When will the NGAD/FA-XX be shown to the public? NGAD had its first flight in 2020, with plans to be fielded in the 2030s

When will the NGAD/FA-XX be shown to the public?

NGAD had its first flight in 2020, with plans to be fielded in the 2030s

For reference the JSF program started in 1993, led to the X-35 picked in 2001 which led to the first flight of the F-35 in 2006, which entered service in 2015

The NGAD program started in 2014 and I assumed it will be much more fast tracked than the Joint Strike Fighter program. The downselect isn't far off for NGAD too.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >can I see it
    no it's a secret 🙂

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    October 12th, 2026 at 11:37am Eastern Standard Time.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Mmmmm.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/MAOQyUf.jpg

      Mmmmm.

      damn thats ugly
      give me F15s any day sonny

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Believe it or not, they don't build and design fighters around aesthetics.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          That is false, airplanes conform to nature therefore the more advanced the airplane the more beautiful it looks

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      there probably are planes like this that exist in the inventory but they haven't been revealed purely for bureaucratic red tape reasons

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/MAOQyUf.jpg

      Mmmmm.

      https://i.imgur.com/gnz4w8r.jpg

      When will the NGAD/FA-XX be shown to the public?

      NGAD had its first flight in 2020, with plans to be fielded in the 2030s

      For reference the JSF program started in 1993, led to the X-35 picked in 2001 which led to the first flight of the F-35 in 2006, which entered service in 2015

      The NGAD program started in 2014 and I assumed it will be much more fast tracked than the Joint Strike Fighter program. The downselect isn't far off for NGAD too.

      how old is the current gen planes we use now like the f35? was it made up in the 60's?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The F-22 (closest existing counterpart to the NGAD) goes back to the early 80's, its first flight in 1997, and it entered service in 2005.

        F-35 similarly goes back to the 80's and 90's but it's larger scope entailed a longer development period, so it didn't have it's first flight until 2006, and entered service in 2015/16/19 (F-35B/A/C).

        The NGAD replaces the F-22's, the F-35's are set to be in service until the late 2060's or even early 2070's.

        NGAD has been in development since around 2014 (that we know of) and will be going through various developmental stages very quickly (and likely quietly) over the next several years.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          thanks kinda sad we will not see the cool stuff they have underwraps

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        see:

        The F-22 (closest existing counterpart to the NGAD) goes back to the early 80's, its first flight in 1997, and it entered service in 2005.

        F-35 similarly goes back to the 80's and 90's but it's larger scope entailed a longer development period, so it didn't have it's first flight until 2006, and entered service in 2015/16/19 (F-35B/A/C).

        The NGAD replaces the F-22's, the F-35's are set to be in service until the late 2060's or even early 2070's.

        NGAD has been in development since around 2014 (that we know of) and will be going through various developmental stages very quickly (and likely quietly) over the next several years.

        But, the F-35 and F-22 are upgraded periodically in what they call blocks. F-22 is on block 30/35, and F-35 is getting block 4 upgrades, soon. The frames stay the same, and the software and hardware get up-to-date upgrades. It's not like we make the plane in 1960, and it keeps the same software/hardware configuration for decades. We aren't Russia.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >NGAD
    Probably late 20’s
    >F/A-XX
    Never. No way that there’ll be two new airframes.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Navy and Air force agreeing on a singular airframe
      lol lmao even

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Did... did you just not hear about the f-35?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The fricking Navy version is so wildly different from the Air Force version that it may as well be a different plane.

      • 2 years ago
        Meow

        i mean, then agree with the F-4 phantom II back in the day.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The USAF NGAD program is entirely separate and unrelated from the USN NGAD program. Other than name, the programs share nothing.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >NGAD had its first flight in 2020,
      Yes and no.
      They had a prototype demonstrator flying in 2020, but even now in 2022 they haven't selected which of the primary contractor designs they're going to go with for the final production version.

      The one that flew in 2020 could be Northrop Grumman and they could end up choosing the Lockheed Martin design. Which means the prototype flying in 2020 will never enter real production.

      We just gotta wait and see what the air force decides.

      They're both NGAD, they're both separate programs with their own budgets. I don't see the navy backing down since they essentially skipped having a 5th generation Air dominance platform (the F-22 never got its carrier launched version approved).

      So the F/A-XX (navy NGAD) won't be rolled into the USAF NGAD, and it won't just die off either. The navy is all in on their 6th gen.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >So the F/A-XX (navy NGAD) won't be rolled into the USAF NGAD, and it won't just die off either. The navy is all in on their 6th gen.
        agreed, anyone that thinks navy is going to let a 6th gen fighter slip them by like happened with 5th gen is delusional.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          That had more to do with the A-12 going breasts up than anything. I bet the B-21 will be strikingly similar to the old flying dorito

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Uhhhh what does the A-12 and B-21 have anything to do with the Navy NGAD (F/A-XX)?

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              He said the Navy was not going to skip the 6th Gen like they nearly did the 5th. I pointed out they planned to have a 5th Gen before the USAF but it didn't work out. However, it's likely that failed program is informing the B21 as it was the most similar 5th Gen aircraft to the B21 requirements.

              Also, does someone else need to chew your food for you or are you doing that all by yourself now?

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                So you're moronic, good to know.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >No facts
                >No arguments
                >Weak ass cope

                Keep bumping the thread and showing everyone what a dumb b***h you are, I'm loving it

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Black person you're saying the A-12 and B-21 have ANY connection to the current navy NGAD project just makes you look like an actual moron, but keep it up pretending you're some genius making connections between programs that have ZERO official connection or joint project goals. But sure, keep talking about how you know what's going on.
                All that was said was the Navy is NOT going to roll their NGAD into the USAF NGAD, and they're also not going to drop their NGAD program either. You fired back with some random bullshit about the A-12 and B-21.

                The A-12 had NOTHING to do with the navy's 5th gen ideas or goals.
                Your bringing it up at all unprompted without ANY sort of source or reasoning to connect the two then getting upset when people treat you like a moron is laughable.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >The Navy's low observable strike fighter program of record in the 1990s had nothing to do with their 5th Gen goals or ideas!
                >The B-21 is a middle weight attack/bomber (usn vs usaf parlance) that prioritizes low observability, then range, then payload. That's totally different than the A-12, a middle weight attack/bomber (usn vs usaf parlance) that prioritizes low observability, then range, then payload.

                I get it now, you just like being humiliated.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                None of the planes you're talking about EVER had navy roles, none of them ever would've been carrier launched.

                B-21/A-12, neither one is navy related, never was, never will be.

                The Navy wanted a carrier launched F-22 but it would've been too expensive, instead they got the F-35C/B and the F/A-18 Super hornet and the advanced super hornet.

                So the Navy essentially didn't get a true air superiority fighter for 5th gen, just a multi-role (F-35) and the F/A-18 (another multirole).

                This is LITERALLY why the navy 6th gen project is called NGAD (Next generation air dominance) like the airforce NGAD, since they ALSO want an air superiority fighter that they haven't had in over a generation.

                So again, what the FRICK does the B-21 have to do with the CURRENT Navy NGAD project you dumb prick?

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >The A-12 NEVER had navy roles, none of them ever would've been carrier launched.
                >B-21/A-12, neither one is navy related, never was, never will be.

                You are literally too moronic to insult. I have better shit to do than try to educate a dickless moron. Google A-12 Avenger 2 next time your mom let's you use the IPad you moronic Black person

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Not him but the A-12 in question was a navy program. The McDonnell Douglas A-12 was flying wing A-6 replacement it's not the Lockheed one if that's what you're assuming he means.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                The Navy is going to get yet another compromised, multi-role bomb and missile truck the same as they've procured for the last 65 years. Only caveat being a necessity for escort range for the reasons I explain below.

                >what the frick does the B-21 have to do with the Navy NGAD
                The B-21 was quite literally designed for the purpose of long range Pacific anti-chinese missions. The AF with it's B-21 and the Navy with whatever they have fielded will be working together on B-21 + Navy NGAD missions in the future.

                If one so astute to ask the salient questions were curious,
                One would ask "why does the Navy not have their own long range fleet in development, with the air force set to supplement the Pacific theater via planes on their pacific bases?"

                You on the other hand can't see the bigger picture nor put 2 and 2 together.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Oh by the way you weren't even arguing with me, the guy three of you had been arguing with a couple hours ago.
                You assumed the other anons were the same person even with the vast difference in topic and reply style.

                Remove head from anus,
                I will admit you're right as much as I am wrong and I enjoy contrasting our different portions of knowledge to correct myself as much as I hope you do too.

                Now go frick yourself, the F23-A would have solved all these problems.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >So the F/A-XX (navy NGAD) won't be rolled into the USAF NGAD, and it won't just die off either. The navy is all in on their 6th gen.

        I know it's fricking defensenews but the Hudson Institute is legit:

        >“I think they are going to fall back to looking at F/A-XX as a modification or an evolution of the F-35,” he said. “Instead of the other half of the air wing being some new aircraft, you’ll have a combination of F-35Cs and then some modified version of the F-35 or a modified Super Hornet."
        - www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/01/at-a-budgetary-crossroads-the-us-navys-aviation-wing-must-choose-between-old-and-new/

  4. 2 years ago
    Indian Shill

    Never

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    You'll have to be patient a few more years anon, we're not ready to show it off yet. I promise it'll be worth the wait though.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Why is he so flat

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because flat is justice

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >NGAD had its first flight in 2020
    lol. lmao, even. Try 2014 over Texas. The same time the B-21 was spotted in Kansas.
    >When will the NGAD/FA-XX be shown to the public?
    2025, at the earliest. We may get confirmed renderings around 2023.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What it MAY look like. And it will 90% be built by LM, as NG has the B-21 contract to focus on. Boeing may get the NGAD(Navy)/F/A-XX contract, but, I wouldn't count on it. They do have the most experience with naval planes, though, and are losing huge contracts for the F-15 and F/A-18. So, they threw them the F-15EX as a bone until they can turn it into an export model. With LM getting the F-35 and NGAD(Air Force), NG getting the B-21, that leaves Boeing without a big contract. Unless we're working on some stealth transport/tanker I haven't heard about, that leaves the NGAD(Navy) a real possibility for them to pick up. Even with all of their delay problems with the tanker.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >when your weapons procurement is based on securing corporate profits instead of force effectiveness
        >nu-/k/ /r/ncd tourists will defend this

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          To be fair, what the frick do you do if your primary weapon design and manufacturing companies go out of business because you didn't need a new platform for 2-3 decades?

          So yes, we do sometimes choose companies for economic reasons, but it's still being done for a good reason at the end of the day, we do need this level of expertise and we do need multiple potential primary contractors for all areas of defense so we're never relying on a SINGLE entity.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The frick are you talking about? NG hasn't made a fighter since the F-14. I mean actually producing one, not losing bids in the YF-17, and YF-23. They have their expertise in stealth bombers. Which, is why they won the LRSB B-21 contract. They now have their hands full in producing 100+ B-21's on a fix contract. Meaning they will need to be extremely focused to not go over the contract price, else they eat the balance. LM has the most experience in actually producing stealth fighters, so, it would follow they would make a better 6th gen than NG - especially when NG has its hands full with the B-21. Even if the NG proposal is slightly better, why would you risk them fricking it up because they now have two major projects to juggle? And of course you want to spread the contract money around, or you end up with one of your major suppliers going under, or getting bought out by the others. That's how you end up with a Russian and Chinese problem where you get shit products from one company that can never deliver on their promises.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    this thing looks moronic

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's just a render based on previous renders and art. We have no idea what the actual plane will look like.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      no u

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    We know for a fact that all next designs will be tailless deltas because 30+ years of FBW and computer enhanced piloting trial and error have made it truly viable.
    So you should throw out any idea that you're going to see anything that looks like a fancy F22/J20/Su57, at least for the top range of multirole air dominance.
    Smooth triangles were always inevitable. Just look at the most advanced drones.

    I'd also like to believe the rumor that NGAD can be configured for or outright capable of pilotless flight and internetworked with others/small drone fleets for coordinated missions with performance that exceeds what any human can sustain.

    Gonna be some wild times watching China and Russia propaganda convince 60% of Americans that we cant get anything right, again, while our mil is just outpacing them at every step as usual.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Also with the ejection seat issues and Lockheed's past failures I would be surprised if they can even suck the amount of dick necessary to win this contract.
    MD, the fantastic bastards responsible for the F-15, F-18, and the YF-23 which should have been picked always made the better planes and since the Boeing merger they've almost always made the better prototype.
    Boeing already has the experience with the design requirements re. B-2 and Northrop already has their hands full with the Raider
    Lockheed already has the long term F-35 contract and it would be shocking if the MIC allows them the NGAD with that project on their hands plus the disaster they created with F-22 production.

    So yeah.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      holy frick i just confused boeing with ng mixing up the superbug and other shit with the b2 spirit
      go ahead and fricking roast me, but otherwise my points all stand

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Why the frick does MD get the credit for the F-18 when the prototype was NG?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        GO AHEAD AND ROAST ME, BUT OTHERWISE MY POINTS STILL STAND.

        Would -you- trust Lockheed to handle the 2 largest plane projects and not frick anything up given their history?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair the Super Hornet is a "Boeing" plane since the merger in '97 when full scale production actually started.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Also with the ejection seat issues
      That's a Martin-Baker problem, not LM. The same company supplies the Mk16 for the Rafale, T-6 Texan II, Eurofighter Typhoon, NASA T-38N, and more.

      >and the YF-23
      That was NG, and wasn't all rainbows like people want to imagine. The canopy cracked after each flight, because their supplier couldn't make one that wouldn't. So, the solution was to replace it after each flight. The intakes needed to be redesigned, as did the fuselage. And the electronics were a nightmare at that time, spec wise. Was it good? Sure. Was it a better choice than the F-22, no, not at all. It would have been much more complex, and much more expensive than the already expensive F-22.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The 23 is my top "favorite plane that wasn't" and the only issues I've heard before were the canopy stresses, which were set to be remedied by the end of prototyping, and the electronics being reprogrammed units from an older model, which like the yf-22, were going to be replaced well before initial production.

        And on the note of airframe design, you can compare the yf-22 to the production f-22 and see for yourself they also made a fistful of changes.
        Tends to be normal in the computer era (and also lockheed were cheating to win the demonstrations)

        so yeah

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >electronics being reprogrammed units from an older model
          They were a flying supercomputer with 2/3rds the computing power of the fastest super computer NG had at the time. They were ridiculous for the time, and wouldn't have been easy nor cheap to put into production.
          >And on the note of airframe design, you can compare the yf-22 to the production f-22 and see for yourself they also made a fistful of changes.
          Compared to the V3 production F-23, not that much really. The Air Forces wanted in flight reverse thrusters that would work at 600 knots for the ATF program. Once they figured out that would take a stupid strong frame to accomplish, while degrading the life of the frame to where it wasn't a viable choice, they dropped it as a requirement. NG had already started building the flight test articles by that time, and couldn't turn back. That's why the intake duct, and the humps on its back are so huge. See pic for what it would have looked like. The bottom dark gray YF-23 to the far right. Also, here's a good article with renderings of it in its final form. I didn't read it, so, I don't know how accurate it is. But, you can find all this information from watching the test pilots presentations on the YF-23, and various forums. I even link the videos, if you want? Not going to waste time if you don't want them.

          https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24911/this-is-what-a-northrop-f-23a-wouldve-looked-like-if-lockheed-lost-the-atf-competition

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            m8 the reality of the situation is 60s/70s pilots who became high rankers liked the f22 because it was a normal fighter with higher tech, a straight advancement of the f-14 and f-15.
            MIC got wooed and awed by dogfight showoffs for a plane program meant to BVR targets into submission and never be seen.
            People don't like weird departures from what they're used to, because people are stupid.

            It's rather well accepted -now-, that even throwing aside Lockheed's production blunder and premature financial cancellation of the 22,
            That the F-23 was a long term superior design, still well matched to modern needs, and probably would have kept the NGAD/F/A-XX programs unnecessary for another 10-15 years.

            It had the range the Navy needed to overmatch developing and expected future adversaries, now they're scrambling to field B-21s and fill in the ramge gap with drone tankers to support the F-35 escort.
            If the MIC picked the correct plane all of this would have been unnecessary and our mil would be even further ahead.

            Lockheed fricked around, jerkoff desk commanders fricked up, the program got axed because Lockheed lied and fricked up,
            The F-23 was the superior choice.

            End of story.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              Let's be fair though, when it came down to it the YF-23 showed off their prototype and basically "But don't worry, the REAL plane looks and flies nothing like this one, this is just what we had ready" and what would become the F-22 prototype at the same time was nearly the same as the production model that was delivered years later.

              It's great to look back 20+ years later and say the YF-23 design would've been better, but that's not the design they showed off when they were asked for a prototype. It's not good enough to be asked for a prototype show up with a prototype and then say, oh by the way, the actual plane we want to build is nothing like this prototype we're showing you.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >still completely ignores the YF-22 had it's own problems and had constant rework, changes, and avionics replacements before production
                I use the phrase again,
                It is -well accepted- that LM won the demo by showing off essentially dogfight maneuvers which had nothing to do with the ATF program requirements, nor long term mission needs, nor the evolving capability of peers.

                Case closed, end of story. Take your 20/20 hindsight and apply it forwards instead.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Again Black person, I never said anything about later issues with LM, I agree they're c**ts, I also agree the YF-23 was potentially a better design.

                But you're looking at it 25+ years later saying this, saying that in the 90's you would've been laughed out of the room.

                That's just the reality. At the time the F-22 was the better design.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Listen. Listen,
                Listen.

                Juat listen.

                I'm right and you know it.
                I also know what plane I would've picked because I'm actually smart enough to read, remember, and look further than tomorrow.

                F-23A was a dream plane that filled multiple roles, F22 was only good at jerking off.
                Case story. End of closed.
                Good night and good fight.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Listen. Listen,
                Listen.

                You're a fricking moron.
                Case story. End of closed.
                Good night and good fight.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >At the time the F-22 was the better design.
                I'm not the sperg you're arguing with but there's no indication that YF22 was the better design for the ATF role. YF23 was both faster and stealthier than YF22 and had a longer range...longer loitering, faster supercruise, less detectable. Maneuverability according to test pilots was actually comparable to that of the F22 even without thrust vectoring due to even larger control surfaces and v-tail design.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Their paper design, that was nothing like their prototype they delivered for testing? Sure. But the prototype they actually showed up with for testing though? No.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >It is -well accepted-
                By whom? You? They won because they were able to fire an air-to-air missile during DEMVAL.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                i will frick your mouth for so disrespectfully speaking back to me

                >MIC got wooed and awed by dogfight showoffs for a plane program meant to BVR targets into submission and never be seen.
                No, they got wooed by the YF-22 being able to shoot an air-to-air missile during it flight test. Which signified it was the more mature airframe of the two. Do you know nothing about the ATF program? This is basic shit.
                >That the F-23 was a long term superior design
                After a complete redesign, sure. Would you trust the company that JUST fricked you on the ATB program with the B-2? When the YF-23 was to be just as, if not more, technologically advanced? You think they'd come in on time and on budget?

                >It had the range the Navy needed to overmatch developing and expected future adversaries,
                Seeing as the ATF was an Air Force only program, what are you talking about?

                >now they're scrambling to field B-21s and fill in the ramge gap with drone tankers to support the F-35 escort.
                What? The Navy doesn't have anything to do with the B-21 as it's also an Air Force program. It's to replace the B-2, and B-1. The combat radius of the YF-23 would be around 1000nm, compared to the 760nm+ range of the F-35C.

                >it fired le missile!
                How is that impressive
                >after a redesign sure
                I'm nkt repearing myself a 4th time on that
                >JUST fricked the ATB program
                Production was cut because the soviets disbanded and didn't launch the nukes.
                If you're going to talk about ATB -costs-, a bleeding edge large aircraft project of tech never fully fielded before, you lack perspective and depth.
                >the ATF was an air force only program
                That's totally irrelevant
                >The B-21 is also an Air Force project
                Again, totally irrelevant.
                >the combat radius would have been 33% larger
                With a faster supercruise and significantly higher non-combat range.

                Fricking hell who am I arguing with. Who are you subhumans.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Cope, moron. I'm not going to keep correcting you for hours. Go dilate and come back when you've taken your BP meds. Then we can have conversation.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                No, the DoD and Air Force were still mad at Boeing with cost overruns and troubles during the manufacture of the B-2 Spirit.

                Rather than think that Boeing had learned and created a lot of new internal processes to cope with the pressures of making an advanced aircraft, they gave the contract to Lockheed because "YOU HAD PROBEMS IN DA 1980s 90s SO WE DUN TRUST YOU!".
                And now Lockheed is struggling with many of the same issues Boeing did during the B-2 project.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >B-2
                >Boeing

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >No, the DoD and Air Force were still mad at Boeing with cost overruns and troubles during the manufacture of the B-2 Spirit.
                Well, seeing as NG built the B-2 and the YF-23. What does being mad at Boeing have to do with anything? It would've been MD at that time, anyway. Holy shit you're stupid.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              >MIC got wooed and awed by dogfight showoffs for a plane program meant to BVR targets into submission and never be seen.
              No, they got wooed by the YF-22 being able to shoot an air-to-air missile during it flight test. Which signified it was the more mature airframe of the two. Do you know nothing about the ATF program? This is basic shit.
              >That the F-23 was a long term superior design
              After a complete redesign, sure. Would you trust the company that JUST fricked you on the ATB program with the B-2? When the YF-23 was to be just as, if not more, technologically advanced? You think they'd come in on time and on budget?

              >It had the range the Navy needed to overmatch developing and expected future adversaries,
              Seeing as the ATF was an Air Force only program, what are you talking about?

              >now they're scrambling to field B-21s and fill in the ramge gap with drone tankers to support the F-35 escort.
              What? The Navy doesn't have anything to do with the B-21 as it's also an Air Force program. It's to replace the B-2, and B-1. The combat radius of the YF-23 would be around 1000nm, compared to the 760nm+ range of the F-35C.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't know the difference between avionics and computation
            I'm a dumbass but even I understood what that anon meant from context.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I still say that is a Saab Draken.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Patents don't expire until the 2030s.
    https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2
    https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Believing the US would patent Ay tech when they wouldn't let the microprocessor for the F-14 be patented.
      Some patents for planes from the 60s-70s didn't get published until the mid-late 2000s because of how anal the DoD is with showing slightly classified tech.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        That issue has nothing to do with age and everything to do with what's still in service use with other countries and requires parts supply.
        Like how you won't see Block I f-18 declassification for 30 more years minimum.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Has more to do with not patenting shit that gives your enemies clues, or blueprints to what you have. Even an out-date patent can be a stepping stone to your newer tech. You seriously think they're going to patent fricking antigravity tech? Really?

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is going places keep at it boys

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      jet autists shit flinging is always the best shit flinging

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    what does the "062" mean? is that the production number? if so, how on earth did they manage to produce that many already?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      its probably just a random number the artist used.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Imperial Japan would typically paint their military hardware with designation Hardware “Type 0XX” and that likely inspired the numbering.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >if so, how on earth did they manage to produce that many already?
      it's not a photo my dude

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Would the NGAD platforms be exported since the F35 is already exported?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Not a chance in hell, we still don't even export the F-22 (precursor to the NGAD).

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Likely never. Unless a foreign partner trades/adds a miraculous, paradigm-shifting technology leap that the US cannot replicate in time to fit design/production requirement. The foreign partner might just get a tech swap or security assurances, but never their own US apex fighter,

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *