Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

Josh_TN said:
Looks like any armament is external though; I do not see any space for internal AAMs.
Click to expand...

This should probably be in the CCA thread, but yes, that's the problem with Anduril's pitch. They acquired Blue Force Technologies to grab their adversary air drone, which obviously would not have been designed with any internal carriage in mind. ventral intake. General Atomics has a more customized solution and more experience in this space.
 
paralay said:
What do we know about the characteristics of this drone, the mass, the engine, the weight of the combat load?
Click to expand...

USAF made a request for information about engines within 3,000 - 8,000 lbs. So I think that’s a realistic thrust limit. I think broadly we can expect something with roughly 10,000 lb MTOW, but that is just my opinion.
 
thrust 1360 kgf - 3630 kgf, MTOW 4500 kg
Click to expand...
Judging by the announced cost of the drone of $ 30 million, we have a take-off weight of up to 10,000 kg.
Air Force eyes thrust range targets for wingman drones ...


Here's a synthesis of key details regarding the U.S. Air Force's engine RFI for 3,000–8,000 lbf thrust class engines for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA):

Key Details​

  1. Purpose:
    • Power next-gen autonomous drone wingmen (CCA) to enhance range, speed, and runway independence35.
    • Support "affordable mass" strategy while balancing cost, schedule, and performance26.
  2. Thrust Requirements:
    • 3,000–8,000 lbf thrust range, exceeding current CCA demonstrators like Boeing’s MQ-28 (2,000 lbf) and Kratos XQ-5815.
    • Targets enhanced Mach capability, reduced takeoff distance, and extended loiter time46.
  3. Timeline:
    • Program launch: Q1 FY2025 (Oct 2024)35.
    • Delivery: First CCAs within 3 years (by 2027), with follow-on increments in 2030 and beyond13.

Engine Candidates​

  • Off-the-shelf options:
    • Honeywell: TFE731 (3,500–5,000 lbf), F124 (6,000+ lbf)6.
    • Williams International: FJ44 (1,500–3,600 lbf, expandable to higher thrust)57.
    • Pratt & Whitney Canada: PW300 (4,600–5,000 lbf), PW500 series17.
    • Rolls-Royce: AE3007 (6,500–9,000 lbf, used on RQ-4 Global Hawk)15.
  • Modifications:
    Existing engines (e.g., FJ44, PW545B) may need upgrades for military durability, thermal management, and fuel efficiency67.

Design Implications​

  • Aircraft size: Likely larger than current CCA demonstrators (e.g., MQ-28/XQ-58), akin to Aero L-39 (12,800 lbs) or scaled-down Global Hawk15.
  • Operational flexibility:
    • Range: 1,500+ nautical miles (2800 km) with efficient turbofans5.
    • Payload: Capacity for sensors, weapons, or electronic warfare systems46.

Challenges​

  • Cost: Commercial engines (e.g., FJ44) cost millions per unit, conflicting with CCA’s "affordable mass" goal36.
  • Runway dependence: Many engines in this class require paved runways, limiting austere basing options3.
  • Schedule: Developing new engines risks delays; modified off-the-shelf designs are preferred27.

Industry Response​

  • General Atomics: Eyeing FJ44 (Williams) and PW500 (Pratt) for Gambit/Fury drones7.
  • Honeywell: Marketing F124 and TFE731 as ready solutions with upgrade potential6.
  • Northrop Grumman: Model 437 likely uses AE3007-class engines15.

Strategic Goals​

  • CCA roles: Electronic warfare, sensing, and manned-unmanned teaming with NGAD/6th-gen fighters8.
  • Scalability: Engine family to support multiple CCA variants (e.g., attritable vs. high-end)25.
For context, engines in this thrust class typically power light military jets (e.g., Aermacchi M-345) and business aircraft (Cessna Citation)5. The Air Force’s focus on rapid fielding suggests heavy reliance on existing platforms with modifications36.

Citations:​

  1. https://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...-force-engine-request-points-need-larger-ccas
  2. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/study-contracts-cca-engines-air-force-propulsion/
  3. https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10...es-wants-engine-development-to-start-in-fy25/
  4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericte...erest-in-more-powerful-engines-for-ccas-mean/
  5. https://www.twz.com/collaborative-combat-aircraft-performance-focus-areas-emerge
  6. https://aerospace.honeywell.com/us/...aborative-combat-aircraft-military-technology
  7. https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11...gines-as-company-searches-for-cca-propulsion/
  8. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536/page-206
Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
To protect F-47 plans from hackers, Boeing should lean on CMMC, zero trust: DoD official:

“Anybody know what happened with the F-35?” Arrington asked the audience during a keynote presentation at TechNet Cyber in Baltimore. “What took off about six months after the F-35 that had the exact same candidate clause as the original design of the F-35? The J-20. They [China] didn’t get good on their own. They got good on your tax dollars. They got good on your R&D [research and development.] They got good on the blood of your men and women on the battlefield. Are you willing to let them do that anymore?”
Click to expand...

breakingdefense.com

To protect F-47 plans from hackers, Boeing should lean on CMMC, zero trust: DoD official - Breaking Defense

“The CMMC certification will be proof — trust, verify that those companies have the cyber posture needed to secure the data that is critical to national security, like on programs like the F-47,” Katie Arrington, who is performing the duties of the DoD CIO told Breaking Defense.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Significantly shorter radius than GCAP. In view of China's expanding A2/AD envelope, it may not be enough. If your opponent's A2/AD envelope goes out to 1,000 nm, and you have a radius of 1,000 nm you'll need VERY long range stand off weapons, or VERY survivable stealthy tankers.
 
Jackonicko said:
Significantly shorter radius than GCAP. In view of China's expanding A2/AD envelope, it may not be enough. If your opponent's A2/AD envelope goes out to 1,000 nm, and you have a radius of 1,000 nm you'll need VERY long range stand off weapons, or VERY survivable stealthy tankers.
Click to expand...
The radius is stated as more that 1000.
How much more is not known.
 
Jackonicko said:
Significantly shorter radius than GCAP. In view of China's expanding A2/AD envelope, it may not be enough. If your opponent's A2/AD envelope goes out to 1,000 nm, and you have a radius of 1,000 nm you'll need VERY long range stand off weapons, or VERY survivable stealthy tankers.
Click to expand...

It rather depends on what your opponent wants to do. If they want to set up a blockade or area air defense of ships east of Taiwan…that would put most ships a few hundred miles off China’s mainland, and any fighters trying to run a CAP at least a hundred beyond that. Probably enough for a second island chain round trip with minimal to no refueling.
 
Jackonicko said:
Significantly shorter radius than GCAP.
Click to expand...
Maybe but until we know the full picture it doesnt matter. Same with the almost hit F-35 in Yemen or how Eurofighter can / can't carry Taurus / SCALP.
Jackonicko said:
In view of China's expanding A2/AD envelope, it may not be enough. If your opponent's A2/AD envelope goes out to 1,000 nm, and you have a radius of 1,000 nm you'll need VERY long range stand off weapons, or VERY survivable stealthy tankers.
Click to expand...
I mean one could do tanking right about on the boarder too the A2/AD bubble. Let them come from 1,500 nm away, give them gas after 500 nm and when they come back from the goal and are around 500 nm to the strip...
 
lantinian said:
The radius is stated as more that 1000.
How much more is not known.
Click to expand...

This would also need to be a supercruising platform most likely at or above F-22 levels. Not sure if GCAP even has a Mach 2+ top speed or Mach 1.5+ supercruise requirement. Given the difference in mission focus on these two platforms they are really designed to for different things and with different constraints and capabilities in mind.
 
Yes, much more than 1000nm (GCAP alleged transatlantic range) for an air superiority fighter is irrelevant if you can be on station only twice a week (think flying time and the correlated maintenance or rest time for the pilots...).
With planes and concepts like that, wars are gonna extend for decades!
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Yes, much more than 1000nm for an air superiority fighter is irrelevant if you can be on station only twice a week (think flying time and the correlated maintenance, rest time for the pilots...).
With planes and concepts like that, wars are gonna extend for decades!
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but it indeed turns into an escort fighter of sorts. If it's the only fully competitive a2a bird - who'll do the fighting?
 
TomcatViP said:
Yes, much more than 1000nm (GCAP alleged transatlantic range) for an air superiority fighter is irrelevant if you can be on station only twice a week (think flying time and the correlated maintenance, rest time for the pilots...).
With planes and concepts like that, wars are gonna extend for decades!
Click to expand...

Conspicuously absent in the recently proposed $150B defense supplemental is airbase defenses and hardened aircraft shelters for INDOPACOM
 
Jackonicko said:
Significantly shorter radius than GCAP. In view of China's expanding A2/AD envelope, it may not be enough. If your opponent's A2/AD envelope goes out to 1,000 nm, and you have a radius of 1,000 nm you'll need VERY long range stand off weapons, or VERY survivable stealthy tankers.
Click to expand...
If your opponent missile can go as far as 1000 nm, then they need very very big missiles. That can be overwhelmed by decoys like Mald-x or cruise missile attack
 
red admiral said:
I think the big reveal is the "stealth + +"
Click to expand...
That's some next level marketing BS.

Can't wait for "stealth 2.0" and "stealth III revenge of the radar"

Also 2029 seems impossibly optimistic. They couldn't even show a real aircraft but somehow want to deliver a serial one by 2029? Yeah no.

Edit: just to clarify, I'm confident the F-47 will be capable and I'm confident it will come to fruition. I just think this marketing BS is always rather embarrassing and stuff like "Stealth ++++++" and "2025-2029" will be picked up by slop factories like Sandboxx (I'm sure Alex Hollings is a good person at heart, I just can't stand his content) and Warfronts and thus never endingly repeated ad nauseum by people with a lacking understanding of the subject matter. Which is just annoying. Seriously, why does a military have to market a fighter jet like it's a pickup car? Gives me Tesla Cybertruck vibes. I generally prefer the show-don't-tell approach which can be taken much more seriously. The B-21 reveal and overall coverage was a happy middle ground between marketing spectacle and actually providing some substance (and a realistic timeline).
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
That's some next level marketing BS.

Can't wait for "stealth 2.0" and "stealth III revenge of the radar"

Also 2029 seems impossibly optimistic. They couldn't even show a real aircraft but somehow want to deliver a serial one by 2029? Yeah no.
Click to expand...

Are we not gonna call out the upper threshold (2025) here? That pretty much violates common sense.

Wonder what the intern was on when he/she made the infographics.
 
NGAP just completed DDR for XA102/103 with production ready to start for ground testing up next. Boeing has done a lot of work to get ready but the main production facility is probably not ready for another 18mo…. USAF should demote whoever put this fanboi slide together. V uncredible.
 
EmoBirb said:
That's some next level marketing BS.

Can't wait for "stealth 2.0" and "stealth III revenge of the radar"

Also 2029 seems impossibly optimistic. They couldn't even show a real aircraft but somehow want to deliver a serial one by 2029? Yeah no.

Edit: just to clarify, I'm confident the F-47 will be capable and I'm confident it will come to fruition. I just think this marketing BS is always rather embarrassing and stuff like "Stealth ++++++" and "2025-2029" will be picked up by slop factories like Sandboxx (I'm sure Alex Hollings is a good person at heart, I just can't stand his content) and Warfronts and thus never endingly repeated ad nauseum by people with a lacking understanding of the subject matter. Which is just annoying. Seriously, why does a military have to market a fighter jet like it's a pickup car? Gives me Tesla Cybertruck vibes. I generally prefer the show-don't-tell approach which can be taken much more seriously. The B-21 reveal and overall coverage was a happy middle ground between marketing spectacle and actually providing some substance (and a realistic timeline).
Click to expand...
Eh I don't really have any heartburn over it. It is not like they're going give you some sort way to quantify the differences. They just want to highlight to the laymen that it is going to be stealthier than fighter currently in the inventory. What I find curious is how they are showing the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35 because in more recent reporting it has been reported that the inverse is true. (Yes I'm aware of what Chip Burke said in his interview on the FPP some years ago). In any case I'm relieved that the new jet will have at least 1000nm combat radius.
 
BDF said:
Eh I don't really have any heartburn over it. It is not like they're going give you some sort way to quantify the differences. They just want to highlight to the laymen that it is going to be stealthier than fighter currently in the inventory. What I find curious is how they are showing the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35 because in more recent reporting it has been reported that the inverse is true. (Yes I'm aware of what Chip Burke said in his interview on the FPP some years ago). In any case I'm relieved that the new jet will have at least 1000nm combat radius.
Click to expand...

You are not gonna challenge how YFQ-44 with single vertical slab and external carry is categorized as the same rough level of stealth as the F-35?
 
Ronny said:
If your opponent missile can go as far as 1000 nm, then they need very very big missiles. That can be overwhelmed by decoys like Mald-x or cruise missile attack
Click to expand...
China's A2/AD envelope is not provided only by missiles on the mainland with a 1,000 nm range. It includes missiles on islands and reefs, on ships, and carried by very long range fighter aircraft. Good luch 'overwhelming' all that with a handful of MALD and a few cruise missiles.
 
EmoBirb said:
That's some next level marketing BS.

Can't wait for "stealth 2.0" and "stealth III revenge of the radar"

Also 2029 seems impossibly optimistic. They couldn't even show a real aircraft but somehow want to deliver a serial one by 2029? Yeah no.

Edit: just to clarify, I'm confident the F-47 will be capable and I'm confident it will come to fruition. I just think this marketing BS is always rather embarrassing and stuff like "Stealth ++++++" and "2025-2029" will be picked up by slop factories like Sandboxx (I'm sure Alex Hollings is a good person at heart, I just can't stand his content)...
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
Jackonicko said:
China's A2/AD envelope is not provided only by missiles on the mainland with a 1,000 nm range. It includes missiles on islands and reefs, on ships, and carried by very long range fighter aircraft. Good luch 'overwhelming' all that with a handful of MALD and a few cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
well, and what stop USN from attacking these ship, fighters or SAM on island?.
All these things are massively more expensive than decoys like MALD
 
Ronny said:
well, and what stop USN from attacking these ship, fighters or SAM on island?.
All these things are massively more expensive than decoys like MALD
Click to expand...
Well that would be the torrent of ICBMs, ALCMs, hypersonics, and ship-killers that make the A2/AD envelope such a problem in the first f***ing place....
 
Jackonicko said:
Well that would be the torrent of ICBMs, ALCMs, hypersonics, and ship-killers that make the A2/AD envelope such a problem in the first f***ing place....
Click to expand...
I mean its not that it cant be rolled back. Its just not gonna be painless as Ronny would like to believe.

There was a research paper written some time ago about rolling back the A2/AD bubble and that involved a sustained air war to push back the defensive counter air envelope and then slowly roll back IADS when in range. Its not that its impossible but it also wont just be solved by some decoys.

Even if we assume said conflict occurs when CPS is up and ready - you still need stand in ISR assets to target moving vehicles and that also requires that DCA to be rolled back and IADS put under pressure by reliable targeting.

Whatever one side of the pond has, the other side has an answer to so there wont be any silver bullet solutions anywhere.
 
siegecrossbow said:
You are not gonna challenge how YFQ-44 with single vertical slab and external carry is categorized as the same rough level of stealth as the F-35?
Click to expand...

I think they just ran out of descriptions. The whole placard seems extremely juvenile/fanboi, though hopefully the 1000+ is true. Outside of that factoid the post is trash.
 
Reddington777 said:
I mean its not that it cant be rolled back. Its just not gonna be painless as Ronny would like to believe.

There was a research paper written some time ago about rolling back the A2/AD bubble and that involved a sustained air war to push back the defensive counter air envelope and then slowly roll back IADS when in range. Its not that its impossible but it also wont just be solved by some decoys.

Even if we assume said conflict occurs when CPS is up and ready - you still need stand in ISR assets to target moving vehicles and that also requires that DCA to be rolled back and IADS put under pressure by reliable targeting.

Whatever one side of the pond has, the other side has an answer to so there wont be any silver bullet solutions anywhere.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jackonicko said:
China's A2/AD envelope is not provided only by missiles on the mainland with a 1,000 nm range. It includes missiles on islands and reefs, on ships, and carried by very long range fighter aircraft. Good luch 'overwhelming' all that with a handful of MALD and a few cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

I suspect the U.S. will have to spend weeks pushing the defensive zone back to even access the mainland, but U.S. inventories are hardly “handfuls” or “a few”. Individual strikes will likely use low hundreds of effectors, even from the USN (assuming its CSGs survive long enough to launch any strikes).

It does seem like F-47 is designed to operate from the second island chain, though it seems likely it would still require tanker support to reach Taiwan.
 
siegecrossbow said:
You are not gonna challenge how YFQ-44 with single vertical slab and external carry is categorized as the same rough level of stealth as the F-35?
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom