Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

Jacky said:
If you really want to cancel a project, the F-47 is the one that should be cancelled. Because the United States can live without an air force but not without a navy.
Click to expand...
What is the navy going to establish air superiority with (even temporarily) when it doesn't have an air superiority fighter left and almost every opposing aircraft on the other side is an air superiority fighter that can also do strike? A navy fighting alone in the west pacific is a very dead navy - not to mention fighting that alone without the air force is fighting with your punching hand tied behind your back for absolutely no reason. The air force is not completely out of options in the west pacific.
Jacky said:
As a Chinese, I can tell you very clearly that the J-35(older model J-31) is originally a naval project, and the PLAF chose to join it only after seeing the success of the Navy.
Click to expand...
If anything, the Chinese lesson to be learned isn't "hey the air force can make do with navy jets" but rather "hey lets start off with an air superiority capable platform that can cover huge distances and still do strike". The J20 and both the 6th gens were/ are being developed with this idea in mind. F-47 is built with that idea in mind too, but there's no way to come to that conclusion about F/A-XX.
Jacky said:
How will the Air Force develop its role when all the front-line bases are destroyed by China?
Click to expand...
By starting in the second island chain where the Chinese aren't able to have constant stand-in ISR presence. By dispersing our equipment to multiple accessible and covert locations, then use any number of roads/decrepit WWII airfields to re-arm. By refueling in air space defended by naval air defense to reduce vulnerability on the ground while boosting protection to naval assets. Supply reaching dispersed locations in the second island chain is still viable by air or by sea. This will form a solid and resilient area from which to start rolling back Chinese BARCAP.

As you get closer to China, the joint engagement zone gets more and more dense with IADS. At this point, your heavy lifter will now be navy fighters but that doesn't mean the air force has nothing to do. There's absolutely zero chance that you can establish permanent air superiority over anywhere that close to mainland China. At most, you have a temporary aerial advantage in an area to enable strikes, and then you need to get out. You are in a much better position to achieve that with a dedicated air superiority platform that can also do strikes than you are with a jack of all trades fighter. If working together, the air force can provide the top end air defense for however long the navy strike fighters need to be on station.
 
Last edited:
Jacky said:
Are the requirements for F/A-XX and NGAD the same?
Click to expand...
One is a fighter, other is a strike fighter.
Jacky said:
If modern fighters were so easy to navalize, France would not have withdrawn from the EF-2000 and made its own Rafale fighter.
Click to expand...
You'd need to read through the very well documented here history on ECF before making such statement. As a whole program and subsequent withdrawal of France was dictated by politics and workshare agreements which France wasn't letting anyone balling around with except herself.
 
If F/A-XX budgeting is a real issue and if Boeing was to make a USN derivative of the F-47 then they are going to need NG help for sure. Since NG dropped out of USAF NGAD, NG may have provided Boeing with design inputs, assistance and expertise regarding NGAD/F-47 during the DemVal phase.
 
Reddington777 said:
If anything, the Chinese lesson to be learned isn't "hey the air force can make do with navy jets" but rather "hey lets start off with an air superiority capable platform that can cover huge distances and still do strike". The J20 and both the 6th gens were/ are being developed with this idea in mind. F-47 is built with that idea in mind too, but there's no way to come to that conclusion about F/A-XX.
Click to expand...
The Navy has been very clear that F/A-XX is a strike fighter with a big air search radar. Bay capacity designed around bulky air-to-ground weapons, not around AAMs.

If I was using 1950s terms to describe the concept, I'd call it an Attack Interceptor.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The Navy has been very clear that F/A-XX is a strike fighter with a big air search radar. Bay capacity designed around bulky air-to-ground weapons, not around AAMs.
Click to expand...
The navy has been very clear that its replacing the Hornet. The big radar part is assumed. That still doesn't make it a platform the air force wants for air dominance.
 
Forest Green said:
Poor example, F-111 was a bomber, you can't easily make it a naval air superiority fighter.
Click to expand...
Reminder that the F-111B met the Navy's requirements. ;)

Forest Green said:
The end of the Cold War ended a lot of funding.
Click to expand...
True. But the point is the NATF proposals and F-22/F-23 were very different. It wasn't an F-4B/F-4C situation. So any naval F-47 variant will not be an F-47.
 
Reddington777 said:
The navy has been very clear that its replacing the Hornet. The big radar part is assumed. That still doesn't make it a platform the air force wants for air dominance.
Click to expand...
An airframe with bays large enough to hold 4-6x 2000lb weapons (or rather, 4x ~25" wide weapons with hardpoints in the bays for different weapons spacing) could use a Sidekick equivalent to hold at least 8-12x AAMs in the main bays, plus whatever are in the AAM bays (assuming 2x weapons). That'd give you 10-14 AAMs on the low end.

Thing is, with a specialized rack you can pack 4x AMRAAMs or JATMs into a 25" square box. Now you're packing 16x AAMs in the main bays alone.

The downside is that the Navy is willing to accept a lower G-rating (7.5gees instead of 9) and larger RCS for carrier compatibility. And that larger RCS is likely what the USAF is unwilling to accept. That said, I suspect that if the FAXX RCS was only one order of magnitude greater than the F-47, the USAF might be willing to accept it.



yeetmahboi said:
Hegseth growing into a nerd?
Click to expand...
I'd argue that he's always been one, and is just taking advantage of being able to see all his dreams now.

I don't know why people think that the military is full of Jocks/athletes. It's full of (athletic by necessity) nerds!
 
quellish said:
F-47 isn’t at Groom. The USAF and Navy X-planes are. There are other things at Groom that SECDEF was interested in as well.
Click to expand...
That is correct quellish, the demonstrators are there among probably quite a few other programs, the test site has been very active for some time. Since he's the new SECDEF, he is getting briefed and reviewing the programs and activities currently going on, business as usual.
 
The Phoenix could pull a max G of up to 24 or 25G according to a quick search on Google.
 
Didn't the Aardvark score a maneuvering kill in Irak (GWI)?

Easing the stick forward and reducing power, Denton brought the jet closer to the desert floor, and just as they expected, the pursuing Mirage came right with them. Zipping along, swiftly dodging dunes and the general geography of the terrain below with Brandon’s instructions (he was paying attention to the TFR while Denton flew), Denton suddenly yanked on the stick, pulling it back into his chest while simultaneously ramming the throttles forward. This threw the EF-111 into a climb, its powerful Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofans pushing it to the speed of sound in seconds. This signaled the end of the Mirage pilot’s luck. The deadly mixture of target-fixation and a brief loss of situational awareness, thanks to the darkness outside and the low altitude, proved to be his undoing. He flew hard into the desert, obliterating his aircraft into bits and pieces with the fireball blossoming forward, right underneath Denton and Brandon. The two breathed a sigh of relief. They had somehow just scored the first ever F-111/FB-111/EF-111 air to air kill in its entire service history, and without even firing a shot (not that they could anyways). Their actions and superior airmanship earned both the Distinguished Flying Cross, with numerous witnesses attesting to their bravery and skill as they saw it that January morning.
Click to expand...
tacairnet.com

The EF-111 Raven Managed to Take Down an Iraqi Mirage… Without Ever Firing a Shot

Rewind to the early hours of January 17th, 1991, in dark Middle Eastern skies. You’re flying in a two-seater General Dynamics EF-111 Raven, a heavily modified F-111 Aardvark strike swing-wing bombe…
tacairnet.com tacairnet.com
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Didn't the Aardvark score a maneuvering kill in Irak (GWI)?


tacairnet.com

The EF-111 Raven Managed to Take Down an Iraqi Mirage… Without Ever Firing a Shot

Rewind to the early hours of January 17th, 1991, in dark Middle Eastern skies. You’re flying in a two-seater General Dynamics EF-111 Raven, a heavily modified F-111 Aardvark strike swing-wing bombe…
tacairnet.com tacairnet.com
Click to expand...
Yes, but flying at low level at night until your opponent crashes isn't exactly a valid tactic for all types of aerial encounter. And IIRC it only scored half a kill because another aircraft (F-15?) came to chase the Mirage and was given the other half.
 
sublight_ said:
Tell me we have classified liquor at Area51 without telling me we have classified liquor at Area51.
Click to expand...
The classified liquor was part of the following programs:

Have Ripple
Have Thunderbird
Have Annie Green Springs
Have Boone's Farm

The CBO was wining since they were mostly over budget but since these were SAR programs and the SAPS running them, during Congressional testimony, they were told to put a cork in it and bottle everything up. Also, these programs were found not to have a single once of real grape juice and now are part of Project Three Sheets to the Wind. The black world is a tough place. My puns and this info was finally declassified by FOIA.
 
Hydroman said:
The classified liquor was part of the following programs:

Have Ripple
Have Thunderbird
Have Annie Green Springs
Have Boone's Farm

The CBO was wining since they were mostly over budget but since these were SAR programs and the SAPS running them, during Congressional testimony, they were told to put a cork in it and bottle everything up. Also, these programs were found not to have a single once of real grape juice and now are part of Project Three Sheets to the Wind. The black world is a tough place. My puns and this info was finally declassified by FOIA.
Click to expand...
It would say there is something else in capacity than the F-47 who is near to be ready for the visit of the secretary of Defense ?
 
I think the US is trying to counter the Chinese build-up as far as advanced aircraft go in a different manner, keeping everything very low-key but I could be wrong as well. China apparently has a lot of money and doing a rapid build-up like the Soviets during the cold war. I hate to say this but the USN has big problems which is sad. Now in regards to China, the question is, how effective are all these new aircraft, ships and missiles. I guess if we get into a conflict (hopefully not), then we'll sure find out. Something complimenting the F-47, don't know?
 
TomcatViP said:
Didn't the Aardvark score a maneuvering kill in Irak (GWI)?


tacairnet.com

The EF-111 Raven Managed to Take Down an Iraqi Mirage… Without Ever Firing a Shot

Rewind to the early hours of January 17th, 1991, in dark Middle Eastern skies. You’re flying in a two-seater General Dynamics EF-111 Raven, a heavily modified F-111 Aardvark strike swing-wing bombe…
tacairnet.com tacairnet.com
Click to expand...
Didn't happen, it's just an american claim. Apparently the american pilots confused (or wanted to believe) the explosion of a missile launched from the Mirage that missed and hit the ground as the Mirage crashing. I can't recall now if that particular Mirage got back to base or engaged later with F-15s, but there are some pretty interesting accounts on the www from the iraqi side.
 
lancer21 said:
Didn't happen, it's just an american claim. Apparently the american pilots confused (or wanted to believe) the explosion of a missile launched from the Mirage that missed and hit the ground as the Mirage crashing. I can't recall now if that particular Mirage got back to base or engaged later with F-15s, but there are some pretty interesting accounts on the www from the iraqi side.
Click to expand...
The Mirage also disappeared off radar afterwards, so it wasn't an unreasonable claim.
 
JetBrain said:

F-47 Fighter Production Site Sections Due To Open in 2026 | Aviation Week Network

A St. Louis factory expansion to support full-rate production of the Boeing F-47 fighter will see its first facilities open in 2026, the contractor said.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
I got a dumb question since im a software guy and never seen a factory before. If you are already building a factory (which might imply you already have production lines and machinery planned out), would that mean you are at a pretty advanced stage of r&d that is more than just a technology demonstrator and probably closer to a prototype?

Or are we just building the building first and figuring out the production lines later? You would think architecturally, you'd have an idea of what your production lines and machinery look like, and by extension - what your plane looks like - before you build the building.
 
BA has been making several site specific investments into next gen fighter production, across several states, predominantly Mesa and St Louis, for several years. If anything, the ACAF seems to be the last piece, but is also behind schedule, despite the articles quotes saying how fast everything was.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As I see it, the F-47 is designed around ~6,750lbs max internal load, assuming 6x LREW at 1000lbs each and 2x AMRAAM/JATM at ~375lbs each (More typically 6+2x AMRAAM/JATM+AIM-9 or 8x AMRAAM/JATM, ~2500-3000lbs). In addition, it's probably rated to 9 gees.

While I see the FAXX requirements as being 4x AGM-158s at ~3000lbs each plus 2x AMRAAM/JATM at ~375lbs each for ~13,000lbs internal. Not rated to more than 7.5 gees, plus it needs to survive carrier landings and launches (which may actually equal out to 9 gees on the wings, but means much stronger landing gear and gearbox).
Click to expand...
Both would be wonderful.Your payload estimates for the F-47 would check all the boxes - broadband stealth, high top end speed, super cruise, 1,000 nm plus range, and payload. Everything except payload has been disclosed. I am wondering if they traded payload for the other attributes? I would be pleased with a similar payload as the F-22. But wouldn't be surprised if it was 6 AMRAAM sized weapons.

Regarding the F/A-XX, a 4 JASSM load in the IWB might require a flying wing, especially considering the constraints of carrier operations. Why plan around JASSM anyway since it will probably be replaced in the 2030s with a different form factor?
 
Reddington777 said:
I got a dumb question since im a software guy and never seen a factory before. If you are already building a factory (which might imply you already have production lines and machinery planned out), would that mean you are at a pretty advanced stage of r&d that is more than just a technology demonstrator and probably closer to a prototype?

Or are we just building the building first and figuring out the production lines later? You would think architecturally, you'd have an idea of what your production lines and machinery look like, and by extension - what your plane looks like - before you build the building.
Click to expand...
Boeing has been building planes, even fighters, for a long time. They have a pretty solid idea for how their production line needs to be laid out already from Super Bug, Eagle, and parts of F-35.



B2Blain said:
Both would be wonderful.Your payload estimates for the F-47 would check all the boxes - broadband stealth, high top end speed, super cruise, 1,000 nm plus range, and payload. Everything except payload has been disclosed. I am wondering if they traded payload for the other attributes? I would be pleased with a similar payload as the F-22. But wouldn't be surprised if it was 6 AMRAAM sized weapons.
Click to expand...
I'd expect not.

"A stealthier, longer-ranged F-22" makes sense for the design. So it's got bigger wings and therefore significantly more fuel capacity. F-22 mission weight with AAMs is ~65klbs, we're assuming that mission weight for the F-47 is about 80,000. 80k is basically the weight of an F-22 with external tanks, the F-47 has enough fuel capacity to carry ~28klbs of fuel internally.

But I'm guesstimating that the LREW isn't a lot wider than an AMRAAM, it's just longer. An AMRAAM is a ~14" wide box across the fins, as is the 1000lb JDAM, so the F-22 main bay is ~(6x14=)84" wide.

What I did mentally was to take the weapons bays sections of the F-22 and stretch the whole thing till you could fit AMRAAMs into the side bays. This also stretches the main bay to ~16ft long. Optionally you widen the main bay as well, to give a little more space for LREWs. That was a 20% stretch of the weapons bays, so we could assume a 20% wider main bay as well. 84x1.2=101(rounding), which will just give you enough space for 1 more missile on the centerline (84+14=98).

Unfortunately, making the F-22's main bay 20% deeper doesn't quite make enough space for 2000lb bombs (~18" box), unless there's a bunch of unused space at the top already. (Because I'm hoping Boeing was smart enough to make bay space to build a Strike NGAD). This would also require a bunch of different rack bolts in the top of the bay, so you could have 6-7x AAMs or 4-5x heavy AGMs.


B2Blain said:
Regarding the F/A-XX, a 4 JASSM load in the IWB might require a flying wing, especially considering the constraints of carrier operations.
Click to expand...
The question there is if the weapons bays are side-by-side or tandem. A single bay holding 2x JASSMs is ~65" wide (25" weapons plus 5" clearance around each weapon). Assuming that the bay is long enough to hold AIM-174s, that makes it ~16ft8in/200" long.

The length limit for a carrier aircraft is determined by the elevator dimensions, and elevators are 85ft long by 55ft wide. Plus, you can hang the tail of the plane off the side of the elevator, by however much of the plane sticks behind the main landing gear (~1/3 of the overall length).

So having a pair of 200" long bays on the center of the aircraft would not cause problems length-wise.

Having a pair of 65" wide bays (~135-140" total width, nearly double that of an F-22!) on the CG of the aircraft might well make the plane too wide. Kinda depends on total shaping.



B2Blain said:
Why plan around JASSM anyway since it will probably be replaced in the 2030s with a different form factor?
Click to expand...
Because JASSM or rather LRASM was the direct replacement for Harpoon, and the old ATA and A/F-X proposals were written around being able to carry 2x Harpoon and 2x GBU-15 internally (in 2 bays). The direct replacement for GBU-15 is the JDAM. If we assumed a payload like 2x AARGM-ERs and 2x LRASM, you need a bay just as wide as you would for carrying 4x LRASM.

If we're designing a weapons bay, that puts hard constraints on the size of weapons that the plane can carry, so I was going for kind of the upper limit in terms of mission. Just like how farmers buy a tractor sized for the once-a-decade event where they need to harvest everything in a day, I'm sizing weapons bays around the worst-case scenario.

Have you seen any reported plans for replacing JASSM?

I know that the USN is talking about some supersonic/hypersonic weapons, but since carrier weapon elevators are 15ft that gives us a hard limit on the length of any air-launched weapon.

That said, the old ASALM was high-supersonic to low hypersonic (Mach 4.5-5.5), so it might be worthwhile to design the bays around that rough form factor. ASALM was intended for internal carriage on B-52s etc, so it should have about the same width and depth as the ALCM. ~25" wide.

Edit: format and spelling
 
Last edited:
Apparently breaking defense reported on a leaked DoD bill proposal where they requested a reduction of funding for the NGAP engine :

However, there appear to be some casualties in the proposed budget.

For example, the Air Force appears to be slowing funding for next-generation engine technologies: The Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion program, which was originally intended to design a powerplant to fly in the F-47, would see its funding fall to $330.2 million.
Click to expand...

While increasing overall budget for F-47:
As expected, the Air Force’s F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter was well-resourced following its ceremonious White House rollout: Its budget would be about $3.5 billion, with $900 million in reconciliation spending.
Click to expand...

And basically zeroing out F/A-XX:
On a program by program basis, the biggest standout is an estimated $75 million for the F/A-XX program. Compared to the $1 billion R&D funding the program once projected, the FY26 request is unlikely to be enough to meaningfully progress the sixth-generation strike fighter towards a contract as industry has hoped would soon come, and could functionally cancel the program.
Click to expand...

But apparently the Navy is putting money into CCA development:
The administration’s request for the Navy also appears to add a Collaborative Combat Aircraft line item, seeking $58 million for the effort. The concept of CCA centers around an unmanned fighter aircraft that can operate alongside manned fighter jets and has been an ongoing effort for the US Air Force.
Click to expand...

Plus a lot of spend for space based GMTI satellites guiding long range fires.

I have no idea what they are thinking with reducing investment on engines and zeroing out F/A-XX. Let's unfuck the navy by fucking it harder.
 
Reddington777 said:
Apparently breaking defense reported on a leaked DoD bill proposal where they requested a reduction of funding for the NGAP engine :



While increasing overall budget for F-47:


And basically zeroing out F/A-XX:


But apparently the Navy is putting money into CCA development:


Plus a lot of spend for space based GMTI satellites guiding long range fires.

I have no idea what they are thinking with reducing investment on engines and zeroing out F/A-XX. Let's unfuck the navy by fucking it harder.
Click to expand...
Can you gib a link for this?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom