Boeing will build the US Air Force’s next air superiority fighter
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Honeywell now claims to be able to provide 80kW of cooling as a drop-in replacement. That’s from the same Honeywell group head cited in the article you linked saying it can’t be done. Amazing what happens when a competitor (Collins) starts nosing around saying they could do what Honeywell had claimed doesn’t work.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Who merges into who is meaningless, from that perspective. I get the joke. I was just being pedantic.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
No one gets credit for PowerPoint (or slide deck, as the case may be) aircraft designs that never pan out. Unless you put something in the air, it doesn't count. Lockheed's response to the 1981 ATF RFI:
Last edited:
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
There were rumors (before the selection) that the B3/B21 would have retractable canards with the flying wing for better low speed behavior ala TU-144.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Think full self driving Tesla except with stuff blowing up around it and moving at mach 2 armed with lethal weapons (other than the craft itself), that's a recipe for blowing up a nursery school on top of a hospital, with a tank full of baby seals next to it, being watched by puppies; I also don't believe Elon when he talks about drones are capable of doing anything, maybe make my Model Y try not to drive off the exit ramp at 40mph, then call me about dogfighting at 1000... First off remember almost all drones that fly today are not autonomous, they are remote controlled with some autopilot functions in the interim. Some functions can be fully autonomous (like tanker drones) but combat is way too fast moving. Augmenting human pilots is way better. Talking with USAF pilots they mostly refer to the F-35 as a flying sensor platform that gives the human way better decision making capabilities (while surviving due to low observability). Most current drones have a human pilot just not physically inside, now there is an argument for the loyal-wingman concept (if we can make that work) as increasing firepower without risking more humans, and planes without pilots can pull higher g's and typically go faster as they don't require a cockpit that add weight and drag
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
I hate to go off topic but I recently used the Pinterest app for the first time and typed in Veritech. Some wicked cool mecha art
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Great link. Not sure who is downvoting you. Trumpers perhaps.
Upvote
-11
(0
/
-11)
I believe “family of systems” and that kind of very boring lingo is how military folks indicate they are talking about fancy modern stuff. They don’t just want a plane, they want a plug and play framework for air fighting.
“System”=“thing with computer in it” and “family of systems”=“the computers speak the same language.”
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Let me guess, were the records in cost overruns and late delivery?
Honestly I’d just wait… sounds like there are gonna be a lot of cheap second hand F-35s soon. Could just buy those up instead.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
An alternative for non-US NATO members who’d like their weapons to work in a potential conflict with Russia, and not have them shut down by Trump/Musk.
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
Yeah, NGAD started out as "Penetrating Counter-Air", which was supposed to be a high speed, very long range air-superiority fighter that could slip past China or Russia's outer air defenses, thin out their internal CAP, and cause havoc among their force multipliers like tankers, AWACS, and transports, with the end goal enabling the LRS-B (the B-21) to get in and out undetected. When it was decided that PCA was to become the centerpiece of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft "Loyal Wingman" concept it then became NGAD. CCA is the "family of systems": interchangeable relatively low-cost unmanned combat aircraft which can be slotted with NGAD like arrows in Hawkeye's quiver, except only if Hawkeye was cool and not the second lamest Avenger.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
Uhm... military aircraft don't need to look good. If oink kills the enemy, oink it is.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
I wonder if it will have a seat for a pilot.
They could not resist, could they? Chapter 11 to 15 of the design requirements are about the AI features, aren't they? Not sure we made big advancements in the other fields.
They could not resist, could they? Chapter 11 to 15 of the design requirements are about the AI features, aren't they? Not sure we made big advancements in the other fields.
Upvote
-9
(1
/
-10)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Yet Russian fighters rarely venture anywhere near the front lines in fear of being shot down. Even worse they can’t be based at airfields near to the front lines because of drones that might destroy them. With these restrictions they are only good to take to air shows.
Upvote
-1
(3
/
-4)
johnlsenchak
Ars Praetorian
"classified aircraft" means it was assembled and tested at Area 51 (Groom Lake) in Nevada
The truth is out there
The truth is out there
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
The jokes really do write themselves.
The oligarchy really don't have to hide the corruption, anymore.
The oligarchy really don't have to hide the corruption, anymore.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
I'm always imagining the "bird strike" scenario with that one. It looks like a giant Hoover for unsuspecting migratory water fowl.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Hey, don't knock aesthetics! They can be inspirational! And aspirational!
View: https://youtu.be/h31rSmU2OvY?si=wMdtMqcdnvUc2--d
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
Hey, don't knock aesthetics! They can be inspirational! And aspirational!
View: https://youtu.be/h31rSmU2OvY?si=wMdtMqcdnvUc2--d
Very good point!!! SpaceX’s cheaper, and more operationally affordable Dragon is more capable and far more reliable than Boeing’s more expensive and slower to develop Starliner. Icing on the cake is that Dragon looks amazing, futuristic, high tech, while Starliner looks like a 1990s upgrade to an Apollo capsule.
Too bad SpaceX is run by a Nazi fascist that is trying to dismantle the Federal Government though… that part is a bit of a drag….
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
The Geeman
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
With aeroplanes if they look good then generally they are good, (dependant on power plant) ask any aeronatic....
Same with boat hulls, if they look fair generally they will handle fair.
I'm not saying this is a rule tho.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Unless I am forgetting something, Boeing has NEVER been the lead designer/prime contractor of a supersonic fighter. They took over the F-15 and F-18 programs when they bought McDonnell Douglas. But those were already well established by the time Boeing bought MD. And they did some work on the F-22, but Lockheed Martin was the prime contractor. But I can't think of a single jet fighter in the entire post WWII era which was designed and built by Boeing from start to finish.
I really don't see this playing out well. I mean, Boeing has been building tankers for something like 60 years. And are now struggling with the K46. How do they expect to do something they've never done before?
I really don't see this playing out well. I mean, Boeing has been building tankers for something like 60 years. And are now struggling with the K46. How do they expect to do something they've never done before?
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
An old book I read on the history of Boeing, which was published years before the merger with McDonell-Douglas, did also talk about Boeing's competitors, including Douglas. According to that book, the rot set in at Douglas when the original founder of the company retired, and left the company to his son, who may or may not have had an MBA (I don't remember) but certainly behaved like one. He caused deep enough problems that the only way to save Douglas, which at that time made mostly passanger and transport planes, was to merge it with McDonell, which at that time made mostly fighter planes. McDonell, which was better run, effectively rescued Douglas. If this take is correct, then Boeing was the second victim of enshittification-by-merger-with-Douglas, not the first.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
You optimists! Only 15 years late and 74 billion over budget?
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
The F-22A program started in 1981 and entered service in 2005, if this program is successful in not being any more incompetent than that this will enter service in 2049.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Article should update with the public image. I suspect these are forewings instead of canards, the latter of which is ramping up in online discussion over
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
When the merger happened, it wasn't as if all the McDonnell-Douglas folk were replaced with Boeing folk, Stepford-Wife style. The culture of that company continued on in the BDS division, well into my tenure there. You're right about the Boeing name, but the actual situation is far more nuanced.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
2 important news from POTUS in the press conf: 1) Boeing got the contract over Lockhead, 2) "47 is a great number" ... ok one news then.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)