backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by My Croft.. on Aug 21 at 1:41 PM


The F-35 JSF in all its glory
Lockheed has proposed a JSF that fly by remote control

Lockheed Martin’s new single-engine F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the latest Swiss Army Knife of fighter aircraft for the US military.  The plane, which is destined to replace the F-16, AV8-B, A-10 and F/A-18, will be available in three variants:

  • F-35A: Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL)
  • F-35B: Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL)
  • F-35C: Carrier Based Variant (CV)

Lockheed is now proposing a fourth variant that it has been working on for the past two years. The design proposal is for an unmanned version of the F-35 that could operate as a hybrid -- that is, it could be configured to either fly by remote or if need be with a human pilot in the cockpit. Many have stated that the F-35 would be the last manned fighter jet for the Air Force as the military has been pouring more and more dollars into unmanned combat systems. Lockheed's proposed unmanned J-35 would bridge the gap between the past and the future of aerial combat. From the Washington Post:

The Pentagon, looking to save money, has accelerated spending on unmanned systems since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This year, it allocated $2 billion for unmanned aircraft and millions more in the supplemental budget, compared with $363 million in 2001. The figure is projected to reach more than $3 billion by the end of the decade. What has resulted is a hodgepodge of unmanned vehicles, such as small, bomb-seeking robots that can be carried in a backpack, and airplanes that provide surveillance for days at a time. The systems have become bigger and more expensive in recent years, such as the Predator, built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., and the Global Hawk, which has a 134-foot wingspan, comparable to the Boeing 737.

Lockheed has been playing second fiddle to other names in the industry, namely Boeing, when it comes to unmanned aircraft. The price tag of the F-35 program has also ballooned from $201 billion to $276 billion. The price increase along with the government's increasing fascination with unmanned drones is probably why the initial order for 2,000 planes could likely drop significantly in the near future.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: zomg
By Lord 666 on 8/19/2006 12:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yet both of the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, which was the largest airplane of the era. http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/wt/cp/if/ro/

Comparing the 707 and 767, both aircraft are similar with their capacities... with the 707 having a faster top speed.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_2...

Even if Leslie miscalculated the fuel or velocity variables, consider this... a US Bomber B-25 did run into the Empire State building between the 79 and 80th floors at 300mph. The fire was put out in 40 minutes and the building stayed intact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building

Yes, the B-25 is much smaller than a 767, but that is not the perculiar aspect; both towers have this gaping flery hole on their side. The south tower was hit much lower than the north. However, when both collapsed, they fell down very symmetrically just as planned demolitions occur and occured exactly the same. Yet, the South Tower would have had a greatly probability to tilt, lean, or hit another building since the impact was lower. You state that steel weakens by 50% around 648C. Focusing on the the physics, this would imply the collapses would not be symmetrical and have building distortion as the building heated up. Moving back to metallurgy, there was molten material flowing from the building prior to the collapse of white/yellow color being seen visible for up to one month. That is not Al, but some variation of Fe!

But this discussion wouldn't be complete without discussing Building 7 which is the only steel building in the world to collapse due to fire, again collapsing very symmetrically as in a controlled demolition. No asterick on this building saying it was hit by a plane, there wasn't any impact to it, just supposedly a fire internally that somehow started.

Is it really a surpise that half of New Yorkers polled feel that the US Government knew of the attacks but did not act? http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855


RE: zomg
By NT78stonewobble on 8/19/2006 7:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
As far as i remember it was designed to be able to withstand the impact of a 707 with next to zero fuel on board and / or not moving at full speed.

Over half the mass of a liner is made up of fuel as far as I know.

Besides a dildo might also be designed to give satisfaction but it is not guaranteed.

Additionally you cannot really compare the the empire state building to the twin towers. Not from a construction point of view.

You say that the south tower would have a tendency to fall to a side.

No, the buildings weight were carried in the core. It was that which failed and pulled the rest of the building down with it. On the spot and centered.

You mention that building 7 like it somehow proves your case. Actually the way you describe it it just proves that the theory of jet fuel burning inside near the structural core is quite possibly correct.





"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki