bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1597 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8929 times:
The presentation seems to highlight the ability to do development work that encompass initial configuration evaluation all the way through tooling and rate production. The tools allow them to provide better estimates on design and costs. The fighter shown looks like just a straw horse that have been run through the exercise. Whether the final article is a next generation fighter, bomber or UAV, the program/process shown would allow the "customer" have a better feel that Boeing is providing a more accurate cost estimate/bid . . . hint . . . hint . . .
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8859 times:
Sensor and processing technology keep improving so very soon a pilot could have very good SA without actually being in the cockpit, so it's not unreasonable to assume that a true unmanned fighter is next. The potential ability to pull 100 Gs is just too tempting.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1597 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8513 times:
Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 4): The potential ability to pull 100 Gs is just too tempting.
Of course, while you are at it, why would you need planes that can do massive G's when you can design a weapons system (AKA Lasers and missiles) with 360 degrees coverage? But that debate is for another day.
It appears the old propaganda machine is alive, well-oiled and working. Although in fairness, it has been churning out real, verifiable flying prototypes of late. It's the aircraft's innards that remain a mystery.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7789 times:
Boeing's only hope to stay alive in the fighter jet business (carry on McDD's strong reputation,) is to design for the US Navy a true replacement for the Super Hornet, which is in fact, never been a true replacement for the F-14D Tomcat. The USN needs something along the lines of the F-22 that the USAF enjoys, minus the low numbers and exorbitant price tag. If Boeing can provide the vision and design, then they might, just might preserve their ability to build and sell combat jets after the F-15 and F-18 are done.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7741 times:
Lockheed (and their partners Boeing and General Dynamics) won the contract to build the F-22 in April 1991 and even though the Defence Department has cut the number required time and time again it is still in production. If Boeing was to actually build the F-22 replacement (or supplement) it would not be off the drawing board many years with an in service date some time after 2030.