Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 106 to 114 of 114

Thread: X-47B is afloat

  1. #106
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,969
    Video of ground and flight testing.



    Bit disapointed there's no CGI of one refuleing an F-35 or at least an F-18...

  2. #107
    Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by JCT View Post
    How can you declare this? One feature does not win the competition. The government will weight various portions of each proposal and the technical, while important, is not the only factor that the Tech Eval Board will look at. Company history, team members pitched, cost, etc all play a part. Even within the technical portion of the proposal, the gov't evaluators have to weigh many different factors.
    its an opinion.

    considering GA's track record, i don't think they would have any issues with the above or with what AB mentioned in his post.

    the point being, the RFP was dumb'd down to a simple flying gas tank, one that would be cost effective and had one mission, and one mission only.

    there were no requirements for stealth, or any other additional missions.

    from the looks of things, that's the GA contender.

    modification of an existing known quantity for added range and payload, no stealth features, no frills.

    its hard to imagine that the Boeing entrant is any cheaper than GA's.

    not to mention the added risk of the Boeing air frame, which is a touch on the exotic side.

    like i said, its an opinion, but from the outside looking in, its hard to see where the GA entrant wasn't going to be cheaper and less risky to develop.

  3. #108
    Regular
    Join Date
    23 Oct 13
    Posts
    89
    From what I can gather in open source, the decision was based solely on which model could be pushed to the fleet most quickly. I don't know why Boeing was superior in that regard, but that apparently drove the decision. I do have to say that their air intake scares me considering this aircraft will have to make high angle of attack landings. I don't see how you maintain your airflow in a CV landing with an intake like that.

  4. #109
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,773
    the decision was based solely on which model could be pushed to the fleet most quickly.

    And there you have what is probably the vital truth.

    DOD is snake bit on long lead time systems.

    FCS took forever and was finally killed. The FMTV was a disaster because the army selected Stewart-Stevenson to build the trucks. Stewart-Stevenson had never built trucks before. Took years to get up and running properly.

    F-35, while a success story now, has been a long time coming. Hell the original RFP was issued in the 90s....when I left active duty!

    Getting a good enough solution which is sustainable in the hands of troops quickly is now our mantra.

    And Boeing has an almost century long track record for doing just that.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  5. #110
    Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    the decision was based solely on which model could be pushed to the fleet most quickly.

    And there you have what is probably the vital truth.

    DOD is snake bit on long lead time systems.

    FCS took forever and was finally killed. The FMTV was a disaster because the army selected Stewart-Stevenson to build the trucks. Stewart-Stevenson had never built trucks before. Took years to get up and running properly.

    F-35, while a success story now, has been a long time coming. Hell the original RFP was issued in the 90s....when I left active duty!

    Getting a good enough solution which is sustainable in the hands of troops quickly is now our mantra.

    And Boeing has an almost century long track record for doing just that.
    still I find it hard to believe GA couldn't meet the time frame for delivery considering they are basing their design on existing platforms, pretty much all they do is manufacture large unmanned aircraft, and not to mention the fact that they were partnered with Boeing if they won.

    GA was using an engine rated for 16,000 lbs of thrust vs Boeing's at 9,000 lbs of thrust, with the speculation being they could carry more fuel than the RFP required.

    it would be interesting to know exactly were they both weighed in on the various aspects.

  6. #111
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,773
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    still I find it hard to believe GA couldn't meet the time frame for delivery considering they are basing their design on existing platforms, pretty much all they do is manufacture large unmanned aircraft, and not to mention the fact that they were partnered with Boeing if they won.

    GA was using an engine rated for 16,000 lbs of thrust vs Boeing's at 9,000 lbs of thrust, with the speculation being they could carry more fuel than the RFP required.

    it would be interesting to know exactly were they both weighed in on the various aspects.
    I don't know if we know what the KPPs & KSAs were the aircraft. Perhaps the 16,000 pound thrust exceeded other parameters and would be difficult to maintain.

    Perhaps the lost out on the ability on range it can be controlled.

    Who knows. Unless we are in that PM shop evaluating proposals we really cannot say.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  7. #112
    Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I don't know if we know what the KPPs & KSAs were the aircraft. Perhaps the 16,000 pound thrust exceeded other parameters and would be difficult to maintain.

    Perhaps the lost out on the ability on range it can be controlled.

    Who knows. Unless we are in that PM shop evaluating proposals we really cannot say.
    understood, which is why it will be interesting when it comes out.

    the fact that GA and Boeing were partnered up if GA won is just even more puzzling to me, for some of those reasons above.

    Edit:

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...disappointment

    Interesting article, talks a bit about the command and control and semi-autonomous operation and the idea that it will be 'open source' and not propriety to MQ25 and based off 9ff the fire scout and other systems.
    Last edited by bfng3569; 07 Sep 18, at 22:09.

  8. #113
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Josh View Post
    From what I can gather in open source, the decision was based solely on which model could be pushed to the fleet most quickly. I don't know why Boeing was superior in that regard, but that apparently drove the decision. I do have to say that their air intake scares me considering this aircraft will have to make high angle of attack landings. I don't see how you maintain your airflow in a CV landing with an intake like that.
    There were a number of reasons for Boeing winning.

    • Lockheed and General Atomics both tried to stuff aircraft built for entirely different purposes into a contract they weren't intended for while Boeing either started with a clean sheet design or had something laying around that was close to the actual requirements.
    • The General Atomics design was oversized which is a big no-no on carriers with limited space.
    • The Boeing design was the smallest and had the highest technical risk (that unusual intake for one) but that was offset by the fact that they were the only company that built a working demonstrator showing they had the technical challenges worked out and it would be fast to get into production.
    • The Navy is already used to working with Boeing.

  9. #114
    Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    743
    [QUOTE=SteveDaPirate;1045192]There were a number of reasons for Boeing winning.

    • Lockheed and General Atomics both tried to stuff aircraft built for entirely different purposes into a contract they weren't intended for while Boeing either started with a clean sheet design or had something laying around that was close to the actual requirements.
    • The General Atomics design was oversized which is a big no-no on carriers with limited space.
    • The Boeing design was the smallest and had the highest technical risk (that unusual intake for one) but that was offset by the fact that they were the only company that built a working demonstrator showing they had the technical challenges worked out and it would be fast to get into production.
    • The Navy is already used to working with Boeing.
    [/QUOT

    GA, as you mentioned, didn't build a prototype so its pretty hard to say they 'tried to stuff an aircraft built for entirely different purposes into a contract they weren't intended for'

    By all accounts, the design, while based on past experience, was not an existing one.

    Do you have dimensions/weights of the GA vs Boeing design, as well as what the requirements were for size? or simply put, were are you getting that part from?

    and as far as a 'working' prototype, did the Boeing prototype actually fly? (and considering it was not part of the requirement, it should not have been mattered anyway).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Plant Pleads To Stay Afloat, But Army Says 'No Tanks'
    By Stitch in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03 Aug 12,, 19:26
  2. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 15 Oct 08,, 09:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •