The Air Force Secretly Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter Jet
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/air-force-secretly-designed-built-130400768.html

"The U.S. Air Force revealed this week that it has secretly designed, built, and tested a new prototype fighter jet. The fighter, about which we know virtually nothing, has already flown and "broken records."
This is very interesting. "
... "According to Defense News, the Air Force developed the new fighter in about a yeara staggeringly short amount of time by modern standards. The Air Force first developed a virtual version of the jet, and then proceeded to build and fly a full-sized prototype, complete with mission systems. "


I don't work in the aviation industry, but work in a large bureaucracy where I know how long it takes for a large scale project to be approved, designed and then developed. Where I work, we cant get our act together enough to implement a transactional based system in this amount of time. This is something actually complicated that flies in the freaking air with a human beings life at stake. I can't comprehend how it's even possible to accomplish this in just a year. There has to be more to this story we are not hearing.

How much did we spend on it?

Bregxit said:

---

Aliens. USAF didn't develop anything. They were handed the keys at Area 51.

---

Dammit. Your right.

exitone said:

---

The Air Force Secretly Designed, Built, and Flew a Brand-New Fighter Jet
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/air-force-secretly-designed-built-130400768.html

"The U.S. Air Force revealed this week that it has secretly designed, built, and tested a new prototype fighter jet. The fighter, about which we know virtually nothing, has already flown and "broken records."
This is very interesting. "
... "According to Defense News, the Air Force developed the new fighter in about a yeara staggeringly short amount of time by modern standards. The Air Force first developed a virtual version of the jet, and then proceeded to build and fly a full-sized prototype, complete with mission systems. "


I don't work in the aviation industry, but work in a large bureaucracy where I know how long it takes for a large scale project to be approved, designed and then developed. Where I work, we cant get our act together enough to implement a transactional based system in this amount of time. This is something actually complicated that flies in the freaking air with a human beings life at stake. I can't comprehend how it's even possible to accomplish this in just a year. There has to be more to this story we are not hearing.

---

The P-51 Mustang went from paper drawing to flying prototype in like 6-months. Yeah, different tech but it was also 1940.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/

It was strongly hinted that a certain well-known billionaire could potentially be involved in developing plans in the future.

Also, it looks like they are going to be shooting for a 1950s style approach to aircraft procurement, having contracts out all the time to multiple vendors to keep developing craft and having quicker cycles for planes. Reduces maintenance costs tremendously with a small uptick in initial costs. The goal is apparently to have new planes constantly being designed and purchased.

Moxley said:

---

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/

It was strongly hinted that a certain well-known billionaire could potentially be involved in developing plans in the future.

Also, it looks like they are going to be shooting for a 1950s style approach to aircraft procurement, having contracts out all the time to multiple vendors to keep developing craft and having quicker cycles for planes. Reduces maintenance costs tremendously with a small uptick in initial costs. The goal is apparently to have new planes constantly being designed and purchased.

---

I assume this is what you are referring to, and yes, I would agree this is a strong hint towards Musk being involved in this. I cant think why else it would be brought up if it were not for someone like him involved.

"I have to imagine there will be a lot of engineers maybe famous ones with well-known household names with billions of dollars to invest that will decide starting the world's greatest aircraft company to build the world's greatest aircraft with the Air Force is exactly the kind of inspiring thing they want to do as a hobby or even a main gig," Roper said.

agracer said:

---

The P-51 Mustang went from paper drawing to flying prototype in like 6-months. Yeah, different tech but it was also 1940.

---

I can see what your saying, but that was mainly a mechanical effort. I would assume that mechanics is only half of what is involved here. Something with this complex a set of software getting off the ground within a year sounds completely unbelievable. I know AI is basically expanding at a breakneck pace these days (where leaps and bounds are made on a monthly basis as opposed to yearly basis), so maybe that plays into this somehow. I'm sure there is tech being used we cant even imagine (which is cool, but scary).

I guess this is just the new thing China is going to steal from us.

exitone said:

---

agracer said:

---

The P-51 Mustang went from paper drawing to flying prototype in like 6-months. Yeah, different tech but it was also 1940.

---

I can see what your saying, but that was mainly a mechanical effort. I would assume that mechanics is only half of what is involved here. Something with this complex a set of software getting off the ground within a year sounds completely unbelievable. I know AI is basically expanding at a breakneck pace these days (where leaps and bounds are made on a monthly basis as opposed to yearly basis), so maybe that plays into this somehow. I'm sure there is tech being used we cant even imagine (which is cool, but scary).

I guess this is just the new thing China is going to steal from us.

---

Or, maybe we stole it from THEM.

My guess is that with that timeline they took a lot of off the shelf current, but up to date, tech and were able to get that together quickly. This is something we should be doing more, so while I'm curious and skeptical. I'm also hopeful.

I wouldn't want Elon Musk within a thousand miles of anything defense related,...

Moxley said:

---

Look at how SpaceX has revolutionized the space industry and how fast they are getting new designs built and flying. Compare the development of Falcon, Falcon Heavy, and now Starship to what NASA is doing with their typical cost-plus government contractor work with SLS. It is night and day different. SpaceX has now set the tone for the rest of the government contract industry. They took some government funding and quickly made something phenomenal out of it.

Given how bungled Lockheed has been dealing with the F 35, with cost overruns and performance issues, my guess is Boeing or some other company has vastly upgraded their initial plans from the X-35 program and had something close to being ready to go.

Since they won't name the developer, anyone think Musk could be involved? SpaceX fighter jet, anyone?

---

It's more likely this was made with a lot of of the shelf components. The long development timeframes for modern aircraft are because most of the technologies don't exist when the program starts. On top of that, many things have to be developed simultaneously, and even small changes can have large ramifications elsewhere

The F-22 and F-35 have a lot of technology and hardware that didn't exist until it was built specifically for them. If you wanted the same capabilities today, the development time would be significantly less because all of the legwork has already been done.

The F-35 especially ran into problems because it had to be everything to everyone. That means a lot of talking and designing that don't produce anything.

This may also just be any airframe and technology demonstrator, not a fully capable fighter.

SpaceX already operates as a defense contractor with regards to information disclosure, export compliance and other ways. I have no idea if they are involved with this but I don't think it's far fetched.

Saxsoon said:

---

I used to work in Aviation on the commercial side and briefly defense and this is shocking to me

---

This right here - on the defense side my experience was there were too many people and groups on the government side, each with their own requirements that could completely derail something or drop CARs at a moment's notice. They didn't even know what they wanted; the answer depended on who had an opinion, what their title was, and probably the phase of the moon.

Change notices and ambiguous requirements are the bane of any program.

FarmerJohn said:

---

SpaceX already operates as a defense contractor with regards to information disclosure, export compliance and other ways. I have no idea if they are involved with this but I don't think it's far fetched.

---

It's more likely a demonstrator using off the shelf parts of other aircraft. Look at the F-117. Program started in 1975, 2 demonstrators were built and flying by the end of 1977 after Lockheed got the contract to build in 1976. They used off the shelf parts from half a dozen other aircraft to make them. It was a Frankenplane with a very special shape just to prove the concept. The first full scale, production aircraft wasn't delivered until 1981.

Again, there wasn't anything technically special about the F-117 aside from its shape. There were some technical challenges in optimization and reducing the radar cross section further, but a lot of the avionics and other systems were derived from other aircraft even in the production version.

Subsequent aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 have been designed from the ground up to incorporate completely new technology and capabilities developed as a part of their programs. If the F-117 had the LO materials of the F-22 or the targeting, communication, and avionics capabilities of the F-35, it would have taken decades, too.

The Fife said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

I used to work in Aviation on the commercial side and briefly defense and this is shocking to me

---

This right here - on the defense side my experience was there were too many people and groups on the government side, each with their own requirements that could completely derail something or drop CARs at a moment's notice. They didn't even know what they wanted; the answer depended on who had an opinion, what their title was, and probably the phase of the moon.

Change notices and ambiguous requirements are the bane of any program.

---

You can say that again...as I've been there and had to go through that many a time! Getting everyone, from both the government AND the contractors, on the same page was the biggest issue as cost and time were always the driving force!

As a dumb EE that took 0 aerospace courses it would make sense to me to keep the same basic frame and replace the avionics and software every few years.
At what point will we squeeze every possible improvement out of the shape of a plane?

They do. Plenty of planes in the US inventory have upgraded avionics and other systems over the years since they were built.

The shapes of planes change because they're designed for different characteristics and different capabilities. Some need high maneuverability and instability, others need stability at low speeds or low altitudes, others need to operate at high altitude, some need speed, etc. The tradeoffs and shape are dependent upon the mission, which is dependent on adversaries and anticipated needs.

Then you can get really specific. The A-10 was designed around its BRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTT to be a tank buster that could take a bunch of punches in contested airspace. The B-2 is a flying wing because it's the optimal shape to deflect all radar bands. You can't just upgrade avionics and software to get those characteristics, so when the need or new technology comes along, you can't just cram it into an existing airplane. You need a new one.

ETA Airframes also experience wear and tear. Fighter and attack aircraft especially. They undergo a lot of stress and experience metal fatigue. Eventually, the airframe cannot continue to be used. The A-10 is a good example. A-10's had a lot of structural issues with their wings and premature cracking in the 90's/00's. They've basically all been replaced and upgraded to keep it in service.

The link in OP sounded like a North Korean propaganda piece, giving little details, no evidence, and promising the moon.

A bit of a follow-up...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/air-forces-secret-fighter-jet-125000316.html

"Given that astonishing time frame, The War Zone raises an interesting theory: With the new fighter jet, the Air Force didn't just do away with the traditional aircraft design processit also ripped up the traditional idea of what a fighter could look like. Perhaps the new Air Force is now doing things in a fundamentally different way than it has in the past, by virtue of necessity.

The new fighter, says The War Zone, is merely one part of the NGAD program. Over the past year, the Air Force has referred to NGAD as not as a single plane, but a "family of systems" that could well include both crewed and uncrewed aircraft. This was apparently the conclusion the Air Force came to after it studied an analysis of alternatives for the new air dominance program.

Crewed aircraft could be accompanied by uncrewed aircraft into battle, with the pilotless drones acting as decoys, wingmen, flying magazines, or sensor platforms. All of these aircraft would collaborate with the help of AI and battlefield networking to shoot down enemy planes and claim the skies. From The War Zone:

The 'demonstrator' could actually be an entire family of rapidly prototyped and already developed systems, with the networking and command and control architecture, shared sensors, and weapons being far more of a focus than the airframes themselves.

The Air Force has embraced new digital design and manufacturing techniques in building this new fighter. But it might have also embraced new ideas in how to achieve air dominance.

Our Favorite Hobby RC Planes
One idea is a much larger "fighter," even using parts of the B-21 Raider program, designed for long range and endurance. (The B-21 is the coolest plane we've never seen.) The Air Force wants a fighter that can fly long distances over the vast Indo-Pacific region, using the handful of bases that are available, and that can fly escort missions for manned bombers into enemy territory.

It would be difficult to design a traditional fighter of a traditional size with the range to do this. A larger platform would allow the Air Force to stuff more weapons and crucially, fuel, into the "fighter.""