Quote: "Boeing has started publicly marketing two concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet after 2025.
Both twin-engine concepts, which feature optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12 Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost overruns and technical problems.
But the provisionally 9g-rated airframes also reflect the air-to-air performance once provided by the Grumman F-14, which the Super Hornet finally replaced in 2006, says Dave Thieman, a programme development official in Boeing's advanced global strike systems division.
For Boeing, NGAD represents a strategic opportunity to re-enter the US market for next-generation strike aircraft, which seemed lost forever after Lockheed Martin claimed the Joint Strike Fighter contract in 2001.
As a result, Boeing officials have focused on the navy's thinking for a Super Hornet replacement that remains at least 15 years away. The company understands that its potential customer wants a replacement with more engine power to supercruise, with the low observable aircraft to carry internal weapons, distributed sensors and have extreme agility."
Perhaps it could sail through smoothly after this tough economic climate is over. Here's hoping it doesn't end up like the A-12 Avenger, and get rebranded as EGAD!
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9030 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): Well, I hope this doesn't turn into a rehash of the JSF F-35A/B/C program with the USAF wanting a bigger airframe than the USN wants.
It appears this project is focused solely on what the Navy needs then. Given that it's a Navy project, perhaps the Air Force, for the usual reasons, will turn its nose up at this and let the Navy get what it really needs ... unless a new McNamara comes into office as the Secretary of Defense.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 16197 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8962 times:
Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 2): Given that it's a Navy project, perhaps the Air Force, for the usual reasons, will turn its nose up at this and let the Navy get what it really needs
That is what happened with the F-111, and the Tomcat didn't turn out so bad.
Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 2): unless a new McNamara comes into office as the Secretary of Defense.
That is how we ended up with the F-35 in the first place.
Quoting Devilfish (Thread starter): Both twin-engine concepts, which feature optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12 Avenger.
Surprise, Surprise. Honestly I have very little sympathy for the Navy when they complain that they don't have a true fighter, because it is their fault. They made their bed, and now they have to lie in it.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?