Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

Anyone can cite TWZ. Best video though, I'm expecting multiple FOIA documents with clear signatories of the narrator, uncovering new budget docs to link NGAD to test programs, and pub chats. Maybe I've been reading too much from recognized sources like Dreamland Resort or some area51 subreddits or even our own quellish and other big special access hobbyists/authors but virtually every megaprojects channels look like either they are cut from the same stinking cloth or worse, clones.

p/s: and from someone who has willingly bear the torment of listening through that whole video, I recommend with the best intention to avoid it and its fellow brethen like plague. You won't want to know what a TWZ podcast would be like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
topspeed3 said:
I wonder if those canards actually can be very stealthy ?
Click to expand...
My personal take is that canards are essentially tails up front, so you would, under the assumptions that those canards are all-moving, and thus need room (read: disconnected edge alignment) to wiggle around, bring a scattering source to the frontal hemisphere.
 
yeetmahboi said:
p/s: and from someone who has willingly bear the torment of listening through that whole video, I recommend with the best intention to avoid it and its fellow brethen like plague. You won't want to know what a TWZ podcast would be like.
Click to expand...
Had to drop out after the first minute and change. Time better spent reading this thread.
 
Based on recent comments in this thread, I'm more than afraid of sharing any video about the F-47 from any source now. Do you know any credible Youtube Channels that post in short and visual form (Like how Sandboxx and Found and Explained do it) rather than longform or podcast so that any Youtube videos about the F-47 that I might share here would be considered "credible" enough?
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Based on recent comments in this thread, I'm more than afraid of sharing any video about the F-47 from any source now. Do you know any credible Youtube Channels that post in short and visual form (Like how Sandboxx and Found and Explained do it) rather than longform or podcast so that any Youtube videos about the F-47 that I might share here would be considered "credible" enough?
Click to expand...

No there's nothing, there's no info and anyone that knows anything isn't going to say anything.

All these rendes and speculations are just going to age like milk, at least when people do renders of cars they base them on camo'd spy pics which we don't even have.
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Based on recent comments in this thread, I'm more than afraid of sharing any video about the F-47 from any source now. Do you know any credible Youtube Channels that post in short and visual form (Like how Sandboxx and Found and Explained do it) rather than longform or podcast so that any Youtube videos about the F-47 that I might share here would be considered "credible" enough?
Click to expand...

So you’re asking for SPF…. But in cocaine form? A short unsatisfying experience that makes you want more short unsatisfying experiences, but with real factual content and integrity?
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Do you know any credible Youtube Channels that post in short and visual form (Like how Sandboxx and Found and Explained do it) rather than longform or podcast so that any Youtube videos about the F-47 that I might share here would be considered "credible" enough?
Click to expand...
There lies your problem. Anything short is often very surfaced level that offer nothing substantive and most of the time, packed full of oversimplification and misinformation.
 
Ainen said:
View attachment 767603
Since we're on substances anyway, may I leak some secrit footage.
Directly from warthunder, of course.
Click to expand...
Of course, it really is a Battlestar! The tall canopy is for a general to stand and point dramatically in between the pilot and weapons officer, it all makes sense now! Everyone knows that once you go from spaceplane to spaceship you need an officer to stand and point, it's a design feature shared by all the best spaceships according to my research...
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

Lockheed Will Not Protest NGAD Award to Boeing

Lockheed Martin will not protest Boeing's selection for the NGAD fighter and wants to upgrade the F-35 with NGAD tech.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

"“I feel that we can have 80 percent of the capability” of an NGAD fighter “potentially, at 50 percent of the cost per unit aircraft, by taking the F-35 chassis and applying numerous advanced technologies, some of which are already in process” in the F-35 Block 4 upgrade, Taiclet said, adding that Lockheed hoped to offer those upgrades 'fairly quickly.'"

Where have we heard this before? Oh right the irony:

 
bobbymike said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Lockheed Will Not Protest NGAD Award to Boeing

Lockheed Martin will not protest Boeing's selection for the NGAD fighter and wants to upgrade the F-35 with NGAD tech.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
I think there's some legitimacy to that claim - you could create a new variant of the F-35, putting a powerful generator/cooler where the lift fan would be on the B-variant. That way you could increase its power generation capability (which seems to be a major feature of 6th gen.) way beyond what's available in an exisitng platform.
 
fightingirish said:
Instead of a direct lift fan, a high power generator is installed to power a directed-energy weapon system.
This weapon system could be fitted as an external pod like as the gun pod in the F-35B and F-35C . I doubt, such a system would fit internally instead of the gun as on the F-35A. 8)
Click to expand...
Directed-energy weapons

Directed-energy weapons may be installed in conventional takeoff F-35 Lightning II's, whose lack of a direct lift fan frees up about 100 ft³ (2.8 m³) of space and whose engine provides more than 27,000 hp (20 MW) for electrical power.[18] Some concepts, including solid state lasers and high-power microwave beams, may be nearing operational status.[19]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
https://www.twz.com/air/air-forces-...combat-drones-could-be-less-exquisite-cheaper

I guess another Frank Kendall pontification had a short shelf life. Increment 2 will likely not be more exquisite than Increment 1 but might be cheaper.

Wargames by Mitchell indicated that there was value in cheaper, attritable, CCAs early in a conflict as each side attempted to gain air superiority. I am curious to how the operational concepts develop. I don't think we will see a low observable CCAs that carries its AAM internally soon. They are looking at runway independent capability or at least short take off landing in order to generate more mass. There is also a role for something like LongShot in the early stages of a conflict but they will have the disadvantage of system and its munitions as being expendable.

How does that operationally work with the F-47? Cheaper means less sensors. May be less payload and performance? If CCAs have a larger RCS than the F-47 you would want it to be at the tip of the spear, away from the manned fighter. Have CCAs carry AMRAAMs with the F-47 carrying JATM? As long as the CCAs has targeting data they would attrite the enemy unmanned and manned force first. The F-47 would take care of any leakers or exploit tactical opportunities? And what will be the relationship between the F-47 and other manned patforms? Will an F-47 pilot still have a manned wingman that is just deployed a lot farther away?
 
B2Blain the Gambit variations may give some insight into at least one vendors guess at CCA CONOPS - only Gambit 1 which seems OBSSish appears to have the legs for longer ranged operations potentially relevant to WestPac. The armed version seems to have a very different and shorter combat radius. Perhaps automated refueling or covert very forward deployed launch points allow a later in mission link up to mitigate the lower endurance of the OBWS type CCAs. I suspect aerial refueling for armed CCAs would be an important node - it allows for tanker self-protection, extended duration CCA missions etc.
 
donnage99 said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Lockheed Will Not Protest NGAD Award to Boeing

Lockheed Martin will not protest Boeing's selection for the NGAD fighter and wants to upgrade the F-35 with NGAD tech.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

"“I feel that we can have 80 percent of the capability” of an NGAD fighter “potentially, at 50 percent of the cost per unit aircraft, by taking the F-35 chassis and applying numerous advanced technologies, some of which are already in process” in the F-35 Block 4 upgrade, Taiclet said, adding that Lockheed hoped to offer those upgrades 'fairly quickly.'"

Where have we heard this before? Oh right the irony:

Click to expand...
that makes more sense, than making aircraft more limited in aerodynamics that at the end of the day will be detected and downed, if your eyes can see a 6th generation fighter, so it is radar
 
Bird of Prey pushed this visual vs EM detection tension in new ways, +20 years ago. Plus there have been advances in active visual spectrum LO technology.
 
The purpose of low observables is not to make an aircraft entirely invisible (which is impossible), but to delay and reduce the probability of detection until it's too late to do anything about it. It encompasses not only the platform but its weapons, tactics and doctrine. I saw a cartoon once of a B-2 with a bumper sticker reading 'If you can read this, you're f*cked.'
 
Training_Dummy said:
B2Blain the Gambit variations may give some insight into at least one vendors guess at CCA CONOPS - only Gambit 1 which seems OBSSish appears to have the legs for longer ranged operations potentially relevant to WestPac. The armed version seems to have a very different and shorter combat radius. Perhaps automated refueling or covert very forward deployed launch points allow a later in mission link up to mitigate the lower endurance of the OBWS type CCAs. I suspect aerial refueling for armed CCAs would be an important node - it allows for tanker self-protection, extended duration CCA missions etc.
Click to expand...

I think the decision has been made to fight from the first island chain and use dispersion, decoys, and short runway capabilities to maintain numbers in the face of air/mossile strikes. CCAs with a big enough combat radius to fight from the second chain were probably a non starter in terms of expense.
 
The most exciting parts of the F-47 still remain under water, and we couldn't judge it just by two or more artist renderings, not to mention they have been changed for several times as we could see in Air & Space Forces Magazine. Let's focus on what we could be determined. For example, it has "next gen stealth and sensor-fusion", and its range are far longer than the Raptor. How could them achieved it? The newest RAM like which was mentioned in a paper from LMT? Or a shape that we never seen before? How about the power it could get from the engines which affect its radar or other things deeply? Such as what GE Aerospace demonstrated in 2017, they generated 1 MW power for a F-15 with just its legacy F-110, and them claimed that their factory could support engines with power from 500 kW to 2.5 MW. If we could get power about 5 MW from 2 NGAPs, we could support the GaN-on-diamond radar which DARPA and RTX demonstrated in Nov. 2023, it achieved the power about 16 times than the legacy GaN material, which could bring far higher detectivity.
 
Lockheed recognized completion of work on a classified aeronautics program in its most recent filing (Q1). Wondering if this was them shutting down their NGAD demonstrator program / team post Boeing's source selection. This appears to be separate from the other LM Aero classified program they have $800+ Million recognized accumulated losses so far.

The increase in profit booking rate adjustments was primarily due to an $80 million adjustment resulting from favorable performance at completion on a classified program, partially offset by lower profit rate adjustments on C-130 programs
Click to expand...

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It most certainly is not Darkstar, same thoughts here dark sidius about the hypersonic engines it would take scramjet technology to power anything above Mach 5.
 
Same technology as the SR-71s engines but heavily modified Josh_TN? Sounds like a good idea, it would be less complex than a scramjet.
 
FighterJock said:
Same technology as the SR-71s engines but heavily modified Josh_TN? Sounds like a good idea, it would be less complex than a scramjet.
Click to expand...

The RATTLRS program developed such an engine on a small scale. One of the aviation start ups (Hermes?) intends to do the same using F110 as a base. A lot of people on the forum were skeptical of that enterprise however.
 
Josh_TN said:
The RATTLRS program developed such an engine on a small scale. One of the aviation start ups (Hermes?) intends to do the same using F110 as a base. A lot of people on the forum were skeptical of that enterprise however.
Click to expand...
Hermes is using a F100-PW-229 as their core engine for their full size demonstrator. They used a J85 for sub scale demonstration of their turbine engine to ramjet transition.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom