Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

[siegecrossbow]

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

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).

Interesting how we see variants of F-47, J-36, and NGAP in the design matrix diagram.

 

[Nx4eu]

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.

That's quite the assumption you have there. The F-47 may be far harder to detect than anyone could imagine, it appears it could be penultimate thoroughbred air superiority aircraft based on the statements coming out of the oval office and it's resemblance to designs in prior studies.

 

[zjz]

Do they conduct competitive fly-offs like what they did for YF-22/23 and YF-32/35 anymore?

Or they did conduct such a fly-off away from public eyes?

I fear that if the contract has been awarded based on studies, analysis and Powerpoint, this is going to be another overbudget, over run project ....

 

[joewee]

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.

At the time when the ECP (engineering change proposal) was approved, the weight increase to accomodate 2 GBU-32 1000-lb JDAMs was estimated at 27 lb. and the EMD program cost increase was $180M (includes costs for some minor changes to avionics and cockpit controls/displays, plus increments for additional testing, support, and training). A few frames in the main weapons bay had to be "shaved back" a bit. A variety of larger weapons were also examined, ranging in size up to the AGM-137 TSSAM. They all had much greater impacts, as one would expect, and were not considered for incorporation.

The most interesting part of the JDAM story is why? Especially in light of decades of preaching and practicing "not a pound for air to ground".

Answer: the CSAF had been picking up bad vibes in Congress in the aftermath of Gulf War I ... questions like "so you're telling me, after air dominance is attained in hours or days in future conflicts, the F-22's will have nothing to do?" CSAF to Program Office: "Make it happen, pronto". Roger, wilco. And, voila.

 

[quellish]

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.

There is not enough physical space in that aircraft for the telescope required to do what you are proposing.

 

[sferrin]

Do they conduct competitive fly-offs like what they did for YF-22/23 and YF-32/35 anymore?

Or they did conduct such a fly-off away from public eyes?

I fear that if the contract has been awarded based on studies, analysis and Powerpoint, this is going to be another overbudget, over run project ....

Neither the F-14 or F-15 had fly offs. They turned out fine. (Not saying that means it's a slam-dunk but it's in the realm of the possible at least.)

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

I don't know if I was that far away. I never imagined the canards...View attachment 763799View attachment 763800View attachment 763801View attachment 763802View attachment 763803View attachment 763804View attachment 763805View attachment 763806View attachment 763807View attachment 763808View attachment 763809View attachment 763810View attachment 763811View attachment 763812

To be fair, I'm not sure that anyone else would have seriously expected canards, either.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

At the time when the ECP (engineering change proposal) was approved, the weight increase to accomodate 2 GBU-32 1000-lb JDAMs was estimated at 27 lb. and the EMD program cost increase was $180M (includes costs for some minor changes to avionics and cockpit controls/displays, plus increments for additional testing, support, and training). A few frames in the main weapons bay had to be "shaved back" a bit. A variety of larger weapons were also examined, ranging in size up to the AGM-137 TSSAM. They all had much greater impacts, as one would expect, and were not considered for incorporation.

But maybe bigger impact is F-22 may be that it accommodates the original AIM-120A with quite large 25" tail span? Maybe the weapons bays could have shrunk down a bit if didn't need to accommodate original AMRAAM.

I hear F-22 gain some weight and loss fuel capacity during EMD to save cost, but if not to accommodate JDAM then what would it be?

 

[Jacky]

Don't know.
My guess is, beginning in the 2014 timeframe, GE (along with P&W, and maybe Allison/Rolls?) routinely provided various engine options to inform the Navy's initial analysis-of-alternatives (AoA) and other early studies. The GE options would have likely included everything from clean-sheet designs based on AETP and ADVENT activities, to resurrected versions of the YF120 and F136, to technologically refreshed versions of the F110 and F414. The Navy would have considered engine size compatiblity as well as other key technical characteristics as compared to top-down operational requirements derived for the air platform.
Also see: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-asfs-news-analysis.3536/page-235#post-750274

According to the article "F110-GE-129 EFE - Enhanced Power Through Low Risk Derivative Technology", F110-GE-129EFE++ has a core driven fan stage, which I believe is the F110 variable cycle model. But from Dennis K. Williams' article, the thrust of F110-GE-129EFE++will reach 40,000 pounds, is F/A-XX so heavy that it requires such a large thrust?

The engine size compatibility and other key technical characteristics are considered by the Navy, which sounds like the Navy is carrying out the overall design of the F/A-XX instead of choosing the aircraft manufacturer's design.

 

[Jacky]

At the time when the ECP (engineering change proposal) was approved, the weight increase to accomodate 2 GBU-32 1000-lb JDAMs was estimated at 27 lb. and the EMD program cost increase was $180M (includes costs for some minor changes to avionics and cockpit controls/displays, plus increments for additional testing, support, and training). A few frames in the main weapons bay had to be "shaved back" a bit. A variety of larger weapons were also examined, ranging in size up to the AGM-137 TSSAM. They all had much greater impacts, as one would expect, and were not considered for incorporation.

The most interesting part of the JDAM story is why? Especially in light of decades of preaching and practicing "not a pound for air to ground".

Answer: the CSAF had been picking up bad vibes in Congress in the aftermath of Gulf War I ... questions like "so you're telling me, after air dominance is attained in hours or days in future conflicts, the F-22's will have nothing to do?" CSAF to Program Office: "Make it happen, pronto". Roger, wilco. And, voila.

What caused the final weight of the F-22 to increase to 43,000+pounds, almost as heavy as the F-14D?

 

[Jacky]

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.”

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

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.

Without any demonstrator from Northrop, how does the Navy evaluate the designs submitted by aircraft manufacturers?

By the way, the winner of F/A-XX is also likely to be Boeing?

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

I recall someone saying that seen the real thing that it has retractable canards. I believe it was Rodrigo avella who did a render for a client who explained it.

That sounds like an Su-57 IRST kind of a mistake.

 

[sferrin]

Without any demonstrator from Northrop, how does the Navy evaluate the designs submitted by aircraft manufacturers?

Same way they did with the F-14 & F-15.

 

[joewee]

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.

Don't want to beat this to death, but why would Roper, the AF acquisition chief, get all excited and declare "the NGAD test flights have been amazing — records have been broken" in 2020 (2 years before Lockheed flew their alleged Air Force demonstrator)? The Darpa.mil blurb indicates that Boeing flew in 2019, so Roper is busting with pride that a Navy demonstrator aircraft did amazing things? Thanks for the interchange, I'm out.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Same way they did with the F-14 & F-15.

Northrop can also use the B-21 program to point to their 6th gen stealth capability and ability to deliver.

 

[mkellytx]

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.

If it were the early ETO Thunderbolts, then this argument holds. However, the N model was specifically introduced to do long range escort for the B-29 operating in the PTO. The N models could escort the B-29's from Saipan to Japan, which nicely matches the NGAD/B-21 roles (except that B-21 now comes from CONUS or Oz). As a former blue suiter with green ink in my logbook I'm good with it, especially since the CCA's were FQ forty-somethings it works better than Fat Amy.

P-47N History

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

If it were the early ETO Thunderbolts, then this argument holds. However, the N model was specifically introduced to do long range escort for the B-29 operating in the PTO. The N models could escort the B-29's from Saipan to Japan, which nicely matches the NGAD/B-21 roles (except that B-21 now comes from CONUS or Oz). As a former blue suiter with green ink in my logbook I'm good with it, especially since the CCA's were FQ forty-somethings it works better than Fat Amy.

P-47N History

Sure, but P-51D Mustang is still a better historical parallel I think.

 

[joewee]

But maybe bigger impact is F-22 may be that it accommodates the original AIM-120A with quite large 25" tail span? Maybe the weapons bays could have shrunk down a bit if didn't need to accommodate original AMRAAM.

I hear F-22 gain some weight and loss fuel capacity during EMD to save cost, but if not to accommodate JDAM then what would it be?

I presume carrying 4 large fin AMRAAMS was a fallback as the clipped-fin AIM-120C had not yet completed developmental and operational testing when F-22 EMD began in August 1991.

With most military aircraft, the weight growth from EMD proposal time to IOC is typically a double digit percentage. The F-22A was no different. My personal belief is that the 3-way teaming (L-Georgia, B-Seattle, GD-FortWorth) proved to be quite inefficient in many ways, weight optimization being one.

In another quarter of this forum there is a discussion of F-22's extra tankage (saddle tanks, vertical tail root tanks, etc.) with varying interpretations. My knowledge is that those volumes were preserved as a contingency, for future use, at about the time of PDR, with the knowledge that the F-22A may come up a few miles short of the subsonic/supersonic Mission 1 and the all-subsonic Mission 2. I don't believe the decision was ever made to convert those volumes to useable tanks, due to the added weight for structure and fuel system components. BTW, the small mission radius shortfalls were due to a combination of (1) increased aircraft empty weight, and (2) increased SFC of the F119 engine, which was GFE.

I checked out when flight testing began so I can't give you any history beyond that point.

 

[quellish]

Don't want to beat this to death, but why would Roper, the AF acquisition chief, get all excited and declare "the NGAD test flights have been amazing — records have been broken" in 2020 (2 years before Lockheed flew their alleged Air Force demonstrator)? The Darpa.mil blurb indicates that Boeing flew in 2019, so Roper is busting with pride that a Navy demonstrator aircraft did amazing things? Thanks for the interchange, I'm out.

Boeing built their demonstrator using the end to end digital engineering and manufacturing methods that Roper was advocating and went from contract to first flight in about 18 months.
They also went well beyond their requirements and demonstrated things that were relevant to not just the Navy but the Air Force, including things that neither service required them to do, but were definitely interested in. Boeing saw this as an opportunity to get the attention of both services for their next generation aircraft.

 

[mkellytx]

Sure, but P-51D Mustang is still a better historical parallel I think.

Respectfully, @overscan (PaulMM) it actually proves the point. The D model Mustangs did put the early model Thunderbolts to shame for their range for the ETO but could only escort B-29's from Iwo Jima. Which kind of makes the point about the differences between ETO and PTO. The H model Mustang could swing the PTO ranges but arrived after the fighting stopped. Concept wise, perhaps the H fits better than the N for NGAD. History wise, the N flew the NGAD's mission in "The War" while the H was still getting finished back in the states.

P-51H History

 

[Josh_TN]

Boeing built their demonstrator using the end to end digital engineering and manufacturing methods that Roper was advocating and went from contract to first flight in about 18 months.
They also went well beyond their requirements and demonstrated things that were relevant to not just the Navy but the Air Force, including things that neither service required them to do, but were definitely interested in. Boeing saw this as an opportunity to get the attention of both services for their next generation aircraft.

Do you think there is a possibility of Boeing for both contracts? The F-47 does not seem that far off from an FAXX based on the very limited information we have, assuming it is accurate. Canards might make relatively acceptable recovery stall speeds within reason.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Do you think there is a possibility of Boeing for both contracts? The F-47 does not seem that far off from an FAXX based on the very limited information we have, assuming it is accurate. Canards might make relatively acceptable recovery stall speeds within reason.

With how the services has been avoiding vendor lock-in like the plague it is? Not little, but not great chances either.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

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

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).

It almost looks like some kind of a head transplant. I think.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Man this thread has moved fast... 6 pages since I went to bed!

So about export customers:
I'm betting on Israel and Australia. Maybe Poland, South Korea.

I'm honestly doubting Poland and SK, unless there's a way for this design to trade range for air-to-ground ordnance.

With the USN being more focused on A2G, I think they'd both be more interested in the FAXX than the F-47.

Giving them an open door out of their current financial troubles?

More keeping 3 primes in the game, but if it means bailing them out of the current financials, yes.

I'm presuming the grey arc at the top of the canopy is actually the tip of a ventral inlet.

I'm about 99% sure that is a reflection.

Re: Canards.

What is the main functionality of canards and what are their pros and cons?

EDIT: In the context of stealth aircraft. I'm not looking for a Wikipedia quote.

Canards increase total lift available, so the aircraft can be heavier for the same wing area compared to a tailed aircraft.

However, in the context of stealth, small canards can cause issues with weird reflections and not being big enough to absorb the radar waves. IIRC there was a comment from LockMart about how the canard they were using was so big it was almost a tandem wing (I think this was during the early JSF program). It also needs some kind of sealed edgeless hinge to prevent that edge discontinuity that stealth hates.

Unrelated, on the matter of the single wheel front landing gear, do you find some detail interesting about it (what?) or is the sole fact the FLG has a single wheel interesting in itself due to weights it indicates?

To me, it indicates a much lighter aircraft than what I was expecting. I was expecting an F-111, something 105,000lbs or so. Not something F-15 weight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903127789219320103

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1903127789219320103

Anyone have a contact at Boeing to get that patch?

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.

I don't think there's anyone left in the Navy with TF30 or F401 experience. By a decade or more.

But you're absolutely right that GE has more experience in variable cycle tech.

That worries me the most. I don't see how our industrial base stays competitive without things changing. There should always be programs like ADVENT/VAATE, but for aircraft, going on. There doesn't appear to be any coordinated effort to attract people into aerospace.

I think we'll see that happen with the CCAs, because they're planning multiple increments out.

^ That's my very rough estimate assuming 15 ft for the flag as reference.

You know they make 15x25ft flags, right?

I have a question regarding the unpiloted version which appeared in the artwork: with regards to the recent reveal of the FQ-42 and FQ-44, would it be a safe bet to assume that the non-piloted version would be an FQ-47?

View attachment 763966

The usual way for that would be QF-47, a Drone (Q) version of the F-47.

I don't think that the other CCAs having 40-series numbers would indicate anything there.

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

No, the numbers officially restarted in 1962. Some aircraft kept their old-series numbers, like F-4 (F4H) and F-8 (F8U).

But Thunderbolt III wouldn't be impossible for the name.

Do they conduct competitive fly-offs like what they did for YF-22/23 and YF-32/35 anymore?

Or they did conduct such a fly-off away from public eyes?

I fear that if the contract has been awarded based on studies, analysis and Powerpoint, this is going to be another overbudget, over run project ....

Competitive fly-offs are actually the exception, not the rule.

Without any demonstrator from Northrop, how does the Navy evaluate the designs submitted by aircraft manufacturers?

The same way the Navy evaluated the design of the F-14 and F-18E/F/G. On paper, times how the manufacturer has performed historically.

By the way, the winner of F/A-XX is also likely to be Boeing?

Combined response:

Do you think there is a possibility of Boeing for both contracts? The F-47 does not seem that far off from an FAXX based on the very limited information we have, assuming it is accurate. Canards might make relatively acceptable recovery stall speeds within reason.

I doubt it. I expect Northrop-Grumman to win FAXX.

Navy wants a big, long range strike fighter. The ability to carry large air-to-ground ordnance is a lot higher priority in the FAXX program than a "mere" air-to-air monster like the F-22 (and presumed capabilities of the F-47).

 

[Training_Dummy]

@Josh_TN the thought of Boeing winning both occurred to me as well, esp if it was the X plane developed for USN requirements that convinced USAF to select Boeing. Would fit with Quellish’s comments about the Boeing aircraft meeting and exceeding expectations on many fronts.

 

[kapakilla6]

some 2409 / X-36 planform heritage vibes?

Hey, lurker here. I'd agree on this. The X-36 conveniently trialled ages ago for this exact kind of competition by Phantom Works, with the exact same nose-shape and canopy (even if the canopy was a mockup) as the render, along with the same potential canards.

 

[quellish]

Navy wants a big, long range strike fighter. The ability to carry large air-to-ground ordnance is a lot higher priority in the FAXX program than a "mere" air-to-air monster like the F-22 (and presumed capabilities of the F-47).

Life is full of little surprises.

 

[Sphyxis]

Looks a lot like the XFA-33 from the front imo

 

[Dreamfighter]

If NG has not built an X-plane or a demonstrator, then I wonder what this is they showed us over the last few years in their promotional videos... Till now I assumed these glimpses were of a demonstrator they had built...
Or is what they showed (also) nothing more then some concept-art for their (F/A-XX) proposal?
It doesn´t look much 'strike-optimized' to me...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Life is full of little surprises.
View attachment 764004

And if FAXX itself isn't capable of carrying heavy A2G, the USN will require a CCA that does. Said CCA will not be cheap, because it will have to be large and have expensive engines and stealth features in it.

 

[quellish]

And if FAXX itself isn't capable of carrying heavy A2G, the USN will require a CCA that does. Said CCA will not be cheap, because it will have to be large and have expensive engines and stealth features in it.

Nah they'll just hang it on the F-35s.
Oh wait, those are missing from this plan.

 

[Ainen]

Life is full of little surprises.
View attachment 764004

But is there contradiction?
Quarterback should be pointing to relatively position to CCA, more than to size and useful payload.
Lack of 5th gen is indeed... curious.

 

[Josh_TN]

@Josh_TN the thought of Boeing winning both occurred to me as well, esp if it was the X plane developed for USN requirements that convinced USAF to select Boeing. Would fit with Quellish’s comments about the Boeing aircraft meeting and exceeding expectations on many fronts.

Now that I think about it…I am guessing the USN has much greater payload requirements. So super doubtful that there was overlap.

 

[riggerrob]

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.

A third possibility is that F-47 canards are only used during landing or steep turns. The rest of the time they could be retracted (ala. Tupolev 144 "Konkordski") to minimize radar returns.

 

[blackknight]

Meme in Chinese military fans in these day.

"The best position of canards are in enemy's planes."

 

[red admiral]

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".

Which is then really odd to compare against Boeing's performance on eT-7 which is not "good" in any sense of the word. Entirely different teams using different tools? There's generally no substitute for experience, but this is difficult to get now given limited programmes.

 

[Desertfox]

Combined response:

I suspect that there may be a play to force an actual budget through Congress.

Everyone at DoD and DoE is taking Golden Dome very seriously. Its impacting our priorities across the board.

As for F-47 vs F-51... the right call would have been F-26...

 

[NMaude]

As for F-47 vs F-51... the right call would have been F-26...

That would've been F-24.

 

[Desertfox]

With F-26, you can always pretend the Lockheed and NG designs where F-24/25.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

You are right. In the heat of the moment, he could have confused supercruise speed with max speed.

I'll see myself out now.

Everything is computer!