Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

We.lovejets said:
View attachment 763785This first render gives me strong Bird of Prey vibes but this was sourced back from 2011. View attachment 763786I totally forgot Boeing was supposed to build F/A-XX as well. I’m loving this render.
Click to expand...
The wing planform of the Boeing F/A=50 Bullfrog reminds us of the Dassault Mirage III or HAL Tejas, albeit with at stealthier fuselage.
Extending the center trailing edge farther aft allows for a longer tail moment arm - which is better for pitch stability and control.
The chines with sharp corners will generate a vortex - at steep angles of attack - which will help keep airflow attached to the top of the wing (ala. SAAB Viggen).
 
njiiaf said:
I just had a thought, will there be a Lockheed protest?
Click to expand...
Possible, but I suspect that the reason Boeing won is political, not technical.

LockMart is up to their eyeballs in F-35 production, and NG dropped out of the USAF contest entirely a couple years ago.

Giving the F-47 to Boeing keeps 3 primes in the defense business.


quellish said:
Most interesting thing in this rendering is the nose wheel.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a single nosewheel. For as heavy as I'm expecting the plane to be (~105klbs MTOW), that surprises me!



phantomphan said:
And if Boeing do win the Navy competition with a similar or same design, how could it not be Phantom III, because:

1. Same design serving Air Force and Navy
2. Phantom Works designed it
3. I'm biased

Or maybe the Specter? A homage to what the Phantom had once been called by the AF?
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a chance in hell of Boeing winning both with the same design. USAF needs 50% more range, and USN has weight and size limits that make it very difficult to get the range the Navy wants, let alone the range the USAF wants. Carrier catapults limit the MTOW to maybe 90,000lbs (heaviest naval aircraft was 83k MTOW), and the arresting gear maxes out at about 55,000lbs. So we're talking about a plane that is no more than 45,000lbs empty, 5000lbs of weapons or so, 5000lbs of fuel.

In the hypothetical case Boeing did win, I'd hope for Specter/Spectre.
 
Justo Miranda said:
Boeing hasn't sold a fighter since the P-26 in 1935, and its prestige isn't at its best.
Click to expand...
While the original Boeing had sold no fighter, McD, whose board has taken over the majority after these two merged, has built world-renowned planes like the Phantom, Eagle and Hornet. Two of them are in service and one is still being built today in numbers.
 
sanjeev.k said:
If its really going to be called F-47, why not call it 'Thunderbolt' (An obvious homage to the WW2 P-47 Thunderbolt, which I think
was used in the Pacific campaign - and anyway the NGAD will also be used in a pacific campaign again - against the Chicoms.
If that F-47 is an upscaled bird of prey - I am just surprised how come Sukhoi notional 6-th gen fighter placeholder also seems
to be based on the 'bird-of-prey' planform. Coincidence - or not?
Click to expand...

When the Fairchild-Republic A-10 was selected by the USAF in January 1973 it was formally given the name Thunderbolt II.

Despite that name rarely being used compared to the nickname "Warthog", it is still the official name - just like the F-16 still being named Fighting Falcon, not "Viper".
 
yeetmahboi said:
While the original Boeing had sold no fighter, McD, whose board has taken over the majority after these two merged, has built world-renowned planes like the Phantom, Eagle and Hornet. Two of them are in service and one is still being built today in numbers.
Click to expand...
That's true, but it seems to suggest that you can only make good fighters without the Boeing logo.
 
Joint Soviet Fighter said:
Can't wait for the likes of Justin Bronk, Alex Hollings, & The War Zone, etc., to tell us that canards are a revolutionary concept & are somehow ideal for stealth aircraft, & you know it...:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...
Twz already went towards explaining everything through disinformation.
Breaking news, oval office directly deceives citizens!
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Twz already went towards explaining everything through disinformation.
Breaking news, oval office directly deceives it's citizens!
Click to expand...

The evolution of "The Warzone" has been fun to spectate over time, though things change when you essentially become a defense industry influencer.

The site could definitely benefit from a format & delivery overhaul *cough*.

Tyler, if you're reading this, maybe you should do a public call for information on China's development programs. Cross reference it with your DoD sources and cause some ripples. There's a reason symbolism and audience reach are important to both the PLA & DOD.

Also, maybe ask when a possible public demonstration of Boeing's offering will come around ;).
 
Ward Carroll has uploaded a video to do with the F-47 and he's discussing it with AW&ST reporter Steve Trimble:


President Trump just announced that Boeing has been selected to develop the F-47, the sixth generation strike/fighter that's been shrouded in mystery for years now. Aviation Week reporter Steve Trimble joins Mooch to discuss the details of the selection process and what's next for the program.
Click to expand...
 
NMaude said:
Ward Carroll has uploaded a video to do with the F-47 and he's discussing it with AW&ST reporter Steve Trimble:

Click to expand...

“Shrouded in mystery”.
Seriously?
 
Also note the sharp edge of the wing behind the blade of the forward horizontal tail. This solution was only found on the MiG-1.44 (among highly maneuverable aircraft)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Possible, but I suspect that the reason Boeing won is political, not technical.

LockMart is up to their eyeballs in F-35 production, and NG dropped out of the USAF contest entirely a couple years ago.

Giving the F-47 to Boeing keeps 3 primes in the defense business.

Yeah, it's a single nosewheel. For as heavy as I'm expecting the plane to be (~105klbs MTOW), that surprises me!




I don't think there is a chance in hell of Boeing winning both with the same design. USAF needs 50% more range, and USN has weight and size limits that make it very difficult to get the range the Navy wants, let alone the range the USAF wants. Carrier catapults limit the MTOW to maybe 90,000lbs (heaviest naval aircraft was 83k MTOW), and the arresting gear maxes out at about 55,000lbs. So we're talking about a plane that is no more than 45,000lbs empty, 5000lbs of weapons or so, 5000lbs of fuel.

In the hypothetical case Boeing did win, I'd hope for Specter/Spectre.
Click to expand...

I do not think F-47 is remotely as large as what you are expecting. The Boeing renders and these renders seem to suggest something more F-22 sized. The presence of canards might indeed make it more conducive to slow stall speeds, such that the Boeing FA-XX submission could be very similar in size and layout. I would still bet on NG.
 
Last edited:
Goha said:
Also note the sharp edge of the wing behind the blade of the forward horizontal tail. This solution was only found on the MiG-1.44 (among highly maneuverable aircraft)
Click to expand...

It's hard to make any assumptions of the primary wing structure aft of the canards with current public images.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1903208322419032235
View: https://x.com/OfficialCSAF/status/1903208322419032235

The F-47 designation was chosen in consultation with @secdef & carries multiple significant meanings. It honors the legacy of the P-47, whose contributions to air superiority during WW2 remain historic (1/2).
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903208798531228116
View: https://x.com/OfficialCSAF/status/1903208798531228116
Also, the number pays tribute to the founding year of our incredible @usairforce, while also recognizing the 47th @POTUS’s pivotal support for the development of the world’s FIRST sixth-generation fighter (2/2).
Click to expand...

So, it's official.
 
Josh_TN said:
Russian rates of production are pretty low; I cannot imagine them building an entire new aircraft design as a F47 response when the Su-57 purchase is still under 100 and actual production is around two dozen. They are not broke, but they have liquidated nearly 2/3s of their sovereign wealth fund, have half a trillion in frozen assets, and major decreases in gas and even oil production, on top of downward sloping prices. They are effectively in a wartime economy already, and they will likely stay that way indefinitely even post war rebuilding the army.
Click to expand...

Thank you JoshTN, what you are showcasing is a difference in approach to national defense.

The DOD is literally forced to focus on all of the major COCOMs around the world and doing what's necessary to provide a deterrent force to maintain superiority. China & Russia focus more on domestic defense. The cost/benefit ratio bends in favor of national defense due to the expected threat environment being less broad & more predictable.

I think it's very necessary to look through the lens of the RF, PLA, & DOD when comparing strategic objectives in air dominance going into the future. Those emphasizing domestic security will have a leg up because space based sensors can detect airborne aircraft and feed that into defense networks...
 
In regards to the canards relation to RCS, couple things to note:

1) Not all canards are the same

2) Certain canards have RCS penalty but that doesn't mean no engineering solution(s) exist to compensate or reduce the RCS penalty to meet certain RCS requirements from customer. This applies to the V tail vs conventional tail layout of yf-23 vs yf-22. And this applies to the j-20 and the Boeing proposal. So yes, canards can potentially have RCS penalty but an aircraft with canards can deft be stealthy.

Let's consider even further. What are some of the canard designs that potentially have RCS penalty:

1) frontal gap where the wing root meets the body.
2) canards have dihedral angle while wings are horizontal to the ground.

We see that f-47 canards 1) completely blend, at least frontal view, to the body and do not expose any gap and 2) both canards and wings have same dihedral angle, bringing them in complete surface orientation alignment. This is very akin to characteristic of the christmas tree fighter design from northrop, which is considered the stealthiest among the 3 studies that eventually led to the yf-23 by eliminating an additional RCS spike angle created by the plane's forebody.
 
Last edited:
Considering the time, it takes to design, build, test, and put into service a new type of fighter jet, it would be safe to predict that if the F-47 ever comes into combat, it will do so in a very different world from the one that deemed necessary during the previous generation.
 
Hood said:
Can't wait for the DoD to tell us they named it Peashooter II because it has the RCS of a frozen petits pois and honours the great legacy of Boeing's fighter lineage and because it does cool shooty things to shoot planes down.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it, if they carry on honoring the P-47 with the "Thunderbolt" moniker, they it should be Thunderbolt III, because A-10.
 
Question: we knew Safran, France, developed the landing gear for one of the prototypes. Was that this one or LM's? What do you think?

IMO, the one we are given to see does not require such expertise as Safran could have brought-in.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom