This is a remarkable piece of wishful thinking.TallDave wrote:As for WB-7 results... well, the most salient piece of data in our possession is that they're building WB-8. It's a bigger commitment of resources than any machine in the WB series received by an order of magnitude. That says Navy reviewers were probably satisfied they had answered the small-machine questions.
If there were indications of success at stage X, then you would THEN plan a programme of further tests, X+1, X+2, &c. to show a roadmap to a final build and also to provide confidence into the programme that it can get built what it *needs* to get built. It would be thoughtless to plan for ONLY an X+1 in an experimental setting because once built something may've not quite been right with it, and you'd not scrap a programme just 'cos one experiment doesn't work out after you've already shown some successes.
However, you would consider scrapping a programme of tests if they had repeatedly failed to deliver. The only question if you have a series of duds is; which is the last dud gonna be. If you still have doubts either way, you'd build them one at a time.
Therein lies your answer. It is either one of a series of debatable duds, or the Navy is so cunning that they know people would think through the logic above and only funding one at a time to create confusion.