Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

Reddington777 said:
Word games arent gonna win wars. Get it flying and pump out a solid 500 airframes and then we can gloat.
Click to expand...
Based off things the air force has said, building a single version of the F-47 in large numbers is the exact opposite of what they are interested in.
 
Hull down said:
Based off things the air force has said, building a single model of the F-47 in large numbers is the exact opposite of what they are interested in.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Concerning really.

Maybe they'll have ready the next variant/ plane in the series after the first production run of less than 200 airframes. Otherwise im not sure how the modularity, upgradability and constantly recompeting contracts is going to help make 200 airframes viable. But thats just speculation on my part.
 
Reddington777 said:
Yeah. Concerning really.

Maybe they'll have ready the next variant/ plane in the series after the first production run of less than 200 airframes. But thats just speculation on my part.

Otherwise im not sure how the modularity, upgradability and constantly competing contracts is going to help make 200 airframes viable.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Skeptical about the feasibility of producing a new fighter every few years, developed by different contractors and going through the whole flight test process all over again. But they seem to be interested in it.
 
Reddington777 said:
Word games arent gonna win wars. Get it flying and pump out a solid 500 airframes and then we can gloat.
Click to expand...
I'll be surprised if the USAF buys more than 200. Yes, they need more like 500, and it may be possible for the F-47 to replace Strike Eagles with how big SiAW is, which would allow for another 200 airframes. (plus ~800x F-35s just to replace F-16s, I am assuming that Eagle IIs are replacing F-15C/Ds). Then we can start cussing and discussing how many CCAs to have.

USN needs at least 375 FAXX: 2 squadrons per carrier, two fleet training squadrons, one squadrons worth for the experimental squadrons, and the Blues. (More if there are more than 12 birds per squadron, IIRC Japan has official squadron allocations of 21x planes but only operates 12 or 16, the rest are spares)
 
FlyGuy369 said:
A friend of mine emphasized that whats to come is the first true Sixth Generation Fighter in the world and is excited to see what the public thinks when they first see it.
Click to expand...

Is your friend read into the intel on China's new toys? It seems you'd have to know a bit about both to make a determination.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
A friend of mine emphasized that whats to come is the first true Sixth Generation Fighter in the world and is excited to see what the public thinks when they first see it.
Click to expand...
I m sure , it will look anything of the rendering I guess , it will make the surprise, the rendering of Pratt and Whitney is disinformation.
 
Two observations based on real news:

- NG will be delivering a higher cadence of Raiders. This is a can’t-miss national security obligation, right up there with delivering new homes for Sentinels.

- this Anthropic vs USG ulcer-fest has revealed DOW actively asking specifically LMT and BA about their vulnerability to Anthropic. But not NG, reportedly. Contextualize this with recent reporting about the super tight coding restrictions around the legacy F-35 C++ based code base, the tough path to bring software to where TR3 needs it to be for full Block IV functionality and the usefulness of Claude’s coding ability in situations like this.

To me the chicken bones seem to hint at a clean 6th gen fighter sweep for BA. Which would be remarkable. Interesting times.
 
joshjosh said:
Is your friend read into the intel on China's new toys? It seems you'd have to know a bit about both to make a determination.
Click to expand...
Heck who knows, maybe he doesn't but guess we will see in two years time. Im not saying anything else.
 
Last edited:
FlyGuy369 said:
Heck who knows, maybe he doesn't but guess we will see in two years time. Im not saying anything else.
Click to expand...
I hope its all true and stuff, but I hate being let down later, and we all know how often these programs end up being letdown.
Training_Dummy said:
Anthropic vs USG ulcer-fest has revealed DOW actively asking specifically LMT and BA about their vulnerability to Anthropic.
Click to expand...
This would be a whole bar topic on its own, but quite frankly, if anthropic wants DoD contracts then it had better drop its restrictions. Either shit or get off the pot. Medical software companies aren't selling surgeons software and then tell them hey you have to do surgery with chopsticks now because that's my software company's founding philosophy.

That said, I'm not sure how much dependency defense companies have specifically on external AI companies beyond auxiliary tooling.

All I can say coding wise, is that I've been asked about using AI to code recently in a few interviews and it seems like the reception for it is still lukewarm (myself included). A fast script here and there? No harm no foul. A whole ass feature written with AI? Nah I'm good. Even if its 100% okay (it rarely ever is) I still have to go back and check, then reformat it. At which point I might as well just rewrite it myself. Especially in more safety oriented settings, you aren't buying as much time as you think you're buying with AI coding.

AI's strong points are information retrieval, decision making and signals intelligence, but replacing an AI model even in an existing mission critical system (like the emissions analysis framework being test flown on the F-35) should be really easy. Ideally as easy as uninstalling and installing a new app. It's probably the training and testing infrastructure that will have to be replaced with that of another AI tech giant's. So generally I don't think the impact on defense companies would be terribly high and certainly not going to be holding any programs back.
 
Last edited:
Let's get a bit reasonable and serious again and let us ask what the USAF/MoD would gain by using a discarded but still highly secretive X-Plane for throwaway advertisement? Exactly, they'd gain nothing and potentially lose something.

Now let's look at what they'd gain by using some fictional design, of which exist dozens on this forum alone and hundreds on the Internet as a whole. Well, it would be cheaper and easier to use an off the shelf model, no clearance of material required, no potentially sensitive stuff being leaked.

And following that logic, there is little to no reason that whatever anyone uses in commercial material is anywhere close to the final aircraft. At least with Boeings F-47 shenanigans they obscure like 90% of the potential aircraft.
 
EmoBirb said:
Now let's look at what they'd gain by using some fictional design, of which exist dozens on this forum alone and hundreds on the Internet as a whole. Well, it would be cheaper and easier to use an off the shelf model, no clearance of material required, no potentially sensitive stuff being leaked.
Click to expand...

A fictional design? something full-scale that looks convincing? What about the Darstar:

 
EmoBirb said:
Let's get a bit reasonable and serious again and let us ask what the USAF/MoD would gain by using a discarded but still highly secretive X-Plane for throwaway advertisement? Exactly, they'd gain nothing and potentially lose something.

Now let's look at what they'd gain by using some fictional design, of which exist dozens on this forum alone and hundreds on the Internet as a whole. Well, it would be cheaper and easier to use an off the shelf model, no clearance of material required, no potentially sensitive stuff being leaked.

And following that logic, there is little to no reason that whatever anyone uses in commercial material is anywhere close to the final aircraft. At least with Boeings F-47 shenanigans they obscure like 90% of the potential aircraft.
Click to expand...
Nope this is strange than a drawing for illustration is the same plane than the real one in picture in the real life , this could mean this type is real .
 
dark sidius said:
Nope this is strange than a drawing for illustration is the same plane than the real one in picture in the real life , this could mean this type is real .
Click to expand...
Do you know, for 100%, that the aircraft that was spotted by the Satellite was "real"?

Do people really think such an oversight would happen at one of the most tightly controlled facilities in the US? Implied to be linked to one of the most high profile acquistion programs of this century? And then expose a classified demonstrator just for an ad?

I don't mind if one believes in coincidence, but this is way too contrived for proper suspension of disbelief to set in.
 
EmoBirb said:
Do you know, for 100%, that the aircraft that was spotted by the Satellite was "real"?

Do people really think such an oversight would happen at one of the most tightly controlled facilities in the US? Implied to be linked to one of the most high profile acquistion programs of this century? And then expose a classified demonstrator just for an ad?

I don't mind if one believes in coincidence, but this is way too contrived for proper suspension of disbelief to set in.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you need to show the toys for adversary like China do with the J-36 , at moment there is a need to show the muscle, if you have black aircraft in reserve you must show it for deterence sometimes , if they stay all the time in hangar it stay just a legend.
 
EmoBirb said:
I mean, it falls into the same category. Entirely fictional but grounded and believable enough to get the imagination going. Just that this was also a set piece for a triple A movie. Not for some random commercial.
Click to expand...
Why using the same design in a Darpa drawing ? The satellite picture is real , do you think they play with inflatable plane in Area 51 ? And we still don't know the real shape of the F-47 may be it is ?
 
EmoBirb said:
Let's get a bit reasonable and serious again and let us ask what the USAF/MoD would gain by using a discarded but still highly secretive X-Plane for throwaway advertisement? Exactly, they'd gain nothing and potentially lose something.

Now let's look at what they'd gain by using some fictional design, of which exist dozens on this forum alone and hundreds on the Internet as a whole. Well, it would be cheaper and easier to use an off the shelf model, no clearance of material required, no potentially sensitive stuff being leaked.

And following that logic, there is little to no reason that whatever anyone uses in commercial material is anywhere close to the final aircraft. At least with Boeings F-47 shenanigans they obscure like 90% of the potential aircraft.
Click to expand...

Look at any and all media as propaganda. It makes more sense that way. These renderings and Hollywood usage of concepts act was misdirection to muddy the water. At this stage, if you happen to see a glimpse of the real F 47… There is a chance one could consider it another rendering or something “AI”.

Another component to this is that it offers some tangible engagement to the shareholders of the companies producing these technologies. They may not be privy to any real IP so they get the stuff to look at.
 
dark sidius said:
Sometimes you need to show the toys for adversary like China do with the J-36 , at moment there is a need to show the muscle, if you have black aircraft in reserve you must show it for deterence sometimes , if they stay all the time in hangar it stay just a legend.
Click to expand...
Chinese ones full scale prototypes/early prototypes

This one looks like an experimental demonstrator aircraft.
 
dark sidius said:
Sometimes you need to show the toys for adversary like China do with the J-36 , at moment there is a need to show the muscle, if you have black aircraft in reserve you must show it for deterence sometimes , if they stay all the time in hangar it stay just a legend.
Click to expand...
No one doesn't need to. Neither does China. The J-36 is sufficiently advanced in development that it's way past the super secretive demonstrator phase, which was probably trialed in the western regions of China. The fact we got footage is solely thanks to the program being well advanced, the City having grown to essentially surround the entire CAC facility and every urban Chinese citizen having access to a semi decent mobile phone these days.

Not to mention that I'm more than willing to bet that China is well aware of the status and progress of the entire NGAD program since it's inception. They don't have to look at satellite images, so the thought this may be a message directed at the adversaries of the US kinda falls apart as soon as one realizes that there are massive espionage efforts being conducted. And it's not some fictional scenario either, espionage conducted by the USSR during the Cold War was extensive and in modern times the Chinese have proven time and time again that they can access some of the most sensitive US military data. And that's just the stuff that became public.
 
dark sidius said:
do you think they play with inflatable plane in Area 51 ?
Click to expand...
Not inflatable, but mock ups for sure. Furthermore even if it was a real aircraft, you cannot definitely say it's related to the NGAD program. It could just as well be one of many other demonstrators, possibly unmanned.

Confirmation bias and grainy satellite images are a recipe for disappointment. Which is why I'd advise to not get the hopes too high and always think rational (I.e. realizing nobody will show off classified technologies in commercials).
 
Cerberus21 said:
Another component to this is that it offers some tangible engagement to the shareholders of the companies producing these technologies. They may not be privy to any real IP so they get the stuff to look at.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I mean. It's just fantastic looking renderings that scream "advanced" and "futuristic" to satisfy the shareholders and PR
 
EmoBirb said:
Not inflatable, but mock ups for sure. Furthermore even if it was a real aircraft, you cannot definitely say it's related to the NGAD program. It could just as well be one of many other demonstrators, possibly unmanned.

Confirmation bias and grainy satellite images are a recipe for disappointment. Which is why I'd advise to not get the hopes too high and always think rational (I.e. realizing nobody will show off classified technologies in commercials).
Click to expand...
I don't see Area 51 Workers putting a mock up in front of the scoot and hide Hangar, for what for ? We will have soon the response with the first official F-47 flight in 2028. And there is still the Lockheed Martin highly classified something .....
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom