Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[Moonbox]

Okay then, how about the israelis shooting down soviet piloted Migs? Can't blame that on being Arab...

What about it? That's a pretty weak reference. I can just as easily highlight the Indo-Pakistani War in 1971 where Indian pilots trounced Pakistani F-104's.

Combat loss ratios weren't particularly good for the USA in Vietnam either against the Mig-21.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Combat loss ratios weren't particularly good for the USA in Vietnam either against the Mig-21.

This is for MiG Luvers:

http://migluver.blogspot.com/2009/04/kill-ratio-of-us-fighter-against-mig.html

[Moonbox]

I'm no mig luver lol. I simply think they're owed a certain measure of respect. Considering the M-21 cost 1/3 as much as the F-4, it did pretty well for itself.

[Wilber]

I'm no mig luver lol. I simply think they're owed a certain measure of respect. Considering the M-21 cost 1/3 as much as the F-4, it did pretty well for itself.

Air to air is everything to you. Fact is even though the F-4 was usually operating over hostile territory it had a positive kill ratio against the MIG which continually improved after the F-4 was equipped with a gun and the establishment of fighter weapons schools like Top Gun. As an attack aircraft, it could also carry over 16,000 lbs of bombs. A fully loaded MIG 21 only weighed 3000 lbs more than the Phantom's bomb load.

[bush_cheney2004]

Air to air is everything to you. Fact is even though the F-4 was usually operating over hostile territory it had a positive kill ratio against the MIG which continually improved.....

Yep...and the F-4 was even more versatile in the Wild Weasel role to purposely take the fight to AAW sites. The F-35 is slated to be the next SEAD (defense suppression) platform.

[Moonbox]

Air to air is everything to you.

Air to air isn't everything to me. I'd be happy with a sub-par air-to-air platform if it cost $75M as was originally intended. At $125M a pop, you start to wonder.

[William Ashley]

The J20 has been making news today.. apparently they upped the runway testing dates.. and US initial assessment of Japan not having 5G until after 2020.. seems to be now that it is likely they will soon be rolling out 5G's. Gates is meeting in China this week.

Looks a bit like a raptor but with a russian engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/01/05/2011-01-05_chinese_stealth_fighter_jet_photos_leak_online.html

Note the russian have a big long range "fighter bomber" type look.

The chinese have a more intercept fighter "f22" type look. (but apparently is even larger than the su/t 50

get this

cost that is 50% to 80% less than the Russian and United States fifth generation jet fighters

customers may include Pakistan, the Middle East, Latin America, Southeast Asia and the richest countries in Africa

That puts it at a very affordable rate (if only Canadian fighter pilots could fit into the cockpit...)

Note China has tall people but most chinese people are shorter than more European fighters.. and I am of the impression that most fighter pilots in the Canadian military are taller than what this plane is designed for - but I could be mistaken.

Edited January 5, 2011 by William Ashley

[Moonbox]

Note the russian have a big long range "fighter bomber" type look.

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Tell us how you can tell just by how it 'looks'.

The chinese have a more intercept fighter "f22" type look. (but apparently is even larger than the su/t 50

Did you know that the Chinese don't even have an engine designed for their fighter? Did you know that they can't manufacture the composite materials needed for such an aircraft?

The J-20 is even further off the horizon than the Pak-Fa, which is probably at least a decade away.

[William Ashley]

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Tell us how you can tell just by how it 'looks'.

well some things are more apparent by appearance in an aircraft structure than you can think. Example does it have external or internal mounts.. thus what type of stuff can it carry etc.. But I won't give this one away looks can be decieving. the J20 is odd though because it is large, and has only internal bays.

Did you know that the Chinese don't even have an engine designed for their fighter?

Its a russian engine concept? Or are you saying that what I've read about it being an russian engine isn't true?

Did you know that they can't manufacture the composite materials needed for such an aircraft?

Then why have they done it?

The J-20 is even further off the horizon than the Pak-Fa, which is probably at least a decade away.

Then why are they testing it now?

I came back to post these things...

Sole-sourcing is always more expensive and only justified in an emergency, he said, but the number of sole-source defence contracts has risen to 42 per cent in 2009 from 8.8 per cent in 2004

Re f35: Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese, the Defence Department expects to pay up to $21 billion, including maintenance

When you have a jet hover above your head with this tech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

you will be in awe.

re j20

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/01/switcharoo-multiple-engine-types-for.html

Edited January 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

When you have a jet hover above your head with this tech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

you will be in awe.

1: It wouldn't be a "jet"

2: It would need a fusion reactor on board to have enough power/mass to be able to lift itself off the ground

3: You'd die from its exhaust before you could have time to be in awe

Edited January 7, 2011 by Bonam

[William Ashley]

1: It wouldn't be a "jet"

2: It would need a fusion reactor on board to have enough power/mass to be able to lift itself off the ground

3: You'd die from its exhaust before you could have time to be in awe

You arn't very inventive are you? 1? Why, 2? why 3? why

1. an ionized propulsion jet is still a jet

2. it would not need a fusion reactor it would take less energy than a modern jet due to massively decreased mass. How heavy is a conventional jet engine?

3. You don't breath exhaust on an airplane, you think fighter pilots loop their jetstream into their mask?

Where exactly are you getting this "fusion reactor" junk from.. it is not often I need to talk about doning tin foil hats.. it is usually the other way around.

This isn't the "same tech" but it gives you another idea of ion propulsion.. the same tech that could be used to make bi monthly missions to mars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

We arn't talking about space craft here.

here is another look at it.. but once again this isn't exactly what I'm talking about..

http://www.rexresearch.com/desev/desev.htm

Insulated pulsative cycles. Also harvesting EM from the air at high speed amongst other things.

See that little grid in the bottom link.. multiply that by 50,000 and make it nano and multiply it by another million. That is just the start of what we are capable of.

and it makes ozone.

Vectored thrust is just the tip. These things levetate - silent. This is 50+ year old tech.

15 years ago:

But they will tell you that at present it takes 90 watts (30,000 volts at 3 milliamperes) to fly a two ounce model. translated into ordinary power-to-weight ratios, this works out to roughly .96 hp. per pound, as compared with a typical .1 hp per pound of helicopter or .065 hp for a pound Piper Cub

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_J-3

just because at the time it takes more energy does't mean it doesn't offer advantages. Afterall we are surrounded by energy... everywhere.. You might say nothing an EMP can't handle, but are you telling me jets arn't EMP sheilded?

50 years ago encase you missed it

This is what little kids and others can make, think what modern engineers can do on a multibillion dollar development fund.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1itYTd__Dog&feature=related

clearly not

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1106701

On a nanoscale both gravity and airresistance are "harnessable" from piezoelectric kinetic to potential conversion.

they have these little devices you can put in your shoes to produce energy.

You have stuff like this:

http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=40676

and

http://itp.nyu.edu/~rcc273/spring2007/itpenergy/labs/kineticShoes.php

oh hold on not that one..

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/16746/

this is just "efficiency enabling"

although not the end all but where does lightening come from?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lightning_Power

maybe my head is up in the clouds but maybe that is where it needs to be to make this become a reality.

and no energy is everywhere not just in clouds.

I'm not gonna lay out the whole thing.

I leave you with this

One storm can discharge enough energy to supply the entire U.S. with electricity for 20 minutes

There are approximately 2,000 thunderstorms at any given moment worldwide

Now before you respond, ask yourself: will my response put me up in the clouds too?

The rate of lightning is 100 flashes per second all over the globe. One flash = 4 strokes. Each stroke has 10^12 Watts. This one flash is equal to a power station of 20 MW working for 50 hours

How many gallon [uK] of kerosene type jet fuel in 1 megawatt hour? The answer is 21.0803577969

assuming this you have about 400 gallons of jet fuel... in one strike.. now for the math..

A Cessna Citation X, a smaller jet, has a 1,369 lb. (164 gallon) capacity

A Boeing 737 has a maximum fuel capacity of 96,189 lbs. (about 11,500 gallons).

now how much does a f16 have

External Fuel Capacity, 6950 lb (3160 kg) in two 370 gal

1 strike. x 2

do understand though this is 50 hours times this so multiply flight time by 50 hours... lets see how long a conventional f16 can fly. Or perhaps you can reduce the charge by 50 to get an equivolent to f16 flight time.

You don't need to produce energy you need to harness and direct it.

You can already ride on your own sonic boom wake, ala the valykrie mach 3.

Energy weighs a lot less than jet fuel too.

..............

Edited January 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

You arn't very inventive are you? 1? Why, 2? why 3? why

1. an ionized propulsion jet is still a jet

Only in a very general sense. A "jet" aircraft refers to an aircraft powered by a one of several specific types of air-breathing jet engine technologies, however.

2. it would not need a fusion reactor it would take less energy than a modern jet due to massively decreased mass. How heavy is a conventional jet engine?

A "modern" jet engine gets its energy from the chemical reaction of the jet fuel with atmospheric oxygen. An ion engine needs to use electrical energy, that energy must be supplied by something. In general, the energy source can be a battery, a chemical reaction, solar energy, a nuclear reaction, etc.

The models that people make of ionocraft are externally powered, that is, the power supply is sitting on the ground and a wire connects it to the ionocraft. So, they don't have to be able to produce enough thrust to lift the power source off the ground. For a viable aircraft, however, it needs to be able to carry its power source with it. Power sources have a characteristic power/mass that they can provide. For example, the most advanced batteries have power densities of a few kW/kg, but can only sustain that power output for a few seconds. In any case, that's not nearly enough power to lift themselves off the ground. The most energetic chemical reactions (for example the SSME) can produce ~150 kW/kg for a few minutes, but to harness these reactions for making electricity requires very massive systems (Brayton or Stirling cycle heat engines), which would drastically lower the power/mass. Once these systems are included, the most advanced flight rated electrical power systems are only a few kW/kg.

Why does it take that much power? The speed of ions being exhausted is ~10 km/s. The thrust for your aircraft to "hover" is equal to its weight. The power of the exhaust beam is the force times the velocity. So, for example, a 100 kg vehicle experiences a gravitational force of:

F = 100 kg * 9.81 = 981 N

The ion "jet" power would then need to be:

P = 981 N * 10,000 m/s = 9.81 MW

On a per kilogram basis, that's 98.1 kW/kg. No chemical reaction or battery comes close (and that ignores the mass of the thruster and vehicle structure, which would only make the situation far worse). Additionally, that assumes 100% efficiency, a real ionocraft system is obviously far less efficient, and that would mean even more energy. Conventional (fission) nuclear reactors could not do it, due to the immense mass of Brayton cycle machinery used to convert the nuclear thermal power into electricity, as well as the mass of the radiation shielding. Only hypothetical fusion reactors could come close.

You can lower the ion exhaust velocity to reduce the power requirements, but for an ionocraft, you can't go much lower, since the accelerating voltage is the same as the ionizing voltage, and you need a high voltage to be able to break down room temperature/pressure air. And, if you could lower it much further, you lose all advantages compared to just having a conventional jet or propeller.

If you disagree, I challenge you to provide an example of an ionocraft powered by an on-board power supply, rather than from the ground, and can hover for any significant time period (i.e. more than a few seconds).

3. You don't breath exhaust on an airplane, you think fighter pilots loop their jetstream into their mask?

You talked about the guy under it ("hovering over your house"), not the guy on board.

Where exactly are you getting this "fusion reactor" junk from.. it is not often I need to talk about doning tin foil hats.. it is usually the other way around.

Sadly, it's still you that needs the hat. To protect yourself from all those ions raining down from above.

This isn't the "same tech" but it gives you another idea of ion propulsion.. the same tech that could be used to make bi monthly missions to mars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

Yeah I happen to make those for a living. Ion thrusters provide high exhaust velocity, but very low thrust, the advantage is they can operate in space over very long periods providing a greater total impulse for the same amount of fuel compared to a chemical rocket. However, they are useless for launching anything or flying inside an atmosphere since they only produce, at most, millinewtons of thrust. By the way, the Wikipedia article you referenced (but did not read) clearly explains all this.

By the way, I expect the above will all go way over your head. Maybe some other posters are interested in such things though, who knows.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Bonam

[Topaz]

Now Harper is in Quebec whipping up the workers who may/may not get the jobs from the F35 , if purchased. The F35, should be paint lemon yellow and Harper would still press for this jet. He doesn't care about the plane, its the jobs. Unfortunately, Canadians can't afford this jet and the US is even backing off and buying other jets. There is so much over runs on this jet. Why doesn't Harper have an open bid if this jet is the right one? Harper can't give a sensible answer because there isn't one. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2011/01/14/harper-aerospace-quebec.html

[bush_cheney2004]

....Unfortunately, Canadians can't afford this jet and the US is even backing off and buying other jets. There is so much over runs on this jet....

Come now...one really can't credibly repeat this very common "even in the US" for qualification and support, because some just as quickly dismiss was happens in the "US" depending on the topic (e.g. multiple political parties). If Canadians can't afford this "jet"....then they also can't afford to build/buy any other.

[Topaz]

There's an article out today about what the speech the out going President Eisenhower's speech in 1961 and how it affect society today. His speech warned of the military-industry complex total influence on the economic, political and even spiritual and disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will exists. The F-35 to which the Harper is pushing for could fall into this warning. The former second command for the Canadian Forces Major-General Richard Bastien, is now the VP of the US OWNED aerospace company L-3MAS based in Montreal. He told the Members of Parliament that the government must do its utmost to ensure the F-35 is not only a MILITARY success but an INDUSTRY success in Canada. The lobbyist firm that US Lockheed Martin hired in Ottawa is make up of retired officers from the senior ranks of the military. This explains a lot of Min. of Defence, Parl. Sec. Hawes view. http://rabble.ca/news/2011/01/harpers-f-35-stealth-fighter-purchase-confirms-eisenhowers-warning

[Army Guy]

Topaz, WOW you got this from Rabble...

Harper's F-35 stealth fighter purchase confirms Eisenhower's warning

Where else could you find an art with a reference of President Eisenhowers farewell speech in it. Well look no further than Rabble who have assembled the worlds largest collection of articles with "yes" you guessed it a ref to the great presidents farewell speach....

Somehow Babble has manged to place quotes from that speach in more than a few topics, including one about Canada's massive military industry (An industry almost compatable with the McClain's french fry kingdom), More than one on the F-35 program,and a few others.....all these articles spewing the same message....we need to control our military industry for fear of it controling us......OK now i'm scared....

But lets just take a look at Mr Eisenhowers accomplishments for a second, Supreme command of all Allied forces, so he knew just how important Military industry was to major war efforts, he would later become President of the USA, while in power he overthrew of the democratic governments of Iran (1953), and Guatemala (1954) -- events that occurred when he was president. The invasion of Cuba, authorized by his successor, John F. Kennedy, was being planned by his government as he spoke.

While Mr Eisenhower knew of dangers of any countries military industry growing out of control, he also was very familar with the use of and manging large military forces and his office practiced that more than a few times....So while he gave great speaches and we should take a look at his farewell speaches and warnings contained with them....his actions certainly spoke of an entirely different tune...His message i take from the speaches is all industry needs to be balanced,along with the needs of the people....I don't see our military industry even coming close to threatening the needs of the people....but then again i don't have that nice helmet you get for joining Babble either.

[bush_cheney2004]

....While Mr Eisenhower knew of dangers of any countries military industry growing out of control, he also was very familar with the use of and manging large military forces and his office practiced that more than a few times....

Agreed...President Eisenhower's defense budgets provided for the massive build up of nuclear and conventional forces, all while investing heavily in domestic infrastructure as well (e.g. Interstate Highway System). It was guns and butter at the same time.

If the best Canadians can do over at rabble is to parrot back American rhetoric from a bygone era, then they deserve their own rudderless fate.

[Wilber]

Begs the question. What's the matter with it being both a military success and an industry success as long as it is a military success first?

[Army Guy]

This whole debate about this program has been twisted beyond belief....16 Bil is the total bill after a 20 year maintance contract is added.....

I wonder how many cars and trucks ford, GM or anyone for that matter would sell if they to included how much it costed for up keep and maintence for a 20 year period.... my guess not many....so why do we apply that to these contracts....

when these expense come out of the OEM budgets of depts they are all ready alotted each year within their budgets....in fact there is no metion how much will be saved by operating a new jet, compared to operating the existing older F-18's....

[Esq]

It was interesting to see this:

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1048662_tomorrows-power-today-new-battery-is-most-powerful-ever

New more powerful batteries.

This isn't exactly the lightening bolts William Ashley was talking about, but it seems to be a very powerful battery.

-----

Only in a very general sense. A "jet" aircraft refers to an aircraft powered by a one of several specific types of air-breathing jet engine technologies, however.

A "modern" jet engine gets its energy from the chemical reaction of the jet fuel with atmospheric oxygen. An ion engine needs to use electrical energy, that energy must be supplied by something. In general, the energy source can be a battery, a chemical reaction, solar energy, a nuclear reaction, etc.

The models that people make of ionocraft are externally powered, that is, the power supply is sitting on the ground and a wire connects it to the ionocraft. So, they don't have to be able to produce enough thrust to lift the power source off the ground. For a viable aircraft, however, it needs to be able to carry its power source with it. Power sources have a characteristic power/mass that they can provide. For example, the most advanced batteries have power densities of a few kW/kg, but can only sustain that power output for a few seconds. In any case, that's not nearly enough power to lift themselves off the ground. The most energetic chemical reactions (for example the SSME) can produce ~150 kW/kg for a few minutes, but to harness these reactions for making electricity requires very massive systems (Brayton or Stirling cycle heat engines), which would drastically lower the power/mass. Once these systems are included, the most advanced flight rated electrical power systems are only a few kW/kg.

Why does it take that much power? The speed of ions being exhausted is ~10 km/s. The thrust for your aircraft to "hover" is equal to its weight. The power of the exhaust beam is the force times the velocity. So, for example, a 100 kg vehicle experiences a gravitational force of:

F = 100 kg * 9.81 = 981 N

The ion "jet" power would then need to be:

P = 981 N * 10,000 m/s = 9.81 MW

On a per kilogram basis, that's 98.1 kW/kg. No chemical reaction or battery comes close (and that ignores the mass of the thruster and vehicle structure, which would only make the situation far worse). Additionally, that assumes 100% efficiency, a real ionocraft system is obviously far less efficient, and that would mean even more energy. Conventional (fission) nuclear reactors could not do it, due to the immense mass of Brayton cycle machinery used to convert the nuclear thermal power into electricity, as well as the mass of the radiation shielding. Only hypothetical fusion reactors could come close.

You can lower the ion exhaust velocity to reduce the power requirements, but for an ionocraft, you can't go much lower, since the accelerating voltage is the same as the ionizing voltage, and you need a high voltage to be able to break down room temperature/pressure air. And, if you could lower it much further, you lose all advantages compared to just having a conventional jet or propeller.

If you disagree, I challenge you to provide an example of an ionocraft powered by an on-board power supply, rather than from the ground, and can hover for any significant time period (i.e. more than a few seconds).

You talked about the guy under it ("hovering over your house"), not the guy on board.

Sadly, it's still you that needs the hat. To protect yourself from all those ions raining down from above.

Yeah I happen to make those for a living. Ion thrusters provide high exhaust velocity, but very low thrust, the advantage is they can operate in space over very long periods providing a greater total impulse for the same amount of fuel compared to a chemical rocket. However, they are useless for launching anything or flying inside an atmosphere since they only produce, at most, millinewtons of thrust. By the way, the Wikipedia article you referenced (but did not read) clearly explains all this.

By the way, I expect the above will all go way over your head. Maybe some other posters are interested in such things though, who knows.

[Esq]

It was interesting to see this:

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1048662_tomorrows-power-today-new-battery-is-most-powerful-ever

New more powerful batteries.

This isn't exactly the lightening bolts William Ashley was talking about, but it seems to be a very powerful battery.

-----

It sounds like it would be a crazy missle too..

Metallized xenon difluoride heralds a new class of solid fuels.

By Christopher Mims

The energy density of batteries is tremendously important as an enabler of new technologies. Meanwhile, the scramble to create ever more powerful batteries has even led some manufacturers to contemplate powering cell phones with energy-dense hydrocarbons like propane.

This is why the claims made for an extremely early-stage "ultra-battery" recently announced in the journal Nature Chemistry are so remarkable.

"If you think about it, [this] is the most condensed form of energy storage outside of nuclear energy," said inventor Choong-Shik Yoo of Washington State University. Yoo's ultra-battery consists of "xenon difluoride (XeF2), a white crystal used to etch silicon conductors," compressed to an ultra-dense state inside a diamond vice exerting a pressure of more than two million atmospheres.

Applying this level of pressure to XeF2 "metallizes" the substance, pushing all of its atoms closer together, into a new stable state.

This figure shows how the crystal changes color as it changes states, from a relatively soft transparent crystal to a "reddish two-dimensional graphite-like hexagonal layered structure," and then, above 70 Gigapascals of pressure, to a "black three-dimensional fluorite-like structure," which is a metal.

In its ultra-dense state, the mechanical energy transmitted to the metallized XeF2 is now stored in the substance itself as a kind of chemical energy. All it takes to release it is a perturbation of a single atom in the crystal, which will cause the entire metallized substance to spontaneously "unzip," says Yoo.

The reaction would be, quite literally, explosive. In an instant the XeF2 would turn its stored energy into thermal energy with almost 100% efficiency. The XeF2 stores about 1 kilajoule of energy per gram, or "about 10% of the energy stored in a rocket fuel of liquid H2 and O2 mixtures, or about 20% of [the energy stored in] one of the most powerful explosives, HMX," says Yoo. When viewed as a potential energy storage medium, this discovery qualifies as "a new class of energetic molecules or solid fuels," he adds.

Until we figure out how to build rocket-powered consumer electronics, the trick to turning XeF2 into a viable means for storing and releasing energy is to figure out what sort of impurities to add to make it "metastable," just like all the combustible fossil fuels we are surrounded by, which we call plastics.

"If you think about all materials we know, 95% or more are in a metastable state," says Yoo.

Metastability is a fundamental problem in materials research, and is common to many other substances that metallize and acquire exotic properties after being compressed to an extreme degree, including CO2, N2, O2 etc. If Yoo and his colleagues can conquer this issue for a common substances that can acquire a new molecular configuration at high pressures, they will have created an entirely new means of storing energy.

That goal is a long way off, however - so far Yoo's discovery has only been synthesized in the lab, in amounts so tiny that when it "unzips" it poses no hazard.

[Esq]

Only in a very general sense. A "jet" aircraft refers to an aircraft powered by a one of several specific types of air-breathing jet engine technologies, however.

A "modern" jet engine gets its energy from the chemical reaction of the jet fuel with atmospheric oxygen. An ion engine needs to use electrical energy, that energy must be supplied by something. In general, the energy source can be a battery, a chemical reaction, solar energy, a nuclear reaction, etc.

The models that people make of ionocraft are externally powered, that is, the power supply is sitting on the ground and a wire connects it to the ionocraft. So, they don't have to be able to produce enough thrust to lift the power source off the ground. For a viable aircraft, however, it needs to be able to carry its power source with it. Power sources have a characteristic power/mass that they can provide. For example, the most advanced batteries have power densities of a few kW/kg, but can only sustain that power output for a few seconds. In any case, that's not nearly enough power to lift themselves off the ground. The most energetic chemical reactions (for example the SSME) can produce ~150 kW/kg for a few minutes, but to harness these reactions for making electricity requires very massive systems (Brayton or Stirling cycle heat engines), which would drastically lower the power/mass. Once these systems are included, the most advanced flight rated electrical power systems are only a few kW/kg.

Why does it take that much power? The speed of ions being exhausted is ~10 km/s. The thrust for your aircraft to "hover" is equal to its weight. The power of the exhaust beam is the force times the velocity. So, for example, a 100 kg vehicle experiences a gravitational force of:

F = 100 kg * 9.81 = 981 N

The ion "jet" power would then need to be:

P = 981 N * 10,000 m/s = 9.81 MW

On a per kilogram basis, that's 98.1 kW/kg. No chemical reaction or battery comes close (and that ignores the mass of the thruster and vehicle structure, which would only make the situation far worse). Additionally, that assumes 100% efficiency, a real ionocraft system is obviously far less efficient, and that would mean even more energy. Conventional (fission) nuclear reactors could not do it, due to the immense mass of Brayton cycle machinery used to convert the nuclear thermal power into electricity, as well as the mass of the radiation shielding. Only hypothetical fusion reactors could come close.

You can lower the ion exhaust velocity to reduce the power requirements, but for an ionocraft, you can't go much lower, since the accelerating voltage is the same as the ionizing voltage, and you need a high voltage to be able to break down room temperature/pressure air. And, if you could lower it much further, you lose all advantages compared to just having a conventional jet or propeller.

If you disagree, I challenge you to provide an example of an ionocraft powered by an on-board power supply, rather than from the ground, and can hover for any significant time period (i.e. more than a few seconds).

You talked about the guy under it ("hovering over your house"), not the guy on board.

Sadly, it's still you that needs the hat. To protect yourself from all those ions raining down from above.

Yeah I happen to make those for a living. Ion thrusters provide high exhaust velocity, but very low thrust, the advantage is they can operate in space over very long periods providing a greater total impulse for the same amount of fuel compared to a chemical rocket. However, they are useless for launching anything or flying inside an atmosphere since they only produce, at most, millinewtons of thrust. By the way, the Wikipedia article you referenced (but did not read) clearly explains all this.

By the way, I expect the above will all go way over your head. Maybe some other posters are interested in such things though, who knows.

This is 1.6 Mw Hours... so, would 10 KG be 16 Mw Hours? or 100kg be 160 Mw hours?

Here is a gasp moment, Friesen says, “These liquids have electrochemical stability windows of up to five volts, so it allows you to go to much more energy-dense metals than zinc.” The team plans will target energy densities of at least 900 watt-hours per kilogram and up to 1,600 watt-hours per kilogram in the DOE-funded project. Now that’s rich battery energy density, very rich indeed.

Also if a lighter than air gas is used to create a cusion would the Nforce be lower?

Also if the energy is being "catapulted" it would provide "propulsion" thus vectored thrust.

For instance a filter that only allowed lighter than air gasses (that happen to be smaller) to pass through it and be collected in a cushion.

It would effecitvely "pocket" thrust

AIR >>>> FILTER >>> LIGHTER THAN AIR GASES PASS>>> LIGHTER THAN AIR CUSHION THRUST

-------

OH AND THEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY FUEL WITH THE COMBUSTABLE GASES IN A JET STREAM

Neon

Hydrogen fluoride

Water (steam)

Carbon monoxide

Ammonia

Nitrogen

Hydrogen cyanide

Methane

Ethylene

Acetylene

Methllithium

Diborane

Helium

Hydrogen

If you meant which ELEMENTS, then it would be just

Neon

Nitrogen

Helium

Hydrogen

This would clearly counter act your Nforce requirement

In the atmosphere

Gas Volume

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)

Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)

Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)

Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)

Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)

Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)

Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)

Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)

Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)

Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)

Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)

Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)

Ammonia (NH3) trace

Hydrogen is the smallest atom by mass. Helium, neon, fluorine and oxygen are smaller in size. Many calculations put the helium as the smallest atom. But a few other calculations put neon as the smallest atom!

I don't see why a simple Energy field / micron specific sieve couldn't yeild a lighter than air cushion to offset atomospheric gravity downward force.

Most of air is Nitrogen

Atomic weight: 14.0067 (2)

.. simply filtering the nitrogen would likely make air lighter than air.

actually it appears

If you are asking whether nitrogen is less dense than air and will float on top of it, then yes, nitrogen is "lighter," albeit only slightly. More accurately, nitrogen, which is a constituent gas of air, is less dense than air, not lighter.

The density of air at standard temperature and pressure is 1.292 kg/m3. The density of nitrogen is 1.251 kg/m3.

But surely the "HEAVY elements could be filtered.

A floating plane doesn't need gravity to be offset.. it floats.

Funny thing is "the burnable element is heavier than air

Oxygen o2 only is slighty heavyer than air. o3(ozone) is arond the same weight as o2 ,but the ozone layer is at a higher altitude because it is created when o2 come in contact with high amounts of UV rays.

What is stoping lithuim filters from being made to filter helium and hydrogen into an air cushion or something of the sort.

Once you have the cushion I would think the Nforce required as you stated would be completely nullified or drasticlaly reduced.

Depending on the weight of the object being lifted. The "energy is then used for acceleration/thrust) to increase the velocity of the object and offset friction and drag.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2011/01/07/50237/Li-ion-nanostructures-allow-50x-fast-charge.htm

can the filter actually be used for energy transfer? Example striping the particles from the air..

ionizing via the diamond ozone machine... into a combined WHAMY of flight capacity!

and with less energy required.

Ask yourself why not, because we already have the ability to.

This is 1999

http://focus.aps.org/story/v3/st6

Edited January 23, 2011 by Esq

[Esq]

http://gizmodo.com/5734996/carbon-nanotube-aerogel-takes-crown-as-worlds-lightest-material

[Bonam]

Transitions between metastable and stable states are a very interesting phenomenon, and one that certainly holds promise for various technological applications including energy storage. The energy densities are still too low for the application discussed previously (the paper you referenced admits it is only 10-20% of a few example chemical reactions). They've also been trying to produce metastable hydrogen for use in fuel cells, since metastable solid hydrogen would be a much denser form of storing hydrogen compared to any of the methods available today.

The disadvantage of metastable solids is just that: they are metastable. A single tiny perturbation will cause them to rapidly and explosively release their energy. That means they blow up and destroy what's around them. A primary criteria for the usability of energy storage devices is safety.

This is 1.6 Mw Hours... so, would 10 KG be 16 Mw Hours? or 100kg be 160 Mw hours?

The article you quoted says "up to 1,600 watt-hours per kilogram". That's 1.6 kW hours per kg, not MW hours.

Also if a lighter than air gas is used to create a cusion would the Nforce be lower?

Yes. They already have this technology. It's called a balloon.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an article from today's Ottawa Citizen that addresses many of the criticisms and concerns about the program:

The truth about those jets

Canadians need to be able to see through the many misconceptions that surround the F-35 acquisition, which is a vital element in the securing of our nation's future, write Paul Manson and Angus Watt.

The federal government's decision to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has generated a lively debate, not all of it based on reality. There is a lot of mythology out there about the F-35 program. This is not surprising, given the complexity of the technology, the uncertain strategic threats facing Canada and her allies, and the cost of the acquisition. Canadians need to be able to see through the many misconceptions that surround the F-35 acquisition, which is a vital element in the securing of our nation's future. Here are 10 myths in particular that need to be debunked, together with a more realistic view of each.

Myth No. 1: The F-35 is unsafe because it has a single engine.

Reality: Modern jet engines are so reliable that there is little safety advantage, if any, in a twinengined configuration. Two engines also mean more complexity and higher cost.

Myth No. 2: We are buying the F-35 to protect Arctic sovereignty.

Reality: Tracking Russian bombers around the Arctic is only part of the requirement. Many potential threats, global and domestic, face Canada in the coming decades. The rational approach is to replace the CF-18 with a modern multi-role fighter capable of deterring and opposing a variety of threats to our security and prosperity for many years to come.

Myth No. 3: Canada could do with a less capable fighter, or even none at all.

Reality: Arguments that we could get along with less-advanced fighter aircraft are naively based on the presumption of a benign future security environment. Even more far-fetched are suggestions that all we need are drones, or that we don't need fighters at all. As threats emerge through to mid-century, so must Canada's ability to respond. The F-35, with its remarkable flexibility and adaptability, was designed to cope with a wide range of future challenges, including combat. There are certain inviolable responsibilities that come with nationhood. Protecting security and contributing to international stability are two of the most important. Without a top-notch fighter aircraft, Canada could not meet the test, and would in effect turn over those responsibilities to others.

Myth No. 4: The F-35 is slower, has less range, is less manoeuvrable, etc., than other fighters.

Reality: The F-35 is the best multi-role fighter available to Canada, combining excellent capabilities in all of the needed fighter missions. Top speed was important in the Second World War, but today it is the missiles that do the high-speed work. Dogfighting is a thing of the past. Electronic systems are dominant today, and the F-35 is unmatched in this regard.

Myth No. 5: Stealth is somehow sinister and unnecessary.

Reality: Stealth is simply a means of improving pilot survivability and operational effectiveness, by making the aircraft very difficult to detect visually, by radar or by other enemy sensors.

Myth No. 6: The F-35 is too expensive.

Reality: It is an expensive program, as was the comparably priced (in today's dollars) CF-18 acquisition 40 years ago. But the $9-billion purchase cost will be spread over the next 12 years or so, while the in-service support cost -- not yet known, but estimated to be about $7 billion -- will be expended over 20 years from first delivery. Taken together, these two expenditures will amount to approximately three per cent of the defence budget. It is important to recognize that the expenditure will give our nation the ability to make a vital contribution to national and collective security for at least 30 years.

Myth No. 7: A competition is called for.

Reality: Competitive procurement is preferable in most cases, but not for this program. A true competition requires at least two viable contenders. The F-35 stands alone in its ability to meet Canada's requirements, so a forced competition for essentially political reasons would be time consuming, costly and a sham. Furthermore, to switch to competitive bidding at this critical stage, Canada would have to withdraw from the nine-nation Joint Strike Fighter program, thereby giving up its preferred place on the production line and the favourable pricing that goes with it, while losing special access to the JSF's massive industrial benefits from the manufacture and maintenance of thousands of F-35s.

Myth No. 8: The stealth fighter project could actually cost Canada more jobs than it will create.

Reality: The history of industrial regional benefits from aircraft acquisitions has demonstrated time and again that guaranteed offsets don't often produce long-term, high-quality benefits for Canadian industry. Mandated work on 65 aircraft doesn't come close to the value of competitively earned contracts for work on many thousands of F-35s. The Canadian aerospace industry is a world leader, and doesn't need artificial protection to thrive in the F-35 program.

Myth No. 9: The F-35 development program is in serious trouble.

Reality: Headlines claiming that the F-35 has been put on "probation" are inaccurate. This story refers to the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing model being developed for the U.S. Marine Corps, a version which has run into numerous technical problems due to its complex propulsion system. This is not the aircraft Canada is purchasing. Ours is the conventional takeoff/landing version. While some problems have shown up in the course of the development and testing of this particular model (not at all unusual for a new fighter aircraft), there is a high degree of confidence that they will be routinely resolved.

Myth No. 10: Canada's acquisition of the F-35 should be put on hold pending a review.

Reality: Little or nothing would be gained from such a review, and it would introduce some serious risks. The inevitable delay could jeopardize Canada's place in the multinational JSF program, affect our relationship with the other consortium members, and hinder the timely and efficient replacement of the CF-18, whose end-life is due in the 2018-2020 period.

Gen (Ret'd) Paul Manson is a former chief of the defence staff. Earlier in his military career he was program manager for the CF-18 acquisition. Lt.-Gen (Ret'd) Angus Watt retired in 2009 as the chief of the air staff and commander of Canada's air force.

Link: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/truth+about+those+jets/4153489/story.html

Edited January 24, 2011 by Keepitsimple