Or ...Oh cmon man the wings obviously signal variable sweep. Right???
Given the performance of the Iranian IADS, I think this is mostly a rhetroical point, but sure. Whatever gets it over the finish line.
There is no money for the contract award. Once the money is appropriated, if there's funding for F/A-XX at the levels currently being mentioned, they will move forward and award (one would hope so unless the OSD/Navy find ways to block it somehow).
Iranian IADS today isn't Iranian IADs 40 years from now.
That site should be embarrassed but I guess all they care about is the clicks.
I didn't. But even RealClear Defense was linking to them. I'd have thought better of them.
I wonder if LM is like the hot girl of the aerospace industry - but instead of recieving unsolicited d*ck pics, they recieve unsolicited next-gen fighter designs
Well, they got a couple from me when I was 14 or so...I wonder if LM is like the hot girl of the aerospace industry - but instead of recieving unsolicited d*ck pics, they recieve unsolicited next-gen fighter designs
People say one should keep a childlike sense of playfulness throughout ones adult life - I guess we got to see what that looks like in practice.
It did? Wasn't it a Dorito?
That was specifically for CG reasons around the direct lift VTOL method.
I was also thinking of such a possibility (twin-engine direct VTOL), and we already have a known practical design that brings the engines as far forward as possible - the Horten Ho-229, which is a flying wing, so the scheme is broadly compatible with stealth. Of course a supersonic engine needs some ducting for pressure recovery shocks, but I think the whole idea has some merit as you can add VTOL for not much extra hardware or complexity
With a straight trailing edge, suboptimal inlets and a couple other features that made it all in all not particularly low observable. IIRC MDD brought LM trying to salvage it at one point but they would have needed to redesign it from the ground up. There's probably something about it on this forum tbh.
I read a spoof article somewhere years ago (might have been Smithsonian Air & Space) about a 'B-3' made of several 5-52s stuck together. The principle was to give a radar signature so huuuuge that it would scare the sh*t out the enemy. It had the added advantage of space for crew amenities like an Olympic-length swimming pool.
MDD brought in NG to review, analyze, and determine what was needed to salvage the A12 effort. Our report back was to start over. Short version.
We did have a couple nice A/F-X designs though which would have done the trick including our original ATA design.
But did NAVAIR realize this outcome through an internal assessment? I personally believe that NAVAIR made a huge mistake with the ATA project, leading to two very serious consequences: 1. A huge amount of money was wasted on ATA; 2. Since the retirement of the A-6, the aircraft carrier has lost its professional long-range strike capability, especially after the retirement of the F-14 bombcat. I am very puzzled as to why NAVAIR simply canceled the ATA project instead of re-bidding for it.
No money. Maintaining shipbuilding is a greater priority. The budget cuts after 1990 were fairly large. Maintaining and operating the existing fleet of ships consumes most of the shrinking budget.
Peace dividend killed it.
Until they actually announce a winner it's just talk.
Not to rage bait, but I would laugh SO HARD if the F-47 comes out with "beefier landing gear" as the F/A-XX. I don't want this, but would be worth a chuckle.
Hey,where have I heard this before
