Boeing Wins 6th Generation Fighter Contract With Its F-47

[special ed]

Disproves the theory if it looks right, it flies right. It flew right but didn't look right.
However, I thought at the time, it would be difficult to shoot down because of the enemies' laughter.

 

[MIflyer]

Photo is reversed.

So she should be looking through the other end of the binocs?

Airpower/Wings had a little article on the X-34/X-35 outbrief and said that Boeing looked disorganized, the engineers openly disagreeing with each other on some points.

 

[Token]

What happened to the F-36 through F-46?

Some, maybe many, have been used for one thing or another, notional or real. I don't know what was the last one I saw, but I know for sure I saw the YFQ-42 and YFQ-44 used for CCAs. Since those are "fighting UASs" they took up both a Q (unmanned) and an F (fighter) designation.

T!

 

[MIflyer]

Photo is reversed.

Wouldn't that make her clothes fall off?

 

[Admiral Beez]

My vote is for Canada to take a pass.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/03/21/trump_well_sell_toned_down_planes_to_our_allies_one_day_they_might_not_be_allies.html

The BAe Tempest looks nice, and without the baggage.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/team-tempest

And we're already buying their kit.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-ca/home

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We won't need to sell it to you. As the 51st state you will get it automatically…



I kid, I kid…

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the idea of a $300m fighter is really, really bad.

 

[SaparotRob]

Wouldn't that make her clothes fall off?

In my mind's ear, I heard you say that with an Australian accent. As in "the front fell off!"

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This is not the Ukraine war thread. Lets keep the politics down. Everyone knows why its the F-47, we don't need to go into depth on it, or insert our colorful opinions on it.

 

[MIflyer]

I think the idea of a $300m fighter is really, really bad.

Did you ever hear of Calvin Coolidge's Revenge?

When told they needed money to buy airplanes for the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard, President Coolidge replied that they should just buy one airplane and they could all share it.

We's getting there, folks.

 

[SaparotRob]

I like F-47. I could say F-47 all day.

 

[Retattack]

Disproves the theory if it looks right, it flies right. It flew right but didn't look right.
However, I thought at the time, it would be difficult to shoot down because of the enemies' laughter.

One of my buddies was the test pilot for the hovering portion . . . and it wouldn't (or at least not well). I've long believed that the hovering requirement was ill advised, and screwed up the F-35 design.

 

[MIflyer]

The interesting thing to me (as a former AFSC program office guy) is this:

1. No fly off for the TFX/F-111, which had some problems and despite being designed to fulfill two very different USAF/USN missions ended up being used for a smaller range of missions than the F-4.
2. No fly-off for the F-15, an uncompromising air to air superiority fighter. Result probably was the most successful fighter since WW2, which also developed into an outstanding attack aircraft.
3 Fly off conducted for the A-10 and A-9 and the result was a terrific ground attack aircraft.
4. Fly off for the F-16/F-17 and the result was we bought BOTH of them, the F-17 being the prototype for the F-18. This reminds me of the P-35/P-36, in which we ended up buying both of them but the P-36 proved to be better while the P-35 was but a stepping stone to the P-47.
4. They vowed they would go back to fly offs for the ATF and both the F-22 and F-23 prototypes were built. But the F-22 proved to be too expensive to buy enough aircraft to get the job done and so expensive to operate that they are eagerly awaiting the F-47. And of course, as usual, there are those who say the F-23 should have won.
5. Fly off with the Boeing X-32 and Lockheed Martin X-35.
5. No fly off for the F-47.

So, are fly offs a good idea or not? Or is it better to buy paper airplanes? The results are mixed, to say the least.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

5. No fly off for the F-47.

Thats not true. Both Lockheed and Boeing built X-Plane demonstrators of the 6th Gen that have been flying for the last 5 years. The USAF even released a press statement in 2020 saying that the first flights had occurred.

It is just highly classified and people like you and me are not in the "need to know category," so its not highly advertised.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin Each Flew an X-Plane in Preparation for NGAD

After the U.S. Air Force selected the F-47, DARPA disclosed that Boeing and Lockheed Martin each built a demonstrator aircraft for NGAD, which first flew

theaviationist.com

The US Air Force has built and flown a mysterious full-scale prototype of its future fighter jet

Does this give the Next Generation Air Dominance program more momentum, or does it open it up to more scrutiny?

www.defensenews.com

 

[SaparotRob]

As long as they have chemtrail dispensers, it's all good.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As long as they have chemtrail dispensers, it's all good.

Of course, the very best ones. Yuge ones.

 

[GTX]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr3CXBIDUHI&pp=ygUUbW92ZXIgYW5kIGdvbmt5IHNob3c%3D

 

[MIflyer]

It is just highly classified and people like you and me are not in the "need to know category," so its not highly advertised.

When I was at the Pentagon some USAF general officer had a major (but typical) brainfart when he heard that we had launched a joint mission with NASA to develop and test advanced electronic components in the actual space environment. Space-qualified electronics is absolutely vital to all that we do in space, but this idiot was enraged that we had done that when we could have operated a wing of F-15's for one year at that same cost. Not BUILT a wing of F-15s at that cost, but just run them for 1 year. We attempted to draw analogies to similar aircraft-related developments but were told that anything like that would be classified. So we gave up, recognizing that 3 star idiot would never be able to understand what we were talking about, anyway.