Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "PilotPhotog" channel.

  1. winning a contract doesn't fix corporate leadership issues. actions do
    1700
  2.  @sarkaranish  you're incredibly naive
    73
  3. 1) the F4F did NOT pale in comparison to the Zero. it had its own strengths over the Zero that even the top Zero aces respected. And at the end of the day, the F4F scored an 11:1 kill ratio over the Zero. that is SUPREMACY. The Zero bet everything on maneuverability when speed was superior. The F4F was faster, tougher, better altitude and diving, and maneuverable enough to consistently come out on top over the Zero. 2) name a SINGLE other navy one Earth today with a superior aircraft to the F-18 super hornet....
    12
  4. given the levels of secrecy, that might not happen for another 20yrs
    8
  5. tell them about the Venom program, in which they taught F-16A to dogfight unmanned.
    8
  6. They copied the LAVI, which was another F-16 derivative.
    4
  7.  @TK199999  there were people pushing the idea of an "F-36 Kingsnake" fighter. bit of an artistic concept to blend F-16XL and stealth concepts into a new fighter. too bad it wasn't a real program.
    4
  8.  @johng.2321  I disagree. but we'll see who's right in time I suppose. top secret work doesn't run on public support, otherwise it wouldn't be top secret. Also, the new fighter is cheaper than previous designs, as the DOD learned from both the F-22 and F-35. The B-21 was also delivered ahead of schedule and under budget as a result of those lessons learned as well. And NGAD is being pushed through quickly for good reason. And the gov is ok with it being slightly less stealthy than the F-22 and such to get it done early and keep costs down. Reason being that the US wants this in large volumes, larger even than the F-35. They are going quantity over quality on this one, and for good reasons. NGAD, the Constellation Frigates, and more are being built intentionally and with urgency right now. Meanwhile, other countries around the world are following suit with their own weapons procurement programs right now. there is an urgency to it all. If you study history you might know why that is.
    3
  9.  @GARYGUYTON-c7i  the solution isn't to bailout failing corporations. we need More New companies to add to the list of companies that can do the job. less failed corrupt monopolistic conglomerates and more competition.
    3
  10. one of the requirements of NGAD was to be built in quantity at reduced cost. and for the US gov to own the tooling, plans, etc. Prioritizing quantity over pure technology.
    2
  11. cer-ber-us seems basic language skills are dropping off a cliff with literacy rates.
    1
  12. the wing pylons are also canted to eliminate right angles.
    1
  13.  @AA-xo9uw  but they eliminate right angles...
    1
  14.  @AA-xo9uw  but they eliminate right angles.
    1
  15. there are all sorts of things older than the F-22 that still haven't been declassified. it's gonna be a long wait.
    1
  16.  @thomasblankinship98  we all want to believe Aurora, but the fact is if anything it was a name to hide funding of other projects, or it was a research attempt. But had it existed and worked, why did they keep using the SR-71 instead?
    1
  17. It's crazy how much progress in aviation was made in the 20yrs after the end of WW2. So many of the aircraft designed in that time are still in active service today.
    1
  18.  @fermiparadox1  no, they are not sending AI piloted f-16 to ukraine.
    1
  19.  @fermiparadox1  I know for a FACT the US is not sending AI piloted unmanned research aircraft to fight in Ukraine. The aircraft is not capable of combat operations yet, Venom is a tech demonstrator program only. And US so far is not sending fighter jets to ukraine at ALL. US is playing it safe and only allowing other nations to send F-16s if able, but not supplying F-16 itself (for now at least). This is all well known.
    1
  20.  @RamblingRodeo  you clearly did not comprehend what i wrote.
    1
  21.  @sc1338  we'll see. it takes more than a CEO change.
    1
  22.  @GARYGUYTON-c7i  it's all under the same leadership.
    1
  23.  @sanjeevsharma9998  and GE, and others...
    1
  24.  @Retroscoop  he's doing what needs ot be done. doubt we'd sell the NGAD regardless.
    1
  25.  @donw4889  wrong, It's a leadership problem. Boeings problems did not originate at eth bottom. it was top down rot.
    1
  26.  @FirstLast-vr7es  yes
    1
  27.  @fergalhennessy775  they need to change middle management too
    1
  28.  @sarkaranish  " I'm naive true, but the other option is to bet against American aerospace, and I don't want to do that." proving you're naive once again. US aerospace is bigger than just Boeing.
    1
  29.  @Knight_Kin  "Wouldn't winning the contract be proof of improvement" no, just proof the gov is actually following the laws they created about fairness and competition in the markets. if they only kept awarding contracts to one company (lockheed), soon only lockheed would exist. same reason they gave Boeing all that money for Starliner......look how that turned out.
    1
  30.  @GARYGUYTON-c7i  "Doesn't matter, the Military product developed and produced by Boeing performs well," much of it inherited from other companies and past engineers who are long since dead or retired.
    1
  31.  @GARYGUYTON-c7i  "Start those new corporations first, then maybe let Boeing's commercial and space concerns die out. After those new companies prove themselves to be more capable than Boeing." no. that's not how it works. you need competitors at all stages of development and capabilities. "Their military wing is doing just fine, and should be kept." Kept? who was throwing it out? We're not supposed to be a socialist economy. we don't need to be propping up trillion dollar corporations with tax dollars.
    1
  32.  @GARYGUYTON-c7i  "Every defense contractor benefits from inherited tech and past engineering successes. A meaningless post." wrong. very purposeful post, you just don't comprehend it. many new engineers didn't learn the lessons past engineers learned. they can look at what was accomplished, but the lessons learned along the way are lost. and many younger engineers pale in comparison to older engineers. I am an engineer, hold tens of patents and world records, and I train young engineers. there is a lot they don't know and were never taught, and many lack real world experiences thus lacking intuition.
    1
  33.  @bowie5_888  only time, action, and results will tell.
    1
  34.  @GARYGUYTON-c7i  "English comprehension is Not your strong suit. I'm a retired QA engineer with over 30 years experience. I know tech companies gain and maintain technological expertise as engineers and technicians migrate from one company to another. " Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy and proves nothing. One person taking a job at a new place is NOT what I was talking about. it is YOU who lacks reading comprehension. You are failing to understand what I am talking about entirely.
    1
  35.  @jamesholden5664  Perhaps, but it's not two separate companies. two separate departments, but the same leadership. only time will tell. Hard to claim success with the F-15EX as it was not a clean sheet design. they were building off decades of someone else's homework and data, and didn't really change the core design dramatically. It was more about upgrades (flight controls, engines, software, avionics...) than anything else. Claiming success by tweaking legacy designs that are older than everyone working at Boeing proves nothing. This new design will be the test. Their space division has been an unmitigated disaster.
    1
  36.  @alex4alexn  yes, they will have different lower level leadership. but they are both affected by the leadership at the top regardless.
    1