I’ll just say this:
You actually mentioned the Gloster Meteor in print for anyone to see!!
Would you like some pics of apples and oranges to compare while you are on a roll?
The fact you chose something like the very very very numerous Meteor and not something far more ground breaking in every sense like the F117 speaks volumes. The F117 didn’t do too bad for losses, especially when it’s considered that it did far more combat sorties in far far more contested airspace than the Typhoon has.
It would be nice if the RAF could still have a few thousand fighters of one type on the books like back in the Meteor days, but those days are long gone
Double quote as my point applies to both. The Meteor is more applicable as you're talking about novel materials, not novel design. Once you've got past the first jets (and the first discoveries of how wings and engines perform when they run hotter, higher, through more pressure differentials, etc), the chances of failure through material failure go down. Helped of course by better materials science, but empiricism is a good starter.My smileys were lost on you weren’t they?
As for your last point, it’s falling on deaf ears I’m afraid (especially as your point on Watchkeever has zero to do with a production method....and you know that already).
I’d simply ask you: if you needed new F16s quickly, would you prefer them more quickly, or would you keep to old production methods........
After all, you already know how to fly them, maintain them and use them
3D printing is fantastic for making something quickly. It's less fantastic if you care about the crystal structure of whatever you're making: to consider another of your examples, a wing root of fairly amorphous crystalline structure is significantly weaker than one that's been cast and cooled just so. It means you can replace the wing root much faster but it may need to be significantly larger or a different shape, which imposes design costs (in time and money) and possibly certification costs.
The same is true of composites. Composites would be fantastic in jet engines (relatively easy to work, cheap, very light) were it not for the list of things composites don't like corresponding very closely to the list of things found in aero engines (extreme heat, high vibration, hot oil, pressure differentials, sharp changes in pressure, requirements to withstand shock loading...). Marine gas turbines don't care as steel is (effectively) free and weight is irrelevant.
These technologies have fantastic possibilities, don't get me wrong. But they have some quite significant limitations, and until these can be overcome, you can't easily incorporate them into certain key parts of the aeroplane.