Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

[quellish]

Really? Do you know that for a fact?

I could be wrong, I think that the last time a dual-engine nacelle was integrated was ca. 1973 with the Garrett 731 Jetstar - or the B-1 nacelle. To wit, no one working in the US industry today has ever done this work.

Nor do I think that a CFD (aero design) package for this sort of design has been integrated with a set of high fidelity engine decks to look real-time issues such as duct spillage at a throttle snap at high dynamic pressure (bottom right side of the envelope) and how flow issues could affect the other engine in the nacelle. (could be wrong - educate me.)

You are correct and this has been a hard learning experience on other (non NGAD) programs.


Most of the experience retired. The enthusiastic newbies have been turned off aerospace by reading political rants on this forum.

 

[djfawcett]

Yeah, I guess, but just because they are paid less doesn't mean they are less knowledgeable or skilled. According to The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), in 2023 China accounted for 29% of world manufacturing output in value added terms and 35% in gross terms. Eight of the top ten research institutions in are in China according to the Nature Index and they lead over all in research produced.

Truthfully, I don't think looking at the current PPP estimations for Chinese incomes are accurately reflecting their real purchasing power. I know this is off-topic to the F-47, but if you look at the US defense industrial base as a whole and the problems they experience I think it all ties back to lack of talent due to the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base over the last 40 to 50 years.

You didn't read my post very carefully. I said exactly what you said, but with 5 words.

 

[sublight_]

Not to mention you could train just about anyone to put together a phone in a matter of months or even weeks.

That is an amazing revelation. I will tell Apple all their iPhone production woes are solved as of right now!

 

[timmyjohn]

Really? Do you know that for a fact?

I could be wrong, I think that the last time a dual-engine nacelle was integrated was ca. 1973 with the Garrett 731 Jetstar - or the B-1 nacelle. To wit, no one working in the US industry today has ever done this work.

Nor do I think that a CFD (aero design) package for this sort of design has been integrated with a set of high fidelity engine decks to look real-time issues such as duct spillage at a throttle snap at high dynamic pressure (bottom right side of the envelope) and how flow issues could affect the other engine in the nacelle. (could be wrong - educate me.)

My primary point, and the headline, is that too many engineers and company executives appear to have an unhealthy dependence on computerized tools. I saw this trend begin to emerge around 1980, observing that younger engineers were adept at running analytical models and generating large data sets (that, oh by the way, no longer required manual plotting on graph paper) but were not deepening their understanding of the underlying phenomenon.

A minor point I tried to make is that the technical scope of the present re-engining task is more straightforward than changing from a turbojet to a relatively new 1st-generation turbofan design (JT3D/TF33).

No disagreement that it's a management challenge to find experienced, adaptable engineers today in most design/analysis specialties. The engineers assigned to the Lunar Module program at Grumman-Bethpage in the mid/late 1960s had never done that kind of work before -- but the ones I knew, including the technical leader Tom Kelly, had a comprehensive grasp of the underlying phenomenon, and embraced opportunities to roll-up their sleeves and take on challenges with the pencil in their pocket protector and the slide rule in their desk's top drawer.

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

I thought LREW was a study/demonstrator and not a program of record? In any case I think F-47 just keeps the ~6 AIM-120/260 payload. There would be no need for anything else in a high performance, VLO design, and a huge weapon bay would have a very negative effect on endurance.

 

[Training_Dummy]

it’s hard to say without knowing the CONOPS of F-47 and CCAs, but having the weapons bay area to carry 8-10 JATMs with a bit of depth to accommodate AARGM-ER/SIAW sized weapons seems wise and not terribly demanding if you could stagger JATMs as many have mocked in the Possible Configuration thread. Even if it came at the expense of 9X sidebays. BTW are we still taking those reports of a DEW capability for F-47 seriously?

 

[Reddington777]

I thought LREW was a study/demonstrator and not a program of record?

I'm not sure this proves it one way or another but:

The LREW concept combines proven components from existing missile systems with new, innovative technologies to provide a leap-ahead increase in overall performance. Efforts included analysis validating systems design, wind tunnel testing, engineering assessments, and kill chain investigations to inform potential future programs for the Navy and Air Force.

-FY2018 RDT&E Budget Documentation

the LREW effort shifted entirely to the U.S. Air Force in 2019–with a contract awarded to Raytheon in 2022

quoted from this article

 

[Training_Dummy]

Why is it so hard to get access to that retired talent on at least a consulting basis?

 

[joshjosh]

BTW are we still taking those reports of a DEW capability for F-47 seriously?

The DOD concluded the SHiELD program with no official plans to put a laser on a fighter. We'll see

 

[Reddington777]

BTW are we still taking those reports of a DEW capability for F-47 seriously?

The army put a 50 kW laser on a Stryker but I remember hearing reports about it still facing difficulty in testing. I don't know if the requirements for a ground vehicle laser is comparable to one for a fighter, but it might also be something the more informed can use to gauge future possibilities.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I thought LREW was a study/demonstrator and not a program of record? In any case I think F-47 just keeps the ~6 AIM-120/260 payload. There would be no need for anything else in a high performance, VLO design, and a huge weapon bay would have a very negative effect on endurance.

A ~16ft bay doesn't necessarily mess with an aircraft all that much, compared to the ~14ft bay needed for AMRAAM/JATM.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Why is it so hard to get access to that retired talent on at least a consulting basis?

Because when high-performing talented people retire, it's very often because they've got to the point where their retirement fund exceeds their tolerance for BS. Getting them to come back in as consultants requires that you offer them something that compensates for the fact that they could be sitting on a beach in Aruba (or whatever) instead of sitting through another quarterly progress report. And simply offering money may not be enough - after all, they've already proven that they've got enough of it to give up work.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm not sure this proves it one way or another but:



quoted from this article

“For future programs”. So LREW was tech development and any subsequent black program for extended range A2A, if it exists, minimally has a different name. I was getting a little annoyed at people talking about LREW like it was an in service weapon.

 

[Josh_TN]

A ~16ft bay doesn't necessarily mess with an aircraft all that much, compared to the ~14ft bay needed for AMRAAM/JATM.

Where are we getting the 16ft figure from?

 

[FighterJock]

Quite Josh_TN, considering that the F-47 figures are still highly classified at present and probably will be still until the first squadrons get them in service.

 

[Reddington777]

Is there any reason the air force always seems so averse to fielding LRAAMs that isnt just weapon bay size? Do LRAAMs have trouble with fighter sized targets or something?

 

[bring_it_on]

The army put a 50 kW laser on a Stryker but I remember hearing reports about it still facing difficulty in testing. I don't know if the requirements for a ground vehicle laser is comparable to one for a fighter, but it might also be something the more informed can use to gauge future possibilities.

Army's issues with the DE-MSHORAD had to do with the power levels on that particular mover, and the need to sustain that level in the field on a maneuver system. They've since de-scoped and removed the Counter RAM requirement (which was the driver for the 50kW power levels) and asked that a mobile 25-30kW system be fielded on a mobile platform for Counter UAS which is something they have accumulated experience operating in a forward deployed fashion over the last several years. They are fielding larger power level systems on other more suitable movers (HEMTT etc). Coming back to F-47, I'd be surprised if it did not support the use of some sort of directed energy system either at baseline or over its life.

 

[Josh_TN]

Is there any reason the air force always seems so averse to fielding LRAAMs that isnt just weapon bay size? Do LRAAMs have trouble with fighter sized targets or something?

Stored kills against opponent fighters vs maximum range against cooperative targets. Really long range shots are only effective against targets that can not or will not maneuver.

It is important to note that a 200 mile/350km shot against an air target will probably travel for ten minutes or more reaching its target - an AAM might be hypersonic at burnout, and it might even have a second pulse for terminal engagement, but the overwhelming majority of the flight time is gliding unpowered. There is enough time delay that even the slowest targets can evade without constant datalink updates, so long as they are aware the attack occurred. Engagement of fighter pretty much has to be at closer ranges; they can simply beam the incoming and fall out of envelope quite rapidly at supersonic speeds. More complex maneuvers can be used against specific guidance modes/target leads; if the AAM constantly generated a new intercept point just doing a wide circle might bleed off its energy.

 

[Reddington777]

It is important to note that a 200 mile/350km shot against an air target will probably travel for ten minutes or more reaching its target - an AAM might be hypersonic at burnout, and it might even have a second pulse for terminal engagement, but the overwhelming majority of the flight time is gliding unpowered. There is enough time delay that even the slowest targets can evade without constant datalink updates, so long as they are aware the attack occurred. Engagement of fighter pretty much has to be at closer ranges; they can simply beam the incoming and fall out of envelope quite rapidly at supersonic speeds. More complex maneuvers can be used against specific guidance modes/target leads; if the AAM constantly generated a new intercept point just doing a wide circle might bleed off its energy.

Thank you this was very informative.

 

[Training_Dummy]

I have to remind myself JATM is about a lot more than just range, but if we are just focusing on longer ranged JATM shots I can easily see scenarios where the CCAs are shooters and F-47 is there to manage the CCAs (and may or may not be guiding those missiles), and I can see the opposite where F-47 is the peripheral shooter and several CCAs with networked IRST guide those missiles until terminal guidance.

If the target knows a missile has been launched from long range, that’s not so great, but you might still push an agile target and you might mission kill a non maneuvering target.

 

[Josh_TN]

I also personally think that the large, slow, long range target set will be inherited by HACM. It’s not maneuverable enough for a fighter, but it’s more than enough for a turbo prop, and the transit time for a 300 mi/ 500 km shot is five minutes - superior to what any rationally sized solid rocket AAM could achieve.

Eta: HACM is another reason I think F-47 will only handle AIM-260s, along with the fact if it needs deeper magazines, just assign more CCA. It is a controller that can function as an air superiority fighter.

 

[NMaude]

It’s not maneuverable enough for a fighter, but it’s more than enough for a turbo prop

That would appear to be perfect for targeting a Tu-95 Bear.

 

[Josh_TN]

That would appear to be perfect for targeting a Tu-95 Bear.

And how many of those are active these days?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Where are we getting the 16ft figure from?

AIM-174.

I know AIM-174 is not LREW, but I'm assuming something about that size is what we end up with due to similar performance requirements.

And how many of those are active these days?

Bears? enough. Especially the Bear MPAs. But the cruise missile Bears are still wandering around Alaska and letting the Kid (F-22s) get some practice intercepts.

There's all the other turboprops out there doing AEW. And the big cargo planes that are lucky to have a +3g maneuvering envelope, some of which are also doing AEW work.

 

[joshjosh]

I also personally think that the large, slow, long range target set will be inherited by HACM. It’s not maneuverable enough for a fighter, but it’s more than enough for a turbo prop, and the transit time for a 300 mi/ 500 km shot is five minutes - superior to what any rationally sized solid rocket AAM could achieve.

Eta: HACM is another reason I think F-47 will only handle AIM-260s, along with the fact if it needs deeper magazines, just assign more CCA. It is a controller that can function as an air superiority fighter.

HACM is a ground attack munition, not an AAM, so you might be thinking of something else

 

[Josh_TN]

HACM is a ground attack munition, not an AAM, so you might be thinking of something else

I suspect it will be multi domain; personal guess.

 

[Valen.]

First sight of the XA103 engine. NGAD can also be seen in the video.

View: https://youtu.be/vCHun6rxQm0?si=GI8nwd6tdjXArDqf

 

[SteveO]

Nice find! Very interesting nozzle. Almost looks like flippers on the “F-47” in that video!

 

[quellish]

Hmmm

 

[Brett Davidson]

Hmmm

Probably exaggerated for dramatic effect - the sheer bulk and diameter of the engines is absurd. I expect the 'flippers' to match the 'W' of the trailing edge.

We can debate what to call that wing - lambda or delta

No dihedral on the main wing after all?

Intakes not dissimilar to J-50's.

Apparently a large central weapons bay - broad and long. Four door segments, so it could be twin side-by side bays? Probably just two hexagonal doors. Probably small side bays.

Assuming that it's a fully accurate depiction of course. Bring your own salt.

 

[TomcatViP]

Generic render, it seems.

But now we are sure the 47 will have two engines.

 

[Kat Tsun]

If the parts are truly interchangeable - why switch airframe manufacturers?

Because some companies are poorly run and can't deliver on time or in quantity desired.

What is being upgraded?

Management.

I am not an engineer, but something that always bothered me with the "digital engineering" concept was that US (and every other country) built dozens of aircraft types without ever using computers. If you look at the post-World War II era the US was designing dozens of aircraft and producing them in volume without the aid of computers. I think digital engineering is just used as an excuse because nobody really wants to admit that the US has lost most of its talent and industrial base and is no longer capable of designing and building at the pace and scale they could in the past.

Nobody can build at "the pace and scale" of the past. That will continue to be a trend into the future.

Aircraft today are orders of magnitude more complex while tolerances and margins are commensurately smaller than designs of the past. Digital engineering is important because one of the things holding back American military aircraft are those last vestiges of the old and slow manual engineering techniques of decades past. The other issue is private managers being able to hold an entire armed force hostage with sole source, sole supplier monopoly.

Digital Century solves more practical problems by integrating and homogenizing things like CAD databases so you don't need to call someone to access a network. DOD actually owning their aircraft (F-47) means poisonous managers can't drag ass on a program to pad out their career.

I also personally think that the large, slow, long range target set will be inherited by HACM. It’s not maneuverable enough for a fighter, but it’s more than enough for a turbo prop, and the transit time for a 300 mi/ 500 km shot is five minutes - superior to what any rationally sized solid rocket AAM could achieve.

Eta: HACM is another reason I think F-47 will only handle AIM-260s, along with the fact if it needs deeper magazines, just assign more CCA. It is a controller that can function as an air superiority fighter.

This is already being done over Iran, in a very primitive sense, using F-35I as the controller.

 

[flateric]

Hmmm

Rodrigo Avella's F/A-XX concept used by RTX

https://www.behance.net/gallery/60192893/Sixth-Generation-FA-XX-Fighter/modules/372001143

 

[NMaude]

But now we are sure the 47 will have two engines.

Well it would need two engines to perform its mission.

 

[donnage99]

Sorry to inform P&W had that generic render on their site for a long while now which they bought from an online artist

 

[Brett Davidson]

Sorry to inform P&W had that generic render on their site for a long while now which they bought from an online artist

Still, knowing what the nozzles look like, now we have some clues about the trailing edge.

 

[Scott Kenny]

HACM is a ground attack munition, not an AAM, so you might be thinking of something else

ASALM, the high-supersonic SRAM replacement, was also supposed to be anti-AWACS.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Still, knowing what the nozzles look like, now we have some clues about the trailing edge.

Those are some very odd looking nozzles for sure!

 

[Reddington777]

We can debate what to call that wing - lambda or delta

A lame-delta...

No dihedral on the main wing after all?

Intakes not dissimilar to J-50's.

Apparently a large central weapons bay - broad and long. Four door segments, so it could be twin side-by side bays? Probably just two hexagonal doors. Probably small side bays.

Assuming that it's a fully accurate depiction of course. Bring your own salt.

That render looks like one made by Rodrigo Avella here so it means absolutely nothing ... not to mention whoever photoshopped those engines on treated them like its hanging off the wings like a B52

 

[Training_Dummy]

We know F-47 will have two engines because XA102/3 are smaller and generate less thrust and power than XA100/101. And because trying to develop a single engined air dominance fighter for the Pacific would be imposing an unneeded complexity and additional risk.