F-47 NGAD Fighter

[Ol Paint]

A thread to discuss news and information on the F-47 program.

Doug

[Ol Paint]

X-post from CSAF shows F-47 with 1000+nm combat radius & comparisons with F-15/16 and F-22/35.

The War Zone reading the tea leaves:

https://www.twz.com/air/f-47-now-has-an-officially-stated-combat-radius-of-1000-nautical-miles

The increase in range should be useful. 

Doug

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

That sounds slightly light for a 6 gen. The latest briefings for Tempest suggest that its going to have an unrefuelled range to closs the atlantic, and twice the payload of the F35.

[Ivanhoe]

At this point in a weapon system's lifecycle, take any and all published statistics with a huge grain of salt.

I recall in the RDT&E stages of the Comanche product, the Army was maintaining that it was going to have a max speed under 130 kts. I got suckered into believing that, and should have known better.

 

[Ol Paint]

I'll second that, Ivanhoe.  Even moreso for a program that hasn't passed Milestone B.  I remember trying to nail down the F-35B specs in the early 2000s and it was a constantly shifting target.  In particular, I recall the capability to carry the 2,000lb bombs kept getting added then removed every couple of months.

Still, if they're targeting a 1000NM+ radius, I think that's a good thing.  The other interesting part that C.W. Lemoine pointed out in his video was the 2025-2029 bracket for "operational" since that typically occurs after Milestone C.  Even with a generous interpretation of "operational" and the latest possible date in that bracket, that seems really aggressive for a program that just had the EMD contract awarded a couple months ago.

Doug

[Dawes]

Wasn't F-35A originally intended to have a 27mm Mauser cannon? Somehow that morphed into a 25mm Gatling.

Edited May 15, 2025 by Dawes

[seahawk]

9 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

I'll second that, Ivanhoe.  Even moreso for a program that hasn't passed Milestone B.  I remember trying to nail down the F-35B specs in the early 2000s and it was a constantly shifting target.  In particular, I recall the capability to carry the 2,000lb bombs kept getting added then removed every couple of months.

Still, if they're targeting a 1000NM+ radius, I think that's a good thing.  The other interesting part that C.W. Lemoine pointed out in his video was the 2025-2029 bracket for "operational" since that typically occurs after Milestone C.  Even with a generous interpretation of "operational" and the latest possible date in that bracket, that seems really aggressive for a program that just had the EMD contract awarded a couple months ago.

Doug

That depends on the maturity of the X-planes.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes. If they have been flying a tech demonstrator for 8 years, its doable. Its certainly possible they have. I strongly suspect that there were sub scale B21's flying about for 10 years, based on some very similar shapes seen by 'interceptors'.

If they havent done that, if they havent build a tech demonstrator, then good luck with that.

[futon]

So from the sounds of it, F-55 will be a two engine version of the F-35. 

So future vision...

F-15EXs

F-22 Super upgrade

F-35 as it is

F-47 as primary drone conductor

F-55 two engine version of the F-35 (full afterburner takeoff is gonna be loud).

 

Can only upgrade F-22s, not make more.. so make more F-22 internal payload equivelents with F-55 for sustaining dominance through the mid-term while F-47 relateted tech and integration of it all matures. Cut short F-35 production since, as everyone has pointed out for years, internal payload is too small, shift it to F-55. That's my read.

Edited May 17, 2025 by futon

[Stuart Galbraith]

They cant cut F35 production, without killing the USN's and Marine Corps future procurement, and leaving the field open to Tempest in European production.

Twin engine F35? Yeah, good luck with that. Make that internal volume even smaller.

[futon]

Ah, I was thinking a cut to the F-35As. The Bs and Cs would retain original procurement goal.

[Burncycle360]

A coherent vision:

1. Common heavy strike fighter for USN and USAF (twin, LO features where possible but not the focus)

2. Common light strike fighter for USN and USAF (F-35E, LO emphasis but more performance oriented than existing F-35)

Both using same engines, radar cores, and other subsystems where able

Then,

3. USN Specific: UCAV strike (VLO flying wing) 

4. USAF Specific: Penetrating counter air

 

Carrier may have 36 heavy strike fighter, 24 light strike fighter and 12 VLO UCAV plus the usual cats and dogs, AEW etc

 

This would have been a great approach circa 2015 so that we're reaching IOC today.

 

Now we have maybe 36% of F-35 delivered, the most expensive acquisition in human history looking at total lifecycle costs, and we're already looking at a significantly more diverse landscape going forward with $35 trillion in debt.

Nero was right.

Edited May 18, 2025 by Burncycle360

[Stuart Galbraith]

So, this was a quite intelligent study of the whole F-55 thing.

 

 

[Josh]

A couple things:

First, ignore everything Trump says. There is no F-55 and there will be no F-35 replacement.

Second:

FA-XX is currently on the rocks with its contractor down select on hold. There is talk of a three year funding delay, which is effectively a cancellation of the current program and a redrawing of the requirements.

Should the program continue as is, FA-XX is explicitly an F-18 replacement with a primary mission of strike. It will have significant signature reduction and a ~25% range increase over an F-18 with three drop tanks (underwhelming but that was the statement). Internal payload will increase over the F-35 to an unknown degree. Engines will explicitly not be adaptive due an unstated issue with their use (most likely the idle/max power sequence of aircraft recovery) and likely is an updated F110. Avionics will include an ECM system of sufficient capability to replace F-18G.

The above is more or less written in stone, assuming the program is still funded and down select happens this year.

 

F-47:

far less information has been released and the existing artwork was retroactively disavowed as not being representative. I suspect the latter was bullshit applied after the fact, however. Best guess is that it will look like an X-36 crossed with a Bird of Prey - large forward canards, dihedral wings with downward angled winglets, and a lambda ish wing with a saw tooth trailing edge.

It is stated to be superior to F-22 in most every way, which implies it will be more of a large air superiority fighter rather than a heavy interceptor like J-36. I suspect it keeps the 6 AIM-120/260 central bay and dumps side bays, gun, and thrust vectoring in favor of internal fuel. WAG that fuel fraction goes to 40% or more (see J-20,Su-27 family). I suspect range will be significantly greater than the teased 1000nm figure with the adaptive engine.

The 2025-2029 first flight comment is likely hopelessly optimistic for anything other than a prototype flying with F119s; there is no way a new engine will be fully ready in that time frame.

 

There will be no super F-22s or super F-35s, just the publicly known F-22 improvements (IRST pods, low drag/RCS drop tanks, etc.) and the scheduled block improvements for F-35. There will engine updates, but no other F-35 configuration changes. There will be no new fighter programs outside F-47 and FA-XX, unless a new program is launched to replace FA-XX.

 

 

Hopefully the above removes a lot confusion.

Edited May 18, 2025 by Josh