F-47 Discussion Thread

[Mars-Bound Hokie]

For those who are not aware, United States President Donald Trump announced on March 21, 2025 that Boeing has been awarded a contract to build the F-47. It is reportedly the first-ever sixth-generation fighter, with its distinguishing feature being that it includes semi-autonomous drone wingmen. It is expected to replace Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor, and cost less too. Below is a news video about the project announcement, whose thumbnail is a concept art of what the project will look like rolling out of the hangar.

 

 

I made this thread so we can all discuss the F-47. Possible pros and cons, how's it going, do we expect it to pay off, et cetera.

• And for the love of God, NO LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION! 

 

Feel free to expand the spoiler below if you want my personal opinion on the project. If you dis/agree or have your own thoughts, I'd like to hear them.

Spoiler

As much as I support our military being ahead of our adversaries, and as cool as it is to have a fighter which comes with its own wingmen, I see several problems with this idea.

1. Did we seriously give the contract to Boeing, whose reputation is down the toilet due to their airframes coming apart and being the reason those two astronauts were stranded in space for nine months? Sure, Northrop dropped out of the project, but we still could have picked Lockheed Martin. Let us not forget that Boeing's last (well-known) attempt at a fighter jet, the XF-32, got rejected in place of Lockheed's F-35. 
   1. Did I miss the part where Boeing underwent a serious overhaul? Even so, I personally wouldn't give them billions of taxpayers dollars for a new fighter unless it proved to have gotten its act together after a while.
2. We never got to see the F-22 in air combat, and that Chinese balloon doesn't count. Is it really necessary to replace it now? At least give it a chance to prove itself before throwing away all the billions we poured into it - and the YF-23.
   1. For all we know, the F-22 will be the fifth-generation equivalent of the F-15 in that it will suffer zero combat losses. We won't know for sure unless we try.
      1. Plus, we already paid for those, so we might as well use them - and for their intended purpose too (air superiority).
   2. Even if we can't (or won't) restart F-22 production, we still got our own F-35s. And unlike the F-22, the F-35 actually saw some air-to-air combat.
      1. Israel-owned F-35s shooting down Iranian drones and a Houthi cruise missile aren't much to brag about, but it's a lot more than a balloon.
3. Do we have a plan to rein in or kill the autonomous wingmen if they go rogue - or worse, get hijacked? Also, wouldn't controlling the drones be another distraction for the pilot?
   1. Then again, 1 fighter + 2 drones requires less money and manpower than 3 fighters. That also means fewer humans at risk per mission.
      1. Unless the drones go Skynet on you, either on their own or on enemy orders, then what?
   2. Will the F-47 be a two-seater, with the second occupant controlling the drones?
4. Even if I saw minimal flaws with the F-47 and/or if the F-22 proved itself to be useless in battle, do we really need to spend billions of dollars on a new fighter now? Sure, the F-47 is predicted to cost less than the F-22, but we're $36 trillion in debt as it is. And the keyword is "predicted," by the way, so who knows how much it's going to actually cost by the time the F-47 is ready. It would be stupid to put us in further debt building a new toy. 

 

[Minmus Taster]

34 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

NO LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION! 

I'm not really into discussing these sorts of subjects online so forgive me for my ignorance; THIS IS AN ISSUE?

[SunlitZelkova]

1 minute ago, Minmus Taster said:

I'm not really into discussing these sorts of subjects online so forgive me for my ignorance; THIS IS AN ISSUE?

As someone who will be a War Thunder veteran of 10 years in just a couple months, yes, I can confirm this is an issue.

38 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Did we seriously give the contract to Boeing, whose reputation is down the toilet due to their airframes coming apart and being the reason those two astronauts were stranded in space for nine months? Sure, Northrop dropped out of the project, but we still could have picked Lockheed Martin. Let us not forget that Boeing's last (well-known) attempt at a fighter jet, the XF-32, got rejected in place of Lockheed's F-35. 

1. Did I miss the part where Boeing underwent a serious overhaul? Even so, I personally wouldn't give them billions of taxpayers dollars for a new fighter unless it proved to have gotten its act together after a while.

 

We don't really have a choice. Giving the contract to Lockheed means giving them a near-total monopoly on USAF fighter production, which would de-incentivize the meeting of deadlines, cost limitations, and so on.

On the bright side, my understanding is that the NGAD program is structured in such a way that a lot of the intellectual property belongs to the USAF/DOD, making it easier to dump Boeing if they fail to provide. The USAF won't be at the mercy of the contractor in the same way the DOD kind of was when issues began arising with the F-35, or like how NASA is with SLS to some extent.

That talk of "We have no choice but to stick with the F-35" shouldn't happen this time around.

42 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

We never got to see the F-22 in air combat, and that Chinese balloon doesn't count. Is it really necessary to replace it now? At least give it a chance to prove itself before throwing away all the billions we poured into it - and the YF-23.

The F-22 is a capable platform, and personally I don't think it is really a problem or incapable in itself. The reasons for its retirement have less to do with its performance and more to do with other factors:

1. China has much larger numbers of the J-20, a number that the entire F-22 fleet- mind you some of which is not rated for combat and serves a training/developmental role (the Block 20s)- can't compete with.
2. Although the F-22 could theoretically serve side-by-side with NGAD, economically and logistically it just makes more sense to have a single fighter that will be more capable anyways.

44 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

For all we know, the F-22 will be the fifth-generation equivalent of the F-15 in that it will suffer zero combat losses. We won't know for sure unless we try.

1. Plus, we already paid for those, so we might as well use them - and for their intended purpose too (air superiority).

 

The F-22 is kind of the 5th gen equivalent already, because that is what it was designed to replace, but that characteristic poses challenges. The F-15 was designed, like most US military equipment in the Cold War, primarily around the requirements of the European battlefield. DOD planning now specifies fighting in the Pacific, a much larger theater with vaster distances.

While the F-15's range can be extended easily using tankers, it is not ideal due to the kind of threat environment that now exists in the Pacific.

I would assume that any range issues with European equipment were excused for Pacific requirements during the Cold War, mainly because the air forces of potential adversaries were exclusively equipped with MiG-21s and small numbers of MiG-23s. In the present, however, the main potential adversary not only possesses advanced aircraft capable of flying long distances on their own (whereas the MiG-21 was more geared to point defense, its own design being the genesis of the late 1940s Soviet requirement for fast interceptors capable of quickly climbing and shooting down nuclear bombers), they also possess a growing aerial refueling fleet that can extend that range, and very-long-range missiles that allow them to attack aerial targets at great distances- the kind of distance that during the Cold War was the key factor that made large scale aerial refueling operations viable.

The F-47 is projected to have much greater range than past US fighter generations, and this range will significantly improve its utility.

50 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Even if we can't (or won't) restart F-22 production, we still got our own F-35s. And unlike the F-22, the F-35 actually saw some air-to-air combat.

The F-35 is at its heart, a multi-role aircraft. It isn't designed for a pure air superiority mission.

USAF thinking dictates that a dedicated air superiority fighter is a must-have, given the poor performance of the multi-role F-4 Phantom over Vietnam. Air space remained continually contested over North Vietnam throughout the war, with the dramatic establishment of air superiority in the early days of the Korean War (with 1st gen jets shooting down Soviet late war prop fighters) not being repeated.

Having an aircraft designed around air combat, rather than delivering bombs and doing air combat, can make a big difference, as the stellar performance of F-15s flying air superiority and F-16s (and A-10s) flying close air support and battlefield air interdiction missions during the Gulf War demonstrated.

54 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Do we have a plan to rein in or kill the autonomous wingmen if they go rogue - or worse, get hijacked? Also, wouldn't controlling the drones be another distraction for the pilot?

1. Then again, 1 fighter + 2 drones requires less money and manpower than 3 fighters. That also means fewer humans at risk per mission.
   1. Unless the drones go Skynet on you, either on their own or on enemy orders, then what?
2. Will the F-47 be a two-seater, with the second occupant controlling the drones?

 

The Loyal Wingman stuff is a separate program, not only intended to support NGAD but also the F-35. It's kind of a separate topic from the F-47, because Loyal Wingman was going to happen even if NGAD was cancelled.

56 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Even if I saw minimal flaws with the F-47 and/or if the F-22 proved itself to be useless in battle, do we really need to spend billions of dollars on a new fighter now? Sure, the F-47 is predicted to cost less than the F-22, but we're $36 trillion in debt as it is. And the keyword is "predicted," by the way, so who knows how much it's going to actually cost by the time the F-47 is ready. It would be stupid to put us in further debt building a new toy. 

My opinion is that the continued belief that conventional weapons alone can win a big war is a sort of "zombie" mindset inherited from the post-Cold War era.

At the scale that a big war can be expected to occur at, conventional weapons won't be decisive to actually win the war. At best they could secure a stalemate conducive to a ceasefire, at worst they would be fodder allowing the other side to break through.

I believe that in the coming years there will be a realization of this problem, and the "real" way to win a big war will be remembered: with nuclear weapons. Even in the glorious days of AirLand Battle, nukes were expected to be used because as capable and fancy as all the new equipment of the day was... F-15/F-16, Abrams, Bradley, Paladin, M270, and so forth... it could never be produced at a scale that allowed it alone to defeat the quanitatively superior (in some cases even technologically matched, if not better) Warsaw Pact forces.

Nuclear weapons would be a much better choice than building huge numbers of the F-47 or Constellation frigate, or what have you. Although it would require significant investment to reactivate/rebuild large scale production infrastructure, it would make much more economic sense than spending on conventional forces, given the country's limited resources.

[Mars-Bound Hokie]

2 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

I'm not really into discussing these sorts of subjects online so forgive me for my ignorance; THIS IS AN ISSUE?

In case you didn't know before @SunlitZelkova mentioned it, War Thunder is infamous for classified documents getting leaked on the forums.

• And not in the name of exposing wrongdoing or manufacturers cutting corners, but rather to ask for changes to the game and/or win petty arguments about vehicle specs or performance.
• This doesn't happen in Kerbal Space Program (as far as I know), and I prefer it stays that way.

 

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Giving the contract to Lockheed means giving them a near-total monopoly on USAF fighter production, which would de-incentivize the meeting of deadlines, cost limitations, and so on.

On the bright side, my understanding is that the NGAD program is structured in such a way that a lot of the intellectual property belongs to the USAF/DOD, making it easier to dump Boeing if they fail to provide. The USAF won't be at the mercy of the contractor in the same way the DOD kind of was when issues began arising with the F-35, or like how NASA is with SLS to some extent.

That's a good point. I never considered that giving the F-47 contract to Lockheed would be essentially giving it a monopoly on USAF fighter production, hence leading to price increases and delayed deliveries and/or quality drops. However, what's the plan for the F-47 if the DOD ends up dumping Boeing? Are they just going to stop the project? Would another company have to start from scratch, or can they start from where Boeing left off?

 

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The F-22 is kind of the 5th gen equivalent already, because that is what it was designed to replace

Keywords "designed to." Until we have it fight more worthy aerial opponents than high-altitude balloons, we'll never know if it will live up to that expectation. So far, its only kills (besides that balloon) are from ground strikes; it did make a nice deterrent and interceptor, however.

 

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The F-15 was designed, like most US military equipment in the Cold War, primarily around the requirements of the European battlefield. DOD planning now specifies fighting in the Pacific, a much larger theater with vaster distances.

Another excellent point. Back then, we expected to be fighting the Soviet Union and its member states in Eastern Europe; over or close to land. Now, with China becoming our Number-One adversary, we'll have to prepare our forces for combat in the Pacific. Thanks to the ocean alone, this will require increased protection for our carriers as well as planes with longer ranges. 

• Now that I think about it, is there a naval version of the F-47 in the works? Is the U.S. Navy waiting until the F-47 proves viable before ordering some for itself?
• Also, if a war were to break out in the Pacific, remember that the U.S.  was slowly advancing on Japan island after island during WWII. I'm sure we can do it again, but then our Pacific enemy would also learn from that part of WWII and use those lessons to their advantage as well. 

 

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

While the F-15's range can be extended easily using tankers, it is not ideal due to the kind of threat environment that now exists in the Pacific.

You're right, it would be stupid to use tankers within enemy missile range. That's what carrier groups are for.

 

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

USAF thinking dictates that a dedicated air superiority fighter is a must-have, given the poor performance of the multi-role F-4 Phantom over Vietnam. Air space remained continually contested over North Vietnam throughout the war, with the dramatic establishment of air superiority in the early days of the Korean War (with 1st gen jets shooting down Soviet late war prop fighters) not being repeated.

I did not know that about the F-4. Looking back, it makes sense to secure air superiority BEFORE dropping your ordinance. On the other hand, some days you may not have time to wait for safe skies before you destroy enemy ground units (e.g. "Enemy tanks were just spotted advancing on our infantry. Destroy them immediately."). While a multirole fighter would be the ideal candidate for such a job - assuming a regular fighter strafing it is ineffective - it wouldn't be my first choice in securing air superiority. Maybe a backup measure in case of surprises from the ground, especially hostile anti-aircraft fire, since they're harder targets to hit than conventional bombers.

 

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Having an aircraft designed around air combat, rather than delivering bombs and doing air combat, can make a big difference, as the stellar performance of F-15s flying air superiority and F-16s (and A-10s) flying close air support and battlefield air interdiction missions during the Gulf War demonstrated.

I'm sure those who have played War Thunder and/or World of Warplanes would also agree that multirole fighters are second-rate when it comes to air combat. They might be decent, but most of the time they're somewhat easy picking for fighters designed specifically for air superiority.

 

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The Loyal Wingman stuff is a separate program, not only intended to support NGAD but also the F-35. It's kind of a separate topic from the F-47, because Loyal Wingman was going to happen even if NGAD was cancelled.

Really, I did not know that, thank you. I guess the F-35 will also serve as a test platform for the autonomous wingmen before they're installed on the F-47. It would also be a good opportunity to test whatever contingency plan is in place for when the Loyal Wingmen become Not-So-Loyal Terminators.

 

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I believe that in the coming years there will be a realization of this problem, and the "real" way to win a big war will be remembered: with nuclear weapons. Even in the glorious days of AirLand Battle, nukes were expected to be used because as capable and fancy as all the new equipment of the day was... F-15/F-16, Abrams, Bradley, Paladin, M270, and so forth... it could never be produced at a scale that allowed it alone to defeat the quanitatively superior (in some cases even technologically matched, if not better) Warsaw Pact forces.

Nuclear weapons would be a much better choice than building huge numbers of the F-47 or Constellation frigate, or what have you. Although it would require significant investment to reactivate/rebuild large scale production infrastructure, it would make much more economic sense than spending on conventional forces, given the country's limited resources.

The problem with nuclear weapons is the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). Depending on your age and/or if you remember the ending scene of WarGames, you'll remember that both sides will end up with everyone dead regardless of who launches first. Threatening to use nukes on a country that has nukes themselves is practically suicide unless you have a top-notch interception system. I agree that we should get our own nukes ready in case the worst-case scenario happens, but we also need our own defensive measures to go with it. If the second part is not possible, at the very least we can tell China or North Korea and its allies "Whether you destroy us or not, you will not be alive to reap the benefits." It's true that it would be less costly than building conventional forces, but nobody wants Cuban Missile Crisis: The Sequel either.

 

Overall, great points you raised. I'd love to hear what you all have to say about this new fighter.

[SunlitZelkova]

45 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

That's a good point. I never considered that giving the F-47 contract to Lockheed would be essentially giving it a monopoly on USAF fighter production, hence leading to price increases and delayed deliveries and/or quality drops. However, what's the plan for the F-47 if the DOD ends up dumping Boeing? Are they just going to stop the project? Would another company have to start from scratch, or can they start from where Boeing left off?

It is not clear what dropping Boeing would look like, but I would imagine it might end up looking roughly similar to how other companies were allowed to produce designs created by other companies during WWII.

For example, although the B-24 Liberator was designed by Consolidated Aircraft, Ford basically had full access to the design so as to be able to produce it on their own, and these aircraft were designated to denote this. B-24D-1-COs were built by Consolidated themselves, while B-24s with FO instead of CO were built by Ford.

*Ideally*, of course. Realistically this could face numerous issues.

48 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Keywords "designed to." Until we have it fight more worthy aerial opponents than high-altitude balloons, we'll never know if it will live up to that expectation. So far, its only kills (besides that balloon) are from ground strikes; it did make a nice deterrent and interceptor, however.

The thing has flown in simulated combat, by operational units during things like Red Flag and certainly during classified experiments with test units. But yes, it doesn't have any real world experience yet.

49 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Another excellent point. Back then, we expected to be fighting the Soviet Union and its member states in Eastern Europe; over or close to land. Now, with China becoming our Number-One adversary, we'll have to prepare our forces for combat in the Pacific. Thanks to the ocean alone, this will require increased protection for our carriers as well as planes with longer ranges. 

• Now that I think about it, is there a naval version of the F-47 in the works? Is the U.S. Navy waiting until the F-47 proves viable before ordering some for itself?
• Also, if a war were to break out in the Pacific, remember that the U.S.  was slowly advancing on Japan island after island during WWII. I'm sure we can do it again, but then our Pacific enemy would also learn from that part of WWII and use those lessons to their advantage as well.

There is a naval 6th generation fighter in the works, but it is a separate program called F/A-XX. It differs from the NGAD in that it actually is a multi-role aircraft intended to replace the F/A-18E Super Hornet. Currently, all other contractors have dropped out from the contest besides Northrop Grumman... but the final winner technically hasn't been announced.

Something roughly like island hopping has been envisioned, but even then the distances involved are still massive. The distance between Okinawa and the Chinese coast alone is roughly two or three times the average distance between NATO and Warsaw Pact air bases in divided Germany. The F-47's range is much needed.

1 hour ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

I did not know that about the F-4. Looking back, it makes sense to secure air superiority BEFORE dropping your ordinance. On the other hand, some days you may not have time to wait for safe skies before you destroy enemy ground units (e.g. "Enemy tanks were just spotted advancing on our infantry. Destroy them immediately."). While a multirole fighter would be the ideal candidate for such a job - assuming a regular fighter strafing it is ineffective - it wouldn't be my first choice in securing air superiority. Maybe a backup measure in case of surprises from the ground, especially hostile anti-aircraft fire, since they're harder targets to hit than conventional bombers.

Technically multi-role can be made to work. The US Navy notably decided to forgo having separate fighters and attack aircraft, instead combining them into the F/A-18 (which replaced the F-4 and A-6). And eventually, the F-14 (pure fighter, interceptor) was retired and the carrier air wing's entire combat complement became composed of F/A-18s.

The USAF just doesn't like that. It's a culture thing more than absolute tactical necessity.

The US Navy is more suited to multi-role aircraft however, because they must be prepared to operate from a single base (the aircraft carrier). In contrast, the USAF is rarely going to do things without having multiple bases on hand for things like EW, AWACS, transport, attack aircraft and so on- making room for specialized fighters, with one being a multi-role, jack of all trades and one excelling at air superiority.

1 hour ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Overall, great points you raised. I'd love to hear what you all have to say about this new fighter.

Apart from its wider role in USAF operations, there's not much to say about it right now just because there is so little known. In other circles there is an intense debate going on over whether it even has canards or not.

Once things become more clear I may have more to say... but my knowledge is more geared for tactics and strategy. I'm sure there are many good folk here more informed about aeronautical engineering itself who could comment on the design specifics, and I'll look forward to see if anyone has anything to say about it.

[DDE]

25 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Technically multi-role can be made to work. The US Navy notably decided to forgo having separate fighters and attack aircraft, instead combining them into the F/A-18 (which replaced the F-4 and A-6). And eventually, the F-14 (pure fighter, interceptor) was retired and the carrier air wing's entire combat complement became composed of F/A-18s.

The USAF just doesn't like that. It's a culture thing more than absolute tactical necessity.

The US Navy is more suited to multi-role aircraft however, because they must be prepared to operate from a single base (the aircraft carrier). In contrast, the USAF is rarely going to do things without having multiple bases on hand for things like EW, AWACS, transport, attack aircraft and so on- making room for specialized fighters, with one being a multi-role, jack of all trades and one excelling at air superiority.

The decision to rely on the Hornet for everything is not without problems. Standoff cruise missiles obviate the A-6's vulnerabilities, while in sheer tonnage per sortie at range, it was vastly superior. The F-14 was also a pretty important part of battlegroup air defense, and strapping SM-6s to an F/A-18 is more of a stopgap. So the Navy needs either a multirole that's going to be distinct from NGAD, or its own platform.

Question is, can all of that be funded at the same time?

 

And, stepping back, the elephant in the room is, how much chicanery is involved in the announcement? A "technological demonstrator" is a very stretchable term.

6 hours ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

It is expected to replace Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor, and cost less too.

* doubt *

And finally, although everyone's already made that joke...

WHO'S LAUGHING NOW!?

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

And, stepping back, the elephant in the room is, how much chicanery is involved in the announcement? A "technological demonstrator" is a very stretchable term.

A lot, to put it simply.

Unfortunately there is a lot of chest thumping surrounding 6th gen fighters, by my appraisal of the whole discourse is this:

1. The F-47 is supposedly the first 6th gen fighter in the world because an airframe associated with it that was an X-plane flew in 2019.
2. Certain people claim the J-36 is a Y-plane equivalent and thus the F-47 is not the first 6th gen fighter in the world, because the airframe they have announced will fly in the coming years should be a Y-plane... and thus the J-36 "flew first."
3. Certain people claim the J-36 is an X-plane equivalent and thus the F-47 (and whatever Lockheed proposed) is in the first 6th gen fighter in the world because it first flew in 2019, while the J-36 first flew in 2024.
4. Chinese aircraft serial number patterns suggest the J-36 is indeed a Y-plane equivalent, suggesting LRIP may begin sometime in the next five years.
5. However, it is thought that the J-36's X-plane equivalent did not fly until 2021... two years after the F-47's X-plane flew.
6. And yet certain people doubt the F-47's existence at all on account of the PR materials being so stingey with the design and the failure of anyone to publish photos or evidence of the F-47's X-plane flight in 2019.

More over, people are basically making sick burns at each other about the canards hinted in the design, because... certain people were very loud about the J-20 not being stealthy on account of having canards.

The whole ordeal reminds me of my local space museum's attempt to downplay Salyut-1 because the first flight to it failed to dock and the first crew was killed, making Skylab something akin to the first [successful] space station...

...but dialed to 1000%.

1 hour ago, DDE said:

* doubt *

I often try to get into the minds of people who make these announcements and here is my guess at what they mean. "Cost" is a very stretchable term too.

The F-47 might cost "less" because relative to the expenditure on the F-22 relative to the US' total defense expenditure post-1991, less money will be spent on the F-47. Yes, two relatives.

The F-22 came at a bad time for cool military equipment. Not only was force structure shrinking like crazy, so too were budgets. From the point of view of a military that was directed by the government to significantly downsize, the F-22 was enormously expensive and was a capability whose necessity was highly questionable. Even apart from the Peace Dividend, the Gulf War created an illusion that Soviet military equipment sucked and it turned out US conventional forces were wildly more capable than they were believed to have been. Later conflicts in the decade probably reinforced this belief. If Abrams and F-15s could slay T-72s and MiG-29s with ease, what need was there for a stealth fighter?

Now what if that wasn't the case? What if the Warsaw Pact was still strong, making not only the F-22, but the A-12, other 80 some B-2s, Peacekeeper Rail Garrisons, the M8 AGS, MGM-166 LOSAT, Seawolf-class SSN, and so on and so on necessary investments?

Especially considering the other ways in which the budget is expected to climb... production of ever more Tomahawks, JASSMs, LRASMs, as an example... the F-47's cost will wind up looking cheap by comparison to the F-22, or even F-35. But it won't actually be cheaper by the normal conception of how much a product costs.

Now there was an idea to somehow downgrade the NGAD's capabilities and shift the procurement strategy to producing "cheap, easily produced" fighters and replacing them with a new model every decade or so instead of procuring for nearly a century (the F-35 is projected to serve until 2075 IIRC)... but I do not understand how that is supposed to work. To me, it sounds more like just putting words together and wishing we could go back to the Cold War days of jumping from the F-86 to F-100 to F-4 to XF-15 in a single (human) generation, rather than any proper analysis of the situation.

This can be seen in other areas too, given the debacle surrounding the Constellation-class frigate and US Navy ship procurement more generally.

[DDE]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

F-47's X-plane flight in 2019

...stupid question, but is there any relationship between F-47 and the X-47B loyal wingman?

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

...stupid question, but is there any relationship between F-47 and the X-47B loyal wingman?

Not stupid question to me.  I wondered if these are the drones that are designed to team with the F-47.  Seems to fit.  Who knows?

Edited March 24 by darthgently

[DDE]

30 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Not stupid question to me.  I wondered if these are the drones that are designed to team with the F-47.  Seems to fit.  Who knows?

Well, just recently there were designations for YFQ-42 and YFQ-44. '47' is out of sequence for something that's been around for quite a while.

[ColdJ]

Sorry if this is a silly question but.

Why would people playing games or on games forums have access to classified information?

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Well, just recently there were designations for YFQ-42 and YFQ-44. '47' is out of sequence for something that's been around for quite a while.

That isn’t how the sequence works.  You only see the ones that survived the processes to production.  The others fell away.  Mostly.  There is some lack of sequence

[DDE]

51 minutes ago, ColdJ said:

Why would people playing games or on games forums have access to classified information?

The guy who leaked Chinese tank specs had the actual APFSDS dart on him as well, I think. A few other leakers were also curreng or former servicemen.

Edited March 24 by DDE

[AckSed]

Nerd rage and wanting to bludgeon people over the head with proof to win is apparently in the Venn diagram of former/active service.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

12 hours ago, DDE said:

, although everyone's already made that joke...

WHO'S LAUGHING NOW!?

 

[SunlitZelkova]

9 hours ago, DDE said:

...stupid question, but is there any relationship between F-47 and the X-47B loyal wingman?

@darthgently No, there is not. The X-47B is a subsonic drone built by Northrop Grumman. The X-47B is also specifically designed for carrier operations and has been tested by the USN. All USAF UCAV prototypes have been built by different companies other than Boeing or NG.

Tri-service letter-number combinations differ between model. So an "X-47B" can exist at the same time as an operational F-47, and C-47, and A-47. Thus in theory, the F-47's X-plane would have an entirely different number.

Keeping with the theme of re-designations, I would theorize the F-47's X-plane may have been designated X-46. This was used for a Boeing UCAV that was cancelled in 2003 and never flew. Perhaps this was an attempt an some semblance of opsec given it would have been the first fighter prototype developed since the whole "great power competition" thing began.

On the other hand, I'm just learning this myself, but apparently it is an established thing for the USAF to designate aircraft with the exact same letter-number combination as older operational models. The T-6 Texan II is not a variant of the T-6 Texan but bears that designation anyways, while while the OA-1K Skyraider II is apparently a thing.

A USAF official has said that the number "pays tribute to the founding year of the Air Force, is a tribute to the P-47[/F-47] Thunderbolt" and it acknowledges the support of the current administration for the program.

The P-47 was actually designated F-47 during its time in USAF and ANG service in the decade or so after WWII, and thus technically the designation has already been taken.

[CombatPilot-1]

In my opinion it'll be exactly what the F-22 is right now: an over-expensive, way too costly to fly museum piece. Also it is not the first 6th gen fighter, the Chinese flew one months ago.

And it's not the first having drone wingmen either, the Su-57's Grom-U is the first.

[Flavio hc16]

11 hours ago, CombatPilot-1 said:

In my opinion it'll be exactly what the F-22 is right now: an over-expensive, way too costly to fly museum piece. Also it is not the first 6th gen fighter, the Chinese flew one months ago.

And it's not the first having drone wingmen either, the Su-57's Grom-U is the first.

Lul.

The F-22 is so useless that it's mere possibility of presence in the sky basically grounds every other air force in the area. The best weapon it's the one you never need to use.

 

Is the F-22 a failure as an air superiority fighter? Hell no, it actually created the "air dominance" fighter category.

It's operationally a failure? Yes.

 

Why? Mainly because it overly specialized and it has been built as the ultimate cold war fighter, not the "new world order" fighter.

 

For that role, the F23 was better, and this is clear because the new F47 clearly get some heritage from the Black Widow II ( McDonald Douglas has been acquired just a bit later by Boeing)

 

as, from the renderings, it is eerily similar in shape, size ( F47 will actually be bigger), same aim for long range and fast super cruise, super-high flight ceiling and more room inside.

 

 

Also, the 1st flight of demonstrators for the NGAD, and I mean plural, have been Flying since 2019/2020. 

 

And before you ask, I'm European.

Edited March 25 by Flavio hc16
Grammar

[DDE]

11 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:

The F-22 is so useless that it's mere possibility of presence in the sky basically grounds every other air force in the area. The best weapon it's the one you never need to use.

Is the F-22 a failure as an air superiority fighter? Hell no, it actually created the "air dominance" fighter category.

To be fair, what air force did it ground? The Syrian one? It didn't need any help grounding. And that's assuming either side would be willing to engage the other directly, rather than attack each other's proxies.

I'm not disputing the notion at all, but your factology comes from the same smelly bucket as the story about the entire crew of USS Cook resigning after a Su-24 shut its weapons down. Only one fifth gen seems to have actually flown in a true shooting war, and that's not the F-22.

[darthgently]

12 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:

from the renderings, it is eerily similar in shape, size ( F47 will actually be bigger), same aim for long range and fast super cruise, super-high flight ceiling and more room inside.

Almost more of a bomber-fighter with the drones flying cover.  And I doubt a pilot in cockpit is strictly necessary so the entire formation could be deployed with much higher g restrictions.  Perhaps flown remotely or then again how many GPUs could fit in the cockpit area?

Edited March 25 by darthgently

[Flavio hc16]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

To be fair, what air force did it ground? The Syrian one? It didn't need any help grounding. And that's assuming either side would be willing to engage the other directly, rather than attack each other's proxies.

I'm not disputing the notion at all, but your factology comes from the same smelly bucket as the story about the entire crew of USS Cook resigning after a Su-24 shut its weapons down. Only one fifth gen seems to have actually flown in a true shooting war, and that's not the F-22.

Go and have a look at the " you really ought to go home" story

 

Or at how they have to handicap the F22 to give Rafales and Eurofighter a chance 

 

Or the fact that they export the F35 but not the older F-22.

 

Or the F22 flight envelope.

[DDE]

13 minutes ago, Flavio hc16 said:

Go and have a look at the " you really ought to go home" story

As I said, cool story bro. r/thathappened

[Flavio hc16]

16 minutes ago, DDE said:

As I said, cool story bro. r/thathappened

Considering that we have the name of the pilot, I would say yes, that happened.

 

And you are dodging the argument.

[monophonic]

15 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The P-47 was actually designated F-47 during its time in USAF and ANG service in the decade or so after WWII, and thus technically the designation has already been taken.

Well, yes, but, ...

That F-47 was an older USAF-only designation. Last Thunderbolt was retired from USANG in 1953, so it never received an official designation under the 1962 Tri-Service aircraft designation system. However it is still an off sequence number under the current system. If the rules of the system were followed, NGAD should be F-25 (F-24 having been assigned to the Lightning II in place of the also off sequence F-35).

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Flavio hc16 said:

Considering that we have the name of the pilot, I would say yes, that happened.

We also had the name of Comrade Ogilvy.