Boeing F-47 announced as the NGAD winner

[IanH755]

Hi all,

Trump and the US DOD announced today that Boeing had won the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) programme with their F-47 design, and released some artwork of the aircraft's nose poking out of a hangar.



Some interesting news from the USAF - Several "tech demonstrators" have been flying for the past 5 years over hundreds of flying hours although the existence of tech demos was announced in 2020 so maybe not a huge shocker.

Boeing Press release - https://investors.boeing.com/investors/news/press-...

Some news coverage of the announcement -

https://www.twz.com/air/boeing-wins-air-forces-nex...

https://news.usni.org/2025/03/21/boeing-wins-bid-t...

https://apnews.com/article/fighter-jet-ngad-trump-...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...

For those of us in the military aviation world, picking Boeing seemed to be a no-brainer, not because they're actually any good, but because Northrop Grumman has the B-2 and B-21 projects keeping them busy, Lockheed Martin has the F-22 and F-35 projects and that left Boeing as the last remaining out of the 3 big hitters without a US made LO aircraft programme, and the US likes to keep those big 3 going.

I'm personally less interested in the overall outer design and far more interested in whats under the skin, the avionics, mission systems, propulsion, weapons bays etc.

[Dingu]

They’ll have to hope they are better at building military aircraft than, well, anything else.

[LivLL]

Reuters said:

"We've given an order for a lot. We can't tell you the price," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
Boeing shares rose 5% after the U.S. company beat out Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab for the deal. Lockheed's shares fell nearly 7%.
"Our allies are calling constantly," Trump added, saying foreign sales could be an option. "They want to buy them also."

Seems Russia will be getting them too...

[bobthemonkey]

Dingu said:

They’ll have to hope they are better at building military aircraft than, well, anything else.

While it’s the same name, the fast jet side is apparently very much a separate organisation, a legacy from pre-merger McDonnell Douglas.

It does look rather like the mid 90s Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey

[essayer]

“The F-47 program is part of the USAF's Next Generation Air Dominance initiative, which aims to replace the aging F-22 Raptor fleet.”

Thanks Wikipedia, now I feel fking old!

[CLK-GTR]

Picking the option with no experience of delivering anything like this project? What could go wrong..

[hidetheelephants]

Dingu said:

They’ll have to hope they are better at building military aircraft than, well, anything else.

The trogs battering KC46s together appear to have only just discovered hammers. If they ever discover nails they'll be lethal. You have to imagine that the USAF must wish the Airbus bid had won.

[55palfers]

Helluva canopy

[GliderRider]

55palfers said:

Helluva canopy

If the pilot ejects with that above him, he'll be goosed.

[Eric Mc]

Nice to see these coming back into service



OK, I know it was originally designated P-47 ("P" for pursuit) but in 1947 the USAF reclassified their fighter aircraft with the "F" prefix so remaining P-47s became F-47s.

[IanH755]

GliderRider said:

If the pilot ejects with that above him, he'll be goosed.

Surprisingly not. Around the edges is a small bit of explosive which shatters the "plastic" transparency allowing the pilot to get out without issue. However, even if that doesn't work the seats have one or two large spikes on the top which smash through the transparency doing a similar job. So no chance of a "Goose" moment.

[GliderRider]

IanH755 said:

Surprisingly not. Around the edges is a small bit of explosive which shatters the "plastic" transparency allowing the pilot to get out without issue. However, even if that doesn't work the seats have one or two large spikes on the top which smash through the transparency doing a similar job. So no chance of a "Goose" moment.

Looking at the canopy it appears to be an all-in-one moulding as per the F-16's acrylic/polycarbonate canopy. Minature detonating cord and spikes work ok on all-acrylic (perspex/plexiglass) canopies, but will they on laminates?
From a cursory search, it appears that on low altitude and hovering aeroplanes the pilot generally goes through the canopy, whilst on higher altitude aircraft they usually eject the canopy and frame as one.

Edited by GliderRider on Saturday 22 March 12:06

[LotusOmega375D]

hidetheelephants said:

Dingu said:

They’ll have to hope they are better at building military aircraft than, well, anything else.

The trogs battering KC46s together appear to have only just discovered hammers. If they ever discover nails they'll be lethal. You have to imagine that the USAF must wish the Airbus bid had won.

As they did…

[hidetheelephants]

LotusOmega375D said:

hidetheelephants said:

Dingu said:

They’ll have to hope they are better at building military aircraft than, well, anything else.

The trogs battering KC46s together appear to have only just discovered hammers. If they ever discover nails they'll be lethal. You have to imagine that the USAF must wish the Airbus bid had won.

As they did…

It's boggling that the deliveries are still being pushed back because Boeing are apparently no good at building aircraft. Then there's the bizarro world decision to bin the KC10 when it's got way more life left than the KC135, which still needs replacement.

[IanH755]

GliderRider said:

Looking at the canopy it appears to be an all-in-one moulding as per the F-16's acrylic/polycarbonate canopy. Minature detonating cord and spikes work ok on all-acrylic (perspex/plexiglass) canopies, but will they on laminates?

Edited by GliderRider on Saturday 22 March 12:06

Yeap, they work fine.

The F-16 canopy is hinged at the rear, like most fighters of its era (F-15/18/Tornado/Typhoon etc), which makes it easier to jettison the whole canopy including the metal frame etc during an ejection rather than going through the transparency, even though there was still MDC fitted incase the canopy didn't jettison. However newer aircraft like the F-35 etc prefer front hinged canopies, as this allows for the constant maintenance of the ejection seat to be carried out in a way that is far easier and quicker. However, being front hinged means you can't jettison the whole canopy inc metal frame like you could previously, so now you've got to go through it regardless.

To help out with that, newer versions of MDC (or FLSC as its called by US programmes for Flexible Linear Shaped Charge) is much smaller/thinner in size compared to older fatter MDC like on the F-15/16/18/Typhoon/Tornado/ etc, which does make it harder to see visually but it is still there. It also does a far better job of cutting the canopy transparency into a small amount of large bits (3-4) rather than shattering it into dozens of pieces like older MDC tended to do as the designers felt its better for the pilot to get pushed through that small number of big bits rather than dozens of smaller bits on ejection.

As for the spikes, its been tested a whole heap and it works, but its less comfortable for the pilot understandably as their head/body still has to do some of the work of push bits of the transparency away once the spikes break it, and thats the same for laminated or simple polycarbonate.

[LotusOmega375D]

May as well let the pilot’s head do the work, if he’s not going to land the damn thing.

[Tony1963]

Next gen pilot’s helmet

[Simpo Two]

IanH755 said:

The F-16 canopy is hinged at the rear, like most fighters of its era (F-15/18/Tornado/Typhoon etc), which makes it easier to jettison the whole canopy including the metal frame etc during an ejection rather than going through the transparency, even though there was still MDC fitted incase the canopy didn't jettison. However newer aircraft like the F-35 etc prefer front hinged canopies, as this allows for the constant maintenance of the ejection seat to be carried out in a way that is far easier and quicker. However, being front hinged means you can't jettison the whole canopy inc metal frame like you could previously, so now you've got to go through it regardless.

Would side-hinged be possible or more versatile?

[spikep]

Linking it to the Boeing Bird of Prey, doesn’t look like it could carry enough fuel for a Pacific war with China. It’s a vast distance and therefore you need to start thinking about wings like the latest UK FCAS design to hold it or your tanker’s will be too far forwards. Even if you have a variable bypass inlet on the front of the engine to maximise the endurance.

[IanH755]

Simpo Two said:

Would side-hinged be possible or more versatile?

They're used on Hawks and the trainer Harriers (T4-T10 etc) and likely some more too, but still have the same "issue" as a front hinged canopy in that you can't jettison them inflight as part of the ejection so you have to go through them instead which, in reality, is no big deal.