Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

Training_Dummy said:
Just came across this great find from @flateric ….

Thread 'Northrop Grumman 'retrofit Super Hornet''
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-grumman-retrofit-super-hornet.41272/

Engine air bleedless, shaft driven power extraction driving a 20% boost in thrust & efficiency and four 120kW APUs.

Remarkable claims. If true, perhaps Boeing can generate quite a bit of power (and maybe performance) for F-47 by using a modified F110 variant for example, even without X102/103. This fool sees no reason why this couldn’t be mapped to F/A-XX.

Again, IF true.
Click to expand...
Extracting shaft horsepower to run a separate low pressure compressor for the ECS system is likely to be more efficient than extracting bleed air after doing all of the work to compress that air to the back of the compressor, then having to remove a lot of heat and pressure from that bleed air to be useable by the ECS system. But 20% better engine fuel efficiency or thrust in “the heart of the flight envelope” seems like a somewhat outlandish claim. If they said 5%, I might believe it.
 
I stopped reading when they suggested that if they removed the empennage and added thrust vectoring nozzles they could reposition the engines further apart allowing the room for that stuff, then casually 'oh by the way we would swap the aircrafts wings for larger wings as well'.

Its not exactly a minor upgrade kit then is it, thats a significant amount of engineering work to an aircraft thats likely already used half the airframes flight hours. And the entire balance and flight characteristics of the aircraft would have changed which would mean everything would need to be requalified.

They write the patent like they are just selling a spoiler kit for a car. Considering the patent cites as source an article from 2017 after Trump said he was considering cancelling Lockheeds Contract for the F-35 and asked Boeing to price an upgraded Advanced Super Hornet with performance to match the F-35 (sound familiar), and then the Boeing VP lists the features he would have on the new aircraft if he was designing it, I wonder if the whole thing is just a spoiling patent to stop Boeing sidestepping Grumman with an updated F-18.
 
Last edited:
insidersource said:
I don't agree with calling the F110 a 4th gen engine. Engines should not be put into generations
Click to expand...
That be your opinion but I have heard engines referred to as generation 3, 4, 5 numerous times in the sector/industry.

For example, GE J79 referred to as Gen 3, F404, Gen 4, F414, Gen 4.5 and F135 Gen 5.
 
sublight_ said:
What is the Air Force going to do with 480 kilowatts of power? Plasma cloaks?
Click to expand...
Power an array of systems from radars, flight control effectors, ecm, and so on.

Edit:
To expand more on flight control effectors. It appears there is a heavy reliance on active flow control systems, the pump systems are sure to require power given the larger distribution of suction devices across a vehicle.
 
Last edited:
well just to spice it up the patent mentions continuous fire DEW weapons, but a cursory adventure down the NGJ hole illustrates all kinds of fun things you can do with dedicated GaN based EW arrays and excess power.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Power an array of systems from radars, flight control effectors, ecm, and so on.

Edit:
To expand more on flight control effectors. It appears there is a heavy reliance on active flow control systems, the pump systems are sure to require power given the larger distribution of suction devices across a vehicle.
Click to expand...
Fly - i had wondered if ICE like systems were incorporated into F-47… have you found confirmation?
 
Training_Dummy said:
Fly - i had wondered if ICE like systems were incorporated into F-47… have you found confirmation?
Click to expand...
The Boeing patents for similar next-generation aircraft show the use of it. Even more so, the HARV, ACWFT, and other studies show it's use. So im sure it's a well "matured" technology so to speak and will have it's debut here. Could be revolutionary.
 
Last edited:
doggedman said:
FighterJock - appreciate the response. I was just curious given that the size of nose and the aperture might allow for a power aperture product well in excess of, say the F-22 or F-15EX. An ESA allows you to point a beam wherever you want, and as frequently as you want. That to me says that you could interleave the more normal detection/tracking function with a directed energy weapon. I would assume (always risky for me) that all this depends on excess power. But you'd think the XA-102 or 103 would deliver on that if we are talking about a much lighter airframe structure.
Click to expand...

Pratt & Whitney Reveals New Details Of Adaptive Combat Engine Program | Aviation Week Network

Pratt & Whitney provides a rare glimpse of the XA103 adaptive engine and the digital design process underpinning its development.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

IMHO this article's nuances seem not only to argue for the efficient power necessary supporting a DEW F-47 but also a large high performance (lift & speed) craft like a new build four engine Lancer. The B-21 is too stealth focused to fully advantage the SWAP economies of multiple XA-103s.
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
A pretty respectable channel. This discusses the whys of the F-47 and its principal problems: high unit cost and production capacity overstretched to update and replace everything.
Click to expand...
It doesn't help that the USAF is having to replace everything at the same time. If they'd staggered the programs a bit more it'd be a lot more affordable.

Call it 10 years from RFP to first flight, 4-5 years from first flight to IOC, and then a 10 year production run.
 
Rhinocrates said:
high unit cost and production capacity overstretched to update and replace everything.
Click to expand...

Facepalm.

For their AII-X Boeing went from clean sheet of paper to first flight in about 18 months using production processes and representative production tooling.


Production capacity problems are a myth created by people who are still thinking in terms of “4th gen” processes. Building an F-15 is like building a car, by hand, very slowly.

Building these “6th gen” US aircraft is more like a Monogram Snap-Tite model kit where a robot knows the instructions and has done it 1000 times before.
 
jsport said:
Then it should follow that a new build F-15X should be similar to a Monograph Snap-Tite model kit where a a robot knows the instructions and has done it 1k times before.
Click to expand...
I suspect (almost certainly) that you'll find that the interface designs on parts are designed for the original manufacturing processes of (for instance) the F-15 are just not compatible with the details of high speed robotics assembly. It's definitely a thing you could do to attempt to update the F-15 design you benefit from 2025 manufacturing processes but by the time you have that big a design team doing all that work you may as well give it better wings, new materials and a different mold line. You may as well design a new aircraft.

For sure if you have all the capital installed and can make a business case to keep shipping F-15's that's great to a point, but it's mainly attractive as an upgraded 4th gen solution and probably more expensive than cost-downing an F-35 derivative. I suppose it's horses for courses, depends what is the overall objective to really judge.
 
Windrunnee could be a genuine political/economic plane w/ operational "characteristics". Unlike another plane which is that but w/ few useful operational "characteristics" except to further the art & science.
 
TomcatViP said:
Very much with you on the cargo aircraft. It's hard to fathom how you can openly speak about readiness for a peer fight without having any large airlifter available at the end of a manufacturing line.
Click to expand...
Sure hope there are a lot of usable B-747 sitting in the boneyards along with recallable crews. Of course I am sure we can solve this problem with UAS 747...

But that is for a different thread!
 
Rhinocrates said:
This discusses the whys of the F-47 and its principal problems: high unit cost and production capacity overstretched to update and replace everything.
Click to expand...

How is production capacity overstretched? Boeing is delivering just 12-18 fighters a year once the last SH is delivered in a few months. They will get F-15EX up to 24 but that will not hold for more than 4-5 years at that rate given backlog and future potential. That backlog would be delivered by the time F-47 hits FRP. If it meant the budget situation then yes I would somewhat agree..But if they are serious about the PLAAF then the 180-200 count for F-47 would probably need to be doubled so the ultimate quantity that gets built would be much higher (over the various increments). If they are not then it really doesn't matter what they pay to acquire a sub 200 aircraft combat coded fleet.
 
jsport said:
some new jet powered CAS plane
Click to expand...
It would be nice to have air support but ... I'm not sure how it's still possible to do manned and dedicated CAS against a peer power nowadays. That role would probably be replaced by various drones (whenver they start making land attack drones). If not, then it'll be drones providing datalink and terminal guidance for stand out / stand off munitions.

In most places in centcom, our dear little OA-1K sky raider farm tractor/crop duster can dust off ground units instead.
 
Last edited:
There is no future in peer manned CAS and there shouldn’t be. It’s a special operations role now. It has gone the way of scout helicopters: there’s far cheaper ways of doing that now.
 
Not sure that's true. CAS can certainly be a risky thing where IADS are concentrated, like seen in Ukraine.
But not all wars are fought across a static front line. Add mobility, distance in hundreds of kilometers b/w choke points, and we are back to the old paradigm of armored vehicles Vs aircraft. No way you could either support long range impenetrable Anti-Air defense or bring-in quadcopter killer drones by the thousands to sustain the kind of operation seen in Ukraine while the front is moving every days.
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
Facepalm.

For their AII-X Boeing went from clean sheet of paper to first flight in about 18 months using production processes and representative production tooling.


Production capacity problems are a myth created by people who are still thinking in terms of “4th gen” processes. Building an F-15 is like building a car, by hand, very slowly.

Building these “6th gen” US aircraft is more like a Monogram Snap-Tite model kit where a robot knows the instructions and has done it 1000 times before.
Click to expand...

Yes on finished parts I would agree, but what about production of wing/body/etc assemblies? Didn't Northrop just mention some B-21 sections had defects and it was hideously expensive? I dunno if it was made of CNRP or some other unobtainium, but I am guessing that is why it was so pricey.

Did Boeing do All-X with "unobtainium" materials or just Aerospace grade polymers?
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Not sure that's true. CAS can certainly be a risky thing where IADS are concentrated, like seen in Ukraine.
But not all wars are fought across a static front line. Add mobility, distance in hundreds of kilometers b/w choke points, and we are back to the old paradigm of armored vehicles Vs aircraft. No way you could either support long range impenetrable Anti-Air defense or bring-in quadcopter killer drones by the thousands to sustain the kind of operation seen in Ukraine while the front is moving every days.
Click to expand...
Western Troops in close contact (grabbing by belt) is a tactic every adversary knows, a gun from as close az 600m and only trusted fired by human
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TomcatViP said:
Not sure that's true. CAS can certainly be a risky thing where IADS are concentrated, like seen in Ukraine.
But not all wars are fought across a static front line. Add mobility, distance in hundreds of kilometers b/w choke points, and we are back to the old paradigm of armored vehicles Vs aircraft. No way you could either support long range impenetrable Anti-Air defense or bring-in quadcopter killer drones by the thousands to sustain the kind of operation seen in Ukraine while the front is moving every days.
Click to expand...

Why not? If a B-1 can provide CAS, have we not gotten very close to platform agnostic delivery when the call for fire comes in? Who cares how it is delivered? Moreover, with the Army’s investment into LRPF, isn’t that a more responsive mechanism that air delivery anyway?
 
Josh_TN said:
Why not? If a B-1 can provide CAS, have we not gotten very close to platform agnostic delivery when the call for fire comes in? Who cares how it is delivered? Moreover, with the Army’s investment into LRPF, isn’t that a more responsive mechanism that air delivery anyway?
Click to expand...
Bones were providing CAS in an utterly permissive environment.

Non-permissive CAS is a different discussion entirely.
 
jsport said:
Wesrern Troops in close contact (grabbing by belt) is a tactic every adversary knows, a gun from as close az 600m and only trusted fired by human
Click to expand...

No one is using a gun in this day and age. The pilot is worth more than two dozen stand off PGMs. I challenge you to find a documented gun run in the last decade (ETA: that did not involve SOCOM).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Bones were providing CAS in an utterly permissive environment.

Non-permissive CAS is a different discussion entirely.
Click to expand...

Exactly: no one is risking a manned platform to do that. But the fact that Army units could talk to a bomber seems to indicate they could talk to a drone operator; there’s no necessity that requires a low altitude on site human.
 
Josh_TN said:
Why not? If a B-1 can provide CAS, have we not gotten very close to platform agnostic delivery when the call for fire comes in?
Click to expand...

No

Josh_TN said:
Who cares how it is delivered? Moreover, with the Army’s investment into LRPF, isn’t that a more responsive mechanism that air delivery anyway?
Click to expand...

Who? The people on the ground who are in close proximity to the enemy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People that want to keep the A-10 alive or want a A-10 v2.0 misses the point of why an A-10 was needed in the first place. CAS missions requires high precision because missing even by a small amount is very likely to cause blue on blue casualties. When you are dropping dumb bombs your CEP is a heavy function of the altitude from which the bomb was dropped. Red being within 300m of blue will definitely cause targeting dilemma when dropping a bomb from a safe 10K ft altitude results in a CEP of 300m.

The A-10 was designed the way it was to be able to drop bombs from very low altitude in the presence of the enemy and be survivable enough to make more than one pass. Dropping low was the way to significantly improve the CEP of the dumb bombs you are dropping. You put a big 30mm cannon on it because it’s the most accurate weapon you’ve got.

With modern precision guided munitions you can have any airplane dropping from a safe & high altitude and still get better CEP than an A-10 dropping dumb bombs at low altitude. PGMs means any aircraft, F-15s, B-2, F-47s, even C-17s can all serve the same mission if they can drop SDBs because CEP is now independent of the aircraft, altitude and airspeed from which it was dropped (as long as it is employed within the design operating conditions).

In short, a dedicated CAS aircraft is no longer necessary. Having dedicated unit who’s primary mission and training is CAS should be done but is a separate matter from designing an aircraft solely for that mission.
 
The A-10 was designed to kill tanks. It was designed around the 30mm and Maverick, and as such it needed no other guidance modes. That actually made it a piss poor bomb platform compared to even something like the the A-7; though retroactively it has been given the capability of precise bombing in the C version. But until fairly recently, the A-10 had no mechanism for accurate bombing, which is why I get frustrated by this cult of A-10 worship.
 
quellish said:
No

Who? The people on the ground who are in close proximity to the enemy.
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific with you”no”? I feel like this particular statement did not involve any FIA work on you part since it’s a 1970s tech platform, so if you have an informed opinion to the contrary, it’s nothing TMZ could steal.
 
Josh_TN said:
Can you be more specific with you”no”? I feel like this particular statement did not involve any FIA work on you part since it’s a 1970s tech platform, so if you have an informed opinion to the contrary, it’s nothing TMZ could steal.
Click to expand...

First, this thread is not appropriate for a discussion of CAS. CAS has been discussed extensively elsewhere on the forum. Expanding on my response would only lead to more poorly informed discussions that will very quickly go off-topic.

Second, CAS is the employment of airpower against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces. The platform used, the weapons employed, the speed and heading of the platform, are all critical to CAS. There is no "platform agnostic" CAS by its very nature. This has been discussed elsewhere on the forum such as:


And yet there are still many people who seem to think that CAS is all about CEP. It's not. I learned long ago that attempting to discuss or educate on how CAS is performed and how that drives the requirements for CAS platforms and weapons is pointless - people refuse to accept information counter to their existing mental models. I will not discuss CAS again on this forum.
 
This topic has been trashed by giant rivers of speculation and personal opinion. Any actual information or informed discussion on the F-47 is near impossible to find.

I'm moving it and renaming it. I will attempt to form a new F-47 topic from any scraps of interesting content in here.
 
Josh_TN said:
Exactly: no one is risking a manned platform to do that. But the fact that Army units could talk to a bomber seems to indicate they could talk to a drone operator; there’s no necessity that requires a low altitude on site human.
Click to expand...
Disagree, but we've just been scolded about talking CAS in the F-47 thread.
 
Late thoughts on canards and stealth. They're bad for frontal stealth, m'kay? I remember reading somewhere, maybe back when F-47 was PCA, that it was expected to be operating deep beyond the third and second and even first island chains where it would be illuminated from all sides, not just predominantly from the front. In that case, there would be a recalculation of priorities. Vertical - even canted - tails would be a definite no-no and canards would be no worse than horizontal tailplanes. Dihedral wings placed well back (which would necessitate canards) would provide addtional cover for the exhaust nozzles. Have a look at side-on photos of the B-21 in flight. Now of course the USAF is selecting photos so that we see little of the inlets and there are no clear angles from close up of the nozzles but nonetheless, when in flight, with the winds flexed up and still seen directly horizontally, so that we can see both the port wing and the tip of the starboard one, the nozzles are hidden.
 

Attachments

  • 8423170-2048x1366.jpg
    8423170-2048x1366.jpg
    225 KB · Views: 70
Rhinocrates said:
Late thoughts on canards and stealth. They're bad for frontal stealth, m'kay?
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike canards and any sort of tails at all (mainly because aesthetics > everything else right?), I think the topic itself has been argued to hell and back in this thread. I don't have any ill intentions whatsoever but there's a whole dedicated thread about this topic that might be a better place to post. I understand that this has now been turned into a speculation thread, and ya'll are obviously free to continue, but it might be more productive to have this discussion in that thread.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom