China uses an AI to design a naval ship electrical system in one day that normally takes a team of humans 300 days.
https://wonderfulengineering.com/this-ai-ship-designer-by-china-just-completed-a-years-worth-of-work-in-just-a-day
Kothos said:
China uses an AI to design a naval ship electrical system in one day that normally takes a team of humans 300 days.
https://wonderfulengineering.com/this-ai-ship-designer-by-china-just-completed-a-years-worth-of-work-in-just-a-day
Then it’s going to take the team 300 days to check it is all okay. Would have been quicker just to do it themselves…
furious said:
Kothos said:China uses an AI to design a naval ship electrical system in one day that normally takes a team of humans 300 days.
https://wonderfulengineering.com/this-ai-ship-designer-by-china-just-completed-a-years-worth-of-work-in-just-a-day
Then it’s going to take the team 300 days to check it is all okay. Would have been quicker just to do it themselves…
Then if their AI has skills of the level of ChatGPT, another 300 days fixing all the stuff it got wrong.
‘although the system had areas for improvement, it could accelerate China’s shipbuilding program”
Okay so it’s a little vague on exactly how good it is. Their main reason for doing this is that they apparently have 100 times the shipyard capacity of the USA but their bottleneck has been completing the designs for the warships in the first place.
China have recently been cut off from accessing the high end chips they need for advanced AI.
But anyway, they have lots of ships already. Once they get a few models sorted out they just need to churn out the same design in batches of 20 or 30. They don’t need AI design for each individual ship.
party_pants said:
China have recently been cut off from accessing the high end chips they need for advanced AI.But anyway, they have lots of ships already. Once they get a few models sorted out they just need to churn out the same design in batches of 20 or 30. They don’t need AI design for each individual ship.
Loose chips sink ships
party_pants said:
But anyway, they have lots of ships already. Once they get a few models sorted out they just need to churn out the same design in batches of 20 or 30. They don’t need AI design for each individual ship.
Is that what they do in practice though, or is each ship at least somewhat individualised?
Kothos said:
party_pants said:
But anyway, they have lots of ships already. Once they get a few models sorted out they just need to churn out the same design in batches of 20 or 30. They don’t need AI design for each individual ship.
Is that what they do in practice though, or is each ship at least somewhat individualised?
For countries that can afford it, building large ‘runs’ of a warship design can offer some economies of scale, so they tend to get built pretty nearly identical.
Which is not to say that some changes aren’t made as they go along.
Building the first few ships provides empirical evidence of improvements that could be made, and developments in the systems built into them (propulsion, environmental, armament, sensors) can get incorporated in later ships, too.
An example is the USN’s Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers. Various changes and improvements were included as construction progressed, leading to ships which are almost exactly the same externally (it takes a knowledgeable eye to discern the differences) being divided into ‘Flight I, Flight II, Flight III’ etc., but still under the same class name.
I believe there are already a number of programs that check circuits so I guess if Al makes an error this checking programs will find them.
captain_spalding said:
Kothos said:
party_pants said:
But anyway, they have lots of ships already. Once they get a few models sorted out they just need to churn out the same design in batches of 20 or 30. They don’t need AI design for each individual ship.
Is that what they do in practice though, or is each ship at least somewhat individualised?
For countries that can afford it, building large ‘runs’ of a warship design can offer some economies of scale, so they tend to get built pretty nearly identical.
Which is not to say that some changes aren’t made as they go along.
Building the first few ships provides empirical evidence of improvements that could be made, and developments in the systems built into them (propulsion, environmental, armament, sensors) can get incorporated in later ships, too.
An example is the USN’s Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers. Various changes and improvements were included as construction progressed, leading to ships which are almost exactly the same externally (it takes a knowledgeable eye to discern the differences) being divided into ‘Flight I, Flight II, Flight III’ etc., but still under the same class name.
captain_spalding said:
Kothos said:
party_pants said:
But anyway, they have lots of ships already. Once they get a few models sorted out they just need to churn out the same design in batches of 20 or 30. They don’t need AI design for each individual ship.
Is that what they do in practice though, or is each ship at least somewhat individualised?
For countries that can afford it, building large ‘runs’ of a warship design can offer some economies of scale, so they tend to get built pretty nearly identical.
Which is not to say that some changes aren’t made as they go along.
Building the first few ships provides empirical evidence of improvements that could be made, and developments in the systems built into them (propulsion, environmental, armament, sensors) can get incorporated in later ships, too.
An example is the USN’s Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers. Various changes and improvements were included as construction progressed, leading to ships which are almost exactly the same externally (it takes a knowledgeable eye to discern the differences) being divided into ‘Flight I, Flight II, Flight III’ etc., but still under the same class name.
Makes sense, thanks!
Tamb said:
captain_spalding said:
Kothos said:Is that what they do in practice though, or is each ship at least somewhat individualised?
For countries that can afford it, building large ‘runs’ of a warship design can offer some economies of scale, so they tend to get built pretty nearly identical.
Which is not to say that some changes aren’t made as they go along.
Building the first few ships provides empirical evidence of improvements that could be made, and developments in the systems built into them (propulsion, environmental, armament, sensors) can get incorporated in later ships, too.
An example is the USN’s Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers. Various changes and improvements were included as construction progressed, leading to ships which are almost exactly the same externally (it takes a knowledgeable eye to discern the differences) being divided into ‘Flight I, Flight II, Flight III’ etc., but still under the same class name.
Like during WWII Spitfires went from Mark 1 to Mark 14
FWIW the last of the Spitfires – the Seafire derivative – went up to Mk47. And that’s the one I’d get if had had a huge amount of spare folding as they used the more powerful Griffon engine and a contra-rotating pair of props, so no torque effect on take-off.
Spiny Norman said:
Tamb said:
captain_spalding said:For countries that can afford it, building large ‘runs’ of a warship design can offer some economies of scale, so they tend to get built pretty nearly identical.
Which is not to say that some changes aren’t made as they go along.
Building the first few ships provides empirical evidence of improvements that could be made, and developments in the systems built into them (propulsion, environmental, armament, sensors) can get incorporated in later ships, too.
An example is the USN’s Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers. Various changes and improvements were included as construction progressed, leading to ships which are almost exactly the same externally (it takes a knowledgeable eye to discern the differences) being divided into ‘Flight I, Flight II, Flight III’ etc., but still under the same class name.
Like during WWII Spitfires went from Mark 1 to Mark 14FWIW the last of the Spitfires – the Seafire derivative – went up to Mk47. And that’s the one I’d get if had had a huge amount of spare folding as they used the more powerful Griffon engine and a contra-rotating pair of props, so no torque effect on take-off.
Tamb said:
Spiny Norman said:
Tamb said:Like during WWII Spitfires went from Mark 1 to Mark 14
FWIW the last of the Spitfires – the Seafire derivative – went up to Mk47. And that’s the one I’d get if had had a huge amount of spare folding as they used the more powerful Griffon engine and a contra-rotating pair of props, so no torque effect on take-off.
I was being a bit pedantic & limited my reply to the name Spitfire.
Okay. They went to the Mk24 then.
Spiny Norman said:
Tamb said:
Spiny Norman said:FWIW the last of the Spitfires – the Seafire derivative – went up to Mk47. And that’s the one I’d get if had had a huge amount of spare folding as they used the more powerful Griffon engine and a contra-rotating pair of props, so no torque effect on take-off.
I was being a bit pedantic & limited my reply to the name Spitfire.Okay. They went to the Mk24 then.
Tamb said:
Spiny Norman said:
Tamb said:I was being a bit pedantic & limited my reply to the name Spitfire.
Okay. They went to the Mk24 then.
Yes, sorry.
I thought that it was that the Mk. 24 was the last of the wartime Spitfires, but later Mk.s were also entitled to the name?
captain_spalding said:
Tamb said:
Spiny Norman said:Okay. They went to the Mk24 then.
Yes, sorry.I thought that it was that the Mk. 24 was the last of the wartime Spitfires, but later Mk.s were also entitled to the name?
SCIENCE said:
LOL
LOL
This is still science fiction, but SF is worth thinking about.
Spiny Norman said:
FWIW the last of the Spitfires – the Seafire derivative – went up to Mk47. And that’s the one I’d get if had had a huge amount of spare folding as they used the more powerful Griffon engine and a contra-rotating pair of props, so no torque effect on take-off.
I read somewhere that, of the earlier Spitfires, the MkVIII (Merlin engine, 1,652 built) was considered by pilots to be the best to fly, even though it had an unpressurised cockpit.
There some info on one here:
https://aviationmuseum.com.au/supermarine-spitfire-mk-viii/
I’m not sure if it was this aircraft, or perhaps a second which i saw decades ago ‘out the back’ as the old Sydney Tech Museum.
I saw some large timber packing crates and frames, and asked my mate (who was giving me the ‘private’ tour) about them.
‘Oh’, he said, ‘that’s a Spitfire. Shipped out from England like that, never put together.’ I instantly started daydreaming about how to acquire it.
But, i never did. Now, the web page says that a Spitfire ‘was utilised at Sydney Technical College as an instructional airframe’. But, i have a feeling that this was the intention, but that it never actually occurred.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle in the early 1980s when someone was caught tryingto illegally send a crated Spitfire out of Australia, and i thought, at the time, that it had to be that one. That may have been to Sid Marshall getting ownership of it.
Anyway, there’s a WW2 Spitfire that’s probably got the least number of hours on it (without zero-rating work) of any still flying.
captain_spalding said:
Spiny Norman said:FWIW the last of the Spitfires – the Seafire derivative – went up to Mk47. And that’s the one I’d get if had had a huge amount of spare folding as they used the more powerful Griffon engine and a contra-rotating pair of props, so no torque effect on take-off.
I read somewhere that, of the earlier Spitfires, the MkVIII (Merlin engine, 1,652 built) was considered by pilots to be the best to fly, even though it had an unpressurised cockpit.
There some info on one here:
https://aviationmuseum.com.au/supermarine-spitfire-mk-viii/
I’m not sure if it was this aircraft, or perhaps a second which i saw decades ago ‘out the back’ as the old Sydney Tech Museum.
I saw some large timber packing crates and frames, and asked my mate (who was giving me the ‘private’ tour) about them.
‘Oh’, he said, ‘that’s a Spitfire. Shipped out from England like that, never put together.’ I instantly started daydreaming about how to acquire it.
But, i never did. Now, the web page says that a Spitfire ‘was utilised at Sydney Technical College as an instructional airframe’. But, i have a feeling that this was the intention, but that it never actually occurred.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle in the early 1980s when someone was caught tryingto illegally send a crated Spitfire out of Australia, and i thought, at the time, that it had to be that one. That may have been to Sid Marshall getting ownership of it.
Anyway, there’s a WW2 Spitfire that’s probably got the least number of hours on it (without zero-rating work) of any still flying.
Well I did not know that any versions of the Spitfire had a pressurised cockpit, ta!
It would have been handy for this fight over England, though I doubt they could have used the extra weight the system would add.
For Captain Spalding, one you may not have heard of before, the Dornier 217P.
“Do 217P
High altitude reconnaissance/bomber version with two DB 603B engines supercharged by a single Daimler-Benz DB 605T engine, in a so-called Hohen-Zentrale Anlage (HZ-Anlage) installation in the central fuselage, as one example of the Henschel Hs 130E had been fitted with, solely for powering a shaft-driven centrifugal supercharger. Three prototypes, plus three pre-production Do 217P-0 aircraft, armed with six MG 81s. Ceiling of 16,200 metres (53,100 ft).”
You know what’s truly heartbreaking?
In the early 1950s, the RAAF and the RAN (at the HMAS Albatross air station) would burn Spitfires as part of fire-fighting training.
When i first got involved with the Navy in the first half of the 1970s, they were still burning Hawker Sea Furies at Albatross.
Young and unworldly as i was then, my reaction was that ‘these people are f***ing mad! How can they do this?!’.
Spiny Norman said:
For Captain Spalding, one you may not have heard of before, the Dornier 217P.“Do 217P
High altitude reconnaissance/bomber version with two DB 603B engines supercharged by a single Daimler-Benz DB 605T engine, in a so-called Hohen-Zentrale Anlage (HZ-Anlage) installation in the central fuselage, as one example of the Henschel Hs 130E had been fitted with, solely for powering a shaft-driven centrifugal supercharger. Three prototypes, plus three pre-production Do 217P-0 aircraft, armed with six MG 81s. Ceiling of 16,200 metres (53,100 ft).”
captain_spalding said:
You know what’s truly heartbreaking?In the early 1950s, the RAAF and the RAN (at the HMAS Albatross air station) would burn Spitfires as part of fire-fighting training.
When i first got involved with the Navy in the first half of the 1970s, they were still burning Hawker Sea Furies at Albatross.
Young and unworldly as i was then, my reaction was that ‘these people are f***ing mad! How can they do this?!’.
Unthinkable now.
Spiny Norman said:
Spiny Norman said:
For Captain Spalding, one you may not have heard of before, the Dornier 217P.“Do 217P
High altitude reconnaissance/bomber version with two DB 603B engines supercharged by a single Daimler-Benz DB 605T engine, in a so-called Hohen-Zentrale Anlage (HZ-Anlage) installation in the central fuselage, as one example of the Henschel Hs 130E had been fitted with, solely for powering a shaft-driven centrifugal supercharger. Three prototypes, plus three pre-production Do 217P-0 aircraft, armed with six MG 81s. Ceiling of 16,200 metres (53,100 ft).”
Wasn’t previously aware of that one.
How did it go? Did it have cooling problems, like the He-177?
captain_spalding said:
Spiny Norman said:
Spiny Norman said:
For Captain Spalding, one you may not have heard of before, the Dornier 217P.“Do 217P
High altitude reconnaissance/bomber version with two DB 603B engines supercharged by a single Daimler-Benz DB 605T engine, in a so-called Hohen-Zentrale Anlage (HZ-Anlage) installation in the central fuselage, as one example of the Henschel Hs 130E had been fitted with, solely for powering a shaft-driven centrifugal supercharger. Three prototypes, plus three pre-production Do 217P-0 aircraft, armed with six MG 81s. Ceiling of 16,200 metres (53,100 ft).”
Wasn’t previously aware of that one.
How did it go? Did it have cooling problems, like the He-177?
captain_spalding said:
Spiny Norman said:
Spiny Norman said:
For Captain Spalding, one you may not have heard of before, the Dornier 217P.“Do 217P
High altitude reconnaissance/bomber version with two DB 603B engines supercharged by a single Daimler-Benz DB 605T engine, in a so-called Hohen-Zentrale Anlage (HZ-Anlage) installation in the central fuselage, as one example of the Henschel Hs 130E had been fitted with, solely for powering a shaft-driven centrifugal supercharger. Three prototypes, plus three pre-production Do 217P-0 aircraft, armed with six MG 81s. Ceiling of 16,200 metres (53,100 ft).”
Wasn’t previously aware of that one.
How did it go? Did it have cooling problems, like the He-177?
You know as much as I do, after reading the Wikipedia link. I do like the idea though.
Here’s another you may not have seen before, and it’s a good one.
Spiny Norman said:
captain_spalding said:
You know what’s truly heartbreaking?In the early 1950s, the RAAF and the RAN (at the HMAS Albatross air station) would burn Spitfires as part of fire-fighting training.
When i first got involved with the Navy in the first half of the 1970s, they were still burning Hawker Sea Furies at Albatross.
Young and unworldly as i was then, my reaction was that ‘these people are f***ing mad! How can they do this?!’.
Unthinkable now.
There’s a photo somewhere of a Qld airfield (Miles, i think), just after WW2, where they parked now-unneeded Spitfires.
Wingtip-to-wingtip, as far as you can see.
Spiny Norman said:
captain_spalding said:
Spiny Norman said:
Wasn’t previously aware of that one.
How did it go? Did it have cooling problems, like the He-177?
You know as much as I do, after reading the Wikipedia link. I do like the idea though.
Here’s another you may not have seen before, and it’s a good one.
I knew that they’d done such a thing, but that’s the most info i’ve seen on it.
The Swedes also had some recon Canberras, which used to give the Russians a ginger-up now and then. And the Swedes didn’t mind taking a look at Western/NATO stuff now and then, either.
I’d bet that the RAF’s exploit had something to do with the USAF emabarking on the programme which led to the RB-57.
Spiny Norman said:
captain_spalding said:
Spiny Norman said:FWIW the last of the Spitfires – the Seafire derivative – went up to Mk47. And that’s the one I’d get if had had a huge amount of spare folding as they used the more powerful Griffon engine and a contra-rotating pair of props, so no torque effect on take-off.
I read somewhere that, of the earlier Spitfires, the MkVIII (Merlin engine, 1,652 built) was considered by pilots to be the best to fly, even though it had an unpressurised cockpit.
There some info on one here:
https://aviationmuseum.com.au/supermarine-spitfire-mk-viii/
I’m not sure if it was this aircraft, or perhaps a second which i saw decades ago ‘out the back’ as the old Sydney Tech Museum.
I saw some large timber packing crates and frames, and asked my mate (who was giving me the ‘private’ tour) about them.
‘Oh’, he said, ‘that’s a Spitfire. Shipped out from England like that, never put together.’ I instantly started daydreaming about how to acquire it.
But, i never did. Now, the web page says that a Spitfire ‘was utilised at Sydney Technical College as an instructional airframe’. But, i have a feeling that this was the intention, but that it never actually occurred.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle in the early 1980s when someone was caught tryingto illegally send a crated Spitfire out of Australia, and i thought, at the time, that it had to be that one. That may have been to Sid Marshall getting ownership of it.
Anyway, there’s a WW2 Spitfire that’s probably got the least number of hours on it (without zero-rating work) of any still flying.
Well I did not know that any versions of the Spitfire had a pressurised cockpit, ta!
It would have been handy for this fight over England, though I doubt they could have used the extra weight the system would add.
The small cabin blowers were popular for supercharging drag-racing motorbikes and speedway sidecars in the 1960s and ’70s.
captain_spalding said:
Spiny Norman said:
captain_spalding said:
You know what’s truly heartbreaking?In the early 1950s, the RAAF and the RAN (at the HMAS Albatross air station) would burn Spitfires as part of fire-fighting training.
When i first got involved with the Navy in the first half of the 1970s, they were still burning Hawker Sea Furies at Albatross.
Young and unworldly as i was then, my reaction was that ‘these people are f***ing mad! How can they do this?!’.
Unthinkable now.
There’s a photo somewhere of a Qld airfield (Miles, i think), just after WW2, where they parked now-unneeded Spitfires.
Wingtip-to-wingtip, as far as you can see.
captain_spalding said:
Spiny Norman said:
captain_spalding said:
You know what’s truly heartbreaking?In the early 1950s, the RAAF and the RAN (at the HMAS Albatross air station) would burn Spitfires as part of fire-fighting training.
When i first got involved with the Navy in the first half of the 1970s, they were still burning Hawker Sea Furies at Albatross.
Young and unworldly as i was then, my reaction was that ‘these people are f***ing mad! How can they do this?!’.
Unthinkable now.
There’s a photo somewhere of a Qld airfield (Miles, i think), just after WW2, where they parked now-unneeded Spitfires.
Wingtip-to-wingtip, as far as you can see.
Just have to fly it back from Switzerland…
https://www.aviationtrader.com.au/listing/for-sale/163134493/1945-supermarine-spitfire-mkxviii-piston-military-aircraft