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 the 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.
Because when you have the preformed parts, you just go over and snap them together. When you have to print the parts, you warm up the printer, download the files, print the parts, fiddle with the printer, print the parts again and snap them together.
Perhaps as an R&D setup, this makes sense - if you are trying to develop different frames / gizmos / attachments to the UAVs to fit various mission requirements. In a shooting war, not so much.
"Sailor, we want an attack drone." "But sir, if I just adjust th
"We need to send this oddly shaped parcel to a SEAL team get one of the blank drones out of storage and print a cargo pod for it that can hold the parcel."
The limitation with 3D printing everything is that it kind of walks away from hundreds of years of materials processing experience. You can't get forged parts, you probably won't get thermally processed parts (hardened, annealed, aged, etc), you probably won't be plating parts out there either, and you probably won't be cryo treating, nor plasma spray coating, etc. Everything is sort of dead soft. Sure, there's a lot of stuff that you can do with it, but there's more stuff that you still can't.
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 ne
The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.
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:Uncontrollable? (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 the 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful. How are the no-bid contractors going to charge big $$$ for mil-spec parts if you can just 3D print them?
Sounds like a commie plot to me.
Re: (Score:2)
There is lots of money to be made in building (and supporting) mil-spec printers. And mil-spec plastic. And mil-spec designs.
Re: (Score:1)
mil-spec plastic
"Yes, we know it costs 20 times as much, but it's in officially approved camouflage colours."
Re: (Score:0)
Easy. Charge even more $$$ for mil-spec printers and print media and service contracts for the printers.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when you have the preformed parts, you just go over and snap them together. When you have to print the parts, you warm up the printer, download the files, print the parts, fiddle with the printer, print the parts again and snap them together.
Perhaps as an R&D setup, this makes sense - if you are trying to develop different frames / gizmos / attachments to the UAVs to fit various mission requirements. In a shooting war, not so much.
"Sailor, we want an attack drone."
"But sir, if I just adjust th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you mean "mast" perhaps? The chaplain may give the captain a private ceremony but it is unlikely, really.
Re: (Score:0)
I think this is more for:
"We need to send this oddly shaped parcel to a SEAL team get one of the blank drones out of storage and print a cargo pod for it that can hold the parcel."
Re: (Score:0)
The limitation with 3D printing everything is that it kind of walks away from hundreds of years of materials processing experience. You can't get forged parts, you probably won't get thermally processed parts (hardened, annealed, aged, etc), you probably won't be plating parts out there either, and you probably won't be cryo treating, nor plasma spray coating, etc. Everything is sort of dead soft. Sure, there's a lot of stuff that you can do with it, but there's more stuff that you still can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Carriers have machine and wood shops where they fabricate lots of things, including needed parts for the carrier.
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: (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 ne