Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

Sintra said:
Its entirely Impossible to answer to that question today.
Click to expand...

I was asking bring_it_on who thought that GCAP would probably be cheaper than F-47 but still the most expensive 6th gen on the export market. I wondered if he had included FCAS in his opinion.
 
Ron5 said:
... and GCAP will be lot more affordable. Might even be produced in greater volume.
Click to expand...
You know, I think you're right about the greater volume.

I don't believe that the USAF is planning on more than 200-300x F-47s. 1:1 replacement of F-15C/Ds and 1:1 replacement of F-22s.

Assuming 1:1 replacement of Typhoon, UK and Italy would equal that, and assuming 1:1 replacement of F-15J you're looking at a total run of nearly 500, just for the 3 prime partners. Plus however many GCAPs get sold to other buyers, like Australia, Saudi, etc.



Geo said:
How long will it take for the F-47 to become operational, given that next year will mark 10 years since the T-7A first flew and the IOC deadline has been set for fiscal year 2027 after many delays (and will likely be postponed again)?
Click to expand...
F-22 went from first flight in 1997 to IOC in 2005, 8 years. That's strictly the F-22, not counting YF-22 development on the grounds that prototypes of the F-47 have already flown. YF-22 first flew in 1990, so 15 years from the fly-off to IOC.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Plus however many GCAPs get sold to other buyers, like Australia, Saudi, etc.
Click to expand...

Australia and Saudi Arabia, if they purchase 6th gen, will almost certainly purchase American. That is a political decision first and foremost, and their relationship with the US is more important than with the UK, Italy, or Japan.

Same with Israel, the UAE, and Qatar.

The Philippines will never be able to afford 6th gen.

India is a possibility for GCAP, as India is not as close with the US.

Some European nations, like Poland, might be a tossup.

I'm not so sure that GCAP will have more export sales than F-47.
 
joshjosh said:
Australia and Saudi Arabia, if they purchase 6th gen, will almost certainly purchase American. That is a political decision first and foremost, and their relationship with the US is more important than with the UK, Italy, or Japan.
Click to expand...
The Saudis have already approached GCAP office about buying in, though.



joshjosh said:
Same with Israel, the UAE, and Qatar.
Click to expand...
I suspect that Israel would rather buy F/A-XX than F-47, since the F/A-XX actually has a designed in long-range strike mission. Or FCAS, since we know the French will design it as primarily a striker.

What UAE and Qatar want depends on how they see their security situation. Do they want a primarily air-superiority fighter or do they want primarily a striker? If they want air superiority, they're looking at GCAP and F-47. If they want a striker, they're looking at F/A-XX or FCAS.



joshjosh said:
India is a possibility for GCAP, as India is not as close with the US.
Click to expand...
India is still more closely linked to Russia than UK.



joshjosh said:
Some European nations, like Poland, might be a tossup.
Click to expand...
Like UAE and Qatar, I suspect that which plane they want depends on what capability they want primarily. I think Poland in particular is going to want air superiority more than strike.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Assuming 1:1 replacement of Typhoon, UK and Italy would equal that, and assuming 1:1 replacement of F-15J you're looking at a total run of nearly 500, just for the 3 prime partners. Plus however many GCAPs get sold to other buyers, like Australia, Saudi, etc.
Click to expand...

About 100 F-15J are due to be replaced by the F-35A.
The first F-15J unit just received their first F-35s: https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/japanese-f-35as-receive-ceremonial-welcome-to-komatsu-ab/
F-15Js upgraded to Super Interceptor standard will probably be replaced by GCAP. The Super Interceptor program has been cut from 98 to 68 though: https://theaviationist.com/2024/12/17/japan-super-interceptor-contract/
Meaning around 68 F-15J and 62 F-2A need a replacement. Plus however many twinseaters they decide to replace. Can't imagine it's going to be a 1:1 replacement for 44 F-15DJ plus 23 F-2B. So anywhere between 130 and 197 is my guess. :)
 
Scott Kenny said:
F-22 went from first flight in 1997 to IOC in 2005, 8 years. That's strictly the F-22, not counting YF-22 development on the grounds that prototypes of the F-47 have already flown. YF-22 first flew in 1990, so 15 years from the fly-off to IOC.
Click to expand...
And in the case of the F-15, it was less than four years between 1972 and 1976....
 
Training_Dummy said:
True but those early F-15s were extremely limited in capabilities, I understand.
Click to expand...
The A models were also replaced almost immediately by the C model. All A essentially went to Guard units as C's were delivered.

But if we are being pedantic the F-4, which the F-15 replaced, first flew in 1958 and entered USN squadron service very late in 1960...
 

Pentagon Wants To Shift Funds From Navy F/A-XX To USAF F-47: Report​

www.twz.com

Pentagon Wants To Shift Funds From Navy F/A-XX To USAF F-47: Report

Amid the uncertainty surrounding F/A-XX, the Navy continues to stress its need for the sixth-generation stealth fighter. Amid doubts around the F/A-XX, the Navy continues to stress its need for the sixth-generation stealth fighter.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Forest Green said:
There's nothing wrong with a joint CATOBAR/CTOL platform, just leave the damn STOVL out of it this time.
Click to expand...

Not if the platform is supposed to be a no-compromise air superiority fighter. The last time they tried this (ATF/NATF), it didn't go well.
And now the Navy isn't even looking for an air superiority fighter...
Sort F/A-XX out and buy F-35Cs in the meantime, imho.
 
Forest Green said:
There's nothing wrong with a joint CATOBAR/CTOL platform, just leave the damn STOVL out of it this time.
Click to expand...
Except that the two services want different design focuses. Just like the F-111. Well, inverse desires for the branches: this time the USAF wants the monster air superiority fighter while the Navy wants a heavy striker. But those are still two very different, incompatible design focuses.

And we all know how well the F-111 program worked.

The F-4 and F-35 worked because both services wanted the same thing in terms of mission for the plane.

As I see it, the F-47 is designed around ~6,750lbs max internal load, assuming 6x LREW at 1000lbs each and 2x AMRAAM/JATM at ~375lbs each (More typically 6+2x AMRAAM/JATM+AIM-9 or 8x AMRAAM/JATM, ~2500-3000lbs). In addition, it's probably rated to 9 gees.

While I see the FAXX requirements as being 4x AGM-158s at ~3000lbs each plus 2x AMRAAM/JATM at ~375lbs each for ~13,000lbs internal. Not rated to more than 7.5 gees, plus it needs to survive carrier landings and launches (which may actually equal out to 9 gees on the wings, but means much stronger landing gear and gearbox).
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm assuming that the F-47 was designed to be able to fit LREW length-wise into the bays, just like I'm assuming the FAXX will be designed to fit AIM-174Bs into the bays.
Click to expand...
I would assume LREW is no longer than JASSM.... I doubt that the internal carrige of AIM-174Bs is a hard requirement for FAXX.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Except that the two services want different design focuses. Just like the F-111.
Click to expand...
Poor example, F-111 was a bomber, you can't easily make it a naval air superiority fighter.

eagle said:
Not if the platform is supposed to be a no-compromise air superiority fighter. The last time they tried this (ATF/NATF), it didn't go well.
Click to expand...
The end of the Cold War ended a lot of funding.
 
If you really want to cancel a project, the F-47 is the one that should be cancelled. Because the United States can live without an air force but not without a navy. This is determined by geographical location. In addition, carrier-based aircraft can be used by the USAF when necessary, just like the F-4 and A-7. But land-based modern jet fighters cannot be easily navalized
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
Hmmm...really?

Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Seafire, North American FJ Fury series...
Click to expand...
The examples you gave are all propeller planes or early jet planes. Why did the F-111B fail? Why did the JSF project rely on carrier-based requirements from the beginning? Why are ATF and NAFT so different? Considering the geographical environment of the United States, the navy is much more important than the air force! In addition, the USAF has a history of directly using Navy aircraft.
 
Jacky said:
The examples you gave are all propeller planes or early jet planes. Why did the F-111B fail? Why did the JSF project rely on carrier-based requirements from the beginning? Why are ATF and NAFT so different? Considering the geographical environment of the United States, the navy is much more important than the air force! In addition, the USAF has a history of directly using Navy aircraft.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely an argument to be made that the F-111 mostly failed due to the Navy simply not wanting it.
 
Jacky said:
Considering the geographical environment of the United States, the navy is much more important than the air force!
Click to expand...
Also, there are many USAF aircraft that have no equivalent in the USN - e.g. heavy bombers, large transports, etc etc. So again your arguments are flawed unless one uses an extremely narrow focus.
 
GTX said:
My point was simply to counter your blanket statement that "land-based aircraft cannot be navalized".
Click to expand...
My point also briefly explains why modern land-based warfare cannot be easily navalized! Please answer my question directly!
 
GTX said:
Also, there are many USAF aircraft that have no equivalent in the USN - e.g. heavy bombers, large transports, etc etc. So again your arguments are flawed unless one uses an extremely narrow focus.
Click to expand...
The Navy has C-2, A-3/A-5/A-6. In particular, the A-6 earned the title of the small B-52 in the Vietnam War due to its high efficiency. How will the Air Force develop its role when all the front-line bases are destroyed by China?
 
GTX said:
So now you are adding in the "easily" qualifier. What's next?
Click to expand...
Because I didn't expect you to use propeller fighters and early jets as examples, how ridiculous. The fighters of the 21st century are neither propellers nor early jets.
 
Jacky said:
Why did the F-111B fail?
Click to expand...
That's a long discussion already addressed elsewhere eon this forum. Besides, as written above, one could argue that it didn't fail against what was originally asked from it. However, requirements changed.
Jacky said:
Why did the JSF project rely on carrier-based requirements from the beginning?
Click to expand...
Well, if you are designing a new platform from scratch, as was the case with the F-35, of course you are going to include all the requirements from all key the users. That is a different from the argument you are trying to make re converting Air Force designs.
 
Mig-29, Su-27, Gripen. Was the KN-21 and J31 designed as carrier fighters initially?
 
Desertfox said:
Mig-29, Su-27, Gripen. Was the KN-21 and J31 designed as carrier fighters initially?
Click to expand...
As a Chinese, I can tell you very clearly that the J-35(older model J-31) is originally a naval project, and the PLAF chose to join it only after seeing the success of the Navy.
 
GTX said:
That's a long discussion already addressed elsewhere eon this forum. Besides, as written above, one could argue that it didn't fail against what was originally asked from it. However, requirements changed.

Well, if you are designing a new platform from scratch, as was the case with the F-35, of course you are going to include all the requirements from all key the users. That is a different from the argument you are trying to make re converting Air Force designs.
Click to expand...
Are the requirements for F/A-XX and NGAD the same? Each F-35 (except the F-35B) needs to carry two 2,000-pound bombs, each F-35 must be equipped with EOTS, and the approach speed requirements for the F-35C are all proposed by the USN. If modern fighters were so easy to navalize, France would not have withdrawn from the EF-2000 and made its own Rafale fighter. I think you are familiar with the naval design of the Typhoon fighter. I think you are also familiar with how difficult it is to operate the Su-33 on an aircraft carrier.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom