Boeing 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

[Reddington777]

Harken back to that old ESAV ppt slide from NG describing parametric aircraft design with a certain planform.

Software has most certainly come leaps and bounds since then. If it were related, it wouldnt be surprsing, but I still dont think its F4 or F35 kind of closeness.

I dont see how its physically possible to make a mulitrole strike fighter into an air superiority fighter let alone a strike leaning fighter.

I can see things going from an air superiority fighter to a strike fighter maybe, but if it is the case at all, then it most likely looks like:

AII-X demonstrator -> key technologies -> generic planform and systems modeling/validation, -> tweak to fulfill navy and airforce requirements -> two related designs sharing the same ancestry

Rather than F-47 -> F/A-XX or vice versa.

Something something digital engineering.

 

[bobbymike]

I memory serves starting about 5-6 years ago, as posted at SPF, there were a lot of stories of Boeing’s investment in and technological advances in aerospace aircraft manufacturing. Maybe along with the designs Boeing showed DoW what this manufacturing tech could do with advanced aircraft production.

Maybe this is an obvious observation but TBH I’m very surprised they won both competitions without something that really stood out and added to the proposal other than the design

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Of course it's all gut feeling at the moment, but we have been led to believe that the F-47 is a relatively small plane, and that FA-XX rendering looks huge.

The theories I've seen about the Lockheed and Boeing NGAD proposals is that the Lockheed plane was giant for a fighter - possibly similar in size and weight to the F-111 - while the Boeing plane was only about the size of the F-22. That was part of the origin of the speculation that the Boeing F-47 and F/A-XX proposals were related.

 

[NMaude]

He said F-4 not F-14. F-4 being a USN aircraft adopted by the USAF.

I believe he was referring to the F-4 and the F-110A (Redesigned the F-4C).

Sandboxx has put out a short video concerning this announcement:

It’s finally happened: The US Navy just awarded the contract for its next stealth fighter to Boeing, and that means the Navy’s 6th generation carrier fighter is all but certain to be a carrier-capable variant of the F-47 that’s already in development for the U.S. Air Force as a replacement for the F-22 Raptor.

 

[lancer21]

I'm not convinced yet that F/A-XX and F-47 are the same design. Could see them sharing a lot of systems but the planform, to me, is probably different and mission sets are different enough that they are two aircraft that share a design heritage but won't be the same ALA F-4 and F-35A & C.

If the F/A-XX is a clear variant in the F-4/F-35 mold then
- Will the USN continue with a derivative of a current in service engine to power the aircraft or would they go for an XA as the USAF eventually will with F-47?
- Will the weapons bays on F/A-XX and F-47 be essentially the same?
- Will the USN follow the USAF in the digital century concept of making production available open to other vendors?
- If the aircraft are the same then I would suggest Boeing should not require 20 billion to modify it for naval operations.
- Same core centre fuselage but different wings?
- Will the F/A-XX have a range increase beyond the suggested approx 750nm and be closer to the USAF F-47 range.
- Did Boeing's F-47 give them an advantage in that they could reduce EMD costs as they already had portions of the aircraft in development?


So many questions...

My dispassionate view is that considering USN was left out of the 5th gen when USAF got F-22, and they had to get the F-35 because it was the only thing available (ill-suite for carriers, single-engine), now they'd have to do with a navalized F-47 regardless if it meets their requirements or not, the alternative being remaining stuck with F-35 until the 7th(?) generation, or at best wait a decade or more (if ever) for a bespoke 6th gen design to be made for USN.

It's not hard to imagine a navalized F-47, larger folding wings/flight controls, beefed up fuselage, gear structure, maybe modified bays, maybe different engines, tailhook obviously etc.

 

[EmoBirb]

I’m very surprised they won both competitions without something that really stood out

How do you know that they won both "without something really standing out"?

Seems more like assumption rather than fact. Because for them to win both competitions, their design definitely had to be quite...outstanding. Be it measured by performance within it's intended mission requirements, manufacturing methods and scaling or simply providing the best blend of qualities at the most acceptable cost and timeframe.

For something to be outstanding, it doesn't have to be exotic or borderline esoteric. It just has to do something really well, what that something is, we can't tell yet. But the Navy and AF respectively must have been satisfied.

 

[bobbymike]

How do you know that they won both "without something really standing out"?

Seems more like assumption rather than fact. Because for them to win both competitions, their design definitely had to be quite...outstanding. Be it measured by performance within it's intended mission requirements, manufacturing methods and scaling or simply providing the best blend of qualities at the most acceptable cost and timeframe.

For something to be outstanding, it doesn't have to be exotic or borderline esoteric. It just has to do something really well, what that something is, we can't tell yet. But the Navy and AF respectively must have been satisfied.

You’re misreading my post I’m saying that (and of course speculating like everyone else on this thread) that something OTHER THAN JUST THE DESIGN did stand out like advanced manufacturing technology.

There were numerous stories we all read about delaying F/A-XX because of possible production capacity issues so therefore MAYBE Boeing overcame this concern saying “not only do we have a good design for each aircraft but we can produce both efficiently and cost effectively”