USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

Funding Next-Gen Air Dominance

—John A. Tirpak3/23/2017

​The Air Force is adding $100 million to its Penetrating Counter-Air or Next-Generation Air Dominance spending request for 2017, but the added funds don’t signal a change in the program, the service’s top uniformed acquisition official said Wednesday. Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch said the plus-up will be divided among a number of science and technology efforts “across the spectrum” of things that have to do with air dominance, such as mission systems, electronic warfare, and weapons. The money is “an investment on multiple fronts,” he said, to try to multiply the choices available to the Air Force and help it define what the program will be all about. Some of those efforts are duplicative, Bunch said, so “if they don’t pan out, we can go to the alternative.” The Air Force wants to have a new PCA aircraft available starting in about 2030. If the money isn’t approved, USAF will try again, but it will mean “a year’s delay,” Bunch said.

bobbymike said:

Funding Next-Gen Air Dominance

—John A. Tirpak3/23/2017

​The Air Force is adding $100 million to its Penetrating Counter-Air or Next-Generation Air Dominance spending request for 2017, but the added funds don’t signal a change in the program, the service’s top uniformed acquisition official said Wednesday. Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch said the plus-up will be divided among a number of science and technology efforts “across the spectrum” of things that have to do with air dominance, such as mission systems, electronic warfare, and weapons. The money is “an investment on multiple fronts,” he said, to try to multiply the choices available to the Air Force and help it define what the program will be all about. Some of those efforts are duplicative, Bunch said, so “if they don’t pan out, we can go to the alternative.” The Air Force wants to have a new PCA aircraft available starting in about 2030. If the money isn’t approved, USAF will try again, but it will mean “a year’s delay,” Bunch said.

Click to expand...

It seems to me if the US used off-the-shelf -todays- technology something could be fielded at least 5 years earlier and it would still be the best fighter in the world.

Pentagon directs start of potential new major weapon system program to replace F-22A
March 28, 2017

The Obama administration's Pentagon -- in one of its last official acts -- directed the Air Force in January to begin work on a new Penetrating Counterair capability, kicking off an analysis of alternatives for its Next-Generation Air Dominance program that aims to develop a follow-on to the F-22A Raptor, the U.S. military's marquee twin-engine, stealth fighter.

On Jan. 17, then-Pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall approved an Air Force request to transition the Next-Generation Air Dominance program into the acquisition pipeline, setting in place plans to consider launching a Penetrating Counterair (PCA) technology maturation and risk reduction program as soon as next summer, according to a Defense Department official.

The Penetrating Counterair capability is deemed critical -- not only to ensuring air dominance by the 2030s -- but also for the United States to maintain technical competitive superiority.

Kendall signed an acquisition decision memorandum, marking the PCA materiel development decision, according to the DOD official.

The then-Pentagon acquisition executive approved the project, informally referred to as a sixth-generation fighter, to enter the materiel solution analysis phase of the defense acquisition system and “initiating an analysis of alternatives to recapitalize the air superiority mission set created by the forecast retirement of the F-22A,” according to the official.

Kendall designated PCA a pre-major defense acquisition program and the office of the Pentagon's acquisition executive remains the milestone decision authority for the project, according to the official.

Significantly, Kendall did not direct the Air Force to consider restarting the F-22A production line as one possible way to deliver a new PCA capability, the official said.

The service -- at the direction of Congress last year -- is studying what it would cost to get the twin-engine, fifth-generation fighter aircraft production line up and running to buy an additional 194 aircraft. That study is not yet complete, according to the official.

During this early phase of defining a potential new major weapon system, the service sponsor typically conducts analysis and other activities that translates validated capability gaps into system-specific requirements -- which includes identifying characteristics deemed critical or essential to an effective military capability. The program is also to execute planning to support a proposed PCA acquisition strategy.

The Air Force has not yet made any decision on whether to entrust the fledgling PCA program to the traditional acquisition track or hand it to its Rapid Capabilities Office, formed in 2003 to bypass the traditional acquisition system, according to the source.

Air Combat Command -- which spearheaded work beginning in 2009 on a requirement for an F-22A replacement, blessed in 2013 by Pentagon top brass on the Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- is leading the analysis of alternatives.

“The NGAD AOA began in January of 2017 and will conclude in the summer of 2018,” a spokesman for ACC's plans and programs office (A5/8/9) conducting the AOA told Inside Defense. “The AOA will evaluate various alternatives for a Penetrating Counterair capability. Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability.”

The PCA capability was a central outcome of the service's “Air Superiority 2030” Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team initiative completed last spring, and effectively rebranded what the service had previously called Next-Generation Air Dominance 2030. That study was completed in April 2016.

Last summer, Congress approved an Air Force request to shift $24 million between accounts to boost spending on NGAD in order to keep the project on track for the January milestone review, a move that raised total available FY-17 funds to $32.5 million.

Then, as part of a Trump administration gambit to increase military spending in FY-17 above amounts set in law, the Air Force on March 16 requested an additional $147 million for the NGAD -- an increase that would lift spending to $167.5 million -- a hike of more than 1,800 percent compared to the service's Feb. 2016 FY-17 budget request.

What's happening with the F/A-XX USN aspect of the programme ?

Geoff_B said:

What's happening with the F/A-XX USN aspect of the programme ?

Click to expand...

Dead on arrival. The same dinner guest who informed me of the imminent termination of the then X47B effort, has assured me that absolutely nothing will take the 'Few' out of the F35s. They simply 'Will not now, not in 10 years, tolerate a potential airframe that cuts the F35 numbers down.' They will look at an electronic warfare effort, a low obersavable Growler (Which, rumour has it that Boeing are already well into testing of), but not an air to air platform. That's their 'red line'.

The days of a 6 platform flat top are dead and buried sadly.

Geoff_B said:

What's happening with the F/A-XX USN aspect of the programme ?

Click to expand...

The USN's Analysis of Alternatives started earlier than the USAF's (they started last summer). It is currently ongoing.

USAF’s Future ‘SiAW’ Strike Weapon To Arm F-X, B-21

The U.S. Air Force is moving forward with two new weapons for its future fighters and bombers, the previously undisclosed Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) and Small Advanced Capabilities Missile (SACM).
SiAW is an air-to-surface weapon, designed to “hold at risk the surface elements that make up the anti-access/area-denial environment,” the service says in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 29.

SACM is a miniature air-to-air weapon that will cost less and can be carried in greater numbers than today’s radar-guided Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles and heat-seeking AIM-9X Sidewinder.

SACM was spawned by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the concept is now being matured under contract with Raytheon, along with the separate Miniature Self-Defense Munition. The laboratory began speaking publicly about SACM last year, but with scant detail.

There has been no prior mention of the SiAW surface attack weapon, and the acronym does not appear in any recent Air Force budget documents or technology roadmaps.

Service officials tell Congress that both weapons are being supported and are “crucial to realizing the full potential of our next generation of aircraft.” SACM is intended for future fighters born of the Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA) program.

SiAW will arm the Lockheed Martin F-35, Northrop Grumman B-21 and PCA/F-X. Both are designed for high-end warfare against peer adversaries such as Russia and China, which have each fielded an eclectic mix of surface-to-air and air-to-air weapons designed to undermine U.S. dominance of the skies.

Click to expand...

Inside the Air Force - March 31, 2017

ACC considering whether moving straight to laser-equipped PCA is feasible

March 30, 2017

The Air Force's Air Combat and Special Operations commands are seeking to determine how to balance their efforts to put a laser on both a fighter jet and a gunship in the 2020s, as ACC ponders how directed energy might play into its Penetrating Counterair concept in the next few years.

Gen. James Holmes, the new head of Air Combat Command, said March 29 at Booz Allen Hamilton's Directed Energy Summit in Washington the Air Force is considering whether to pursue a PCA aircraft with an airborne laser from the start, or gradually improve the aircraft over time and add the laser onto a later batch.

"We plan to look at the technology that's available to us, decide whether just taking that and the stuff that we know that works would be good enough and would be better than what we have now," Holmes told reporters. "If it is, maybe buy a couple hundred, and then three or four years later, come back and update it again. We will look at our analysis of alternatives. We'll take a look at whether a laser weapon . . . will be ready, or whether it will have the effect that we want in that time frame, and we'll work through those questions over the next year or two."

PCA, a potential follow-on to the F-22A Raptor, is seen as a key part of ensuring air dominance in the 2030s and of surpassing other countries' technology advances. The need for PCA was a key finding from the service's Air Superiority 2030 study, completed in April 2016.

Congress last summer allowed the Air Force to move $24 million between accounts to fund Next-Generation Air Dominance, a previous name for the same project, to help it hit its January milestone review on time. That shift increased NGAD's total available FY-17 funds to $32.5 million. The Trump administration also asked for another $147 million for the NGAD in the FY-17 defense budget amendment, bringing the total request to $167.5 million.

Holmes envisions buying at least 100 PCA aircraft a year, and expects to make decisions "sometime in the next two to three years" about the needed technological maturity levels, requirements and how quickly to purchase the aircraft. The ACC-led analysis of alternatives is slated to end in 2018.

Holmes, AFSOC chief Lt. Gen. Brad Webb and other Air Force leaders will head to Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, this summer to meet with directed energy scientists and researchers to discuss how each command's efforts could complement each other.

The Air Force is purposely calling the aircraft the PCA instead of F-X because "it may not be what you'd expect to see in the sixth-generation fighter," according to Holmes.

"Will it be more like a fighter or will it operate more like an attack submarine does, of being really hard to see, really lethal when it's in there and operating in smaller numbers to get a smaller job done?" he asked. "Do we wait for the next generation of engines that will give it the range that we would like to have by bringing in a third airstream and making a fighter engine more efficient? What kind of sensors will we wait for, and one of the things we'll consider is whether we should go ahead and try to go straight to a version with an airborne laser on it or whether we'll go with a version prior to that."

The Air Force's upcoming light-attack aircraft experiment, which service leaders say is made possible by rapid acquisition authority in the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, will let the service practice how to field aircraft faster. Those lessons will come in handy when the Air Force tries to do the same with PCA, Holmes said.

No formal decision has been made about whether PCA will follow a traditional acquisition process or move to the Rapid Capabilities Office, ITAF reported March 29.

At the directed energy conference on Wednesday, Webb and Holmes expressed mutual interest in each other's ideas, though Holmes said AFSOC's attempt to put a 150-kilowatt laser on an AC-130J gunship could be accomplished faster because the aircraft is larger and slower than a fighter jet. The Air Force Research Laboratory has enough money to move forward on both projects, he added.

Success with the AC-130J is expected to smooth the path for eventually integrating a laser onto a fighter jet, a concept in progress under the service's Self-Protect High-Energy Laser Demonstrator, which would fly a podded laser on a fighter aircraft in the 2020s.

A 2016 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board study found AFSOC could field an offensive or defensive laser on the AC-130J, particularly in place of the left-side gun. Webb said March 2 that flight testing will determine whether the aircraft can handle flying with both the gun and a laser elsewhere.

AFSOC has $41 million budgeted for FY-18 to test the lower-power laser "that will prove the concept from an airborne platform to get energy on target and test the beam direction through the airflow/outtake of the aircraft," command spokeswoman Capt. Keavy Rake told Inside the Air Force in an email earlier this month. "The lower-powered, lower-cost proof-of-concept will allow us to get through the technical challenges and hurdles before bringing forth an operationally representative model that will be higher-powered and higher-cost."

AFSOC is aiming for that model to become operational by 2021, at a cost of $134 million to $138 million.

Webb told reporters Wednesday the gunship will also need a window through which to shoot the laser, so its beam is subjected to the least amount of vibration possible without diffracting energy elsewhere.

Having the capability to focus the laser beam with differing intensities over varying amounts of time is more important than the power itself, Webb said.

The Air Force and policymakers still need to work out when, where and how it is most appropriate to fire a laser, particularly in urban settings where special operations troops often work. Although the service currently envisions using directed energy against infrastructure and incoming missiles, Holmes noted officials need to think about "what happens when that laser keeps going" and when firing at a human target.

Holmes added the military needs to develop an effectiveness manual for directed energy so pilots will know how much laser fire will cause a certain amount of damage, and the situations in which it could be used.

The Air Force has prepared a directed energy flight plan to plot action items that would allow a laser to be fielded on manned and unmanned aircraft by 2030, and will explore offensive, defensive and ground-based applications, ITAF previously reported. Commanders across the Air Force are prioritizing defensive capabilities. -- Rachel S. Karas

"Smaller numbers to get a smaller job done"? What's the point of a new airframe if it's going to be smaller numbers than the already tiny F-22 fleet. Great, let's build 100 so that the cost amortizes out to $400M per copy.

I took from the context of the article that the smaller numbers he was referring to were for the initial "A-model" buy, i.e., no laser and less-advanced engines, to get the PCA fielded more quickly. The full ADVENT and DEW-equipped "B-" or "C-model" purchase would follow.

The messaging around PCA is hopelessly muddled. The Air Force is going to have a hard time convincing Congress to spend the money on a new development program, especially as it'll start just as the F-35 wunderwaffe reaches full production rate.

Is the PCA going to be a relatively cheap and cheerful replacement for the F-22? A proto 6th generation aircraft with amazing capabilities? Something else? The AF needs to decide first before changing the PCA's image with every other speech.

For what is sure , is that the F-15C will be soon retire and there is no enough F-22, and the F-35 can't take the air dominance mission so the PCA is a real rapid need. Good idea to start the PCA with classic engine and when the third Stream engine will be ready to put it on the PCA. I t will reduce the costs for the start.

I've been skimming through the interesting parts of the appropriations act for the supplementary budget of fy2017, and apparently Trump didn't get his increase in funding for NGAD. It stayed at 21M $. See page 237 of the division C pdf at https://rules.house.gov/bill/115/hr-244

May be we can expect a boost for year 18 :-\

Tactical targets: US addresses naval aviation challenges in a rapidly changing landscape

According to Rear Admiral DeWolfe H Miller III, director of air warfare (OPNAV N98), work is now under way to examine options for developing the next generation of airborne strike tactical aircraft systems in the face of the evolving A2/AD threat.

"To assure access in the future, the navy is exploring different solution concepts to support the capabilities required of the air wing and strike group of the future," he wrote in the October 2016 edition of the in-house journal Naval Aviation News . "The analysis is expected to generate much more information on the emerging capabilities of systems of systems. A myriad of operational employment concepts will pull out the cost/performance trade-space across the future carrier air wing. At the same time, detailed analysis will generate timely insights into the structural capabilities and limitations of current and future systems."

The process of assessing the capability requirements and associated gaps of the 2030's Carrier Air Wing Strike Fighter force started in 2009 when the navy conducted a capabilities-based assessment study entitled 'Power Projection from the Sea'. This analysis concluded that a family of systems would be needed to deliver the required aircraft carrier-based tactical aircraft capabilities of the future.

Based on those findings, the service developed an initial capabilities document (ICD) to formalise and frame an outline requirement to address the projected operational gaps. The resultant Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems ICD was approved by the chief of naval operations in early 2015 and validated by the joint staff in mid-2015.

In May 2016, the service began the NGAD analysis of alternatives (AOA) to formally identify potential materiel solutions and evaluate those alternatives based on cost, performance, and supportability. The navy's NGAD AOA is sponsored by OPNAV N98 in co-ordination with the secretary of the navy's deputy assistant for aviation. The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) is executing the AOA with extensive external support and co-ordination across numerous external organisations and agencies. The AOA is scheduled to last 18 months, concluding in early 2018.

"Over the past two years, the navy has been in exploratory discussions with research labs, research and development organizations and industry," said Rear Adm Miller. "Technical interchange topics include, but have not been limited to: derivative and developmental air vehicle designs; advanced engines; propulsion; thermal management; weapons; datalinks; mission systems; electronic warfare systems; and numerous other emerging technologies and concepts.

"Currently, the AOA is still considering the widest possible range of trades to balance capability, lethality, affordability, and survivability. Categories of alternatives include investing in follow-on development of current planned systems and platforms, modifying or upgrading existing systems or platforms, and developing materiel capabilities in the form of new systems or platforms.

"The AOA is also evaluating manned, unmanned, optionally manned, and 'teamed' options to fulfil predicted mission requirements and meet expected threats. The solution may be comprised of a family of systems across multiple domains rather than simply focusing on a single aviation platform. Equally important has been the detailed evaluation of techniques of operational analysis, cost and performance modelling tools, and simulation to provide traceable decision-space for leadership. At this point, the navy AOA team has not down-selected any categories of alternatives from the analysis."

The final AOA report is intended to provide USN leadership with a recommended solution concept or sets of solutions. "Down the road, the recommended solution concept or concepts will become more specific, with detailed requirements, engineering parameters, and system attributes for a recommended system or system of systems," Rear Adm Miller said. "The solution concept may also guide an acquisition strategy, programme plan, structure, execution goals, and timeline. For now, the analysis is focused on generating the best options for the navy."

The US Air Force is in the meantime moving forward with a similar study. "Although both the navy and air force are performing independent analyses, the efforts are synchronised," observed Rear Adm Miller. "The AOA teams openly share perspectives to functionalise interoperability, improve efficiency, and effectively leverage the knowledge base of both services. This includes the sharing of technologies, analysis, modelling and simulation, threat assumptions, and operational scenarios."

Click to expand...

FY18 Budget Request

...

Air Force details five-year, $4.5 billion plan for Next-Generation Air Dominance

The Air Force's fiscal year 2018 budget request proposes a $4.5 billion increase to its Next-Generation Air Dominance program over the next five years -- potentially lending momentum to the service's lengthy effort to develop a follow-on to the F-22.

The Air Force's FY-17 budget request called for about $20 million for NGAD and projected the effort would require only $12.8 million in FY-18 and FY-19. After signaling its intentions this spring to ramp up the effort through a $147 million reprogramming request -- which Congress ultimately denied -- the service in its FY-18 budget requested $295 million for NGAD and $4.5 billion over the future years defense program. The funds, the Air Force says, will support efforts to identify and develop capabilities to help the service field improved air dominance capabilities by the early 2030s -- including technology risk reduction and integration studies.

The Air Force has been laying the groundwork for a new air dominance capability for several years, after Pentagon officials approved a requirement in 2011 for an F-22 follow-on. Last summer, as part of a renewed developmental planning and experimenation effort, the service completed a study that considered the capabilities it would need to maintain air superiority against 2030 threats.

Through that study, the service identified a need for a penetrating counter air (PCA) capability, which aligned with the investment it was making in NGAD. The study called for a PCA analysis of alternatives, which is slated for completion in the third quarter of FY-18, according to budget documents.

The AOA is considering a range of capabilities, combining concepts like an arsenal plane and manned and unmanned teaming. The service has said it is not looking for generational leaps in technology, but rather considering new ways of pairing capabilities that can be fielded rapidly.

"The Next-Generation Air Dominance acquisition strategy is based on [a] top-down, multi-domain capabilities development planning and oversight framework," FY-18 budget documents state. "Cross-functional teams will conduct war games and experiments to quantify the operational value of alternative concepts and technologies to provide solutions to current and future air superiority capability gaps."

In parallel with the AOA, the Air Force is investing in technology risk-reduction and conducting integration studies for those capabilities, FY-18 documents state. The service plans to use the bulk of FY-18 funds to "further expand the scope of concept development and integration assessments and accelerate technology risk reduction activities addressing family of systems concepts."

The service will also begin concept development and risk reduction for an "air dominance air-to-air weapon project." The documents do not detail the project, but indicate it is part of the effort to further refine NGAD concepts and technology.

Following the FY-18 ramp, the NGAD funding profile projects another steep increase in FY-19 to $507.7 million and is slated to more than double in FY-20 to $1.3 billion, according to the FY-18 request. Funding would slightly decrease to $1.2 billion in FY-21 and FY-22. The documents do not list a total cost projection for the effort.

The service expected to reach a materiel development decision for NGAD earlier this year. The budget documents do not indicate whether the service reached that milestone and a spokesman did not respond by press time.

Click to expand...

The USAF has included an additional $177 Million for the PCA in its Unfunded wish list.

The UPL also includes $177 million for risk-reduction efforts associated with the service's pursuit of a new Penetrating Counterair capability -- $30 million for development activities and $147 million for ongoing risk-reduction efforts.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/air-forces-107b-wish-list-would-ramp-f-35-procurement-60-fy-18?platform=hootsuite

Click to expand...

When might we see technology demonstrators? Not necessarily YFs but pre YF types of technology demonstrators. Throughout the 80s there were various programs likemthe AFTI F-16, the F111 with the mission adaptable wing, even the F-16xl i think was part of the greater ATF program and the STOL F-15.

When are we going to see hardware?

Considering technology demonstrators will be a) Current aircraft testing new technology, which won't be anything to see and b)Something new being flown, don't expect to see the second group for decades. There are aircraft demonstrators and prototypes that have flown over the past few decades that we haven't seen and may never see.

If you're talking about the PCA itself, I would say expect to see something in the 2023 to 2025 time frame.

Sundog said:

Considering technology demonstrators will be a) Current aircraft testing new technology, which won't be anything to see and b)Something new being flown, don't expect to see the second group for decades. There are aircraft demonstrators and prototypes that have flown over the past few decades that we haven't seen and may never see.

If you're talking about the PCA itself, I would say expect to see something in the 2023 to 2025 time frame.

Click to expand...

So what will become of the F-22 when production of the PCA starts? Retired early or kept on for a few years? :-\

Why would the retire the F-22s early? The plan is to keep them well into the early 2040s.

Because every new generation of sophisticated system is going to actually cost less. I've seen a million PowerPoint slides, so I feel pretty confident about the assessment.

The PCA will definitely cost more than the Raptor, as it will be a larger/heavier aircraft.

I'm sure there is a slide that shows they'll save money on maintenance and operations in an amount that more than makes up for the higher acquisition costs just waiting to be shown to a congressman or -woman.

_Del_ said:

I'm sure there is a slide that shows they'll save money on maintenance and operations in an amount that more than makes up for the higher acquisition costs just waiting to be shown to a congressman or -woman.

Click to expand...

They always do - F-22 was sold that way too.

While spanner time might be reduced, I doubt it will have less software in constant need of update and testing. Support costs in software have more than offset manpower savings from more reliable mechanical systems since the 1970s. Of course, much software work is done in private industry, so allows reductions in numbers of uniforms, and less need for soldering benches to load into C17s for deployment is attractive. Swings and roundabouts, but overall costs seldom go down. That would require a 'cap' on lines of code and the degree of digital integration.

Haha Yes, I was just having a hard time keeping my inner cynic in yesterday.

Harrier said:

Swings and roundabouts, but overall costs seldom go down.

Click to expand...

The confound is that the software (in part) enables you to hit a vastly expanded operational envelope.
That does impose a cost on integration, testing and sustainment.

from "F-22A Raptor GBU-39 Separation Test Results" by Kummer et. al.

...

Where is the rest of that presentation?

Also, the A-12 rides again!

https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/aviation2017/videos/157603130

flateric said:

...

Click to expand...

Thanks. AWST has a clearer photo here:

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/skunk-works-unveils-updated-next-gen-fighter-concept

_Del_ said:

Haha Yes, I was just having a hard time keeping my inner cynic in yesterday.

Click to expand...

We all have those days...

F. I. said:

flateric said:

...

Click to expand...

Thanks. AWST has a clearer photo here:

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/skunk-works-unveils-updated-next-gen-fighter-concept

Click to expand...

Behind the paywall dang it!!

bobbymike said:

F. I. said:

flateric said:

...

Click to expand...

Thanks. AWST has a clearer photo here:

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/skunk-works-unveils-updated-next-gen-fighter-concept

Click to expand...

Behind the paywall dang it!!

Click to expand...

NoScript for Firefox to the rescue!

MihoshiK said:

NoScript for Firefox to the rescue!

Click to expand...

Rescue of what? Image itself is accessible without a subscription.
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/skunk-works-unveils-updated-next-gen-fighter-concept

...

Thanks. Citing your sources would be even better.

flateric said:

...

Click to expand...

Smart looking plane flateric, any idea if this will get built or is it just concept art.