Boeing F-47 NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) NEWS ONLY

Scott Kenny said:
Does first flight of a prototype or even EMD airframe absolutely require the final engines, though?

I'd think that testing out the basic flight laws, anything subsonic, would not require NGAP.
Click to expand...
It would seem from a engineering point of view, wouldn't it create unnecessary design and testing work if an interim engine was used. Once a new engine comes online you would need repeat the test points. You could have two different blocks but then you would have to support two different versions.

It interesting how NGAP/AETP development is similar to the great engine wars. The development of the F110 was opposed by Pratt which heavily lobbied Congress to not develop an alternative engine to the F-100 for the F-16/F-15. Pratt lost that battle. It was different this time.

The F110 - like NGAP - was developed from the larger F101, which was used by the B-1. In order to reduce risk GE didn't make a lot of changes to the engine. That is another parallel with NGAP. Minimal changes were made to the F-16 initially also. Later F-16s with the F110 engines featured larger intakes. Adoption by the F-15 took a little longer as the F110 was a little too large for the fighter.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Does first flight of a prototype or even EMD airframe absolutely require the final engines, though?

I'd think that testing out the basic flight laws, anything subsonic, would not require NGAP.
Click to expand...

Didn't you suggest in another thread IIRC that for the initial flight-testing as interim engines the F-47 prototype(s) could use something like the F119 or F110?
 
NMaude said:
Didn't you suggest in another thread IIRC that for the initial flight-testing as interim engines the F-47 prototype(s) could use something like the F119 or F110?
Click to expand...
Correct, I did.

B2Blain said:
It would seem from a engineering point of view, wouldn't it create unnecessary design and testing work if an interim engine was used. Once a new engine comes online you would need repeat the test points. You could have two different blocks but then you would have to support two different versions.
Click to expand...
Depends on what test points you're talking about. Assuming that both engines have about the same airflow, your inlets stay the same. And as the F-16 shows, you can run a jet engine behind an inlet that is a little too small and all it costs you is a little thrust.

The real question is whether the engine bolts directly onto airframe bulkheads or if it bolts to a cradle that bolts to the airframe. Because adjusting an engine mount is a lot easier than adjusting internal bulkheads!
 
Since the announcement of the beginning of the production of the F-47 (I assume for the ground-test airframes) I assume that is for the long-lead items? So my question is what would those long-lead items be?
 
NMaude said:
Since the announcement of the beginning of the production of the F-47 (I assume for the ground-test airframes) I assume that is for the long-lead items? So my question is what would those long-lead items be?
Click to expand...
Engines were established to be the number one long lead item. I'm guessing coating / LO materials and radar/sensors are the other ones.

Software wise, probably the flight control system and the central framework for fusing sensors and handing off to weapon systems.
 
NMaude said:
Since the announcement of the beginning of the production of the F-47 (I assume for the ground-test airframes) I assume that is for the long-lead items? So my question is what would those long-lead items be?
Click to expand...

Flight test, not ground test. The first flight test vehicle is being constructed.
 
Considering the volume of information on this forum indicating that F-47 and related programs are being executed in ways fundamentally different from previous programs I find it so shocking that threads such as this continue to contain posts that show a mindset from programs long in the past that I see it futile to contribute new information or commentary.

There aren’t even good questions being asked, much less original research being done or a display of having done the reading - this thread or its ancestors.

How did everyone level DOWN?
 
Sferrin said:
I hope they move a bit faster than they did with the F-22.

YF-22: 1990
F-22 EMD rollout: 1997
F-22A enters service: 2005
Click to expand...
While some may point towards the program being "different" (something claimed about every program since the dawn of time, having it being allegedly more streamlined, faster, more efficient, lol) you have to keep in mind at what point in history the F-22 development took place. With the USSR collapsed there was no hurry to get a high end air superiority stealth fighter into active service ASAP. While the situation now with China is very different and an aircraft like F-47 cannot enter service soon enough.
 
EmoBirb said:
you have to keep in mind at what point in history the F-22 development took place. With the USSR collapsed there was no hurry to get a high end air superiority stealth fighter into active service ASAP
Click to expand...

It's sure bet that if the USSR had lasted a few more years, say, another five years. The F-22 EMD programme would've gone a LOT faster and the F-22 would probably already in service at the turn of the century or very shortly after.
 
Thing is, even modern day programs ran during this latest cold war tensions with China don't seem to be much faster than their predecessors.

B2 competition winner selected in 1981. Forst flight 8 years later.
B21 winner in 2015. First flight 8 years later.

T7 trainer - winner selected in 2018. (Protoype flew 2 year earlier)
It was to be super quick development , using advanced tech for a fairly simple aircraft. Yet here we are today and current IOC projection is for end of 2027.
That's longer development than EMD F-22 to program's IOC.

Stuff like F35 blk4 upgrade is dragging on. Slipping from 2026 goal to now 2031??? And we are talking about an upgrade.

So sure in theory today's geopolitics would suggest development times are to be compressed. but in practice we are not really seeing it. That's why people are skeptic and why they don't necessarily always trust new programs to complete quickly.
 
totoro said:
but in practice we are not really seeing it.
Click to expand...
First, we are off topic as this is a news thread and may or may not even belong under the F47 speculation thread, but..

These timelines are true, but to me every program here began before there was any real urgency being felt by the government. By the time the urgency was being felt, it was too late to make any significant changes.

I always think about it relative to when US-China relations really began to sour, which was right around the time the LRS-B was announced. LRS-B began too early after this to really make a difference. F-35 was eating bricks by the truck full already at this point. The T7 was a trainer, not terribly urgent program either.

Momentum really started to build beginning in 2018 - start of the war in ukraine, when more and more think tanks, analysis, media and the likes began to recognize the grave threats China was fielding. The 2018 national defense strategy really began to recognize china as the pacing threat. Following those reports, in my own memory, more and more weapon programs were started and fast tracked (hypersonic missiles beginning with the HAWC prototype, AIM260, AIM174, CCAs). When Ukraine happened, thats when I started to hear more and more about speed mass and affordability. 2019 was when the USMC decided to begin reforms back to its roots. 2020 ish I began to hear about agile combat deployment and what not.

So whether its program speed, shipbuilding, sentinel or any other egregious problem right now, all I can say is that things really only just got started and the urgency to action feedback loop takes a couple years to get underway let alone figuring out exactly what you need and fielding those things. Add to that the sheer institutional momentum of shifting an entire nation as well as within branches (right before WWI and WWII, iirc people like Marshall and Spruance replaced a huge number of officers with people they knew could lead). People weren't being replaced as far as I know, but institutional changes were beginning to be implemented early 2020.

Though it would please me greatly if congress stops talking big talk and walk the walk too by giving me back my 5% defense spending, the manpower and supply chain problems wont necessarily be able to take full advantage immediately anyway as the solutions to these problems need at least a decade before getting better.

At least this is my impression.
 
Last edited:
Sferrin said:
More risk averse. Spend billions on 3-stream engines and then do nothing with them.
Click to expand...
If you followed this thread for this long you should know this isnt true. AETP was both a parallel development and laid ground work for XA102/3
Sferrin said:
Can't even hit planned production rates with the F-35, Virginia, and Burke classes.
Click to expand...
Program, legal and industry issues that really isnt going to change fast considering...again...all of this urgency came very recently.
Sferrin said:
Completely dropped the ball on the Zumwalts.
Click to expand...
Or just that you were stuck with a ship that didnt fully fit the future fight.

Sferrin said:
And are having an embarrassing number of problems with the Ford class and Sentinel.
Click to expand...
With sentinel as an exception (mainly because I dont read enough about it to have an opinion) I dont know why its hard to grasp that programs started before 2015 were started under completely different timelines and assumptions? They factor not just into the program management but also the amount of technological risk too.

Sferrin said:
Just look at the latest two examples: NGAD and F/A-XX. Viewed from the outside, these two programs make the Keystone Cops look like a well-oiled machine.
Click to expand...
This also misconstrued the nature of the dispute for these programs, which wasnt how fast it executes but whether they were the correct thing to execute on - a sign that services were in the midst of figuring out how they needed to fight in the future AKA figuring out how to change...

Apparently nuance and timelines are being lost on people here. Things dont change at a snap of a finger. Not the US, and certainly not China. You could say US Industry is risk averse and you'd be right, but even China, the boogeyman everyone likes to point to as a paragon of technological advancement these days, has and continues to manage risk. They incrementally developed their carriers. Incrementally build and upgrade their fighters and in many ways avert risk by just not introducing huge amounts of change at a time. The current state of Chinese tech development happened only because there was 20 years of industry, workforce, education and technology changes made at incremental steps that led to this. For democratic nations necessarily not as centralized as china, change happens even slower. The only people dragging their heels here arent industry or the military. Its congress. Yet even then It doesnt mean change isnt happening.
 
Sferrin said:
F/A-XX isn't going to use NGAP. (We don't even know if they'll use the last gen - F119/135-, but sounds like they're going to reach all the way back to the F110.) NGAD got scaled way back- just in time for China to leapfrog it.
Click to expand...
NGAD was never going to have more than about 200-300 units. Ever.

Should it have been run big enough to 1:1 replace Eagles and F-22s? Probably. (F-22 should have been enough to 1:1 replace F-15C/Ds!!) But the USAF screwed the pooch on their fleet replacement timing, and has way too much they have to replace all at once.



Sferrin said:
Zumwalt? What "doesn't fit"? The guns? CG/X wasn't going to have them anyway. There are no excuses for the Ford and Virginias. Both are past their first units and subsequent units are actually taking LONGER to complete. That does not bode well, especially for the carrier situation (though considering we can't even fill out existing airwings at existing procurement rates, the odds off keeping double-digit numbers of carriers is ZERO.)
Click to expand...
Virginia-class are running into the problem of lack of workers, courtesy of the Columbia-class construction starting up.

And it just flat takes time to clear welders. Plus you have to pay them enough to make them want to work in either Groton or Norfolk/Newport News. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, "Groton? Newport News? What shitholes!"



Sferrin said:
Sentinel is an embarrassment at this point, with the MMIII looking to give the B-52 a run for its money when it comes to longest in-service. We're even getting schooled by North Korea.
Click to expand...
Sentinel has two separate issues outside any missile problems.

1) For whatever reason, replacing all the hardwire comms lines was not included in the scope of the Sentinel RFP. I suspect this was political, trying to artificially lower the costs of the program to make it more palatable to Congress. Because there is no excuse for USAF, Inc to not know that the hardwire comms lines were FUBARed.

2) It's arguable as to why the silos were assumed to be reusable in the Sentinel RFP. Based on general DoD/DoW infrastructure condition and care thereof, it's entirely possible that USAF did not know that the silos were unusable. Yes, it is inexcusable to not know the material condition of the silos, and to not have an idea how much it would cost to do the asbestos abatements etc necessary for them to be reused. But it is par for the course.



Sferrin said:
And yeah, we all get things don't change at the snap of a finger. But in one year we've had F/A-XX being indefinitely delayed to "wait, no it's not", NGAD being "restructured" from what we actually need to something less than that but packed with appropriate buzzwords. To say US planning re. tactical aircraft looks schizophrenic would be an understatement.
Click to expand...
In one year, we have changed party in charge of the US. A change that was absolutely NOT expected by the party in charge last year.
 
www.twz.com

F-47 Program's Accelerated Pace Made Possible By NGAD X-Plane Efforts

Boeing officials are talking-up the speed of the F-47 program, with the first example in production and a first flight slated for 2028. Boeing officials are talking up the speed of the F-47 program, with the first example in production and a first flight slated for 2028.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
JetBrain said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1990584827155001538
View: https://x.com/JonA2i/status/1990584827155001538?s=19

I think this is why the twz was kicked out of the White House.
Click to expand...

It turns out he did say something new.

While the Air Force has said that it aims to have the F-47 make its first flight sometime in 2028, Parker was unwilling to talk more about this.
Click to expand...

“I won’t even touch the first flight day the Air Force has put the date out there; I’m just going to stay away from all of that,” Parker said. “It’s all about execution, and that’s what is getting all of my attention. We’re in a good spot.”
Click to expand...
 
The source:
gdmissionsystems.com

Military Aircraft Radomes - General Dynamics Mission Systems

General Dynamics produces fire control nose radomes for a majority of the US military fixed wing fighter and strike aircraft including wideband radomes for the most advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar systems.
gdmissionsystems.com gdmissionsystems.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom