The X-36 possessed high maneuverability that would be ideal for use as a fighter. >Despite its potential suitability, and highly successful test program, there have been no reports regarding further development of the X-36 or any derived design as of 2017.
Either Boeing is perfectly fine with Super Hornet, or the YF-36 is one of those black projects (hence the radio silence).
>Maneuverability >Ideal for a fighter
Maybe twenty years ago, the air dominance fighter of the future is a completely different beast and the premier capability for the next generation of fighter aircraft will be network warfare capability. NGAD isn't about selecting a fancy air frame that can fly fast and hard, although there's certainly no ruling out the possibility of the X-36 being a development bed, it's about integrating the new aspects of war to fight in spectrums that the enemy doesn't even understand yet. That's what the US was after, and got, with stealth aircraft. It's what they're going to be after now. The leap will be transformative, or it won't happen and we'll see the legacy aircraft continue to get lifespan upgrades until a design sticks.
X-36 was stealth, first and foremost. There is no obstacles to integrating all the sensors/ew capabilities into such platform. Great aerodynamic characteristics / maneuverability is always welcome if it doesn’t sacrifice the primary goals - and in this case they work side by side.
Even when maneuverability is not the primary goal for modern fighters, it still matters (even if in a lesser way). The same reason why F-22 and F-35A still have cannons - of course missiles are a primary weapon that will be used >95% of the time, but one still has to consider the other scenario and if it doesn’t compromise the primary one - be ready for it.
What does being stealth have to do with anything I said? >There are no obstacles to integrating all the sensors/ew capabilities into such platform. Great aerodynamic characteristics / maneuverability is always welcome if it doesn’t sacrifice the primary goals - and in this case they work side by side.
You have no proof of this, but there are facts which suggest that you are wrong. The most damning is that the X-36 first flew in 1997, meaning that its internal systems as designed are at least that old. You would need to completely refit the internals for the digital age, at which point you are now compromising systems capabilities just to keep an airframe that the NGAD has no reason to be committed to, anyways.
And again, you're not pitching much. Any aircraft can be stealthy and maneuverable, a technology demonstrator from the 90s is not magically a desirable fighter because it can do something any other current gen fighter can do. Pointing out that it meets the bare minimum criteria for backup features should not be how you validate the claim "Ideal for a fighter"
any new aircraft* I should specify. It's easy to forget what current capabilities look like when competent fighter aircraft are really only manufactured by one country on the planet.
Yes it was. Both the Super Hornet and X-36 were made by McDonnell Douglas before being merged by Boeing. Boeing seems to be using a similar airframe for their F/A-XX program. Could it be the F/A-36, a scaled up, optionally manned version of the X-36? But then again, the boomers in congress.
Drag reduction is actually significant (not minor), provided that the computers can artificially stabilize aircraft fast enough so that stabilizing efforts do not produce much excess drag (spoilers/spliterons) or trust loss (thrust vectoring).
Why exactly would they? "It looks cool" isn't a good enough reason even if I wish it were.
What role would it fill? What would it replace? Can it perform at its given job better than current fighters?
And that's without even getting into costs and maintenance. You can make the most maneuverable aircraft mankind can possibly concive but if the maintenance cost per hour of flight is worth more than 3 fully loaded F-15s then what's the point.
What in the literal frick. This is now the most insane design I've ever seen and nothing else comes close. I bow down to the pilot who agreed to fly it.
X-36 was to good to not be pursued further. It was either made into a black project or will greatly influence the NGAD (published renders and rumors seem to confirm this).
Because when they bought MD, some MD execs stayed on in leadership positions. These execs make moronic decisions (737Max crashes, the x36 never coming to fruition)
Never?
The X-36 possessed high maneuverability that would be ideal for use as a fighter.
>Despite its potential suitability, and highly successful test program, there have been no reports regarding further development of the X-36 or any derived design as of 2017.
Either Boeing is perfectly fine with Super Hornet, or the YF-36 is one of those black projects (hence the radio silence).
>Maneuverability
>Ideal for a fighter
Maybe twenty years ago, the air dominance fighter of the future is a completely different beast and the premier capability for the next generation of fighter aircraft will be network warfare capability. NGAD isn't about selecting a fancy air frame that can fly fast and hard, although there's certainly no ruling out the possibility of the X-36 being a development bed, it's about integrating the new aspects of war to fight in spectrums that the enemy doesn't even understand yet. That's what the US was after, and got, with stealth aircraft. It's what they're going to be after now. The leap will be transformative, or it won't happen and we'll see the legacy aircraft continue to get lifespan upgrades until a design sticks.
X-36 was stealth, first and foremost. There is no obstacles to integrating all the sensors/ew capabilities into such platform. Great aerodynamic characteristics / maneuverability is always welcome if it doesn’t sacrifice the primary goals - and in this case they work side by side.
Even when maneuverability is not the primary goal for modern fighters, it still matters (even if in a lesser way). The same reason why F-22 and F-35A still have cannons - of course missiles are a primary weapon that will be used >95% of the time, but one still has to consider the other scenario and if it doesn’t compromise the primary one - be ready for it.
What does being stealth have to do with anything I said?
>There are no obstacles to integrating all the sensors/ew capabilities into such platform. Great aerodynamic characteristics / maneuverability is always welcome if it doesn’t sacrifice the primary goals - and in this case they work side by side.
You have no proof of this, but there are facts which suggest that you are wrong. The most damning is that the X-36 first flew in 1997, meaning that its internal systems as designed are at least that old. You would need to completely refit the internals for the digital age, at which point you are now compromising systems capabilities just to keep an airframe that the NGAD has no reason to be committed to, anyways.
And again, you're not pitching much. Any aircraft can be stealthy and maneuverable, a technology demonstrator from the 90s is not magically a desirable fighter because it can do something any other current gen fighter can do. Pointing out that it meets the bare minimum criteria for backup features should not be how you validate the claim "Ideal for a fighter"
any new aircraft* I should specify. It's easy to forget what current capabilities look like when competent fighter aircraft are really only manufactured by one country on the planet.
Once the pilot is out manuverability could make a comeback, without the 9g limited meatbag we could see drones pulling 30g to out-rate missiles.
Wasn't it just a testbed for certain technologies and the airframe in general?
Yes it was. Both the Super Hornet and X-36 were made by McDonnell Douglas before being merged by Boeing. Boeing seems to be using a similar airframe for their F/A-XX program. Could it be the F/A-36, a scaled up, optionally manned version of the X-36? But then again, the boomers in congress.
What benefit is there to getting rid of vertical stabilizers?
Greatly reduced radar return from the sides + some drag reduction.
Drag reduction is actually significant (not minor), provided that the computers can artificially stabilize aircraft fast enough so that stabilizing efforts do not produce much excess drag (spoilers/spliterons) or trust loss (thrust vectoring).
Significant decrease in RCS.
When Congress pays for it. Never mind the Pentagon wanting it or not. It comes down to "Muh constituencies."
Why exactly would they? "It looks cool" isn't a good enough reason even if I wish it were.
What role would it fill? What would it replace? Can it perform at its given job better than current fighters?
And that's without even getting into costs and maintenance. You can make the most maneuverable aircraft mankind can possibly concive but if the maintenance cost per hour of flight is worth more than 3 fully loaded F-15s then what's the point.
For me, it’s the Bird of Prey
This. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey
yes
What in the literal frick. This is now the most insane design I've ever seen and nothing else comes close. I bow down to the pilot who agreed to fly it.
Damn, Boeing made an arwing
They won't finish milking the Fat Amy for another twenty years, no need for more gibsmedats fo dem programs until that grift is done
Aerospace engineering undergrad here
X-36 was to good to not be pursued further. It was either made into a black project or will greatly influence the NGAD (published renders and rumors seem to confirm this).
Because when they bought MD, some MD execs stayed on in leadership positions. These execs make moronic decisions (737Max crashes, the x36 never coming to fruition)
Why doesn't it have tails?
More drones. More drones. Thats pretty much all thats needed.
I thought this was a shitty shoop at first, in part due to the guys on the wienerpit.