Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

My guess here is that the Navy is operating on a compressed timeline, and is going to go with a conservative design. On one hand, I think they're no fans of the F-35, and I think replacement of the oldest Super Hornets due to age is going to be necessary in the next decade or so. On the other hand, the only carrier capable aircraft they're going to face down are advanced Chinese Flanker variants and the J-35, the latter of which might not turn out to be as advertised, considering the Saudis just rejected its procurement on technical grounds.
 
Elysium said:
My guess here is that the Navy is operating on a compressed timeline, and is going to go with a conservative design. On one hand, I think they're no fans of the F-35, and I think replacement of the oldest Super Hornets due to age is going to be necessary in the next decade or so. On the other hand, the only carrier capable aircraft they're going to face down are advanced Chinese Flanker variants and the J-35, the latter of which might not turn out to be as advertised, considering the Saudis just rejected its procurement on technical grounds.
Click to expand...

Well, the J-50 is theorized to be intended for the PLAN, with the J-36 being the PLAAFs choice. And furthermore the PLAN plays with the home advantage, with land based assets being able to support them. So the J-36 is in the mix as well, so is the J-20 on top of the J-35A and the naval J-35 (also where's the source for SA turning the J-35 down based on performance? Seems more like Saudi Arabia not wanting to hurt their chances at a GCAP deal by literally buying from the regional rival of one of the founding members). You're not expecting Fujian to sail into the middle of the Pacific to be picked apart, do you?

All of the above is to be considered when looking at the F/A-XX.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
At first glance 25% doesn't sound like much, but considering it needs to be somewhat compact to be a viable carrier based fighter and also has to be launched by a catapult it's clear that there are just inherent physical constraints imposed on any grandiose ideas of +1000nm F/A-XX. So 25% over something like an F-35C is actually not bad at all.

Something that isn't particularly clear to me though, is that with regular (presumably altered F135s) engines or adaptive cycle engines? I've heard conflicting statements about F/A-XX not including them and still going with them. If it's with ACE that would be a bit underwhelming, given the advertised improved efficiency and thus improved range.
Click to expand...
You can still get a lot of plane on a carrier. 44816620024_0e5a11f554_b.jpg
 
I wonder if the F/A-XX is going to have the same maximum take off weight and the same size as the A-5 Vigilante? The Vigilante was the heaviest carrier borne attack aircraft ever built, it will be something for the F/A-XX to equal it.
 
EmoBirb said:
Something that isn't particularly clear to me though, is that with regular (presumably altered F135s) engines or adaptive cycle engines? I've heard conflicting statements about F/A-XX not including them and still going with them. If it's with ACE that would be a bit underwhelming, given the advertised improved efficiency and thus improved range.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it an evolution of the F-110?
 
yeetmahboi said:
Nope. A heavier one is posited right over it in the picture.
Click to expand...
As per the Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheets for both types, the MTOW for the A-3 was 73,000 lb from a catapult launch, or 78,000 lb from a land base. The A-5 could launch off a carrier deck at 79,588 lb. The A-3 could land 2,000 lb heavier than the A-5, though.

I'm sure I've seen higher figures for the A-3, but the US Navy didn't seem to have accepted them in service.
 
EmoBirb said:
At first glance 25% doesn't sound like much, but considering it needs to be somewhat compact to be a viable carrier based fighter and also has to be launched by a catapult it's clear that there are just inherent physical constraints imposed on any grandiose ideas of +1000nm F/A-XX. So 25% over something like an F-35C is actually not bad at all.

Something that isn't particularly clear to me though, is that with regular (presumably altered F135s) engines or adaptive cycle engines? I've heard conflicting statements about F/A-XX not including them and still going with them. If it's with ACE that would be a bit underwhelming, given the advertised improved efficiency and thus improved range.
Click to expand...
Add a powered-JDAM and the strike radius is increased to well over 1,000nm and MQ-25 IFR will reportedly add 400nm on top of that.
 
EmoBirb said:
At first glance 25% doesn't sound like much, but considering it needs to be somewhat compact to be a viable carrier based fighter and also has to be launched by a catapult it's clear that there are just inherent physical constraints imposed on any grandiose ideas of +1000nm F/A-XX. So 25% over something like an F-35C is actually not bad at all.

Something that isn't particularly clear to me though, is that with regular (presumably altered F135s) engines or adaptive cycle engines? I've heard conflicting statements about F/A-XX not including them and still going with them. If it's with ACE that would be a bit underwhelming, given the advertised improved efficiency and thus improved range.
Click to expand...
The other thing is that the carrier has limited space and deck loading requirements, so it may not be feasible to put a large number of carrier-type CCAs aboard ship. The USN always had this balancing act regarding carrier missions, platform types, number of platform types for the carriers. In regards to unmanned platforms, the USN may begin with the MQ-25 to see it works out initially, USN needs a good purpose-built carrier tanker, something they never had before to my knowledge. Carrier-based CCAs may come as an eventual build-up. USAF is land-based, that's easy, a proper mix on the flattops, that's a little more difficult.
 
Forest Green said:
Add a powered-JDAM and the strike radius is increased to well over 1,000nm and MQ-25 IFR will reportedly add 400nm on top of that.
Click to expand...
Also while they say other F-18 we don't the specific loadout. If i remember it correctly Boeing tought that with CFTs and some JSOW they can get like ~800nmi now that may not be the baseline but we can see there is a hugh margin of possible ranges when we start between 400-800 nmi
 
Last edited:
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion...ation-move-too-quickly-to-commit-to-the-f-47/

More Frank Kendall gumming up the works. As is typical, he uses a lot of "I"s and congratulates himself for a good job. One bit of info is that while he was away during Trump 45 the AF decided NGAD should be a follow on to the F-22. For a guy that gives the impression that he is in control it seems he didn't change what the AF wanted during his time as SecAF. He said he could fund NGAD because of counter space and the need to bolster air defenses. Are you telling me that there wan't any other money he could scrape together from other programs? Not waste? Or spending of stupid stuff? I'm just glad he is gone.
 
B2Blain said:
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion...ation-move-too-quickly-to-commit-to-the-f-47/

More Frank Kendall gumming up the works. As is typical, he uses a lot of "I"s and congratulates himself for a good job. One bit of info is that while he was away during Trump 45 the AF decided NGAD should be a follow on to the F-22. For a guy that gives the impression that he is in control it seems he didn't change what the AF wanted during his time as SecAF. He said he could fund NGAD because of counter space and the need to bolster air defenses. Are you telling me that there wan't any other money he could scrape together from other programs? Not waste? Or spending of stupid stuff? I'm just glad he is gone.
Click to expand...

NGAD was always a next generation air dominance / superiority solution. To say that at some point it was not, then became one later, is incorrect.
 
Frank Kendall said:
"Something something something"
Click to expand...

the-office-steve-carell.gif
 
Hydroman said:
If you remember the USN NATF requirement, if its even an inch longer and heavier than the F-14, we're not interested, may still be the case?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that may have changed for the new carriers due to the EM catapults and arresting gear?
 
Sundog said:
I'm thinking that may have changed for the new carriers due to the EM catapults and arresting gear?
Click to expand...

Going into the future, given the threat environment, what role do you expect carrier-based assets to play?

That's where the real conversation needs to be (but different thread).

The USN is going to keep being aggressive in the SCS until the amount of deployed PLAN submarines (which is already substantial) becomes overwhelming. Over the next decade or so, you're going to see the USN decrease their FON exercises in the SCS and there's going to be a clear stand-off distance the USN is going to maintain for security purposes.

To keep this on topic with the F-47: The F-47, CCAs, and other patrols are going to increase to make up for the lack of USN activity in the SCS as a means of deterrence. That's where the importance is right now. The DOD needs to maintain a presence in the SCS without risking billions of dollars in naval/naval-air assets being in harm's way. Japan will focus on precision guided munitions to hold Beijing at risk as a means of defending their own security. SKorea is kind of a wild card.

This will all be progressional, China is very calculated about the strategic fortification of the homeland. If anyone is still picturing western Pacific carrier ops as business as usual (today), you’re about 20 years behind. The Chinese A2/AD is now very significant.

Edit: This is independent of what's going on in the space domain (which is probably more signifiicant).
 
Last edited:
B2Blain said:
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion...ation-move-too-quickly-to-commit-to-the-f-47/

More Frank Kendall gumming up the works. As is typical, he uses a lot of "I"s and congratulates himself for a good job. One bit of info is that while he was away during Trump 45 the AF decided NGAD should be a follow on to the F-22. For a guy that gives the impression that he is in control it seems he didn't change what the AF wanted during his time as SecAF. He said he could fund NGAD because of counter space and the need to bolster air defenses. Are you telling me that there wan't any other money he could scrape together from other programs? Not waste? Or spending of stupid stuff? I'm just glad he is gone.
Click to expand...
Time to be retire .
 
In_A_Dream said:
The USN is going to keep being aggressive in the SCS until the amount of deployed PLAN submarines (which is already substantial) becomes overwhelming. Over the next decade or so, you're going to see the USN decrease their FON exercises in the SCS and there's going to be a clear stand-off distance the USN is going to maintain for security purposes.
Click to expand...
FoNs don't depend on factual vulnerability, it's a peacetime customary law practice. Ships did and continue to do it in areas where they aren't survivable in wartime. At best, it's done under implication that this particular ship may be sunk, but country behind it is stronger than you(skillful attachment of F-47 here, totally not off top! jk, see below).

Though even that is debatable: for example, famous British fonops through Crimean waters, done on simple strength of will, without much strength behind it; should Russia try variant of Corfu back then, it would be a disaster. But UK carefully gauged opponent's will, and as a result BSF was humbled for free.

PLAN can deploy overwhelming number of subs to SCS right now (and can for 2 decades, since they got enough kilos) - it just isn't that worthwhile (after some point of saturation it'll just make ASW easier).
That changes now is mass production of sufficiently competitive nukes, which stretch non-ssk capabilities far beyond.

That keeps FoNops viable is ability of USAF, USN and USMC to contest and ideally contain China's potential expansion (with goal to roll it back in).
Where USMC is more about contesting(F-35B is good enough for that), but new USAF and USN aircraft (as well as their ground investments) - stopping and containing (F-35s aren't good enough for that by themselves on theater, it's a high end fight).
USN surface units aren't in SCS wartime picture, they're just not survivable there. They are supportive assets, unless sides attempt to move battle space geography(i.e.conduct offensive amphibious operations).

What matters overall is strike bandwidth(i.e. rate of damage, materially affecting frontline forces, as measured against force regeneration rate and it's sustainability), provided by survivable strike fighters(more) and stand off munitions (less, they're quite expensive and production limited - per volume of explosives delivered).
Core capability itself, thus, is F-35A (and maybe land-based F-35C).
Moderator of this capability over neutral/hostile airspace is land-based air superiority aircraft.
I.e. J-20, F-22 and F-47.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
www.defensenews.com

Did the Trump administration move too quickly to commit to the F-47?

Opinion: The jury is still out on whether the NGAD contract should have been awarded, former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall argues in this op-ed.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
The Trump Administration is promising to make a plan for a $1 Trillion Defense Budget for 2026, so maybe the NGAD/F-47 can be covered in it by then
www.defensenews.com

Trump promises $1 trillion in defense spending for next year

Trump's plan for a huge increase in defense spending next fiscal year would mean billions more for equipment and training.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
quellish said:
It sure is. Too much non factual nonsense and speculati
Click to expand...

La-Fuente Technologies said:
The Trump Administration is promising to make a plan for a $1 Trillion Defense Budget for 2026, so maybe the NGAD/F-47 can be covered in it by then
www.defensenews.com

Trump promises $1 trillion in defense spending for next year

Trump's plan for a huge increase in defense spending next fiscal year would mean billions more for equipment and training.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
Kendall doing realy a bad job to not include the NGAD for year 2026 time for him to go fishing.
 
dark sidius said:
Kendall doing realy a bad job to not include the NGAD for year 2026 time for him to go fishing.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it was already included in the 2026 budget regardless of whether Kendall did it nor not. After all, 20 Billion Dollars in a potential 1 Trillion Budget is a rather very small percentage, like just 2%.

Should be enough to cover NGAD plus many other projects and upkeep, but given how much of the budget that the Pentagon always misuses, I'm not exactly sure if increasing said budget would be good in the long run so long as there remains a lot of misuse by the Pentagon.
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Pretty sure it was already included in the 2026 budget regardless of whether Kendall did it nor not. After all, 20 Billion Dollars in a potential 1 Trillion Budget is a rather very small percentage, like just 2%.

Should be enough to cover NGAD plus many other projects and upkeep, but given how much of the budget that the Pentagon always misuses, I'm not exactly sure if increasing said budget would be good in the long run so long as there remains a lot of misuse by the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
1 Trillion is a right level to re-build the defense, with the coming of F-47 and FA/XX.
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
After all, 20 Billion Dollars in a potential 1 Trillion Budget is a rather very small percentage, like just 2%.
Click to expand...

$20 Bn is the total cost of the NGAD EMD phase, not the annual cost. $1 Trillion is the claimed FY26 annual budget for the DOD. We will have to see how much is added to the DAF budget over the FYDP when bulk of that EMD funding is due. As of now, the FY25 deal (CR) results in an inflation adjusted decline in defense dollars relative to FY24. This applies to the AF as well. The only saving grace is that the half year delay has likely meant that the AF won't be able the spend the entirety of what it planned to spend on NGAD for FY25 given the late start.
 
dark sidius said:
1 Trillion is a right level to re-build the defense, with the coming of F-47 and FA/XX.
Click to expand...
Provided that much of the funds will not be misused by the Pentagon as I mentioned, then that is well and good.

With so many upcoming projects going on (B-21, NGAD, SR-72 and CCB programs for the Air Force, F/A-XX, DDG(X) and SSN(X) for the Navy, Future Vertical Lift and Next Generation Combat Vehicle for the Army, among many others), a very large increase in the Defense Budget would be a welcome edition to try and speed up those programs further.
bring_it_on said:
$20 Bn is the total cost of the NGAD EMD phase, not the annual cost. $1 Trillion is the claimed FY26 annual budget for the DOD. We will have to see how much is added to the DAF budget over the FYDP when bulk of that EMD funding is due. As of now, the FY25 deal (CR) results in an inflation adjusted decline in defense dollars relative to FY24. This applies to the AF as well. The only saving grace is that the half year delay has likely meant that the AF won't be able the spend the entirety of what it planned to spend on NGAD for FY25 given the late start.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I forgot to add the context for what the 20 Billion for the NGAD is for, but regardless, 20 billion is just a small percentage in the potential 1 Trillion Defense Budget, that is if it would be enough for the Air Force to fulfill all their objectives for the EMD Phase.
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Thanks for the clarification. I forgot to add the context for what the 20 Billion for the NGAD is for, but regardless, 20 billion is just a small percentage in the potential 1 Trillion Defense Budget, that is if it would be enough for the Air Force to fulfill all their objectives for the EMD Phase.
Click to expand...

The Air Force doesn't get the entirety of the DOD budget to fund its efforts. It doesn't even get the entirety of the DAF budget. There is pass through, funding and what is left over goes to the Air and Space Force programs. So while top line growth is great, we will have to wait and see what percentage gains, if any, we see to the AF budget once you strip out pass through and space force funding..

1744284239229.png
 
bring_it_on said:
We've kept and sustained much higher levels of defense spending if looked on a percentage of GDP basis.
Click to expand...
During the cold war surely. And while one may argue that there is currently the Second Cold War ongoing, I don't think that realization has reached the public consciousness just yet. Which is why in my eyes it will be difficult to justify such spending in an economically tumultuous period.

But I have no background in economics, so that's that.

On a different note, how does the projected NGAD cost stack up so far compared to ATF and JSF?
 
EmoBirb said:
During the cold war surely. And while one may argue that there is currently the Second Cold War ongoing, I don't think that realization has reached the public consciousness just yet. Which is why in my eyes it will be difficult to justify such spending in an economically tumultuous period.

But I have no background in economics, so that's that.

On a different note, how does the projected NGAD cost stack up so far compared to ATF and JSF?
Click to expand...

$1 Trillion is around 3.5-3.6% of GDP. We spent 6% or more during peak cold-war days.

1744311173497.png
 
dark sidius said:
Kendall doing realy a bad job to not include the NGAD for year 2026 time for him to go fishing.
Click to expand...
I am starting to wonder whether he really wanted the F-47. He specifically mentions that the AF decided on an exquisite F-22 follow on during his absence and then laments the cost and anticipated production run, sending the message that he wasn't responsible for what they came up with. After years of risk reduction and a formal analysis of alternatives process, he announces a pause to study it yet again. During this time he says he would like NGAD to cost about the same as an F-35. Then he eliminates NGAD from the budget. It is not until after the election when AF leadership becomes more bold in advocating for NGAD and the need to have a manned penetrating air platform. The guys who presents himself as someone who is charge tried to use the pause and the commission to push back against AF leadership but lost.
 
I already told/wrote last year they should have never given Kendall a ride as backseater in the X-62A (F-16 VISTA) for a demonstration of the DARPA AI-controlled WVR air-combat manoeuvres. He may have gotten a bit too excited about dogfights in a LWF...
 
Dreamfighter said:
I already told/wrote last year they should have never given Kendall a ride as backseater in the X-62A (F-16 VISTA) for a demonstration of the DARPA AI-controlled WVR air-combat manoeuvres. He may have gotten a bit too excited about dogfights in a LWF...
Click to expand...
Kendall got too high on the drone and AI koolaid, almost Elon Musk-ish, lol.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom