CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

[VTOLicious]

This is my possible F-47 model...
This is a possible radar compared to the AN/APG-77.
View attachment 786864

A possible 1.12m^2 Area is easily possible in the spade nose, versus the AN/APG-77 with a 0.65m^2 aperture.

Before drawing conclusions from your drawing, you should check whether the aircraft's size is within a reasonable range.
Looking at the 0.65m² circle, which roughly corresponds to the air intake of an F119 engine, I don't think so.

 

[Nx4eu]

Before drawing conclusions from your drawing, you should check whether the aircraft's size is within a reasonable range.
Looking at the 0.65m² circle, which roughly corresponds to the air intake of an F119 engine, I don't think so.

The scale was definitely off, i resized it a little bit. How is it now? the basic dimensions of the aircraft is 19m long and 15m wingspan.

 

[VTOLicious]

The scale was definitely off, i resized it a little bit. How is it now? the basic dimensions of the aircraft is 19m long and 15m wingspan.
View attachment 786966

Looks better now!

 

[VTOLicious]

Here is my measurement (length 19.5 m, wingspan 14.0 m)...

 

[TsrJoe]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BTiiPYgpN/

 

[VTOLicious]

The latest model (432) features retractable landing gears, a movable canopy and weapons bay doors. And I've integrated an EOTS at the bottom, and side looking radars are also indicated... Btw, there is a pair of AARGM-ER / SiAW in the rear weapons bay

 

[VTOLicious]

Comparison of solid body volume

KF-21: 51 m³
M432: 77 m³ (+50%)

Unfortunately, I don't have a 3D model of the F-35A or F-22 to compare the volume, but one could assume the volume of KF-21 is in the same ballpark as F-35A.

 

[Brett Davidson]

Might the plane have a system of radars rather than just one? Panels could be distributed about the airframe, including the wing leading edges and fuselage sides.

An electronically scanned antenna is not the same as a straightforward reflector of course, but the principle of resolution being dependent on the dimension along at least one axis, not shape still applies. A number of AEW etc. aircraft use long, shallow panels along the sides of the fuselage or dorsal fins, so there's nothing new about this.

EDIT: Oh, side-mounted radars mentioned, right.

The F-47 is intended to penetrate deep into surveilled territory where it must deal with threats and targets not just from the front but all around. A system of antennas giving full horizon coverage would be necessary.

BTW, a counterintuitive space telescope proposal - a mirror that's not round but wide and thin:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/astronomy-and-planetary-science-thread.36194/post-838681

 

[Scott Kenny]

Comparison of solid body volume

KF-21: 51 m³
M432: 77 m³ (+50%)

Unfortunately, I don't have a 3D model of the F-35A or F-22 to compare the volume, but one could assume the volume of KF-21 is in the same ballpark as F-35A.

This suggests that you now need to make an F-22 and F-35A 3d models. Even if that does sound tedious.

 

[VTOLicious]

This suggests that you now need to make an F-22 and F-35A 3d models. Even if that does sound tedious.

Haha, indeed tendious and time consuming.

 

[lantinian]

I didn't see this artwork so far being posted on SP but its making the rounds on twitter.

If nothings else, it does seams like a stealth version of the F-17 which makes a cool nod to Northrop.
That said, it does look more like a 90's concept of a carrier fighter than one from this decade.

 

[EmoBirb]

I didn't see this artwork so far being posted on SP but its making the rounds on twitter.
View attachment 788265
If nothings else, it does seams like a stealth version of the F-17 which makes a cool nod to Northrop.
That said, it does look more like a 90's concept of a carrier fighter than one from this decade.

Looks like AI generated stuff tbh

 

[Arjen]

Fuzzy text, inappropriate roundel - AI.

 

[Reddington777]

Still definitely a WIP, but I started with a new model based on the official renders and the planform characteristics seen in the patches. I've been thinking about either lambda wings or cranked arrow wings but...I must say the gull wing and chisel nose is really growing on me.

@VTOLicious it uses roughly the same armament arrangement you used. I took the bay dimensions you used for your model.

Still working on the internals and the wing / wing spar so the entire under side is just not modeled yet. From the renders the plane looks like it'll have a pretty high spine but a shallow underbelly.

 

[gojira007]

I can't 3D-model for the life of me, but I wanted to share my Ideas and contribute in some way, so I decided to sketch it:

I tried to base it as much as possible on the official renders we have, including the little outward "jump" of the OML behind the canards, and the shape of the cockpit.

The parts we don't know a lot about I based mainly on the Mcdonell Douglas / Boeing concept 2409, and the boeing YF-118g Bird of Prey, as I believe those two have the most similarities with the possible planform depicted in the 2 patches.

One aspect I'm still not very satisfied with is the space between the canards and the wings, which I feel like looks a lot shorter in the renders than it does in my sketch. I tried some other configuration but wasn't too satisfied with them.

I would love some feedback and suggestions to improve my concept, so please feel free to criticize any aspects you find to be unrealistic.

 

[Lepespi]

I can't 3D-model for the life of me, but I wanted to share my Ideas and contribute in some way, so I decided to sketch it:

I tried to base it as much as possible on the official renders we have, including the little outward "jump" of the OML behind the canards, and the shape of the cockpit.

The parts we don't know a lot about I based mainly on the Mcdonell Douglas / Boeing concept 2409, and the boeing YF-118g Bird of Prey, as I believe thise two have the most similarities with the possible planform depicted in the 2 patches.

One aspect I'm still not very satisfied with is the space between the canards and the wings, which I feel like looks a lot shorter in the renders than it does in my sketch. I tried some other configuration but wasn't too satisfied with them.

I would love some feedback and suggestions to improve my concept, so please feel free to criticize any aspects you find to be unrealistic.

View attachment 788345

pretty cool, I feel like that's the most common shape being speculated, what do you guys think about the fact that this is basically a less aerodinamically ambicious J-50/J-XDS, at least that's my assumption when the chinese ditched the canards for the AWT + TVC

 

[gojira007]

pretty cool, I feel like that's the most common shape being speculated, what do you guys think about the fact that this is basically a less aerodinamically ambicious J-50/J-XDS, at least that's my assumption when the chinese ditched the canards for the AWT + TVC

I wouldn't start comparing designs before we're even sure of a general planform, for all we know it looks nothing like the renders. Speculation about the possible design and comparison with other designs based on pure speculation are two different things.

 

[Reddington777]

less aerodinamically ambicious J-50/J-XDS

What about this is less ambitious again? Moving wingtips aren't some kind of flashy new alien technology no one knew about. If I wanted to, I could say that having gull wings is more ambitious and I'd be no more right or wrong lol.

 

[Reddington777]

One aspect I'm still not very satisfied with is the space between the canards and the wings, which I feel like looks a lot shorter in the renders than it does in my sketch. I tried some other configuration but wasn't too satisfied with them.

We basically arrived at the same conclusions here. I also struggled with that section when I was modeling mine. The distance from the canard trailing edge to the wing is definitely longer than from the leading edge of the canard to the nose. I went with a YF-23 sized plane (68 ft) + an F-22 sized cockpit (11 ft). That gave me a rough idea of realistically how long a chord length I was working with at the wing root, which in turn gave me a somewhat more believable distance between canard and wing.

I must say as far as aerodynamics go, I'm not super knowledgeable so I'm basically just guessing for the wings and exhaust

I also tried the wing shape you had, but one thing I struggled with is thinking about wing span vs the length of the plane. For what we both arrived at, the width of the wings are approaching a 1:1 ratio with the length, which ... I'm not sure whether that's desirable. Looking at the J-36 though, the wingspan is definitely approaching a 1:1 ratio and only after trimming the wing tips did I arrive at a similar aspect ratio.

As for the exhaust, I assumed 13 ft long engines but lengthened the exhaust considering the giant paddle exhausts we saw from the PW video. Or else without that added length, I could get it down to F-22 size.

For the angle of the gull wings, I ended up going with a 10 degree dihedral followed by a 12 degree anhedral, which seemed to blend well angularly with the angles of the fuselage itself.

I'd really appreciate someone more familiar with the aerodynamics and tailess controls to bestow some further guidance on the wing's shape, taper, and the exhaust section.

 

[Lepespi]

What about this is less ambitious again? Moving wingtips aren't some kind of flashy new alien technology no one knew about. If I wanted to, I could say that having gull wings is more ambitious and I'd be no more right or wrong lol.

oh sure if it does have gull wings nothing I said applies, completely new thing, my point was considering if it comes up in basically the same shape but the chinese giving up even more control/reflective surfaces and going for ultra software/sensors heavy controls, it seems like the f-47 would be the aerodinamically "conservative" in this case, but of course it would depend on how much more maneuverable the f-47 would be

 

[pedrospe]

We basically arrived at the same conclusions here. I also struggled with that section when I was modeling mine. The distance from the canard trailing edge to the wing is definitely longer than from the leading edge of the canard to the nose. I went with a YF-23 sized plane (68 ft) + an F-22 sized cockpit (11 ft). That gave me a rough idea of realistically how long a chord length I was working with at the wing root, which in turn gave me a somewhat more believable distance between canard and wing.

I must say as far as aerodynamics go, I'm not super knowledgeable so I'm basically just guessing for the wings and exhaust

I also tried the wing shape you had, but one thing I struggled with is thinking about wing span vs the length of the plane. For what we both arrived at, the width of the wings are approaching a 1:1 ratio with the length, which ... I'm not sure whether that's desirable. Looking at the J-36 though, the wingspan is definitely approaching a 1:1 ratio and only after trimming the wing tips did I arrive at a similar aspect ratio.

As for the exhaust, I assumed 13 ft long engines but lengthened the exhaust considering the giant paddle exhausts we saw from the PW video. Or else without that added length, I could get it down to F-22 size.

For the angle of the gull wings, I ended up going with a 10 degree dihedral followed by a 12 degree anhedral, which seemed to blend well angularly with the angles of the fuselage itself.

I'd really appreciate someone more familiar with the aerodynamics and tailess controls to bestow some further guidance on the wing's shape, taper, and the exhaust section.
View attachment 788352

Looks promising

 

[Reddington777]

chinese giving up even more control/reflective surfaces and going for ultra software/sensors heavy controls

I feel that tailess controls and the wholistic aerodynamic character of the platform are greater determinants of control software complexity and reliance. At the end of the day, moving wingtips are just another control surface that requires software logic.

It is curious why the F-47 looks like it'll have canards and the pros and cons of that have been beaten to death already so I won't go into that. It'll require the full picture to understand why such a design choice was made, but if I had to speculate, I think maneuverability at high speeds remains an important defensive factor. Canards might also improve range and efficiency.

 

[gojira007]

We basically arrived at the same conclusions here. I also struggled with that section when I was modeling mine. The distance from the canard trailing edge to the wing is definitely longer than from the leading edge of the canard to the nose. I went with a YF-23 sized plane (68 ft) + an F-22 sized cockpit (11 ft). That gave me a rough idea of realistically how long a chord length I was working with at the wing root, which in turn gave me a somewhat more believable distance between canard and wing.

I must say as far as aerodynamics go, I'm not super knowledgeable so I'm basically just guessing for the wings and exhaust

I also tried the wing shape you had, but one thing I struggled with is thinking about wing span vs the length of the plane. For what we both arrived at, the width of the wings are approaching a 1:1 ratio with the length, which ... I'm not sure whether that's desirable. Looking at the J-36 though, the wingspan is definitely approaching a 1:1 ratio and only after trimming the wing tips did I arrive at a similar aspect ratio.

As for the exhaust, I assumed 13 ft long engines but lengthened the exhaust considering the giant paddle exhausts we saw from the PW video. Or else without that added length, I could get it down to F-22 size.

For the angle of the gull wings, I ended up going with a 10 degree dihedral followed by a 12 degree anhedral, which seemed to blend well angularly with the angles of the fuselage itself.

I'd really appreciate someone more familiar with the aerodynamics and tailess controls to bestow some further guidance on the wing's shape, taper, and the exhaust section.

The front of your design definitely fits the renders better than mine, I leaned a bit too much on concept 2409.
Regarding the anhedral of the gull wing, yours is probably more likely, cause, as you said, it conforms to the already existing angles better. Mine was inspired by the extreme anhedral on the BOP, but it may not fit this design.

 

[Nx4eu]

Qaher F313 here we come. Who knew Iran was secretly developing 6th gen this whole time.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Hello
I'm sharing another interpretation of what I suppose the F47 could be.
I still have a long way to go before finishing it.
It's a mix of several McDonnell Douglas/Boeing concepts.
For the exhaust outlet, I imagine something similar to the X36: a joint, split, and lateral thrust vectoring exhaust.
I made this model with a central intake. I think this is something you can see in the Vodoo II patch, in the crow drawing. I think they show a central intake there. If Boeing finally got its single ventral intake design accepted, I suppose it would be something they would want to show.
Making this model, I realized the excellent internal volume that a style intake can offer.
I made the intake with a small DSI. I suppose Boeing could do something similar to what SAC did with the J50: design something completely new that has some sort of DSI that expands and contracts according to flight needs. Or completely lack it, working on the internal duct.
When I finish this version, I'll make another with two separate ventral intakes.
The radar fits perfectly in the nose.
The model is 21.2 meters long and has a 19.2-meter wingspan.
Regarding volume, according to my measurements, it's between 50% and 55% larger than an F22.
For the engines, I used the estimated dimensions of the new adaptive thrusters. And they fit perfectly.
Likewise, I still have some hope that the F47 will resemble the red plane in the Voddoo II patch. With platypus tails.
I hope you like it!

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm sharing another interpretation of what I suppose the F47 could be.
I still have a long way to go before finishing it.
It's a mix of several McDonnell Douglas/Boeing concepts.
For the exhaust outlet, I imagine something similar to the X36: a joint, split, and lateral thrust vectoring exhaust.
I made this model with a central intake. I think this is something you can see in the Vodoo II patch, in the crow drawing. I think they show a central intake there. If Boeing finally got its single ventral intake design accepted, I suppose it would be something they would want to show.
Making this model, I realized the excellent internal volume that a style intake can offer.
I made the intake with a small DSI. I suppose Boeing could do something similar to what SAC did with the J50: design something completely new that has some sort of DSI that expands and contracts according to flight needs. Or completely lack it, working on the internal duct.

Boeing has a patent on a variable-bump DSI, with a snail-shell like shape rotating under a flexible skin.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Absolutely stunning Rodrigo. That rear shot in particular was just incredible

 

[EmoBirb]

@Rodrigo Avella so far I think this is the best interpretation of the available clues you made, it is really nice and feels very "right". Though the nose may be a bit too flat all things considered. I expect the aircraft to have an enormous radar and thus a big nose like the J-50 and J-36

 

[Lepespi]

hey just remembered something, Boeing proposal was considered the "cost-effective" one, what do you guys think LM was bringing to justify their higher cost

 

[targetpractice]

Hello
I'm sharing another interpretation of what I suppose the F47 could be.

Welcome to the chintake club, brother

 

[targetpractice]

It's a lovely design. As Emobirb says, it feels very right.

 

[joshjosh]

Boeing proposal was considered the "cost-effective" one

I don't believe that's the case

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

@Rodrigo Avella so far I think this is the best interpretation of the available clues you made, it is really nice and feels very "right". Though the nose may be a bit too flat all things considered. I expect the aircraft to have an enormous radar and thus a big nose like the J-50 and J-36

Hello! I'm so glad you like it.
The nose turned out to be the most complex part of this model to create.
In the official rendering, where the F47 model is seen from the front with the flag behind it, you can see that the lower part of the nose is quite flat, with little height.
Meanwhile, in the second rendering, where it's seen flying, you can see the upper part of the nose isn't that high either.
While the nose is the part of the F47 we know the most about, it's one of the areas that puzzles me the most.
Logic would dictate that it would have a huge nose, like the J50's. But the official renderings seem to show something else.
Also, this model I made can fit a round radar the size of an AN/APG-77. And since it's a wide nose, it could extend to the sides.
I was also thinking of making it a little taller, with more height at the bottom.
Best regards, and thanks for your comment!

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

The latest model (432) features retractable landing gears, a movable canopy and weapons bay doors. And I've integrated an EOTS at the bottom, and side looking radars are also indicated... Btw, there is a pair of AARGM-ER / SiAW in the rear weapons bay

View attachment 787336
View attachment 787337

Hello! This is one of the most beautiful designs I've ever seen. I'd love to do some renders of it.
Congratulations.

 

[Reddington777]

hey just remembered something, Boeing proposal was considered the "cost-effective" one, what do you guys think LM was bringing to justify their higher cost

The term was "best overall value", which does not equate to the cheapest or being less expensive - as explained here:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-boeing-ngad-best-overall-value/

Boeing’s proposal, now called the F-47, won because it “represents the best overall value to the government and is best suited to fulfill the Air Force’s requirements,” the spokesperson said. That stands in contrast to other contracts that have been awarded based on “lowest price/technically acceptable,” which is the criteria used when proposals are so evenly matched that cost becomes the key discriminator. A “best overall value” offeror may sometimes have quoted a higher price and was chosen because the source selection authority deemed the proposal more realistic, or if more value was added in the form of far better technical performance, lower-cost maintainability, or other factors.

It does not necessarily mean LM's option costed less. As is speculated in this article, it could well mean Boeings costed more, but provided greater benefits somewhere that made extra cost worth it.

Though it could also mean that LM costed more too.

 

[Reddington777]

In the official rendering, where the F47 model is seen from the front with the flag behind it, you can see that the lower part of the nose is quite flat, with little height.

I've also been staring at the two pictures for days on end and from what I can see, it's not as "high" as the base of the cockpit is, but it's also not super flat either. The only reason it looks "flat" in both renders is because white inherently lowers the available contrast for you to see contours and the chiseled nose blocks off any and all references to the undercarriage. Without those references, it will look really flat.

You can see where the cockpit begins to transition to the radome right where the shadow under the cockpit begins:




In fact, in the second one, you can tell how it's got a pretty typical fighter shaped nose encased and blended into the chiseled chines. This doesn't account for the undercarriage yet. For the undercarriage, it's completely impossible to tell how far back the outline we see of it is.

Consider this image of the B-2, which roughly matches what the F-47's angle is in the render:

It looks like it's got a really shallow body with a shallow nose, but then in reality it's pretty chonky and it gets chunky fast.


IMO it's going to have a fuselage cross section of similar shape to the B-2 and B-21

 

[Brett Davidson]

Joining the chorus, I love it. I am inclined to think that the rear of the fuselage has a broad 'W' shape to fit the spatulate exhausts of the P&W XA103 - assuming that their publicity material is accurate.

https://www.prattwhitney.com/en/products/military-engines/xa103
I don't believe that they are trailing 'flippers' as shown in the video though, as the relative scales of the borrowed model and the engines are way off. I think that the outer arms of the W continue unbroken into the middle of the lambda wing, where it sweeps back again. If the nozzles are that wide, that would suggest a wide spacing of the engines and a longitudinal weapons bay between.

Only a possibly misinformed guess of course. Again, great work.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

I've also been staring at the two pictures for days on end and from what I can see, it's not as "high" as the base of the cockpit is, but it's also not super flat either. The only reason it looks "flat" in both renders is because white inherently lowers the available contrast for you to see contours and the chiseled nose blocks off any and all references to the undercarriage. Without those references, it will look really flat.

You can see where the cockpit begins to transition to the radome right where the shadow under the cockpit begins:

View attachment 788513
View attachment 788509

In fact, in the second one, you can tell how it's got a pretty typical fighter shaped nose encased and blended into the chiseled chines. This doesn't account for the undercarriage yet. For the undercarriage, it's completely impossible to tell how far back the outline we see of it is.

Consider this image of the B-2, which roughly matches what the F-47's angle is in the render:
View attachment 788510
It looks like it's got a really shallow body with a shallow nose, but then in reality it's pretty chonky and it gets chunky fast.
View attachment 788511

IMO it's going to have a fuselage cross section of similar shape to the B-2 and B-21

Yes, one of the things I was thinking about is having the nose flare outward at the bottom, like the B2 and B21.
The point is that if the F47 has a single ventral intake, the underside has to be fairly flat, like Boeing's proposal for the ATF, like the X32, or like the supposed black MRF-24 aircraft.
I'm also thinking of widening the underside of the nose a bit.
The air intake inlet on this model allows for a slight increase in the underside of the nose and maintains an acceptable air intake surface area, taking into account the diameter of the engine fans.
In the version I make with side intakes, I'll make the nose flare outward toward the rear.
Thanks for your message!

 

[Scott Kenny]

hey just remembered something, Boeing proposal was considered the "cost-effective" one, what do you guys think LM was bringing to justify their higher cost

I don't remember that. I remember reading that the Boeing was the more revolutionary design, while the LockMart design was more of an evolutionary one (which I have interpreted to mean "has obvious F-22 DNA")

 

[EmoBirb]

The point is that if the F47 has a single ventral intake, the underside has to be fairly flat, like Boeing's proposal for the ATF, like the X32, or like the supposed black MRF-24 aircraft.

Not necessarily, it could also transition into a DSI bump, similar to how it's done on the T-75.