US F/A-XX and F-X & NGAD - 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread

[zyklon]

Not suggesting anything specific, but what would prompt the artist to make the decision to only airbrush out these two areas?
View attachment 148663

I found that rather peculiar as well, and suspected that it may have been an attempt to conceal the existence of vertical control surfaces. Didn't want to get too speculative, but apparently

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

It's possible that Boeing is less than fully confident in it's ability to deliver a truly tailless F-47.

Moreover, there's a reasonably significant chance that Boeing's NGAD and F/A-XX proposals are based on a common platform, and some of the older Boeing artist renditions for the F/A-XX depict an aircraft with tails or so I've been told.

 

[iewgnem]

My point is having extra shadow on an image like this could hide intakes or engine bumps or tails or nothing at all. For all we know it could be a couple warp nacelles with this thing off to fight the aliens… you know it does kinda look like the nose of the H8 from the bombed Independence Day two movie.


what intake on the F32? The only F32 I know is the Boeing X32 that had a big maw on the front.

Very widely spaced top intakes too, in addition to being massive.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

That is if it's a single engine fighter. We now assume it's double engined with size between the two jets in the images

Look again at the concept images in by SMG.
That’s a Twin engine bird. Every image that seems to show a LM or Boeing or NG NGAD was a twin engine bird. It’s always been conceived as a twin engine not a single engine or a triple engine or a quad engine or a Quinjet. It’s a twin engine.

Very widely spaced top intakes too, in addition to being massive.

again that’s making an assumption. If this is a maneuvering fighter top mounted inlets may cause problems as the fighter turns and banks.
F22 has a set of bleeds on her back to reduce excess airflow into the F119 engines. Or this could be them covering the bombs of the engines in the fuselage. Or it could be intakes.

 

[gullible]

ALL the above!

why ticked mercury in retrograde?

 

[Lethe]

Moreover, there's a reasonably significant chance that Boeing's NGAD and F/A-XX proposals are based on a common platform, and some of the older Boeing artist renditions for the F/A-XX depict an aircraft with tails or so I've been told.

A common platform would improve economies of scale. The talking points from Trump and others regarding cost, numbers and even exports suggests this may be a relevant consideration. Given the historical resistance amongst the services to major joint programs of this nature, however, one would've expected at least anonymous ripples of discontent if that is indeed the direction they are going down. With USN having been noticeably cool towards the F-35C, could we be looking at a USN-led F/A-XX design, with control surfaces according to requirements for carrier-based operations, that has subsequently been modified for USAF NGAD, a re-run of the USN-led F-4 Phantom II that was subsequently repurposed for USAF? It would fit with the F-47 as depicted not appearing to align closely with either of the major conceptual models associated in public discourse with the NGAD program to date.

 

[sevrent]

A common platform would improve economies of scale. The talking points from Trump and others regarding cost, numbers and even exports suggests this may be a relevant consideration. Given the historical resistance amongst the services to major joint programs of this nature, however, one would've expected at least anonymous ripples of discontent if that is indeed the direction they are going down. With USN having been noticeably cool towards the F-35C, could we be looking at a USN-led F/A-XX design, with control surfaces according to requirements for carrier-based operations, that has subsequently been modified for USAF NGAD, a re-run of the USN-led F-4 Phantom II that was subsequently repurposed for USAF? It would fit with the F-47 as depicted not appearing to align closely with either of the major conceptual models associated in public discourse with the NGAD program to date.

NGAD and F/A-XX are completely independent programs with completely different requirements. That both are a common platform is highly unlikely. At most, if Boeing won both some basic components and materials could be interchangeable but it would be limited. USN wants a strike fighter mostly so something with a large IWB and they dont care about adaptive engines, this is already starting to contradict with what the USAF wants. You cant please both with a common platform like F-35

 

[zyklon]

A common platform would improve economies of scale. The talking points from Trump and others regarding cost, numbers and even exports suggests this may be a relevant consideration. Given the historical resistance amongst the services to major joint programs of this nature, however, one would've expected at least anonymous ripples of discontent if that is indeed the direction they are going down. With USN having been noticeably cool towards the F-35C, could we be looking at a USN-led F/A-XX design, with control surfaces according to requirements for carrier-based operations, that has subsequently been modified for USAF NGAD, a re-run of the USN-led F-4 Phantom II that was subsequently repurposed for USAF? It would fit with the F-47 as depicted not appearing to align closely with either of the major conceptual models associated in public discourse with the NGAD program to date.

I don't usually trade options, but almost feeling inclined to put in an order for some BA calls . . .

The Reddit crowd will definitely have another meltdown if Boeing wins the F/A-XX competition, but considering President Trump's ongoing efforts to slash federal spending, the natural course of action would be to effectively merge the NGAD and F/A-XX programs to maximize potential economies of scale.

What would

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and the honorable ladies and gentlemen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees do?!

Though if Boeing's NGAD proposal is indeed derived from a relatively smaller design originally intended for the carrier borne F/A-XX, then at some point down the road, assuming the requisite $ will be in place, the USAF might have to ask Lockheed or Northrop (or Elon Musk and company) to develop something heavier with longer legs akin to the J-36.

Will be LMFAOing should that end up a "trijet" as well . . .

You cant please both with a common platform like F-35

Yet that's more or less what the USAF, USN and USMC did or at least tried to achieve with the F-35A, F-35C and F-35B, respectively.

Are you sure the DoD has learned their lesson?

 

[sevrent]

Yet that's more or less what the USAF, USN and USMC did or at least tried to achieve with the F-35A, F-35C and F-35B, respectively.

Are you sure the DoD has learned their lesson?

We are not talking about the JSF? We are talking about F/A-XX and NGAD. Both services will not have their requirements met with a common aircraft, both have set out from the beginning to run their own
independent programs.

And if they did change their mind, they’d have to rescope the program and redo certain procedures which would delay EMD, but as we see right now that hasn’t happened

 

[Lethe]

NGAD and F/A-XX are completely independent programs with completely different requirements. That both are a common platform is highly unlikely. At most, if Boeing won both some basic components and materials could be interchangeable but it would be limited. USN wants a strike fighter mostly so something with a large IWB and they dont care about adaptive engines, this is already starting to contradict with what the USAF wants. You cant please both with a common platform like F-35

Maintaining NGAD and F/A-XX as different programs was justified first and foremost by the assumption that USAF requirements would likely produce an aircraft too large and too heavy to operate from a carrier. That basic assumption has now been called into question with some speculation that F-47 may actually be smaller than F-22.

F-35C is likely a better strike platform than it is in fleet defence or air superiority roles, so it's not clear to me why USN would also disproportionately favour the former with their next aircraft to replace Super Hornet and complement F-35C. Beyond the inventory balance, the reduced emphasis on air combat performance in recent decades was an artefact of the post-Cold War era that is now receding with the proliferation of high-end threats, mostly from China.

 

[Gloire_bb]

It must have very large and tall back intakes

They may or may not hide something with exactly corresponding clouds.

F-35C is likely a better strike platform than it is in fleet defence or air superiority roles, so it's not clear to me why USN would also disproportionately favour the former with their next aircraft to replace Super Hornet and complement F-35C. Beyond the inventory balance, the reduced emphasis on air combat performance in recent decades was an artefact of the post-Cold War era that is now receding with the proliferation of high-end threats, mostly from China.

It's still effectively in traditional USN light attack category.
i.e. it's nice that USN after decades managed to properly replace A-7, but the goal is A-6 and F-14...