No different to building in Blocks or Tranches - which we've been doing since the mid/late '70s.![]()
F-47 Fighter Program Could See Multiple Versions Built In Increments
Top U.S. officials that had a major hand in the NGAD fighter program say it was designed to be built in iterative increments, not just as a single configuration. Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Andrew Hunter discussed “Increments” of NGAD...www.twz.com
F-16 comes to mind. Later models were vastly more capable than the F-16As.No different to building in Blocks or Tranches - which we've been doing since the mid/late '70s.
No different to building in Blocks or Tranches - which we've been doing since the mid/late '70s.
No different to building in Blocks or Tranches - which we've been doing since the mid/late '70s.
And here i have my reasons to doubt.
While looking at commercial hardware and software is subjective, it is a way to measure relevant fields; we have no better way anyway. With this approach, there is little room for giving F-35 superiority; given how Lockheed visibly struggles with things that are rather normal outside of military, it's frankly a bit of discount even to expect J-20 to be equally troubled.
And the later we take the pairs(for example, for blk.4 F-35 that would be J-35A and J-20B), the higher my personal assesment of chinese capability will be.
Forget about economy of scale thenNo, they intend it to be very different.
Are those pop out lifting devices that you added? I'm not sure what I'm lookin at
The RAF did that throughout the 30s-50s. Development contracts and production contracts went to different companies as often as not. It's theoretically how the Russian system worked with separate OKBs and production organisations, the best example might be Flanker production at multiple sites, with KnAAPO and Irkutsk handling the export variants.The difference is that they potentially see different prime contractors producing the next block. I’m doubtful that is workable - makes more sense for a CCA - but we shall see.
A test program meant to pave the way for Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones took another step toward flight April 1 with the arrival of the last fighter jet to complete its fleet.
What are the second batch of straight canards ?
Their fighters are warmed over designs from decades ago. I hope they pull it off, and apparently their design was seen as more innovative. But their track record even on the defense side is not great (how hard is it to militarize your own airliner?!). That said, the F-35 is practically a guide book on how not to run a major program, so it’s not like LM was a strong candidate either.
The KC767's for Italy and Japan, were somewhat smooth. My Little Pony on the other hand, was notIt's bizarre since KC767 had no real troubles as far as anyone can tell.
My Little Pony on the other hand, did not
My Little Pony?
Air Dominance is Magic.My Little Pony?
Pegasus, KC-46. My Sr. Manager in BCA came from Long Beach where she sat next to the KC-46 support team. They all had My Little Pony dolls at their desks...My Little Pony?
They all had My Little Pony dolls at their desks...
How about Kestrel? Goshawk? Oops! A Goshawk is still flying.Given that the F-15 EX will be flying concurrently with the F-47, I don't think the USAF would name it the F-47 Eagle II. I don't believe there has ever been a "II" flying concurrently with its parent.
If I remember, wasn't that one of the goals of NGAD as envisioned?![]()
F-47 Fighter Program Could See Multiple Versions Built In Increments
Top U.S. officials that had a major hand in the NGAD fighter program say it was designed to be built in iterative increments, not just as a single configuration. Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Andrew Hunter discussed “Increments” of NGAD...www.twz.com
Normal this is Will Roper who make the NGAD program alive and flying demonstrator.If I remember, wasn't that one of the goals of NGAD as envisioned?
I remembered that the former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Will Roper, saying the exact same thing about NGAD, that its airframes would have an operational lifespan of 15-20 years before newer and more advanced iterations of the NGAD replaces it, given that it was supposed to follow the Digital Century Series acquisition program. I may not have remembered it properly, but perhaps the information was there in some of the articles shared in the NGAD thread.
Regardless, I heard that it was shelved sometime after Roper was out of his position as it was deemed unfeasible to perform, but maybe it was either reinstated or altered under a different name for the F-47.
Gentlemen, I am a bit dizzy, so my question might come off as abrupt and possibly off-topic. What I want to know is why some people refer to the B21 as a sixth-generation aircraft, and if there are many similarities or conceptual alignments between it and the F47?·······
If I remember, the former Secretary of the Air Force called the B-21 as such at its unveiling. But since this is the thread for the F-47, please ask your follow-up questions at the B-21 Raider thread.Gentlemen, I am a bit dizzy, so my question might come off as abrupt and possibly off-topic. What I want to know is why some people refer to the B21 as a sixth-generation aircraft, and if there are many similarities or conceptual alignments between it and the F47?·······
Yeah, Roper was the one who claimed that the Air Force already flown an NGAD demonstrator aircraft, so at the very least, a demonstrator concept was already out prior to Boeing winning the contract. It should be obvious that the demonstrator was flown to "demonstrate" how the NGAD works, and then from there, the competing military defense companies worked their own vision and version of said demonstrator, with Boeing being deemed satisfactory enough for the Air Force that they won the contract.Normal this is Will Roper who make the NGAD program alive and flying demonstrator.
Sorry, thanks for pointing out my problem.If I remember, the former Secretary of the Air Force called the B-21 as such at its unveiling. But since this is the thread for the F-47, please ask your follow-up questions at the B-21 Raider thread.
Assuming the dihedral in the F-47's wing is as it appears. One can't rule out the wings having a downward cant, similar to the Bird of Prey (although not as extreme in either direction.) Perhaps , if that is the case, a minimal amount of downward twist might be incorporated at the dihedral-anhedral "break" to create some induced drag to help with yaw. (Prandtl)Yeah, Roper was the one who claimed that the Air Force already flown an NGAD demonstrator aircraft, so at the very least, a demonstrator concept was already out prior to Boeing winning the contract. It should be obvious that the demonstrator was flown to "demonstrate" how the NGAD works, and then from there, the competing military defense companies worked their own vision and version of said demonstrator, with Boeing being deemed satisfactory enough for the Air Force that they won the contract.