Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

Ainen said:
By the way, it may be far too early to say, but at least from current shown angles(which arguably represent main air combat aspects), aircraft lacks any visible IRST or optics whatsoever.
Click to expand...

At the risk of stating the obvious, the render also lacks engines and exhaust and several other extremely critical/essential features..so I won't be worried about IR sensors being absent from the teaser.. ;)
 
Jacky said:
In my personal opinion, Pratt&Whitney's poor performance in TF30-P-412/414 and F401-PW-400 has left a very negative impression on the Navy. Secondly, variable cycle engines have better fuel efficiency than traditional engines, which is beneficial for extending the range. GE has more experience in variable cycle technology than Pratt&Whitney.
Click to expand...
What I know is the tacair side of the Navy (acquisition, fleet operations & support) is pro-GE. They aren't necessarily anti-P&W -- their collective memory doesn't reach back to the F-14 days. All those folks are either retired or taking a dirt nap.

I also know that Navy acquisition is generally careful about providing a level playing field in competitive situations, so I have no reason to think P&W was not given a fair and even-handed opportunity in F/A-XX.

Somewhat OT: I don't ever feel bad for Pratt & Whiskey, ever since they were somehow sole source in the earliest days of classified ASTOVL/SSF with a refanned F119. The ATF engine competition decision, F119 vs F120, was not made for another 3 or so years. No idea how DARPA/NASA/ONR could have possibly written a legitimate J&A -- my guess is they never bothered.
 
Stargazer said:
My thoughts exactly; just like there is a Globemaster III, it will be a Thunderbolt III. Has to be. Otherwise, why bother skipping to -47? The fact that they didn't skip straight up to F-51 Mustang III makes me wonder if they might have another fighter up their sleeve, though...
Click to expand...

P-47 was used in the Pacific theatre but is primarily known for its use in Europe. It was relatively short-legged and a bit chonky but durable and excellent in the ground attack role. None of that makes any sense for the F-47.

Logically, it was named F-47 for Trump, and the other two reasons were formed backwards from that point.
 
Last edited:
joshjosh said:

DARPA X-planes paved the way for the F-47 | DARPA

www.darpa.mil www.darpa.mil

Quellish was likely referencing this article when he mentioned the Air Dominance Initiative
Click to expand...

I was not. I was referencing 10 years of congressional testimony, reports provided to congress, technical reports produced by the services, budget requests, and a lot more.

I have seen various internet chatter in the last day saying, basically, that Lockheed should have won the contract because when was the last time Boeing produced a low observable anything.

The fact is that Boeing has one of the best low observables teams in the industry and has for a long time. They have done cutting edge work that has earned recognition from their peers and customers. An example:

 
quellish said:
1. The Air Dominance Initiative identified a set of technologies/capabilities they thought would be essential for the next generation of "air dominance". These were demonstrated on the aircraft
2. All of the things needed to support those technologies like new manufacturing techniques etc
3. Tailless supersonic cruise

And the most important, they had to demonstrate they still knew how to build a new design fighter. This isn't a joke, a primary reason for doing the demonstrators was to keep the industrial base healthy. Every time funding was not on schedule or there was a threat of sequestration this was brought up.
Click to expand...
Re: Will Roper's famous quotes “All I can say is that the NGAD test flights have been amazing — records have been broken,” and “... I’ve been impressed by how well the digital technology truly transitions to the real world.”
breakingdefense.com

Secret NGAD Fighter Flies, Sets Records, Raises Lot Of Questions - Breaking Defense

"All I can say is that the NGAD test flights have been amazing -- records have been broken," Will Roper says.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

I see Roper referring to Boeing's superb execution in terms of design, build and test. I've been told that Boeing's demonstrator aircraft "hit it out of the park".

Boeing apparently completed their initial flight test program about the time Lockheed was getting started. I'm told that Lockheed suffered from significant schedule problems as well as several technical glitches with their aircraft.

Typical with DARPA programs, costs are shared among military sponsors and the prime contractor. USAF and Navy contributed significant funds, but I don't think there's any chance that the DARPA-led ADI (Kendall's baby) had separate demonstrators for the two services. In fact, I can't think of a single classified Navy-unique aircraft tech demonstrator, ever.

The biggest open mystery to me is what, if anything, Northrop was/has/is doing with ADI, NGAD and F/A-XX.
 
quellish said:
I was not. I was referencing 10 years of congressional testimony, reports provided to congress, technical reports produced by the services, budget requests, and a lot more.

I have seen various internet chatter in the last day saying, basically, that Lockheed should have won the contract because when was the last time Boeing produced a low observable anything.

The fact is that Boeing has one of the best low observables teams in the industry and has for a long time. They have done cutting edge work that has earned recognition from their peers and customers. An example:

Click to expand...
And they do have these but no idea how LO they are:

MQ-25_refuels_F-35C_(cropped).jpg

5UWRBSCDRVIQHD6YSLPNCI3E7U.jpg
 
joewee said:
Typical with DARPA programs, costs are shared among military sponsors and the prime contractor. USAF and Navy contributed significant funds, but I don't think there's any chance that the DARPA-led ADI (Kendall's baby) had separate demonstrators for the two services.
Click to expand...

There were separate demonstrators for the two services.

From Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD JANUARY 28, 2015, H.A.S.C. No. 114–2

The Aerospace Innovation Initiative is consistent with one of the Better Buying Power 3.0 initiatives on prototyping and experimen- tation. And what it will be is a program that will be initially led by DARPA, but it will involve the Navy and the Air Force as well. And the intent is to develop prototypes for the next generation of air dominance platforms, X-Plane programs, if you will. To be com- petitive, the Navy and the Air Force will each have a variant that is focused on their mission requirements. There will be a tech- nology period leading up to the development of the prototypes, and it will be consistent with what we talked about earlier. We will do the upfront work to make sure you are doing the right thing but then reduce the lead time to having the next-generation capabili- ties. So this is the—this will lead to the systems that will ulti- mately come after the F–35, essentially.
Click to expand...

And there are many more like this in various congressional testimony, program documents, etc. It was always going to be Air Force and Navy demonstrators in this program.

joewee said:
In fact, I can't think of a single classified Navy-unique aircraft tech demonstrator, ever.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head:

Boeing Condor

Lockheed Sea Shadow

Boeing UCLASS demonstrator that became MQ-25
 
review_a-jpg.763930


You can see here that the "high stealth, high agility" design adds canards to essentially a four-lobe B-2 derivative planform.

dbc-stealth-interceptor-1983sm-png.180819

The Northrop "Xmas Tree" high stealth ATF has essentially a similar design. Not the control surfaces on the rear of a fixed canard - this is one way to build a stealthy canard (front part is fixed, deep RAS structure, doesn't move - rear moves, sealed with with flexible skin on potentially locks in place for high stealth scenarios but unlocks when needed for agility).
 
flateric said:
some 2409 / X-36 planform heritage vibes?
Click to expand...
This is the closest I can place the second rendering to though there's so little released that it is difficult to make out what's real vs what's more of a placeholder. If true though this will be a very distinct looking aircraft. Certainly far away from an 'evolutionary' advancement over F-22/F-35 designs
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-03-22 at 5.44.43 PM.png
    Screenshot 2025-03-22 at 5.44.43 PM.png
    303.2 KB · Views: 197
Perhaps this might have been posted in previous pages, but based on the DARPA timeline, is it to be understood that Boeing's demonstrator flew in 2019 and LM in 2022? And only one of each? So NG was not part of this then, any info if/when they flew any of their demonstrators, presumably for USN?

DARPA X-planes paved the way for the F-47 | DARPA

www.darpa.mil www.darpa.mil
 
1. Do designations run out/not carry over from older designs? Does the P-47 not already hold the "47" designation?

2. Interesting how Boeing got picked given their recent controversies. As some have said, a good design also needs good money and promotion to get picked. I know that their controversies have been more civil aviation oriented, but still.
 
Airborne2001 said:
1. Do designations run out/not carry over from older designs? Does the P-47 not already hold the "47" designation?
Click to expand...
There was once was a system of assigning names logically, but now its a free-for-all.

Airborne2001 said:
2. Interesting how Boeing got picked given their recent controversies. As some have said, a good design also needs good money and promotion to get picked. I know that their controversies have been more civil aviation oriented, but still.
Click to expand...
Different parts of Boeing. Phantom Works did a good job on their NGAD X-Plane.
 
quellish said:
There were separate demonstrators for the two services.

From Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD JANUARY 28, 2015, H.A.S.C. No. 114–2

And there are many more like this in various congressional testimony, program documents, etc. It was always going to be Air Force and Navy demonstrators in this program.

The Aerospace Innovation Initiative is consistent with one of the Better Buying Power 3.0 initiatives on prototyping and experimen- tation. And what it will be is a program that will be initially led by DARPA, but it will involve the Navy and the Air Force as well. And the intent is to develop prototypes for the next generation of air dominance platforms, X-Plane programs, if you will. To be com- petitive, the Navy and the Air Force will each have a variant that is focused on their mission requirements. There will be a tech- nology period leading up to the development of the prototypes, and it will be consistent with what we talked about earlier. We will do the upfront work to make sure you are doing the right thing but then reduce the lead time to having the next-generation capabili- ties. So this is the—this will lead to the systems that will ulti- mately come after the F–35, essentially.
Click to expand...
This 2015 item about DARPA ADI/AII program plans is news to me, thanks. However, the info I have from 'participants' who would know, says there was no Navy-unique aircraft demonstrator built and flown by Boeing or Lockheed, although I have not had the nerve to ask this question directly. Another thought: for Boeing to have flown in 2019 (per the darpa.mil blurb) means the Navy needed to have their unique requirements nailed down in the 2015-17 timeframe -- this is highly unlikely based on my second-hand knowledge.
 
Last edited:
So people here have noticed that the F-47 nose landing gear only has one tire, which hints that the MTOW is likely not that high, and indicates that the aircraft isn't as huge as some had thought. In fact, if F-47 really is about the size of an F-22 as some said, but with much lighter structural weight for more fuel fraction, based on that information I'm making my rough estimate on F-47.

Empty weight: 39,000 lbs (over 4,000 lbs lighter than F-22)
Fuel: 25,000 lbs, 0.64 empty fuel fraction,
Weapons: 6x AIM-260 JATM, assuming 350 lbs per missile, and 2x AIM-9X, 2,476 lbs
Takeoff weight: ~66,700 lbs (assuming 200 lb pilot)
Thrust: 2x XA102/XA103 each producing 35,000lbf thrust
T/W ratio: 1.05 at takeoff weight
g-limit: +7.33 (even most maneuverable fighter only sustain 9g under 10,000ft anyways)

This gives a loaded fuel fraction of 0.375, and using the Breguet range equation as a surrogate for combat radius, this means that just by fuel fraction alone, range has increased by 43.6% from the F-22's combat radius numbers of 595nmi subsonic and 460nmi with 100nmi supercruise. Combine that with the NGAP goal of increase mixed supersonic/subsonic combat radius by 38%, and assuming that the NGAD/PCA has 30% better L/D due to more advanced aerodynamics over the past 30 years, you get about 1,200nmi combat radius with 260nmi in supercruise.

For the F-47 to be about the same size as an F-22, that's extremely impressive, but it goes to show what 30 years of advancement in aerodynamics and propulsion can achieve.

But the fact that the F-47 is not a very large aircraft, at least not much different from legacy fighters, has interesting implications in terms of operational usage. That could mean it can operate from shorter and more austere runways compared to a large aircraft, which may be critical for INDOPACOM, being able to use smaller Second Island Chain bases. And also use existing shelters and infrastructure. So that means, it can operate from the same kind of shorter, austere bases that the F-22 has recently been deploying out of in their ACE testing.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
Empty weight: 39,000 lbs (over 4,000 lbs lighter than F-22)
Fuel: 25,000 lbs, 0.64 empty fuel fraction,
Weapons: 6x AIM-260 JATM, assuming 350 lbs per missile, and 2x AIM-9X, 2,476 lbs
Takeoff weight: ~66,700 lbs (assuming 200 lb pilot)
Thrust: 2x XA102/XA103 each producing 35,000lbf thrust
T/W ratio: 1.05 at takeoff weight
g-limit: +7.33 (even most maneuverable fighter only sustain 9g under 10,000ft anyways)
Click to expand...

The fuel fraction and overall size is fairly close to what we had discussed a few months back on the other thread IIRC. 25-28K lbs of internal fuel was my rough estimate as well though few folks had it top off at above 30K lbs. Both are certainly possible but I'm leaning towards roughly F-22 size or within 10% or so of it.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
So people here have noticed that the F-47 nose landing gear only has one tire, which hints that the MTOW is likely not that high, and indicates that the aircraft isn't as huge as some had thought. In fact, if F-47 really is about the size of an F-22 as some said, but with much lighter structural weight for more fuel fraction, based on that information I'm making my rough estimate on F-47.

Empty weight: 39,000 lbs (over 4,000 lbs lighter than F-22)
Fuel: 25,000 lbs, 0.64 empty fuel fraction,
Weapons: 6x AIM-260 JATM, assuming 350 lbs per missile, and 2x AIM-9X, 2,476 lbs
Takeoff weight: ~66,700 lbs (assuming 200 lb pilot)
Thrust: 2x XA102/XA103 each producing 35,000lbf thrust
T/W ratio: 1.05 at takeoff weight
g-limit: +7.33 (even most maneuverable fighter only sustain 9g under 10,000ft anyways)

This gives a loaded fuel fraction of 0.375, and using the Breguet range equation as a surrogate for combat radius, this means that just by fuel fraction alone, range has increased by 43.6% from the F-22's combat radius numbers of 595nmi subsonic and 460nmi with 100nmi supercruise. Combine that with the NGAP goal of increase mixed supersonic/subsonic combat radius by 38%, and assuming that the NGAD/PCA has 30% better L/D due to more advanced aerodynamics over the past 30 years, you get about 1,200nmi combat radius with 260nmi in supercruise.

For the F-47 to be about the same size as an F-22, that's extremely impressive, but it goes to show what 30 years of advancement in aerodynamics and propulsion can achieve.

But the fact that the F-47 is not a very large aircraft, at least not much different from legacy fighters, has interesting implications in terms of operational usage. That could mean it can operate from shorter and more austere runways compared to a large aircraft, which may be critical for INDOPACOM, being able to use smaller Second Island Chain bases. And also use existing shelters and infrastructure. So that means, it can operate from the same kind of shorter, austere bases that the F-22 has recently been deploying out of in their ACE testing.
Click to expand...
I get slightly less than 1000nm combat range out of my calculations.

Anyways, it still feels like it'll come short of what the Chinese have displayed recently. Those large EO windows on the J-36 will be able to detect the F-47 at hundreds of miles away to enable the large aperture radar to pencil beam focus for XLRAAM shots. NGAD in dreams, not irl.
 
bring_it_on said:
The fuel fraction and overall size is fairly close to what we had discussed a few months back on the other thread IIRC. 25-28K lbs of internal fuel was my rough estimate as well though few folks had it top off at above 30K lbs. Both are certainly possible but I'm leaning towards roughly F-22 size or within 10% or so of it.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind F-22 and F-35 costs, and present constrained budgets, to me an 'F-111-sized' NGAD (fleet) always seemed very unrealistic.
 
I’d be disappointed if it couldn’t match a Super Hornets 12x air to air missile beast mode and carry at least two large weapons internally.

Could the dihedral effect on the images be exaggerated by a short nose gear leg?
 
quellish said:
Off the top of my head:

Boeing Condor

Lockheed Sea Shadow

Boeing UCLASS demonstrator that became MQ-25
Click to expand...
Boeing Condor -- yep, definitely a Navy (ONR) classified flight demo program. I had carrier-based on my mind, not a land-based ISR platform.

Lockheed Sea Shadow -- yep, definitiely a Navy (ONR) classified demo program, but not an aircraft.

Boeing UCLASS -- the link's info is a bit sketchy, not sure what to make of it. I know Boeing was disappointed with their loss of the N-UCAV demonstrator to Northrop (X-45N vs X-47B). It's certainly possible that Boeing went ahead with a self-funded (fully or partially) classified UCLASS demonstrator (of carrier-suitability and shipboard C3) after Naval UCAV went away, but again I'm having trouble with this idea from a money perspective (not a compelling business case for Boeing; too much intra-Navy competition for limited technology R&D dollars). A related sidenote: the CBARS program, which led to the MQ-25, never had a Navy operational or engineering requirement for low RCS or IR signature. Any planform shaping or inlet/nozzle design features were incorporated by way of Boeing's own initiative, probably from their internal work and vision of future UCLASS-like missions derivatives and/or more survivable tanking aircraft.
 
Dreamfighter said:
Keeping in mind F-22 and F-35 costs, and present constrained budgets, to me an 'F-111-sized' NGAD (fleet) always seemed very unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Kendall stated $300 MM cost for NGAD in 2024. Assuming that's in 2018 dollars or thereabouts that's about 30-40% or so more than what we were paying for F-22's once you adjust for inflation (F-22A would be like $200+ MM now even if you kept everything the same on the platform). You can big very large aircraft and keep going for requirements demanding a large heavy craft but then at some point it becomes just expensive as a B-21. This is not a problem unique to the USAF. I like the fact that CSAF put it in his comments / statement that the NGAD platform fleet will be larger than the F-22. We are looking at hundreds of these.
 
Last edited:
Given that it's the lynchpin of a family of tactical integrated systems which emphasizes armed and possibly decoy drone systems why would the manned vehicle necessarily have to be a traditional heavy fighter with a mixed load of up to 8 missiles like the F-22? It could actually be a bit lighter with less missiles and use the saved space for extra fuel fraction. The Raptor gained a bit of weight due to meddling which meant instead of a pure A-A platform they wanted to put 2 1000lb JDAMS into it. It was known as the F/A-22 for awhile there.
 
tacitblue1973 said:
Given that it's the lynchpin of a family of tactical integrated systems which emphasizes armed and possibly decoy drone systems why would the manned vehicle necessarily have to be a traditional heavy fighter with a mixed load of up to 8 missiles like the F-22? It could actually be a bit lighter with less missiles and use the saved space for extra fuel fraction. The Raptor gained a bit of weight due to meddling which meant instead of a pure A-A platform they wanted to put 2 1000lb JDAMS into it. It was known as the F/A-22 for awhile there.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle, but it is hard to imagine NGAD would not be future proofed with a 6-8 AAM capability. What I think might be lacking, especially compared to “J36”, is a deep bomb bay for oversized weapons. I think this is a longer ranged, more technically capable F-22, not a modern FB-111 or J36 analog. IMO they clearly went a smaller, lighter route, and I suspect payload was the first thing thrown out - a modest amount of AIM-120/260 and that’s it. If a heavy hitter is needed, call in a B-21.
 
Airborne2001 said:
1. Do designations run out/not carry over from older designs? Does the P-47 not already hold the "47" designation?
Click to expand...

The system was rebaselined in September 1962, so F-47 is 'permissible' and it's not technically a re-use. It's not sequentially correct but we should probably be grateful it's in the spirit of the system. Unlike AL-1, EA-37, E-130J, OA-1K etc
 
bring_it_on said:
Kendall stated $300 MM cost for NGAD in 2024. Assuming that's in 2018 dollars or thereabouts that's about 30-40% or so more than what we were paying for F-22's once you adjust for inflation (F-22A would be like $200+ MM now even if you kept everything the same on the platform). You can big very large aircraft and keep going for requirements demanding a large heavy craft but then at some point it becomes just expensive as a B-21. This is not a problem unique to the USAF. I like the fact that CSAF put it in his comments / statement that the NGAD platform fleet will be larger than the F-22. We are looking at hundreds of these.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason for the F-22s expense was the relatively small buy. If they buy 300-400 NGADs might the cost come down to doable? The F-22 was bleeding edge for its time in almost every category. NGAD might not have to be. Sure, they've got the engines, but avionics and sensors could be, largely, derived from those on the F-35 (or B-21) I'd think. Same with materials. Anybody have any clues there?
 
Last edited:
tacitblue1973 said:
Given that it's the lynchpin of a family of tactical integrated systems which emphasizes armed and possibly decoy drone systems why would the manned vehicle necessarily have to be a traditional heavy fighter with a mixed load of up to 8 missiles like the F-22?
Click to expand...

In the emerging MUM-T CONOPS, the trend is toward the manned node (such as an F-35) "shooting last" at the residual targets, while your drones do the breakthrough front-line work. The manned node must be able to self-defend for a period longer than an F-22 would otherwise hangout in the battlezone, because they need to direct traffic. They will also have to actively fight their way into (and out of) the adversary's modern A2/AD suite.
 
joewee said:
This 2015 item about DARPA ADI/AII program plans is news to me, thanks. However, the info I have from 'participants' who would know, says there was no Navy-unique aircraft demonstrator built and flown by Boeing or Lockheed, although I have not had the nerve to ask this question directly. Another thought: for Boeing to have flown in 2019 (per the darpa.mil blurb) means the Navy needed to have their unique requirements nailed down in the 2015-17 timeframe -- this is highly unlikely based on my second-hand knowledge.
Click to expand...

The Air Dominance Initiative defined most of the requirements for the Aerospace Innovation Initiative (which was more than just the X-planes).

The Navy, at the time, certainly knew that they wanted an aircraft capable of operating from a carrier and all the requirements that came with with. They also knew that they were seeking an air to ground aircraft (with a certain payload mass and volume). And they knew that they did not require the next-generation engines and some of the other Air Force needs. These were all requirements for the demonstrator, not an operational aircraft.
 
joewee said:
Boeing UCLASS -- the link's info is a bit sketchy, not sure what to make of it. I know Boeing was disappointed with their loss of the N-UCAV demonstrator to Northrop (X-45N vs X-47B). It's certainly possible that Boeing went ahead with a self-funded (fully or partially) classified UCLASS demonstrator (of carrier-suitability and shipboard C3) after Naval UCAV went away, but again I'm having trouble with this idea from a money perspective (not a compelling business case for Boeing; too much intra-Navy competition for limited technology R&D dollars). A related sidenote: the CBARS program, which led to the MQ-25, never had a Navy operational or engineering requirement for low RCS or IR signature. Any planform shaping or inlet/nozzle design features were incorporated by way of Boeing's own initiative, probably from their internal work and vision of future UCLASS-like missions derivatives and/or more survivable tanking aircraft.
Click to expand...

The UCLASS/CBARS/etc. dynasty of programs changed the requirements for the Navy UAV/UCAV several times. It was an ISR and strike aircraft, then it was a tanker. In 2017 Boeing unveiled the classified demonstrator it had built, almost complete, for the earlier requirements. At the time their competitors had only artist's conceptions of their designs. The Boeing demonstrator became their tanker and won the contract.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom