Posted: 3/22/2025 8:47:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: freema22][Edited]
|
Very exciting times ahead with the announcement of the F-47. The fact that the prototype has been flying for at least 5 years in complete secret, and the Air Force says the first production airframe will fly within the next 4 years is pretty impressive. This is Boeing's first "clean sheet" fighter jet in the company's history, which could make for an interesting program. I think Trump was taking some liberties with the announcement, saying it was going to be "super maneuverable" when all the analysts that I have read have said that the era of traditional dogfighting is over and super-maneuverability in a manned aircraft is not needed anymore. Besides, anything above sustained 9G is beyond the limits of the human body. I wonder when we'll get the first good look at an actual airframe or when the losing designs make their way to Dayton. https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/22/everything-we-know-boeing-f-47-ngad/ 
|
|
Originally Posted By freema22: the prototype has been flying for at least 5 years in complete secret Well, kind of. 5 years ago the USAF announced quite publicly that they'd flown the initial NGAD technology demonstrator and performed a good amount of testing with it. So the timeline for when it was constructed and when it was flown is still a bit murky, but the information that it was being flown and tested has been available all this time. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/ We know from the press release yesterday that there are at least three tech deomostrator prototypes that have flown up to this point, but it isn't clear if these are all related to F-47 or also related to the unmanned UCAV that is rumored to be part and parcel with the NGAD program. What I think will be really interesting is if the RCS test shape that was spotted at Helendale 4 years ago has anything to do with F-47 or any of the technology demonstrator prototypes. For those who aren't familiar, the shape as it sits on the trailer in the photo is inverted. 
Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By trails-end: At one time they decided guns weren't needed on fighters too. That's OK, my father's squadron fixed that. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By freema22: …The fact that the prototype has been flying for at least 5 years in complete secret, and the Air Force says the first production airframe will fly within the next 4 years is pretty impressive. The tech demonstrator is just what the name implies - is bears zero resemblance to what a production aircraft would be. The first flight of a production prototype is, in .gov acquisition vernacular, the start of developmental testing. Development testing will take years. For perspective, the v280 technology demonstrator first flight was 2017 and the first prototype test aircraft still has not been completed. And this is bell designing an improved osprey, no new magic in it. A bleeding edge next gen fighter will have bleeding edge tech and require much more time for testing. If anybody think a production representative prototype will fly in 4 years you should never go to Vegas. |
|
Originally Posted By KB7DX: "This is Boeing's first "clean sheet" fighter jet in the company's history, which could make for an interesting program." I thought the JSF was Boeing's first clean sheet fighter design. X-32 was a derivative of another (still unacknowledged) black project Boeing had been working on in the early 90s, so we're probably splitting hairs as to if it was "clean sheet" or not. |
|
Originally Posted By jos51700: Boeing? We're in deep, deep trouble. As discussed in the other thread, we're talking about the division of Boeing that used to be McDonnell then McDonnell Douglas. It has virtually nothing to do with the Commercial Airplanes division and the airplanes designed and built in Seattle. They've built F-15s and F-18s for decades. |
|
This is Boeing's first "clean sheet" fighter jet in the company's history. Attached File Have we forgotten the FB already? Kids these days. History is longer than the most recent merger. The F-47 won't even be their second clean sheet fighter. Heck, the Peashooter was their third! |
Vintage Ain't Retro.
|
Originally Posted By ckbk: F-47? Like a P-47? Should they call this new one the Jug also? Originally Posted By ckbk: F-47? Like a P-47? Should they call this new one the Jug also? 47 as in the 47th President... Originally Posted By MudEagle: As discussed in the other thread, we're talking about the division of Boeing that used to be McDonnell then McDonnell Douglas. It has virtually nothing to do with the Commercial Airplanes division and the airplanes designed and built in Seattle. They've built F-15s and F-18s for decades. But the Eagle and Hornets were developed/built before they became Boeing. Let's hope the can deliver better than recent history. How long until Lochmart sues? I'll be interested to read all about the it's development in a few decades when the books finally come out lol. |
|
Originally Posted By RagingWhite: But the Eagle and Hornets were developed/built before they became Boeing. Have to keep in mind that the concepts and capabilities of NGAD originated within the USAF, and if we are to believe how the story is being told by the fellows at Wright-Patt, later the "industry partners" (Boeing for this particular part of the NGAD program) were brought in much later to make it into a production vehicle. If this is true, then either Boeing has had to simply alter and flesh out a design prototype (with an unknown level of maturity) presented to them by the AF, or adapt whatever technologies and capabilities the USAF developed with the NGAD prototypes into something Boeing already had on the drawing board. Although these two paths are essentially variations of the same thing, they have different implications for the success of the program. Frankly, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around what kind of engineering brain-trust the USAF has in the GS ranks that are capable of what they are claiming to have done (both in terms of design and construction) before Boeing was invited to the dance. As for Boeing, remember that the X-32 actually got some outstanding reviews from the test pilots, and that Boeing Seattle has been designing and building stealth and carbon composite components of high tech warplanes since the 1980s (the outer wings and aft center section of the B-2, and the aft center section and wings of the F-22). I have no idea how the Boeing Developmental Center folks have been integrated with the Phantom Works and the entire McD St Louis arm of the company...but there is certainly a shitload of knowledge and experience on this in both of those branches of the family tree. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Have to keep in mind that the concepts and capabilities of NGAD originated within the USAF, and if we are to believe how the story is being told by the fellows at Wright-Patt, later the "industry partners" (Boeing for this particular part of the NGAD program) were brought in much later to make it into a production vehicle. If this is true, then either Boeing has had to simply alter and flesh out a design prototype (with an unknown level of maturity) presented to them by the AF, or adapt whatever technologies and capabilities the USAF developed with the NGAD prototypes into something Boeing already had on the drawing board. Although these two paths are essentially variations of the same thing, they have different implications for the success of the program. Frankly, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around what kind of engineering brain-trust the USAF has in the GS ranks that are capable of what they are claiming to have done (both in terms of design and construction) before Boeing was invited to the dance. As for Boeing, remember that the X-32 actually got some outstanding reviews from the test pilots, and that Boeing Seattle has been designing and building stealth and carbon composite components of high tech warplanes since the 1980s (the outer wings and aft center section of the B-2, and the aft center section and wings of the F-22). I have no idea how the Boeing Developmental Center folks have been integrated with the Phantom Works and the entire McD St Louis arm of the company...but there is certainly a shitload of knowledge and experience on this in both of those branches of the family tree. Ya, from a F-35 bro that works along side close friends working on this, he has high hopes. He seems to think they brought in the right people rather than let a bunch of old F-4 guys trying to figure out what a fifth gen fighter looks like. My post failed to call out the complete lack of flexibility in our acquisitions process, which is just as much of a reason for past failures as anything. As someone on the outside these days, I have high hopes with measured expectations. As long as they don't try to make it another one size fits all (a la F-4/F-35), it should turn out decent. Time will tell. |
|
Originally Posted By RagingWhite: Ya, from a F-35 bro that works along side close friends working on this, he has high hopes. He seems to think they brought in the right people rather than let a bunch of old F-4 guys trying to figure out what a fifth gen fighter looks like. My post failed to call out the complete lack of flexibility in our acquisitions process, which is just as much of a reason for past failures as anything. As someone on the outside these days, I have high hopes with measured expectations. As long as they don't try to make it another one size fits all (a la F-4/F-35), it should turn out decent. Time will tell. Clearly the McManara influences of making everything one size fits all is a problem. As long as the high-low mix is followed we seem to do pretty well in the fighter department. The key here appears to be letting the F35 be the do all "low", and allow the F-47 to become a pure air superiority fighter first and foremost "high". That and buy enough of them, unlike the F-22. |
Dave Funk
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
|
The X-32 belongs to Seattle. Just before the buyout, MDA was booted from the competition for proposing a lift engine, despite clear warnings from a Marine general. The PWSC proposal airplane was mostly a Seattle project. St. Louis worked weapons integration and a share of the low observables work, I had two IRAD projects for the LO work. That was not under Phantom Works, although PW was part of my work. At that time Boeing and MDA shared corporate executives, but the cultures remained intact. The change accelerated in the early 2000's with a new organization of manager class and not manager class, with a core idea that any manager could manage any group. lol LM has its hands full with F-35, but I'll bet LM has responsibility for major subassemblies in F-47, and possibly subsystem work. I believe I know the reason we haven't heard a protest, but I won't disclose that information. Boeing Defense is busy, too, trying get MQ-25 off the ramp and T-7A sold, plus the F-18 life extension work, tapering F-18 down to close, F-15 EX production, KC-46 and P-8A production. Legacy airplanes are supported by the Global Support organization with inadequate communication to the production sides. This organization supports F-22A, too. |
Keep your powder dry, and watch your back trail.
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: I thought the F-4 was a 'clean sheet' aircraft.... much like the P-51 and the DC-3, C-47 among others.? The McDonnell F-4 Phantom 2 was a development from the McDonnell F3H Demon. You can see the similarities.      |
For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program.
Interesting video. Several prototypes flying..... Is the US Air Force F-47 Already Flying Missions? |
It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack