Boeing F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

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...

Entitlements made up much less of the federal budget back then which allowed a greater amount of defense spending. Comparing debt servicing costs as a percentage of GDP between the 80s and now is around the same too. Barring reductions on entitlement spending or tax hikes, increasing defense spending is probably unsustainable.
 
Sevrent said:
Barring reductions on entitlement spending or tax hikes, increasing defense spending is probably unsustainable.
Click to expand...

Well if those completely unwarranted and undeserved tax-cuts the super-rich got were repealed followed by them being taxed appropriately (1980 tax-levels) the US would definitely have enough money.
 
NMaude said:
Well if those completely unwarranted and undeserved tax-cuts the super-rich got were repealed followed by them being taxed appropriately (1980 tax-levels) the US would definitely have enough money.
Click to expand...
Yeah this admin going around doing its best to kneecap the govt's revenue collection makes me doubt its commitments to defense spending
 
Prior to the election Kendall was hinting that he would be willing to stay on. We dodged a bullet with that one.
quellish said:
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.
Click to expand...
Never said it wasn't. NGAD could have been a much different air superiority platform. Based on his actions in office and the OP Ed, it sure appears that Kendall is distancing himself from the F-47. F-22 replacement like the F-22 was a replacement for the F-15 - big, two engine fighter, with a similar weapons load. When Kendall adds after years of development and analysis that NGAD should be about the cost of an F-35 or less that indicates that he either didn't agree with the requirements the AF came up with, got cold feet, or is trying to cover his butt.
 
B2Blain said:
Never said it wasn't. NGAD could have been a much different air superiority platform. Based on his actions in office and the OP Ed, it sure appears that Kendall is distancing himself from the F-47. F-22 replacement like the F-22 was a replacement for the F-15 - big, two engine fighter, with a similar weapons load. When Kendall adds after years of development and analysis that NGAD should be about the cost of an F-35 or less that indicates that he either didn't agree with the requirements the AF came up with, got cold feet, or is trying to cover his butt.
Click to expand...

To give the benefit of the doubt, I think he had hinted at plan B (in case more funding was not made available to do NGAD as designed in addition to other priorities) being to pivot to a more affordable combat aircraft solution that would allow 'other priorities' to be addressed because the AF could not do NGAD as currently envisioned while also funding those 'other priorities'. The 'F-35 ballpark' was just a reference to basically what the AF can afford a few squadrons a year (2-3) now. It is certianly possible that had he stuck around and no additional funding for the DAF been made available, he would have proposed a different course...but we can never be sure.
 
bring_it_on said:
To give the benefit of the doubt, I think he had hinted at plan B (in case more funding was not made available to do NGAD as designed in addition to other priorities) being to pivot to a more affordable combat aircraft solution that would allow 'other priorities' to be addressed because the AF could not do NGAD as currently envisioned while also funding those 'other priorities'. The 'F-35 ballpark' was just a reference to basically what the AF can afford a few squadrons a year (2-3) now. It is certianly possible that had he stuck around and no additional funding for the DAF been made available, he would have proposed a different course...but we can never be sure.
Click to expand...
It could have saved the Air Force money if they decided to roll with the B-21 as the "Penetrating Counter-Air" component of the NGAD and focused on making advanced CCA drones that can tag alongside the B-21. But perhaps some form of speed and maneuverability (Despite views that it may not be as maneuverable) was still a requirement, which clearly the B-21 could not deliver due to its subsonic speeds.

After all, one such idea by the CSBA for the NGAD based on its definition as a "Family of systems" was that the main unit or PCA would be a bomber-sized aircraft with several advanced BVR missiles such as the LREW, AIM-174 or AIM-160 missiles that would engage enemy fighters from very far away and destroy them without said fighters realizing that they were attacked until it's too late. The CCA drones would then finish the job with slightly shorter-ranged missiles if any stragglers still remained, and still remain undetected until then. That is assuming the enemy fighters are 5th Generation Stealth Fighters and both the PCA aircraft and CCA drones have the most advanced IR sensors and robust fusion datalinks in their systems, as well travelling at subsonic speeds.
 
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...
You mean 1940s or maybe late 1930s.

USAAC was doing blocks on planes long before the 1970s.


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...
The Navy needs a plane sooner, the earliest Super Bugs are already in the Boneyard and the second tranche are close to end of life.

FFS the planes the Blue Angels are flying are 20 years old!



FighterJock said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting up to 90klbs MTOW off the catapult. It may be in the 80k range.


Sundog said:
I'm thinking that may have changed for the new carriers due to the EM catapults and arresting gear?
Click to expand...
Not really. The new arresting gear is supposed to be able to catch lighter aircraft without damage, but as I understand things it's still limited to about 55,000lbs landing weight.

This suggests an FAXX empty weight of about 45,000lbs, so it can hold ~5000lbs of AAMs and ~5000lbs of fuel.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250414-022252~2.png
    Screenshot_20250414-022252~2.png
    995.1 KB · Views: 163
  • Screenshot_20250414-022252~3.png
    Screenshot_20250414-022252~3.png
    343.9 KB · Views: 180
KHambsch said:
Hey Robert, this pic looks real. If so, it surprises the heck out of me...per, I'd never conceive that the government would disclose anything this early on. Your thoughts? Everyone-anybody?
Real or not? K
Click to expand...
Just because it's featured in some promotional video from Boeing doesn't mean it's real. The social media/PR people in charge of putting together the video has 0 access to special access data. Often times the CGI is done by some artist on artstation and the PR folks just buy the model from them or contract them to make some CGI footage.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, this is pitiful from a military with an 800 billion budget to just get some random art from the internet and use it to show off as their next generation combat aircraft, even as a placeholder. Maybe that's where their F-47 CGI comes from lol.
 
lancer21 said:
I have to say, this is pitiful from a military with an 800 billion budget to just get some random art from the internet and use it to show off as their next generation combat aircraft, even as a placeholder. Maybe that's where their F-47 CGI comes from lol.
Click to expand...

They used it in a recruiting ad. No one at the USAF is claiming this represents NGAD or anything of the sort. And that ad has probably been in development since before the NGAD selection was announced.
 
lancer21 said:
I have to say, this is pitiful from a military with an 800 billion budget to just get some random art from the internet and use it to show off as their next generation combat aircraft, even as a placeholder. Maybe that's where their F-47 CGI comes from lol.
Click to expand...
Chances are they paid a marketing firm to do it. The marketing firm doesn't know anything about next generation combat aircraft. The USAF isn't telling. Boeing and LM certainly aren't. So of course they're going to get a commercially available model.
 
CiTrus90 said:
View attachment 766825

As first stated here by djfawcett:

And here's the model in question...
Click to expand...
I still think this is a scale model, as you can see from the runway center line behind and the strange light and shadow. If it's cgi, there's no need to depict these things. In particular, this plane is relatively small compared to the runway center line. Instead, this could be an early stage aircraft, and there are several stages of ngad that may include validation aircraft in different technical states, and this could be one of them
 
kken said:
I still think this is a scale model, as you can see from the runway center line behind and the strange light and shadow. If it's cgi, there's no need to depict these things. In particular, this plane is relatively small compared to the runway center line. Instead, this could be an early stage aircraft, and there are several stages of ngad that may include validation aircraft in different technical states, and this could be one of them
Click to expand...
Not a chance........the ad picture is a direct copy of the internet picture with background added. But if you really think that is a real airplane, please tell me what you are taking, I need some.
 

Attachments

  • GoVdri-WYAEBFM4.jpeg
    GoVdri-WYAEBFM4.jpeg
    20.7 KB · Views: 57
  • cam_06_standard_product_image.jpg
    cam_06_standard_product_image.jpg
    317.7 KB · Views: 53
donnage99 said:
Just because it's featured in some promotional video from Boeing doesn't mean it's real. The social media/PR people in charge of putting together the video has 0 access to special access data. Often times the CGI is done by some artist on artstation and the PR folks just buy the model from them or contract them to make some CGI footage.
Click to expand...
I was refering to the stills in the perported factory above.. Fake? Or? K
 
kken said:
I still think this is a scale model, as you can see from the runway center line behind and the strange light and shadow. If it's cgi, there's no need to depict these things.
Click to expand...
...what?
The fact that there is a runway and lights and shadows mean that this is all real? That's your reasoning?

I think I'm starting to understand how quellish must feel when he reads these threads...

Just to help me provide you with an answer, you are aware that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are not real, right?
If the answer is no, please look up what CGI is. Also, here you will find some cool and entertaining videos to learn more about it.
If the answer is yes, then allow me to introduce you to the concept of ✨advertising✨, where realism is used to engage on an emotional level with the targeted audience.

If you don't believe that realism related to an aviation theme can be achieved with CGI, here's another couple of example of how things can look in a CGI environment:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvIqMRzBtAg

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxk_ZjSODTA
 
Last edited:
CiTrus90 said:
Just to help me provide you with an answer, you are aware that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are not real, right?
If the answer is no, please look up what CGI is.
Click to expand...

I'm in shambles, next you're telling me they didn't get flight worthy F-14s and a couple of Su-57s for the documentary Top Gun Maverick?

(Although in Jurassic Park, the good one at least, they also utilized practical effects a lot, with the use of animatronics)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom