Move on to what sir? By the way i never really understood the concept of technology demonstrator. I mean if something is built and it meets the expectations, why stop there and start on something else and than incorporate the lessons learned? Why are those lessons not incorporated into the same program?
Maybe i am asking it the wrong way, i hope you understood the question.
A 'technology demonstrator' program is
EXTREMELY EXTREMELY EXTREMELY EXTREMELY important, not just in weapons development but in everything. Next time, before you take a drive to get ice cream, look at your tires and realize that literally millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours went into something we all take for granted that enable you to get ice cream, groceries, take your baby to the doctor, or go to work. I really cannot emphasize enough the importance of such a program in any company that is involved in creating new things.
When you theorize about something, you need to correlate the theory with real world proofs. Go back to your car's tires, for example. Look at the tread designs on your (street) tires vs the tread designs on an off-road vehicle. If
YOU theorize that a certain tread design is better for rock and mud, you have to prove it by actually creating such a tire and testing in rock and mud.
If you theorize that an aluminum frame can be just as strong as a steel frame but lighter overall and thereby save on fuel economy, you have to design a real Al frame, put a body on it, install all the usual accoutrements that make up a car, and drive it as a normal motorist would for at least a couple yrs to prove you are correct. Not counting you have to prove that the Al frame is just as good as the steel frame in crash testings.
A technology demonstration model is an increment inside a larger program and the XB-47 is exactly that. Inside the XB-47 program are many other smaller technology demonstrator models, such as proving that the telemetry system is robust enough to withstand atmospheric and human caused interference to allow the remote pilot continued operation of the aircraft. Can that airframe withstand the rigors of carrier landings and prolonged exposure to salt water ? How about the electronics ? Is the aircraft maintainable at sea ? Can the aircraft's controls be transferable from operator to operator in different ships or even from land and how quick is that transfer ? I can think of a hundred different questions based on my personal experience in avionics alone, not touching other issues like propulsion or even tactical uses.
If the program meet all expectations, the program
SHOULD end and usually it does. Data have been collected and analyzed. Now is the time to see if what was accomplished can be incorporated into other programs that may not have any direct connections to this program. Take remote operations, for example. What if we want to design an aircraft that can be both remote and locally piloted ? How fast can we switch modes ? Who has final authority, the local pilot or the remote operator ? We know that a human being automatically limit the aircraft to 9gs, so how can we built in an automatic g-limiter ? A seat weight sensor should be good enough, correct ? But what if the sensor itself go bad in the middle of a flight and the aircraft mistakenly give itself greater g-latitude ? Again, I can think of a hundred different scenarios where the technology in the XB-47 can be applicable to other programs, including programs that are not defense related.
You have to look at the program's objectives, whether it is about new tires or a new way of air warfare, in order to understand when and why a program was started and when stopped.
Unfortunately, these tests also likely mark the end of the X-47B program. Despite only completing 20 percent of its potential flight hours,...
Unfortunately ? Whoever wrote that article is an ignoramus, and I say that kindly.
So what if the aircraft flew only 20% of its projected flight hours ? The projected flight hours is an allocation based on financial budgeting, not program testing budgeting. The word 'budget' should be understood in the context of non-financial resources. If the XB-47 met all expectations and program objectives in only 20% of its flight hours allocation, that should be a worrying sign for our potential enemies, because it means the aircraft was very well designed and constructed. Not only that, it also means the people, especially the remote pilots and other people in related fields, managed to gel together their different specialties in very quick order to make each test flight productive.
If what I speculated above is true, it mean the US is further ahead on UAV technologies and real world operations than most people thought.
