Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

[bring_it_on]

^^ Ignores the fact where they both (or at least FK) said that either side could have basically been selected on the program and built NGAD (and may perhaps at a future date). AF claims the Boeing proposal was best value so the difference may have come down to a few areas allowing Boeing to pull ahead as a better overall value to the service for this round. In a way this exchange debunks to some extent those claims from Vago M from 2023 (about LM somehow offering a less ambitious design), and also his persistent claims that the 'threat' played some role in the pause which neither Kendal nor Hunter directly pointed to even when prompted IIRC (sticking to their prior claims of funding, and other more imp priorities).

 

[Shaman Harris]

To be honest, American pop defense industry analysts kind of made this bed by trashing European and Chinese planes for having canards when American ones didn't.

Well, no staff members(here) are from the us and china, the largest economic powers.

 

[Shaman Harris]

For some reasons, horizontal tail seems to be quite out of the picture for 6th gen.

 

[bobbymike]

Reflections Of The F-47: Looking Back At The X-36

The tailless X-36 demonstrator was one of several test planes and studies that likely paved the way for the F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter. The tailless X-36 demonstrator was one of several test planes and studies that likely fed into the F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter.

www.twz.com

 

[djfawcett]

Let me be boring and bet on 4-6 MRAAMs.
It's a plane smaller than F-22/23, that is also supposed to carry more fuel. I don't think volume logic changed somehow significantly.

No, but engine efficiency has, to the better. Moreover, how in the world can the F-47 size be estimated to be smaller than an F-22 from the two pics published????

 

[Sevrent]

No, but engine efficiency has, to the better. Moreover, how in the world can the F-47 size be estimated to be smaller than an F-22 from the two pics published????

I think based off the recent interview podcast suggesting they havent changed the design of NGAD and stuck with the original plan. NGAD is probably in between F-22/F-23 size, I cant see it being smaller than an F-22. Especially with the price Kendall was quoting.

 

[what_is_that]

I think based off the recent interview podcast suggesting they havent changed the design of NGAD and stuck with the original plan. NGAD is probably in between F-22/F-23 size, I cant see it being smaller than an F-22. Especially with the price Kendall was quoting.

Agreed, I’m seeing it as a bit bigger than F-22 based on Kendall’s comments, with a larger fuel fraction, lower drag, and the adaptive cycle engines to get the needed range. I think the higher cost is being driven by NGAP and possibly DEW provsions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah, if the F-47 really is a pure air to air F-22 follow-up combat monster, then everything else flows from there, including shallow bays optimized for AA missiles and bombs as a second thought at best.

Yet not including volume for bombs means that the replacement for the F-15E MUST BE additional B-21s, instead of F-47s. Remember, the USAF has still not talked about CCAs carrying bombs, and dropped the idea of a CCA adjunct for B-21s due to lack of savings.

IMO, not including volume for bombs in the F-47 bays is willful sabotage of the program. And, is quite frankly setting the USAF up to have to take FAXXs to serve as Strike NGADs if there's no tactical-mission B-21s purchased.

No, but engine efficiency has, to the better. Moreover, how in the world can the F-47 size be estimated to be smaller than an F-22 from the two pics published????

The single nose-wheel image suggests an aircraft no larger than F-22/YF-23, while early on the range requirements were suggesting an aircraft the size of an F-111.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think the implication of the F-22 comparisons by Kendall is that this similar size and weapon load - ie, 6-8 AAMs. I suspect dedicated AIM-9 launchers get dropped in favor of AIM-260 covering all range bands from a central bay(s), with lock on after launch when necessary.

I agree with the above post that Adaptive engines probably buy a lot of extra range - the F119 is impressive in its dry thrust power, but it does this with a very modest bypass and relatively high fuel consumption. F-47 likely has a lighter structure and bigger fuel fraction as well. Not sure how much range can be achieved that way, but I would have thought NGADs requirement was a combat radius of 1,000 mile or more.

 

[Nart]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1906016780629246322

View: https://x.com/Aviation_Intel/status/1906016780629246322


New piece about F-47 from TWZ

 

[Josh_TN]

Yet not including volume for bombs means that the replacement for the F-15E MUST BE additional B-21s, instead of F-47s. Remember, the USAF has still not talked about CCAs carrying bombs, and dropped the idea of a CCA adjunct for B-21s due to lack of savings.

IMO, not including volume for bombs in the F-47 bays is willful sabotage of the program. And, is quite frankly setting the USAF up to have to take FAXXs to serve as Strike NGADs if there's no tactical-mission B-21s purchased.



The single nose-wheel image suggests an aircraft no larger than F-22/YF-23, while early on the range requirements were suggesting an aircraft the size of an F-111.

Why would the USAF complicate its dedicated counter air platform with air to ground ordnance? It did not with the F-22, and the mission is similar. There’s no shortage of platforms that can sling a Mk84 sized bomb, even internally. It is pointless to compromise the internal volume of F-47 with that mission. And why would USAF buy an entirely new type of airframe along with all of the associated training and maintenance streams when it already has low signature fighter and bomber platforms in production?

I never saw an explicit range requirement. I had thought something along the lines of 1500 mile combat radius to allow for unrefueled missions from the 2nd chain, but it seems unlikely that is what USAF has in mind. While I did think an F-111 sized fighter was more likely than not, I think I also mentioned that such a design might be limited to an extremely small number of very long runways and thus potentially counter productive. The use of canards might be primarily for tailless stability but it likely also would have an advantage in shorter take off distances.

 

[djfawcett]

Yet not including volume for bombs means that the replacement for the F-15E MUST BE additional B-21s, instead of F-47s. Remember, the USAF has still not talked about CCAs carrying bombs, and dropped the idea of a CCA adjunct for B-21s due to lack of savings.

IMO, not including volume for bombs in the F-47 bays is willful sabotage of the program. And, is quite frankly setting the USAF up to have to take FAXXs to serve as Strike NGADs if there's no tactical-mission B-21s purchased.



The single nose-wheel image suggests an aircraft no larger than F-22/YF-23, while early on the range requirements were suggesting an aircraft the size of an F-111.

Hi Scott, I wouldn't put much faith in the nose wheel drawing. Either they pulled the rendering from BD-5/10 picture, or the F-47 is larger than any of us would believe. However, I do believe that the weight is near that of a F-15E. I believe you gave an excellent argument why that could be the case (dealing with fuel efficiency.)

 

[donnage99]

Why would the USAF complicate its dedicated counter air platform with air to ground ordnance? It did not with the F-22, and the mission is similar. There’s no shortage of platforms that can sling a Mk84 sized bomb, even internally. It is pointless to compromise the internal volume of F-47 with that mission. And why would USAF buy an entirely new type of airframe along with all of the associated training and maintenance streams when it already has low signature fighter and bomber platforms in production?

I never saw an explicit range requirement. I had thought something along the lines of 1500 mile combat radius to allow for unrefueled missions from the 2nd chain, but it seems unlikely that is what USAF has in mind. While I did think an F-111 sized fighter was more likely than not, I think I also mentioned that such a design might be limited to an extremely small number of very long runways and thus potentially counter productive. The use of canards might be primarily for tailless stability but it likely also would have an advantage in shorter take off distances.

Because politics repeat itself. One of the big reasons why officials through different admin kept bringing up cutting the f-22 production line was because it didn't have a robust air to ground weapon bay. If it had a deeper bay Air Force would have had its wish of 300+ aircraft. Even that awkward fb-22 concept was in a way a solution to keep the production line going further (f-22 body, sensors but new enlarged wings).

Regardless veriable/extendable weapon bay concept has been continually matured the last 30 years with Phantom Works so it might not compromise anything.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IMOHO, we should not expect cavernous wb. Weapons will be carried very shallow in the structure, privileging tank capacity, large surface, natural load alleviation (for a light weight structure) and supersonic launch.
Most of the bombing missions, if any, will be done with an adjunct, either a CCA or an other carrier, including non-stealth assets with a long range weapon.

USAF has not ever mooted the idea of a CCA doing bombing missions. In addition, the USAF examined and rejected the idea of a B-21-sized CCA for not really providing any savings over the manned B-21.

Why would the USAF complicate its dedicated counter air platform with air to ground ordnance? It did not with the F-22, and the mission is similar. There’s no shortage of platforms that can sling a Mk84 sized bomb, even internally. It is pointless to compromise the internal volume of F-47 with that mission.

Because the high-capacity LO bomber costs 500mil a plane, and the low-capacity LO bomber can only carry 2x 2000lb bombs, or 1x SiAW and 1x 2000lb bomb.

Not to mention the high-capacity LO bomber is currently not planned for a large buy so would be tied up in strategic missions.

Making larger bays also allows for more interesting loads, such as sticking an SM3 in there as an ASAT. Or using SM6s for extreme long range AWACS busters. Or, hell, someone makes 5" long range AAMs and now you can pack 4 of them into the same bay volume as a 2000lb bomb, but could maybe only stuff 2 into an AMRAAM/1000lb bomb volume.

And why would USAF buy an entirely new type of airframe along with all of the associated training and maintenance streams when it already has low signature fighter and bomber platforms in production?

If the F-47 bays were sized for 2000lb bombs, the USAF wouldn't be buying an entirely new airframe. It'd be buying an additional 200ish F-47s.
If the F-47 bays were sized for 2000lb bombs, the USAF would have a bomber with double the range of the F-35, as well as likely double or triple the payload (depending on bay size, the size bays I'm expecting are just about able to take 3x 2000lb bombs each).

But if the USAF ends up buying FAXX to be the Strike NGAD, AIUI most of the systems are going to be the same between the two planes. Process of repairing the airframe would be the same. Engines might be the same as F-47 for the USAF version of FAXX. It's just a NAVY PLANE (Ewwwwwwwwwwww)

 

[Josh_TN]

Because politics repeat itself. One of the big reasons why officials through different admin kept bringing up cutting the f-22 production line was because it didn't have a robust air to ground weapon bay. If it had a deeper bay Air Force would have had its wish of 300+ aircraft. Even that awkward fb-22 concept was in a way a solution to keep the production line going further (f-22 body, sensors but new enlarged wings).

Regardless veriable/extendable weapon bay concept has been continually matured the last 30 years with Phantom Works so it might not compromise anything.

F-22 suffered from the USSR closing up shop and having nothing left to shoot at. If that happens again with China, it would be a great problem to have, but I’m pretty confident F-47 will always have plenty of A2A competition.

 

[Josh_TN]

USAF has not ever mooted the idea of a CCA doing bombing missions. In addition, the USAF examined and rejected the idea of a B-21-sized CCA for not really providing any savings over the manned B-21.




Because the high-capacity LO bomber costs 500mil a plane, and the low-capacity LO bomber can only carry 2x 2000lb bombs, or 1x SiAW and 1x 2000lb bomb.

Not to mention the high-capacity LO bomber is currently not planned for a large buy so would be tied up in strategic missions.

Making larger bays also allows for more interesting loads, such as sticking an SM3 in there as an ASAT. Or using SM6s for extreme long range AWACS busters. Or, hell, someone makes 5" long range AAMs and now you can pack 4 of them into the same bay volume as a 2000lb bomb, but could maybe only stuff 2 into an AMRAAM/1000lb bomb volume.



If the F-47 bays were sized for 2000lb bombs, the USAF wouldn't be buying an entirely new airframe. It'd be buying an additional 200ish F-47s.
If the F-47 bays were sized for 2000lb bombs, the USAF would have a bomber with double the range of the F-35, as well as likely double or triple the payload (depending on bay size, the size bays I'm expecting are just about able to take 3x 2000lb bombs each).

But if the USAF ends up buying FAXX to be the Strike NGAD, AIUI most of the systems are going to be the same between the two planes. Process of repairing the airframe would be the same. Engines might be the same as F-47 for the USAF version of FAXX. It's just a NAVY PLANE (Ewwwwwwwwwwww)

IMO the solution is more tactical aircraft or more strategic aircraft, both of which are in production. F-47 would have no payload improvement over F-35, just range. And there is not going to be a shortage of air targets for F-47 to shoot at, unless the U.S. is already winning anyway. Introducing another tactical aircraft with a modest range improvement is impractical, be it NGAD or FAXX.

I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[joewee]

Let me be boring and bet on 4-6 MRAAMs.
It's a plane smaller than F-22/23, that is also supposed to carry more fuel. I don't think volume logic changed somehow significantly.

Some clarification re: F-22 that's somewhat pertinent to the F-47 discussion.

I presume carrying 4 large fin AMRAAMS was a fallback as the clipped-fin AIM-120C had not yet completed developmental and operational testing when F-22 EMD began in August 1991.

The baseline F-22 weapons load at the start of EMD was (6) AIM-120A large fin AMRAAMs ... (4) in the main weapons bay plus (2) in the side weapons bays. The alternate weapons load was (4) AIM-120A plus (2) AIM-9L/M.

A few weeks into EMD, as the final configuration-level trade studies were underway, the AF gave Lockheed the green light to consider eliminating the ability to carry AMRAAMs in the side bays. Shortening the side bays to AIM-9 length, which allowed for more efficient wing/fuselage carry-through structure, resulted in appreciable weight savings. Very helpful for the 9-g beast, the replacement of the F-15 with its 7.33-g design limit.

Once the AF had sufficient confidence in the clipped-fin AIM-120C design, the revised baseline weapons load became (6) AIM-120C plus (2) AIM-9L/M.

 

[BDF]

Some clarification re: F-22 that's somewhat pertinent to the F-47 discussion.

The baseline F-22 weapons load at the start of EMD was (6) AIM-120A large fin AMRAAMs ... (4) in the main weapons bay plus (2) in the side weapons bays. The alternate weapons load was (4) AIM-120A plus (2) AIM-9L/M.

A few weeks into EMD, as the final configuration-level trade studies were underway, the AF gave Lockheed the green light to consider eliminating the ability to carry AMRAAMs in the side bays. Shortening the side bays to AIM-9 length, which allowed for more efficient wing/fuselage carry-through structure, resulted in appreciable weight savings. Very helpful for the 9-g beast, the replacement of the F-15 with its 7.33-g design limit.

Once the AF had sufficient confidence in the clipped-fin AIM-120C design, the revised baseline weapons load became (6) AIM-120C plus (2) AIM-9L/M.

Was there any planning for the -120C prior to the revised baseline you speak of? IOW was LM already considering that for the Raptor or were they waiting to see what the AF was guidance was?

 

[Moose]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1906016780629246322

View: https://x.com/Aviation_Intel/status/1906016780629246322


New piece about F-47 from TWZ

Already linked on the previous page.

 

[djfawcett]

USAF has not ever mooted the idea of a CCA doing bombing missions. In addition, the USAF examined and rejected the idea of a B-21-sized CCA for not really providing any savings over the manned B-21.




Because the high-capacity LO bomber costs 500mil a plane, and the low-capacity LO bomber can only carry 2x 2000lb bombs, or 1x SiAW and 1x 2000lb bomb.

Not to mention the high-capacity LO bomber is currently not planned for a large buy so would be tied up in strategic missions.

Making larger bays also allows for more interesting loads, such as sticking an SM3 in there as an ASAT. Or using SM6s for extreme long range AWACS busters. Or, hell, someone makes 5" long range AAMs and now you can pack 4 of them into the same bay volume as a 2000lb bomb, but could maybe only stuff 2 into an AMRAAM/1000lb bomb volume.



If the F-47 bays were sized for 2000lb bombs, the USAF wouldn't be buying an entirely new airframe. It'd be buying an additional 200ish F-47s.
If the F-47 bays were sized for 2000lb bombs, the USAF would have a bomber with double the range of the F-35, as well as likely double or triple the payload (depending on bay size, the size bays I'm expecting are just about able to take 3x 2000lb bombs each).

But if the USAF ends up buying FAXX to be the Strike NGAD, AIUI most of the systems are going to be the same between the two planes. Process of repairing the airframe would be the same. Engines might be the same as F-47 for the USAF version of FAXX. It's just a NAVY PLANE (Ewwwwwwwwwwww)

There is a wild card not being considered (since we are all speculating.) What is Lockheed Martin doing? They certainly are not sitting on the hands. Just maybe Lockheed is covering the bombing issue - maybe with something that is very fast - just maybe.

 

[joshjosh]

Agreed,

There is a wild card not being considered (since we are all speculating.) What is Lockheed Martin doing? They certainly are not sitting on the hands. Just maybe Lockheed is covering the bombing issue - maybe with something that is very fast - just maybe.

Lord have mercy, if we get a hypersonic SR-72 you will need to resuscitate me

 

[Scott Kenny]

There is a wild card not being considered (since we are all speculating.) What is Lockheed Martin doing? They certainly are not sitting on the hands. Just maybe Lockheed is covering the bombing issue - maybe with something that is very fast - just maybe.

Maybe. Or maybe they're eyeballs deep in trying to get the Block 4 F-35 software unfucked.

 

[Shaman Harris]

There are quite a few low-hanging fruits online,the mig-25 fighter,the m16 jam,the canard on a VLO plane,the bomber gap

 

[joewee]

Was there any planning for the -120C prior to the revised baseline you speak of? IOW was LM already considering that for the Raptor or were they waiting to see what the AF was guidance was?

The 120C was in the AF weapons roadmap during ATF DemVal, but I do not know/remember its development timeline or details. The F-22 main weapon bay design had provisions for carrying/launching 6 of them in Lockheed's EMD proposal.

 

[Deino]

I won't be surprised if the F-47 when fully revealed turns out to be basically a two-engine full-scale piloted X-36.

Do we have any estimates on its size & weight?

Given that usually 6th generation fighter are often described as large/larger than 5th due to their tremendous range requirements - and in fact both the J-XDs and especially the J-36 fit this expectation - I‘m surprised, the F-47 looks rather smaller than expected: A single from wheel LG, a quite wide-reaching cockpit measerued against overall width of the front section vs. canopy.

Not that I expect these two or three known artworks (I think the one in the hanger is not an actual photo too) are 100 representative of the real one so that estimating dimensions are surely even lesser correct, but alone what‘s shown is not the „huge fighter“ I expected.

Or am I wrong?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I won't be surprised if the F-47 when fully revealed turns out to be basically a two-engine full-scale piloted X-36.

Combined response

Do we have any estimates on its size & weight?

X-36 is described as a 28% scale model of a potential fighter, which would put the "full sized" model at ~17.86m long (guesstimate due to listed length including the pitot), 11.36m wingspan, and 3.4m tall for the single-engined version.

Given that usually 6th generation fighter are often described as large/larger than 5th due to their tremendous range requirements - and in fact both the J-XDs and especially the J-36 fit this expectation - I‘m surprised, the F-47 looks rather smaller than expected: A single from wheel LG, a quite wide-reaching cockpit measerued against overall width of the front section vs. canopy.

Not that I expect these two or three known artworks (I think the one in the hanger is not an actual photo too) are 100 representative of the real one so that estimating dimensions are surely even lesser correct, but alone what‘s shown is not the „huge fighter“ I expected.

You're not wrong, I was fully expecting something in the 90-110klb/40-50tonne weight class like the J-36 appears to be.

All I can think of is that the reveal artwork is showing a side-by-side seating arrangement. And the NLG is pure photoshop.

 

[MihoshiK]

Combined response

X-36 is described as a 28% scale model of a potential fighter, which would put the "full sized" model at ~17.86m long (guesstimate due to listed length including the pitot), 11.36m wingspan, and 3.4m tall for the single-engined version.



You're not wrong, I was fully expecting something in the 90-110klb/40-50tonne weight class like the J-36 appears to be.

All I can think of is that the reveal artwork is showing a side-by-side seating arrangement. And the NLG is pure photoshop.

If the cockpit is side by side F-47 would be a goddamn beast of a plane.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the cockpit is side by side F-47 would be a goddamn beast of a plane.

Again, this is assuming a 45-50 tonne plane for the side-by-side cockpit.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Again, this is assuming a 45-50 tonne plane for the side-by-side cockpit.

Probably single seat with an R2D2-type AI assistant. The canopy is very broad but it still has a proportionally high peak in the middle while a two-seater cockpit's canopy would be more elliptical.

(A joke about Vulcan crews was that you could always recognise the pilots by their crooked necks, on account of the small cockpit bulge.)

 

[NMaude]

Probably single seat with an R2D2-type AI assistant.

Would R2 have its' own ejection-seat?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1906016780629246322

View: https://x.com/Aviation_Intel/status/1906016780629246322


New piece about F-47 from TWZ

Here's the podcast TWZ is cribbing notes from:

Defense & Aerospace Air Power Podcast [Mar 27, 25] Season 3 E12: The Secret History - Defense & Aerospace Report

The big news of the week, the month, and perhaps the decade so far is Boeing’s F-47. We get its backstory today with two men who made the program happen – former Air Force secretary Frank Kendall and former Air Force acquisition executive Andrew Hunter. How does NGAD differ from F-22? What were...

defaeroreport.com

 

[bring_it_on]

Given that usually 6th generation fighter are often described as large/larger than 5th due to their tremendous range requirements

Long range / combat radius as being something is prioritized on US 6GFA but that can be achieved by a combination of many factors rather than purely scaling up in size. A102 / A103 ACE promise something like 38% increase in range given a subsonic and supersonic combat radius requirement for NGAD platform. That's why adaptive engines were such a core requirement for NGAD platform (and the long road to develop and test this capability placing a constraint on induction and fielding timelines for the platform).

Wasn't the F-22 originally expected to carry some 15-20% more fuel than it carries now? then if NGAD platform has 25K lbs of internal fuel capacity you are looking at just about 20% more fuel than that original amount or under 40% more than what raptor carries today..So 38% increase in range via A series engines, and another 38% more fuel should give you a pretty sizable increase in sub/sup range over F-22A (plus aero improvements) without a need to field a very large air vehicle and thus drive up cost even further. CSAF referenced a need to field NGAD in greater numbers of F-22..a very large vehicle would be cost prohibitive and would not allow that to happen.

 

[red admiral]

I have heard long range / combat radius as being something some may prioritize on 6GFA but that can be achieved by a combination of many factors rather than purely scaling up in size.

Range depends on:

• Specific Fuel Consumption
• Aerodynamic Efficiency (Lift/Drag at cruise)
• 1 - Fuel Fraction

Just scaling it up bigger doesn't actually make it fly further.

SFC = maybe +20-30% over current from ACE
Cruise efficiency = maybe +20-30% over current. Difficult to get much better with a supersonic design.
Fuel Fraction = Maybe 10% over current

 

[jsport]

It seems that carriers may well be facing conventionally warhead armed ICBMs not just IRBMs launched from TELs as deep inland as the Gobi desert etc. Both the AF & Navy would likely be asked to protect these national assets.

Minus the larger aircraft and or penetrating tankers it seems these counter-offensive missions would be out of reach. Speaking about cost effectiveness. If you can only accomplish a lower portion of the required mission, what exactly are you paying for?

 

[Josh_TN]

Long range / combat radius as being something is prioritized on US 6GFA but that can be achieved by a combination of many factors rather than purely scaling up in size. A102 / A103 ACE promise something like 38% increase in range given a subsonic and supersonic combat radius requirement for NGAD platform. That's why adaptive engines were such a core requirement for NGAD platform (and the long road to develop and test this capability placing a constraint on induction and fielding timelines for the platform).

Wasn't the F-22 originally expected to carry some 15-20% more fuel than it carries now? then if NGAD platform has 25K lbs of internal fuel capacity you are looking at just about 20% more fuel than that original amount or under 40% more than what raptor carries today..So 38% increase in range via A series engines, and another 38% more fuel should give you a pretty sizable increase in sub/sup range over F-22A (plus aero improvements) without a need to field a very large air vehicle and thus drive up cost even further. CSAF referenced a need to field NGAD in greater numbers of F-22..a very large vehicle would be cost prohibitive and would not allow that to happen.

I think it is also the case that F-47 has a vastly more modest payload than “J-36”. The latter has a bomb bay so big some people theorize it is a strike platform. The design obviously is capable of carrying oversized weapons internally on top of an additional battery of medium range AAMs. It seems extremely likely to me given what we’ve seen and the comparisons to F-22 by Kendall that the F-47 has a more traditional AIM-120 sized payload. If it focuses all its AAMs into one central bay, it might even use less internal volume for weapons storage than F-22. Also guessing no gun was fitted.

The U.S. and PRC came to very different conclusions about long ranged air superiority.

 

[Josh_TN]

It seems that carriers may well be facing conventionally warhead armed ICBMs not just IRBMs launched from TELs as deep inland as the Gobi desert etc. Both the AF & Navy would likely be asked to protect these national assets.

Minus the larger aircraft and or penetrating tankers it seems these counter-offensive missions would be out of reach. Speaking about cost effectiveness. If you can only accomplish a lower portion of the required mission, what exactly are you paying for?

Realistically all of AShBMs are out of the USNs range. They would probably focus their strike capacity against opposing ships and coastal targets. They also could provide safe areas for refueling or stand off cruise missile launches by USAF bombers (or in the future even cargo aircraft).

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Wasn't the F-22 originally expected to carry some 15-20% more fuel than it carries now? then if NGAD platform has 25K lbs of internal fuel capacity you are looking at just about 20% more fuel than that original amount or under 40% more than what raptor carries today..So 38% increase in range via A series engines, and another 38% more fuel should give you a pretty sizable increase in sub/sup range over F-22A (plus aero improvements) without a need to field a very large air vehicle and thus drive up cost even further. CSAF referenced a need to field NGAD in greater numbers of F-22..a very large vehicle would be cost prohibitive and would not allow that to happen.

It's not simply the fuel quantity but the fuel fraction. While an internal fuel load of 24,000 lbs would only be a 33% increase over the F-22's 18,000 lbs, a lighter OEW can get you substantially increased fuel fraction. It's possible that the F-47 is a structurally lighter and more efficient design with lower OEW while having similar takeoff weight. For instance, it may not require the high AoA capabilities of the F-22, which is not often used and carried a pretty substantial weight penalty since the F-22 was designed to recover from high AOAs using only aerodynamic control surfaces, resulting in large and heavy tails.

 

[jsport]

Realistically all of AShBMs are out of the USNs range. They would probably focus their strike capacity against opposing ships and coastal targets. They also could provide safe areas for refueling or stand off cruise missile launches by USAF bombers (or in the future even cargo aircraft).

Ok, but that strategy sounds like looking for "your lost keys under the streetlight because that is what you can see when you're drunk". You even have mentioned the limited cargo craft available. Minus more B-21s, the speculated LM Penetrating ISR/Strike, or a Penetrating Counter-Air. (IMHO a new build Bone) your keys will not be found before the police show up.

 

[jsport]

It's not simply the fuel quantity but the fuel fraction. While an internal fuel load of 24,000 lbs would only be a 33% increase over the F-22's 18,000 lbs, a lighter OEW can get you substantially increased fuel fraction. It's possible that the F-47 is a structurally lighter and more efficient design with lower OEW while having similar takeoff weight. For instance, it may not require the high AoA capabilities of the F-22, which is not often used and carried a pretty substantial weight penalty since the F-22 was designed to recover from high AOAs using only aerodynamic control surfaces, resulting in large and heavy tails.

Very helpful facts, thank you. It sure would seem high AOA requirements should be questioned along w the liberation of Active Flow Control (AFC).

 

[Josh_TN]

Ok, but that strategy sounds like looking for "your lost keys under the streetlight because that is what you can see when you're drunk". You even have mentioned the limited cargo craft available. Minus more B-21s, the speculated LM Penetrating ISR/Strike, or a Penetrating Counter-Air. (IMHO a new build Bone) your keys will not be found before the police show up.

It is simply a case of using the best tool for the job. There is no realistic way for USN embarked aircraft to penetrate deep into China. If nothing else, they almost certainly lack the range, and moving carriers closer simply exposes them to a larger number of less expensive weapons. B-21s can make that trip with a realistic chance of survival and enough warload to engage numerous targets per aircraft.

There is hardly going to be a shortage of PRC naval targets in most any U.S.-PRC conflict, and if the carriers run out of this type of target then the war is likely already won.

ETA: this assumes attacks against mainland China are even on the menu. In the CSIS wargames, sometimes the blue team did not allow such strikes, and in other scenarios they were allowed but either not attempted or discontinued as cost ineffective. B-21 hopefully changes that dynamic, along with a far more pervasive and persistent ISR situation than predicted in 2021. But the carriers were never used to attack the mainland even in the scenarios in which they survived.