Where did that specifically come from? Lockheed Martin's own website? I'd want to take a look into that one
Yes, from thereWhere did that specifically come from? Lockheed Martin's own website?
Are you willing to share that with all of us here? Or are some of the stuff too classified to share it? Just curiousSince I started following miltech in the early 80’s I would have to store on a separate hard drive all the papers, studies and reports that include “Does America Really Need X….”
He's saying there's a lot of, "Does America need weapon X" articles over the years. Usually written by someone who knows little about the subject looking to attract eyeballs. Sometimes written by a competitor or even just someone who thinks the US has too many weapons (wouldn't be at all surprised to see if some, if not many, of these articles were funded by the USSR/Russia/PRC).Are you willing to share that with all of us here? Or are some of the stuff too classified to share it? Just curiousSince I started following miltech in the early 80’s I would have to store on a separate hard drive all the papers, studies and reports that include “Does America Really Need X….”
Depends where such articles appeared and who wrote them. A lot of non-specialist journalists are just not going to have especially nuanced understanding of pros and cons for particular programs. And given the scale of the US defence budget/ spending a degree of scepticism from some quarters re: the expense of/ need for specific programs is both predictable and almost certainly healthier than the complete absence of such scepticism.He's saying there's a lot of, "Does America need weapon X" articles over the years. Usually written by someone who knows little about the subject looking to attract eyeballs. Sometimes written by a competitor or even just someone who thinks the US has too many weapons (wouldn't be at all surprised to see if some, if not many, of these articles were funded by the USSR/Russia/PRC).Are you willing to share that with all of us here? Or are some of the stuff too classified to share it? Just curiousSince I started following miltech in the early 80’s I would have to store on a separate hard drive all the papers, studies and reports that include “Does America Really Need X….”
Russia Today's interview with Pierre Sprey on the F-35 comes to mind. If I recall, it was that specific interview that fueled the hype of giving the F-35 negative press and the interview that launched a thousand negative F-35 articles.Sometimes written by a competitor or even just someone who thinks the US has too many weapons (wouldn't be at all surprised to see if some, if not many, of these articles were funded by the USSR/Russia/PRC).
Nah, Sprey and his cronies did the same with the F-22 and F-15 before that.Russia Today's interview with Pierre Sprey on the F-35 comes to mind. If I recall, it was that specific interview that fueled the hype of giving the F-35 negative press and the interview that launched a thousand negative F-35 articles.Sometimes written by a competitor or even just someone who thinks the US has too many weapons (wouldn't be at all surprised to see if some, if not many, of these articles were funded by the USSR/Russia/PRC).
Not that the F-35 itself had no problems (Of course, all programs had problems), but that most of what the articles made following that interview were mostly missing the mark or simply incorrect.
They actually did those too? And yet somehow it was the F-35 that got the bad pressNah, Sprey and his cronies did the same with the F-22 and F-15 before that.
Just google, "Fighter Mafia" as it relates to the F-15.They actually did those too? And yet somehow it was the F-35 that got the bad pressNah, Sprey and his cronies did the same with the F-22 and F-15 before that.
Anyways, let's go back to Sixth-Generation Fighters before this goes too off-topic
I dunno, I thought it was worth sharingDo we really need such bottom level tech journalism examples with those hackneyed flatulent headlines on the forum?
“It doesn't mean though that this is an attritable type of platform, and that's been a common misconception,” he continued. “We're going to reuse these air vehicles, and the decision for risk and the risk that we will take with these types of capabilities will be at the mission command or at the combined forces air component commander level.”Air Force Fleshing Out Key Component Of NGAD Program
Air Force Fleshing Out Key Component Of NGAD Programwww.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Could be that they're promoting development of the aircraft to a wider audience, but still, isn't the NGAD still a top secret project, and that hiring is usually done in secret for such a sensitive project? Who knows which person with bad intentions may decide to join such a company to possibly disrupt the program or worse, give information to the enemy? I can only hope that security for the NGAD program is sealed so tight that such incidents are not going to happen, ever. Especially since some of the US' top secret stuff can be easily leaked by hackers (Or an average person on the War Thunder Forums) nowadays.Why they are "not supposed to do that"?
May be it worth to explore their site and portfolio?
My company told me I was interviewing for a civilian aviation position. Then I reported in on my first day into another world and another job I wasn't expecting. No explanation offered and none asked for. I quietly did somersaults in my mind when I found out i wasn't working on passenger planes.There are quite a few companies hiring right now whose ads specifically mention NGAD work (just check Indeed) -- SMA, Quest, CAE, etc.
It's not uncommon or very concerning, really. Opportunities to work on cutting edge projects are one way that companies attract top-notch technical talent. And NGAD has progressed to the point that the work cannot be done be small Skunkworks-style black team, which is why it is coming out of the black into at least the grey world.
So it makes sense for companies to advertise that they have NGAD-related openings if they want to attract candidates.
Project security is always difficult as programs get larger, but it's frankly just a risk that has to be taken. Obviously, it should be mitigated where possible through clearances and background investigations, putting specific aspects of the program into smaller compartments, etc. But the simple fact is that big programs are always going to entail these sorts of risks, especially in a free society where people can't just be assigned to specific jobs and can make their own choices about where and what to work on.
My company told me I was interviewing for a civilian aviation position. Then I reported in on my first day into another world and another job I wasn't expecting. No explanation offered and none asked for. I quietly did somersaults in my mind when I found out i wasn't working on passenger planes.
Seems you have to learn more what top secret projects really are and how people get job clearance. NGAD is not 'top secret' project.Could be that they're promoting development of the aircraft to a wider audience, but still, isn't the NGAD still a top secret project, and that hiring is usually done in secret for such a sensitive project? Who knows which person with bad intentions may decide to join such a company to possibly disrupt the program or worse, give information to the enemy?Why they are "not supposed to do that"?
May be it worth to explore their site and portfolio?
OMG! Just look here!*I just find it concerning that they're advertising a chance to work on the NGAD program like it's your usual job fair.
I suppose I do. But even if what you say about NGAD is true, it's still too wrapped up in layers of secrecy, so I still think it's a secret project, if not necessarily top secret, that's for sure.Seems you have to learn more what top secret projects really are and how people get job clearance. NGAD is not 'top secret' project.
cheers
Well I can tell you they had the debate on maneuvering and decided maneuvering its still important. Not raptor league but its still important.Please. Heck out this article
Piecing Together the NGAD Puzzle | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The Next-Generation Air Dominance family of systems remains highly classified. But some details are beginning to emerge.www.airandspaceforces.com
cheers
Where did you get this information? I'm just curious.Well I can tell you they had the debate on maneuvering and decided maneuvering its still important. Not raptor league but its still important.
I made a comment some time ago regarding this topic, Northrop may be slated more for "non-fighter type advanced programs". Northrop can develop one hell of a 6th gen fighter (YF-23 is proof enough). The NGAD fighter area could be: USAF 6th Gen - Lockheed, USN 6th Gen - Boeing. If Boeing keeps screwing up, then Northrop would probably wind up doing the USN 6th Gen. I think Northrop is being slated by the USG for advanced subsonic and supersonic/supercruising strike and ISR platforms, hence being the flying wing company. Also, have to throw in the unmanned aspects of NGAD for all three primes, let the games begin!Since Northrop Grumman, already has the contract for building the new B-21, i doubt they will participate on the NGAD program, but this is just my opinion.