USAF has built a mystery full scale prototype of its future fighter

Any thoughts that the USAF is claiming it has built and flown a future fighter (imagine its sixth or seventh generation).






I guess Groom Lake has been busier than usual, but here’s a funny thing the B-21 Raider program seems to release updates from time to time even what the damn thing supposedly looks (Artists / CGI Impression) like parked next to a B-2 or parked in a hangar at either Ellsworth AFb etc. But this revelation is whiskey tango foxtrot.

Also begs the question who the hell is involvEd in it... Boeing , L-M??


cheers
 
Last edited:
This is a genuinely interesting and possibly game changing way of doing things.

Circa 12 months from design to demonstrator of a new combat jet? Discussion of a new jet series every 8 years and replacing them every 3500 flying hours? BAe are going to sh!t themselves...
 

aardvark64

War Hero
Although it’ll take them 15 years hears between identifying the need to do so and actually producing something...
That's almost unfair on BAES: we all know who else has difficulty expressing their needs in unambiguous terms...
 
Easy to say "we can produce a new one every 12 months" but how much is reused from previous projects and how much is brand new?
 
Easy to say "we can produce a new one every 12 months" but how much is reused from previous projects and how much is brand new?
who cares?

If you're on a relatively quick turn-over cycle its all about incremental gains and changes, not big bang steps forward.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
This is a genuinely interesting and possibly game changing way of doing things.

Circa 12 months from design to demonstrator of a new combat jet? Discussion of a new jet series every 8 years and replacing them every 3500 flying hours? BAe are going to sh!t themselves...
Massively compressing the design cycle is an aspect of the Tempest programme. BAE are already on the page.
 
Massively compressing the design cycle is an aspect of the Tempest programme. BAE are already on the page.
I'm sure they are.

Remind me, is Tempest flying yet?
 
When did the US programme start and how much resource have they thrown at it? The point still stands that BAE is the earliest of adopters of newer design and development techniques.
Pass, don't care.

BAe don't have a flying aircraft.
 

aardvark64

War Hero
Pass, don't care.

BAe don't have a flying aircraft.
Nor do the Americans, if you read the article more carefully.

They do have a full-size (scaled) model, but it's not a prototype in the sense you or I would understand. Playing the same game, I can assert that BAES have scale models of Tempest flying already, but so what? There's nothing in the public domnain that I would care to offer on this forum.

My reading is that someone like General Atomics or LM-Skunkworks has made and flown a capability demonstrator, on the back of the CADCAM processes that Northrop Grumman used for the early B2s. Anyone recall that those beasts were also build-to-print from digital design processes? Still took plenty of fettling on the production line, though.

It's just a press release. This smacks to me more of Trump trying to out-play the Russians and Chinese at their own game: promising more and more capability into the near future. Get them worried and try and out-spend them as per Reagan 'Star Wars' years.

TL; DR?

Don't believe everything you read on the internet....
 
It's a two-fold issue.

The first part of it is to quickly develop a requirement that highlights the cardinal points of what you want to do in terms of performance, without writing a requirement for unobtanium. One of the biggest delaying factors in our system is spending (literally) years writing requirements across all DLoDs, harmonising them to the Nth degree across the joint force (backed up with extensive operational analysis) adding the latest safety and environmentally compliant features and then justifying them ad nauseum. Done properly, it's a valuable activity, but it does appear to have become an end in itself.

The second bit is to only do development when it's justified by the requirement. A new programme should not be an excuse to develop a new system because it has a budget. Should only be developmental if it allows you to hit the requirement (when you currently can't) - or if it genuinely offers operational savings in cost. Design can actually be quite cheap - it's the constant faffing around either developing something new or cost-benefit analysing the bejeezus out of each system to save 50p.

High time we moved away from one-off Uber-designs every generation, to more frequent new designs (potentially using common components) that maintain (or better still increase) our ability to do these things quickly.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
High time we moved away from one-off Uber-designs every generation, to more frequent new designs (potentially using common components) that maintain (or better still increase) our ability to do these things quickly.
Fail fast and fail quickly/inexpensively is very well-established elsewhere in industry.

Just not in BAE, apparently... ;-)
 
I'm not sure Robots in Disguise are sufficiently innovative - or vibrantly diverse for that matter.
 
It's a two-fold issue.

The first part of it is to quickly develop a requirement that highlights the cardinal points of what you want to do in terms of performance, without writing a requirement for unobtanium. One of the biggest delaying factors in our system is spending (literally) years writing requirements across all DLoDs, harmonising them to the Nth degree across the joint force (backed up with extensive operational analysis) adding the latest safety and environmentally compliant features and then justifying them ad nauseum. Done properly, it's a valuable activity, but it does appear to have become an end in itself.

The second bit is to only do development when it's justified by the requirement. A new programme should not be an excuse to develop a new system because it has a budget. Should only be developmental if it allows you to hit the requirement (when you currently can't) - or if it genuinely offers operational savings in cost. Design can actually be quite cheap - it's the constant faffing around either developing something new or cost-benefit analysing the bejeezus out of each system to save 50p.

High time we moved away from one-off Uber-designs every generation, to more frequent new designs (potentially using common components) that maintain (or better still increase) our ability to do these things quickly.
Steady, before you know it we'll have "modular" aircraft.
 

Latest Threads

Top