Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

books said:
I do think Boeing’s NGAD may be closer to the F-22 than to the Battlestar idea, and within that large design envelope, lean toward cost control, higher sortie rates from shorter-than-Battlestar distances, and lower maintenance. I would also expect Boeing to be a bit less interested in high-end VLO and speed than LM.

To be clear though, I’m talking about the comparison between bigger and smaller approaches to the full scale 2014-2017, 2021-2023 classic NGAD approach, not at all about the small Allvin style. By comparison to the “2024 F-35 replacing drone controller,” I am still saying I think the Boeing NGAD will be a large, long range airplane.

I’m not cheerleading for these ideas, by the way. I lean toward the large battlecruiser style approach. But preferences shouldn’t shape expectations, info should, and I think the available signs point toward Boeing being smaller than LM.
Click to expand...

I think it wouldn't necessarily have to be larger than the F-22 in terms of length and wingspan. But it would certainly need to have a larger airframe volume to meet the range/endurance requirements, in combination with highly efficient aerodynamics (tailless-delta?) and corresponding next generation engines... See the attached, just as an example ;)
 

Attachments

  • F22A-PCA_001.jpg
    F22A-PCA_001.jpg
    264.8 KB · Views: 194
books said:
I do think Boeing’s NGAD may be closer to the F-22 than to the Battlestar idea, and within that large design envelope, lean toward cost control, higher sortie rates from shorter-than-Battlestar distances, and lower maintenance. I would also expect Boeing to be a bit less interested in high-end VLO and speed than LM.

To be clear though, I’m talking about the comparison between bigger and smaller approaches to the full scale 2014-2017, 2021-2023 classic NGAD approach, not at all about the small Allvin style. By comparison to the “2024 F-35 replacing drone controller,” I am still saying I think the Boeing NGAD will be a large, long range airplane.

I’m not cheerleading for these ideas, by the way. I lean toward the large battlecruiser style approach. But preferences shouldn’t shape expectations, info should, and I think the available signs point toward Boeing being smaller than LM.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you get the range/payload/speed requirements at less than 90,000lbs.
 
VTOLicious said:
I think it wouldn't necessarily have to be larger than the F-22 in terms of length and wingspan. But it would certainly need to have a larger airframe volume to meet the range/endurance requirements, in combination with highly efficient aerodynamics (tailless-delta?) and corresponding next generation engines... See the attached, just as an example ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, certainly. I’m not saying I expect it will be as small as an F-22 in length or span either, just that by comparison to the Battlestar idea, which I’m guessing LM did go for, Boeing’s might be noticeably smaller.

Maybe better said, if one imagines a spectrum of dimensions (abstracting from configuration) on a range of “Full Size Battlestar” as a 10 and “exactly F-22 dimensions” as a 0, then I say LM is perhaps in the 8/9/10 range and Boeing is perhaps in the 4/5 range.

Definitely volume is key though. I just think length and span are easier to visualize and talk about.

sferrin said:
I don't see how you get the range/payload/speed requirements at less than 90,000lbs.
Click to expand...

I agree, and that’s why I’m nervous and leaning LM.
 
sferrin said:
Range and payload requirement is going to drive size. And an F-22 won't cut it.
Click to expand...

Depends on the range and payload requirements. You could probably squeeze a lot of efficiency out of a three stream engine compared to F119. Fuel fraction will partially driven by payload requirements, and a blended wing body is potentially a good fuel storage configuration.
 
sferrin said:
That's great and all but it's going to take time to change the culture.
Click to expand...
And it's going to take time to bring either of these aircraft into service. The Pentagon needs to think down the road, if they think Boeing is going the right direction and will be where it needs to be in an acceptable time then they won't have a huge problem picking that team. They'll have to stay on top of it, of course, but they need to do that for whomever wins regardless. The big lesson from Boeing's face plant isn't "don't hire Boeing" it's "keep a watch on the aerospace primes so they don't cause this kind of crisis again."
 
Jensy said:
I thought the announcement was pushed back?

All the Reuters source has provided is this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903104299153952884
View: https://twitter.com/MichaelStone/status/1903104299153952884


Not sure "two sources familiar with the situation said" really cuts the mustard...
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1903102332776108123
View: https://x.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1903102332776108123

Something is definitely going on behind closed doors. Boeing's stock jumped on the 18th while LM began to drop, and today, Boeing is skyrocketing. I may be completely uttering nonsense here, so apologies, just thinking out loud with my tinfoil hat.
 
Nart said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1903102332776108123
View: https://x.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1903102332776108123

Something is definitely going on behind closed doors. Boeing's stock jumped on the 18th while LM began to drop, and today, Boeing is skyrocketing. I may be completely uttering nonsense here, so apologies, just thinking out loud with my tinfoil hat.
Click to expand...

With "Retail Beta" and volatility being the new-norm, no need for tinfoil hats on market news. The market moves 5% these days if my local weather forecast changes.
 
Trump says it will have more power, maneuverability, and speed than anything else. I wonder if these are prepared remarks, and it will literally be this, or if this is just Trump riffing. Nobody really expects 6th gen to be supermaneuverable.
 
FighterJock said:
Any reason given as to why Lockheed lost?
Click to expand...

Because the Air Force wanted anyone who wasn’t Lockheed to win.

The Air Force wants to move away from vendor lock in on future programs. Their experience with Lockheed is the reason for that.
 
quellish said:
Because the Air Force wanted anyone who wasn’t Lockheed to win.

The Air Force wants to move away from vendor lock in on future programs. Their experience with Lockheed is the reason for that.
Click to expand...
I think this is a fair consideration, however reporting on this program has frequently alluded to Boeing's aircraft being a bit ahead based on performance data which hasn't been publicly released. I don't think we should take this as merely "USAF wants a break from LockMart." Perhaps "Boeing's pitch was good enough that USAF didn't feel it needed to fall back on LM."
 
Boeing's general track record of late has been spotty at best.

Nart said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1903102332776108123
View: https://x.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1903102332776108123

Something is definitely going on behind closed doors. Boeing's stock jumped on the 18th while LM began to drop, and today, Boeing is skyrocketing. I may be completely uttering nonsense here, so apologies, just thinking out loud with my tinfoil hat.
Click to expand...
Clearly impossible since insider trading is illegal.
 
Nart said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1903102332776108123
View: https://x.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1903102332776108123

Something is definitely going on behind closed doors. Boeing's stock jumped on the 18th while LM began to drop, and today, Boeing is skyrocketing. I may be completely uttering nonsense here, so apologies, just thinking out loud with my tinfoil hat.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more.

Some rather interesting trading has definitely been going on around this....

'F-47 Stratojet II: MAGA Boogaloo'?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom