Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

[FlyGuy369]

Had some fun and decided to build it, flies pretty well!

 

[Foo Fighter]

Would the off-white be for the mark one eyeball? Lighter colours being less distinguishable from background?

 

[joewee]

On the subject of Boeing, i couldn’t help thinking of the LRS-B bidders jockeying to arrange new manufacturing plans to support their bids.

That is, at least if I recall correctly, the infrastructure was an attempt to cause a program victory, rather than a result of it.

I personally always kind of thought Boeing would win F/A-XX, and LM would win NGAD-high, but Boeing NGAD-medium. Seems to me like Boeing’s confidence last year might have related to the growing budget issues following FRA ‘23 and the Sentinel crisis, while rumored USAF leanings toward the Boeing NGAD may have been leanings toward a smaller size well before the review kicked off.

That is, I’m proposing that the RFP may have allowed a range of size and capability offerings, with LM bidding in the battlecruiser/battlestar range and Boeing bidding a comparatively more F/A-XX sized aircraft. But then, according to this theory, the idea of the USAF picking the smaller one grew to include curiosity about the small F-35 replacement, helping inspire the study, alongside other factors we’ve been over a million times.

I'd be surprised if there was that much leniency in the requirements. I expect there would be some must meet specs that included ranges and range with specific payload. To award a vendor that didn't meet those specs based on a change of philosophy would result in an instant protest and likely GAO agreement.

I doubt the RFP had major size limitations but it probably did have a range/endurance requirement.

I think this discussion may be on to something. At least for me, it helps to connect some F-47 dots.

RFPs and the attached technical specs often ask for a threshold (minimum) value and an objective (goal) value for various key performance parameters. Usually this is kept to a handful of KPPs.

Proposal evaluation and the source selection process is often structured to give "extra credit" for meeting each key parameter's objective value, or otherwise exceeding the threshold value. Some agencies/commands assess technical compliance with a quantitative scoring scheme, while others use a qualitative assessment -- e.g., BLUE for exceeds, GREEN for complies, RED for doesn't comply. [The gov't lawyers generally prefer the latter approach].

For instance, I would expect the USAF NGAD-PCA RFP to have specified both threshold and objective values for the mission radius of one or more critical operational profiles.

The AF would have had to disclose in the RFP their basic assessment approach, for three likely categories: Technical, Cost, and Past Performance. For NGAD-PCA, I would assume that the AF would have provided some detail, e.g. the gov't assessment of Production Cost or Total Ownership Cost will be based on an equivalent force mix.

Just thinking out loud here: A large-sized battlecruiser may require a force of 200 aircraft with an APUC of $300M, while a medium-sized fighter may entail a force of 400 aircraft at $135M a pop. But if NGAD-medium requires more tankers is that really a lower cost than NGAD-large that operates alone and unafraid? You can see this all gets real complicated real quickly.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

¡Ajá! ¡No fui el único que pensó en eso entonces!:Frío:
[ADJUNTAR]764428[/ADJUNTAR]
[ADJUNTAR]764429[/ADJUNTAR]
[ADJUNTAR]764430[/ADJUNTAR]
Modelé el mío con una especie de paletas/canards, ligeramente al frente y por encima de las entradas, y colas verticales.
Aún no se ha alineado nada, solo estaba tratando de visualizar cómo se vería si seguiría la silueta que se ve en el parche.

Soy un gran admirador de tus obras, Rodrigo, ¡sigue así! ¡Siempre es genial ver tus creaciones!

Had some fun and decided to build it, flies pretty well!

Hello!
Thanks for taking on this trouble!
I had done a fluid analysis of version B with the dihedral tails in Solid Works, and it seemed to work well.
I didn't get to test this version A. I think the Vodoo II demonstrator must have looked quite similar to this plane (if the red plane in the patch is indeed the Vodoo II, which I believe).
Perhaps with a single engine. We'll probably never know.
Best regards and thanks again!

 

[sublight_]

(if the red plane in the patch is indeed the Vodoo II, which I believe).
Perhaps with a single engine. We'll probably never know.
Best regards and thanks again!

The voodoo doll traditionally represents the "victim" of the Witch doctor. I don't think the doll is meant to represent the planform of the project.

 

[Deino]

Not sure if I'm now the one who ruins the party, but since this is the F-47 thread I'm a bit surprised - maybe I don't see why - that there is so much fuss about fancy other designs including the Voodoo II what-if-concept!

At least by my understanding the true F-47 is not that concept and quite different in many specifications (canards and more) ... so can we stick to the F-47 please!??

@overscan (PaulMM)

 

[riggerrob]

Also F-47 skin looks similarly pale and off-white like the B-21, maybe the new generation of RAM coatings are that color?

Off-white camouflages into cloudy back grounds.
Neutral grey camouflages into average sky.
Black camouflages into night sky.
A true stealthy airplane blurs returns on a dozen different types of sensors: optical, thermal, radar, acoustic, etc. .. including a couple new types of sensors that are not yet talked about in polite company. Hah! Hah!

 

[Sundog]

Ah-ah! I was not the only one that thought about that then!
View attachment 764428
View attachment 764429
View attachment 764430
I modeled mine with some sort of vanes/canards, slightly in front and above the inlets, and vertical tails,.
Nothing has been edge aligned yet, I was just trying to visualize what it could look like if it followed the silhouette seen on the patch.

Big fan of your works Rodrigo, keep it up! It's always great to see what you come up with!

A few improvements for you. Move the canards behind the cockpit. They would block the pilot's view down to the side where you have them now and the USAF wouldn't accept that. i.e., just pull the nose, cockpit forward. That's why the F-22 had the inlets moved further back compared to those on the YF-22. Second, align the break where the wing tips bend with the longitudinal center line. The way they're bent now would turn them into huge drag/vortex generators. Make the nozzle a dual nozzle, similar to Rodrigo's design. Remove the vertical tails and make the "V-tab" tails a butterfly tail that bend up at the same anhedral as the wings. The last bit is too help the LO and minimize frontal area (low drag) and shield the nozzles from the side in terms of IR signature. You and Rodrigo are doing excellent work.

 

[CiTrus90]

Not sure if I'm now the one who ruins the party, but since this is the F-47 thread I'm a bit surprised - maybe I don't see why - that there is so much fuss about fancy other designs including the Voodoo II what-if-concept!

At least by my understanding the true F-47 is not that concept and quite different in many specifications (canards and more) ... so can we stick to the F-47 please!??

@overscan (PaulMM)

To be fair, I don't think anybody has hijacked the thread to the point where posts need to be removed or Overscan needs to be called into action?

Both Rodrigo and I have been working on the assumption that the Voodoo II patch, which is representative of a Phantom Works product (i.e. not fan made or similar), might have some resemblance to the demonstrator that Boeing produced for the NGAD program, a bit like the Bird of Prey patch had the YF-118G's shape hidden in plain sight.

We made 1 post each where we put pictures of what we worked on independetly from each other and I'd say that from some of the frontal angles we are not that far off from the pictures shown so far of the F-47 (which are very few, alas).

Canards I'd say are an assumption.
Can we say for sure they are present? I'm more inclined to believe that they might be vanes, like seen on the Boeing MRF study (Model 24), until I see more official renderings before I call it as a fact.

Also, why is it ok to post this but not what other people think might be correct? Just because that is more aligned with what you personally believe to be correct, so far?

And...why would the same principle not be applied in the Chengdu and Shenyang threads, where we don't even know if the J-36, for example, is a single seater, a twin tandem seater or a twin side by side seater? I'm pretty sure there are a lot of posts in there with the speculative CGIs of different Chinese artists or even of some of the users here from SPF.

If we all started posting our own personal "vision" of the F-47 in each page of the thread, I would fully understand the point you are making, but I don't think either me or Rodrigo went "overboard". Or at least not anymore or any further than all of the users that have posted their speculations (in writing rather than with pictures) so far.

 

[Dreamfighter]

The voodoo doll traditionally represents the "victim" of the Witch doctor. I don't think the doll is meant to represent the planform of the project.

I was thinking exactly the same about the RED fighter-shape/-planform in the Witch Doctor´s hand.

Imho, the 'Voodoo II" demonstrator is the one in the pics attached below (screenshots from a Boeing Phantom Works promo video, iirc similar screenshots and/or the video itself have also been posted by others many moons ago in the old NGAD-thread).
'Voodoo II' name chosen because of the wing being similar in shape to the F-101 'Voodoo'.
I know, that would mean (at least one) NGAD demonstrator has been 'hiding in plain sight'.

The GCAP/Tempest design used a similar wing shape and then switched to a huge delta rather recently.

 

[red admiral]

Voodoo II' name chosen because of the wing being similar in shape to the F-101 'Voodoo'.

I had also thought of this logic chain. Lambda wings are relatively popular in stealthy concepts.

 

[SlothmanAllen]

I am really interested for when the next set of renders or even real images of the aircraft itself get released. My understanding was that during the initial NGAD studies and after the pause was the Air Force came to the conclusion that it needed Penetrating Counter Air version of the NGAD. Basically the high-end version of NGAD. Yet these renders could potentially indicate a smaller aircraft which would go against the requirements and just straight up not seem to fit the needs to the Pacific theater.

Outside of that, you have the double whammy of China showing two FLYING(!!!) next-generation aircraft. One of which happens to be a monster three engine flying wing. I really see how the Air Force is going to justify this aircraft as being able to achieve air superiority over China in the Pacific region given that China seems to have leapfrogged the US in getting its next-generation aircraft flying.

 

[Training_Dummy]

@SlothmanAllen DARPA and CSAF releases seem to indicate NGADs flew first, not that any of this matters vs IOC…

 

[Titus]

I am really interested for when the next set of renders or even real images of the aircraft itself get released. My understanding was that during the initial NGAD studies and after the pause was the Air Force came to the conclusion that it needed Penetrating Counter Air version of the NGAD. Basically the high-end version of NGAD. Yet these renders could potentially indicate a smaller aircraft which would go against the requirements and just straight up not seem to fit the needs to the Pacific theater.

Outside of that, you have the double whammy of China showing two FLYING(!!!) next-generation aircraft. One of which happens to be a monster three engine flying wing. I really see how the Air Force is going to justify this aircraft as being able to achieve air superiority over China in the Pacific region given that China seems to have leapfrogged the US in getting its next-generation aircraft flying.

Allen,
I'm a little confused - (my wife would say my natural state). We are reliably informed that developmental prototypes of our aircraft have been flying for several years in secret so how have the Chinese LeapFrogged us?

 

[Nx4eu]

Allen,
I'm a little confused - (my wife would say my natural state). We are reliably informed that developmental prototypes of our aircraft have been flying for several years in secret so how have the Chinese LeapFrogged us?

I thought those planes that flew for the NGAD program were supposedly X-planes/demonstrators and not prototypes? If they were prototypes, can we expect induction of the F-47 within 4-5 years?

Using demonstrators gets really messy with the timeline as we don't know how long China has been flying demonstrators either, and it's looking more likely that what they've got in the air today are indeed prototypes and not demonstrators. Chinese demonstrators are usually painted in full black if I remember correctly and the serial number seems to indicate it being a prototype instead of a demonstrator.

 

[Josh_TN]

It seems likely that “j-36” is a prototype while NGAD/FA-XX planes are demonstrators. The end result in terms of IOC is in doubt, but I think it would be fair to say the PRC seems to be ahead at this stage. The U.S. alternatively seems to be winning at strategic bombers and counter air UAVs.

 

[bennyp]

There seems to me a bit of spin on the whole "NGAD demonstrator" thing. I don't think its meaningful to focus on the semantics of "who has the world's first 6thgen" because the goalposts can be moved ad infinitum; even the very definition of 6thgen is something you can just decide to define on your own.
Instead I think we should focus on substantive milestones, and if the Air Force is still quoted as constantly using future tense wording such as "Because of this, this fighter will fly during President Trump’s administration" (https://www.airandspaceforces.com/new-f-47-f-22-allvin/) then no matter what the claims are, it means we don't have NGAD in our hands yet. And the fact they are careful to say that the things that have flown are demonstrators, and not prototypes, is to me a soft admission that we don't have NGAD yet. You can't "have flown NGAD 5 years ago" and still "will fly during Trump's tenure." Yet we see things written on Wikipedia that subtly remove key concepts like "Technology Demonstrators" ("USAF officials said experimental tests have been flown since 2020" -- Tests of what? With what? Does the implied subtext match reality?) which appears to be aimed to promote obscurity and confusion.

This might be good for morale for some people but I think fighting over this detail is a head-in-sand sort of move. I don't think we should worry that "China got there first", and in fact, whether or not it's true, I think we should view it as a Sputnik moment. What matters is the response because the show must go on.

 

[lancer21]

From this propaganda/PR point of view, the most cringeworthy part is the american officials and most of their media just can't stop boasting about having the "world's first 6th gen fighter" in regards to the F-47, when it's pretty clear that is not the case.

Whether they like it or not only China has two 6th gens flying now, and will do so for the next 3-4 years until the F-47 is supposed to fly (IF there are no delays).

 

[Training_Dummy]

no side, be it American, Chinese, Russian or European, has a monopoly on cringy jingoistic or oddly defensive takes from their supporters.

 

[Explorer121]

From this propaganda/PR point of view, the most cringeworthy part is the american officials and most of their media just can't stop boasting about having the "world's first 6th gen fighter" in regards to the F-47, when it's pretty clear that is not the case.

Whether they like it or not only China has two 6th gens flying now, and will do so for the next 3-4 years until the F-47 is supposed to fly (IF there are no delays).

Do they though? There hasn't been a single official report about the Chinese aircraft from anyone involved, and the fact that two different airframes were flying together makes me think they might be technology demonstrators as well. If you recall, the YF-22 and YF-23 were effectively bespoke handmade aircraft that were made mainly to prove that the technologies could be combined in the way that was envisioned. Nothing indicates that the US demonstrators are any different or that the Chinese aircraft aren't the same. It's fine to acknowledge the amazing advancement in Chinese aircraft technology and capability, but the amount of glazing the Chinese get is pretty cringe too.

 

[DWG]

If you build a technology demonstrator, you have the opportunity to seriously tweak the design once you know what works and what doesn't. If you jump straight from drawing board to a prototype, you're looking at minor tweaks and hoping nothing major goes wrong.

If you build a prototype, the assumption is you'll progress straight to production post flight trials. If you build a technology demonstrator, the assumption is there'll need to be a production-representative prototype before you can progress to flight trials.

It's swings and roundabouts: jumping straight to a prototype gets you closer to production, a technology demonstrator maximises your chance of not screwing up.

I've not seen anything to convince me we know where either side is in their design-build cycle.

 

[Nx4eu]

Do they though? There hasn't been a single official report about the Chinese aircraft from anyone involved, and the fact that two different airframes were flying together makes me think they might be technology demonstrators as well. If you recall, the YF-22 and YF-23 were effectively bespoke handmade aircraft that were made mainly to prove that the technologies could be combined in the way that was envisioned. Nothing indicates that the US demonstrators are any different or that the Chinese aircraft aren't the same. It's fine to acknowledge the amazing advancement in Chinese aircraft technology and capability, but the amount of glazing the Chinese get is pretty cringe too.

But here you are trying to apply what the American industry does versus what China actually does. There was no flyoff for the J-20 nor for the J-35. There has been a long standing common misconception that the FC-31 was a competing design that lost to the J-20 in a sort of flyoff like the YF-22 vs YF-23 since the FC-31 demonstrator flew in 2012, while the J-20 flew in 2011. However that is simply wrong, before the J-20 flew, it was already decidedly the winning bid. The FC-31 was a private venture by Shenyang that was vying for international customers since the beginning. Eventually the PLAN liked the idea of using the evolutions from the FC-31 demonstrator which became the J-35.

Would it be more logical to apply Chinese history to Chinese aviation or American history to Chinese aviation? With the amount of information we have so far it's hard to conclude anything concrete. But given the indicators, it is believable that they are in fact prototypes, the progress has been very similar to the flying prototypes made of the J-20. However there is not much indication that these are simply demonstrators, and following the flyoff theory is simply misguided as an American perspective for something incredibly Chinese.

 

[Explorer121]

But here you are trying to apply what the American industry does versus what China actually does. There was no flyoff for the J-20 nor for the J-35. There has been a long standing common misconception that the FC-31 was a competing design that lost to the J-20 in a sort of flyoff like the YF-22 vs YF-23 since the FC-31 demonstrator flew in 2012, while the J-20 flew in 2011. However that is simply wrong, before the J-20 flew, it was already decidedly the winning bid. The FC-31 was a private venture by Shenyang that was vying for international customers since the beginning. Eventually the PLAN liked the idea of using the evolutions from the FC-31 demonstrator which became the J-35.

Would it be more logical to apply Chinese history to Chinese aviation or with American history to Chinese aviation? With the amount of information we have so far it's hard to conclude anything concrete. But given the indicators, it is believable that they are in fact prototypes, the progress has been very similar to the flying prototypes made of the J-20. There however is not much indication that these are simply demonstrators, and following the flyoff theory is simply misguided as an American perspective for something incredibly Chinese.

You make a valid point, but those were designs where the Chinese firms and PLA were "Crossing the river by feeling the stones" as they say. Now that the Chinese have caught up to the state of the art, they can no longer recreate and must innovate or be stuck in second place. They seem to be doing just that, but that also means they need to explore their options instead of following the US or Soviet designs.

 

[zjz]

From Aviation Week ....

Podcast: NGAD Win Puts Boeing Back In The Game With The F-47 | Aviation Week Network

What does Boeing’s contract win for the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation combat aircraft, the F-47, mean for the struggling aerospace company?

aviationweek.com

 

[4decaa]

not trying to act as a "moderator" here, but it sounds like there might be interest for a F-47 design speculation thread where we can all discuss 3D models and such. I would greatly enjoy (and participate in) such a thread. I'm sure some of you would. Yes? No?

 

[VishnuOsiris]

From Aviation Week ....

Podcast: NGAD Win Puts Boeing Back In The Game With The F-47 | Aviation Week Network

What does Boeing’s contract win for the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation combat aircraft, the F-47, mean for the struggling aerospace company?

aviationweek.com

[Steve Trimble:]

I think if you had asked people in St. Louis, the employees there, in 2009 or 2010 if they thought they were still going to have an F-15 and an F/A-18 line still active in 2025, they would've looked at you pretty funny. But sure enough, I mean, Boeing was able to sustain F/A-18E/F through new buys from the U.S. Navy, and for the F-15, they were able to incrementally modernize it through the Saudi order, which added fly-by-wire, a couple other things, and the Qatari order which added this new cockpit station, and now with the F-15EX, they're adding a new electronic warfare system, that's also going in F-15EX.

So they've been able to keep that going, but really, the clock was ticking on both those programs. We know the Super Hornet is shutting down in a couple of years. F-15EX, we just don't know how much farther that can go, but now they've got this new aircraft that they can build. There's still a Navy competition, by the way. I mean, that's still out there. That's the F/A-XX and Boeing is definitely still in competition for that with Northrop Grumman. We found out Lockheed Martin has dropped out of that competition, but it's still very much in competition.

 

[kapakilla6]

not trying to act as a "moderator" here, but it sounds like there might be interest for a F-47 design speculation thread where we can all discuss 3D models and such. I would greatly enjoy (and participate in) such a thread. I'm sure some of you would. Yes? No?

Yes please. These boards are much better reads when they catalogue information, news, or related studies rather than straight up 3d model attempts and various other 'user's own imagination' type things.

 

[Shaman Harris]

It is kinda sad the public perception of canards is more than 2 decades out of touch

 

[Jensen Zhou]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1905053757680828850

View: https://x.com/ASForcesMag/status/1905053757680828850

 

[CiTrus90]

not trying to act as a "moderator" here, but it sounds like there might be interest for a F-47 design speculation thread where we can all discuss 3D models and such. I would greatly enjoy (and participate in) such a thread. I'm sure some of you would. Yes? No?

I can only speak for myself, but I was certainly not going to post any more speculative images in this thread. I was rather interested in opening a specific thread in the theoretical and speculative section, once I had finished my model.

I don't think Rodrigo would have done much differently either.

I guess we just thought that our work could be "food for thought" among the speculations of other people that had already been posted previously. But well, that does not seem to have been the case, with how people are reacting to 2 specific posts in a 23 pages long thread of 909 posts.

Seeing how divisive that seems to have been with calls to action by a moderator to the site owner or here just an example from another user:

Yes please. These boards are much better reads when they catalogue information, news, or related studies rather than straight up 3d model attempts and various other 'user's own imagination' type things.

I don't think I will do as I had in mind anymore, lest I might hurt the experience of the users navigating the forum.

Though I find it interesting how the endless speculation and unrelated posts seem to be fine when they are expressed verbally, but the line is drawn (literally, no pun intended) when it comes to pictures.
If it were for me, this thread would be around 2 to 3 pages long, at least that's the amount of information I consider relevant among what I've read so far.

Guess I'm out of touch with the times and should learn to read the room better.

BTW I'm done with the OT and won't post further in here. Just wanted to make that clear before people's experience gets any more strained by the mere possibility of me posting more in the future.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wow this thread has been moving!

As a layman how do these US projects compare with the UK/Japan/Italy and France/Germany projects?
Apart from Israel I cant see many export contracts for them.

I think Australia is another potential buyer. They lost a lot of range when the F-111s retired.

Though Oz might also buy FAXX, assuming that F-47 has limited bay depth for A2G ordnance while FAXX is going to have bays large enough for a pair of AGM158s and a pair of AARGM-ERs.

The replacement for F-15E, if there is one, will be F-15EX.

Not based on production numbers (thus far) and mission... Mudhen's job is deep penetration strike, basically F-111.

Ukraine is showing that you're not going to penetrate even a moderate IADS without stealth aircraft.

Would the off-white be for the mark one eyeball? Lighter colours being less distinguishable from background?

Yes, that's exactly what Haze Gray is about. Under strong sunlight it looks near-white.

Off-white camouflages into cloudy back grounds.
Neutral grey camouflages into average sky.
Black camouflages into night sky.
A true stealthy airplane blurs returns on a dozen different types of sensors: optical, thermal, radar, acoustic, etc. .. including a couple new types of sensors that are not yet talked about in polite company. Hah! Hah!

No it does not. A black airframe can be seen as a shadow against the night sky, even without being in front of a cloud.

See the use of Yehudi lights in WW2, to INCREASE the luminance of aircraft and ships and make them contrast-match the sky.

Imho, the 'Voodoo II" demonstrator is the one in the pics attached below (screenshots from a Boeing Phantom Works promo video, iirc similar screenshots and/or the video itself have also been posted by others many moons ago in the old NGAD-thread).
'Voodoo II' name chosen because of the wing being similar in shape to the F-101 'Voodoo'.
I know, that would mean (at least one) NGAD demonstrator has been 'hiding in plain sight'.

The GCAP/Tempest design used a similar wing shape and then switched to a huge delta rather recently.

I'm not disagreeing.

You can't "have flown NGAD 5 years ago" and still "will fly during Trump's tenure."

Trump was POTUS 5 years ago, too. So it arguably DID fly during Trump's tenure.

/Devil's Advocate.

If you build a technology demonstrator, you have the opportunity to seriously tweak the design once you know what works and what doesn't. If you jump straight from drawing board to a prototype, you're looking at minor tweaks and hoping nothing major goes wrong.

If you build a prototype, the assumption is you'll progress straight to production post flight trials. If you build a technology demonstrator, the assumption is there'll need to be a production-representative prototype before you can progress to flight trials.

It's swings and roundabouts: jumping straight to a prototype gets you closer to production, a technology demonstrator maximises your chance of not screwing up.

I've not seen anything to convince me we know where either side is in their design-build cycle.

Also, arguably, China is on the second variation of the J36 design, at least based on buzz number on the flying prototype.

36 - Aircraft number.
0 - placeholder
1 - first variation/design change of the -36 number
1 - first airframe of first variation

Yes, in theory this means there is a 36001 out there somewhere.

But I'm not sure where China files "demonstrator" and "prototype" numbers. Arguably, the demonstrator would be 36001.

not trying to act as a "moderator" here, but it sounds like there might be interest for a F-47 design speculation thread where we can all discuss 3D models and such. I would greatly enjoy (and participate in) such a thread. I'm sure some of you would. Yes? No?

Yes, I would.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oops, missed one!

@Scott Kenny : the successor of the F-15E is a combo of F-47 & CCA.
Why would you stick with the hassle of maintaining an heavy airframe when the necessity of a Beast mode can be passed over to an unmanned adjunct. The latter do not have to fly every time the former takes to the air in peace time, crushing the cost increase and large maintenance hours.

The catch is that we're not sure how well CCAs work at all, and thus far there has been ZERO mention of CCAs in the "bomb truck" role from USAF. ELINT, comms relay, and "spear carrier", yes.

So the NGAD proposal should have had bays sized for larger ordnance as one of the requirements.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I can only speak for myself, but I was certainly not going to post any more speculative images in this thread. I was rather interested in opening a specific thread in the theoretical and speculative section, once I had finished my model.

I don't think Rodrigo would have done much differently either.

I guess we just thought that our work could be "food for thought" among the speculations of other people that had already been posted previously. But well, that does not seem to have been the case, with how people are reacting to 2 specific posts in a 23 pages long thread of 909 posts.

Seeing how divisive that seems to have been with calls to action by a moderator to the site owner or here just an example from another user:

I don't think I will do as I had in mind anymore, lest I might hurt the experience of the users navigating the forum.

Though I find it interesting how the endless speculation and unrelated posts seem to be fine when they are expressed verbally, but the line is drawn (literally, no pun intended) when it comes to pictures.
If it were for me, this thread would be around 2 to 3 pages long, at least that's the amount of information I consider relevant among what I've read so far.

Guess I'm out of touch with the times and should learn to read the room better.

BTW I'm done with the OT and won't post further in here. Just wanted to make that clear before people's experience gets any more strained by the mere possibility of me posting more in the future.

I think its worth having a specific topic for people who want to try to figure out and model the possible configuration of the F-47 based on the very limited information we have.

I would like suggest we move some existing posts here : https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/possible-configuration-of-the-boeing-f-47-ngad.45793

That doesn't mean there was something wrong with posting CGI in this topic, and I hope @CiTrus90 and @Rodrigo Avella know most people appreciate their modelling talents greatly. I've been staring at the two images myself, trying to visualise what I am seeing.

 

[Rhinocrates]

See the use of Yehudi lights in WW2, to INCREASE the luminance of aircraft and ships and make them contrast-match the sky.

A prime example of biomimetics, BTW. It's been working for millions of years.

Counter-illumination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[gyavolo]

Regarding the canards, I think it should be no surprise at all. I was shocked too when I first saw the official renderings, but as I started to think over it, having canards is the most logical thing for the NGAD fighter. Here is my reasoning:

Well, you want to design a fighter without vertical tail to reduce RCS. But how to control yaw without having other aero surfaces flapping around and ruining the stealth? Option 1 - some reaction control nozzles at the sides, option 2 - differential thrust engines. Option 1 is no good, because nozzles are one of the hardest things to design for low RCS, hard to cover with RAM, so you don't want them on the sides. They would be complex, heavy, expensive to develop and maintain. Differential thrust then, you need at least 2 engines spaced wide apart. But having 2 engines means that it is twice as likely that one might fail. So the plane must have enough aerodynamic yaw authority in "non-stealth" mode at least, that it can safely fly with only one engine running far off the centerline. How to do it? Option 1 - flying wing like B-2 or B-21 with moderate wingsweep for leverage and airbrakes near the wingtips. But this is not suited to supersonic speeds. Option 2 - having third engine in the centerline like J-36, so that if any of the 3 fails, it would still be controllable. If one of the outer engines fails, just shut off the other to prevent asymmetrical thrust and limp back home on the center engine. But 3 engines are heavy, expensive, not really that good for RCS either, because you have a third "thing" to hide. Two engines are better for a true fighter, unlike the J-36 destroyer or whatever they call it. OK, option 2 - J-50 appears to have quite big wingspan and moving wingtips, that apparently can be used in concert with the ailerons for yaw. But this is not ideal either. Small surfaces that must be movable, thus with gaps that cannot be sealed, and being in size comparable to the wavelenghts of many radars is quite bad for broadband stealth. At least not better than option 3 - differential canards in concert with ailerons. Canards have longer edges, so may be good for lower frequency radars, they can be in line with the main wing just as the J-50 movable wingtips are, and on top of that can provide additional benefits for agility and overall aerodynamic efficiency. When not needed for yaw control, i.e. cruise speed, both engines running, they can be fixed at an angle of attack to provide some lift and allow smaller main wing, probably with somewhat smaller RCS that is also partially masked by the canards. Tandem wing in essence. Yes, radar scattering interference between the two is likely complicated, but probably they have sorted it out. At very least canards look not that bad compared to the other 2 options, and Boeing already have experience from X-36 and data from X-31, both in tailles canard configuration. So it is like no brainer to me. Yes, canards were unexpected, supposedly they are not ideal for stealth, but looks like they may be the best option anyway.

 

[Josh_TN]

Oops, missed one!


The catch is that we're not sure how well CCAs work at all, and thus far there has been ZERO mention of CCAs in the "bomb truck" role from USAF. ELINT, comms relay, and "spear carrier", yes.

So the NGAD proposal should have had bays sized for larger ordnance as one of the requirements.

The AD in NGAD is for air dominance. The B-21 is the penetrating strike component, and F-35 is the tactical flavor. There will not be another dedicated USAF A2G aircraft and there is no intention to use NGAD that way. I cannot imagine there are accommodations for more than AIM-120 sized weapons, given the need for range.

 

[FighterJock]

Quite surprising that there will be another strike element for the USAF Josh_TN. Will this be like what the Lockheed FB-22 and Northrop FB-23 were supposedly ment to fill before they were canclled?

 

[joewee]

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-boeing-ngad-best-overall-value/

Yesterday's article rings very true on how DoD runs major source selections.

 

[Deezy]

Do you believe the siloed evaluations of both programs could have resulted in both services selecting Boeing due to their internal infrastructure investments, and now the Navy could be backtracking or second guessing that selection?

 

[Josh_TN]

Do you believe the siloed evaluations of both programs could have resulted in both services selecting Boeing due to their internal infrastructure investments, and now the Navy could be backtracking or second guessing that selection?

I would presume the risk of a USAF Boeing pick to be baked in. I do not know if that would alter the decision, but it certainly was a known fact here and I would think that the services/silos talk to each other informally when they have major programs that could potentially compromise each others contractor choices.