Seahornet1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:49 am
Tooks wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:00 am
Agent K wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:15 am
Maybe I'm reading it differently/incorrectly, nut I'm not sure the proposal is to re-role/re-build aircraft once in service, so once ZZ999 is a Primary Trainer, or Fast Jet Trainer, or light attach aircraft it stays that way. The savings and efficiencies are in design/development/manufacturing where a single basic common/core type can be developed for numerous and disparate roles throughout the training/light attack/reconnaissance spectrum.
As always I'm happy to be corrected.
This is more like what my take on it is as well.
I can’t see how having to drag an aircraft back into a hangar, disassemble large parts of it, reassemble it into a different configuration with the resultant testing etc brings any economies.
Manufacturing cost is but a small part of most aircraft through life costs, the expensive bit is spares and ‘people time’ whether that’s the spanner turners or the Airworthiness regime around all military aircraft.
Maybe you guys have missed this bit...?
...the modular design means it can be adapted as circumstances change. Aeralis expects the change between versions to happen within a normal 24 to 48-hour maintenance cycle...
The concept is clearly that maintenance crews will be able to reconfigure the aircraft to meet operational needs. Agreed, my 'ZZ999' example was a gross exaggeration, and wouldn't make any economic sense, but the idea that individual airframes can easily be reconfigured and re-roled to meet changing operational needs is at the core of this proposal. I'm sure that many of the fleet would be expected to retain a single configuration throughout their service life, but being able to adjust the balance of the fleet (to meet long term, or even short term operational needs) without buying more airframes could have economic benefits.
As to whether the concept makes any economic sense in real life, I'm certainly not convinced either. And the answer to that question is almost certainly one of the key things that the RAF are expecting to get in return for their small investment.
Yes, I had missed that bit, so thanks for the quote!
I agree it’s a great idea, I just don’t see it surviving first contact with the real world.
In a job years back, I was involved in a study to see whether we could save money by having a multi role helicopter that could cover various critical roles. That only involved internal fit changes, not airframe or engine, but it was surprisingly difficult to make work and deliver any savings.
It’s an interesting project though, and the MoD must be expecting something for their investment, which I suspect at this point will be a proof of concept study or some such.
)
