Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

Some thoughts on F-47 and F/A-XX planforms, shapes and programs:

F-47
- i take the renderings, along with the Voodoo II patch for Boeings AII-X demonstrator, as reasonable signs F-47 will have dihedral triangle shaped canards in-line with
- a main wing with similar dihedral, that may or may not have anhedral tips, like BOP
- shovel nose with an unusual but volume friendly radome
- twin ventral intakes
- tailless
- a DEW weapon
- IWB capacity for at least six JATM
- single seat
- my gut says GEs X102 wins (sorry @F119Doctor)

F/A-XX
- I think it’s possible both NG and BA have proposed designs for dorsal intakes, to maximize IWB capacity
- tandem cockpit
- may or may not supercruise and might be only nominally supersonic
- main wings will be beefy for many reasons… perhaps delta?
- NG might have YF-23 like ruddervators
- Boeing design might have deployable canards for TO & approach
- engine: known derivative so if USN wants commonality then a F414 derivative (???) and if not perhaps a F110 derivative, not sure if PW has something suitable?
- my gut says NG wins at the tiniest of margins largely due to optics but I think if Boeings AII-X demonstrator was enough to wow the DAF into downselecting Boeing for the F-47, their F/A-XX proposal must be pretty damn compelling.

The industrial base concerns are valid but are probably more directed at the component level for some of the advanced avionics and sensors that both projects would presumably share, but it seems obvious the radar systems while potentially sharing a lot of back end design and components might have different TRM arrangements or even materials, the engines will be different, the TPMS architecture might be very distinct looking, etc. To me, in the end, these concerns seem more patchy and case specific than generalizable.

What is generalizable - at least from recent SEC compliant disclosures and commentary - is the following:

NG aerospace are pushing hard to get B-21 AV-2 flying this year, and have clearly restructured their manufacturing operations to support a higher throughput of Raider production and have openly discussed talks to expand the total buy. US strikes in the ME is yet the latest scary reminder the US needs lots of B-21s, fast, as a first order priority for the USAF and a national priority for the country.

LMT discussed ad nauseum elsewhere in this forum but they have a lot of F-35 work to get done and F-22 demand (hence sustainment and upgrades monies) is not going down anytime soon. Plus they have this new classified thing that’s giving them indigestion.

BA aerospace is trying hard to get their tankers and trainer programs back on track and obviously now has F-47. The new “robot shed” in St Louis should be ready next year (thanks @joshjosh ) and lord knows the ancillary sheds in Mesa and elsewhere around St Louis should be ready. Late in 2024 I would have been shocked to learn Boeing had won the USAF NGAD competition given the state of the company at the time, but anything can happen these days, and as a parting thought, if the price of winning F/A-XX is issuing a 10% stake to the US treasury, than maybe Boeing might be better off focusing exclusively on F-47….
 
wtna7 said:
这是什么？View attachment 785514
Click to expand...
This is an English-speaking forum so please post in english.

But if you are asking what that is, thats a test article leaked from LM inadvertently sometime in 2021. LMs demonstrator flew in 2022 for AII, but theres no telling whether this shape has anything to do with that.
 
@Sferrin ill respond to you here since the other thread is a news only thread.

Your original comment:
F/A-XX isn't going to use NGAP. (We don't even know if they'll use the last gen - F119/135-, but sounds like they're going to reach all the way back to the F110.) NGAD got scaled way back- just in time for China to leapfrog it.

Zumwalt? What "doesn't fit"? The guns? CG/X wasn't going to have them anyway. There are no excuses for the Ford and Virginias. Both are past their first units and subsequent units are actually taking LONGER to complete. That does not bode well, especially for the carrier situation (though considering we can't even fill out existing airwings at existing procurement rates, the odds off keeping double-digit numbers of carriers is ZERO.)

Sentinel is an embarrassment at this point, with the MMIII looking to give the B-52 a run for its money when it comes to longest in-service. We're even getting schooled by North Korea.

And yeah, we all get things don't change at the snap of a finger. But in one year we've had F/A-XX being indefinitely delayed to "wait, no it's not", NGAD being "restructured" from what we actually need to something less than that but packed with appropriate buzzwords. To say US planning re. tactical aircraft looks schizophrenic would be an understatement.
Click to expand...

F/A-XX isn't going to use NGAP. (We don't even know if they'll use the last gen - F119/135-, but sounds like they're going to reach all the way back to the F110.)
Click to expand...
You realize that NGAP is probably going to be the first of a long line of future engines right? It wont just be the F-47. The R&D dumped into it may well be used on other air frames developed in the future, just like how a derivative F110 engine might get used now. Calling that billions wasted is just flat out wrong.
NGAD got scaled way back- just in time for China to leapfrog it.
Click to expand...
NGAD being "restructured" from what we actually need to something less than that but packed with appropriate buzzwords.
Click to expand...
??????????

This is by far the most baseless one here.
Where did this happen? When did this happen? What actually got "restructured"?

Whether it's the history of the competition, the things officials have said regarding both PCA and the NGAD review, or the end result, it completely disagrees with you. Whispers about Boeing being the preferred option came pretty early on. Kendall and Hunter both said they weren't surprised by who won and what the nature of the two competing designs were that got them to pick Boeing's option. The end result agreed with breadcrumbs and official discussions regarding that. All the breadcrumbs quellish has left about the F-47 also seems to agree with everything here too.

Yet for your claims, you literally don't have a single piece of evidence for any of your conclusions. You (or anyone here for that matter) don't even know enough of anything about the F-47 or any of the Chinese 6th gens for that matter to conclude anything about either fighter let alone somehow one "leapfrogging" the other happening. At this point you and insidersource are vying for NonCredibleDefense level of non credible at this point.
Zumwalt? What "doesn't fit"?
Click to expand...
The intended primary shore bombardment role. And the fact that it was a GWOT era program and thus designed with completely different conflict in mind.
To say US planning re. tactical aircraft looks schizophrenic would be an understatement.
Click to expand...
Might I remind you that the original argument from totoro was that aircraft programs from award announcement to IOC have not sped up.

NGAD wasnt stopped before it was awarded. Its purpose and existence was evaluated and found to be necessary and then the award went out.

F/A-XX was not scrapped. No one ever said F/A-XX was getting scrapped. Only that there was concern about industry's ability to execute.

And all things considered, LRSB has been doing pretty well.

Literally every other program you and totoro listed were either GWOT era programs planned for designed and built for a mode of war that isnt what we need now, or that it was too early to take advantage of the shift in policy (LRS-B). The war you envision yourself fighting in the future and the enemies you believe you will face informs not just the capabilities of a program but how you run it, which technologies you integrate to what extent, and how much risk you want to take. Notice - I haven't said anything about the naval part of your comment because that's the only part I agree with, and even so, the comparison of projects still riding the GWOT era of procurement shouldn't exactly reflect how things are now. Two different enemies, two different fights.

Things tend to be confusing when an entire nation and all its institutions are undergoing massive change. You can only come to (some of) the conclusions you've come to if you ignore the technological and institutional context that we are currently in. You and I agreed in the past about a lot of the shortcomings that's spawned the larger and smaller issues facing procurement. I'm frustrated too that congress won't give me my goddamn 5% baseline, but misconstruing facts and oversimplifying things to justify conclusions does nothing but obfuscate things further.
 
Last edited:
My speculation of the possible F-47 seen in the Boeing Phantom Works patch.

I think it will be a merger between YF-118 Bird of Prey and X-36.
 

Attachments

  • 250321-f-af000-1513-67ed62c473997.jpeg
    250321-f-af000-1513-67ed62c473997.jpeg
    40.6 KB · Views: 163
  • downloadfile-1.jpeg
    downloadfile-1.jpeg
    47.4 KB · Views: 159
  • images (1).jpeg
    images (1).jpeg
    13.8 KB · Views: 165
  • patch.png
    patch.png
    299.4 KB · Views: 125
There are two things this patch has in common with the firebird patch. There are canards and the wings both look like they exceed the rear of the fuselage - either in height, in longitudinal distance, or both. Could be artistic exaggeration but it doesn't seem like a coincidence that both patches sport the same design. Pheonixes / firebirds

1759935580368.png 1759935542681.png

I think at this point it's entirely possible we have something like concept 2409. It's still LO but also a high agility concept.

Type C High Agility.jpg
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
There are two things this patch has in common with the firebird patch. There are canards and the wings both look like they exceed the rear of the fuselage - either in height, in longitudinal distance, or both. Could be artistic exaggeration but it doesn't seem like a coincidence that both patches sport the same design. Pheonixes / firebirds

View attachment 787332View attachment 787331

I think at this point it's entirely possible we have something like concept 2409. It's still LO but also a high agility concept.

View attachment 787333
Click to expand...
that's basically the chinese J-50 or J-XDS prototype, but the chinese ditched the canards, probably trusting controls to thrust vectoring and the movable wing tips
 
Reddington777 said:
There are two things this patch has in common with the firebird patch. There are canards and the wings both look like they exceed the rear of the fuselage - either in height, in longitudinal distance, or both. Could be artistic exaggeration but it doesn't seem like a coincidence that both patches sport the same design. Pheonixes / firebirds

View attachment 787332View attachment 787331

I think at this point it's entirely possible we have something like concept 2409. It's still LO but also a high agility concept.

View attachment 787333
Click to expand...
The patch features a concept representation of the YF-118 Bird of Prey.

There are too many coincidences for it to be merely an artistic representation.
 

Attachments

  • YF-118G-from-Boeing-Stealth-Fighter.jpg
    YF-118G-from-Boeing-Stealth-Fighter.jpg
    320.3 KB · Views: 167
Reddington777 said:
There are two things this patch has in common with the firebird patch. There are canards and the wings both look like they exceed the rear of the fuselage - either in height, in longitudinal distance, or both. Could be artistic exaggeration but it doesn't seem like a coincidence that both patches sport the same design. Pheonixes / firebirds

View attachment 787332View attachment 787331

I think at this point it's entirely possible we have something like concept 2409. It's still LO but also a high agility concept.

View attachment 787333
Click to expand...
I totaly agree not a hasard I think too.
 
Ran across a thought in another thread.

SiAW is apparently part of the NGAD overall banner. So it's highly likely that the F-47's main bay(s) are sized to hold SiAW. SiAW is not AARGM-ER, not exactly. But the photo of a missile stenciled SiAW sure looks a lot like an AARGM-ER, maybe the fins are a little different.

Picture from wiki
1920px-SiAW_Standing-in_Attack_weapon_-_tactical_air-to-surface_missile_trial_%28cropped%29.jpg


Using the AARGM-ER dimensions, that's a missile 160" long, ~22" wide, and with a tail fin span of about 26". This means that the "box" at the tail fins is ~18.5" deep.
Edit: I now believe that the example missile size for SiAW is the JSM, which is ~157" long by 19" wide by 20" tall.​

Which means that it'd be possible for F-47 to hold JSMs or even AGM-158s internally. Or 2000lb JDAMs, but who is going to waste an F-47 on those when we have B-21s?
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Which means that it'd be possible for F-47 to hold JSMs or even AGM-158s internally. Or 2000lb JDAMs, but who is going to waste an F-47 on those when we have B-21s?
Click to expand...
Hopefully this ends your F-47 shallow weapon bay and F/A-XX deep weapon bay theory.

The same size weapon bay can easily handle the requirement for both services. Any extra volume required by the Navy simply means 8+ AMRAAMs carried by the USAF.
 
Oops, should have replied to these together. Mea culpa!
insidersource said:
The same size weapon bay can easily handle the requirement for both services. Any extra volume required by the Navy simply means 8+ AMRAAMs carried by the USAF.
Click to expand...
If you're packing 4x SiAWs (which I am assuming to be JSM sized as they're both explicitly shaped to fit into an F-35 weapons bay), you could absolutely pack a crapton of AMRAAMs or JTMs.

In a single layer, you could pack 2x staggered AMRAAMs per SiAW slot. AMRAAMs are ~13.5" wide at the fins with a 7" fuselage while SiAW/JSM is right about 20" wide, so we're talking about a 3.5" overlap or less to make fit.

If you can double stack, you'd be able to fit 4 AMRAAMs per SiAW slot, but that requires double staggering your missiles to deal with the fin overlaps. For example, Top Right and Bottom Left missile would be attached forwards of Top left and Bottom Right.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you can double stack, you'd be able to fit 4 AMRAAMs per SiAW slot, but that requires double staggering your missiles to deal with the fin overlaps. For example, Top Right and Bottom Left missile would be attached forwards of Top left and Bottom Right.
Click to expand...
I could definitely see double stacking AMRAAM by using a single door mounted technique similar to the F-35. There are so many possible solutions.

The SU-57 tandem bays make sense. A wider and flatter fuselage with the engines spaced a metre or two apart has advantages. This allows for a long and deep bay.

I think the design will have a deep bay to fit two JASSM or SiAW missiles. Then two shallow bays under the air intakes to fit AMRAAM and SDB.

The most interesting thing is what will be replacing Sidewinder. There are solid rumors of very small short range missiles. I think a tube based solution is by far the most space efficient. For instance you could fit a dozen 70mm diameter stinger missiles in the space of a Sidewinder.

NGSRI for instance with its 70mm diameter would nearly match the range of Sidewinder due to the seeker and warhead getting lighter. The ideal position would be to have the launch tubes on the upper side of the fuselage. During a turning dogfight the enemy will nearly always be in the upper hemisphere.

Shooting down large long range enemy missiles with tiny short range missiles makes perfect sense. These missiles usually loft up high which makes it more likely to have the small missiles mounted on the upper fuselage. This eliminates the need for lock on after launch as the seeker head will be able to see most targets.
 
insidersource said:
I could definitely see double stacking AMRAAM by using a single door mounted technique similar to the F-35. There are so many possible solutions.
Click to expand...
You know, I had not been thinking about single doors on the bays. I'd been thinking folding doors for way too long.

Simple flat doors would be a lot simpler than designing that quad pack ejection rack.



insidersource said:
The SU-57 tandem bays make sense. A wider and flatter fuselage with the engines spaced a metre or two apart has advantages. This allows for a long and deep bay.
Click to expand...
Funny enough, the Su-57 is right about the size I've been thinking for FAXX. 40,800lbs empty and 77,000 MTOW. Needs more internal fuel capacity, though. Needs about 5000lbs more internal fuel capacity.



insidersource said:
I think the design will have a deep bay to fit two JASSM or SiAW missiles. Then two shallow bays under the air intakes to fit AMRAAM and SDB.
Click to expand...
Maybe? If this was FAXX I'd say 4x SiAW plus a couple of AMRAAM/JATMs. F-47 definitely needs to be able to hold at least 2x SiAW, and I'm thinking 6x AMRAAMs.

For location, I was picturing a side bay like on the F-22, because that allows you to sneak a bay opening away from the threat radar



insidersource said:
The most interesting thing is what will be replacing Sidewinder. There are solid rumors of very small short range missiles. I think a tube based solution is by far the most space efficient. For instance you could fit a dozen 70mm diameter stinger missiles in the space of a Sidewinder.

NGSRI for instance with its 70mm diameter would nearly match the range of Sidewinder due to the seeker and warhead getting lighter. The ideal position would be to have the launch tubes on the upper side of the fuselage. During a turning dogfight the enemy will nearly always be in the upper hemisphere.

Shooting down large long range enemy missiles with tiny short range missiles makes perfect sense. These missiles usually loft up high which makes it more likely to have the small missiles mounted on the upper fuselage. This eliminates the need for lock on after launch as the seeker head will be able to see most targets.
Click to expand...
Something like the original Taildog is really where I think dogfight missile development should have gone. If the missile can lock onto the target, the missile will hit it. only like a 2km range, but who cares?
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1984605185491050626
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1984605185491050626

Posted over on the news thread.


24 F-47s per across 10 years is if you've resigned yourself to "bending over and taking it". Not sure in what world you'll need 24 F-47s a year but 100 F-35s a year - especially if the F-35 program struggles to deliver upgrades in addition to not having any meaningful edge over adversaries.
Click to expand...
I think the real problem is the age of the airframes. The US Air Force has simply just let the average age of the fighter aircraft it operates get too old. There is no reason to be operating ~30 plus year old airframes when they have had F-15 and F-16 production running continuously. When the F-22 production was cut short and F-35 continued to face development delays F-15 and F-16 procurement should have been initiated while F-35 issues got worked out. I cannot understand why you would be comfortable letting your airframes get to that age?

Oh, and you need at least 24 F-47's a year when China is building something like 100 J-20's per year, along with whatever number of J-35 and J-16.
 
Reddington777 said:
24 F-47s per across 10 years is if you've resigned yourself to "bending over and taking it". Not sure in what world you'll need 24 F-47s a year but 100 F-35s a year - especially if the F-35 program struggles to deliver upgrades in addition to not having any meaningful edge over adversaries.
Click to expand...
In case it was not obvious enough, this is a proposal for four plus years out (FY-31). You need that much time to develop F-47 before it can move from RDTE to procurement. And you need that time to be able to increase F-35A procurement to 100 without cutting export jets or reducing navy or marine buys. The USAF needs a total combat coded tactical fighter inventory of 1500+ aircraft a net increase of 300 to meet the interim guidance from the current administration on its nation security strategy. All the while it has to ensure readiness. Trying to add 1-2 decades of additional life on already three or more decade old aircraft is not a viable strategy from a readiness perspective. Nor from a capabilities one.

The Air Force itself talks about being able to ramp up to 100 A's once the Marines are done with the B buy. The F-35A is regarded by the air force as a cornerstone of its future fleet and this is also stated in the materials shared with Congress. The Air Force plans to ramp F-35 buy to 3F levels once block 4 delays are behind them.
 
Oh, and you need at least 24 F-47's a year when China is building something like 100 J-20's per year, along with whatever number of J-35 and J-16.
Click to expand...

You need that much time to develop F-47 before it can move from RDTE to procurement.
Click to expand...
24 a year with no ramp ups still troubling. If 24 a year averaging over 5 years after initial induction, that's at least acceptable
 
Reddington777 said:
24 a year with no ramp ups still troubling. If 24 a year averaging over 5 years after initial induction, that's at least acceptable
Click to expand...
Sure. Ramp it up as much as you like but be sure to invest in a production capacity upfront. I've assumed its going to be about 24/year in FY-31 but by all means assume whatever you think is more appropriate for Boeing to be able to deliver four or so FYs from now.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom