Ironic and- Truly a thing of beauty.......makes me wonder why the Northrop YF-23 was not built, if not for the USAF; for Naval Use.......much like the F-16 vs F-17 (turned into the F-18) and /or F-15s vs F-14s.......or the JUCAV's (build 'em both)....... In most fly-off contract awards, I've too often believed both birds should either be built for both branches, less that POS F-22, which flat out will always be an inferior design; IMO biased Opinions...... and in those "most cases" (other than the F-22***) both Vehicles are more than worthy of either/or branch of Military......... *** Myself and numerous other buddies, and work associates, had too damn much invested, time wise, creativity wise, and overall over engineered our entry, so it wouldn't have any real competition to speak of..........but of course, when Politics enter the game, and Lockheed would of been re-furbishing C-141s and KC-10s for the rest of their lives...........the House Armed Service Committe, with extreme Political pressure(s); to Award a ATF Contract to the lesser (by far) of the 2 competing Birds Contractors........was gut wrenching, especially when the HASC, stated: "half of this ATF Contract, will be determined for Award, due to the Contractor's capability to deliver their AC Product on Time". On the day of supposed delivery for 1st day of Flight Testing: Northop, had Our entry on the tarmac engines running, just waiting for the word to take to the skies, while Lockheed, scurried to complete their 6 month extension or waiver, for that deadline, that meant so damn much,.......to begin with, WTF..........!!! Again, thanks for the Pic and Post, I'll try to post a few designs of some other G6s Prototypes, that either came or will come close.......(later this eve)........Thanks Tom:
The 22 is a decade in service. The 35 is a disaster....we damn well better have Gen6's in development. Interested if we have combo manned/uav design on the drawing board.
From those I know, Gen 6's just passed Logistics funding, with Engr., drawings long complete, waiting for a finished in work prototype of two...from a possible 3 companies, with more than 1 entry........ as for #2, the UCAV manned & unmanned combo are in work....... More importantly, if a non- Libtard becomes Commander In Chief, I really expect full production of B3's.....Boeing/Lockheed took the DOD B3 prototype money, and built a failure, yet are continuing to work out bugs, with one type or another......while NG took the funding for a prototype, and configured an entire new era of Stealth, Radar Systems, and LOA systems; avionics, and all new state of the art software programs, features......... Both are in a run off here already delayed 1 year, by years end the DOD now says......and both Boeing-Lockheed together vs Northrop Grumman should have a flying B3, here real soon...... If Boeing-Lockheed wins the contract, Northrop will have approx 40% of it, for all radar, stealth, and other avionics, incl. the electronics systems; updated new age, computer software systems aboard.......... Yet, as always, the latter a program takes to engage with funding, the longer more opponents balk about something, they know little of, and how its big dollar investments pay back dividends beyond belief.....while, opponents begin to talk program cuts as soon as they hear of Black Ops Programs. Typical Libtard B.S..............
This sums up our competition, which nations are still trying to get their G5's up and running, enough to build their G6's.....this URL covers both Chinese and Russian counters, which rarely come to fruition in many cases...... http://defence.pk/threads/fifth-generation-fighter-jet-comparisons.123368/
We'll see what China can do with their economy tanking. The Russians are just too addicted to speed and lots of fun surfaces.
Well stated Tom, and: Did you ever see the Russians Tupolev- TU-160....? The Soviet Union began work on this bird, around the end of our B1-A program. By the start of the B1-B Program, the USAF, DOD, and all parties concerned, obtained inside TSAR reconnaissance, on the TU-160; which was again approx 1/3 bigger than our B1-B......supposed to go Mach 1.8, yet like the B1-B can NOT get off the ground if full of fuel.....thus refueling is required very very often, for this oversized behemoth of a Bomber....... One thing the TU-160 lacks due to its size, is slow speed warfare, or aeronautic high speed tight turns, too much armament and weight to be effective, in other words a sitting duck, for surface to air, or other air to air options...... 11 TU-160s are still in service..........yet, I doubt they even work..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
Here's the Soviet Unions Space Orbiter Vehicle, which made 1 flight in 88; then was destroyed. Again approximately 1/3 again the size of a USA - OV, this sat on a launch ramp for years, prior to those russkies figuring out how to light the fuse.........
You got it........more than Ironic.....makes one think what would Russia's Air Force be, without American Aircraft to copy......
