Boeing F-47 NGAD - Speculation and Theories

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. Why plan around JASSM anyway since it will probably be replaced in the 2030s with a different form factor?
Click to expand...
Given the life cycle of other US made, air launched munitions like the AIM-9 or AIM-120, I'd say the AGM-158 will be around up into the 2050s.
 
Reddington777 said:
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...
The plan was to spend $439 MM in FY26 for NGAP/Adv. Engine Development. $330 would be a $100 MM reduction. But we don't know how much NGAP funding is in the reconciliation bill and how much of that gets attributed to the program's FY26 funding. It could all be wash..It could also mean that the NGAP program has been adjusted post NGAD source selection and NGAD delays..perhaps to shave some schedule and make a selection earlier..Wait for the J books.
 
Last edited:
to be clear when I wrote fantastically I was emphasizing the fantasy bit.

Reigniting ITEP by moving faster?
Compressing NGAP timelines by taking on risk in a performance envelope defined way (yes im thinking of F119 where RWE showed it had more to give)
All kinds of hypersonic trigger words culminating in a single throttle takeoff to Mach 6 aircraft…

I mean cmon. It’s too much….
 
red admiral said:
The evidence I'm aware of is that "digital engineering" appears to make development programmes of similar difficulty go slower than when we used paper and slide rules. It does seem to reduce technical risks though.​

Experience of the individuals and team seems the key thing. Knowing what are problems and how to address them translates to both avoiding these in future, and gives confidence in addressing new problems.
Click to expand...
Latest Exhibit: Digital Engineering has already become a Crutch.
The B-52 bomber’s re-engining program has hit a delay as an inlet redesign pushes the critical design review into next year.

Apparently the B-52J effort is being done by the "F" team or worse ... what we used to refer as the "retirees and trainees".
  • For goodness sake, the F130 is an off-the shelf, well-characterized turbofan being installed on a subsonic non-maneuvering aircraft.
  • It certainly is a less demanding task than it was for Boeing to redesign the nacelles back in 1958 (using slide rules, pencils, and paper) for the TF33 turbofan/B-52H upgrade from the J57 turbojet/B-52G.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/b-52-engine-replacement-slowed-by-inlet-issues/
  • The 10-month delay stems from “ongoing engine inlet issues” discovered during testing.
  • Distortion was creating non-uniform airflow that can affect the engine’s performance, spurring the need for a redesign.
  • While the effort used “some digital engineering and virtual prototyping practices during [the] rapid prototyping effort,” it did not use them to its full advantage, the GAO said. Boeing argues it’s difficult to use digital engineering practices on legacy systems.
  • The program “is currently using some digital models, including aviation performance, system, and computational fluid dynamics models to support design decisions and develop the engine modification,” the GAO noted.
And oh, by the way...
  • It will take nearly 50% longer to complete a related effort to modernize the bomber’s radar, totaling nearly nine years rather than about five.
Sadly it's becoming clear to me that Boeing and Lockheed can only field 2, maybe 3, top-notch aircraft design teams at a time. I don't have enough inside knowledge of Northrop, but I'll wager that their bench is no deeper. ****Hopefully the F-47 is staffed by Boeing's "A" team.****
 
F119Doctor said:
If the AF agrees to skip development steps on the GE XA102, P&W will be allowed to skip the same steps on the XA103.
Click to expand...

No controversy there, assuming engineering and design is at parity (GE did appear to be consistently leading PW in meeting past VCE “milestones”)… but more importantly what do you make of skipping some of the traditional steps to leverage prior learnings and commonalities between XA100/101 and XA102/3? Sensible, obvious, super risky?
 
Any time you leave out some of the testing, it increases risk. If you are not ignoring previous lessons learned, and your design /simulation tools, those risk increases can be tolerable.

One example is individual compressor blades in a disk slots, vs integrally bladed disks. With separate blades, you are mostly concerned with the aero, mechanical, and vibratory characteristics of that individual blade. However, with integrally bladed disks, the vibratory response of each blade can be slightly different and can effect the vibratory response of the all the other blades of that disk and the disk itself, since there is no damping at the blade to disk attachment. We have seen cracking on a disk feature that is driven by the vibratory response of the blades, and have broken blades due to blade to blade vibratory coupling. Trimming of a corner of specific blades can stop the resonant response of the whole system. There are many advantages to integrally bladed disks, but they can also add a whole lot of challenges if there is insufficient testing.
 
F119Doctor said:
Any time you leave out some of the testing, it increases risk. If you are not ignoring previous lessons learned, and your design /simulation tools, those risk increases can be tolerable.

One example is individual compressor blades in a disk slots, vs integrally bladed disks. With separate blades, you are mostly concerned with the aero, mechanical, and vibratory characteristics of that individual blade. However, with integrally bladed disks, the vibratory response of each blade can be slightly different and can effect the vibratory response of the all the other blades of that disk and the disk itself, since there is no damping at the blade to disk attachment. We have seen cracking on a disk feature that is driven by the vibratory response of the blades, and have broken blades due to blade to blade vibratory coupling. Trimming of a corner of specific blades can stop the resonant response of the whole system. There are many advantages to integrally bladed disks, but they can also add a whole lot of challenges if there is insufficient testing.
Click to expand...
I bet that discovery led to some impressive use of profanity... And an absolutely disgusting amount of extra testing to figure out.
 
joewee said:
Latest Exhibit: Digital Engineering has already become a Crutch.
Click to expand...

I am not an engineer, but something that always bothered me with the "digital engineering" concept was that US (and every other country) built dozens of aircraft types without ever using computers. If you look at the post-World War II era the US was designing dozens of aircraft and producing them in volume without the aid of computers. I think digital engineering is just used as an excuse because nobody really wants to admit that the US has lost most of its talent and industrial base and is no longer capable of designing and building at the pace and scale they could in the past.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
I am not an engineer, but something that always bothered me with the "digital engineering" concept was that US (and every other country) built dozens of aircraft types without ever using computers. If you look at the post-World War II era the US was designing dozens of aircraft and producing them in volume without the aid of computers. I think digital engineering is just used as an excuse because nobody really wants to admit that the US has lost most of its talent and industrial base and is no longer capable of designing and building at the pace and scale they could in the past.
Click to expand...
When you gain the ability to naval gaze that's what you do.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
I am not an engineer, but something that always bothered me with the "digital engineering" concept was that US (and every other country) built dozens of aircraft types without ever using computers. If you look at the post-World War II era the US was designing dozens of aircraft and producing them in volume without the aid of computers.
Click to expand...
Because a century series aircraft didn't need the kind of wiring, electronics and sensor integration a modern fighter needs. Because post WWII planes weren't fly-by-wire and even F-14s, 15s, and 16s didn't have as complex of subsystems that a modern 5th or 6th gen fighter does. Because cold war era aircraft didn't exactly have the level automation modern aircraft do either.

You can't possibly expect to compare two things when they are of wholly different complexities.

SlothmanAllen said:
I think digital engineering is just used as an excuse because nobody really wants to admit that the US has lost most of its talent and industrial base and is no longer capable of designing and building at the pace and scale they could in the past.
Click to expand...
You think the US is the only one using digital engineering? You think China with its strong manufacturing and designing capability isn't using "digital engineering"?

Like AI, digital engineering is a tool. It's not going to guarantee you don't make catastrophic mistakes. Whether someone uses this technology or not has little bearing on the pace, scale or capability of the industrial base.

Right now, the pace of our aerospace programs isn't indicative of a lack of talent, ability or capacity. If you want examples of what lack of talent, ability and capacity does look like, have a look at any Indian aerospace program, or have a look at the current state of shipbuilding.
 
Reddington777 said:
Because a century series aircraft didn't need the kind of wiring, electronics and sensor integration a modern fighter needs. Because post WWII planes weren't fly-by-wire and even F-14s, 15s, and 16s didn't have as complex of subsystems that a modern 5th or 6th gen fighter does. Because cold war era aircraft didn't exactly have the level automation modern aircraft do either.

You can't possibly expect to compare two things when they are of wholly different complexities.


You think the US is the only one using digital engineering? You think China with its strong manufacturing and designing capability isn't using "digital engineering"?

Like AI, digital engineering is a tool. It's not going to guarantee you don't make catastrophic mistakes. Whether someone uses this technology or not has little bearing on the pace, scale or capability of the industrial base.

Right now, the pace of our aerospace programs isn't indicative of a lack of talent, ability or capacity. If you want examples of what lack of talent, ability and capacity does look like, have a look at any Indian aerospace program, or have a look at the current state of shipbuilding.
Click to expand...
While I agree with the complexity issue I think, for me anyway, I could live with lower numbers and/or longer design cycles if they could meet the already extended design development deployment times with “working weapon systems”

When you constantly are “boasting” of these incredibly efficient computer/paperless systems yet never meet your targets the very strong defense advocates, like myself, are like what’s the point it seems to be getting worse not better.

Take Sentinel, NG bragged how they could run through 10,000 iterations to design the “perfect ICBM” and then last week announce two year (TWO YEAR!!!) delay to first flight. Seriously?
 
SlothmanAllen said:
I am not an engineer, but something that always bothered me with the "digital engineering" concept was that US (and every other country) built dozens of aircraft types without ever using computers. If you look at the post-World War II era the US was designing dozens of aircraft and producing them in volume without the aid of computers. I think digital engineering is just used as an excuse because nobody really wants to admit that the US has lost most of its talent and industrial base and is no longer capable of designing and building at the pace and scale they could in the past.
Click to expand...
Personal opinion but one thing to consider is the risk appetite of that generation. Accidents and death were a feature of test programs in a way that just isn't acceptable today by any of the parties, Govt, OEM, public etc.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
I am not an engineer, but something that always bothered me with the "digital engineering" concept was that US (and every other country) built dozens of aircraft types without ever using computers. If you look at the post-World War II era the US was designing dozens of aircraft and producing them in volume without the aid of computers. I think digital engineering is just used as an excuse because nobody really wants to admit that the US has lost most of its talent and industrial base and is no longer capable of designing and building at the pace and scale they could in the past.
Click to expand...

Digital engineering is extremely useful and significantly shortens development cycles. However certain critical components should see repeated real life testing and adjustment to validate the digital development and what the simulations gave you.

Without digital engineering you're not competitive these days. You think China for example doesn't heavily leverage digital design?
 
Ozair said:
Personal opinion but one thing to consider is the risk appetite of that generation. Accidents and death were a feature of test programs in a way that just isn't acceptable today by any of the parties, Govt, OEM, public etc.
Click to expand...

Accidents and deaths were never accepted, and often led among other factors to cancelations of some programs. We now just have solid ways to avoid such outcomes and improved safety standards written with the blood of people that couldn't enjoy these same standards they helped to create in the past.
 
EmoBirb said:
Accidents and deaths were never accepted, and often led among other factors to cancelations of some programs. We now just have solid ways to avoid such outcomes and improved safety standards written with the blood of people that couldn't enjoy these same standards they helped to create in the past.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying accidents and deaths were ever acceptable but the people running those programs, from test pilots to Govt to program managers, all pushed the boundaries in ways that are not done today, including flying earlier than programs would today with significant less testing. You only have to read the biographies from that era to comprehend what they were willing to do compared to what is done today.
 
bobbymike said:
When you constantly are “boasting” of these incredibly efficient computer/paperless systems yet never meet your targets the very strong defense advocates, like myself, are like what’s the point it seems to be getting worse not better.
Click to expand...
I understand where you are coming from, but how do we know its specifically these tools that cause us to not meet your goals? When was the last aircraft that was designed the old fashioned way? and how would we know how long a modern 6th gen aircraft designed the old fashioned way would take? We don't really have comparable benchmarks here to measure up against.

I'm of the opinion that there' really is zero chance that these tools aren't helpful. They allow us to test very complex things without the need to manufacture them and that alone is a great asset. The problem may lie more with how these tools are being used rather than using them = delays and unreliability. There's nothing wrong with using these tools - much less somehow indicating that we are no longer capable of building aircraft.
bobbymike said:
Take Sentinel, NG bragged how they could run through 10,000 iterations to design the “perfect ICBM” and then last week announce two year (TWO YEAR!!!) delay to first flight. Seriously?
Click to expand...
Well see - that's what I mean. Digital engineering testing out many different configurations and allow greater optimization to happen across the system and thats a good thing. But are we using it to do optimization or are we using it to gold plate things? Or like Emobirb said are we trusting DE when we should be trusting and verifying too? The problem isn't on relying on digital engineering, but in the way we use the tools and run our programs.

As a whole, we waste too much time trying to get things "perfect" because whether its the public or congress, they only want to give things 1 try and if it doesn't work then everyone is calling for heads to roll. In turn, engineers now spend way too much time trying to everything work perfectly and when things still don't (because that's just how R&D works) the cycle continues and nothing ever gets fielded. As a whole military R&D ought to embrace greater program risk and leverage DE to prototype faster rather than using DE to "make the perfect system". I again point to the two CCAs as the right approach. Get something fielded first. Worry about improvements later.

I'm not familiar with the sentinel program, but I thought that it was because now we need new silos for the missiles (which who would have thought that decades old silos and facilities just arent' going to accomodate a modernized system very well).
 
Reddington777 said:
I'm not familiar with the sentinel program, but I thought that it was because now we need new silos for the missiles (which who would have thought that decades old silos and facilities just arent' going to accomodate a modernized system very well).
Click to expand...
Yes but the latest delay is the actual flight test of the missile nothing to do with the silos or launch infrastructure.
 
Reddington777 said:
Because a century series aircraft didn't need the kind of wiring, electronics and sensor integration a modern fighter needs. Because post WWII planes weren't fly-by-wire and even F-14s, 15s, and 16s didn't have as complex of subsystems that a modern 5th or 6th gen fighter does. Because cold war era aircraft didn't exactly have the level automation modern aircraft do either.
Click to expand...

This argument doesn't make any sense. Just look at smartphones. They have gotten exponentially more complex in terms of both hardware and software yet are produced in huge volume. Apple doesn't introduce a new iPhone expecting to produce less than the previous version because it has a better screen, more powerful processor, IR face scanning, etc.

The post-World War II US population was far more geared to manufacturing and because of World War II was very experienced in manufacturing weapon systems. This is what gave them the ability to design numerous aircraft, ships, nuclear bombs, ICBMs, Apollo Program, etc all simultaneously and at a massive scale. That talent base doesn't exist today in the US and digital engineering isn't going to make up for that.

I am sure China uses digital engineering as well, but guess what? They have a massive talent pool of machinists, engineers, assembly line workers, etc that allows them to produce at a rapid pace and at scale.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
This argument doesn't make any sense. Just look at smartphones. They have gotten exponentially more complex in terms of both hardware and software yet are produced in huge volume. Apple doesn't introduce a new iPhone expecting to produce less than the previous version because it has a better screen, more powerful processor, IR face scanning, etc.

The post-World War II US population was far more geared to manufacturing and because of World War II was very experienced in manufacturing weapon systems. This is what gave them the ability to design numerous aircraft, ships, nuclear bombs, ICBMs, Apollo Program, etc all simultaneously and at a massive scale. That talent base doesn't exist today in the US and digital engineering isn't going to make up for that.

I am sure China uses digital engineering as well, but guess what? They have a massive talent pool of machinists, engineers, assembly line workers, etc that allows them to produce at a rapid pace and at scale.
Click to expand...
One of the big advantages that the Chinese have is that their labor force is paid less than a third of what is paid in the US and they have the same capability. I was just through this on another project.
 
djfawcett said:
One of the big advantages that the Chinese have is that their labor force is paid less than a third of what is paid in the US and they have the same capability. I was just through this on another project.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess, but just because they are paid less doesn't mean they are less knowledgeable or skilled. According to The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), in 2023 China accounted for 29% of world manufacturing output in value added terms and 35% in gross terms. Eight of the top ten research institutions in are in China according to the Nature Index and they lead over all in research produced.

Truthfully, I don't think looking at the current PPP estimations for Chinese incomes are accurately reflecting their real purchasing power. I know this is off-topic to the F-47, but if you look at the US defense industrial base as a whole and the problems they experience I think it all ties back to lack of talent due to the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base over the last 40 to 50 years.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
This argument doesn't make any sense. Just look at smartphones. They have gotten exponentially more complex in terms of both hardware and software yet are produced in huge volume. Apple doesn't introduce a new iPhone expecting to produce less than the previous version because it has a better screen, more powerful processor, IR face scanning, etc.
Click to expand...
They also don't kill people when the face scanning fails to work.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
This argument doesn't make any sense. Just look at smartphones. They have gotten exponentially more complex in terms of both hardware and software yet are produced in huge volume. Apple doesn't introduce a new iPhone expecting to produce less than the previous version because it has a better screen, more powerful processor, IR face scanning, etc.
Click to expand...
Sorry how is a smart phone production remotely comparable to a fighter jet in any way shape or form?

Phone development cycles are more or less incremental and iterative. Your new phone is getting a new processor, a new camera, a new screen but these things have already existed in previous versions. You have large portions of hardware and software that is shared between versions. Phones also don't need to stand up an entirely new factory from scratch just to build a single model. Phones aren't integrating entirely new hardware systems every time a new model comes out. Not to mention you could train just about anyone to put together a phone in a matter of months or even weeks.

Each new aircraft today requires at the minimum a new air frame and thus purpose built software like fly-by-wire systems, purpose built subsystems and sensors each many orders of magnitude more complex than a smartphone, each more specialized and less commercializable than a smartphone and each more mission critical than a smartphone. Their complexity isn't just iterative between new types. Instead, development of the systems of a new fighter are disruptive - meaning that we share little feasible commonality with past types. Even between types of the same generation (which may often share some systems like sensors), modifications need to be made to already purpose built products to make work. All of this usually requires techniques and expertise that require specialized R&D, testing and assembly not easily found or developable in the civilian world anymore.

In the past, you could train anybody to rivet together an F6F even if they were illiterate. An F6F's parts could probably be sourced from a small handful of companies. You could train just about anybody to put together an F4. Your supply chain for its parts would grow a bit more. To put together an F-15, you would at least need a highly trained workforce led by some engineers and people with degrees even at the manufacturing and assembly level. Your corresponding supply chain would have grown orders of magnitude in number of vendors. For an F-22, you are no longer just riveting shit together. You actually have to worry about the extremely tight tolerances required to ensure seemless joins. No average person off the street could be thrown in a factory to put together an F-22 without dedicated vocational and specialized training. In contrast - you can still take an illiterate person and teach them how to put together a smartphone in a few months of dedicated training.

SlothmanAllen said:
That talent base doesn't exist today in the US and digital engineering isn't going to make up for that.
Click to expand...
I do agree that to some extent our woes are caused by a a smaller workforce, but this is just... outlandish and extreme conclusion to draw. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that the post WWII america also had an entire world war's worth of wartime economy to build a workforce so adept at making weapons. We (thankfully) haven't had that kind of war time economy since then. Naturally, the pool of people to draw on will dwindle. Selling our soul to China certainly didn't help either.

Contrary to most other manufactured things, Aerospace has continually been a booming field in the US. In the civilian world, we produce much of the worlds commercial aircraft and large portion of the world's jet engines, which means there's a pretty large workforce capable of designing and producing aerospace related products in general. With the advent of unmanned systems, and a pivot to rearmament, that workforce is only going to increase. The number of military aerospace programs going on today and producing results should be more than enough to illustrate that fact despite the ill performing ones.

As for the remainder of the MIC, that talent base still exists too. If anything, it is the lack of modernization, and the sudden need to modernize everything that has caused a bottleneck to form (with the exception of shipbuilding in which case all of your points are valid).

No one is asking digital engineering to make up for that. You are the one who drew this conclusion based on... well no evidence that I can see.
SlothmanAllen said:
I am sure China uses digital engineering as well, but guess what? They have a massive talent pool of machinists, engineers, assembly line workers, etc that allows them to produce at a rapid pace and at scale.
Click to expand...
That large pool of x y and z professionals very well does make their unit price cheaper, but even so, their 5th gen fighter fleets and projected 6th gen fighter fleets aren't going to be anywhere close to cold war inventories of staple fighters at the time.

Something like 7k of the century series were produced. Nearly 6k F4s were produced. Even the 1500 number for F15s aren't going to be reached by any of the 5th or 6th gen Chinese fighters. Why? because complexity and cost. Because even for a manufacturing superpower, those materials, synthesis and assembly are extremely costly. Because a useful fighter today necessarily has expensive systems. An fighter as cheap and simplistic as a cold war fighter will necessarily be useless and cannonfodder today. Because there's still relatively few engineers, assembly line workers and machinists in that massive talent pool that can be realistically trained and retained to build such complex weapons. You won't ever see another manned mainstay fighter produced to the numbers of 5000 for a single service no matter how large their talent pool is or how godly someone's manufacturing is.
 
Last edited:
joewee said:
  • It certainly is a less demanding task than it was for Boeing to redesign the nacelles back in 1958 (using slide rules, pencils, and paper) for the TF33 turbofan/B-52H upgrade from the J57 turbojet/B-52G.
Click to expand...
Really? Do you know that for a fact?

I could be wrong, I think that the last time a dual-engine nacelle was integrated was ca. 1973 with the Garrett 731 Jetstar - or the B-1 nacelle. To wit, no one working in the US industry today has ever done this work.

Nor do I think that a CFD (aero design) package for this sort of design has been integrated with a set of high fidelity engine decks to look real-time issues such as duct spillage at a throttle snap at high dynamic pressure (bottom right side of the envelope) and how flow issues could affect the other engine in the nacelle. (could be wrong - educate me.)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom