SiddarI agree with those that think 3D printing is a good idea for ground units and ships. I think 3D printing will do amazing things in the near future and be very useful for the military in general. I just don’t think it can be used effectively on a fighter.
SiddarSometimes it does just look like it would be easier to put a network of satellites in space with 100MW fusion-pumped laser cannons than implementing some of this.
Maybe small UAVs could be printed though, like the new micro-UAVs and nano-robots.
http://defense-update.com/20140703_nanobots.html#.U7702vldWak
I disagree with any 3D printing on board a fighter being useful. There is no weight savings from 3D printing. In fact you will absolutely carry more weight because of the weight of the 3D printer will add to the plane in addition to anything it makes. The smaller the printed item is the larger the weight penalty of the 3D printer will be. The potential advantage of space saving is also negated because you need a internal bay to do the printing and that negates compactness of 3D printing. That only leaves ability to tailor UAV and Munitions to potential targets and in that case you really should just plan your missions better.
SiddarThe 3D printing part was ridiculous a blatant attempt to gain government funding for technology that would never be used as described in video for the next 50 years.
Split-able aircraft not on level shown in that video maybe a highspeed disposable drone with 15- 20 minute endurance but making up no more then 10% of planes empty weight. Potentially armed with missiles or it could just be fast enough to be used for ramming attacks sense its disposable anyway.
Self repair as long as weight of self repair equipment can be kept to 2-3% of aircraft empty weight then it maybe useful. But I have zero idea of how these systems are supposed to work or even if they have a real chance of working at all.
DEW this one seems the most certain for future aircraft.
SiddarWell that article was the biggest bunch of hogwash I’ve seen in a longtime.
There is no way for test schedule to not be impacted simply because one of planes is non operational.
If they don’t pause and investigate this accident but just plow ahead like nothing happened then the basic integrity of the program itself must be brought into question.
SiddarThe diference in acquisition costs between a P-8 and something like a C-295 MPA equiped with FITS is massive, we are talking of something like 3X to 4X more.
The Airbus offer to the RAF was around 50 million Pounds a unit (number taken from the public submission to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, this number is higher than what the Portuguese Air Force payed for theirs), the 2014 “Fly Away Unit Cost” for a P-8A is 179,812 million dollars (http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/14pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf page 230), throw in a typical FMS deal and that number doubles.
You can only save initial purchase cost by dropping features along with a lower cost for smaller planes airframe. My statement is based on a scenario where they choose a smaller plane but then try and cram all P-8 level of equipment into it.
SiddarAgain as said in the UK MPA Thread some time back the UK needs an MPA capability but first we need to set operational amies at home and over seas and then look at air-frames if the UK is looking at blue water work then really only P-8 will do but if it is coastal work then C-295 will work for a lot less money
A smaller plane will lack ability to carry same sensors and payload of P-8 and will cost almost as much as P-8. The main saving will be in fuel cost per hour flown.
A larger plane will cost 50+ million more for the aircraft and double the fuel cost per hour. The gain would be range payload over P-8.
A same size plane aka a A320 MPA will be 10 years of development away from entering service and cost likely twice as much as a P-8 because of lack of the 100+ orders P-8 has. Advantage is you can use new engines being built for NEO and squeeze 20-25% more range out of a 320 MPA over P-8 unless Boeing adds MAX engines to P-8.
A older plane aka a upgraded P-3 seems only viable competition for P-8. Better fuel economy, lower flying, better endurance but also slower, and a ageing platform.
Most things point to P-8 as best option with nothing at being next most likely.
SiddarAn issue ongoing for a year that grounds half the fleet and this is the first we hear of it? Somehow I think there is more to this story.
Actually it sounds like two separate issues being mixed together in a single story. One being the display problem. The second being Russians not enabling Indians ability to do maintenance and refurbishment of parts on there own. The display issue is a defective product. The in ability of India to do maintenance and refurbishment is a different issue all together.
The report is accusing Russia of a go slow approach of foot dragging in providing India the needed knowledge to do maintenance and refurbishment in India, With the implication the that the Russians want to keep doing that work in Russia and charging India for it.
If India’s planned maintenance and refurbishment schedule has been sidelined by failure of the planned Indian based ability to carry out those functions in India then rapid decline in plane availability rates is not surprising.
SiddarThe forefather of F-35’s EODAS is F-22’s AN/ARR-56 MLD, also a 6 camera system, which has been operational since 1995.
That video is clearly a helicopter most likely a Apache not a F22.
SiddarErmmm…..Precisely because of what’s written in that scientific NATO study (which you didn’t read or understand).
You’re a waste of time, this conversation is over.
Did I hit a nerve are something?
SiddarThere’s enough data in the public domain to strongly suggest S-ducks are a simplistic and ‘sledgehammer’ approach the very complex problem of engine-duct RCS:
I wonder why people always talk about F22 and T-50 intakes always ignore F35, B2, J20 intakes.
SiddarWas anything I said not correct?
Russia trails US in fighter aircraft design by roughly half a generation. That means 50% of time US and Russian fighters will be of the same generation and the other half the time US fighters will be a generation ahead.
SiddarSoviets were on par with US in 50s Mig15 vs F86 then they fell badly behind in US in 70-80 not matching mid 70s F15 untl late 80s with SU-27.
Now in the modern era first flight of F22 1997 first flight of T-50 2010. There is no real closing of the gap that opened up in 70s-80s.
Currently US is openly requesting proposals for 6th generation aircraft with F22 in service while Russia is still testing T-50.
SiddarDump both buy used F-16 ad few dozen more MKI as well then come back in 10 years and look for a 5th generation aircraft.
Wont happen but buying F-16 is what India should have done ten years ago.
PAK-FA 300 million per aircraft.
Rafale 200 million per aircraft once cost of local production is added.
Used upgraded F-16 50 million per aircraft.
I don’t see ether PAK-FA are Rafale being purchased in India’s current economic environment once real cost of those planes are known,
SiddarEverything is possible if there is the will, up to a point. Right now we would STILL be able to go on an independent road, even if costly, because we STILL have a defence industry that can support us in that endeavour. But once that will be gone, then, as i said above, that’s it. We’re done.
I don’t even see it that way in reference to the defence industry, THEY will shrink too, they would have lost our huge market, and they will be in true competition with us on the world market, and we would be in a much better position because we would not be politically subdued to them, hence more confidence from a lot of buyers to buy from us, especially countries that do not want to become dependent to US will, and i’m sure many other countries currently US aligned would love to “switch” too.
You will find in life that actions that result in increased future costs and destruction existing economic relationships and money invested for sole reason of misguided political goals will fail for those very reasons. Europe’s defense market is not anywhere close to the size of US industry. The massive shrinkage that would result from from abandoning defense ties between US and Europe would be very large for Europe. You talk of political will to achieve goals but what you propose is a low cost of the shelf solution of replacing F35 with less capable planes. If Europe had the will to develop a 5th generation aircraft that would support your idea but they don’t have that will at this time and what you propose is simply a protectionist proposal that would weaken Europe for short term economic gains of not buying american. Gains that would then turn to dust rapidly as US congress enacted a similar policy.
I’m also sure no other countries want to buy overpriced under performing European military systems when they can buy cheaper and better military systems from the US.
[/QUOTE]
SiddarAmerican banks own to much of Europe for the above to ever happen. European banks like wise own to much of US for the above to ever happen.
The investment entanglement between Europe and North America is much larger then even the trade entanglement between the two. The economic cost of disentangling the two even at just the defense level would be extremely large. The cost on the European side would be larger then the cost on US side. In the long term Europe would fall farther and farther behind US because of larger US defense spending coupled with the complete removal of European defense industry from US market.
Sign In
