Does anyone know more details about this concept？I’m not sure whether this diagram comes from original concept or is just the author’s own theoretical deduction.
The original image came from a northrop PPT slide that may or may not have had anything to do with ESAV. All the original ppt slide talked about was a parameterized auto modeling software for aircraft. The numbers you see are actually backfilled by the author (and the guy posting it is most definitely not the origin of the corrections either) because the original slide had large writing covering a lot of numbers. I wouldbt use that slide for anything because again - its purpose was to demonstrate parameterized aircraft design software.
Yes FighterJock, fully agree.
I hope they don't hose the F-47 so badly that we end up with a land-based F/A-XX as a consolation prize.
I'm sure NG planning on using a variant of B-21 LO treatment to their F/A-XX for the carrier environment or possibly limited-LO with the USN's blessing, sea water environment can be brutal. Look at some of the recent F-35C videos which appear to be various areas of oxidation but I could be wrong.
For Boeing, could be constipation prize?
Which I took to mean the Lockheed proposal looked a lot like the X-44.
I suspect the reduced-maintenance stealth coatings will be used. But I'm not sure what else could transfer. The B-21 is basically little more than a B-2 with current-gen electronics, aside from the stealth coatings. It was all mature tech to keep the costs down.
That is why the Lockheed NATF and both proposals for A/F-X had swing wings.
I found the slides you mentioned on the forum, yet I can’t identify any specific correlation between the diagram in the paper and this slide. Could you track down the paper or presentation slides where this diagram originally appears?
The 1200 nm combat radius target and 45 tonne max takeoff weight have nothing to do with F/A-XX. We now know F/A-XX’s combat radius is a little shorter than F-47’s 1000 nm. This specific number comes from the combat radius target cited earlier as an example for Japan’s next-generation fighter jet.
I calculated it based on 125% of the F-35C's combat radius.
MTOW I am. That's set by the catapult, and the EMALS is said to be able to handle 90-100klbs depending on who is talking. France has said 45 tonnes.
Been doing some more reading of the F-47 related development up until now and it would appear that things are not going poorly. Some "visionary" ideas early in the program have certainly been given reality checks (and for good reason) and thats shaped what the program looks like now, which in my opinion has been taken in a more responsible direction. Of publicly known program leadership, there are some program level management that oversaw the B-21 development that is now responsible for F-47 stuff too.
I really hope you're correct, because we cannot exactly afford for Boeing to collapse due to incompetence.
I think purely for industrial-base reasons NG is going to get FAXX.
Are there any industry rumors yet like there were before the F-47 contract award?
View: https://x.com/AWN_Japan/status/2085543346190397441?s=20
I really don't know regarding this one FighterJock, maybe live or with Trump like the F-47. Since it seems the USN may have been working with NG at least around the time of the Boeing and LM NGAD demonstrator flight testing, there may be an NG F/A-XX demonstrator but of course that won't be released, we'll have to wait and see. If NG is expanding facilities, this could be an indicator that NG will win. I went to Boeing-St Louis before F-47 was announced and I asked one of our engineering hosts about the new construction and he stated very excited, "Oh that's for NGAD". At that point, I knew Boeing had won.
My understanding is that NG eventually wants to shift all of their engineering (and manufacturing, possibly?) to Melbourne. Haven't seen this as a publicly announced strategy, but I was told so by a higher level manager working at NG (grain of salt). but it makes sense since there have been issues with engineering/manufacturing being on the same page when they are divided between Melbourne and Palmdale. There's also precedent for them consolidating their programs in Melbourne, as they moved their entire E-2 program from Bethpage, NY to Melbourne.
Likely a protest from whoever loses, a few months of deliberation, then once it's all finalized:
NG designed B-21 in FL. NG will keep their Palmdale facilities due to EAFB and the proximity to the southwest ranges including the Nellis AFB complex. You also have Mojave and there are "other" special programs there primarily with Scaled Composites. Companies want to leave CA and can you blame them.
Or maybe they just decided not to deal with that nonsense anymore and put stipulations in the contracts. "If you lose, take it like a man."
B-21 had engineering in both locations and still does to this day. But yes you’re correct in saying they want to leave CA because it’s more expensive. That’s the rationale I was told.
Without getting too deep in the weeds, LMT didn’t protest because they simply weren’t competitive enough. Boeing absolutely would’ve protested had they ruled the other way.
If true that's kind of mind-boggling. Makes one wonder if they got complacent. You'd think the YF-23 would have put the fear of God in them. (Makes me wonder what they thought the first time they saw it.)
It’s hard to make a business case to try and go all-out for the win when you already have a massive backlog of F-35 and F-16 production for the foreseeable future. Their overall strategy (from what i gather) was to offer something evolutionary that met all the design requirements, but try to lobby the Airforce into believing that the F-35 in upgraded form (hence the “Ferrari” F-35 comments from late 2025) could be a sufficient enough replacement given cost concerns.
To be fair, I'd guess that failed Northrop and McDonnell bids in ATF and JSF respectively should've done the opposite.
The Northrop/McD JSF failed because the USMC said they didn't want two types of turbofans in their jet. So Northrop/McD did it anyway. Their failure was fairly predictable. In fact the shaft-driven lift fan was the riskier move and LM was rewarded for it.
I can tell you exactly what several Lockheed test pilots said, "bad ramp presence, doesn't look like a real fighter." They compared it to a butterfly tail Bonanza. I wouldn't be surprised that attitude was found elsewhere in the company.
"Bad ramp presence"? Maybe that's why the X-32 lost.
