Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

EmoBirb said:
During the cold war surely. And while one may argue that there is currently the Second Cold War ongoing, I don't think that realization has reached the public consciousness just yet. Which is why in my eyes it will be difficult to justify such spending in an economically tumultuous period.

But I have no background in economics, so that's that.

On a different note, how does the projected NGAD cost stack up so far compared to ATF and JSF?
Click to expand...

Entitlements made up much less of the federal budget back then which allowed a greater amount of defense spending. Comparing debt servicing costs as a percentage of GDP between the 80s and now is around the same too. Barring reductions on entitlement spending or tax hikes, increasing defense spending is probably unsustainable.
 
Sevrent said:
Barring reductions on entitlement spending or tax hikes, increasing defense spending is probably unsustainable.
Click to expand...

Well if those completely unwarranted and undeserved tax-cuts the super-rich got were repealed followed by them being taxed appropriately (1980 tax-levels) the US would definitely have enough money.
 
NMaude said:
Well if those completely unwarranted and undeserved tax-cuts the super-rich got were repealed followed by them being taxed appropriately (1980 tax-levels) the US would definitely have enough money.
Click to expand...
Yeah this admin going around doing its best to kneecap the govt's revenue collection makes me doubt its commitments to defense spending
 
Prior to the election Kendall was hinting that he would be willing to stay on. We dodged a bullet with that one.
quellish said:
NGAD was always a next generation air dominance / superiority solution. To say that at some point it was not, then became one later, is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Never said it wasn't. NGAD could have been a much different air superiority platform. Based on his actions in office and the OP Ed, it sure appears that Kendall is distancing himself from the F-47. F-22 replacement like the F-22 was a replacement for the F-15 - big, two engine fighter, with a similar weapons load. When Kendall adds after years of development and analysis that NGAD should be about the cost of an F-35 or less that indicates that he either didn't agree with the requirements the AF came up with, got cold feet, or is trying to cover his butt.
 
B2Blain said:
Never said it wasn't. NGAD could have been a much different air superiority platform. Based on his actions in office and the OP Ed, it sure appears that Kendall is distancing himself from the F-47. F-22 replacement like the F-22 was a replacement for the F-15 - big, two engine fighter, with a similar weapons load. When Kendall adds after years of development and analysis that NGAD should be about the cost of an F-35 or less that indicates that he either didn't agree with the requirements the AF came up with, got cold feet, or is trying to cover his butt.
Click to expand...

To give the benefit of the doubt, I think he had hinted at plan B (in case more funding was not made available to do NGAD as designed in addition to other priorities) being to pivot to a more affordable combat aircraft solution that would allow 'other priorities' to be addressed because the AF could not do NGAD as currently envisioned while also funding those 'other priorities'. The 'F-35 ballpark' was just a reference to basically what the AF can afford a few squadrons a year (2-3) now. It is certianly possible that had he stuck around and no additional funding for the DAF been made available, he would have proposed a different course...but we can never be sure.
 
bring_it_on said:
To give the benefit of the doubt, I think he had hinted at plan B (in case more funding was not made available to do NGAD as designed in addition to other priorities) being to pivot to a more affordable combat aircraft solution that would allow 'other priorities' to be addressed because the AF could not do NGAD as currently envisioned while also funding those 'other priorities'. The 'F-35 ballpark' was just a reference to basically what the AF can afford a few squadrons a year (2-3) now. It is certianly possible that had he stuck around and no additional funding for the DAF been made available, he would have proposed a different course...but we can never be sure.
Click to expand...
It could have saved the Air Force money if they decided to roll with the B-21 as the "Penetrating Counter-Air" component of the NGAD and focused on making advanced CCA drones that can tag alongside the B-21. But perhaps some form of speed and maneuverability (Despite views that it may not be as maneuverable) was still a requirement, which clearly the B-21 could not deliver due to its subsonic speeds.

After all, one such idea by the CSBA for the NGAD based on its definition as a "Family of systems" was that the main unit or PCA would be a bomber-sized aircraft with several advanced BVR missiles such as the LREW, AIM-174 or AIM-160 missiles that would engage enemy fighters from very far away and destroy them without said fighters realizing that they were attacked until it's too late. The CCA drones would then finish the job with slightly shorter-ranged missiles if any stragglers still remained, and still remain undetected until then. That is assuming the enemy fighters are 5th Generation Stealth Fighters and both the PCA aircraft and CCA drones have the most advanced IR sensors and robust fusion datalinks in their systems, as well travelling at subsonic speeds.
 
Last edited:
DWG said:
No different to building in Blocks or Tranches - which we've been doing since the mid/late '70s.
Click to expand...
You mean 1940s or maybe late 1930s.

USAAC was doing blocks on planes long before the 1970s.


EmoBirb said:
Something that isn't particularly clear to me though, is that with regular (presumably altered F135s) engines or adaptive cycle engines? I've heard conflicting statements about F/A-XX not including them and still going with them. If it's with ACE that would be a bit underwhelming, given the advertised improved efficiency and thus improved range.
Click to expand...
The Navy needs a plane sooner, the earliest Super Bugs are already in the Boneyard and the second tranche are close to end of life.

FFS the planes the Blue Angels are flying are 20 years old!



FighterJock said:
I wonder if the F/A-XX is going to have the same maximum take off weight and the same size as the A-5 Vigilante? The Vigilante was the heaviest carrier borne attack aircraft ever built, it will be something for the F/A-XX to equal it.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting up to 90klbs MTOW off the catapult. It may be in the 80k range.


Sundog said:
I'm thinking that may have changed for the new carriers due to the EM catapults and arresting gear?
Click to expand...
Not really. The new arresting gear is supposed to be able to catch lighter aircraft without damage, but as I understand things it's still limited to about 55,000lbs landing weight.

This suggests an FAXX empty weight of about 45,000lbs, so it can hold ~5000lbs of AAMs and ~5000lbs of fuel.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250414-022252~2.png
    Screenshot_20250414-022252~2.png
    995.1 KB · Views: 312
  • Screenshot_20250414-022252~3.png
    Screenshot_20250414-022252~3.png
    343.9 KB · Views: 358
KHambsch said:
Hey Robert, this pic looks real. If so, it surprises the heck out of me...per, I'd never conceive that the government would disclose anything this early on. Your thoughts? Everyone-anybody?
Real or not? K
Click to expand...
Just because it's featured in some promotional video from Boeing doesn't mean it's real. The social media/PR people in charge of putting together the video has 0 access to special access data. Often times the CGI is done by some artist on artstation and the PR folks just buy the model from them or contract them to make some CGI footage.
 
Last edited:
donnage99 said:
Just because it's featured in some promotional video from Boeing doesn't mean it's real. The social media/PR people in charge of putting together the video has 0 access to special access data. Often times the CGI is done by some artist on artstation and the PR folks just buy the model from them or contract them to make some CGI footage.
Click to expand...
I was refering to the stills in the perported factory above.. Fake? Or? K
 
Hanse said:
Yep. And the A3D behind it is right there too. Those are 1 & 2 biggest/heaviest carrier aircraft.
Click to expand...

Disregarding the F-111B which needed 11kts over deck to launch at 77,570 lbs, making it #2 behind the Vigi. It would trap back at 56,980 lbs including a full load of six Phoenix.

McNamara will be laughing if the new Navy fighter is as heavy as the Seapig!

Incidentally the F-111B had 19,000 litres of internal fuel - about 50% more than a Flanker. It will be interesting to see what F/A-XX and NGAD can manage.
 
Last edited:
Kiltonge said:
Disregarding the F-111B which needed 11kts over deck to launch at 77,570 lbs, making it #2 behind the Vigi. It would trap back at 56,980 lbs including a full load of six Phoenix.
Click to expand...
Oh, hey, I'd not come across that trap weight before! Where'd you find it?


Kiltonge said:
McNamara will be laughing if the new Navy fighter is as heavy as the Seapig!
Click to expand...
If the Seapig had engines with 35,000lbs thrust on it, it would have been accepted by the USN.


Kiltonge said:
Incidentally the F-111B had 19,000 litres of internal fuel - about 50% more than a Flanker. It will be interesting to see what F/A-XX and NGAD can manage.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly expecting FAXX to have even more fuel than that.

NGAD will have more efficient engines, so needs less fuel to get the same range.
 
JetBrain said:
View attachment 767246View attachment 767247

It has canards like the F-47.
Click to expand...
It does, but the announcement image has some significant detail differences from the assembly line photo.

The assembly line photo has a significantly narrower cockpit section than the announcement image does. The announcement image cockpit rises from clear out at the chines, while the assembly line photo does not.
As a result, the assembly line photo has a much smaller possible radome than the announcement image.

There's a decent possibility that the assembly line photo is of the prototype that Boeing made.
 
Hanse said:
  • Gross weight: 79,000 lb (35,800 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 88,000 lb (39,900 kg)
I assume the Max is on land?
Click to expand...
I believe that the MTOW was from ship. 83k or so was pretty normal for A-3 and A-5, and the F-111B had really big high-lift devices on the wings that the A-3 and A-5 lacked.
 
@Hanse : Savage was a big stubby airplane that would have taken a considerable place operating from the aircraft carriers at the time.

Neptune, as big as they were, did took the Nuclear alert mission from USN Aircraft carrier

iu
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom