Boeing 6th Gen Navy Fighter - F/A-XX

quellish said:
Most of the key new technologies deemed critical for NGAD have not been widely publicly discussed. Those things and the capabilities they deliver will probably define what “sixth generation” means to people.
Click to expand...
Does NGAD share these technologies with the F/A-XX or are they primarily for the F-47?
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
I agree with you on that, and I did mention this some pages earlier, but I believe that the F-47 and the F/A-XX will be wholly different system due to the USAF and US Navy having different requirements for their respective programs, but given that many of those requirements align with each other, they would share common ancestry in both technology, doctrine and many more, including sensor fusion, CCAs, advanced stealth and increased range, among others.
Click to expand...

Different size, different engine, different carrier capability - but both sixth generation and from the same manufacturer (and possibly sharing some systems, such as sensors or flight controls)... should be interesting.

People talk about the J-35 and F-35 showing convergence partly because they are 5th generation carrier aircraft... it may be similar in that there will be a lot of convergence in two quite distinct designs (albeit two Boeing designs)... which may make the degree of common ancestry a bit hard to assess (until the book is published anyway).
 
FighterJock said:
and put all the computers for the F/A-XX in a classified area and not accessible to the internet.
Click to expand...

Basically the same arrangement as the supercomputers at Los Alamos (These are the computers that simulate exploding nuclear-warheads to test nuke designs).
 
Forgive me if this has been stated before, but the USNI announcement of the selection had this to say with respect to the source selection:
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said earlier this year the choice for the F/A-XX contract came down to the capacity of the builder. “The Navy’s got a lot of demand… making sure that we don’t, again, fall into a trap of oversubscribing,” he said. “One of the contractors who would make this plane for us is in a place where they really can’t deliver in the time frame we need it. So, there was a ‘check twice, cut once’ kind of mentality here on this decision.”
 
Tailspin Turtle said:
Forgive me if this has been stated before, but the USNI announcement of the selection had this to say with respect to the source selection:
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said earlier this year the choice for the F/A-XX contract came down to the capacity of the builder. “The Navy’s got a lot of demand… making sure that we don’t, again, fall into a trap of oversubscribing,” he said. “One of the contractors who would make this plane for us is in a place where they really can’t deliver in the time frame we need it. So, there was a ‘check twice, cut once’ kind of mentality here on this decision.”
Click to expand...
Apparently Boeing has all kinds of extra capacity laying around. Just as soon as they get the buildings built.
 
Sferrin said:
Apparently Boeing has all kinds of extra capacity laying around. Just as soon as they get the buildings built.
Click to expand...

However Boeing has been investing in specific facilities across at least three states for over half a decade before the F-47 decision to give them the capacity for both services’ NGAD programs. NG was still looking at real estate.

Scott Kenny said:
Like the Super Bug production line ending...
Click to expand...

I suspect F/A-XX production line will look nothing like Super Hornets or EX. Some worker overlap/skills; totally different processes, for the most part. The artwork Boeing has floated over the years is admittedly fantastical but still usefully illustrative of the differences in production method changes between even how F-35 is made vs the NGADs, let alone the 35 yo -18E/F/G line
 
NMaude said:
Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...
Wen Ho Lee downloaded millions of lines of code for the nuclear simulations onto tapes, and though it was never proven he was a spy, one way or another the Chinese got access to the W88 design and other air-gapped files. And another incident in 2006, when 3 thumb drives filled with classified nuclear secrets were found in a meth lab. Back to the topic, the NGAD/F-47 and F/A-XX program fixed the main vulnerability for the F-35 hacks, the subcontractors which didn't use classified secure systems.
 
Training_Dummy said:
I suspect F/A-XX production line will look nothing like Super Hornets or EX. Some worker overlap/skills; totally different processes, for the most part. The artwork Boeing has floated over the years is admittedly fantastical but still usefully illustrative of the differences in production method changes between even how F-35 is made vs the NGADs, let alone the 35 yo -18E/F/G line
Click to expand...
But the buildings are there, along with whatever workers they keep. If they keep any.
 
Avimimus said:
Different size, different engine, different carrier capability - but both sixth generation and from the same manufacturer (and possibly sharing some systems, such as sensors or flight controls)... should be interesting.
Click to expand...
Would probably remove "different carrier capability", given that the F-47s are designed with zero carrier capability in the first place. (Although I'm not sure if USAF pilots are trained to land on carriers in case of emergencies or if there are actually emergency capabilities within many USAF jets that allow them some carrier capability). As for everything else, you're right on the money.
 
Last edited:
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Would probably remove "different carrier capability", given that the F-47s are designed with zero carrier capability in the first place. (Although I'm not sure if USAF pilots are trained to land on carriers in case of emergencies or if there are actually emergency capabilities within many USAF jets that allow them some carrier capability). As for everything else, you're right on the money.
Click to expand...
Runway arresting gear can stretch out thousands of feet. If an Air Force plane with an arresting hook tried to land on a carrier, it would break its landing gear and either break the hook or rip it out of the airplane.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
Runway arresting gear can stretch out thousands of feet. If an Air Force plane with an arresting hook tried to land on a carrier, it would break its landing gear and either break the hook or rip it out of the airplane.
Click to expand...
I see. So of course, USAF jets don't have carrier capability. And even if they did land, they'll overshoot the entire angled deck and go for a hard sea landing.
 
NMaude said:
Unless it was a USAF F-4.
Click to expand...
I think the CF-188 also retained arrestor hooks for use on icy runways and possible dispersal strips.

La-Fuente Technologies said:
Would probably remove "different carrier capability", given that the F-47s are designed with zero carrier capability in the first place.
Click to expand...

To be fair - different can be zero (which is what I meant).

That said, I do wonder which aircraft could manage to land on a carrier without using an arrestor hook in a tanks-dry configuration? It used to be possible... but that likely disappeared with the disappearance of unswept wings back in the 1950s. Anyway - getting off topic!
 
Avimimus said:
To be fair - different can be zero (which is what I meant).
Click to expand...
Correct, but generally, one assumes "different" to be anything but zero or non-existent, so a clarification can be made.

That being said, we don't need to worry about whether the F-47 has carrier capability because the pilots won't be landing them in aircraft carriers anytime soon.
 
The mission requirements aren't the same. The mission defines the aircraft, not the other way around. I'm sure they'll share systems and maybe even the canopy.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom