Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

[FlyGuy369]

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

Let me try it out. I'll get back to you

 

[Rhinocrates]

Downgraded for export?

Sounds like a great deal. Just like the F-16/79.

Chris

Judging by what we know of its looks, maybe it will be exported to Qo'noS.

 

[Mboxes]

I don't think it should have canards; it's better to have a clean one like the LM or J50 concepts. I also think it's a rival to the J50, not the J36. The new design sets a new trend for straight noses on aircraft.

 

[bob225]

Hi all, just my personal thoughts on this.

Trumps comments:
“Our allies are calling constantly, they want to buy them all,” Trump continued, before claiming that America’s allies would get “toned-down versions.”

“We like to tone them down about 10 percent, which probably makes sense because someday maybe they’re not our allies, right?”

Boeing exec's and sales team reaction to that would of been interesting!

Serious question to the engineers, how do you "tone down" the ability?? i get via software but surely most "friendly airforces are not going too be happy with that?

Calling constantly? ok but supposedly the program was on hold, so why call, unless some friendly airforces have been briefed already? were Boeing doing the sales push already? But to who, UK & Japan, who tend to have the better relationship but are currently building GCAP will surely carry on? That leaves Israel and Australia that may have the need, perhaps even South Korea?

The "render" vs details, i think there's so much hidden and masked to get a really good idea, even the size, the pictures are a render so that can make the flag any size they like, so i think we're reading a bit too much into a computer generated image. we have no idea where the intakes are, etc etc.

It's going to be really interesting to follow, lets hope they release some more pictures and info, but it's very early days yet, far to early too get properly excited!

Lastly it'll be interesting to watch F-47b vs GCAP moving forward, how different are they going to be, which design philosophy wins as an export project in the end? Or could they ultimately team up???

 

[bring_it_on]

One thing I find most interesting is that F-47 does not seem to be the battlestar that sacrifices agility for range which some of us (including me) were expecting…this seems like a more fighter sized aircraft with potentially a high degree of maneuverability. Ironically “J-36” seems much more like I envisioned NGAD, outside the triple engine arrangement.

Either NGAD range or payload requirements must be a lot lower than I anticipated, or a combination of both. I’m leaning towards payload being 6-8 AIM-120 sized weapons rather than any oversized weapon carriage, which probably changes the fuel fraction a lot. But it is still hard to imagine much more than a thousand mile combat radius.

One thing that occurs to me is that the B-21 could stand in as a heavy weapons carrier if oversized weapons became absolutely necessary, and that AIM-260 is seen as enough to reach out to practical sensor ranges for the foreseeable future. That would take heavy weapons bays off F-47s plate and reserve more volume for fuel.

I think there were some pretty wild assumptions and commentary floating around with what NGAD would be leaning many (not just you) to hypothesize that it is going to be a massive aircraft. Others concluded that agility, maneuverability and perhaps even supersonic speed is dead and a large flying wing is what's needed More than one 'analyst', and media commentator explored making B-21 replace NGAD platform instead of pursuing a $20 Bn EMD program. Just stuff it with AIM-174's etc...Air Force has obviously never fueled any of this other than stating that it needs next generation technologies, and greater range given the needs in the Pacific.

Others have taken to the Chinese aircraft and seem to have concluded that the future of air dominance is analogous to the 'cruiser' or large interceptor platform that is VLO and apparently has IR sensors that can see NGAD (setting aside these same folks know next to nothing of NGAD and based on nothing substantial) from hundreds of miles away. As such they conclude that future involves stealthy platforms flying with outsized weapons taking pot shots at LO and VLO/ELO platforms from hundreds of miles away (I have not seen a definitive description and results of that kill chain posted by these folks). Again, the USAF has not endorsed or rejected those..As noted by the CSAF, NGAD platform emphasizes RCS and range improvements and introduces advanced technology. This relative to F-22A. It is supersonic with a possible Mach 2+ top speed. Even if one used Frank Kendall's estimate, NGAD is still expected to cost half or less than the B-21 so that is a limit on size and mass. Future Weapons including long range weapons, and magazine size is addressed via other elements of the NGAD FOS? Like CCA and future programs?

 

[Hydroman]

Meme in Chinese military fans in these day.

"The best position of canards are in enemy's planes."
View attachment 764011

Now when USAF/Boeing release images of the entire aircraft, China will review, analyze then try to build an F-47 clone.

 

[Forest Green]

While it is difficult to estimate dimensions of the F-47 given limited details in the official NGAD renderings, and the obfuscation, the radome stands out as a prominent feature. In most of my estimates, I've ended up with it at 1.5 - >2X that of the F-35.

While the comparison above was with the F-35, the radome appears significantly larger than even the the F-15E/EX and F-22A. This should allow for a fairly massive multi-function array to support sensing, EW, Comms and other functions.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903806312099598778

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1903806312099598778

 

[Hydroman]

So with all the reports (including this great forum) regarding Boeing and LM demonstrators for F-47 and not NG, I assume in regards to F/A-XX, NG either:

a. Had to have built and flown one or two F/A-XX demonstrators.
b. Had been developing the USN's F/A-XX before USAF NGAD and already had a mature design.
c. Leveraging YF/F-23, X-47B and B-21 technology.

I my personal opinion, I think NG was the selected contractor from the start for F/A-XX, Boeing and LM names were just there for non-meat filler to spice things up. I also think LM is developing the "SR-72" as well or something similar?

 

[FighterJock]

My thoughts too Hydroman about Lockheed and the SR-72 or whatever that came out of that program, having Lockheed win the NGAD would be just too much for one manufacturer to deal with.

 

[Forest Green]

Just a reminder to be careful about overinterpreting two contradictory renders.

Indeed. Definitely not an F-22.

 

[Avimimus]

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).

My thinking:

Canards make a lot of sense if you are trying to maximise take-off performance (e.g. taking off with as much fuel as possible). They allow controlling angle of attack (and thus maximising L/D) with control surfaces that are contributing to the lift themselves (the opposite of a conventional design). You could produce the pitch moment with thrust vectoring, but that is very dangerous during take-off if it fails, and you end-up losing some thrust.

The question is what happens to high subsonic cruise performance? I suppose if your wing area is large in order to carry more fuel, and you're deciding to add that dihedral in order to improve stealth characteristics - you might have enough wing area to provide adequate stability during cruise.

The dihedral inherently involves some loss in effective lift (as air is being deflected inward as well as upwards). I've no idea about the complexities of how this interacts with really modern airfoils at high subsonic speeds... but that is what I was thinking of. Dihedral in itself isn't a bad thing otherwise.

 

[joewee]

In my personal opinion, I think NG was the selected contractor from the start for F/A-XX, Boeing and LM names were just there for non-meat filler to spice things up. I also think LM is developing the "SR-72" as well or something similar?

Without any inside info I would have guessed NG for Navy and B for AF.
However, based on what I've been told, I'm under the impression that B will win both.

I wrote this on March 13th.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-usn-6th-gen-fighters-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536/page-245#post-768878

Another tidbit. I was told that Hegseth told the VCNO that the AF announcement will come first. So it should come out this coming week.

Unless of course someone in the White House objects to one winner takes both .... so I will read any delay beyond the end of March as a last minute change: NG in, B out.

Strange things like this have happened before. The team of Grumman and Beech were verbally notified that they had won the VTXTS program. A few days later, McDonnell Douglas teamed with BAe were announced as the winner. Few knew that Reagan and Thatcher had just cut a deal. The UK buys Trident C3 (D4?) missiles and the US buys a navalized Hawk trainer.

 

[FlyGuy369]

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

Okay so I gave it a shot, I was skeptical at first, but man was I shocked. Between traditional canard actuation methods and using a hinge line, I have to be honest, the nose control authority seemed rather significant. Coupled with Yaw TV with nose control effectors, it effortlessly pulled maneuvers you would expect from Sukhoi.

 

[Hanse]

Okay so I gave it a shot, I was skeptical at first, but man was I shocked. Between traditional canard actuation methods and using a hinge line, I have to be honest, the nose control authority seemed rather significant. Coupled with Yaw TV with nose control effectors, it effortlessly pulled maneuvers you would expect from Sukhoi.

 

[FlyGuy369]

View attachment 764119

Exactly!

 

[DWG]

Hi all, just my personal thoughts on this.

Trumps comments:
“Our allies are calling constantly, they want to buy them all,” Trump continued, before claiming that America’s allies would get “toned-down versions.”

“We like to tone them down about 10 percent, which probably makes sense because someday maybe they’re not our allies, right?”

Boeing exec's and sales team reaction to that would of been interesting!

Serious question to the engineers, how do you "tone down" the ability?? i get via software but surely most "friendly airforces are not going too be happy with that?

Calling constantly?

It's a clueless statement* from the supposed great negotiator, so I'd treat its accuracy as somewhat questionable. We know Australia is holding off on decisions until it knows what the US is building, but it's also interested in GCAP and potentially FCAS, it just doesn't know which aircraft it wants in its competition yet. If it's built as a long-range air superiority platform for the Pacific then I can't think of anyone who'd be interested except possibly Australia. Everyone else who needs long-range capability is already building something, for the rest of the world it's hauling around weight that would be better left on the ground. Israel might be interested on the American freebies basis, but even they have threats closer to home where it's carrying unneeded weight.

As for export variants, typical measures have included less powerful engines, less powerful radars, the same radars but with some advanced modes removed (NCTR used to be a favourite), refusing to supply up to date ordnance, or refusing to supply some other capability such as FAST packs.

* Our allies all want to buy it, they're fine with being sold substandard crap.

 

[zebra159357]

What's the chance NAVY plane gets designated as F-45 ?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

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.

I'm one of these nerds .

I don't really care, how the U.S. military services designate their aircraft. It's their aircraft, they paid for them, so they have every right to call them whatever they like. But I do like to know, why they chose a certain number (if it's not the "default" sequential one). Therefore I'm happy with F-47, because a pretty convincing explanation has been provided. In fact, flattery for the President's ego is in a way a much better rationale than the story behind the F-35's number (essentially made up on the spot by two guys who didn't have a clue about the designation system).

What admittedly tends to annoy me a bit, are numbers which have apparently been chosen out of the blue without any explanation, like e.g. the 35 for the Sentinel ICBM.

 

[doggedman]

A question/thought about the F-47 aperture. I can't help but notice the size and shape of the F-47 nose. It clearly affords space for a very large aperture. Does anyone think (assuming sufficient excess power) that the intent is to use the radar as a directed energy (microwave) weapon in addition to its typical target detection/tracking function?

 

[FighterJock]

That would be interesting doggedman using the radar as a high power weapon instead of its traditional function of providing airborne intelligence, though it would have to be significantly more powerful than even todays radars to achieve that aim. I am sure that it will be able to get to.

 

[blackknight]

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.

Indeed
The physics principle is just the same in whole world. Only people in their bias don't know such simple things

 

[bring_it_on]

Any idea what's going here?

 

[Ainen]

Any idea what's going here?

 

[Nart]

Hear me out; what if the renders are just renders and don't depict the actual aircraft?

 

[Training_Dummy]

Hear me out; what if the renders are just renders and don't depict the actual aircraft?

I keep saying this but like the Trump jokes and the outrage on the MDS naming violation, i think people are still very much emoting and in their feels. Give it some time.

 

[Hood]

Given the rather puny looking nose leg I'm assuming its either one of the demonstrators or simply a placeholder render (having looked at a large version of the image it looks rather more like a render than a real object).

Remember Hood's Rule #1
Never get steamed up about CGI art. Most of the time it's just cool looking graphics and is often replaced by newer cooler looking graphics.

 

[flateric]

Just a reminder to be careful about overinterpreting two contradictory renders. One has canards, the other does not,

The other has them too hidden in vapour. These are not placeholder images.

 

[Hydroman]

Without any inside info I would have guessed NG for Navy and B for AF.
However, based on what I've been told, I'm under the impression that B will win both.

I wrote this on March 13th.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-usn-6th-gen-fighters-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536/page-245#post-768878

Another tidbit. I was told that Hegseth told the VCNO that the AF announcement will come first. So it should come out this coming week.

Unless of course someone in the White House objects to one winner takes both .... so I will read any delay beyond the end of March as a last minute change: NG in, B out.

Strange things like this have happened before. The team of Grumman and Beech were verbally notified that they had won the VTXTS program. A few days later, McDonnell Douglas teamed with BAe were announced as the winner. Few knew that Reagan and Thatcher had just cut a deal. The UK buys Trident C3 (D4?) missiles and the US buys a navalized Hawk trainer.

I can't see Boeing winning both F-47 and F/A-XX, that's another USAF/USN F-4 scenario. NG had great success with X-47B and maybe other classified USN efforts, the USAF and USN have their particular missions and CONOPS. However with that said and if Boeing were to get F-47 and F/A-XX then NG is the leader in advanced strike (whether subsonic or supersonic/supercruise) and possibly ISR platforms including being the flying wing company. In regards to LM, this may open the door and accelerate NGAS no matter what the USAF is saying or the lack of hype is, again, look how F-47 just popped out. It's like playing chess with these programs in current times.

 

[doggedman]

FighterJock - appreciate the response. I was just curious given that the size of nose and the aperture might allow for a power aperture product well in excess of, say the F-22 or F-15EX. An ESA allows you to point a beam wherever you want, and as frequently as you want. That to me says that you could interleave the more normal detection/tracking function with a directed energy weapon. I would assume (always risky for me) that all this depends on excess power. But you'd think the XA-102 or 103 would deliver on that if we are talking about a much lighter airframe structure.

 

[Stargazer]

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.

Actually I was discussing those designations the other day with Andreas (before the F-47 reveal) and we agreed that QF- and FQ- were not equivalent. "QF-" has always signified fighters that had been turned into target drones. "FQ-" on the other hand, is for unmanned aircraft that are used as fighters". It's an important difference!

 

[Hydroman]

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.

Not a true statement; Boeing along with Vought bailed out Northrop on the B-2 development program. Boeing did not bail us (Northrop) out. I was on B-2 from 1986 to 1996, Boeing was a pain in the ass and always thought they should be the B-2 prime, LTV was great to work with. Boeing during this time period and to my knowledge (anyone welcome to chime in), Boeing no LO programs going, Northrop and Lockheed had the king's share of advanced programs. Programs like X-45A/C and Bird of Prey came after.

 

[Hanse]

That would be interesting doggedman using the radar as a high power weapon instead of its traditional function of providing airborne intelligence, though it would have to be significantly more powerful than even todays radars to achieve that aim. I am sure that it will be able to get to.

Used in that way though it would be like active sonar on a sub: HERE I AM!!!!!

 

[tacitblue1973]

The other has them too hidden in vapour. These are not placeholder images.

The in flight image is notable for the outline of the engine inlet on the port side of the vehicle. It's faint but there

 

[FighterJock]

Perhaps sferrin, but the enemy fighter trying to lock on to the F-47 would be vaporised long before it could launch a missile against it.

 

[TomcatViP]

Regarding directed Energy and the apparent size of the nose, remember that F-35 got it already.

 

[Ainen]

Perhaps sferrin, but the enemy fighter trying to lock on to the F-47 would be vaporised long before it could launch a missile against it.

That's nuclear pumped lasers.
Pilots won't agree.

 

[quellish]

Regarding directed Energy and the apparent size of the nose, remember that F-35 got it already.

Got what?

 

[TomcatViP]

Directed Energy capability

 

[quellish]

Directed Energy capability

If you mean the LANCE pod, that was terminated.

 

[TomcatViP]

@quellish :
No, I mean the radar set that got this officially listed in its set of tricks.

Northrop Grumman Reveals It’s Developing the F-35’s New Radar | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Northrop Grumman publicly revealed that it is working on the AN/APG-85, the F-35’s new radar to replace the existing AN/APG-81.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Government and industry officials have also spoken of the F-35’s radar being capable of performing electronic warfare, offensive directed energy operations and cyber warfare functions.