Can Boeing build the best stealth fighter? From Sandboxx:




As one commentator pointed out the issue with Boeing isn't the technical talent (Of which it has plenty), the problem with Boeing is its' management.
Careful with Sandbox, they've been known for making rushed and poorly informed videos.
 
@Hanse : Savage was a big stubby airplane that would have taken a considerable place operating from the aircraft carriers at the time.

Neptune, as big as they were, did took the Nuclear alert mission from USN Aircraft carrier

iu
That's a test flight, I haven't seen anything that says Neptunes were a regular feature from carriers.
 
Images of the F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, released by the Air Force on March 21 when the program was awarded to Boeing, are mere placeholders and aren’t intended to accurately portray the aircraft, despite showing only a small portion of it, Air Force and industry officials told Air & Space Forces Magazine. The idea is to keep adversaries guessing about the true nature of the NGAD design.

The images show a stealthy-looking aircraft from its nose and cockpit back to the leading edges of the wings, which display pronounced dihedral, or an upward-angle. They also show canard foreplanes, which appear to be fixed, not articulated. No air intakes are shown.

Although many aviation experts have penned extensive analyses of the F-47 images, particularly of the canards—the use of which would be difficult to square with the notion of the F-47 as an “extremely low observable” design—they should be “taken with a large grain of salt,” an Air Force official said.

“We aren’t giving anything away in those pictures,” he said. “You’ll have to be patient” to see what it really looks like, he said, adding “Is there a resemblance? Maybe.”

A former senior Pentagon official, asked at the time of the F-47 announcement about the unusual canard and wing configuration, replied, “Why would you assume that’s the actual design?”

Sources said that, in anticipation of the NGAD announcement, Boeing artists produced images that already deliberately distorted some of the NGAD’s features, and the Air Force then further altered them. Boeing Defense, Space, and Security does not use any of the released images on its website and did not include them in its NGAD announcement press releases.

An Air Force spokesperson noted that the two images are available on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS), where they are labeled as “artist renderings.” An Air Force spokesperson said they are “free to use.”

 
As expected.

I still think it's going to look a lot like a cross between the X-36 and the MDD/Boeing Bird of Prey, once finally revealed. Which is kinda ironic, since those are both MDD programs, not Boeing.
And possibly a modified NATF-23 wing to boot. This may end up looking like a kick-ass aircraft!
 
To me, it sounds like the McDonnell Douglas merger was a bit of a good thing but mostly a curse.

When Boeing made the mistake of allowing the McDonnell Douglas management take control after the merger Boeing's upper management was corrupted by the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation corporate culture and Boeing became McBoeing. One thing that can be done this damage is to make sure that senior Boeing corporate officers come from the engineering ranks like they used to pre-merger and purge the MAC influence.
 
You need to elaborate, please, where they got things wrong, just saying the video was fact free is not enough.

No, I don’t.

I said nothing about the video being “free”. It’s not free at all and it is being monetized by the publisher. I would never characterize this video or any other by Sandboxx/FoxHole/ Boathouse Capital as free.
 
I said nothing about the video being “free”. It’s not free at all and it is being monetized by the publisher. I would never characterize this video or any other by Sandboxx/FoxHole/ Boathouse Capital as free.

Irrespectively you said the only thing he got right was the designation, what was inaccurate and/or incorrect about the video?
 
Irrespectively you said the only thing he got right was the designation, what was inaccurate and/or incorrect about the video?

Everything. But if you enjoy watching that kind of thing go for it. Just don’t be surprised if others do not share the enthusiasm for the… taste of it.
 
You are correct, I have not! I leave that up to everyone’s personal BS filter.

View: https://youtu.be/npJt_8nmadA?si=5PqE4HLiVWbJc14E


And that’s about where I am with this and related threads. There seems to be little interest in facts or truth so whatever I find or have to say will be… elsewhere.

That is not an answer, to use a legal phrase it's non-responsive. If you're going to make an assertion that a video is inaccurate then you need to explain why, you have yet to do so.
 
That is not an answer, to use a legal phrase it's non-responsive. If you're going to make an assertion that a video is inaccurate then you need to explain why, you have yet to do so.

I am under no obligation to respond or not respond. I have no need to explain why or why not. This is not my day job and I am not compensated for it.

I find it curious that you make these statements while posting Sandboxx videos. Sandboxx who has a history of ripping off research from this very forum and it contributors without attribution , citing sources, giving “reasons” etc.
 
Last edited:
How was that video BS?
Hypothesis:
"Can Boeing really build the best stealth fighter in the world?"
Thesis:
The engineers at Boeing need time and money to do it.

That's it.
This whole video could have been a sentence, because it can be reduced to mostly: "I don't know, but I hope so. Time will tell".

That's the whole point of the video.
What do you see of useful coming from this content? Because I'm curious about it, maybe there is something I'm missing.


Also, when just some 20 seconds into the video one can see this thing:
wrongSB1.jpg
How is anybody supposed to take him seriously?
 
Sandboxx who has a history of ripping off research from this very forum and it contributors without attribution , citing sources, giving “reasons” etc.

I am not familiar with this.

Hypothesis:
"Can Boeing really build the best stealth fighter in the world?"
Thesis:
The engineers at Boeing need time and money to do it.

That's it.
This whole video could have been a sentence, because it can be reduced to mostly: "I don't know, but I hope so. Time will tell".

That's the whole point of the video.
What do you see of useful coming from this content? Because I'm curious about it, maybe there is something I'm missing.


Also, when just some 20 seconds into the video one can see this thing:

How is anybody supposed to take him seriously?

This was more informative.
 
Also, when just some 20 seconds into the video one can see this thing:

How is anybody supposed to take him seriously?

One might say 'Pah, details!' However, I heard about a major rock group (Metallica, or whoever) who specified that there be a bowl of M&Ms in the green room with all the green ones removed. It wasn't them being prima donnas, it was a test: if the logistics people didn't read the instructions and follow them to the letter, how could you trust them with the cabling for all the lights and sound equipment on stage that were carrying potentially lethal voltages? Obviously the stakes aren't as high for a YouTube video, but if they make obvious mistakes where you can see them, you can be sure that they've made them where you can't see them.
 
One might say 'Pah, details!' However, I heard about a major rock group (Metallica, or whoever) who specified that there be a bowl of M&Ms in the green room with all the green ones removed. It wasn't them being prima donnas, it was a test: if the logistics people didn't read the instructions and follow them to the letter, how could you trust them with the cabling for all the lights and sound equipment on stage that were carrying potentially lethal voltages? Obviously the stakes aren't as high for a YouTube video, but if they make obvious mistakes where you can see them, you can be sure that they've made them where you can't see them.
I think it's called a Schnelling Fence.

A simple test to see if more complex instructions have been followed.
 
Hypothesis:
"Can Boeing really build the best stealth fighter in the world?"
Thesis:
The engineers at Boeing need time and money to do it.

That's it.
This whole video could have been a sentence, because it can be reduced to mostly: "I don't know, but I hope so. Time will tell".

That's the whole point of the video.
What do you see of useful coming from this content? Because I'm curious about it, maybe there is something I'm missing.


Also, when just some 20 seconds into the video one can see this thing:
View attachment 767328
How is anybody supposed to take him seriously?
Actually, the one on the far left is NG (got that wrong), next is LM (correct) then Boeing (got that wrong) on the far right.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom