Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

[quellish]

@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

Capable of "offensive directed energy" maybe. Funded, no, not yet. The software and hardware changes to support that have not been funded. Similarly, for years people "spoke of" an EW capability in the F-35 radar that did not exist yet.

 

[Sundog]

With regard to the canard, it looks fixed me to me. My guess on this is (1) To obviously lower trim drag in supercruise and (2) Place the medium/high alpha vortice over the wing where they need it. A fixed chine would have been too low to accomplish that with the amount of anhedral in the wing. So, they used a fixed canard to handle what a chine/lerx accomplishes on wings with no anhedral/dihedral. Just my two cents. I'm interested in seeing if it has a rear tail as well. Or if the wing tips are variable geometry as well.

When I first saw this design, I was thinking of this AFX design from NG, but with a smaller wing with Anhedral. This is from Flying Wings and Radical Things (<= My favorite book, buy it if you haven't already).

 

[FlyGuy369]

Hey there! Would love to give it a shot, do you have that plane published on the SimplePlanes website?

I uploaded it as "f47" it's not perfect but it's fun

 

[Hanse]

Any idea what's going here?

 

[Rhinocrates]

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

I mean that they're not visible. Both images show attempts to obscure significant parts with shadow and vapour. Not very skilfully, I might add, as if someone looked at much clearer renders and ordered that some fig leaves be added in a hurry.

In the 'fog' render the starboard canard is obscured by a white blob, giving the chine an irregular shape, while the port one is more successfully hidden but there's a straight-edged dark shadow under the port wing that would be defined by the trailing edge of the canard. This suggests that the original render didn't have any or as much vapour and the plane was depicted against a darker background.

In the 'flag' image, while the canards are visible, there are suspicious dark shadows at the rear that become more obvious once the contrast is altered. They probably obscure the humps over the engines, but oddly, they extend over the wing root just a little bit more than on the outer wing. That's why I was thinking that dorsal inlets might be a possibility.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-f-47-next-generation-air-dominance-ngad.45737/post-769355

Both images are head-on, more or less. Like the first official image of the F-117, both are meant to confuse certain details, proportions and angles.

 

[Nx4eu]

I mean that they're not visible. Both images show attempts to obscure significant parts with shadow and vapour. Not very skilfully, I might add, as if someone looked at much clearer renders and ordered that some fig leaves be added in a hurry.

In the 'fog' render the starboard canard is obscured by a white blob, giving the chine an irregular shape, while the port one is more successfully hidden but there's a straight-edged dark shadow under the port wing that would be defined by the trailing edge of the canard. This suggests that the original render didn't have any or as much vapour and the plane was depicted against a darker background.

In the 'flag' image, while the canards are visible, there are suspicious dark shadows at the rear that become more obvious once the contrast is altered. They probably obscure the humps over the engines, but oddly, they extend a bit more over the wing root just a little bit more that the outer wing. That's why I was thinking that dorsal inlets might be a possibility.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-f-47-next-generation-air-dominance-ngad.45737/post-769355

Both images are head-on, more or less. Like the first official image of the F-117, both are meant to confuse certain details, proportions and angles.

Oh man the budget constraints are tighter than we thought huh, they couldn't even afford to CGI up some new images and instead hired a poor intern to smudge out the canards and inlets on older CGI's. No wonder they had to do so many favors to Trump to push the program through.

 

[bring_it_on]

View attachment 764138

Very interesting. Also that they'd show that detail in the second rendering. I initially thought it was just smoke but seems to be a design feature.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I mean that they're not visible. Both images show attempts to obscure significant parts with shadow and vapour. Not very skilfully, I might add, as if someone looked at much clearer renders and ordered that some fig leaves be added in a hurry.

In the 'fog' render the starboard canard is obscured by a white blob, giving the chine an irregular shape, while the port one is more successfully hidden but there's a straight-edged dark shadow under the port wing that would be defined by the trailing edge of the canard. This suggests that the original render didn't have any or as much vapour and the plane was depicted against a darker background.

In the 'flag' image, while the canards are visible, there are suspicious dark shadows at the rear that become more obvious once the contrast is altered. They probably obscure the humps over the engines, but oddly, they extend a bit more over the wing root just a little bit more that the outer wing. That's why I was thinking that dorsal inlets might be a possibility.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-f-47-next-generation-air-dominance-ngad.45737/post-769355

Both images are head-on, more or less. Like the first official image of the F-117, both are meant to confuse certain details, proportions and angles.

Sure, but they are most likely largely accurate renders (like the B-21) that have been obfuscated for public consumption and with carefully chosen angle as opposed to 'fake" images,

 

[Rhinocrates]

Oh man the budget constraints are tighter than we thought huh, they couldn't even afford to CGI up some new images and instead hired a poor intern to smudge out the canards and inlets on older CGI's. No wonder they had to do so many favors to Trump to push the program through.

You can pay a lot of money for substandard quality and poor co-ordination.

Me, I just imagine a conversation along the lines of

'Whadya think? Great huh?'

'Wait, what? You're showing those?! Cover them up! Now! We've got fifteen minutes before it goes to the printer!'

 

[Rhinocrates]

Sure, but they are most likely largely accurate renders (like the B-21) that have been obfuscated for public consumption and with carefully chosen angle as opposed to 'fake" images,

I agree, under the obfuscation there are clear and consistent files. Over the next few weeks we're going to see a dance of the seven veils, maybe using the same original files.

 

[Hydroman]

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.

Yeah FighterJock, LM built a brand new, large manufacturing building in Palmdale and the media got to go inside only once and that was it, may for the SR-72 or something close to it. Also, Site 4 is dominated by NG and LM in regards to buildings and hangars, it seems Boeing only as a few now. NG also took over some former Boeing and LM hangars. NG has the large hangar (the non-Stratolaunch hangar) I used to reside in when I was with BAE Systems Flight Systems in Mojave from 2004 to 2008, plus NG has all of the Scaled Composites facilities. The old BAE hangar which NG now has from what I understand has or had a couple of classified programs going in there. In general, the AV has a lot of new project/program activities going on. I lived and worked up in the AV from 1991 to 2020, now I'm in OC.

 

[Hydroman]

In regards to the Adaptive Engine program, GE had a nice start with the YF-120 during the YF-22/YF-23 Dem/Val. It was a variable-cycle design and it seemed GE was thinking in the right direction. Our PAV#2 YF-23's supercruise performance was outstanding and still classified. It can see where the YF-120 was not selected for the F-22, it needed more refinement but was an excellent start and again it seems GE capitalize with its design moving towards adaptive tech. PAV#2 only needed one engine to refuel, too much power using both, this is from Paul Metz's book and from personal experience. GE has a good chance of being selected or has been selected for the F-47 engine.

 

[NMaude]

Over the next few weeks we're going to see a dance of the seven veils,

More like 47 veils.

 

[bring_it_on]

GE has a good chance of being selected or has been selected for the F-47 engine.

So Boeing built fighter with a GE engine. Let's add a Raytheon radar on it

 

[NMaude]

Defense Updates has released a lengthy video concerning the F-47:

Boeing will develop the American 6th generation fighter, now named F-47.The announcement was made personally by U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin.This initiates a new era for the US military.

A 6th generation fighter is expected to include man-unmanned teaming capability with AI-controlled missions, the ability to control a swarm of drones, greater battlefield data fusion, more powerful sensors, greater electrical power generation to equip directed-energy weapons, a virtual cockpit helmet-mounted display allowing the pilot 360-degree vision, etc.

Gen. David W. Allvin, in an apparent dig at China, said, “Despite what our adversaries claim, the F-47 is truly the world’s first crewed sixth-generation fighter,”

In this video, Defense Updates reports on 11 key aspects of the F-47 fighter.

#defenseupdates #f47 #usairforce

Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:10 DESIGNATION
01:48 TRUMP ADMIN PUSHES THROUGH NGAD PROGRAM
04:10 BIG WIN FOR BOEING
05:03 THE CONTRACT
06:21 FLYING FOR A FEW YEARS ALREADY
06:58 DESIGNED FOR AIR DOMINANCE
08:12 GROUNDBREAKING STEALTH & HIGHER COMBAT AVAILABILITY
09:34 GREATER RANGE with MAJOR ENGINE UPGRADE
10:43 MAN UNMANNED TEAMING
11:26 PRICING IS KEPT SECRET
12:24 EXPORT POSSIBILITY UNKNOWN

 

[djfawcett]

Oh man the budget constraints are tighter than we thought huh, they couldn't even afford to CGI up some new images and instead hired a poor intern to smudge out the canards and inlets on older CGI's. No wonder they had to do so many favors to Trump to push the program through.

Do you really think the presenters are going to put accurate CGI in the public's hands so the overall configuration can be ascertained. I am fairly sure the nose gear is intentionally out of scale unless they figured out how to use a BD-5 nose strut and wheel on the aircraft. We can not put much faith in these depictions because they are intentionally misrepresentative. I have sat in a few laugh sessions creating this kind of stuff. Looking through the shadows and vapor will give you nothing but headaches. At least we have a reasonable idea what the vehicle configuration is. Although, it is still fun to try and fill in the blanks.

 

[Sears Haacker]

Some people seem to think that the aircraft has significant dihedral, similar to the Bird of Prey, but I'm not convinced.
I think this is mainly an illusion caused by the perspective and the deliberately obfuscatory shadows in the render.

In the image we are looking down on the aircraft; in fact you can even find the vanishing point by using the gaps in the slabs and the ceiling lights in the hangar.

Because we are looking down on the aircraft, the rear of the aircraft appears higher than the front of the aircraft.
If the wing has significant sweep (near certainly) the wing tips should appear higher in the image than the leading edge wing root, without any dihedral.
Compare to this image of the Typhoon, for example, also taken from above.

 

[Dew]

it looks rather more like a render than a real object).

Shown is a graphical artist rendering of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Platform. The rendering highlights the Air Force’s sixth generation fighter, the F-47. The NGAD Platform will bring lethal, next-generation technologies to ensure air superiority for the Joint Force in any conflict. (U.S. Air Force graphic)

 

[NMaude]

I wouldn't be surprised at if the F-47 presented wasn't the actual aircraft but a high-fidelity full-scale mockup of it.

 

[Dew]

Do you really think the presenters are going to put accurate CGI in the public's hands so the overall configuration can be ascertained. I am fairly sure the nose gear is intentionally out of scale unless they figured out how to use a BD-5 nose strut and wheel on the aircraft. We can not put much faith in these depictions because they are intentionally misrepresentative. I have sat in a few laugh sessions creating this kind of stuff. Looking through the shadows and vapor will give you nothing but headaches. At least we have a reasonable idea what the vehicle configuration is. Although, it is still fun to try and fill in the blanks.

Exactly - these are marketing fluff. Can you imagine someone requesting latest engineering data with the intention to be able to place said 3D data 1:1 within a hangar model with a 'to scale' commercially available american flag (banana for scale) for a publicity shot :/.

 

[Dew]

I wouldn't be surprised at if the F-47 presented wasn't the actual aircraft but a high-fidelity full-scale mockup of it.

I could imagine that the configuration might be representative (for the little it gives away) but the scaling is much more vague

 

[NMaude]

As has been pointed the nose-gear does look a bit dodgy.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I could imagine that the configuration might be representative (for the little it gives away) but the scaling is much more vague

As the fog clears.... it was just the tip of the iceberg

 

[NMaude]

As the fog clears.... it was just the tip of the iceberg

View attachment 764164

Heh! It would be funny if the F-47 when it's fully unveiled reveals this:

Maybe when the F-47 is officially named it could be called the "Hammerhead".

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

GCAP and SCAF will both have strings attached, just different strings than F-47 or FAXX.

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 find that very hard to believe, just because of the two very different jobs the NGAD and F/A-XX are wanted for.

NGAD is what it says on the tin. Next Generation Air Dominance. Air to air monster, with Pacific range.

F/A-XX is a replacement for the Super Hornet. So it needs to be able to carry significant air-to-ground ordnance in addition to AAMs. It also needs a combat radius on the order of 1000nmi/1800km.

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?

I'm expecting directed jamming, not a HPMW.

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!

You're right that QF has (past tense) always signified fighters that were converted into drones.

Speaking strictly from the MDS system rules, though, if there's an unmanned version of the F-47 or B-21, those should be QF-47 or QB-21s. Because it's the 47th Fighter series airframe that is being used, not the 47th Q/drone series airframe.

You can pay a lot of money for substandard quality and poor co-ordination.

Me, I just imagine a conversation along the lines of

'Whadya think? Great huh?'

'Wait, what? You're showing those?! Cover them up! Now! We've got fifteen minutes before it goes to the printer!'

I'd fully expect that to be what happened.

Heh! It would be funny if the F-47 when it's fully unveiled reveals this:

Maybe when the F-47 is officially named it could be called the "Hammerhead".

Nah, that's gonna be the USN FAXX!

 

[bring_it_on]

I wouldn't be surprised at if the F-47 presented wasn't the actual aircraft but a high-fidelity full-scale mockup of it.

Presented? Its a digital rendering. They didn't have to put the next generation smoke machine to use for this one.

 

[TomS]

Nah, that's gonna be the USN FAXX!

Space Force's new fighter

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

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-__cpLocation", 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.

But wasn't the F-22 shape practically unchanged since submitting to EMD in 1990? I know the F-22 changed quite a bit from YF-22 but I think I read on this forum in other threads that F-22 outer shape was pretty much final by late 1990, and I would think the weight estimates should be pretty close at that point too?

If no co-__cpLocation was one of core issues with F-22, maybe the F-47 can avoid these problems since its all St. Louis, but then again it sounds like NGAD demonstrators flying since 2019 is much like YF-22 or X-35 and still a ways off from the EMD design, which risks quite bit of weight growth and Boeing track record hasn't been great.

 

[Hydroman]

Heh! It would be funny if the F-47 when it's fully unveiled reveals this:

Maybe when the F-47 is officially named it could be called the "Hammerhead".

F-47.868 Knucklehead! This is what you get when you remove the AI art, a true game changing fighter, just look at that blending and those efficient inlets, China is going to want to replicate this beast right away, I guess the fine gentleman standing next to it is the proud papa. If we keep going public with these fantastic machines, we will have no chance against China, I have great concern.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I understand the need for this project as a message to the potential enemies that the United States will have in fifteen or twenty years, I also find the idea of keeping the aeronautical industry running at its highest level of technology and research very positive. But there is no technology capable of making a human pilot survive a combat with an AI intelligence capable of thinking and acting a hundred times faster than Yeager, while supporting accelerations of thirty Gs. These intelligences will be very cheap within two decades and will be manufactured in large numbers to give them the same use as the balloon barriers used over London in 1940, or the Japanese Teishin suicide commandos of Okinawa West in 1945. By contrast, the escalating prices of high-level aeronautics research will only allow a very limited number of F-47 aircraft to be built. I suspect that in the illustrations published over the next few years the cockpit of the F-47 will undergo the same transformation as the canard of the Hotol Spaceplane.

 

[publiusr]

View attachment 763900

They’re laughing because they know where all that SLS money REALLY went.

…well, actually they’ve laughing at me, since it didn’t have a dihedral before I sat in the cockpit…the bulges—that’s just part of the Stryker frame it’s wearing…

 

[Jacky]

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.

NG already has the B-21. If Boeing is selected as the F/A-XX contractor, will there be another new attack aircraft project( advanced strike you mentioned) designated for NG? I doubt the Navy and Air Force have the budget to undertake a new project.

 

[djfawcett]

Am I crazy or is this rendering not symmetrical? On the left side it looks like some sort of strake that tapers off and then a canard. On the right it looks like a continuous LERX going into a wing?
View attachment 763776

You might be crazy.......this looks like a bad vapor and fairy dust spray job! I would be more worried about the pilot with the horn coming out of his nose

 

[WatcherZero]

My suspicion is despite all this gruff about tailless designs its going to have a traditional tail and they are just airbrushing it out so that its cant angle cant be seen by other countries so they can mislead them for as long as possible into thinking its a high altitude tailless design. They've decided you cant just sit at altitude and fire off long range missiles, you are also going to have to do ground hugging infiltrations and evasions, Ukraine experience has shaped this.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Indeed. Definitely not an F-22.
View attachment 764110

That's a completely different case - that was placeholder artwork prior to contract award. When the ATF contracts were awarded, low detail but broadly accurate paintings of the YF-22 and YF-23 were given.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

They've decided you cant just sit at altitude and fire off long range missiles, you are also going to have to do ground hugging infiltrations and evasions, Ukraine experience has shaped this.

Based on what? Neither side has a stealth aircraft.

 

[quellish]

View attachment 764035

Quite small indeed

You have proven my point. There is not enough physical space in that aircraft ("J-36") for a telescope capable of resolving an F-47 in the infrared at "hundreds of miles" distance.

 

[publiusr]

True—but I could see drone footage relayed that far.

 

[donnage99]

View attachment 764035

Quite small indeed

Also remember tracking range isn't scanning range. You have to scan the vast open sky to detect something there before you can track it. And an infrared sensor's scanning range is a lot shorter than its tracking range. Don't mistake some of the ranges you read online.

 

[raptor82]

Our old friend Bill Sweetman:

Bolt from the blue: what we know (and don’t know) about the US’s powerful F-47 fighter | The Strategist

When the F-47 enters service, at a date to be disclosed, it will be a new factor in US air warfare. A decision to proceed with development, deferred since July, was unexpectedly announced on 21 ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Defying decades of practice, the F-47 was launched by an empty Pentagon C-suite: nominees for the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Air Force secretary, and undersecretaries for acquisition, and research and engineering, are all awaiting confirmation. Defense secretary, infantry major and TV host Pete Hegseth was the sole source selection authority.

Air force leaders had lobbied Trump personally to get his approval for the project, which Kendall put on hold in July. With no CJCS, the lead defense adviser to Hegseth is the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointed last May: Grynkewich, the author of that NGAD-defining Air Superiority 2030 study.

Was this a Machiavellian plan by Kendall? Delaying the NGAD decision last year looks like a coup, allowing the air force to dazzle the president with secret technology, while talking up the threat of China’s new J-36 to inspire a sense of urgency, permitting Trump to present it as his own idea and calling it F-47. Conveniently, the sceptical Elon Musk, usually omnipresent at big occasions, was busy at a briefing at the Pentagon.