Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

[La-Fuente Technologies]

When the F-47 was announced it was supposed to be roughly F-22 sized. Call it ~85klbs, with nothing under the wings. Maybe 105klbs with 4x drop tanks.

That might probably not be what it would look like, but again, who knows really. I think that it might be bigger than F-22 but perhaps smaller or roughly the same size as an F-111

IIRC the Boeing demonstrator was supposed to be a carrier-optimized version.

But yes, I believe that F-47 and FAXX are going to be more or less unrelated airframes.

Assuming that whatever Project FEAR caught that time was THE Boeing demonstrator (Again, it may be that or it may not be that, we just don't know yet), then it's a pretty big carrier-optimized demonstrator, which would still track even for the F/A-XX, given it also has the requirement to have longer ranges so that aircraft carriers can afford to stay farther away from the maximum ranges of enemy anti-ship missiles while the aircraft can still reach the AO and perform its missions.

And I believe you're almost correct: The F-47 and F/A-XX would have different airframes due to their differing requirements and mission sets, but they might probably share some similar features due to both being made to be the US' Sixth-Generation Fighters, having the same Prime Contractor, and thus incorporating technologies that would be associated with that term, regardless if "Sixth-Generation" is a marketing term.

 

[Reddington777]

The Russians, French, and Chinese have no problem adapting land‑based aircraft for use on aircraft carriers, so what’s stopping the Americans from taking this logical and economically justified step — I just don’t understand.

I dont know enough about russians, but for the Chinese, almost all the conversions performed were between aircraft with the same roles just adapted for naval use. Same with the french. If anything, those instances are more loke the F-35 variants than anything else.

But again - thats not the case here.

We have something that’s impossible to keep secret.

The NGAD marketing has been so loud i have permanent tinnitus since 2013

F/A‑XX
It’s being developed as a replacement for the F/A‑18E/F, and its specifications are known.

Indeed. The requirements was for a strike oriented multirole aircraft.

The F-47 requirements was not for a strike aircraft. it is an air superiority fighter thats able to carry small to medium air to ground munitions to perform long range strike, but its primary mission set is more specialized and separate than F/A-XX.

So unless weve been lied to...

It cannot be a “flying wing” or a tailless aircraft.

promising engines. Unlike carrier-based aircraft, a tailless aerodynamic configuration without a vertical tail is not only possible but also desirable

Lets just set aside the tailess part for the moment.

You are agreeing with me then - my point is that they cannot be the same airframe.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

The Russians, French, and Chinese have no problem adapting land‑based aircraft for use on aircraft carriers, so what’s stopping the Americans from taking this logical and economically justified step — I just don’t understand.

Maybe because unlike those nations, the US has the budget to flex and afford to have different programs for both USAF and US Navy aircraft. Also, their respective aviation doctrines are so different that even if they share the same aircraft, they have to do things differently from one another, so in their view, it is preferable for the USAF and US Navy to have their own kinds of airframes, and even those that are shared just have enough differences to make them different enough.

And the one time the US did modify a land-based fighter into a carrier-capable one (The F-17 to F-18), they were in many aspects, different from one another that the F-17 derived naval fighter had to have a different designation (F/A-18) instead of being called F-17N or whatnot. Technically, it's the same thing with the Super Hornet being derived from the Hornet, in that the Super Hornet is technically a different aircraft as well, but the reasons as to why are lost me, perhaps something to do with some issues the Navy had that forced them to do it

 

[fure]

The F-47 requirements was not for a strike aircraft. it is an air superiority fighter thats able to carry small to medium air to ground munitions to perform long range strike, but its primary mission set is more specialized and separate than F/A-XX.

@quellish published documents indicating that the SiAW is planned to be integrated into the F-47. If it's an IWB, it will likely be able to fit the same munitions that fit inside the F-35.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...the-northrop-grumman-f-a-xx.50922/post-887724

Edit: I checked the dimensions and I realized that I was wrong

 

[Reddington777]

@quellish published documents indicating that the SiAW is planned to be integrated into the F-47. If it's an IWB, it will likely be able to fit the same munitions that fit inside the F-35.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...the-northrop-grumman-f-a-xx.50922/post-887724

Yeah like I said - small to medium strike weapons. Maybe at most two 2000 pounders at the cost of AAM space.

2000lb class weapons should be pretty standard for F/A-XX alongside AAMs.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Russians, French, and Chinese have no problem adapting land‑based aircraft for use on aircraft carriers, so what’s stopping the Americans from taking this logical and economically justified step — I just don’t understand.

Neither of those has carrier aviation on the scale of the US Navy. Not yet, anyway. When they do, expect the PLAN to prioritize its aviation needs around its naval aviation assets, doctrine and need while the PLAF solves its own set of problems.

The USAF and USN can absolutely share a common platform when it makes sense. But if one service wants a highly survivable penetrating counter-air platform to replace its F-22A while the other wants a carrier-based fighter that doubles as a stealthy long-range strike asset, their requirements, budgets, and cost thresholds may start to diverge, and finding alignment without serious compromise may not be possible. Each service independently needs hundreds of examples of its chosen design, so scale exists without any joint collaboration. For examples you cited, those EOS dynamics do not exist. France does not have the carrier air wing heft to justify an EMD program for a dedicated naval strike fighter. Neither does Russia. PLAN will begin obtaining that when it fully builds up its carrier ambitions.

 

[Training_Dummy]

The USN was landing tailless a/c on ships well over a decade ago and given advances like Magic Carpet, the weight and drag improvements and the lower RCS profile, I cannot rule out a tailless design for F/A-XX.

 

[Dreamflyer]

https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/converged-collaborative-elements-for-rf-task-operations

Interesting how they used the X-36 as an example here.

Does the X-36´s shape/planform strongly resemble the pics of the AII-demontstrator(s) you have (seen)?

 

[paralay]

In my memory, three tailless aircraft have “flew away like a piece of plywood over Paris” — the A‑12, the F‑32, and the X‑47B. Do you think Boeing is completely fearless?

 

[GreenBullet]

In my memory, three tailless aircraft have “flew away like a piece of plywood over Paris” — the A‑12, the F‑32, and the X‑47B. Do you think Boeing is completely fearless?

I think Boeing is completely funded, and tailless control law has been a solved problem for them for a long time.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Any theories regarding the F-47's datalink suite? Nextgen MADL + Link 16?

 

[Training_Dummy]

I’m sure Boeing could design a tailless F/A-XX or a more conventional twin canted design. The customer owns that trade - Boeing merely provides the design space for that specific trade flexibility.

I think it’s common knowledge that F/A-XX will be “less exquisite” than F-47 in many aspirational aspects, but the benefits of a tailless design - provided robust effectors for carrier ops - speak for themselves. I certainly wouldn’t speak for what NAVAIR will (has?) ultimately decide, I just wouldn’t rule it out.

 

[Reddington777]

In my memory, three tailless aircraft have “flew away like a piece of plywood over Paris” — the A‑12, the F‑32, and the X‑47B. Do you think Boeing is completely fearless?

Not sure what that phrase means but...

Both the J-36 and the J-XDS has flown as has B21, B2, X-47B, Neuron before them.

X -45C, Phantom Ray, X-36, Bird of prey are the ones that Boeing flew and the latter two have now been sitting in a museum for almost 20 years. Even if we assume no work or risk reduction had been done on tailess aircraft until 2013 when the AII-X program began, tailess flight at Boeing alone would have had 13 years now for risk reduction on top of what was already achieved with those previous programs.

So yeah. Tailess flight has been around for a long time, and even at Boeing, this isnt a new concept.