- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
If there was a large award (like an X-32 or X-35), I think that would have shown up when the company that built it reported their backlog. This happened with NOC a few years ago which later lead the the speculation of the RQ-180. I tend to believe that this was a proof of concept vehicle (what Roper referred to) and not the result of a full fledged competition. I think that a fly off (digitally or with actual prototypes) is still coming.Do you buy that: with an overlapped AoA no less, they commenced a TMRR effort that resulted in a
full scale flight demonstrator in one year?
Yes.
I believe - based on following the funding, and things I found while looking for another program - that it is/was a small-scope technology demonstrator. Not at all representative of a prototype of a productized system (i.e. not a YF-22 - no exotic avionics, existing GFE engine). More like Bird of Prey, but (I believe) as much impact as Have Blue. And not something they could hide for long. I've also seen what look like investments in other areas to take advantage of the (coming) impact of the technology.
It's like going from moveable type and hot lead to desktop publishing and laser printers.
Thanks. I guess I'm thrown by "full scale flight demonstrator" since Bird or Prey and Have Blue were sub scale.
So I naturally tend to think of YF-22 or X-35. And maybe I'm parsing too closely but the term "prototype" was avoided
Historically and recently that term has had implications of residual operational capability...and operational testing.
Thanks. I guess I'm thrown by "full scale flight demonstrator" since Bird or Prey and Have Blue were sub scale.
So I naturally tend to think of YF-22 or X-35. And maybe I'm parsing too closely but the term "prototype" was avoided
Historically and recently that term has had implications of residual operational capability...and operational testing.
Thanks. I guess I'm thrown by "full scale flight demonstrator" since Bird or Prey and Have Blue were sub scale.
So I naturally tend to think of YF-22 or X-35. And maybe I'm parsing too closely but the term "prototype" was avoided
Historically and recently that term has had implications of residual operational capability...and operational testing.
At least as I know it, "sub scale" would mean reduced in physical scale. For example, BFF and X-56 were sub scale. The configuration was retained by they were physically smaller than the 200' wingspan "product" (which was a Lockheed QUARTZ configuration that had flutter issues).
Bird Of Prey and Have Blue, as I know it, were not sub scale. They were demonstrators validating specific things, but did not represent any larger product. They were small, and focused, but were not a scaled down version of anything.
If there was a large award (like an X-32 or X-35), I think that would have shown up when the company that built it reported their backlog.
This happened with NOC a few years ago which later lead the the speculation of the RQ-180.
No stealthiness about it. NOC did report a sharp increase in bookings and when asked about it by Josepth Nadol of JP Morgan, refused comment.
He (Joe) died in 2015 in a train accident while traveling home. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "before you would expect to see a sharp increase". Joe asked about the substantial increase in backlog and Ken Bedingfield would not comment. He was asked again about it, and would not comment. Speaking with Steve Movius after after the call, they offered no other comment about the booking other than to say it was classified. At some point after the reported increase in backlog, it was used to fuel speculation about the RQ-180 which, I believe, was entirely based on an Avation Week article on the topic (someone else may have speculated on it, I don't know).
Joe was killed in May 2015. If memory serves, the LRS-B contract was awarded in 4Q15 - maybe October. The LRS-B award was clearly made after Joe's death. Also, LRS-B was a 'white word' contract. This booking was never associated with any specific program.
Following cancellation of the Next Generation Bomber [me: in 2009], the Air Force continued to provide funding to
Boeing, Northrop, and Lockheed, under separate contracts for additional long range strike aircraft risk reduction
and cost savings efforts <redacted>
The initial LRS-B funding (in 2012) was $3.7B over 5 years and roughly $200M in the year it was awarded. The increase in bookings NOC reported (that I am referring to) was well in excess of the entire Obama administration request. While LRS-B was SAP, it was an acknowledged and White World program that required Special Access to work on. The booking I am referring to was not an acknowledged program and NOC made that clear.
I’ve looked at NOC revs since 2002 and I am not sure why you would expect to see a stair step increase if a booking was over a 7-10 year period
Could you please tell me how you know there has been nothing? Are you certain of this? If so, then OK.
Huh? I'm missing this. Long day. You made the claim there has been nothing in the intervening 12 years. OK, I'm fine with that claim. Are you sure about that? Do I take it that you would like me to disprove your claim?
I find a "plugged" delta winged F-22 way more palatable than an even heavier and bigger f35. At least there is plenty of excess thrust to offset weight gain with stock engines and its already setup for TV. But I am glad to see quellish agreeing about bird of prey analogies.This! Why be so secretive about lengthened 25 year old design? F-35 is fine for what it is but I don't think a f35xl makes anynsense for all the same reasons the 16xl wasnt pursued, I.e. a very heavy single engine aircraft. F-35already is in the same weight class as the f15.... The future of our usaf is an even heavier variant? Without rail launched 9x missiles? If that's what people are selling i am not buying. If its just a plug then we can stop building the 35a and roll right into the 35D.Can't imagine why you'd be so secretive about an F-35 fuselage plug.
And there are all sorts of contractual (e.g. data rights) and certification issues this would run into.
The lack of photos is indicative of something that needs to be hidden so as to prevent telegraphing like fluidic thrust vectoring and tricked out ir suprrssion.
Slight OT but personally, I think a fuselage plugged F-35 with an AETP engine would be nearly as compelling as Lockheed's proposed
40-inch fuselage plug for the F-22 aka the F-22E.
I think the larger issue is that the opportunity for industrial base competition/health there is small beyond the propulsion suppliers
and it's probably still entangled with data rights issues since I'm sure Lockheed has proposed/studied something like it.
I don't think AIM-9X carriage is much of a concern given where MSDM/SACM/AIM-260/Peregrine are taking us.
But I totally agree with your view that what they are demonstrating at scale is sensitive enough to be worth hiding.
I would love to see this so badBeloved piloted X-36
Its pretty hard to prove black aircraft exist as thank god there are loyal patriotic engineers in this country. This isn't like looking for the higgs particle or proving something is vacuously true. Its silly to talk about burden of proof given there is a long established history or black aircraft.Huh? I'm missing this. Long day. You made the claim there has been nothing in the intervening 12 years. OK, I'm fine with that claim. Are you sure about that? Do I take it that you would like me to disprove your claim?
Others are making the claim that something (specifically a bomber demonstrator and a VLO HALE drone) happened.
It's their burden of proof to substantiate those claims.
My point is: it's nearly impossible to prove that something didn't happen or that something doesn't exist.
That's the beauty of these "black aircraft" for those perpetrating them; they are plausible and don't typically violate the laws
of engineering and physics.
Have Blue was described in an AFA article from 1992 as sub-scale; 40% the size of what became the F-117.
Bird of Prey has been described as "sub scale" (don't know the origin) as in what they were testing was not at the scale of anything
that would go into an operational environment.
Its pretty hard to prove black aircraft exist as thank god there are loyal patriotic engineers in this country.
4. The NOC booking I am referring to was not LRS-B which had always been a white and acknowledged program.
USAF classified R&D and procurement funding was estimated by Jane's to be about $232B over Fy20-24, thats plenty of money to do black/grey projects on a large scale.
Have Blue was described in an AFA article from 1992 as sub-scale; 40% the size of what became the F-117.
Bird of Prey has been described as "sub scale" (don't know the origin) as in what they were testing was not at the scale of anything
that would go into an operational environment.
F-117 was a scaled up Have Blue, not the other way around.
I have never heard of Bird Of Prey being sub scale, it was a demonstrator for several different concepts and was intended to represent a notional daylight stealth platform.
" Engineers designed Polecat using 98% composites, aside from landing gear, avionics and engines, and it consists of fewer than 200 parts--all to bring costs down. They used an innovative, low-temperature composite curing process for the vehicle. Normally cured at 350F in an autoclave, the new technique relies on a 150F curing process that eliminates the need for investing in autoclaves. The composites are then post-cured. These are further iterations of processes used in the F-22, F-35 and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile programs. "They're not printing airplanes anytime soon. (Not the kind they want to keep around anyway.)
Hydrogen is a cheaper liftgas and you get more buoyancy .$7b for helium for a secret airship?
Hydrogen is a cheaper liftgas and you get more buoyancy .$7b for helium for a secret airship?
Never heard X-71 designation...