9 ms·

With modern combat aircraft the easy part is the working airframe actually. The YF-22 first flew in 1989 and finally entered service as the F-22 in 2005. F-35 h

With modern combat aircraft the easy part is the working airframe actually. The YF-22 first flew in 1989 and finally entered service as the F-22 in 2005. F-35 had a similarly long development time and while its technically been operational for years, its software is like a modern EA release. A lot of the good stuff missing and available as later DLC. They are still patching in drivers for weapons that legacy aircraft already support. While its definitely good that NGAD has produced a flying prototype so quickly, it isn't proof that they have achieved the goal of faster development. The primary hinderance has been and still is the software. The defense industry has been slow to adopt modern coding practices. Sometimes that's a good thing. But on the balance its bad. F-35's software development has all of the hallmarks of a project saddled with a great deal of technical debt combined with outdated practices and overburdened with compliance.

jupp0r 5y ago
What makes you think that Boom won't have a long time to go fixing their software after they have a flying prototype?
- akiselev 5y ago
  Stuff in civilian aviation is designed to be certified before its flown commercially, stuff in military aviation is designed to be adapted on an evolving battlefield.
- nradov 5y ago
  Boom production models will use COTS avionics just like every other business jet manufacturer. They'll have to write custom flight control software but that will be much easier than on a military aircraft. No weapons, no external stores, no defensive systems, no tactical data link, no complex navigation modes, etc.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Except they'll need to write that flight control software themselves, for a plane so different from modern aircraft that there are literally no experts in software design for this class of aircraft. (Outside of anyone doing it for the military, and I can't imagine they'd be allowed to repurpose that work.) There will need to be a whole lot of new software development, along with the corresponding review process by the FAA. Simpler than a complex military fighter, but there's no COTS solution for the software and that's a huge part of this project.
    - hadlock 5y ago
      Looking at the current state of open source software like ardupilot, and the fact that we've had supersonic jet fighters since the 1950s (F-100 Super Sabre) I don't think the control software is going to be a major bottleneck. If anything, not being tied to legacy control software may improve their velocity and testing. Navigation solutions should be drop in. Garmin, etc offer drop-in glass cockpit retrofit solutions for Cesnas from the 1960s.
      - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        If Boeing can't make the Max work without crashes, what makes you think a completely new supersonic aircraft can use a fork of Ardupilot with a few minor extras for supersonic flight? Supersonic flight has much less overlap with subsonic flight than you might think. There are compression and twisting forces on the fuselage and flight surfaces which have no analog in conventional airliners. And you can't just take the flight characteristics of one shape/size of aircraft and tweak them a little for your new design.
        breakfastduck 5y ago
        'If X can't do it...' is a bad argument that doesn't take any consideration of real life. Just because they are a huge company with big spending power does not make it impossible for their codebases to be a pile of hot steaming garbage that even the best engineers struggle with.
javajosh 5y ago
The F-35 has in-app purchases? Nice.
- NateEag 5y ago
  "It looks like you're gonna crash! Pick up a parachute for just 200 coins and you won't have to start a new pilot file."
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    You have 12 seconds until crash. Please enter credit card information.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Nah, first you get: "Please solve this captcha to prove that you are not a drone".
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    "Hyperion is offering a ninety percent off sale on all New-U respawns! This offer expires in three-two-one-zero aww, better luck next time."
Someone 5y ago
> With modern combat aircraft the easy part is the working airframe actually. Is there such a thing as a “working airframe” for modern combat aircraft? Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability, I have the understanding that, for modern combat aircraft, you can’t consider the airframe to be separate from the software.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  Flight control software is a tiny fraction of the software on a combat aircraft. As a side note: Early relaxed stability planes had no software. It was implemented with analog computers
  - Animats 5y ago
    Yes, most notably the F-16, which had a really good four-channel redundant analog flight control system. But is that needed on a transport aircraft? Fighters have it for extreme maneuverability, which a transport aircraft does not need or want.
    - t0mas88 5y ago
      Transport category aircraft are inherently stable by their aerodynamic design, it's a certification requirement. If you have normal wings and the right size horizontal and vertical stabiliser the basic design of an aircraft is self stabilising. Especially with the wings sloping upwards (as all airliners have) because that wing shape also contributes to stability.
      - aidenn0 5y ago
        Per the Wikipedia article, MD-11 required active stabilization.
        t0mas88 5y ago
        Never flown one, but as far as I know that's only moving the center of gravity by moving fuel. The CG is very important to inherent stability, if it moves behind the center of pressure you lose all pitch stability. And for efficiency you want it to be as far aft as possible because that reduces drag from the tailplane.

jupp0r 5y ago

What makes you think that Boom won't have a long time to go fixing their software after they have a flying prototype?

akiselev 5y ago
Stuff in civilian aviation is designed to be certified before its flown commercially, stuff in military aviation is designed to be adapted on an evolving battlefield.
nradov 5y ago
Boom production models will use COTS avionics just like every other business jet manufacturer. They'll have to write custom flight control software but that will be much easier than on a military aircraft. No weapons, no external stores, no defensive systems, no tactical data link, no complex navigation modes, etc.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Except they'll need to write that flight control software themselves, for a plane so different from modern aircraft that there are literally no experts in software design for this class of aircraft. (Outside of anyone doing it for the military, and I can't imagine they'd be allowed to repurpose that work.) There will need to be a whole lot of new software development, along with the corresponding review process by the FAA. Simpler than a complex military fighter, but there's no COTS solution for the software and that's a huge part of this project.
  - hadlock 5y ago
    Looking at the current state of open source software like ardupilot, and the fact that we've had supersonic jet fighters since the 1950s (F-100 Super Sabre) I don't think the control software is going to be a major bottleneck. If anything, not being tied to legacy control software may improve their velocity and testing. Navigation solutions should be drop in. Garmin, etc offer drop-in glass cockpit retrofit solutions for Cesnas from the 1960s.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      If Boeing can't make the Max work without crashes, what makes you think a completely new supersonic aircraft can use a fork of Ardupilot with a few minor extras for supersonic flight? Supersonic flight has much less overlap with subsonic flight than you might think. There are compression and twisting forces on the fuselage and flight surfaces which have no analog in conventional airliners. And you can't just take the flight characteristics of one shape/size of aircraft and tweak them a little for your new design.
      - breakfastduck 5y ago
        'If X can't do it...' is a bad argument that doesn't take any consideration of real life. Just because they are a huge company with big spending power does not make it impossible for their codebases to be a pile of hot steaming garbage that even the best engineers struggle with.

javajosh 5y ago

The F-35 has in-app purchases? Nice.

NateEag 5y ago
"It looks like you're gonna crash! Pick up a parachute for just 200 coins and you won't have to start a new pilot file."
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  You have 12 seconds until crash. Please enter credit card information.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Nah, first you get: "Please solve this captcha to prove that you are not a drone".
- mschuster91 5y ago
  "Hyperion is offering a ninety percent off sale on all New-U respawns! This offer expires in three-two-one-zero aww, better luck next time."

Someone 5y ago

> With modern combat aircraft the easy part is the working airframe actually. Is there such a thing as a “working airframe” for modern combat aircraft? Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability, I have the understanding that, for modern combat aircraft, you can’t consider the airframe to be separate from the software.

aidenn0 5y ago
Flight control software is a tiny fraction of the software on a combat aircraft. As a side note: Early relaxed stability planes had no software. It was implemented with analog computers
- Animats 5y ago
  Yes, most notably the F-16, which had a really good four-channel redundant analog flight control system. But is that needed on a transport aircraft? Fighters have it for extreme maneuverability, which a transport aircraft does not need or want.
  - t0mas88 5y ago
    Transport category aircraft are inherently stable by their aerodynamic design, it's a certification requirement. If you have normal wings and the right size horizontal and vertical stabiliser the basic design of an aircraft is self stabilising. Especially with the wings sloping upwards (as all airliners have) because that wing shape also contributes to stability.
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      Per the Wikipedia article, MD-11 required active stabilization.
      - t0mas88 5y ago
        Never flown one, but as far as I know that's only moving the center of gravity by moving fuel. The CG is very important to inherent stability, if it moves behind the center of pressure you lose all pitch stability. And for efficiency you want it to be as far aft as possible because that reduces drag from the tailplane.