Flight tests revealed some of the potential problems, most of which were associated with operating the drone rather than the printing itself, Jaeger said. 'Even with a small amount of wind, something this small will get buffeted around,' he said. They also had to figure out the logistics of launching a drone from a ship, getting it back
No. This is innovation because they are using 3d printing (ohhh!); any problems of a practical or fundamental nature will be fixed at a later date. Maybe.
I wonder: how many different drones for different missions would you really need? And can't they achieve the same by building a tested, stable, flyable drone platform, then adding attachments (3d printed or from stock) according to each mission's needs?
There is some practicality to be realised here. What if instead of carrying around ten prefab copies of every component that might get damaged during operation you just carried around a block of material and printed out what you needed for repair on an as needed basis? This would also reduce the amount of loss due to components being damaged, warped or what ever the hell else in transit. As a civilian I have not the slightest idea what cost savings this might provide, but as a taxpayer the the thought of th
US Navy of all organizations saving money brings a smile to my face. I don't even care if every penny of that savings gets dumped back into the F-35, it's still a step in the right direction.
As long as it is in development it is just a money sink. It is when it actually comes to use that there are savings. Be careful what you wish for, I'm pretty sure the operating costs for a couple of more wars quite easily eats those savings.
All things considered, the Navy is actually pretty thrifty. They seem expensive because they have big-budget items but when you realize how large they are and what we pay for the items, they are not really that expensive. They, and by extension the Marines (a division of the Navy) generally get pretty good marks with GAO. They may spend a half billion on a carrier but that thing will be in service for 30 years and then mothballed and able to be brought back into service for another 50 years and will only need some small overhaul and electronics upgrades.
All-in-all, if you look at it, they are not really all that expensive considering that they police the waters of the entire planet for pretty much every country without charge. We can all agree that the US should not be the world's police but that is a matter of debate - we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. I would submit that the USN is actually about the only area where we should be policing the world if we are going to do it at all. We do a very good job at it and are really quite respected for it. If you have never seen the event of a carrier group steaming into a foreign port then you are missing out.
As a young Marine (Yay! GI Bill!) I got to guard the USS Kennedy for a little over six months. I went to Big John's decommissioning in '07 by the way. Anyhow, the amount of respect given and the happiness (and curiosity) is surprising. This trend continues today. You can watch any number of documentaries and shows that will give further information.
As a huge fan of cutting back military spending this is one area where I think we have managed to achieve some sort of balance. We pay a lot, do not get me wrong, but we could be paying far more and getting fewer positive results. When Big John comes rolling into town, even in a European country with a lot of disdain for the US, there is an immense gushing of praise and thanks. Unless you have witnessed it then I really can not expect you to truly understand it. It has its effect everywhere. If you are a sailor or a Marine you *will* walk proud with your head high, arms back, and chest out in pride and rightfully so.
I have shined me some brass and scrubbed a lot of stainless. There is not much guarding to do but tradition is tradition.
Uncontrollable? (Score:1)
Flight tests revealed some of the potential problems, most of which were associated with operating the drone rather than the printing itself, Jaeger said. 'Even with a small amount of wind, something this small will get buffeted around,' he said. They also had to figure out the logistics of launching a drone from a ship, getting it back
Shouldn't they be fixing this first?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder: how many different drones for different missions would you really need? And can't they achieve the same by building a tested, stable, flyable drone platform, then adding attachments (3d printed or from stock) according to each mission's needs?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
There is some practicality to be realised here. What if instead of carrying around ten prefab copies of every component that might get damaged during operation you just carried around a block of material and printed out what you needed for repair on an as needed basis? This would also reduce the amount of loss due to components being damaged, warped or what ever the hell else in transit. As a civilian I have not the slightest idea what cost savings this might provide, but as a taxpayer the the thought of th
Re: (Score:0)
US Navy of all organizations saving money brings a smile to my face. I don't even care if every penny of that savings gets dumped back into the F-35, it's still a step in the right direction.
As long as it is in development it is just a money sink. It is when it actually comes to use that there are savings.
Be careful what you wish for, I'm pretty sure the operating costs for a couple of more wars quite easily eats those savings.
Re:Uncontrollable? (Score:1)
All things considered, the Navy is actually pretty thrifty. They seem expensive because they have big-budget items but when you realize how large they are and what we pay for the items, they are not really that expensive. They, and by extension the Marines (a division of the Navy) generally get pretty good marks with GAO. They may spend a half billion on a carrier but that thing will be in service for 30 years and then mothballed and able to be brought back into service for another 50 years and will only need some small overhaul and electronics upgrades.
All-in-all, if you look at it, they are not really all that expensive considering that they police the waters of the entire planet for pretty much every country without charge. We can all agree that the US should not be the world's police but that is a matter of debate - we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. I would submit that the USN is actually about the only area where we should be policing the world if we are going to do it at all. We do a very good job at it and are really quite respected for it. If you have never seen the event of a carrier group steaming into a foreign port then you are missing out.
As a young Marine (Yay! GI Bill!) I got to guard the USS Kennedy for a little over six months. I went to Big John's decommissioning in '07 by the way. Anyhow, the amount of respect given and the happiness (and curiosity) is surprising. This trend continues today. You can watch any number of documentaries and shows that will give further information.
As a huge fan of cutting back military spending this is one area where I think we have managed to achieve some sort of balance. We pay a lot, do not get me wrong, but we could be paying far more and getting fewer positive results. When Big John comes rolling into town, even in a European country with a lot of disdain for the US, there is an immense gushing of praise and thanks. Unless you have witnessed it then I really can not expect you to truly understand it. It has its effect everywhere. If you are a sailor or a Marine you *will* walk proud with your head high, arms back, and chest out in pride and rightfully so.
I have shined me some brass and scrubbed a lot of stainless. There is not much guarding to do but tradition is tradition.