If people want to believe there is already a NGAD flying then go on and believe...and prepare to be disappointed.
Exactly. for instance one could classify the Lockheed Martin CATBird as a "full-scale flight demonstrator" and yet if you think that is representative of what the F-35 is other than the systems/software than you are going to be seriously disappointed. The same goes for the reporting here I believe. People are wanting to see things that simply aren't there.It's more likely that they've flown a systems demonstrator than an actual NGAD prototype.
By the way, I can also point out to the following from the same individual:
Roper revealed to Defense News his thinking for how the program might work:
- Put at least two manufacturers on contract to design a fighter jet. These could include the existing companies capable of building combat aircraft — Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — as well as new entrants that could bring a unique technology to the table.
- Have each company create a hyper-realistic “digital twin” of its fighter design using advanced 3D modeling. Use those models to run myriad simulations of how production and sustainment could occur, hypothetically optimizing both and reducing cost and labor hours.
- Award a contract to a single fighter manufacturer for an initial batch of aircraft. Roper said that industry could build about a squadron’s worth of airplanes per year, or about 24 aircraft. Include options in the contract for additional batches of aircraft. Air Combat Command leadership has told Roper that 72 aircraft — about the number of aircraft in a typical Air Force wing — would be a viable amount for normal operations.
- While that vendor begins production, restart the competition, putting other companies on contract to begin designing the next aircraft.
I hate to throw water on hopes and dreams, but rest assurd none of the promotional art is representative of the actual designs. They may have elements of the future design but that is about it. If I was going to hang my hat on anything, the oooppppss where a pole model was seen on a truck outside of Helendale may be more representative than any art to date. Remember we are discussing what is probably a special access program. I will more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary because I hope that I am wrong. Like all of you, I would like to believe the art has more validity than what I believe to be.so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.
I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.
Yes and No, remember the B-21 art before the official presentation , it was like the first art of B-21 and it was a special access program too...I hate to throw water on hopes and dreams, but rest assurd none of the promotional art is representative of the actual designs. They may have elements of the future design but that is about it. If I was going to hang my hat on anything, the oooppppss where a pole model was seen on a truck outside of Helendale may be more representative than any art to date. Remember we are discussing what is probably a special access program. I will more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary because I hope that I am wrong. Like all of you, I would like to believe the art has more validity than what I believe to be.so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.
I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.
Keep in mind, the art released for the B-21 was driven by DoD post contract award after construction was well underway. Concerning NGAD, pretty much everything to date are "look what we are going to do" advertising releases by the contractors. With all of that said, I hope you are right, but I would bet against it.Yes and No, remember the B-21 art before the official presentation , it was like the first art of B-21 and it was a special access program too...I hate to throw water on hopes and dreams, but rest assurd none of the promotional art is representative of the actual designs. They may have elements of the future design but that is about it. If I was going to hang my hat on anything, the oooppppss where a pole model was seen on a truck outside of Helendale may be more representative than any art to date. Remember we are discussing what is probably a special access program. I will more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary because I hope that I am wrong. Like all of you, I would like to believe the art has more validity than what I believe to be.so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.
I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.
Roper also said within the same breath "We still have to make it real."
There might well be a subscale technological demonstrator flying but its not going to be a NGAD any more than XST was an F-117 or than the X-29 or X-31 showed what ATF and JAST might be.
Keep in mind, the art released for the B-21 was driven by DoD post contract award after construction was well underway. Concerning NGAD, pretty much everything to date are "look what we are going to do" advertising releases by the contractors. With all of that said, I hope you are right, but I would bet against it.Yes and No, remember the B-21 art before the official presentation , it was like the first art of B-21 and it was a special access program too...I hate to throw water on hopes and dreams, but rest assurd none of the promotional art is representative of the actual designs. They may have elements of the future design but that is about it. If I was going to hang my hat on anything, the oooppppss where a pole model was seen on a truck outside of Helendale may be more representative than any art to date. Remember we are discussing what is probably a special access program. I will more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary because I hope that I am wrong. Like all of you, I would like to believe the art has more validity than what I believe to be.so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.
I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.
Kendall said NGAD’s origins date back to the Obama administration, when he in his previous role as the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics asked the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to study what the Air Force would need to ensure it could dominate the skies in a future war.
DARPA’s response, Kendall said, was that the service didn’t just need a lone fighter — it needed a “family of systems,” also encompassing weapons, connections to assets in space, and possibly autonomous drone wingmen.
Kendall then launched a program called the Aerospace Innovation Initiative to start to develop technologies that would form the core of a sixth-generation fighter. That effort led to the creation of experimental prototype aircraft, which Kendall called X-planes, to flesh out those technologies and prove they can work.
Advancements in model-based systems engineering and digitalization also made it possible for both government and contractor design teams to work together much more efficiently, he said.
They don't even have an engine for it yet.If people want to believe there is already a NGAD flying then go on and believe...and prepare to be disappointed.
You'll note they didn't fly the YF-22/YF-23 on F100s. Or the F-15 on J79s, etc.It was very sad the the EAP and Rafale A had to wait for the EJ200 and M88 to fly
And they flew the X-32 and X-35 with an F119, the point stands. Having a final engine design isn’t necessarily a show stopper for a tech demonstrator.You'll note they didn't fly the YF-22/YF-23 on F100s. Or the F-15 on J79s, etc.It was very sad the the EAP and Rafale A had to wait for the EJ200 and M88 to fly
It said "F119" on the tag but that's where the similarity ended.And they flew the X-32 and X-35 with an F119, the point stands. Having a final engine design isn’t necessarily a show stopper for a tech demonstrator.You'll note they didn't fly the YF-22/YF-23 on F100s. Or the F-15 on J79s, etc.It was very sad the the EAP and Rafale A had to wait for the EJ200 and M88 to fly
Should tune down the polemic around the flying test beds:
Kendall said NGAD’s origins date back to the Obama administration, when he in his previous role as the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics asked the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to study what the Air Force would need to ensure it could dominate the skies in a future war.
DARPA’s response, Kendall said, was that the service didn’t just need a lone fighter — it needed a “family of systems,” also encompassing weapons, connections to assets in space, and possibly autonomous drone wingmen.
Kendall then launched a program called the Aerospace Innovation Initiative to start to develop technologies that would form the core of a sixth-generation fighter. That effort led to the creation of experimental prototype aircraft, which Kendall called X-planes, to flesh out those technologies and prove they can work.
Advancements in model-based systems engineering and digitalization also made it possible for both government and contractor design teams to work together much more efficiently, he said.
A nice read for plenty other aspect b/w
US Air Force wants to avoid F-35 mistakes on sixth-gen fighter
The Air Force plans to award a contract to a vendor to build its Next Generation Air Dominance fighter in 2024.www.defensenews.com
Anybody who has been around here long enough knows that the aircraft that were flown were the result of a DARPA initiative started around 2014/ 2015 to rapidly fly two advanced fighter configurations that would demonstrate advanced fighter technologies. They were not meant to be production aircraft. However, the technologies they demonstrated are intended for NGAD. NGAD itself has not flown. As has been noted up thread, the engines for it aren't even ready yet.
If they are taking about only one company for building the NGAD, are they referring to the F-X for the Air Force, or to the FA-XX for the Navy? i always thought that the NGAD mean an new fighter to replace the F-22, and a new naval fighter to replace the F-18, so two fighters not just one, and i doubt one company can build the two.Anybody who has been around here long enough knows that the aircraft that were flown were the result of a DARPA initiative started around 2014/ 2015 to rapidly fly two advanced fighter configurations that would demonstrate advanced fighter technologies. They were not meant to be production aircraft. However, the technologies they demonstrated are intended for NGAD. NGAD itself has not flown. As has been noted up thread, the engines for it aren't even ready yet.
Of course the true 'NGAD' itself has not yet flown, the EMD-contract is not yet awarded. Unless you regard e.g. an YF-22 or an YF-23 as an 'F-22A' (first flight 1997), or an X-32 or an X-35 as an 'F-35A', an 'F-35B' or an 'F-35C'.
If they are taking about only one company for building the NGAD, are they referring to the F-X for the Air Force, or to the FA-XX for the Navy? i always thought that the NGAD mean an new fighter to replace the F-22, and a new naval fighter to replace the F-18, so two fighters not just one, and i doubt one company can build the two.Anybody who has been around here long enough knows that the aircraft that were flown were the result of a DARPA initiative started around 2014/ 2015 to rapidly fly two advanced fighter configurations that would demonstrate advanced fighter technologies. They were not meant to be production aircraft. However, the technologies they demonstrated are intended for NGAD. NGAD itself has not flown. As has been noted up thread, the engines for it aren't even ready yet.
Of course the true 'NGAD' itself has not yet flown, the EMD-contract is not yet awarded. Unless you regard e.g. an YF-22 or an YF-23 as an 'F-22A' (first flight 1997), or an X-32 or an X-35 as an 'F-35A', an 'F-35B' or an 'F-35C'.
They don't even have an engine for it yet.If people want to believe there is already a NGAD flying then go on and believe...and prepare to be disappointed.
They haven't even awarded the contract to build the airframe. How would they have had one flying years ago anyway?
Looking back to make some things clearThey haven't even awarded the contract to build the airframe. How would they have had one flying years ago anyway?
Because they (Roper) made it public. (But maybe he is a liar, I can´t exclude that possibility.)
And one doesn´t need an EMD-contract to build an X-plane or a 'full-scale flying demonstrator'.
YF-23 first flight: August 27, 1990
YF-22 first flight: September 29, 1990
YF-22 declared winner of the ATF fly-off: April 23, 1991
F-22 EMD-contract awarded by the USAF to the Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics team: August 8, 1991
If Roper is not a liar, the 'full-scale flying demonstrator' he talked about back in 2020 could be...
A) something like the F-15 SMTD (first flight Sept. 7, 1988) was to the ATF/F-22 program
B) something like the X-31 (first flight Oct. 11, 1990) was to the ATF/F22 program
C) something like 'Tacit Blue' was to the B-2 program
D) something like 'Have Blue' was to the F-117 program
E) something like Boeing´s 'Bird of Prey' was to ... can´t remember.
F) something like a full-grown/scale X-36 would have been to ... can´t remember.
G) something like the X-32 and X-35 were to the JSF/F-35 program
All are possible, but I hope it is D, E, F or G. And I could live with B or C.
Maybe they had in mind (a very few years ago) to move on to EMD sooner, and that got postponed when it was decided not to use the iterative 'digital centuries approach' with the airframe?
Anyway, if there going to award an EMD-contract (late) next year, I´d guess a 'representative demonstrator' (YF-22/23 or X-32/35 style) would fly before the end of the year, unless something that already came/flew earlier already proved/confirmed in the real world all they want to see/get confirmed.
.. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-504307Teams will compete to produce the X-plane prototypes, one focused on future Navy operational capabilities and the other on future Air Force operational capabilities. The X-planes will not be Engineering, Manufacturing and Development prototypes or have residual operational capabilities.
Looking back to make some things clear
.. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-504307Teams will compete to produce the X-plane prototypes, one focused on future Navy operational capabilities and the other on future Air Force operational capabilities. The X-planes will not be Engineering, Manufacturing and Development prototypes or have residual operational capabilities.
That leaves B, D, E & F as the only possibilities (Tacit Blue was related to BSAX and would have entered service as ISR plattfrom had it not been canned due to some strange reason.
Looking back to make some things clear
.. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-504307Teams will compete to produce the X-plane prototypes, one focused on future Navy operational capabilities and the other on future Air Force operational capabilities. The X-planes will not be Engineering, Manufacturing and Development prototypes or have residual operational capabilities.
That leaves B, D, E & F as the only possibilities (Tacit Blue was related to BSAX and would have entered service as ISR plattfrom had it not been canned due to some strange reason.
Thanks! I had completely forgotten about the most important part, silly me...
Also for info on BSAX - TC, I didn´t know about that yet. (Or anymore? )
Of course this solicitation has brought out the usual crazies - such as this posting on LinkedIn:
View attachment 700208
THIS IS TOTALLY FICTIONAL BS INCLUDED IN THIS THREAD ONLY FOR THE LAUGH OR TO MAKE YOU ROLL YOU EYES.
They have a terrible track record for delivering either on time or on budget as of late. Apparently, that kind of thing played a part in the YF-23 losing.Will Boeing do the unthinkable and win a fighter program? From what I have seen of the designs I think that they just might, after not winning the JSF competition I think that Boeing has a strong contender this time round.
Of course this solicitation has brought out the usual crazies - such as this posting on LinkedIn:
View attachment 700208
THIS IS TOTALLY FICTIONAL BS INCLUDED IN THIS THREAD ONLY FOR THE LAUGH OR TO MAKE YOU ROLL YOU EYES.