Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

F-47 Fighter Program Could See Multiple Versions Built In Increments

Top U.S. officials that had a major hand in the NGAD fighter program say it was designed to be built in iterative increments, not just as a single configuration. Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Andrew Hunter discussed “Increments” of NGAD...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
No different to building in Blocks or Tranches - which we've been doing since the mid/late '70s.
 
Last edited:
DWG said:
No different to building in Blocks or Tranches - which we've been doing since the mid/late '70s.
Click to expand...

The difference is that they potentially see different prime contractors producing the next block. I’m doubtful that is workable - makes more sense for a CCA - but we shall see.
 
Ainen said:
And here i have my reasons to doubt.
While looking at commercial hardware and software is subjective, it is a way to measure relevant fields; we have no better way anyway. With this approach, there is little room for giving F-35 superiority; given how Lockheed visibly struggles with things that are rather normal outside of military, it's frankly a bit of discount even to expect J-20 to be equally troubled.
And the later we take the pairs(for example, for blk.4 F-35 that would be J-35A and J-20B), the higher my personal assesment of chinese capability will be.
Click to expand...

Circling back to this - that is not a fair comparison. There will never be a public discussion of PRC failure. I would love to hear what a “zero covid” internet search returns in China. Certainly ‘ tiananmen square’ or ‘winny the poo’ will not bring back a result, so it is hard to imagine ‘J-20 development problems’ does either. As such, I do not consider the lack of criticism of the J-20 program to be proof that it has been executed flawlessly, particularly since we know the WS-15 is the desired engine.
 
Josh_TN said:
The difference is that they potentially see different prime contractors producing the next block. I’m doubtful that is workable - makes more sense for a CCA - but we shall see.
Click to expand...
The RAF did that throughout the 30s-50s. Development contracts and production contracts went to different companies as often as not. It's theoretically how the Russian system worked with separate OKBs and production organisations, the best example might be Flanker production at multiple sites, with KnAAPO and Irkutsk handling the export variants.
 
Josh_TN said:
Their fighters are warmed over designs from decades ago. I hope they pull it off, and apparently their design was seen as more innovative. But their track record even on the defense side is not great (how hard is it to militarize your own airliner?!). That said, the F-35 is practically a guide book on how not to run a major program, so it’s not like LM was a strong candidate either.
Click to expand...

It's bizarre since KC767 had no real troubles as far as anyone can tell.
 
joshjosh said:
Given that the F-15 EX will be flying concurrently with the F-47, I don't think the USAF would name it the F-47 Eagle II. I don't believe there has ever been a "II" flying concurrently with its parent.
Click to expand...
How about Kestrel? Goshawk? Oops! A Goshawk is still flying.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

F-47 Fighter Program Could See Multiple Versions Built In Increments

Top U.S. officials that had a major hand in the NGAD fighter program say it was designed to be built in iterative increments, not just as a single configuration. Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Andrew Hunter discussed “Increments” of NGAD...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
If I remember, wasn't that one of the goals of NGAD as envisioned?

I remembered that the former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Will Roper, saying the exact same thing about NGAD, that its airframes would have an operational lifespan of 15-20 years before newer and more advanced iterations of the NGAD replaces it, given that it was supposed to follow the Digital Century Series acquisition program. I may not have remembered it properly, but perhaps the information was there in some of the articles shared in the NGAD thread.

Regardless, I heard that it was shelved sometime after Roper was out of his position as it was deemed unfeasible to perform, but maybe it was either reinstated or altered under a different name for the F-47.
 
Last edited:
La-Fuente Technologies said:
If I remember, wasn't that one of the goals of NGAD as envisioned?

I remembered that the former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Will Roper, saying the exact same thing about NGAD, that its airframes would have an operational lifespan of 15-20 years before newer and more advanced iterations of the NGAD replaces it, given that it was supposed to follow the Digital Century Series acquisition program. I may not have remembered it properly, but perhaps the information was there in some of the articles shared in the NGAD thread.

Regardless, I heard that it was shelved sometime after Roper was out of his position as it was deemed unfeasible to perform, but maybe it was either reinstated or altered under a different name for the F-47.
Click to expand...
Normal this is Will Roper who make the NGAD program alive and flying demonstrator.
 
Gentlemen, I am a bit dizzy, so my question might come off as abrupt and possibly off-topic. What I want to know is why some people refer to the B21 as a sixth-generation aircraft, and if there are many similarities or conceptual alignments between it and the F47?·······
 
Some people may have seen:

Benefitting from more than three decades of strike and stealth technology innovation, the B-21 is the next evolution of the U.S. Air Force strategic bomber fleet and the world’s first sixth-generation aircraft to reach the skies.

news.northropgrumman.com

What You Need to Know About Northrop Grumman’s B-21 Raider

Benefitting from more than three decades of strike and stealth technology innovation, the B-21 is the next evolution of the U.S. Air Force strategic bomber fleet and the world’s first sixth-generation aircraft to reach the skies. The B-21 Raider...
news.northropgrumman.com news.northropgrumman.com
 
SUPER=BUG said:
Gentlemen, I am a bit dizzy, so my question might come off as abrupt and possibly off-topic. What I want to know is why some people refer to the B21 as a sixth-generation aircraft, and if there are many similarities or conceptual alignments between it and the F47?·······
Click to expand...

I have to second this. I very well could have imagined this [am old], but IIRC, NG was initially marketing the B-21 as a "5th generation aircraft." Perhaps, something to the effect of "the most advanced 5th generation aircraft in the world." I definitely recall a smirk running across my face when I first noticed the switch-up to "the world's first sixth-generation aircraft."
 
It's just a bit of marketing. Jet fighters have generations, even if the dividing lines are fuzzy and open for debate. Is Su-57 a 5th gen, for example? The B-21, however, is not a jet fighter, it is a stealth bomber. I suppose you could consider it the 2nd US generation of stealth bombers, after the B-2. If you considered all bombers, I'm not sure which "generation" the B-21 would be. But to call it a "6th gen aircraft" is really just marketing.
 
Today I met some smart guys, and they all said that the B21 was the first sixth-generation aircraft in the United States·····
 
SUPER=BUG said:
Gentlemen, I am a bit dizzy, so my question might come off as abrupt and possibly off-topic. What I want to know is why some people refer to the B21 as a sixth-generation aircraft, and if there are many similarities or conceptual alignments between it and the F47?·······
Click to expand...
If I remember, the former Secretary of the Air Force called the B-21 as such at its unveiling. But since this is the thread for the F-47, please ask your follow-up questions at the B-21 Raider thread.
 
dark sidius said:
Normal this is Will Roper who make the NGAD program alive and flying demonstrator.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Roper was the one who claimed that the Air Force already flown an NGAD demonstrator aircraft, so at the very least, a demonstrator concept was already out prior to Boeing winning the contract. It should be obvious that the demonstrator was flown to "demonstrate" how the NGAD works, and then from there, the competing military defense companies worked their own vision and version of said demonstrator, with Boeing being deemed satisfactory enough for the Air Force that they won the contract.
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Yeah, Roper was the one who claimed that the Air Force already flown an NGAD demonstrator aircraft, so at the very least, a demonstrator concept was already out prior to Boeing winning the contract. It should be obvious that the demonstrator was flown to "demonstrate" how the NGAD works, and then from there, the competing military defense companies worked their own vision and version of said demonstrator, with Boeing being deemed satisfactory enough for the Air Force that they won the contract.
Click to expand...
Assuming the dihedral in the F-47's wing is as it appears. One can't rule out the wings having a downward cant, similar to the Bird of Prey (although not as extreme in either direction.) Perhaps , if that is the case, a minimal amount of downward twist might be incorporated at the dihedral-anhedral "break" to create some induced drag to help with yaw. (Prandtl)
 
www.twz.com

Navy Won't Scramble To Field Loyal Wingman Drones Like The Air Force

The admiral in charge of the Navy's Air Warfare Division made it clear his service is taking a wait and see approach to Collaborative Combat Aircraft.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

www.twz.com

F/A-XX Will Have Just 25% More Range Than Existing Navy Fighters

FA-XX will have much less range than some may have hoped for, even though extending the carrier strike group's reach is a top Navy priority.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

Donnelly did not offer any specifics, but the F-35C carrier-based variant of the Joint Strike Fighter has the longest combat radius of any tactical jet in the Navy’s current carrier air wings, which U.S. military sources put at around 670 nautical miles (close to 1,241 kilometers). This, in turn, would put the F/A-XX’s expected maximum combat radius at roughly 837.5 nautical miles (just over 1,551 kilometers)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

Navy Won't Scramble To Field Loyal Wingman Drones Like The Air Force

The admiral in charge of the Navy's Air Warfare Division made it clear his service is taking a wait and see approach to Collaborative Combat Aircraft.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

www.twz.com

F/A-XX Will Have Just 25% More Range Than Existing Navy Fighters

FA-XX will have much less range than some may have hoped for, even though extending the carrier strike group's reach is a top Navy priority.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom