Now drop in politicians who change their minds every four years and it's a miracle anything gets accomplished at all.
Yes yes. I think we can now burry the debate b/w those who thought it had already flown or not.
Nah, that term's reserved for when Skynet/Genesis takes over.It makes me wonder if USAF pilots are going to start referring to the rest of their squadron mates as "disloyal wingmen".
Yes yes. I think we can now burry the debate b/w those who thought it had already flown or not.
Indeed ... the only question that so remains is: When will we get a first glimpse of it?
Yes yes. I think we can now burry the debate b/w those who thought it had already flown or not.
Indeed ... the only question that so remains is: When will we get a first glimpse of it?
And/or a glimpse of the one(s) who did not proceed beyond the technology demonstrator phase.
Imagine the scene in top gun at the bar and the R2-D2 shows up and steals your girl?It makes me wonder if USAF pilots are going to start referring to the rest of their squadron mates as "disloyal wingmen".
Yes yes. I think we can now burry the debate b/w those who thought it had already flown or not.
Indeed ... the only question that so remains is: When will we get a first glimpse of it?
And/or a glimpse of the one(s) who did not proceed beyond the technology demonstrator phase.
There will likely be (or planned) multiple demonstrators. Frank Kendall had originally mentioned "Demonstrators" when he revealed the AII back in 2015 ish. He brought that up again this week. If the entire digital push is to be taken at face value than its pretty safe to assume that multiple demonstrators (some full scale, some test bed) may be in the works or already flying.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDxz01GmO34
The only X-plane that would fit would be the X-62A, which is the old NF-16D VISTA converted with the System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS) as part of the Skyborg programme, which would tie-in nicely with the Loyal Wingman efforts.
They haven't revealed them. For all we know they're the XF-26 and XF-27 or XF-126 and XF-127. They may even just be going "Program Name" Vehicle 1 and "Program Name" Vehicle 2. He's most likely just using the term "X-Plane" in the sense that they were experimental demonstrators, not necessarily receiving an X designation. Having said that, does that mean we're at the YF stage of the program? That's a question for him which I don't think he'll answer.
They haven't revealed them. For all we know they're the XF-26 and XF-27 or XF-126 and XF-127. They may even just be going "Program Name" Vehicle 1 and "Program Name" Vehicle 2. He's most likely just using the term "X-Plane" in the sense that they were experimental demonstrators, not necessarily receiving an X designation. Having said that, does that mean we're at the YF stage of the program? That's a question for him which I don't think he'll answer.
The YF-22 and YF-23 were the very definition of prototypes. In fact, that's what the Y stands for; I never said anything about EMD.
It could meen that Boeing could be the builder of Ngad Demonstrator ?
No. More like a subsupplier like on the f22. I suspect no matter who wins, Boeing wins.
No. More like a subsupplier like on the f22
Not really. They were a blend of X plane and prototype. If they were true prototypes then the yf22 would have carried more then 4 aams.... The yf23 didn't even carry one. The 22 was far more production intent as is obvious.
fighter will have to be able to repeatedly find enemy aircraft and fire quickly – again and again.
Yes why we should have had 450+ F-22s. That’s aerial deterrence. Imagine you’re an adversary knowing you’d have to go up against multiple hundreds of them.
Actually, the F-22 isn't actually that great for the Pacific due to it's short range, relatively speaking. It was built for the European theater and for a supercruise aircraft it's fuel fraction is marginal. It's a good thing they're going with NGAD and didn't build too many F-22s. With the combo of NGAD and F-35s, we should have the tactical spectrum covered with aircraft that will both have excellent range capability. They can use the F-22s for defending the bases the NGAD and F-35s will operate from.
It may not be the asset for conducting offensive counter air in the Pacific, but it's still better than anything else existing for defensive counter air protecting Japan, South Korea, Guam, and the like, and it is still capable of offensive and defensive fighter operations in Europe as a NATO asset. Three-hundred more would be mighty useful, both in Europe and East Asia.
Yes, I still think the YF-23 was the better choice, which makes sense, because it shows I'm being consistent in my reasoning with regard to NGAD. There isn't an air threat in Europe we can't handle right now. Russia isn't going to invade western Europe. They may go after the Ukraine and we'll let them, because we aren't going to get into a massive war with a nuclear power. Just like when China actually moves to take Taiwan, we aren't going to do anything about that other than offer sternly worded statements, since our economies are intertwined. It's called living in the real world. But we are going to use a containment strategy on China and to do so will require long range assets. The F-22 is the past. NGAD is the future, and rightly so. They aren't going to really be defending Japan or S. Korea in a major war, because if such a thing happened, they would take S. Korea in a heart beat and all of the air fields in S. Korea and Japan would be gone in the first few days, so there wouldn't be anywhere for them to operate from. Hence the need for longer range. Guam may last a little longer, but you can only protect one base from so many missiles for so long. More F-22s would not have changed that calculus.
Short of an sr71 sized aircraft, nothing is going to take a fight into Chinese airspace.
