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.
BWB aircraft have a few more issues than just a lack of window seats.
They require a higher angle of attack on take-off and landing, and, with passengers sitting much further from the centerline of the aircraft than on a conventional design, passengers are subject to much more g-forces during roll maneuvers.
The second issue can be mitigated by avoiding rolling the aircraft and/or by performing less aggressive rolls, but the first issue is something passengers will just have to deal with if BWB passenger aircraft become a thing.
I wonder if you could tilt everyone's seats forward during takeoff and landing. I've seen very high density seating in the far east where people are virtually standing. Maybe the seats could start off that way, stay that way through takeoff and ascent, then gently lower to a normal posture in level flight.
Or don’t go back to normal posture; just have them lay flat the whole ride. Plus they can save on industrial design by buying parts from morgue suppliers.
I am right now sitting in a Pendolino train, not far from Prague :)
Pendolino is a nice technology, but expensive to maintain. And aircraft, unlike trains, is very sensitive to total weight; the actuators for the seats will be extra dead weight that you need to lift, and this extra weight may eat quite a bit of the fuel savings, if not all of them.
> If it has to be a freight or logistics/materiel/fuel aircraft for the forces before general service, so be it.
The challenge for that is economic: those use cases which are generally filled with adaptations of older generation aircraft at the moment probably don't pay back the R&D costs of the programme. Especially since a viable civil aircraft programme also involves worldwide line maintenance capability, a liquid aftermarket etc.
Blended wings are are not a novel idea, and the major airframers have produced multiple concepts, often combined with theoretically much more efficient open rotor engines. The first attempt at a blended wing passenger aircraft was actually over 100 years ago (it was years ahead of its time... and it crashed on its first flight). But there are a lot of challenges other than the passenger experience characteristics people have already mentioned: instead of a simple tube, you now have a broad internal space that needs bracing in a way which doesn't add weight or negate space advantages, and novel designs greatly increased uncertainty in an industry whose safety record relies on predictability. And there's commercial conservatism in an industry whose customer base invests billions in new airframes on the expectation of commonality with existing airframes, phased replacements over predictable replacement cycles etc, and where the second entrance to the market sector might well be the most successful....
Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military. Still, if the military write blank checks, that leaves scope for prototypes that airline executives might struggle to say no to
> Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military.
Utterly false. Greater fuel efficiency means greater range or less fuel needed for the same range and payload, and you'd better believe that is not nothing to military planners. I can say that because I used to be one. Every drop of fuel burned in theater in a war has to get there somehow. And until it's loaded on a jet and used, it's vulnerable to being targeted either in transit or at rest, and has to be protected. And pre-war, the more gas you're going to burn to accomplish a given task, the more facilities and infrastructure have to be in place at your potential bases to hold it, meaning more access agreements with foreign countries and/or construction contracts having to be paid for in those countries to build said facilities. And you have less ability to use smaller or more austere facilities, limiting your ability to disperse the force and complicate enemy targeting.
> Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military.
I think this assumption is wrong, for airplanes. Higher fuel efficiency means longer range for the same amount of fuel, so it's an increase to range for the same weight carried (or an increase in weight carried to the same range, presumably). I think this is extremely important to the military.
It's not completely useless, but the US military's existing transport aircraft are not exactly pushing the boundaries of fuel consumption. A regular 777 freighter will get quite a bit further. Ultimately the military don't care about the cost, have many refuelling options, and are relying on much shorter range aircraft in other aspects of any conflict. Plus unlike other areas of aviation, if you solve a range problem with a bigger fuel tank, you don't get beaten to death by the bean counters.
That's quite different from an airline, where a 20% saving in their largest expense against a 3% margin in a price competitive industry is game changing
That has been true, but the US military is now pivoting to confront China in the Western Pacific theater. This means an increased emphasis on fuel efficiency to boost unrefueled range.
Why then? Stealth can't be that good. Cost seems impossibly unlikely at a development stage, but are they somehow lower cost to manufacture? Seems unlikely.
I am welcome to alternatives, but the announcement included:
“Blended wing body aircraft have the potential to significantly reduce fuel demand and increase global reach,” said Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. “Moving forces and cargo quickly, efficiently, and over long distance is a critical capability to enable national security strategy.”
It could be cleverly written to suggest it is about fuel efficiency and range, but that these straightforward and public explanations aren't the real reason. Totally possible, but what are they then? I know I don't know enough to second guess the public statements of the Secretary of the Air Force and the plain reading is that the first sentence is directly related to the second.
But we all know that's not how it works. Both sentences are just always true, they aren't necessarily related. I don't know what else it would mean though.
I could imagine that it makes a real impact to a bomber. I have read that WW2 planes essentially were loaded to the maximum allowable weight between the fuel + ammunition. If you can cut down the fuel for same range, that allows for more ammo.
That was, arguably, the consequence of poor accuracy and low bomb yields - those planes had to drop a lot of ordnance for there to be a chance something actually lands on the intended target. I recall reading somewhere that a single modern guided bomb would achieve the effect that, during WW2, required 100 to 1000 bombers.
Here's Jack Northrop's view of a flying wing passenger plane. There's a longer version somewhere but I can't find it. Fitting that JetZero is teaming with Northrop Grumman/Scaled Composites on this. I wonder how the workshare divides.
It's been many years since the window next to me was open. So, I totally agree. And for the last flight I took, the windows were a real PITA, since too many people had them open and there was wicked glare. A good 30-60 minutes I spent bobbing and weaving to avoid it being in my eyes.
Windows in planes can be replaced by LCD screens. I don't think they are necessary at all. In fact, they already sell cruise ship cabins with this feature. I've yet to hear anyone talk about this as a showstopper problem.
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.
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.
I love your optimism. There are already designating viewing areas and bars for people who shell out first class $$$. But vast majority of people happen to be rational economic agents who choose lower price tickets. So the reality is - there will just be more seats.
Also, the best viewing is typically at landing and takeoff when everyone needs to be seated anyway, so I expect it'll end up as a selection of outdoor camera feeds that are available from your seat-back display.
If this is the only practical solution for hydrogen fuelled aircraft, then it can't fail in passenger markets because there will be no other alternative to compete against once kerosene is too ecologically taxed.
If you can make carbon-neutral hydrogen, you can combine it with atmospheric CO2 to make synthetic hydrocarbons (or methanol) that are carbon-neutral. There's an energy cost to doing this, but I'm willing to bet it far outweighs the costs of running an airliner on hydrogen.
I'm not so sure. The big issue with Hydrogen is transport, it's an absolute pain to deliver it to fuel stations all over the country.
With planes though, you only need to deliver it to an airport. Airports are also very frequently placed next to large bodies of water, so with enough electricity you could make it on site.
I'm willing to bet that Hydrogen will never take off for cars, but I think it could have a place for planes and ships, and even trucks in some situations.
The already-reduced carbon in the US waste stream is more than enough to make synthetic jet fuel to supply the entire current US demand. More generally, biomass (including crop waste) will suffice to power aviation world wide, without large increase in farm area.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Not sure how you work that out. The state that spent half a century focusing on air defence to take out the USAF hasn't even substantially reduced the pathetically small and outdated fixed wing capability of the Ukrainian air force, and neither side has done much damage to the other side's airborne logistics, which is where this would fit. It's not been a great war for helicopters, but neither this project nor the US fighter capability that their superiority rests on is going anywhere close to frontline portable air defence systems.
The Ukraine war doesn't show anything different from other wars in regards to air superiority. You think the US flew all their slow, vulnerable stuff over contested territory with lots of AA? No, they didn't and they don't. The Gulf War basically started with wiping out AA defenses. Establishing air superiority takes time and bombs. Ukraine simply doesn't have any of the equipment necessary to do it. Apparently neither does Russia, to the surprise of pretty much everybody. That has zero bearing on what the US/NATO is capable of.
Long range anti-ship missile deployment over the Pacific. A design like this can cover large areas and deploy autonomous weapons from long range.
Weapon development of the US military is almost entirely focused on China and its growing fleet. There are several air launched anti-ship missile platforms under development right now, including swarm attack, stealth and hypersonic missiles. The US is looking for an efficient, long range, high endurance standoff bomber for these systems. It doesn't need stealth; they'll operate from behind air defenses. It needs high efficiency, large fuel capacity and large payload capacity.
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.
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.
This is all assuming that Russia doesn't resort to nuclear, biological, or chemical attack.
In a conventional war, its true. NATO, or the US alone, or even some individual NATO members on their own, would cakewalk over Russia faster than the coalition did in the Gulf War.
Unfortunately, its pretty hard to tell what their actual red line is for going nuclear which radically invalidates the preceding paragraph.
Ukraine used to be one of the most prolific black market military arms dealers.
We should absolutely avoid sending Ukraine any modern equipment. As soon as the war is over, they'll sell it on the black market to countries that will gladly reverse engineer what we've built.
And as an aside, I have no interest in funding proxy wars with my tax dollars. Let's not return to a Cold War era. Entering this conflict was absolutely absurd.
An Ukraine that relies on the West for most of its equipment, is under Russian threat, and wants to join the EU/NATO will go around selling the West's equipment? Makes little sense to me.
The West, and more specifically the US, is doing what they said they would do if Russia invaded Ukraine. This was done publicly and apparently privately too. So if this is a proxy war, then it's different from most proxy wars.
I don't like war, but when you have someone that wants to expand their borders, sometimes you save a lot of money and lives by ending the problem at the start. If Ukraine goes well, why not do the Baltics next? What about all those ethnic Russians in need of "saving" in Kazakhstan? It might even give China some ideas. So be careful: by not doing anything and saving your precious tax dollars, you might end up spending more in the future.
Wars of expansion should be costly and expensive, otherwise everyone would just start wars.
And that cold war era... isn't that what's we're already walking to with China? The sanctions, China's claims in the South China sea, etc? Russia in Ukraine are just a side show.
> I don't like war, but when you have someone that wants to expand their borders, sometimes you save a lot of money and lives by ending the problem at the start. If Ukraine goes well, why not do the Baltics next? What about all those ethnic Russians in need of "saving" in Kazakhstan? It might even give China some ideas.
You'll understand how it's your problem when you try to buy the latest SoC and can't because the TSMC fabs were destroyed during the invasion of Taiwan (or something like that).
There's nothing more aligned with the US's moral reason for being than to defend a sovereign democratic country from being invaded by a nasty, brutish dictatorship.
Something to atone for our sins (invading Iraq the second time and hanging the Kurds out to dry the first time, among others) and build back goodwill among other nations.
We spend almost a trillion dollars a year on the military and equipment that's untested in battle, so let's see how well it would really work -- we're learning a lot already but we don't know if our good stuff is really as good as we think.
Yes, "we" protect TSMC and others like them by providing Taiwan with weapons that makes a war/invasion very expensive and show that anyone that does that will have a though time.
But you "have no interest in funding proxy wars with [your] tax dollars" or to "return to a Cold War era", so I guess fuck Taiwan and TSMC.
Ukraine? I'm less familiar with Ukraine, but on top of having a friendly country in that part of the world and US influence (which is part of what makes the US the country it is, something you benefit from), didn't the US and the EU use some of their rocket engines or something like that? Not saying we can't survive without them, but to say there's nothing there also doesn't make sense.
After reading some of Putin's reasoning to invade Ukraine and what he said about other countries in eastern Ukraine being essentially part of Russia, I have to ask what's cheaper (since you care about your tax dollars)? To send them equipment or to be dragged to a proper war with Russia after they decide to invade NATO countries? What's hit to the global economy and how much will it affect your wallet? Assuming that you care about anyone other than yourself, how much will this affect people around you?
The US enjoys a massively strong dollar as the world's reserve currency and all the economic discounts that entails primarily because governments around the world believe they will deal with trade disruptions through their unrivaled monopoly on violence. The US would face significant trouble economically if that goes away.
Already the lessons taken by all senior politicians and bureaucrats globally from the US and Western Europe turning a blind eye to the original occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is that everyone needs access to an option to rapidly acquire nuclear weapons and to never give them up if you have them. You may have forgotten amidst the news cycles that the first inclination of the West was to offer Zelensky a ride out of Kyiv rather than defend it from Putin's occupation but I assure you no government has forgotten.
Why do you think Saudi Arabia is now actively establishing relationships with Iran - because they somehow suddenly realised that they should put aside their 1300 year old Shia - Sunni conflict for humanitarian reasons?
I'm not saying that some guy won't try to make a buck, but the incentive for those in power to allow that to happen is small when they depend on the west to maintain current weapons and get new ones. The F-16's won't fly for long without spare parts.
Turkey bought the S400 and got kicked out of the F-35 program (even after paying for the planes)... and they're NATO members.
"Everyone that disagrees with me is a Russian bot!" Okay.
Not getting involved in irrelevant, needless wars isn't exactly a fringe take.
Anyways, your comment history shows that you're such an angry/bitter/dismissive person that I don't expect you to engage in any discussion in good faith. So that'll be all from my end. Have a good day.
Let's return to a Cold War era. Supporting Ukraine in a proxy war allows us to bleed Russia to death with zero US casualties and fairly minimal expense. We're not sending them any of the really secret stuff anyway.
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.
There's no point in discussing this because no one is going to invade Russia. They have nuclear weapons. Even if they didn't, I'm not seeing anyone in the West edging for a war with them.
With this said, all that advanced tech and yet they're shitting their pants in Ukraine against old equipment. Something doesn't fit here.
Regarding training the new forces on western strategy, I'm not sure what else NATO countries could do. That's how they train their own forces. There was a failure to provide the resources (especially air ones) to put our tactics into practice, but NATO can't train Ukraine to fight like Russia/Ukraine/USSR...
They wouldn't roll over but they would get crushed. Our BVR, cyber, and stealth capabilities far exceed theirs.
In any case, we will never fight a hot war with a nuclear armed country ever again. Nuclear deterrence works, and the nuclear bomb has thankfully ended modern warfare between nuclear-armed countries.
The era of superpowers sending men off to die is over, at least between nuclear-armed countries (but not so much between a nuclear and non-nuclear country.)
And yet they struggle to take one of the poorest countries in Europe with a fraction of the population of the US. But I'm sure their dozen maybe kinda stealthy fighters with little training will be able take on literally hundreds of jets with competently trained pilots.
I wonder if the couple hundred billion dollars we're sending there, along with "volunteers" that all seem to have CIA operator type resumes, are in any way connected to that.
This has been by far the most successful war-marketing campaign I've seen in my life though.
Who would've thought that to sell left leaning/"progressive" people on a military conflict, all you need is social media heavy campaign memes (russian warship, ghost of Kiev etc) with google-translate Cyrillic typeface, and wrap everything in yellow and blue.
I wonder how the current support measures up to NATO's forces and the wartime production capabilities of its members. Iirc the support to Ukraine is a fraction of what the coalition employed in the first gulf war.
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!
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.
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.
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.