Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

[Reddington777]

I think people sometimes forget the fact that the China could use similar tactics to use against the US's naval blockade except the fact that they have more resources at their disposal due to SCS being in their backyard.

I mean that's to be expected. My point is there's no one on either side that can avoid an air war turning out like a football match. It'll be a lot of pushing and shoving as plays more often than not get countered and go nowhere. There will be no silver bullet solution for either side.

Regarding the YFQ-44 CCA - I highly doubt that whoever approved this contract didn't consider whether or not the plane has internal stores or not. Why would you buy a stealthy CCA without internal stores unless ... it had other uses besides just shooting missiles? Unless we've moved on from the "sensor and shooter" CCAs being separate, I don't see why YFQ-44 can't be a solid sensor CCA. I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out by quellish somewhere in this or a related thread before that we aren't just limited to sensor and shooter CCAs. There's plenty of room here for EW, decoys and what not.

We are also sorely off topic though so I'll just leave it at this.

 

[Hydroman]

The closest analogue of the existing ones General Atomics MQ-20 Avenger

General Atomics MQ-20 Avenger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unfortunately, no buyers for this platform.

 

[Hydroman]

I mean that's to be expected. My point is there's no one on either side that can avoid an air war turning out like a football match. It'll be a lot of pushing and shoving as plays more often than not get countered and go nowhere. There will be no silver bullet solution for either side.

Regarding the YFQ-44 CCA - I highly doubt that whoever approved this contract didn't consider whether or not the plane has internal stores or not. Why would you buy a stealthy CCA without internal stores unless ... it had other uses besides just shooting missiles? Unless we've moved on from the "sensor and shooter" CCAs being separate, I don't see why YFQ-44 can't be a solid sensor CCA. I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out by quellish somewhere in this or a related thread before that we aren't just limited to sensor and shooter CCAs. There's plenty of room here for EW, decoys and what not.

We are also sorely off topic though so I'll just leave it at this.

I bet the USAF will purchase both the -42 and -44 and they will be involved in different-type missions. Buy two different aircraft at twice the cost!

 

[Josh_TN]

Nothing, but with aspirational goal of 185 core airrframes, that may not go very far
Point of that is designing a plane for geography in stasis isn't exactly smart, when battlespace is movable. And while battlespace is movable, american allies in the region aren't.

Endurance is still a useful asset in most any scenario.

 

[Reddington777]

I bet the USAF will purchase both the -42 and -44 and they will be involved in different-type missions. Buy two different aircraft at twice the cost!

Maybe I'm just uninformed then lol. Are they suppose to be competing for the same acquisition? If so, I think general atomics would definitely be better fit not because of internal bays or not but because the potential of a concept like gambit.

 

[Josh_TN]

I bet the USAF will purchase both the -42 and -44 and they will be involved in different-type missions. Buy two different aircraft at twice the cost!

It would not surprise me. Having two hot production lines could be useful and these aircraft will not need maintenance in the traditional sense.

 

[EmoBirb]

and it seems quite reasonable to me that the F-47 will be more stealthy than any of the other jets.

It better be lol. Otherwise it'll be a tough sell and I'd wonder where decades of technological progress, development and billions of dollars went.

I surely understand that they wanted to highlight it being an across the board improvement. However an alternative could have been "improved stealth".

"Stealth+" and "Stealth++" are nothing burgers and sound like a subscription service tbh. "Sign up for Stealth++ and KJ-3000s won't see your signature!"

 

[EmoBirb]

Coming back to the F-47 proper, do we know anything about the helmet yet? Or has there been radio silence on that bit? I wouldn't be surprised if it's fundamentally just an evolution of the one used in the F-35.

 

[zebra159357]

"Stealth+" and "Stealth++" are nothing burgers and sound like a subscription service tbh. "Sign up for Stealth++ and KJ-3000s won't see your signature!"

Not the first time interested parties used such marketing concepts. Su-35S is 4++ generation after all

 

[siegecrossbow]

Of course it does not have the same level of "stealth" as a F-35. Again this is a PR document not a technical document. I can't image they're interested in dealing with any of the bullshit that would happen if they put something more accurate like "stealth -" or "semi-stealth" or anything that They'd be inundated with stupid questions asking "how can it compete against China if isn't stealth!" "why are we buying this if it isn't stealth!? You've said for years that if it isn't stealth it can't survive on the modern battlefield!" (This also ignores the fact that these first iterations of CCAs are not earmarked for combat ops anyway last I heard.)

Stealth has always been a nebulous term to begin with. Tons of room for interpretation and I am certainly not loosing any sleep over any description about stealth capabilities described in that document. This includes my own comment about the F-22 vs F-35 signature. I suspect the only thing that is fairly accurate are the range numbers and it seems quite reasonable to me that the F-47 will be more stealthy than any of the other jets.

I just find the presentation quality to be lacking for something that comes directly from the horse’s mouth.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force eyes longer range for F-47 as combat edge in Pacific theater

A greater fighter range would help the Air Force reach targets in contested airspace in the Pacific, where refueling tankers may not be an option.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Ainen]

Endurance is still a useful asset in most any scenario.

Certainly useful, but i just fail to see such fighter as a decisive asset.
It's building a plane 5 years into the future, for a war that didn't happen 10 years ago.

Long range escort fighters certainly can be decisive (case points: Zero, Mustang), but those still came at numbers, making margins work.
Heck, F-15 and F-22 came in numbers, relying on margins, not thinking that peer opponent won't be able to shot down a single one.

I.e. planned procurement lacks one zero somewhere in that number.

 

[Reddington777]

I.e. planned procurement lacks one zero somewhere in that number.

Not that I disagree with this, but why do I feel like the plan was to re-compete the program after an initial number of buys and then procure more of whatever comes of that? Or is that off the table already?

 

[In_A_Dream]

Certainly useful, but i just fail to see such fighter as a decisive asset.
It's building a plane 5 years into the future, for a war that didn't happen 10 years ago.

Long range escort fighters certainly can be decisive (case points: Zero, Mustang), but those still came at numbers, making margins work.
Heck, F-15 and F-22 came in numbers, relying on margins, not thinking that peer opponent won't be able to shot down a single one.

I.e. planned procurement lacks one zero somewhere in that number.

CCAs can help compensate for that.

 

[quellish]

Not that I disagree with this, but why do I feel like the plan was to re-compete the program after an initial number of buys and then procure more of whatever comes of that? Or is that off the table already?

The plan is to near-constant compete almost every aspect/component of the program.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

, F-15 and F-22 came in numbers

Often forgotten the initial ATF buy was for 750. About a one for one replacement of F-15s.

 

[Josh_TN]

Certainly useful, but i just fail to see such fighter as a decisive asset.
It's building a plane 5 years into the future, for a war that didn't happen 10 years ago.

Long range escort fighters certainly can be decisive (case points: Zero, Mustang), but those still came at numbers, making margins work.
Heck, F-15 and F-22 came in numbers, relying on margins, not thinking that peer opponent won't be able to shot down a single one.

I.e. planned procurement lacks one zero somewhere in that number.

The 185 number exactly matches F-22 inventory, and as such I would not assume that number is set in stone. That just sounds like an arbitrary 1:1 replacement. But to the extent there are supposed to be large numbers of disposable aircraft, the USAF seems to pin its hopes on CCA and other unmanned NGAD adjacent projects.

 

[NMaude]

the YSAF seems to pin its hopes on CCA

YSAF?

 

[Hydroman]

Maybe I'm just uninformed then lol. Are they suppose to be competing for the same acquisition? If so, I think general atomics would definitely be better fit not because of internal bays or not but because the potential of a concept like gambit.

Remember at the beginning of CCA Increment I, the USAF/USG stated even the loser may win because of the multiple missions defined for CCA especially if the platform costs are reasonable. This could also apply to CCA Increment II for the big three since the I2 platforms may be larger in size.

 

[Josh_TN]

Remember at the beginning of CCA Increment I, the USAF/USG stated even the loser may win because of the multiple missions defined for CCA especially if the platform costs are reasonable. This could also apply to CCA Increment II for the big three since the I2 platforms may be larger in size.

No one in the USAF has explicitly stated this, but I think the long term plan is to develop the UCAV industry across numerous contractors to increase competition and production capacity. I think they may very well end up purchasing a disparate inventory of CCAs, because the overhead for maintenance is far less demanding than manned aircraft. At a minimum, no basic training flights are necessary, and high hour airframes can simply be semi retired and used as a war time high risk reserve. Box it up and when a conflict starts, fly it until it gets shot down or has a critical failure, whichever comes first.

If the US had several active CCA production lines, it could easily produce several hundred airframes a year or more. Fly away costs might be little pricey at those buy rates, but year over year ownership costs would be marginal compared to manned aircraft for most of them not explicitly used for large scale exercises and experimentation/integration.

ETA: I think the way the SDA handles its prolific satellite constellation contracts is informating the USAF buys. Even the language and time schedules - a new “incr” every two years - seems copied from the SDA playbook to diversify innovation and production lines.