Boeing 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

[Sferrin]

Those programs may or may not have a relationship to Phantom Works and NGAD. KC46 is completely unrelated. Neither of those programs speak directly to the work boeing has 'demonstrated' on the actual NGAD and related programs for the DOD (AF and Navy). Speaking specifically to the program and everything that fed into it. Those are far more likely to have had an influence on the decision than programs listed above.

We're talking about two different things. I'm not concerned at all that Boeing managed to one-up NG and LM (everybody was surprised when they were the winners of ATF too). My concern is production. I have little faith in Boeing's ability to deliver, and all those programs demonstrate that that's where they struggle. (Well, one of the areas.)

 

[DWG]

shifting the responsibility of drilling holes and interfaces from the guys on the floor to the supplier
....
- FSDA improves assembly touch labor hours by at least 60-80%.
- Hole size/location has 98-99% first time quality.

So the alternatives are either:
Supplier places part in mounting/jig, robot drills holes according to Catia.
Or:
Supplier sends part to Boeing, Boeing puts part in mounting/jig, robot drills holds according to Catia.

I'm really not seeing how the supplier doing it gives greater accuracy than Boeing can manage for the same process. OTOH it does increase Boeing's Revenue Per Employee by shifting employee numbers over to the supply chain, and if your management bonus is dependent on improving RPE ....

 

[Desertfox]

I'll point out that Boeing Military (old McD) has proven to be more reliable than Boeing Commercial (new McD). F-15 and F/A-18 have been fairly successful and relatively problem free. Id put Boeing Military above LM right now but still below NG.

 

[barry bozo]

So the alternatives are either:
Supplier places part in mounting/jig, robot drills holes according to Catia.
Or:
Supplier sends part to Boeing, Boeing puts part in mounting/jig, robot drills holds according to Catia.

I'm really not seeing how the supplier doing it gives greater accuracy than Boeing can manage for the same process. OTOH it does increase Boeing's Revenue Per Employee by shifting employee numbers over to the supply chain, and if your management bonus is dependent on improving RPE ....

Hand drilling vs. CNC milling is how it’s so much more accurate.

It puts more on the supplier, but it’s done in the same setup as when it’s being CNC’d, so it’s not an extravagant amount of extra work from a machining perspective.

Regardless of the nuances, NG (and likely LM) now are using this method on newer projects, so it clearly bring a lot of benefits. Boeing has just been doing it for longer and therefore has a better understanding of its benefits.

 

[B2Blain]

Is this a black program? I was not aware GE or Pratt has been working on derivatives of the F110 or F100.

Trimble confirmed the derivative. Odd. You would think there would be info regarding testing. Trimble reiterated a GE interim engine for the F-47. Leaning toward BAE EW and RTX radar because that what Boeing does with their fighters.

 

[bring_it_on]

We're talking about two different things. I'm not concerned at all that Boeing managed to one-up NG and LM (everybody was surprised when they were the winners of ATF too). My concern is production. I have little faith in Boeing's ability to deliver, and all those programs demonstrate that that's where they struggle. (Well, one of the areas.)

Not necessarily. KC46 is not a Phantom Works program. It is not a purely Boeing defense play either with heavy Boeing commercial involvement obviously. MQ-25 and T-7 challenges have been related to requirements and design and development. Neither program had challenges in rate production. On T-7 it was related to discoveries in design that required fix which was implemented. It was also pioneering digital design tools and other things for Boeing like FSDA. Same for certain aspects of the F-15EX production cut. MQ-25 is only now entering production phase. Boeing has laid a case for the 'producibility' argument by investing upfront to the tune of multiple billions (ahead of an actual contract) to demonstate to the DOD that it can produce and scale.

 

[Sferrin]

Not necessarily. KC46 is not a Phantom Works program. It is not a purely Boeing defense play either with heavy Boeing commercial involvement obviously. MQ-25 and T-7 challenges have been related to requirements and design and development. Neither program had challenges in rate production. On T-7 it was related to discoveries in design that required fix which was implemented. It was also pioneering digital design tools and other things for Boeing like FSDA. Same for certain aspects of the F-15EX production cut. MQ-25 is only now entering production phase. Boeing has laid a case for the 'producibility' argument by investing upfront to the tune of multiple billions (ahead of an actual contract) to demonstate to the DOD that it can produce and scale.

Does Phantom Works even build production aircraft? Skunk Works helped design the YF-22/X-35 (or did it all) but they don't run the production line, supply lines, etc. Is it different with Boeing/Phantom Works?

 

[bring_it_on]

Does Phantom Works even build production aircraft? Skunk Works helped design the YF-22/X-35 (or did it all) but they don't run the production line, supply lines, etc. Is it different with Boeing/Phantom Works?

My main point was regarding ex MD / St Louis operations. But yes, some of these facilities being put together are Boeing PW IIRC.

 

[Rolead]

So the first flight of the F-47 is 2028 as I understand so will the F/AXX be mid 2030s ?.

 

[timmyjohn]

What is meant by variable cycle technology in this context, if you have any details? I would not think that is a thing you could go halfway on.

Somewhere I've seen a 10 yr old ppt slide by GE showing F110 growth paths, on this site or on the internet. My info is limited but is from someone involved.

 

[jsport]

View: https://youtu.be/60HMTVW1d6A

 

[Training_Dummy]

Someone in this thread stated explicitly that ACE was off the table and that price was not the primary factor. They could not elaborate. I do not know that to be true but I personally found them credible, and I personally wonder if an adaptive engine would have issues with carrier landings that require immediate full power after touchdown. High bypass -> low bypass may introduce a hesitation between moderate and full power.

I wrote my post with that post (and others) very much center of mind. My language carefully specifies initial versions for F-47 and -XX and what I have been lead to believe and wrote in my post isn’t necessarily out of band with what what you’re referencing (as well as the public quote from a NAVAIR officer), if you believe those datapoints were in reference to initial F/A-XXs then and presumably current proposed configuration.

I mean, to be idiotically simple; in ten years, today’s unique advantages of ACEs will be proliferated table stakes for high end fighters in the pacific, so I will simply assume F/A-XX provides the design and space to enable the option of housing three stream engines in the future. But that’s just my totally speculative opinion.