hook and convince naval aviators to fly them. They wouldn't even need a catapult launch off the deck of a Nimitz-class, they're designed for STOL and the Nimitz has a long-ass flight deck.Arioch wrote: But A-10's don't fly off of carriers, so we'd be talking about jump jets or Apaches instead, which are even more expensive and vulnerable.
Okay, that's oversimplifying a bit, but the A-10 is quite capable in theory of a carrier launch and carrier operations. Frankly, it remains the ground-attack aircraft we need, and it desperately needs several rounds of modernization.
- dragoongfa
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
- Location: Athens, Greece
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
@Arioch
The way US military supremacy is at this point and projected to be for the next two decades, the US is bound to have several friendly land bases near any potential point of conflict.
@Nemo
The Iowa class battleships were the last ships who ever provided naval ground support, they were retired at 1992 so the art of coordination is more or less lost at the moment as the people who did them have retired and haven't trained replacements.
Fun fact: Reactivating and upgrading the four museum/mothballed Iowa Battleships would be cheaper than the Zumwalt destroyers, provide more firepower for ground support, would be somewhat useful for naval combat and leave enough money behind for several Alreigh Burke class destroyers (perhaps even dozens) that can actually serve as an area defense ship since the Zumwalt doesn't have that capability.
The way US military supremacy is at this point and projected to be for the next two decades, the US is bound to have several friendly land bases near any potential point of conflict.
@Nemo
The Iowa class battleships were the last ships who ever provided naval ground support, they were retired at 1992 so the art of coordination is more or less lost at the moment as the people who did them have retired and haven't trained replacements.
Fun fact: Reactivating and upgrading the four museum/mothballed Iowa Battleships would be cheaper than the Zumwalt destroyers, provide more firepower for ground support, would be somewhat useful for naval combat and leave enough money behind for several Alreigh Burke class destroyers (perhaps even dozens) that can actually serve as an area defense ship since the Zumwalt doesn't have that capability.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
You can't just weld an arresting hook onto an aircraft; you'd have to modify the A-10 for carrier operations, which would not be trivial. Not that the Navy would ever agree to it; they'd want to develop their own aircraft if you gave them the role, or they'd insist on using the F-18E or F-35B.ShadowDragon8685 wrote:The only things you need to fly A-10s off carriers is to weld on an arresting hook and convince naval aviators to fly them. They wouldn't even need a catapult launch off the deck of a Nimitz-class, they're designed for STOL and the Nimitz has a long-ass flight deck.Arioch wrote: But A-10's don't fly off of carriers, so we'd be talking about jump jets or Apaches instead, which are even more expensive and vulnerable.
Okay, that's oversimplifying a bit, but the A-10 is quite capable in theory of a carrier launch and carrier operations. Frankly, it remains the ground-attack aircraft we need, and it desperately needs several rounds of modernization.
If you did want to use an A-10 variant for short support, I think you'd ideally want to operate them off of an amphibious assault ship (LHA or LCC), rather than a full-blown supercarrier.
-
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:01 am
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
I did say I was oversimplifying a bit - but with an A-10, not by much. It's a tough, overengineered, durable, overengineered-again tough sunofabitch, literally the closest thing to a flying tank we have; modifying existing airframes with an arresting hook wouldn't pose too much of a challenge.Arioch wrote:You can't just weld an arresting hook onto an aircraft; you'd have to modify the A-10 for carrier operations, which would not be trivial.
Remember also, the A-10 has those enormous (YUUUUUUGE!) straight wings with flaps the size of God - low-and-slow is what they do. So it's not going to be hitting the arresting line nearly as fast as one of the Navy's zippy little gofasts.
Anyone who suggests using the F-18E or the F-35B in the ground-attack role is hereby charged with modifying those airframes to do the following, none of which are optional:Not that the Navy would ever agree to it; they'd want to develop their own aircraft if you gave them the role, or they'd insist on using the F-18E or F-35B.
- Main armament must be a GAU-8/A Avenger cannon.
- Ordnance load must be at least 16,000 lbs (that's 7,260 kg in sane measurements)
- At least eleven hardpoints capable of carrying a variety of ordnance, including a minimum load of 8 externally-mounted rocket pods.
- The aircraft must be up-armored until it is rated to consistently withstand strikes from 23mm cannons and continue operating..
- Cockpit armor must be a minimum of 1,200 lbs (540kg,) no less.
- It must be able to keep flying and land with no hydraulics and half a wing.
- It must be STOL capable when flying out of improvised runways.
I'm not opposed to replacing the A-10. It's old, and a modern aircraft designed for the ground-attack role would be far better than giving it a Block Whatever update. But everyone who says "Oh, the F-35/F-18 can do that just fine" is a liar or an asshole, and needs to be assigned to a front-line infantry unit under fire and told that their air support will be arriving shortly, and departing even more rapidly because it has no loiter time and no durability in the face of enemy fire, and also it's going too fast to put munitions on-target without likely putting them on you, too - oh, and its main chaingun only has like 180 rounds and is piss-weak to boot, so you'd better hope you don't need it to kill enemy armor.
Sure, but I'm not entirely sure the A-10 is capable of QUITE that short a takeoff, and modifying it to withstand a catapult launch would likely be considerably more nontrivial than modifying it for arresting hook capture... And neither the LHA or LCC have those anyway. They're also both way shorter than even the most optimistic takeoff distances for the A-10.If you did want to use an A-10 variant for short support, I think you'd ideally want to operate them off of an amphibious assault ship (LHA or LCC), rather than a full-blown supercarrier.
I mean, it might be possible, but you'd be looking at a JATO launch every time, and that's a bad idea.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
But what I'm saying is that it's a political thing. Nobody wants the A-10 or anything like it. The Air Force never wanted the A-10 because it's down-to-the-ground close support, which they have never liked -- they prefer high altitude precision munitions platforms. The Army didn't want it because they prefer helicopters to fixed-wing aircraft. The Navy doesn't want it because it's close support AND it's not a Navy aircraft; the Marines don't want it because it can't take off from a helicopter carrier. And all of them dislike it because it's low and slow and not even remotely stealthy, which in today's environment means it will be taking the lion's share of combat losses (which is its own political problem).
The bottom line is that the A-10 will never be used in the littoral support role, which is what the Zumwalt was designed for, so I don't think you can accurately say that it's a viable replacement. That the A-10 might be better in that role than an F-18 or F-35B is, unfortunately, irrelevant.
The bottom line is that the A-10 will never be used in the littoral support role, which is what the Zumwalt was designed for, so I don't think you can accurately say that it's a viable replacement. That the A-10 might be better in that role than an F-18 or F-35B is, unfortunately, irrelevant.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Sadly, if we tried building a run of three or four new battleships the budget numbers might actually approach reality, since they wouldn't benefit from economies of scale in the first place.dragoongfa wrote:The Iowa class battleships were the last ships who ever provided naval ground support, they were retired at 1992 so the art of coordination is more or less lost at the moment as the people who did them have retired and haven't trained replacements.
Fun fact: Reactivating and upgrading the four museum/mothballed Iowa Battleships would be cheaper than the Zumwalt destroyers, provide more firepower for ground support, would be somewhat useful for naval combat and leave enough money behind for several Alreigh Burke class destroyers (perhaps even dozens) that can actually serve as an area defense ship since the Zumwalt doesn't have that capability.
Might as well go for a modernized version that had built-in VTOL. Run driveshafts into the fuselage from the engine pods, and just fill as much of the internal space as you can get away with with some of those fans they developed for the F-35, then hang some thrust-vectoring vanes wherever the air exits (I think that would sacrifice a lot of fuel, though).ShadowDragon8685 wrote:Sure, but I'm not entirely sure the A-10 is capable of QUITE that short a takeoff, and modifying it to withstand a catapult launch would likely be considerably more nontrivial than modifying it for arresting hook capture... And neither the LHA or LCC have those anyway. They're also both way shorter than even the most optimistic takeoff distances for the A-10.If you did want to use an A-10 variant for short support, I think you'd ideally want to operate them off of an amphibious assault ship (LHA or LCC), rather than a full-blown supercarrier.
I mean, it might be possible, but you'd be looking at a JATO launch every time, and that's a bad idea.
-
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:01 am
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
This just isn't true, Arioch.Arioch wrote:Nobody wants the A-10 or anything like it.
This is not true, Arioch. This is extremely untrue.Arioch wrote:The Army didn't want it because they prefer helicopters to fixed-wing aircraft.
The Army fucking love the A-10. Ask any groundpounder which he'd rather have doing close-air support on his position, an A-10 or an Apache, and he wants the flying tank with the gun the size of God that can shrug off cannonfire, rather than the little pop-up that may be able to resist small arms fire but will die if anybody points a real gun at it.
The army isn't allowed to have A-10 Warthogs, thanks to that ridiculous "treaty" made when the Air Force was separated from the Army that forbade Army aviators from operating fixed-wing aircraft.
This is untrue as well. The Marines would love to have A-10s, because, again, it is a flying tank with a gun the size of God that can far, far take more punishment than any zippy little helicopter or jump-jet. The Marine Corps would quite gladly take all of the A-10s. Remember, not all of their aviation is done off LCCs.Arioch wrote:The Navy doesn't want it because it's close support AND it's not a Navy aircraft; the Marines don't want it because it can't take off from a helicopter carrier.
This, however, is entirely true - the Air Force (and Navy aviation) is made up of people who grew up on a steady diet of Top Gun. They want to fly the zippy little gofasts, and absolutely hate being told to fly anything else, which means they resent it and don't know how to use it properly. It also means there's a monumental communications clusterfuck between the close air support and the boots on the ground; by the time the infantryman's call for help that he needs fire on X position, which is Y meters dead ahead of him, reaches the pilot, the infantry have either retreated, been killed, driven off the enemy, or done it themselves and advanced into the position which is due to be strafed.Arioch wrote:The Air Force never wanted the A-10 because it's down-to-the-ground close support, which they have never liked -- they prefer high altitude precision munitions platforms.
This is also untrue. The A-10 is not designed to be operating in contested airspace with modern enemy fighter opposition, and if you are operating it in contested airspace, you should damn well be operating it with heavy cover from those zippy gofasts the Air Force loves so damn much.And all of them dislike it because it's low and slow and not even remotely stealthy, which in today's environment means it will be taking the lion's share of combat losses (which is its own political problem).
It's a plane that's designed to do a job. That job is to fly low and fry high. Nothing else yet designed does that job better, and asking it to do anything else is absurd; but not more absurd than asking a zippy little gofast to do what the A-10's job is to do.
I've seen you playing WoW a lot. Assigning the F-35 or F-18 to ground attack is assigning the party healer to DPS. Yes, he technically has a damage output, but it's not his bloody job, and he's terrible at it. Assigning the A-10 to air superiority is like assigning the party DPS to heals; if she's a Paladin she might be able to throw out some off-heals, but it's not her job and she's not very good at it and it takes her attention away from DPS, so you'd better hope her off-heals will keep the tank up long enough for the other DPS to nuke the bad'un down, or you're hosed.
Almost unquestionably not, but the thing is that it's a job the A-10 would be perfectly suitable for with only minor modifications.The bottom line is that the A-10 will never be used in the littoral support role, which is what the Zumwalt was designed for, so I don't think you can accurately say that it's a viable replacement. That the A-10 might be better in that role than an F-18 or F-35B is, unfortunately, irrelevant.
Modification 1: Put Marine Corps aviators in the cockpit.
Modification 2: Arresting hook.
Modification 3: Beat the Chair Force generals vigorously about the head and neck until they cease their petulant insistence that fixed-wing combat aviation is something Only Air Force pilots can do.
Alternatively
Modification 3a: Fire a few Chair Force Generals, replace them with Marine Corps and Army generals who have had their personal boots on the ground under fire, give them a mandate to recruit entire flight groups consisting of nothing but people who hate zippy little gofasts and have had their own personal boots on the ground under fire to fly A-10s in the ground-attack roll.
-
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:01 am
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
No. Just No.Absalom wrote:Might as well go for a modernized version that had built-in VTOL. Run driveshafts into the fuselage from the engine pods, and just fill as much of the internal space as you can get away with with some of those fans they developed for the F-35, then hang some thrust-vectoring vanes wherever the air exits (I think that would sacrifice a lot of fuel, though).
The asinine insistence on VTOL is part of the problem.
VTOL is simply not capable of getting the weight of an A-10 into the air; it's heavy, even without armament. It's armored like a tank, with a full ton of armor around the cockpit alone.
That's why it has those great, massive wings - to generate maximum lift under full thrust.
And no, you can't reduce the weight significantly enough without reducing armor coverage and payload, which means you're no longer flying an A-10, even if the body actually had room for these fabled lifting fans.
VTOL and the ground-attack role are mutually exclusive, which is a fact that, unfortunately, military aviators and aviation defense contractors have forgotten because they are completely insulated from the reality of muddy boots and needing close-air support.
- pinheadh78
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:36 am
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Not sure if anyone on this forum has heard yet but the Zumwalt's 155mm guns don't have any ammunition as without the benefits of economy of scale those guided LRAP shells were about $800,000 a pop. The navy is now looking at other options either for different cheaper ammunition based off other pre-existing systems from Army artillery or skipping straight to the railguns in a few years. Until the ammunition or swap issues are solved those huge 155 guns for fire-support from the littorals are basically just big expensive hood ornaments.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/59 ... s-big-guns
Its also apparently badly watered down anyway - http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/53 ... ble-future
Regarding various weapons systems and modern warfare scenarios; I've found this youtube sock-puppet is producing surprisingly accurate and informative informational videos on everything from Aegis combat systems to what-if warfare scenarios. I asked a few of my friends who served in the Navy and Marines about it and while its got some errors its also pretty close. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPdk3J ... lZLLt4drhw
In response to an A-10 replacement; UN-manned stealthy drones flying high altitude over-watch with a direct-link to JTAC squads on the ground are probably the best solution. Load up the drone with 250 LBs SDBs and medium range Airt-to-ground missiles and you've got on-demand long-endurance fire support from on high in a disposable platform. Basically the long-term answer is to take the man out of the aircraft and give the ground combat squad or brigade their own UAV to call on without having to wait for A-10 or other gets to get on station. Sure you don't get the bbbbrrrrrrttttttt of that lovely 30mm but you still get precision support where you want it and when you want it.
Article on the topic of 'flying vending machine' as fire-support for ground troops.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40 ... 10-warthog
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/59 ... s-big-guns
Its also apparently badly watered down anyway - http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/53 ... ble-future
Regarding various weapons systems and modern warfare scenarios; I've found this youtube sock-puppet is producing surprisingly accurate and informative informational videos on everything from Aegis combat systems to what-if warfare scenarios. I asked a few of my friends who served in the Navy and Marines about it and while its got some errors its also pretty close. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPdk3J ... lZLLt4drhw
In response to an A-10 replacement; UN-manned stealthy drones flying high altitude over-watch with a direct-link to JTAC squads on the ground are probably the best solution. Load up the drone with 250 LBs SDBs and medium range Airt-to-ground missiles and you've got on-demand long-endurance fire support from on high in a disposable platform. Basically the long-term answer is to take the man out of the aircraft and give the ground combat squad or brigade their own UAV to call on without having to wait for A-10 or other gets to get on station. Sure you don't get the bbbbrrrrrrttttttt of that lovely 30mm but you still get precision support where you want it and when you want it.
Article on the topic of 'flying vending machine' as fire-support for ground troops.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40 ... 10-warthog
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
With sufficient stubbornness, anything can be made VTOL. It just shouldn't.ShadowDragon8685 wrote:No. Just No.Absalom wrote:Might as well go for a modernized version that had built-in VTOL. Run driveshafts into the fuselage from the engine pods, and just fill as much of the internal space as you can get away with with some of those fans they developed for the F-35, then hang some thrust-vectoring vanes wherever the air exits (I think that would sacrifice a lot of fuel, though).
The asinine insistence on VTOL is part of the problem.
VTOL is simply not capable of getting the weight of an A-10 into the air; it's heavy, even without armament. It's armored like a tank, with a full ton of armor around the cockpit alone.
At any rate, go read again. I was mocking the JATO option.
... is not actually a fact, hence why helicopters get used in the role so much. Fast is the opponent of ground-attack, VTOL is on a partially-unrelated axis. I don't consider actual VTOL a boon for a heavy ground-attack craft (though I do consider STOL by way of implications to be such a virtue), but the only thing it has going against it is that the closer you want to get to VTOL, the greater the equipment weight.ShadowDragon8685 wrote:VTOL and the ground-attack role are mutually exclusive, which is a fact that, unfortunately,
Wait, where's the battleship rejection
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
You know what we need to do? We need to stop quoting for these damned all-in-one-including-the-sink projects, and separate things out into e.g. core vehicle, avionics, weapons that can simply be allocated volume & standard utilities, etc, and pay for it as separate R&D and product instead of lumping everything into per-vehicle. This insane all-in-one stuff might seem to initially be cheaper thanks to synergy, but then you realize at the end of the project that instead of specifying a quick little minnow, you started off with a whale and then used the time it took to try to turn it into a tiger and a cactus.pinheadh78 wrote:Its also apparently badly watered down anyway - http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/53 ... ble-future
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
hi hi
Hmm, maybe I should have posted that news in a different thread. It seems like we've gone from real aerospace straight into the realm of imagination.
But, on the topic of real aerospace, there's some new news that is pretty cool. NASA Microthrusters hold satellite in position within a margin of 2 nanometers.
Hmm, maybe I should have posted that news in a different thread. It seems like we've gone from real aerospace straight into the realm of imagination.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
But, on the topic of real aerospace, there's some new news that is pretty cool. NASA Microthrusters hold satellite in position within a margin of 2 nanometers.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
@imperialcollege wrote:#OnThisDay 1968: Astronauts on NASA Apollo 8 mission became the first humans to orbit the Moon & took famous 'Earthrise' photo (image @NASA)
![]()
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Test flight of an all-electric VTOL passenger aircraft:
I think their business model is that it would operate as an automated Uber-style service, arriving on demand and transporting passengers without a pilot. But of course it could also operate as a traditional small piloted aircraft.
The biggest problem is of course limited range. It has a top speed in level flight of 300 km/h (186 mph) but a range of only 300 km (186 miles), which translates into a flight endurance of about an hour. Being stranded in an electric car without accessible recharge is one thing, but dropping out of the sky is another.
I think their business model is that it would operate as an automated Uber-style service, arriving on demand and transporting passengers without a pilot. But of course it could also operate as a traditional small piloted aircraft.
The biggest problem is of course limited range. It has a top speed in level flight of 300 km/h (186 mph) but a range of only 300 km (186 miles), which translates into a flight endurance of about an hour. Being stranded in an electric car without accessible recharge is one thing, but dropping out of the sky is another.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Actually I wasn't that impressed with the flight, but that batteries already allow a payload of a Human and one hour of electrical flight.
I wonder how much more improvement we'll get to see the next few years?
I wonder how much more improvement we'll get to see the next few years?
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
One of Elon Musk's dream projects that he talks a lot about is a supersonic (!) electric VTOL aircraft, so we'll see.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Was this one of the ones that got pitched at that luxury goods convention, recently? I heard that there was both a "consumer" company, and a high-end company showing the things off.
For my money, the tipping point with flying cars will be "pegasus AI" to rationalize the driver's input, basically as a higher-tier autopilot.
I don't place that much faith in electric-powered aircraft without a mandatory life-cycle contract. The high-capacity batteries seem to have poorer charge/discharge lifetimes than I'd like. Single-run battery-life doesn't worry me too much though: most electric motors are also electric generators, so between that and an emergency-landing mode it should be fairly easy to make the control-systems inherently battery-life safe. Also, emergency pop-out windmills are a common-enough feature on the recent aircraft that some electrical faults should be "dealable" as well. The main concern will be low-altitude safety, but I believe that's a problem with VTOL craft (or for that matter, ANY aircraft located close to the ground when thrust is lost) in general.
I don't think I'd take a electric supersonic aircraft seriously at all unless you gave me a working isomer reactor to power the thing (at which point I'd tell you to make it trans-atmospheric and VTOL as well).
For my money, the tipping point with flying cars will be "pegasus AI" to rationalize the driver's input, basically as a higher-tier autopilot.
I don't place that much faith in electric-powered aircraft without a mandatory life-cycle contract. The high-capacity batteries seem to have poorer charge/discharge lifetimes than I'd like. Single-run battery-life doesn't worry me too much though: most electric motors are also electric generators, so between that and an emergency-landing mode it should be fairly easy to make the control-systems inherently battery-life safe. Also, emergency pop-out windmills are a common-enough feature on the recent aircraft that some electrical faults should be "dealable" as well. The main concern will be low-altitude safety, but I believe that's a problem with VTOL craft (or for that matter, ANY aircraft located close to the ground when thrust is lost) in general.
I don't think I'd take a electric supersonic aircraft seriously at all unless you gave me a working isomer reactor to power the thing (at which point I'd tell you to make it trans-atmospheric and VTOL as well).
- RedDwarfIV
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
I don't think that was VTOL? I remember him talking about how you could make a viable supersonic jet just by swapping out the Concorde's inefficient 60s engines for modern ones, and that going electric would let you fly above what is termed "coffin corner" (the point where wing lift and engine thrust meet due to lowering atmospheric pressure) because electric engines don't need air to operateArioch wrote:One of Elon Musk's dream projects that he talks a lot about is a supersonic (!) electric VTOL aircraft, so we'll see.
(aside from as a medium to push through).
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.