CriticalThought
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2016
- Messages
- 7,094
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Depends on the methodology of acquisition of knowledge base. If it is going to be sharing of knowledge via partnerships then possibly. If it is going to be via establishing of an R&D setup tgen ther isn't enough time. However the former seems the more logical route rather thqn investing money to reinvent the wheel. The crunch question is what is done to enhance the knowledge that is acquired. We have to have the capability of acquiring skills and then advancing them. What are the limitations of the methodology is beyond my knowledge to answer.
A
In general, due to IP issues, if a nation wants to move into a hi-tech area of manufacturing, it follows the following steps:
1. License production.
2. Start acquiring patents in key technologies throughout the production chain.
3. Start researching further refinements and file for patents.
Specifically in aircraft manufacturing, taking the example of titanium machining, we want to use existing processes of machining to create our own product. We cannot sell titanium machining plants, but we can sell the products produced from these plants. In the case of Australia, this is how they acquired the capability of manufacturing F-35:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...trike-fighters-to-be-made-by-bae-syst/5134282
Notice the price tag of 8 million dollars for the Starrag BTP5000 machining facility. This was back in 2013. This is a price range that is WELL within PAC's range, if it can get its hands on the technology.
From my research on the internet, titanium is useful because of lightweight and high tensile strength. So you can make a larger jet that can carry more weight while retaining the same engine power. My research hasn't turned up any advantage in radar signature per se, although titanium compounds and complexes seem to be fundamental in RAM coatings.
Coming back to the discussion of IP rights, if we use a commercially available machining solution, we wouldn't need to worry about patents such as the one discussed here
https://www.google.com/patents/US4294419
We should not have any need to delve into this patent, except for one very key piece of information contained within. The patent repeatedly states that the radar cross-section depends on geometric configuration, and the methods in the patent allow any geometric structure to be created using titanium and its alloys.
And so, in block 4, although we might not see use of advanced materials, I would at least love to see radar reflective surfaces such as diamond nose, angular intakes and twin tails. This design experience would be invaluable for 5th gen efforts, and shouldn't increase the cost of materials for Thunder.