Former USAF Engineer's Insights on the Design of the Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter (NGAD)

Rick Abell discusses the new design potential for the Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter (NGAD). From his entry into the USAF as a Civil Servant in 1964 till his retirement in 1997, Mr. Eric "Rick" Abell worked on or led the development and fielding on almost every aircraft and related system in the USAF including the A-7, A-10, F-15, F-16, YF-17, F-117, YF-22, YF-23, F-22, B-1, B-2, and several classified programs. He has also worked extensively with the US Navy and US Army.
ABSOLUTE VENGEANCE eBook by C.W. Lemoine is only $0.99 for the month of October! books2read.com/Absolute-Venge...
Check out The Mover and Gonky Show Mondays at 8PM ET LIVE. • The Mover and Gonky Show
Buy one of C.W. Lemoine's books: www.cwlemoine.com
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.

[@YoungL_rd]

One of my favorite sayings. “You dont know, what you dont know”

[@PimpdaddyWu]

Wow, That's my motto for my Boss. 😅

[@DNowlan1]

Rick absolutely nailed this. Nothing replaces building aircraft. Also as an engineer working in the upper ends of motorsport let me add in my 2 cents worth. I graduated in 1995 just before CAE tools became mainstream. The biggest misstep in engineering education was thinking CAE tools could replace first principles education. We are paying a heavy price for this now and I deal with this on a daily basis.

[@classicjetsims]

Hmmm... expected an interesting discussion on all of the new systems from engines to intelligence-gathering systems to Radar systems to weapon systems, data-fusion, stealth, etc. The aerodynamics is a pretty trivial part of it all at this point. Yea, test-flying usually covers some minor surprises but not many any more as we found out with the F-35. I work for a company that builds Radar and emulation systems and it's an amazingly complex field.. The man-years of effort just on this single component is massive. Modern day fighters are the result of all of these combined efforts on the various systems and software coming together in a single flying platform which I don't think the general public is very aware of anymore.

[@blueskiestrevor5200]

I really appreciate hearing Rick's perspective on things and I'm glad you brought him on. But this whole series of videos seems to just be "new = bad. old = good" There is very little actually detail being discussed here. I'm sure who knows a lot older aircraft but when it comes to the NGAD and B-21 it seems like he and you have only read news headlines. This is just my feedback for what it's worth. Good up the good work

[@palleh.jensen4648]

At the end, the “Slide Rule’s”!!!

[@bryanbishop2377]

Maintaining institutional knowledge is critical to the continued existence of any industry. It just takes one generation to lose it...and then we have to start over again...

[@rezdog0980]

Basically talking about Dr Roper’s century series strategy

[@shaider1982]

M7* has a good video on possible design concepts on the NGAD.

[@crazypetec-130fe7]

Next presidential election, everybody write in Rick Abell. That will save us tons of money. And time. But seriously, nothing but respect for you!

[@jonathancole6124]

TRUMP!!!!

[@RocketToTheMoose]

I recall that the "ET-7" designation was only intended to be for the development process, not the production aircraft. Of course it might have been that they were embarrassed by the reaction to the "ET" and made an an excuse about it, but I dunno.

[@alandowney6961]

The T-7's wing rock issue was found before the flight testing, in computer simulations and was only fixed in software while flight testing was underway.

[@matsv201]

Computer design for sure cut down on cost... the flip side of that most people forget, is that when cost os pushed down, complexity is pushed up. The other issue is the very low production volume of modern aircraft push up cost, its not only about the prototype, but also the full series. Compare say a modern military jet to a airliner. The airliner bust cost a fraction . And ofcause, people will claim that military jets are more complex, and sure, that is true to a degree, but the bulk diffrance is the volumes. Its not like something lile a A350 lacks complexity. Its just that the volumes are huge. And this is not only due to higher production number but also higher modularity. Now of cause the tempest project supose to push modluarity.

[@agena6594]

Perfection = Paralysis

[@percilenis8464]

Maybe I’m missing some context from the rest of the interview but this was such a low-level discussion. I understand there is no replacement for physically building a model to test its performance in the real world and there is also no replacement for having a human inside to test ergonomics, but for the latter, we are approaching a shift to autonomous aircraft probably in 6th gen fighters if not sooner so then pilot-focused designs will be less of a priority. Where is the discussion of the massive cost savings and benefits of computer modelling? The dismissive comparison to making a house appear from smoke is ridiculous. 5th Gen aircraft was made with MASSIVE digital assistance in a way that was not possible with 4th Gen. This guy really wants to sit there and tell us that “the guy who has been doing it for years” with analog instruments and brute force testing is going to come up with something like the F-22. Really?

[@classicjetsims]

Yea, was wondering the same thing. I expected an interesting discussion on the new fighter, not this. The aerodynamics is such a trivial part of it these days. It's way more about all the systems and intelligence gathering capabilities. I work on radar systems which is but one component and it's an amazingly complex field in regards to detecting and classifying modern day AESA radar systems used in other aircraft and ground radar and also new over-the horizon systems, etc. We have a ton of people working on just this one aspect which also includes emulation to help with design of jamming and RWR detection systems.

[@unrealfpvdroneproduction4357]

the world will probably turn upside down if you find out that the f-22 was designed with the help of aerodynamic tubes and not with CFD

[@simonoconnor7759]

We use it as "known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns."

[@marcondespaulo]

Well, the P-51 Mustang went from idea to flying in 7 months. What more do you want?

[@toddie4usa1]

Heather "lucky" Penney! Its her

[@andrewcopple7075]

Simulations and emulations are only as good as our ability to understand the physics and underlying behaviors of the plane. There's a reason most electrodynamics and fluid dynamics can only be truly understood with experimentation. I speak as a physics phd formerly focused on simulations of nanoscale semiconductors.

[@toddie4usa1]

Are you aware of the technologies thst are being used by defense contractors for their design and conceptual testing.

[@mignik01]

One of my good friends completed his PhD on direct numerical simulations with no modeling for turbine blades. Just a few years ago this was considered impossible. Computing power is getting there. However you still need experimentation. With proper simulations you can limit that

[@andrewcopple7075]

Oh yeah, I'm a huge fan of simulations and what they can do! It's just important to not oversell their capability, because it can create huge backfires for the implementation and integration into future programs and platforms. @@mignik01

[@captaintoyota3171]

Yup in commercial construction they can design and engineer it to the 11th degree, yet when you go to build it it doesnt work. Nothing is better than trying it, UNLESS its dangerous then u gotta engineer it, but you still may need to change it in real world

[@jonathancole6124]

It's been flying since 2020

[@user-dk3sn8iz8g]

I've been doing product design for 20+ years using 3D modeling software. It's not the software it's the designer that uses it that makes the difference. Just like it's not the plane it's the guy in the seat that makes the difference.

[@user-ud2eh9ry4m]

Do you know why Curtiss aircraft out sold wright brothers aircraft Curtiss had flaps wrights had wing warp pilots said so if the wing breaks I think I will go see curtiss

[@DragNetJoe]

Spot on. Everyone is looking for the magic bullet that will save prototyping, flight test, and fly-fix-fly. The government loves the idea of digital modeling magically saving money and contractors are more than happy to tell the lie that the government wants to hear. That's another saying that needs to be out there. Beware the contractor that tells you the story you want to hear.

[@robihobby9490]

Take the Design from YF-23 for the Next Generation Fighter! 😎

[@toddie4usa1]

That thi g is obsolete. 6th Gen is hypersonic

[@lyric-992]

That's Very unlikely. Future fighter aircrafts will look like the B2. All flat with no visible control surface's

[@JohnNathanShopper]

💀💛

[@scratchnbell]

Long comment

[@Lizard_Man666]

Eric is what the industry refers to as 'an old fuddy duddy'. It's ok to admit you don't understand modern tools, it happens to everyone as they get old like Rick😊 Experienced people using modelling and Sim do it very well, any 'youngen' as Rick is implying is doing all this CAD and Sim work... is obviously not going to be as good at design.

[@danh6720]

What I got from him is CAD and sims are great. But building and actually flight testing more planes will make you a better plane builder. I don’t think that should be particularly controversial.

[@agena6594]

With all those expensive degrees they require people to have you think Lockheed would make a real hypersonic plane but no, we got a movie prop instead.

[@markymarknj]

It's a SHAMEFUL TRAVESTY that it takes so long to design and build airplanes nowadays! The original P-51 Mustang went from drawing board to prototype in 102 days; the DeHavilland Mosquito went from drawing board to flying prototype in 22 months; and so on. Yes, aircraft are more complex now, but we have more powerful tools to design them too. What's the problem?

[@classicjetsims]

Software

[@markymarknj]

@@classicjetsims you made my point for me! We have all sorts of powerful tools that Kelly Johnson, Ed Heinemann, Dutch Kindelberger, and Geoffrey De Havilland could only DREAM of having! All they had was pencil, paper, and slide rules, yet they could go from clean sheet to flying prototype in a fraction of the time it takes now. It's a travesty that planes like the F-22 or the NGAD take DECADES to develop! Yes, they're more complex, but the tools to design and build them are 1,000x more powerful than what the designers of yore had. It's not just airplanes though. It took DECADES to build something at the WTC site! Granted, much of that was political wrangling, but once the decision was made to build something, it took like 6-8 years to construct the Freedom Tower, or WTC1; OTOH, the Empire State Building was completed in 13 months.

[@jonathancole6124]

The NG has been flying since 2020

[@markymarknj]

@@jonathancole6124 BFD. It won't be ready until 2030! What if something happens before then? We have over six years before the NGAD will be fielded.

[@warboyrb]

eT-7....idiotic 😅😅

[@Slippindisc]

So I take it the new formula is to do one actual show once in a while, then chop it up and flood the subscribers feed with the same repackaged content they’ve already watched for the next week or so? I like the channel but this is not the way.