NGAD 23 was supposed to have a set of brand new engines same for NGAD 24. This is due to the range requirements which put an emphasis on adaptive cycles engine technology.
Gaging size based off a CGI image is difficult.
Not exactly. What they are intended to do is a bit different. The J36 as an interceptor was likely designed to support China’s anti access air denial strategy. The Chinese like the rest of the world witnessed in the 1990s when U.S. B52 bombers demonstrated the ability to rain missiles into Baghdad from far far beyond Iraqi borders. And again in the 00s when B52 struck deep into Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean.
Well Chinese anti access sea denial systems have been developed to push American carrier commanders to question the viability of operations in the first even second island chain the U.S. retains long range air capability that could still provide a dilemma to Beijing. This is where J36 comes in.
J36’s potential as a fighter is limited by its size. A bigger fighter is going to have to suffer higher risks of damage in high G maneuvering due to its shear size and mass. The Flying wing body doesn’t do much favors in this either. It would also be reliant upon large well maintained airbase infrastructure. As an interceptor putting all the emphasis in missiles and radar to locate large support aircraft or B52 aircraft launching cruise missiles from stand off though it makes sense. It would provide an extension to China’s anti access air denial and potentially disruptive effects upon the USAF or other allied forces with conventional air assets. “Tanker killer”, “Buff Breakers”, “AWACS assaulters”.
For the USAF however NGAD was being targeted in the reverse. It was the penetration fighter. It was designed to extend USAF capabilities into anti access air denial systems by going all up. With theoretical range and weapons to launch from the USA into the mainland Asia with only limited refueling in the eastern Pacific. The problem is this put a lot of compromises on the fighter design. Meaning it could only operate from well established basing and limited aerobatic performance. Justifying criticism of why spend the money on that when we have 75% of the theoretical capabilities in a F/B21?
Basically NGAD 23 was becoming a Very low observable B1R. Where it was to use CCA UCAV to operate ahead of it gathering target data and would sit back and launch missiles from on high. However issues with this idea besides the cost and limitations of maneuvering came in as it became apparent that in the event of a near peer v US in the pacific region, IRBMS would likely be used to damage established airbasing in the first and second island chains. Particularly Guam and Okinawa pushing the USAF to reevaluate NGAD operations to consider ACE Agile Combat Employment. Aka distributed air-basing using smaller less complex but more numerous bases often modernized reactivated bases established around the Second World War to change the dynamics of the equation.
NGAD 24 or F47 isn’t exactly J50 atleast as far as we can see, But it does seem closer. An added emphasis on Agile Combat Employment requires a shorter field and said field necessitates a smaller aircraft with better low speed handling for landings. Not A10 or Saab Grippen level of fields but a good condition. Fields like Tinian.
This favors a more conventional sized fighter though still one with good fuel capacity and an efficient engine design a delta wing likely on a longer wider aircraft and Adaptive cycle engine technology. For low speed maneuvering well, Canards or horizontal stabilizer tail. These can create issues of Radar return depending upon the relative angle of the radar to the orientation of the intruder. Canards and Horizontal stabilizers are basically the same thing just in a different order vs the wing and it’s really the seam and joint where the problem is. So a radar seeing a J20 on the nose is seeing the gap between the fuselage and the canard more prominently where an F35 in the same position has the Stabilizer blocked by the wing root. Of course
it may be that F47 has no joint between the two structures and all the moving parts are under the skin reducing the RCS issue significantly.
(Personal note; I dislike canards on an aesthetic reason I would have preferred a pelican tail but that’s just aesthetics. I don’t like planes with Mustaches.) and in both cases the engine inlets or Exhaust nozzles would be the biggest return.
The result is more of a conventional fighter requirement than the NGAD 23. What we have seen of the Boeing F47 is much more a fighter in the conventional manor than other concepts by LM or NG. Probably not as aerobatic as F22 but more so than J36 probably on par with F35 or F16 especially if it has thrust vectoring.
J50 is much more inline with concepts of
and
for NGAD a tailless flying wing with clear indications of twin engines but no indications of any form of additional aerodynamic controls aside potential thrust vectoring. This is more oriented to a stand off fighter with BVR capability operating at long range but less aggressive in WVR combat. Something the F47 in theory would be better at. Still a few questions on where it sits in role. It it an alternative to J36? Is it the replacement for J20 down the line?
Anyway fan arts are already trying to fill the gaps and if F47 looks like this… damn I might forgive the mustache.
View attachment 148827
F/A-XX is not going to be a common platform vs the F47. This is due to three things.
First the U.S.A.F. Has a different doctrine than the U.S.N. And always has. Military services live and die on the hill of Doctrine and The Navy’s doctrine is closer to the European programs like the GCAP or FCAS than the USAF’s. The F/A should tell you that. Where the USAF wants a Hunter above all else that might sling a bomb once in a while. The NAVY wants a fighter and bomber. The USN doesn’t do air superiority fighters. Even F14 Tomcat was an interceptor meant to sling Phoenix missiles into intruding Soviet carrier killers. The F/A18-E/F Super Hornet was designed to do a bit of everything and that’s the job for its replacement the F/A-XX. There has already been talk of a E/A-XX and that’s an even more specific equipment build.
Second the Carrier. Carrier decks and hangers require space savings and ruggedness that a land based fighter doesn’t the wings need a means to fold the landing gear has to take abuse that would shatter a lesser plane and do so at a regularity that would be unacceptable for any other aviation sector. Just ask
@bd popeye or read some of his comments on the subject. Although you can theoretically modify a Land fighter to operate off a carrier it’s easier to modify a carrier fighter off a runway. F35C incurs a lot of costs to make carrier aviation needs. Well the French pretty much split the line down the middle and take a few hits on space savings for cost on Rafale but with gear that is built for the deck.
Third The navy has said they were willing to make concessions due to themission the USAF wasn’t in terms of RCS and altitude. The biggest reason for a non common platform is $$. As I said the F35C ended up being more expensive than hoped and basically ended up becoming three separate aircraft that shared a number of common components.
However it is likely that the F47 and F/A-XX will share major components like engines, sensors/radars and other goodies. The DOD doesn’t want a repeat of the F35 variants. It would have been easier to ram the Boeing F/A-XX down the USAF’s throat than to do the inverse.
