4 ms·

(...) and now that we have balanced the defence budget we are able to confidently invest in these kinds of cutting-edge technologies. - The nano helicopter has

(...) and now that we have balanced the defence budget we are able to confidently invest in these kinds of cutting-edge technologies. - The nano helicopter has been developed by Prox Dynamics AS of Norway as part of a £20m contract for 160 units That's loads of money if they are not much different from toys/hobbyist UAVs. Do you think that those helicopters are just streaming video or is there some kind of software merging it all together into a 3D reconstruction (odometry?)? If not, what can justify this price?

arethuza 14y ago
I was amazed that they managed to do it for as little as £20 million!
hartror 14y ago
A hobbyist UAV is probably not weather sealed, hardened against interference or heavily tested under battle like conditions. These are assumptions but they'd be my requirements if I was specing this system. They also appear to be an order of magnitude smaller than hobbyist UAVs with video.
- Intermernet 14y ago
  I think you're probably right with regards to most of your points, but size is now fairly competitive (http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/preorder-crazyflie-nano-quadcopter-kit-10dof-with-crazyradio-bccfk02a-p-1365.html http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/preorder-crazyflie-nano-qua...). I'd love to know what the battery life is like though!
  - qxcv 14y ago
    Battery life "up to" 30 minutes according to preliminary specs. Impressive. http://www.proxdynamics.com/products/pd_100_prs/ http://www.proxdynamics.com/products/pd_100_prs/
boothead 14y ago
Nothing can justify it. The MOD's procurement system is a massive fucking hole that tax payers pour money into and get very little out of in return.
- afarrell 14y ago
  Oh hey, just like our DoD over in the US. I've heard that this is because once you get approved as a supplier, you have monopsony power. Anyone with experience in procurement know if this is actually the case?
  - mpyne 14y ago
    DoD does have large problems with procurement IMO. Parts of it are self-inflicted (e.g. by making it nearly impossible for a supplier to be "certified" you give existing suppliers the ability to extort more money from you), parts of it are inflicted by the government (e.g. various HR laws the gov't self-adopts in order to 'lead by example', requirements to buy stuff the DoD doesn't even want, etc.) But the big rub is that it's a very hard problem to tackle. There's already tons of rules and regulations to try to prevent the issue of corruption. Adding more rules makes the 'normal path' even less efficient. Taking rules away risks lots of graft in the 'worst case path'. And even if DoD somehow adopts a most-efficient acquisition scheme, it still has to get the prime contractors to become more efficient to actually realize savings based on this. There's only so many defense contractors to choose from for major acquisition projects, and from the DoD/nat'l defense point of view it's better to buy expensive kit than to stop buying at all for a few years into order to weed out the most sluggish contractors.

arethuza 14y ago

I was amazed that they managed to do it for as little as £20 million!

hartror 14y ago

A hobbyist UAV is probably not weather sealed, hardened against interference or heavily tested under battle like conditions. These are assumptions but they'd be my requirements if I was specing this system. They also appear to be an order of magnitude smaller than hobbyist UAVs with video.

Intermernet 14y ago
I think you're probably right with regards to most of your points, but size is now fairly competitive (http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/preorder-crazyflie-nano-quadcopter-kit-10dof-with-crazyradio-bccfk02a-p-1365.html http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/preorder-crazyflie-nano-qua...). I'd love to know what the battery life is like though!
- qxcv 14y ago
  Battery life "up to" 30 minutes according to preliminary specs. Impressive. http://www.proxdynamics.com/products/pd_100_prs/ http://www.proxdynamics.com/products/pd_100_prs/

boothead 14y ago

Nothing can justify it. The MOD's procurement system is a massive fucking hole that tax payers pour money into and get very little out of in return.

afarrell 14y ago
Oh hey, just like our DoD over in the US. I've heard that this is because once you get approved as a supplier, you have monopsony power. Anyone with experience in procurement know if this is actually the case?
- mpyne 14y ago
  DoD does have large problems with procurement IMO. Parts of it are self-inflicted (e.g. by making it nearly impossible for a supplier to be "certified" you give existing suppliers the ability to extort more money from you), parts of it are inflicted by the government (e.g. various HR laws the gov't self-adopts in order to 'lead by example', requirements to buy stuff the DoD doesn't even want, etc.) But the big rub is that it's a very hard problem to tackle. There's already tons of rules and regulations to try to prevent the issue of corruption. Adding more rules makes the 'normal path' even less efficient. Taking rules away risks lots of graft in the 'worst case path'. And even if DoD somehow adopts a most-efficient acquisition scheme, it still has to get the prime contractors to become more efficient to actually realize savings based on this. There's only so many defense contractors to choose from for major acquisition projects, and from the DoD/nat'l defense point of view it's better to buy expensive kit than to stop buying at all for a few years into order to weed out the most sluggish contractors.