Sunday, July 06, 2014

BAE Systems - Future Aircraft Technology Concepts

I buy every bit of this except for the onboard 3-d printing (the joined aircraft seems like fantasy but I can see the benefits so maybe...).  I just can't wrap my brain around how you would do it unless you have the materials stuffed inside the back of a C-5 or A400.  Doing it out the back of a strike aircraft seems like pure bs.

9 comments :

  1. Extremely Silly:
    A.) Its probably cheaper and better to just design planes that go further than compromise design and spend additional resources to make the planes connect like Lego.
    B.) Probably all modern strike fighters can carry a package like that with a parachute system.
    C.) We dont have lasers that small and powerfull to shoot down missiles, nor are any in development, nor do planes produce that much electricity, we are probably talking a VERY LARGE plane here, maybe B1R size!
    D.) You cant just regrow part of the airplane, the best they are able to do currently is repair damaged surfaces, I imagine maybe one day you could regrow a surface, but you arent going to be able to use that technology to repair the components under the skin.
    E.) The idea of printing entire jacketed cables, circuit boards, engine parts, oils/lubricants, microprocessors, and doing so inside the weapons bay of a fighter plane is ludicrous, which sums this up. Ain't going to ever happened!

    And finally if you want long-term reconnaissance there are very long endurance platforms out there, some of which fly higher than the engagement range of most AA missiles. This is up there with that video showing the avenger UAV shooting lasers, jamming S-400s, and (I believe) downing Su27s. And TALOS being bulletproof (not that we can't design armor on that par, but they arent going to spend that sort of money!), I am fairly certain it doesn't even have a proper a2a radar, and neither will those triangle crafts, unless they have it on the leading edge, which is still not going to be as good as a large circular AESA radar.
    TLDR: Stupid marketing stunt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally enjoyed the part where we reveal that the plane not only magically replicated a full size drone but a full size russian nesting doll drone. All in one go no less.

      Delete
    2. I sort of agree with you, but in the 1980s they would have told you stealth was impossible. 20 years later it was common place and currently the USAF is damned and determined to only buy planes that have it.

      Technology is still progressing pretty quickly. Hyper-sonic flight is slowly becoming a reality, at least for high-dollar recon aircraft. 3-D printing is making some pretty big leaps; granted the process shown in that vid is most certainly decades away. Nano tech is also advancing pretty rapidly, today we can heal skin, but isn't that all the aircraft really needs? All you need is the ability to get home in a situation like that.

      Yes, the video is silly now. 10 years from now I'm guessing it won't be.

      Delete
    3. This is much more of a fantasy than stealth was. Stealth is essentially just modifications to an aircraft's shape, plus some fancy materials/coatings.

      This video's silliness would require hundreds or thousands of such breakthroughs to bring to fruition, even if we wanted them. Transforming planes? Why? Just build 3 smaller, less complex aircraft instead. There is no case where the complexity required for everything but maybe the laser idea is going to be worth the expense.

      What is this really? A fish hook. BAE is hoping to make some procurement official swoon and dump a bunch of money on a project that would drag out for years and never see completion.

      Delete
    4. SandWrym,
      I respectfully disagree.

      Stealth was a major breath-through. To brush it off as "modifications to an aircraft's shape, plus some fancy materials/coatings" is very insulting to the Russian mathematician and Skunk Works engineers who created it. AKA, it's not that easy. Don't confuse "common in the USAF" with "anyone can do it."

      I also disagree that the demonstrations here are all technically that difficult. Connecting planes mid-flight could pose a huge advantage and is really not that much of a leap from existing mid-air refueling technology. Especially when all sub-planes (as i'll call them) are all computer controlled. The advantages gained are multi-fold as well and potentially worth the engineering effort to pull it off.

      Laser technology is also making strides as well. Remember, you don't always have to blow an incoming missile up. You just have to blind it. This is war; I don't give a shit who or what it hits as long as it isn't mine.

      Granted, the 3-D printing piece is really stretching it, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Just not do-able today.

      Delete
    5. The japanese managed to make functional (if impractical) prototype stealth watercraft in the middle of WWII http://weaponsman.com/?p=16248 ! They went with a purely radar obsorbant materials approach but the the theoretical basis for "Modern Stealth" that being the concept that different angles reflect radar differently already existed.

      Delete
    6. "Modern stealth" is beaten by WW2 radar. The F-35 goose is cocked. X-band stealth won't help much against L-band radar.

      Delete
  2. just some idéas for the next Sf movies of hollywood : nothing serious !

    ReplyDelete
  3. If we suddenly refocused the labours and resources our society toward the singular goal of making the technologies in this presentation a reality: we would eventually come up with decent if far more cludgy facsimiles of the capabilities demonstrated in the video. However this wouldent actually improve our ability to complete any of the missions in the video enough to justify the cost.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.