Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

Sevrent said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree, looks like this version is a bit more like the Scaled 401, ie BoP wing with vee-tail, but with those LERXes that may be levcons. This version also looks smaller to me, in part due to the cockpit size. I lean toward thinking this is the demonstrator.

The flag pic one, however, looks larger, and like it exchanged the tails and potential LEVCONS for canards. Due to larger apparent size, I’m guessing this is the EMD proposal.
 
Forest Green said:
That's not really saying much though, the F-22 was ridiculously expensive, mostly due to small volume production. If it's not cheaper than the F-22 that would worry me a lot more.
Click to expand...

They are now looking to at least double the previous projected buy of 200.

USAF is trying to come up with a plan for how to use that many.
 
quellish said:
They are now looking to at least double the previous projected buy of 200.

USAF is trying to come up with a plan for how to use that many.
Click to expand...
Nice to get more evidence about size. This is seeming smaller than I expected, more like Allvin’s summer presentation size
 
I think its at least possible that the two NGAD designs were quite different, with Lockheed's having been the larger more capable but expensive design. Then if the Air Force was leaning towards Lockheed's high end approach earlier but then reconsidered, that might reconcile the somewhat contradictory messaging.
 
Given the presence of a canard and the relatively modest size, I wonder if the Boeing NGAD and FA-XX designs were not very similar, perhaps even largely the same airframe outside power plant and reinforced structure and assorted embarked aircraft features.
 
zebedee said:
From the Whitehouse Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903117926510518399
View: https://x.com/Scavino47/status/1903117926510518399


Zeb
Click to expand...

Artist's rendering from 6 years ago
www.militaryaerospace.com

Hybrid theory: Lockheed Martin and Boeing pitch upgraded F-22 and F-15 jet fighter

WASHINGTON – Almost since the day the last F-22 Raptor fighter jet rolled out of Lockheed Martin's assembly plant, the U.S. Air Force has been making plans for its successor -...
www.militaryaerospace.com www.militaryaerospace.com
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I think its at least possible that the two NGAD designs were quite different, with Lockheed's having been the larger more capable but expensive design. Then if the Air Force was leaning towards Lockheed's high end approach earlier but then reconsidered, that might reconcile the somewhat contradictory messaging.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't Lockheed and Boeing have tailored their designs to the same requirements? And where they're ditching the stealthy tanker that would argue against a small, shorter ranged design.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
But wouldn't Lockheed and Boeing have tailored their designs to the same requirements? And where they ditching the stealthy tanker that would argue against a small, shorter ranged design.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but the same requirements could still net you very different end results, especially if the two offerings aim for different targets with respect to required performance, cost, etc.

FARA was the perfect example - Lockheed bid a far more complex design with the potential for speed far in excess of the requirements, and which likely would have cost more. The Army also had an option from Bell which was much more “conventional”, much closer to the minimum performance required, and likely cheaper.

NGAD could have seen the bidders shoot for different capability-affordability targets with respect to the overall tender requirements.
 
quellish said:
They are now looking to at least double the previous projected buy of 200.

USAF is trying to come up with a plan for how to use that many.
Click to expand...
Yeah then NGAD is gonna be a smol boi, then don’t know how else they can procure that many in the current budget environment
 
sferrin said:
But wouldn't Lockheed and Boeing have tailored their designs to the same requirements? And where they ditching the stealthy tanker that would argue against a small, shorter ranged design.
Click to expand...

LM might have over designed their entry beyond the requirements. I think they had this problem with their CCA entry, which I believe was a higher cost broadband stealth design.
 
Josh_TN said:
LM might have over designed their entry beyond the requirements. I think they had this problem with their CCA entry, which I believe was a higher cost broadband stealth design.
Click to expand...

Or the opposite and they designed for what they wanted to sell the Air Force, not what was required.
 
sferrin said:
But wouldn't Lockheed and Boeing have tailored their designs to the same requirements? And where they ditching the stealthy tanker that would argue against a small, shorter ranged design.
Click to expand...

Also, the suggestion made during the NGAD-pause/review (which started in the summer of last year and ended just a few months ago) to consider switching to a (much) more affordable, (much) smaller/lighter 'multi-role' type (instead of moving forward as was planned), wouldn´t that have come (much) too short notice to come up with a (much) smaller/simpler 'mature & tested' design today?
 
Last edited:
HaveVoid said:
FARA was the perfect example - Lockheed bid a far more complex design with the potential for speed far in excess of the requirements, and which likely would have cost more. The Army also had an option from Bell which was much more “conventional”, much closer to the minimum performance required, and likely cheaper.
Click to expand...

LM must have a need for speed built into their blood, just look at what they pitched for the LRS-B. Can't blame them though, speed is sexy and intimidating (and expensive ;) ).
 
Dreamfighter said:
Also, the suggestion made during the NGAD-pause/review (which started in the summer of last year and ended just a few months ago) to consider switching to a (much) more affordable, (much) smaller/lighter 'multi-role' type (instead of moving forward as was planned), wouldn´t that have come (much) to short notice to come up with a (much) smaller/simpler 'mature & tested' design today?
Click to expand...

There has to be a nonzero number of these reports that were political theater, no? Or perhaps competition between corporate lobbying for the contract.
 
Does this mean all the American's who have dismissed Canards for the last 25 years are going to undergo a rapid damascene conversion?

Will they love canards now?

Or are these going to be 'better' canards?
 
This thing already seems set up messy. Halting so late into competition cause of cost concern or perhaps cause Air Force faced impossible choice of goin with Boeing then now it’s gonna be cheaper than f-22.

Last time Northrop bailed voluntarily out of a program you know what happened aka A-12 paper plane
 
quellish said:
They are now looking to at least double the previous projected buy of 200.

USAF is trying to come up with a plan for how to use that many.
Click to expand...

Given the speculated high price tag, what would the USAF be sacrificing by going forward with a higher order quantity?

Would it be safe to say there is a long term commitment to this aircraft, effectively sidelining the digital century series approach?

I can see justifying the cost & scale if they believe the F-47 can be an effective long term deterrent to Chinese expansion. But then again, once this arms race heats up, the threat environment could change dramatically. Kind of why I was weary of the US committing to such an expensive aircraft right now. Innovation and determination can bring about unexpected developments in warfare (especially given the age we're in now & who's competing).
 
With 5 years of flight test, you´d believe they have that right at the end. I know, EMD, but still.

@In_A_Dream : Well, the topo specifically made mention of the alleged scalability of the design. I think it comes cheap as there is less. More capabilities are deported onto the CCA that is itself iterrable and more attritable.
 
timmymagic said:
Does this mean all the American's who have dismissed Canards for the last 25 years are going to undergo a rapid damascene conversion?

Will they love canards now?

Or are these going to be 'better' canards?
Click to expand...

We are approaching the point where PLAAF fanboys claim that canards are not stealthy enough for sixth gen and USAF fanboys fight back against said claims. The world has indeed turned upside down.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Okay, but let's be honest here.This does look like the x thirty six program mixed with the bird of prey, I'll be doing a draft up tonight
Click to expand...
What ever the final design for the new F-47 is, the good news is that the U.S.A. finally have something to show for:)
 
TomcatViP said:
With 5 years of flight test, you´d believe they have that right at the end. I know, EMD, but still.

@In_A_Dream : Well, the topo specifically made mention of the alleged scalability of the design. I think it comes cheap as there is less. More capabilities are deported onto the CCA that is itself iterrable and more attritable.
Click to expand...

Let's hope it works out for the best then, I'm just a bit more biased towards investment in extreme CCA development as a safer option for the foreseeable future. Then figure out where the tactical manned C2 piece comes into play.

I also don't buy into the concern of what China's been showcasing recently outside of their industrial capacity to outproduce at a lower cost (also why I think CCA emphasis is more important for the USAF).

Time will tell though, lots of things can change.
 
NMaude said:
I have no doubt that the -47 is due to the fact that the Orange Oaf is the 47th POTUS, if this come out during the Fanta Fascist's first time disgracing and dishonouring the Oval Office it would've been the F-45. As it is there is already an existing F-47, I wonder if the NGAD's official name will be Thunderbolt-II?



Fixed that for you.



I have no doubt that the Bloviating Buffoon would insist that the US makes the best canards, that nobody but America makes canards like they do, bigly!

It wouldn't surprise me at all talking about non-standard designations if he insists the prototype be designated the XF-47A just to puff up his oversized ego some more.
Click to expand...
JFC, Go back to facebook if you want to keep sperging out about politics.
 
timmymagic said:
Does this mean all the American's who have dismissed Canards for the last 25 years are going to undergo a rapid damascene conversion?

Will they love canards now?

Or are these going to be 'better' canards?
Click to expand...
Canards have always been fairly equivalent to an all-moving elevator in terms of RCS, which the F-22 and F-35 both include. It would be best for stealth to go full X-65, but assuming you want some degree of maneuverability, you make tradeoffs where you have to. I think that given its high top speed of "over two" its canards play a greater role in lowering takeoff speed and increasing maneuverability by generating vortex lift in addition to the usual pitch control. Canards can also be used in conjunction with elevons as airbrakes, and when the sides are controlled independently, they can act as yaw control too.
 
So we have Boeing & NG left for the Navy contract. If the USN selects Boeing, would they just use the existing NGAD design and make modifications to make it work for USN operations? That might be a cost compromise.

And if so, it would make me curious what big piece of the MIC pie Lockheed is getting.

NG could be the prime and sub out to LM in a similar fashion with how they are integrated with the F-35 program.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom