If you have information other than that posted here previously, could you please provide a link.
I’m just going by the third paragraph of the posting….

“General Dynamics Information Systems & Technology group reorganized its businesses effective the 1st of 2015,” the statement reads, “and in the course of that reorganization has decided to discontinue pursuit of T-X as a prime contractor.”

And it sounds to me like they don’t want to be involved in the T-X program.

Does anyone have any details on whether any of the ‘clean sheet’ designs from NG, Boeing and the back-up from LM, are supersonic, and to what extent ?
Could an MB346 achieve supersonic ( M1.2 to M1.4 ) with variable shock intakes, variable area exhaust, and possibly afterburner ?
Haven’t gone through the requirements yet, is supersonic ability even in there ?

Viscosity and boundary layers are way too advanced for this discussion, which requires just Bernoulli’s theorem and a few assumptions. And I promise, no math whatsoever.

Consider a square cross-section tube divided into three lengthwise sections, say A, B, and C. This tube can be considered to be moving through a compressible fluid lengthwise, or statiionary with the fluid moving along and through it. If we consider the opening of the tube and the exit of the tube we know that in the absence of any sources or sinks the amount and rate of fluid exiting equals the amount and rate entering.
Let us now place two ‘D’ shaped constrictions, above and below the middle, B section such that the belly of the ‘D’ shape face the centre of the tube. The same considerations dictate that the amount and rate of fluid exiting has to equal the amount entering, ie. in the smaller cross-section, constricted section B, the fluid has to move faster to keep the same rate. There is only one force which can speed up the fluid going from section A to B, and slow it down again in going from section B to C, and that is pressure. In effect the pressure in section A has to be higher than in section B, and similarily, to slow the fluid, the pressure in section C needs to be higher than section B.
This is simply a non-mathematical version of Bernoulli’s theorem.

If we now physically remove the square section tube, but still keep the two ‘D’ shaped constrictions, we find that the same continuity considerations apply to the stream tube, ie a certain section of fluid has to have the same amount giong in as going out. But since we have removed the actual physical tube, the pressure in what used to be sections A and C are equal to the surrounding pressure. it is only between the two ‘D’ shaped constrictions that pressure is lowered.

We can also remove the upper ‘D’ shaped constriction such that the pressure above the lower ‘D’ shaped constriction is lower than the surroundings at close distances, but increases to equal the surroundings at large distances.
This is what causes lowered pressure above a curved surface.

If we apply streamlining considerations to the ‘D’ shape, such as extending the rear length for a shallower angle to prevent flow separation, we have the classic ‘Clark Y’ airfoil which every schoolchild draws.

I hope everyone understood me; drawings would have helped a lot.
There are lots of other ways to explain wing lift involving path distances and rotations, but they quickly require college/university level mathematics.

Are you guys trying to re-write history ?
The X-32 was a modern take on the Harrier ?

If I recall, the Harrier can take off vertically, while the X-32 failed miserably, even over the pit, ie out of ground effect.

Don’t tell me what the X-32 would have been able to do and how well, as I’m sure a lot of developement troubles would have come up with it also. Don’t forget, the F-35, or X-35, was going to do all sorts of wonderful things also, and for a very low price. How did that work out ?

The X-32 was a much more compact and dense design and as such, had less growth capability. Its original design with a delta had to be modified to swept with a tail for a more horizontal attitude for carrier landings. And although Boeing assured everyone that its RCS and flying qualities would be unchanged, I don’t think anyone wanted the extra insecurity.
I also don’t think its RCS was in the same class as the F-35. That big opening at the front had to expose compressor blades and even if a screen were used as a shield ( so I’ve heard ), it would only work for a certain range of wavelengths.

I suggest you guys re-read the IAPR article in issue #1, and I remember seeing a NOVA program on the JSF competition on TV. It may be available online.

Maybe Northrop shouldn’t have totally redesigned the F-5E to produce the F-5G/ F-20. If engines had been available in the 7500/8000 lbst class to fit the airframe, or even a slightly modified airframe, the F-5 upgrade market would be alive and well today as cheap airframes are readily available and electronic upgrades are being done regardless.

A structurally upgraded F-5E with upgraded electronics ( like Brasilian F-5s ) and 5000 lbs extra thrust, would be relatively cheap and still viable today ( with maybe a larger, less tapered wing part of the structural upgrade).

If I may add my two cents, the original driving force behind V/STOL capability was not ‘foreward basing’ or anything to do with nuclear strike ( and no I’m not old enough to remember the 50s ).
IIRC, it had everything to do with the realization that in a conflict, the first targets are air defences and airfields, Lately most conflicts have been too one sided, ie. the US vs somebody else, and usually the somebody else doesn’t even launch their aircraft for fear of losing them ( Iraq twice, Libya, Kosovo and did Afganistan even have an air force ?? ) The last conflict which was almost equal was UK vs Argentina, and do you recall what happened to the airfields on the Falkland islands ?

So if an adversary’s first strike takes away your air defences and airfields it takes away your means of protection and retaliation. V/STOL aircraft with no need for airfields and DISPERSED basing, restore those capabilities. That is their purpose, it is still relevant, and its deterrence value is priceless ( even worth the cost of F-35B ).

Obviously Ogami Musashi is not a physicist or he would know that anytime you accelerate air in spurious directions you are generating drag. A vortex, while controlling and re-energising other aspects of the airflow pattern, by necessity, induce drag. It sems kind of pointless to start generating vortices and drag at 3 deg. where airflow control and re-energising isn’t needed yet.

I think you guys better define explicitly what you mean by maneuverability. For example an M2000, with its light weight and large wetted surfaces, can quickly change the direction of its nose and get off a cannon or SRAAM missile. However it cannot sustain this attitude change because its large wetted surfaces generate a lot of drag and speed is quickly scrubbed off.
An F-16, on the other hand, has smaller wetted surfaces but much greater thrust, so while it may not be able to point its nose as readily, once it has, it can sustain this attitude change because of its greater SEP and lower drag, and probabily get the kill in a sustained engagement.

So, large wing areas give hi instantaneous turn rates, but it cannot be sustained because of the hi drag of the wing area. Smaller wings and hi excess power give hi sustained turn rates but not necessarily instantaneous.

Which of the two is more essential or useful in modern combat ???

I’ m glad you spelled it “democratic” because a lot of the countries I mentioned have elections and varying degrees od democracy. Very few are monarchies or outright dictatorships. Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected before changing the constitution to become dictators. Hell even Castro in Cuba has ‘so called’ free elections and is by definition then a democracy ( but we know better ).There are varying degrees and definitions of democracy.

So where would you rather live, in Belarus or Georgia or the Ukraine, beside Russia. Or say in Taiwan beside China. Or are you very happy to live in Canada beside a benevolent USA ????