Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

Big_Zukini said:
I don't understand the energy spent on numerical designation when one has already been chosen. What does it matter if it's any specific number between 24-46?
Click to expand...
To be honest? Nerds.

There is no reason why this really matters other than dogmatic adherence to a naming system which has no other reason to exist than to name things.
With the amount of new fighters being created nowadays it doesn't matter any more if there is one digit or ten between namings.
 
Big_Zukini said:
I don't understand the energy spent on numerical designation when one has already been chosen. What does it matter if it's any specific number between 24-46?
Click to expand...
MihoshiK said:
To be honest? Nerds.
Click to expand...
There's definitely something to that, in that nerds tend towards systematising brain types, and failing to obey rules and patterns matter more to extreme systematisers than balanced individuals or empathisers. People have gamed the system though since at least when Northrop got F-20 for the Tigershark, skipping 19.

Its also probably more about the apparent brown-nosing in the chosen number. But hey, if it gets the Air Force the aircraft they need, fair play to them.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
There's definitely something to that, in that nerds tend towards systematising brain types, and failing to obey rules and patterns matter more to extreme systematisers than balanced individuals or empathisers. People have gamed the system though since at least when Northrop got F-20 for the Tigershark, skipping 19.

Its also probably more about the apparent brown-nosing in the chosen number. But hey, if it gets the Air Force the aircraft they need, fair play to them.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it.

Chris
 
joewee said:
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.
Click to expand...
I heard some on this forum mention that Lockheed moving F-22 program from California to Georgia caused lot of knowledge loss because a lot less people made the move than they planned. Do you think some of problems can be avoided if they just stayed in California? Higher labor costs but less loss of tribal knowledge so to say.

With F-47, it seems mainly to be Boeing St. Louis or former McDonnell Douglas, so maybe can avoid some of those problems.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
There's definitely something to that, in that nerds tend towards systematising brain types, and failing to obey rules and patterns matter more to extreme systematisers than balanced individuals or empathisers. People have gamed the system though since at least when Northrop got F-20 for the Tigershark, skipping 19.

Its also probably more about the apparent brown-nosing in the chosen number. But hey, if it gets the Air Force the aircraft they need, fair play to them.
Click to expand...
Oh, I honestly think there isn't any apparent about it.

But as you said, if it gets the Air Force their plane.... It's not like the top brass had to sacrifice their first born sons upon the launch pad of Starship. Discarding the naming conventions and buttering up to Trump is an incredibly small price to pay for the Air Force.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
I heard some on this forum mention that Lockheed moving F-22 program from California to Georgia caused lot of knowledge loss because a lot less people made the move than they planned. Do you think some of problems can be avoided if they just stayed in California? Higher labor costs but less loss of tribal knowledge so to say.

With F-47, it seems mainly to be Boeing St. Louis or former McDonnell Douglas, so maybe can avoid some of those problems.
Click to expand...
They could have moved to Nevada or Arizona and it would get the best of both worlds. With Arizona it's close to most of the top universities in California and Texas.
 
s-l1600-15-png.721582

This patch could be revisited. 2019 is indeed when COVID arrived, this is the meaning of the center ball. Its also when Boeing's Air Dominance Demonstrator first flew, it seems.

Certus - Latin, certain/settled/reliable
Celeritate - Latin, with great speed, quickness
Virales - Latin-ish, intended to mean viral I think, Virales is how Viral Tiktok videos are called in Spanish. 2018/2019 is also when Tiktok took off.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
However, in the context of stealth, small canards can cause issues with weird reflections and not being big enough to absorb the radar waves.
Click to expand...
It's not an absolute metric. RCS numbers gets pretty complicated pretty fast once you start messing around varying the size of the wing span or chord length. Here's a study on canard size and its effect on RCS:

"For frequency 1.7 GHz, the longer canards see a steeper rise in RCS between 30˚ - 90˚ and
similar sharp dip between 90˚ to 150˚. The dip reaches even lower values for longer canards in 5.6
GHz frequency."
 
blackknight said:
Meme in Chinese military fans in these day.

"The best position of canards are in enemy's planes."
View attachment 764011
Click to expand...
There's not much to say, there will always be some idiots who keep pointing to the canard wings to prove that something is bad. In fact, many people don't even understand why canards are installed. I have to say that the world is a boomerang, and it is always right to be cautious in words and deeds.
 
And this 2016 Boeing Patent posted in the old NGAD topic with deployable vortex generators/canards is interesting. Also pivoting/folding wingtips? Nose is interesting.

US20180170526A1 - Methods and apparatus to extend a leading-edge vortex of a highly-swept aircraft wing - Google Patents

Methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture to extend a leading-edge vortex of a highly-swept wing aircraft wing are disclosed. An example apparatus includes a shoulder wing coupled to a fuselage of an aircraft above a highly-swept wing of the aircraft, the shoulder wing operative in a first...
patents.google.com

Boeing Patent 1.png
Boeing Patent 2.png

And another patent relating to pivoting control surfaces which tries very hard to be entirely generic airplane shape, unlike the previous patent. Pivoting tails... and wingtips.


Boeing Patent 3.png


Boeing Patent 4.png
 
Last edited:
I'd be quite interested in the cruise L/D impacts of:
1) A high degree of dihedral.
2) The addition of canards compared to a clean flying wing.

Of course, we don't know enough about the design yet to begin to have an idea of what losses they might be accepting.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You know they make 15x25ft flags, right?
Click to expand...
Yes I do. And bigger. 15 ft was merely an assumption I used in the pic posted here by Forest Green. I've also used 12 ft, 18 ft, and 25 ft as I've played with dimensions. 25 ft flag leads to a massive 10 ft wide radome but also to something like a 11-13 ft length (for the flag) which isn't the right dimension..
 
Last edited:
Avimimus said:
I'd be quite interested in the cruise L/D impacts of:
1) A high degree of dihedral.
2) The addition of canards compared to a clean flying wing.

Of course, we don't know enough about the design yet to begin to have an idea of what losses they might be accepting.
Click to expand...

It is no horror, but I’d expect a bit of impact in the lower frequency bands. All boils down to what you want to optimize for.
 
red admiral said:
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.
Click to expand...
I share this concern. After 40+ years in the business, I remain skeptical that "digital engineering" leads to the quantum improvements in cost/schedule/quality that it's proponents claim (I'm looking at you Will Roper). The Boeing/Saab T-7 program was amazing, until it wasn't. However, I can imagine how highly integrated tools and databases speed up the iterative process of hardware design, and improve the producibility, manufacturing quality and timeliness of said hardware. But in reality "digital engineering" can do no more than serve to augment an experienced, adaptable team of humans.

Clearly "digital engineering" can be a great advantage when a company is in a rush to put a tech demonstrator in the air, or even a flight article dubbed a "prototype" (as the YF-22, YF-23, and T-X a/c 1 and 2 were branded). But let's not be suckers and go away thinking that since something has flown, it's down hill from here (bad pun).

Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kitty Hawk anymore....

Undoubtedly "digital engineering" has been a great boost to the "business capture" folks at Boeing. I hope those executives enjoy their spectacular bonuses, and I hope we taxpayers don't get stuck with good-old-fashioned cost/schedule overruns and substandard quality.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
here's definitely something to that, in that nerds tend towards systematising brain types, and failing to obey rules and patterns matter more to extreme systematisers than balanced individuals or empathisers. People have gamed the system though since at least when Northrop got F-20 for the Tigershark, skipping 19.
Click to expand...
Nerd.
 
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

F-47 Was Born Out Of Secret X-Planes Built By Both Boeing And Lockheed

Each firm built a demonstrator jet, one flying in 2019 and the other in 2022, that logged hundreds of hours, resulting in major program risk reduction.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
One would think NG would have flown a demonstrator too, though perhaps aimed at USN, hence not mentioned in the F-47 backstory.

Anyway, as an aviation enthusiast at least, this whole presentation is underwhelming, could have at least shown depictions of the general configuration even if close-up details would have been obscured for now. The chinese were far more open and confident in showing their designs. I don't really agree with the US line of "hiding secrets from the enemy", i'm 99% sure that the other 2 great powers know pretty well what the americans are designing (hence China moving so fast with their NGADs). If there is someone they are hiding details from is the general public, which hardly makes sense from the propaganda POV.

Incidentally, since Boeing flew their demonstrator in 2019 that was during Trump's first term, so they probably got in his good graces back then. That might explain a lot of the current political angle of the F-47 imo.
 
donnage99 said:
It's not an absolute metric. RCS numbers gets pretty complicated pretty fast once you start messing around varying the size of the wing span or chord length. Here's a study on canard size and its effect on RCS:

"For frequency 1.7 GHz, the longer canards see a steeper rise in RCS between 30˚ - 90˚ and
similar sharp dip between 90˚ to 150˚. The dip reaches even lower values for longer canards in 5.6
GHz frequency."
Click to expand...
Sure, but larger canards require much less deflection in order to create the same amount of force. And have closer to the correct 10x+ wavelength size for effective RAM/RAS.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
I heard some on this forum mention that Lockheed moving F-22 program from California to Georgia caused lot of knowledge loss because a lot less people made the move than they planned. Do you think some of problems can be avoided if they just stayed in California? Higher labor costs but less loss of tribal knowledge so to say.

With F-47, it seems mainly to be Boeing St. Louis or former McDonnell Douglas, so maybe can avoid some of those problems.
Click to expand...
ATF/F-22 was a monumental undertaking, both in terms of its technical scope and its financial commitment. The teaming was purely done for the latter reason. Early on, there were some true technical synergies from the teaming, and Sherm Mullin's insistence on co-locating the team in Burbank was a key enabler:
  • Lockheed Burbank's deep knowledge of very low observables (F117, Quartz, etc), along with integrating very complex avionics suites (Quartz, P-3, S-3, etc -- for the latter two, read Sherm Mullins' Mitchell paper and his oral history). Lockheed Corp. leadership's skill overseeing the development of very sophisticated strategic systems (Trident, space ISR, etc).
  • GD-Fort Worth's top-notch advanced design capability (pre-"digital engineering"), which proved invaluable in terms of conceptualizing and integrating weapons, subsystems, etc.
  • Boeing-Seattle's "deep pockets" as well as its experience in complex avionics integration and large-scale structures. And last but certainly not least, Boeing-Seattle was in the good graces of AF leadership, because of what many in Dayton and Washington DC believed, correctly or not -- Boeing along with Vought bailed out Northrop on the B-2 development program.
Upon award of the EMD contract, this teaming arrangement required the immature preliminary design to be sliced into thirds. Not to mention the size of the workforce grew by an order of magnitude. From 1991's start of full-scale design to 1997's start of flight testing, it was very much like 3 companies were off doing their own thing, with a come-to-Jesus meeting every once in a while. There was essentially no "co-location", except in certain crisis situations.

To briefly address the California-Georgia swap question, I think it contributed to the inefficiencies and longer cycle times to accomplish key milestones, primarily due to the culture differences between the California and Georgia companies. Actually the learning curve of Georgia management was a bigger problem than the learning curve of Georgia engineers and shop personnel. But afterall, it's not like Burbank knew better how to design and build the Air Force's front line fighter in a 3-way arrangement of proud (read arrogant and egotistical) companies.
 
FighterJock said:
Boeing would really like the F-47 to be exported to at least friendly countries because that is where they make the most money, but I do not know how the next president will see it after the next election in 2028 post Trump that will be something that will have to be discussed with the USAF at that time.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone but a downgraded version of an aircraft when there are so many viable alternatives that probably don’t come with strings attached.
 
Discussing prospects of F-47 exports is rather moot, imo. It will still take some time to enter service, probably by the end of the Trump admin or even the next admin will it reach IOC and from then it's still a long road for export clearance. Such discussions will invariably dwells into politics which I'd rather avoid.
 
Avimimus said:
I'd be quite interested in the cruise L/D impacts of:
1) A high degree of dihedral.
2) The addition of canards compared to a clean flying wing.

Of course, we don't know enough about the design yet to begin to have an idea of what losses they might be accepting.
Click to expand...
I think it indicates that it´s a super- cruiser (think Valkyrie with compressive lift). The mustaches (I insists) are there for maneuvering and relatively slow subsonic flight (like during NoE increasing stability in gusts).
And remember, that if it has outboard sections of the wing canted downward, this could annihilate any dihedral effect (think He-162).
 
Last edited:
joewee said:
I share this concern. After 40+ years in the business, I remain skeptical that "digital engineering" leads to the quantum improvements in cost/schedule/quality that it's proponents claim (I'm looking at you Will Roper). The Boeing/Saab T-7 program was amazing, until it wasn't. I can imagine how highly integrated tools and databases speed up the iterative process of hardware design, and improve the producibility, manufacturing quality and timeliness of said hardware.
Click to expand...
The evidence I'm aware of is that "digital engineering" appears to make development programmes of similar difficulty go slower than when we used paper and slide rules. It does seem to reduce technical risks though.

Experience of the individuals and team seems the key thing. Knowing what are problems and how to address them translates to both avoiding these in future, and gives confidence in addressing new problems.
 
Just a reminder to be careful about overinterpreting two contradictory renders. One has canards, the other does not, neither show more than part of the wing leading edge and neither show more than the fore fuselage. They're hiding a lot.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ealth-fighter-in-mass-culture.1099/post-11364

For instance, in the void/shadows above the fuselage, it might be hiding a couple of dorsal inlets. In fact, the 'flag' render seems to have the shadows of two large humps cast by the light source, but it's hard to be sure. If there were, they'd tell us whether stealth is prioritised over high-AOA manoeuvring. Through the development, Boeing did come up with a number of designs with overwing inlets and no vertical tails...

A 2012 concept below. The similarity with what we do know is the very large bubble canopy pushed forward to a broad-chined nose. The tails in this case could swivel to vertical when needed. The stability given by dihedral would make that complexity unnecessary I would think. In any case, this and other concepts do show that Being was putting a lot of effort into making a tailless design work.

A few years later they were confident in presenting a tailless design, but with underwing inlets.
 

Attachments

  • F-X Boeing copy.jpg
    F-X Boeing copy.jpg
    340.2 KB · Views: 83
  • ngad1.jpg
    ngad1.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 71
  • CwMjta7WYAAXELh_.jpg
    CwMjta7WYAAXELh_.jpg
    210.3 KB · Views: 68
Last edited:
Could it be that they are hiding the canards because they use a hinged articulation with a flexible skin. Not only hiding the canards to hide the aircraft layout
 
red admiral said:
The evidence I'm aware of is that "digital engineering" appears to make development programmes of similar difficulty go slower than when we used paper and slide rules. It does seem to reduce technical risks though.

Experience of the individuals and team seems the key thing. Knowing what are problems and how to address them translates to both avoiding these in future, and gives confidence in addressing new problems.
Click to expand...
Amen. I've edited my earlier post.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom