- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,871
- Reaction score
- 10,919
Just something I've been wondering. Something like JASSM is made almost entirely of composites. RATTLRS, as I recall was fabricated almost completely of titanium. HyFly was built around a cast titanium missile body/motor etc. I have a little insight into things from the composite side (generally titanium is considered very expensive, and only used for certain high stress parts). So my question is, would the three methods of construction listed above be considered in a similar realm of cost and/or would a titanium missile end up so expensive that it wouldn't matter how "sweet" it was it would be a non-starter? (Especially the large titanium casting.)
All composite:
Titanium fabrication:
Titanium casting:
Obviously these aren't all one or the other but by and large the majority of each airframe conforms to a particular method of construction. Now the US has more companies making things out of composite than you can shake a stick at. Titanium fab less so. Titanium casting I imagine MUCH less so. Could it be at least part of the reason we don't see more efforts at fielding high-mach airbreathing missiles is because we don't have the industrial base to support the production of such weapons? That maybe they just price themselves out of contention? Just a thought.
All composite:
Titanium fabrication:
Titanium casting:
Obviously these aren't all one or the other but by and large the majority of each airframe conforms to a particular method of construction. Now the US has more companies making things out of composite than you can shake a stick at. Titanium fab less so. Titanium casting I imagine MUCH less so. Could it be at least part of the reason we don't see more efforts at fielding high-mach airbreathing missiles is because we don't have the industrial base to support the production of such weapons? That maybe they just price themselves out of contention? Just a thought.
