CGI - Possible configuration of the Boeing F-47 NGAD

[CiTrus90]

Something about the renders seems to be very off. [...] Oh well. For me, it's time to throw in the towel until we get better material on this guy

They are extremely off.
The sensible option would just be to wait, as you rightly say, but this is the first aircraft in...I don't even know how many years, where I can just speculate and have some fun, without the urge to be as accurate as I can. I'll still try to use as much as I can from the images released, together with ideas that Boeing has pitched or worked on for real in the past, but knowing that I can be wrong without too many consequences, is quite the relief sometimes!
We might as well try our hand and see how close or far we get to the real deal, while we are at it.

I find it hard to believe that this aircraft has canards so close to the front of it.

A few of the concepts Boeing explored in the past do show canards that are quite forward to the front of the aircraft.
But at this point I'm not even sure that what we are seeing here are really canards. The pictures have been heavily "played" with, so my assessment might be completely inaccurate, but I don't see hinge lines for them: maybe they don't pivot as normal canards do and, instead, they just...flex?
Would they still be canards if that were the case? Or maybe they are fixed?
Only time will tell...

I dig it, but are your inlets big enough? The Adaptive engines need more air than the F119 or F135.

Maybe what they are hiding in those censored pictures they released, was a third dorsal inlet a la J-36 all along and I'll need to add that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That side profile is a thing of beauty. Reminds me of the B-21 when viewed from the side. That distinct beak/duckbill.

More of the beak:

 

[EmoBirb]

maybe they don't pivot as normal canards do and, instead, they just...flex?

Something I (and obviously many others too) also wondered about. It would be definitely very interesting to include such a feature, obviously research has been done in relation to such and similar technology.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

and a few other designs do too, probably.

I am not an aerospace engineer. And if I were one, I would not want to design an entire aircraft off of two pictures of questionable quality.

In this case, it's easier to wait and let all the work that Boeing has done over the past 10+ years on this aircraft become public, and then replicate it with full accuracy.

That's just me though. I love seeing what everyone is coming up with!

The jet will ultimately get revealed in a ceremony. Till then the military would like to keep suspense which results in more excitement, chatter, publicity.
Moreover, there can be difference b/w initially revealed jet & final inducted jet, like YF-22 Vs F-22, X-35 Vs F-35.
May be they wanted to test some features but not implement in F-47.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I've pretty much given up on matching the model with both of the pictures released...
So far, I've been unable to line it up with both of them at the same time. It's always either one or the other and, also, since the pictures have been taken at an angle (yes, even in the frontal shot the camera is slightly rotated), trying to line everything up is beyond my current skills and resources.

So...this will be more speculative than I would have liked it to be, unfortunately.
Here is what I think it the F-47 might look like, based on what I could match (as much as possible) with the pictures released and other studies and concepts by Boeing:
View attachment 765877
View attachment 765878
View attachment 765879
I'll further refine and texture/finish it up in the next few days (or weeks, probably...).

Hey @CiTrus90 you really captured what I imagined it to look like very well.

 

[NovaGA]

I personally think the thingy shown on “render” is a mix between scale demonstrator and pre serial airframe. In a sense combination between concept of X-32 and concept of X-36. That would explain some strange proportions and canopy that seems too big.

 

[EmoBirb]

A possibility that also came to my mind but I'm not 100% sure about could be that the render shown was AI generated and slightly touched up by digital artists.

Because for example the stars on the US flag in the background struck me as rather off looking. That could be a stylistic choice, simply AI enhancement of the resolution messing with them or truly be artifacts of AI image generation.

So while it can represent certain aspects of Boeings future design, and obviously resembles some previous demonstrators I wouldn't go all in yet on saying that whatever was shown is 100% representative of the F-47A the USAF will put into service in the early to mid 2030s.

 

[dark sidius]

A possibility that also came to my mind but I'm not 100% sure about could be that the render shown was AI generated and slightly touched up by digital artists.

Because for example the stars on the US flag in the background struck me as rather off looking. That could be a stylistic choice, simply AI enhancement of the resolution messing with them or truly be artifacts of AI image generation.

So while it can represent certain aspects of Boeings future design, and obviously resembles some previous demonstrators I wouldn't go all in yet on saying that whatever was shown is 100% representative of the F-47A the USAF will put into service in the early to mid 2030s.

I disagree , with the strategy of communication of the USAF if it is like the B-21 the rendering was very near of the real aircraft, if think it is the same with the F-47 rendering.

 

[NovaGA]

A possibility that also came to my mind but I'm not 100% sure about could be that the render shown was AI generated and slightly touched up by digital artists.

Because for example the stars on the US flag in the background struck me as rather off looking. That could be a stylistic choice, simply AI enhancement of the resolution messing with them or truly be artifacts of AI image generation.

So while it can represent certain aspects of Boeings future design, and obviously resembles some previous demonstrators I wouldn't go all in yet on saying that whatever was shown is 100% representative of the F-47A the USAF will put into service in the early to mid 2030s.

I don’t think it is AI generated, I think it is heavily edited. Maybe even composed out of 3 images — flag, hangar and airframe. Maybe because the airframe is unfinished, or hasn’t flew yet(despite words by Trump that it has been flying for 5(?) years and will be subjected to major changes, so they don’t want to reveal too much of it. Time will tell, it is still interesting to speculate based on so little info.

 

[EmoBirb]

I disagree , with the strategy of communication of the USAF if it is like the B-21 the rendering was very near of the real aircraft, if think it is the same with the F-47 rendering.

Absolute fair point and I'm obviously not 100% sure. But I also feel like the AF handled the B-21 and F-47 very differently with regards to how they were presented to the public and the information around them.

 

[NovaGA]

You’ve actually inspired me to do two “renders”: one of “shown” F-47(XF-47?) 16-18 meters long with two F414, and hypothetical serial F-47A, 22-24 meters long on two F135 sized engines

 

[Brett Davidson]

I dig it, but are your inlets big enough? The Adaptive engines need more air than the F119 or F135.

OK, I am not a lawyer and neither do I play one on television. The same applies to my status as an aerodynamicist.

1. For a long time, aerodynamicists tried every trick to keep the inlets in clean air, unaffected by the fuselage. Podded engines, diverter plates etc. This went on right up to the F-22. Even the YF-23 had a porous skin just ahead of the inlet to deal with the boundary layer.

2. People working on hypersonics realised that they couldn't avoid taking account of the overall airframe because of the long narrow shock cones, so they started integrating airframes and inlets. See X-43 and any number of design studies for reference: spatulate nose ahead of a long ramp leading to a belly inlet.

3. Then aerodynamicists, with a lot more computing power at hand, realised that the fuselage can be an ally, and hence the diverterless inlets of relatively low Mach F-35, J-20, and Tempest. In the subsonic realm, the B-21 got low profile inlets and no diverter, contrasting with its B-2 predecessor.

4. Some commentators, looking at early models of Tempest thought that the inlets looked too small. However, one way to think of the inlets was to consider them as one inlet with the forward fuselage acting as a shock cone. The blue and yellow image of a wind tunnel model shows that the fuselage narrows greatly under the chines and the combined inlet is actually quite large. The current iteration also has a combined intake area much larger than would appear from some angles.

5. Both of the illustrations that we have seen so far conceal the area under the nose. I had speculated on the possibility of dorsal inlets since they had been so long an aspiration of Boeing's concepts. However, since the chines do widen aft of the canards, I suspect that rather than having relatively small cheek or armpit inlets, there's something sophisticated and secret going on under that nose that deliberately hasn't been shown. A couple of images I've added are of Boeing's proposal for the ATF programme (maybe 'YF-24') and another is of a fish.

 

[Brett Davidson]

Then there's how Boeing's F-32 would have looked, had it been selected. The F-47 would certainly be a lot more elegant than that of course but still in the same family with an intake integrated with the forebody.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Something about the renders seems to be very off. I find it hard to believe that this aircraft has canards so close to the front of it. Especially if it will be going anywhere near mach 2. Oh well. For me, it's time to throw in the towel until we get better material on this guy

The only thing that seems different is a slightly more forwards canard position, with a gap between the canard and wing leading edge
Other Boeing graphics have chines that end before the engine nacelles/intakes and canards mounted on the nacelles instead, that I think is a different configuration from the final design.

Very few people including artists have this observation. The canard rotation should not disrupt the air flow into intakes.
So 1 way is to position the canards on side of intakes:



A modified version of above would be to extend the chines sideways from inner corner of intake to outer corner.



This modification can be seen in F/A-XX concept of @Rodrigo Avella where canard rotation doesn't obstruct the intakes.

A few of the concepts Boeing explored in the past do show canards that are quite forward to the front of the aircraft.
But at this point I'm not even sure that what we are seeing here are really canards. The pictures have been heavily "played" with, so my assessment might be completely inaccurate, but I don't see hinge lines for them: maybe they don't pivot as normal canards do and, instead, they just...flex?
Would they still be canards if that were the case? Or maybe they are fixed?

Many small things are missing in the 2 posters like radome boundary, forward MADL & DAS sensors. I wonder why they had to disapper the canard into clouds.
Aero-elastic control surfaces have been showcased in recent past years, but they still flex w/o hinge in latitudinal axis.

 

[sf7pakistan]

They are extremely off.
The sensible option would just be to wait, as you rightly say, but this is the first aircraft in...I don't even know how many years, where I can just speculate and have some fun, without the urge to be as accurate as I can. I'll still try to use as much as I can from the images released, together with ideas that Boeing has pitched or worked on for real in the past, but knowing that I can be wrong without too many consequences, is quite the relief sometimes!
We might as well try our hand and see how close or far we get to the real deal, while we are at it.


A few of the concepts Boeing explored in the past do show canards that are quite forward to the front of the aircraft.
But at this point I'm not even sure that what we are seeing here are really canards. The pictures have been heavily "played" with, so my assessment might be completely inaccurate, but I don't see hinge lines for them: maybe they don't pivot as normal canards do and, instead, they just...flex?
Would they still be canards if that were the case? Or maybe they are fixed?
Only time will tell...


Maybe what they are hiding in those censored pictures they released, was a third dorsal inlet a la J-36 all along and I'll need to add that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


More of the beak:
View attachment 765938

Do you think that the canards are co-planar with the wing?

 

[CiTrus90]

Very few people including artists have this observation. The canard rotation should not disrupt the air flow into intakes.

It's part of the reason why I think the intakes might be positioned below and further to the back of what I suspect are LERXes, which to me appear located immediately behind the canards. Not sure if that could work, I'm no aerodynamicist, but it's part of what I'm seeing from the renders released so far.
Also, those might not be canards in the traditional sense (i.e. pivoting vs. flexing).
Also, the interior part of the canards might be fixed in place and only the outer portion could be pivoting.

Hey @CiTrus90 you really captured what I imagined it to look like very well.

I hope I'm still close to what you've imagined then!


If, once we get clear pictures of the F-47, I'm far off from the real deal, if there is anybody from Project Aces at Namco reading SPF who wants to give me a call for the next Ace Combat fictional aircraft, please feel free to do so!

A possibility that also came to my mind but I'm not 100% sure about could be that the render shown was AI generated and slightly touched up by digital artists.

I'm fairly positive it's not AI generated.
It is, like other posters already pointed out, done pretty much in the same style they used for the early B-21 renderings. It's been heavily tampered with, sure, but this is a 3d model made by somebody.

Do you think that the canards are co-planar with the wing?

For the moment, yes.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

It's part of the reason why I think the intakes might be positioned below and further to the back of what I suspect are LERXes, which to me appear located immediately behind the canards. Not sure if that could work, I'm no aerodynamicist, but it's part of what I'm seeing from the renders released so far.

That would be intakes like in EF-2000, MiG-1.44, etc. But that will increase height & RCS of the airframe.

Also, those might not be canards in the traditional sense (i.e. pivoting vs. flexing).
Also, the interior part of the canards might be fixed in place and only the outer portion could be pivoting.

Yes that's possible.
If some inner portion of canards are fixed then the intakes can be below them with space b/w them.

If you wanna know the answers then few things you have to implement -
- assume some total thrust of 2 engines.
- assume some constant ATWR.
- use volume calculator to not exceed design as per the ATWR.
- use area calulator & adjust the area of intakes, duct, engine diameter.
- make the duct serpentine enough so that engine is not visible.
That'll give the position & perhaps shape of intakes.

 

[sf7pakistan]

For the moment, yes.

Interesting because the images sure give the impression that the canards are set in a plane a bit higher than the wings. I thought that they were going for a good dogfighter with the design as the higher set canards would excite the air on top of the wings giving it good turn and high-AOA performance.

 

[Scott Kenny]

More of the beak:
View attachment 765938

That is a very slender nose... I was expecting something larger due to radar aperture needs, but how tall is the fuselage at the point where the cockpit bulge starts?

====================
@Rhinocrates fair point on the inlet sizing. I still think it looks small, but if the entire forward fuselage is acting as part of the shock cones it makes more sense.

Do you think that the canards are co-planar with the wing?

I'd be very surprised if they were not.

 

[4decaa]

Do you think that the canards are co-planar with the wing?

it is designed to be low observable. That means pointing as many surfaces in the same direction as possible to "collect" radar return spikes in certain aspects. This can be on any axis too. Hopefully this helps!

 

[CiTrus90]

If you wanna know the answers then few things you have to implement -
- assume some total thrust of 2 engines.
- assume some constant ATWR.
- use volume calculator to not exceed design as per the ATWR.
- use area calulator & adjust the area of intakes, duct, engine diameter.
- make the duct serpentine enough so that engine is not visible.
That'll give the position & perhaps shape of intakes.

Way too complicated for me
I am but a humble artist and not even that good at it. There are many more in just this thread who are significantly better than me.

Interesting because the images sure give the impression that the canards are set in a plane a bit higher than the wings.

Then we are not looking at the same images.

I thought that they were going for a good dogfighter with the design as the higher set canards would excite the air on top of the wings giving it good turn and high-AOA performance.

I believe you are mostly thinking of Eurocanards, but there are other canard fighters that exist as well.
Is the whole canard equipped Flanker family of Sukhois not maneuverable enough to your liking?
Mitsubishi T-2 CCV? McDD X-36? Chengdu J-20?
There is also quite a number of studies for stealth aircraft with canards on the same plane of the wings, just a couple that come to mind right now are the Northrop DP-21 and Lockheed JAST.

That is a very slender nose... I was expecting something larger due to radar aperture needs

It's quite consistent with renders released by Boeing for its F/A-XX concepts and a couple of patents. I was surprised as well when I noticed that the model I was making based on the USAF pictures started to match with them.
With regards to that, in retrospective, I'd say there is roughly 2 concepts that were the most pushed for PR at Boeing during all these years. If you check the nose shape, high cockpit and LERXes, those are all characteristics that have been pretty consistent in one of them (albeit, the canards appeared only on the other one).

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Way too complicated for me
I am but a humble artist and not even that good at it. There are many more in just this thread who are significantly better than me.

Don't take tension, everything has a start & takes time to improve.
Atleast some of the CAD S/w itself have the tool to manipulate shapes & 3D containers while maintaining constatnt area/volume. Otherwise manual measurement can aso be done.
You can take existing jets as base & expand them by 20/30/40/50% in X &/or Y &/or Z axis & discuss which one looks better.

 

[Brett Davidson]

That is a very slender nose... I was expecting something larger due to radar aperture needs, but how tall is the fuselage at the point where the cockpit bulge starts?

Possibly the radar is distributed around the airframe and there's no need to concentrate it in one antenna in the nosecone.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Possibly the radar is distributed around the airframe and there's no need to concentrate it in one antenna in the nosecone.

Conformal antennas, you think?

 

[Brett Davidson]

Conformal antennas, you think?

And more. This generation of plane won't just be flying through a physical environment, it'll be flying in cyberspace. 'Sensor fusion' was a popular term a few years back and it's probably gone a few steps beyond that now - all the information from various onboard IR, optical, and radar sensors with everything that can be added from offboard in CCAs and sateliltes will no doubt be synthesised by the onboard AI into something the pilot can handle in a relatively simple and coherent augmented reality display. It'll probably even be able to give recommendations on the best local restaurants.

 

[Brett Davidson]

Addendum. I posted somewhere something by someone arguing that future fighters should be two-seaters because they needed that second seat for a mission-specialist officer the handle the firehose of incoming information and the pack of CCAs. The alternative is that the 'quarterback' function of the 6th generation fighter means that the 'pilot' is actually the weapon systems officer and all the usual 'mundane' piloting duties are done by AI.

Link here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...rogramme-gcap-news-analysis.40657/post-775017
9. Single-seat WSO rather than single-seat pilot...

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

It's part of the reason why I think the intakes might be positioned below and further to the back of what I suspect are LERXes, which to me appear located immediately behind the canards. Not sure if that could work, I'm no aerodynamicist, but it's part of what I'm seeing from the renders released so far.
Also, those might not be canards in the traditional sense (i.e. pivoting vs. flexing).
Also, the interior part of the canards might be fixed in place and only the outer portion could be pivoting.

Great work!
Regarding the canards and LERXs, I also saw a separation in the line of the air intakes just behind the canards in the second image released by the USAF. Therefore, it's very likely that this aircraft has leading edge extensions and, ahead of them, a new type of canard, which, as they said in this forum, doesn't pivot in the conventional way, but instead flexes upward. This would create more space between them and the edge of the LERX to allow more airflow through at high angles of attack. I suppose this would create a vortex that passes over the canard and another that passes over the LERX, both joining at the wing root, which would create incredible lift.
It's just a guess, but as an idea, I think it's a very good one.
Regards!

 

[NightmareMoon3]

Great work!
Regarding the canards and LERXs, I also saw a separation in the line of the air intakes just behind the canards in the second image released by the USAF. Therefore, it's very likely that this aircraft has leading edge extensions and, ahead of them, a new type of canard, which, as they said in this forum, doesn't pivot in the conventional way, but instead flexes upward. This would create more space between them and the edge of the LERX to allow more airflow through at high angles of attack. I suppose this would create a vortex that passes over the canard and another that passes over the LERX, both joining at the wing root, which would create incredible lift.
It's just a guess, but as an idea, I think it's a very good one.
Regards!

 

[Halcyon66]

The canards could easily be composite and have no pivot point and can flex.

Flex beams in rotor heads have been used for a long time and they have a lot of considerable forces operating on them.

Could have embedded piezo actuators or the like.

Regards,

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Perhaps the easiest full-scale F-47 look-alike TD/prototype modified from existing jet F-22.
The wing & tail-stab positions are interchanged & rudders removed.
It is a quick, simple,notional edit, many small flaws can be observed by people into 3D CAD.
Making its front, side, bottom views w/o 3D S/w by just imagining is very tedious at this time, what i used to do on graph sheets in school-days in 1990s watching F-117, B-2, developing F-22 on Discovery channel. The good old days
Anyways, i wonder if LM built such a jet for competition or research.

 

[CiTrus90]

Well, I guess that's it from me for now.
I look forward to when we will get more pictures of the real F-47.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Well, I guess that's it from me for now.
I look forward to when we will get more pictures of the real F-47.
View attachment 766259
View attachment 766260

How does it look from top, bottm, front, back?

 

[CiTrus90]

How does it look from top, bottm, front, back?

 

[FlyGuy369]

This is the best I've seen, I love this

 

[Archibald]

This is the best I've seen, I love this

Seconded ! Beautiful. I'm so jealous what talented people can do with CGI nowadays, aaaaargh.

 

[bring_it_on]

Well, I guess that's it from me for now.
I look forward to when we will get more pictures of the real F-47.
View attachment 766259
View attachment 766260

This is great. Thanks for sharing.

 

[EmoBirb]

Well, I guess that's it from me for now.
I look forward to when we will get more pictures of the real F-47.
View attachment 766259
View attachment 766260

Pure perfection. I hope it looks close to this

Edit: you should also consider putting a watermark on your stuff. Otherwise we'll soon see it on TWZ or Sandboxx as exclusive looks at the F-47 of the AF

 

[Low IQ Techie]

@CiTrus90 , excellent work. It's not very high-res pic but it is nice to see 2 tandem IWBs (Internal Weapons Bays).
The intakes need to be bigger, atleast double than current area. The engine bay humps can be slanted for RCS reduction rather than curved, something like following:



You can also show comparison with F-22 & some animation of weapons bays, control surfaces, etc. That would be mind blowing.

 

[bob225]

Fabulous work, just watch out for the men or ladies in black knocking on your door very soon asking where you got your info!!

 

[pedrospe]

Well, I guess that's it from me for now.
I look forward to when we will get more pictures of the real F-47.
View attachment 766259
View attachment 766260

Looks very good

 

[TomTom]

Perhaps the easiest full-scale F-47 look-alike TD/prototype modified from existing jet F-22.
The wing & tail-stab positions are interchanged & rudders removed.
It is a quick, simple,notional edit, many small flaws can be observed by people into 3D CAD.
Making its front, side, bottom views w/o 3D S/w by just imagining is very tedious at this time, what i used to do on graph sheets in school-days in 1990s watching F-117, B-2, developing F-22 on Discovery channel. The good old days
Anyways, i wonder if LM built such a jet for competition or research.

View attachment 766194

This is the kind of "kitbash" I love to play with, to generate design ideas ^^