Boeing 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

[Reddington777]

So, even more outsourcing? How is this fundamentally different from MRP II (Manufacturing Resource Planning), "Black Diamond," or any of the other consultant nonsense from the last couple of decades? And this is a company that was once renowned for its in-house engineering teams and machine shops. This is the current Boeing leadership trying to pass off the rearrangement of deck chairs as a serious fix while ignoring the huge, gaping hole in the side of the ship.

No thats literally not how that works. Aerospace companies have suppliers regardless. Neither Boeing, nor LM nor NG makes every part and not even all the major pieces.

The F-22, while an LM program, had boeing produce a large piece of the fuselage section.

The difference here is that previously if you had three sections of aircraft to attach, youd get it from your three suppliers anyway, but you have to wait until all three secrions arrive before you put them in place then begin drilling the holes so as to make sure that individual sections' peculiarities can be accounted for when assembling. The difference here is that you are defining to a high degree of precision the specifications of each piece so that the supplier, who already has the specialized tooling, can drill the holes and the assembly can begin without having all the pieces arrive. This actually makes things faster and cheaper. And Boeing is not the only one doing it either, which in peoples absolute blind rage, seem to have missed in the entire response.

You can imagine building pieces as large as a warship's hull section. That large enough hull section isnt going to be made perfectly every time. It needs to be mated to the rest of the ship and theres no standardized way you can do it if it has slight inconsistencies for every section coming off the production line. So shipbuilding would take a lot of work per individual section until factories could be more precise with their manufacturing / specifications. Digital engineering lets you make that happen.

The supplier exists regardless. Not a single aircraft company anywhere on earth does everything by themselves now and to ask of such is basically brain dead. The choice of supplier lets you choose the best products for a given application, which is better than setting up an in house shop only to do basically duplicate work. Yes that moves some risk up to the supplier and requires your digital models to be good, but done well, it could speed up manufacturing by a lot.

Its astounding really. @barry bozo wrote an in depth post but all people can do is reeeee. We gotta do less of reeee and more of reeeaad

 

[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.

 

[Black Dog]

I don’t think it’s surprising Boeing won. It might’ve been a case, at least somewhat, of who can get this out the door quickest. Even if the F-47 and F-A/XX are different airframes, there would at least be some commonality in terms of engineering, subsystems and manufacturing, leading to efficiency gains in both time and cost by going with Boeing.

 

[Sferrin]

 

[quellish]

NGAP has been described as a family of technologies with component tech that can be readily ported to legacy / existing engines. It likely wont be the whole deal though.

The new engine technologies are broad and many of them can be adapted to existing engines. A number of them are software - like n the 90s when people put custom chips in their car’s engine controller for increased performance.

It’s also important to remember that the Boeing AII-X demonstrator validated supercruise and long range with an existing or derivative (not adaptive cycle) engine.

The Navy has a strong preference for engines it already uses , for logistical and other reasons.

 

[quellish]

It was a 50% call, that's not exactly proof of anything. Even an idiot can be right sometimes.

IIRC the “thesis” there was that F/A-XX was a navalized NGAD or vice versa. This isn’t correct. They are not variants of one design but share a common design language, exactly what you would expect if they were both designed by the same company.

It will be interesting to see if NG protests the award. It would not surprise me if the recent requirements changes favored one company’s design.

 

[Sferrin]

Boeing from 2015:


McD from 2002 (JSF obviously)

 

[Josh_TN]

I don’t think it’s surprising Boeing won. It might’ve been a case, at least somewhat, of who can get this out the door quickest. Even if the F-47 and F-A/XX are different airframes, there would at least be some commonality in terms of engineering, subsystems and manufacturing, leading to efficiency gains in both time and cost by going with Boeing.

Having the F-18 production wrap up probably frees a lot of resources as well. But at least for the USAF, several posters who tend to be in the know like Quellish indicated the USAF was impressed with the design. While I think these are two different airframes with two different roles, there probably is a lot of common technology and general layout. Production capacity was stated to be a concern for awardFA-XX, though I am not quite sure I believe that excuse.

 

[Hydroman]

IIRC the “thesis” there was that F/A-XX was a navalized NGAD or vice versa. This isn’t correct. They are not variants of one design but share a common design language, exactly what you would expect if they were both designed by the same company.

It will be interesting to see if NG protests the award. It would not surprise me if the recent requirements changes favored one company’s design.

I doubt NG will protest and if they don't, they have B-21 which is moving along quite well and I assume they have other classified aircraft platforms in development and probably in classified flight testing (same as LM ADP). With Boeing now having F-47 and F/A-XX locked in along with all of there other programs, they are now tapped out, its now NG Advanced Programs and LM ADP time for other needs; Advanced Recon (LM ADP) and Advanced Strike (NG). I may be wrong but in a classified sense, I don't think Advanced Theater Strike is dead as an example, just waiting in the wings as a classified effort.

 

[B2Blain]

Curious how the Navy fill the decks in the future. The Super Hornets had a slightly larger spot factor than the legacy Hornets, A-6s, and A-7s. The reduced tac air numbers in CVW could partially be explained by this as well as the benefit having more multi role fighters. But funding was likely more of an issue after the end of the Cold War. Increasing aircraft in the CVW decreases sortie rate, but with longer missions over the Pacific this is going to happen anyway.

Even if the F/A-XX is a large aircraft you may want to plus up tac air in the CVW - both manned and unmanned - as the CSG will need to cover more real estate. The Navy still has not addressed organic fixed wing ASW. Are SSNs, helicopter, and P-8s adequate?

 

[nn8734]

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

Hopefully it’s a lot sooner than that. I’d want to see first flight by 2030 and IOC shortly thereafter…We can’t afford to dick around for 10+ years between award and in-service with these fighter planes anymore. Super hornets are going to start reaching the end of their airframe lives in the not to distant future.

Plus, China is building like 2000 J20s per year (their production of those mirrors Hershey’s production of candy bars) and will be putting their J36 into service (probably in large numbers as well) at anytime.

Both of these sixth gens need to be in service by the early 2030s and full rate production asap if we want to keep up…

 

[NMaude]

A big part of Boeing's design methodology is Full Size Determinant Assembly (FSDA).

This is the first time I've heard of FSDA, would you please give a brief summary of what this is for those of us who don't what it is and a URL (If it exists) to a website explaining this please.

 

[Josh_TN]

The Navy has a strong preference for engines it already uses , for logistical and other reasons.

Would not that limit the options to F414 and F135?

 

[xray]

IIRC the “thesis” there was that F/A-XX was a navalized NGAD or vice versa. This isn’t correct. They are not variants of one design but share a common design language, exactly what you would expect if they were both designed by the same company.

It will be interesting to see if NG protests the award. It would not surprise me if the recent requirements changes favored one company’s design.

So do both of F-47 and F/A-XX have canards?

 

[quellish]

Would not that limit the options to F414 and F135?

It doesn’t limit the options but the Navy would have a strong preference for an engine that can use as much of those logistics chains as possible.

A contractor that used a derivative of one of those engines would have an advantage in the eyes of the Navy.

 

[flateric]

So do both of F-47 and F/A-XX have canards?

I wonder if you have seen renderings. Yes, they do both.

 

[novabus_lfx]

It doesn’t limit the options but the Navy would have a strong preference for an engine that can use as much of those logistics chains as possible.

A contractor that used a derivative of one of those engines would have an advantage in the eyes of the Navy.

@Josh_TN I would be surprised if F/A-XX used anything besides an F110-129 or one of its growth steps, given the higher growth margins for cooling/power generation compared to the F-414 and the rumors that the initial F-47 will use an F110 derivative.

The Navy already rejected the F-414 EPE for Superhornet Block III due to its decreased TBO and seemed happy with the F110s in the F-14D.

OOTH, the Navy seems quite unhappy with the higher expense, shorter TBO, and poor parts availability for the F-135, not to mention that 2 F-135s would probably be way overkill for anything smaller than an F-111.

@quellish's point about the logistics chain is certainly valid but I think that could be alleviated by having a "high-low" mix of carriers with F/A-XX and F-35C respectively so that the carriers only need to be resupplied with F-110 and F-414 OR F-135 and F-414, instead of all 3 together.

 

[lfx160219]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2105505808847139010

View: https://x.com/lfx160219/status/2105505808847139010

 

[lancer21]

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.

You probably refer to this, F-110 EFE? (scroll down)
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f110-epe-proposals.40506/

 

[Low IQ Techie]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2105505808847139010

View: https://x.com/lfx160219/status/2105505808847139010

May be tandem IWBs but 10 AMRAAMs in parallel might make it 66% larger than F-22?

 

[jsport]

Where is the "A" in this F/A-XX. Why not be honest & go back to the F-X moniker Admitting this craft is for carrier defense is to admit the USN is transforming into a self licking ice-cream cone. As has been previously pointed out.
'why is ur carrier primarily full of self defense fighters. We have to protect the carrier.' What is carrier's mission again? We have to protect the carrier."

A fighter driver wet dream which no military can afford.

Only a follow on to the A-12 like the once proposed NG mini-B-2 has ever made any sense for the primary carrier plane in terms of cost effectiveness What is the purpose of the carrier if it doesn't deliver maximum theater effects? Primarly protecting itself defines a self licking ice-cream cone.

The idea, that in today's world one should develop an exportable carrier F/A is patently absurd. If USN wants to remain relevant it must invest in all aspect stealth Penetrating Counter Air et al w non-exportable, maximum high tech like the AF or get out of the game.

 

[quellish]

So do both of F-47 and F/A-XX have canards?

Canards are not the interesting parts unless you’re European. The released renderings of both NGAD and F/A-XX intentionally obscure 5 things of interest that I am aware of and none of them are canards.

 

[quellish]

Where is the "A" in this F/A-XX. Why not be honest & go back to the F-X moniker

F-X was an earlier name for NGAD. The F/A-XX is a strike fighter with the secondary role of quarterback for unmanned aircraft.

It’s not a “Tomcat 2”. Anyone who pushes the idea that it’s some overweight 1970s “air superiority” fighter for “fleet air defense” is living in the last century. I keep seeing this… “meme”? Over and over again.

In the 1970s the phone in your pocket would have been the size of several office buildings.

 

[xray]

Canards are not the interesting parts unless you’re European. The released renderings of both NGAD and F/A-XX intentionally obscure 5 things of interest that I am aware of and none of them are canards.

Edited:
Thanks for the interesting insight
----------------------------------------
So lemme try it
1.wing planform
2.wing tips
3.intakes'shape and placement
4.weapon bay
5.aft fuselage and exhaust nozzle