1. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    29 Jul '14 08:15
    I wonder. Not so sure about the self-healing one, but I do like the idea of the 1 splitting into 3; I think that's perfectly reasonable, and probably within the realms of current technological development.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financevideo/10973022/Concept-air-force-jets-straight-out-of-science-fiction.html

    -m.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jul '14 09:14
    Originally posted by mikelom
    I wonder. Not so sure about the self-healing one, but I do like the idea of the 1 splitting into 3; I think that's perfectly reasonable, and probably within the realms of current technological development.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financevideo/10973022/Concept-air-force-jets-straight-out-of-science-fiction.html

    -m.
    All looks like a total waste of money to me.
    The future is drones vs detection ie can you get a drone with payload to where you want it without being detected. Also, for the defensive side, can you develop detection systems to identify and shoot down drones possibly also with the use of drones.
    I think the technologies in your link are useful only after having been detected - and are partly in order to get the craft back to base so as to save money. An alternative solution is to make the cost of drones so cheap that you are less concerned about loosing some of them. Simply keep sending new ones until you achieve your goal.

    Of course far more important than drone weapon technology will be whatever technology is used for identifying targets (which may itself include the use of drones).
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jul '14 09:15
    Of course the best solution is to put your money into making peace.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    29 Jul '14 11:03
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Of course the best solution is to put your money into making peace.
    Like that would ever happen. You forget about the dudes that don't WANT peace. Like Hamas digging dozens of mile long tunnels into Israel. Or Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of school girls and killing outright the boys.

    You have to ask if Hamas was really interested in peace why would they dig all those tunnels, and not only into Israel, but also into Egypt.

    Their constitution clearly says they want the destruction of Israel and the deaths of every Israeli. Don't think spending money on peace for these dudes is going to help. Whatever money you give them will just go directly into buying Iranian rockets and ever more destructive weapons.

    That kind of crap is happening all over the planet, like Putin, now THERE'S a nice guy. It has been shown Russia is firing rockets into Ukraine from Russian territory and they obviously have a vested interest in not letting people analyse flight 17 because they KNOW exactly who did it and the international uproar that would ensue when that is proven.

    So the fight goes on and may the best technology win.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jul '14 11:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You have to ask if Hamas was really interested in peace why would they dig all those tunnels, and not only into Israel, but also into Egypt.
    You do know that the tunnels into Egypt are for smuggling because they have been blockaded?

    Don't think spending money on peace for these dudes is going to help.
    So you are advocating genocide?

    Whatever money you give them will just go directly into buying Iranian rockets and ever more destructive weapons.
    When did I suggest giving Hamas money? It think you need to calm down and think this through.

    That kind of crap is happening all over the planet,
    Not here in SA it isn't.

    ... like Putin, now THERE'S a nice guy. It has been shown Russia is firing rockets into Ukraine from Russian territory and they obviously have a vested interest in not letting people analyse flight 17 because they KNOW exactly who did it and the international uproar that would ensue when that is proven.

    So the fight goes on and may the best technology win.

    So you think that better jet fighters for the US, will somehow help the Ukrainians? I disagree. I think it will result in more civilian casualties.

    But all you seem to be doing is pointing out examples of war around the globe. Where is your actual argument that spending money on peace initiatives does not work, and spending money on weapons does work?
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78643
    29 Jul '14 11:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Like that would ever happen. You forget about the dudes that don't WANT peace. Like Hamas digging dozens of mile long tunnels into Israel. Or Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of school girls and killing outright the boys.

    You have to ask if Hamas was really interested in peace why would they dig all those tunnels, and not only into Israel, but also into E ...[text shortened]... r that would ensue when that is proven.

    So the fight goes on and may the best technology win.
    The conflict in Palestine is dominating the Debates forum already. There is no reason it should be discussed here.

    For what it's worth once a shooting war's started digging tunnels is a logical strategy, what do you expect them to do, advance across the desert wearing red coats?
  7. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    29 Jul '14 15:07
    I was referring to the technology and reality. I did not bring current politics into this forum, losers on this one. 🙁

    -m.
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78643
    29 Jul '14 15:57
    Originally posted by mikelom
    I was referring to the technology and reality. I did not bring current politics into this forum, losers on this one. 🙁

    -m.
    Yeah, well. Back to the OP, I'm the other way round, the self-healing plane and plane which can build it's own drones seems logical. The one which breaks into bits seems like a way of weakening the plane and making it all overcomplicated. Why not just have three planes?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jul '14 16:10
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Yeah, well. Back to the OP, I'm the other way round, the self-healing plane and plane which can build it's own drones seems logical. The one which breaks into bits seems like a way of weakening the plane and making it all overcomplicated. Why not just have three planes?
    I thought self healing was the best idea. I thought building your own drones makes no sense whatsoever as it doesn't save weight over premanufacturing them, and but rather results in extra weight and complexity in terms of printing, assembling and deploying them - and what are the benefits? Possibly the fact that the material is more compact prior to manufacture? So you could sneak a thousand drones into an area in the hull of a single large drone?

    The one that breaks apart possibly has a number of advantages. It could save on fuel on long distance flights. It may also be easier for a single craft to sneak into an area without detection. Once at the destination, they could split up either to reduce the damage of an attack, or so that they could simultaneously attack multiple targets or perform surveillance over multiple areas at once.
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78643
    29 Jul '14 19:141 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I thought self healing was the best idea. I thought building your own drones makes no sense whatsoever as it doesn't save weight over premanufacturing them, and but rather results in extra weight and complexity in terms of printing, assembling and deploying them - and what are the benefits? Possibly the fact that the material is more compact prior to manu ...[text shortened]... ould simultaneously attack multiple targets or perform surveillance over multiple areas at once.
    I agree the self-healing looks to be the most plausible of the potential technologies. But with the made in flight drones I was thinking of the specific functionality of the drones. They might not know what they need until they are in the mission in hostile or contested airspace, so the point would be flexibility.

    Air to air refuelling is dicey enough, actually docking multiple aircraft in flight in an atmosphere while being shot at strikes me as too much risk. The point seemed to be that they could split up after being shot at - sacrifice one of the segments - and then the rest carry on with the mission. So why not just have three or four separate airframes?
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jul '14 20:23
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    actually docking multiple aircraft in flight in an atmosphere while being shot at strikes me as too much risk.
    The docking would not take place under fire. I don't think it would be a major problem for drones.
    Even human pilots can fly remarkably close formations.

    So why not just have three or four separate airframes?
    As I said, I see possible benefits in fuel consumption and stealth for the journey from the airport to the destination.
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78643
    29 Jul '14 20:49
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The docking would not take place under fire. I don't think it would be a major problem for drones.
    Even human pilots can fly remarkably close formations.

    [b]So why not just have three or four separate airframes?

    As I said, I see possible benefits in fuel consumption and stealth for the journey from the airport to the destination.[/b]
    Fuel consumption probably, but stealth no. If something is twice as big it has twice the radar cross-section. Also the things on planes that tend to be difficult to stealth are the engine intakes, each detachable part of the plane would need its own jet intake. Also I'd have thought that the mountings where they detach and reattach would tend to contribute to the cross-section.

    Also if it's hit before separation then you lose the entire capability, whereas sending multiple smaller (and therefore stealthier) airframes in has the advantage that they are individually less likely to be detected as well as meaning that if one is detected and hit the others are automatically independent of it.
Back to Top