Talk:Boeing F-47

High res artist rendering

There's been quite a few photos from the press conference which have a bit of a glare and such on them, but one news site seems to have the original high res render of the plane. Should be fair use? https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/boeing-wins-sixth-gen-fighter-ngad-air-force-lockheed-loss-trump-hegseth/ 134.129.205.210 (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a USAF image, so it's a product of the federal government, so it's not just available under fair use but actually in the public domain. PRRfan (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This is correct, we'd tag it as PD-USGov but ideally we could find the original render source to confirm that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Sometimes Government photos are actually "courtesy of X company", and those are generally copyrighted by the company, and not PD. BilCat (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

True enough, but not in this case: https://www.march.afrc.af.mil/News/Art/igphoto/2003674021/mediaid/9070001/ PRRfan (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, that has a bunch of the relevant information for the image page as well, thanks for finding it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that it's PD. BilCat (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Peacock image

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Peacock#Peacock_image — MaxEnt 20:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's unclear what you're asking for, or why it'd be more relevant on the template talk page than here. The image in question is quite literally the only one in the world right now that exists purporting to depict an F-47 (which it clearly identifies as an artist's render), so if the implication is that it is a "peacock image", I'd be curious to understand if there's a basis for that beyond being upset about the presence of the American flag and linking to a non-peacock image example. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What exactly would this accomplish? Even if this is an issue, there is nothing we can realistically do about it. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"Generals picked the title"

Is this quote really relevant to add? Like, I get that the purpose is to imply that Trump pressured them into designating it as F-47 because he's the 47th president, but we don't typically cover the reasons *why* a particular designation exists under the tri-service system on other articles. Unless RS are making a big deal about this why should we be giving it additional weight? NGAD, and apparently this Boeing aircraft in particular, existed long before the current administration so it's unclear why he's being mentioned beyond having been a spokesperson during the reveal.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

My position is that it is NOT relevant. Frankly, neither is the stock market reaction. That entire paragraph should be removed. Robertjamesftw (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe Trump told the Air Force to name it after him; maybe they picked it to suck up. If, and only if, we get an RS saying something about it, I’d be happy to include it as an interesting detail about the designator. (See also: SR-71, Century Series.) PRRfan (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Or it was named after the P-47? All of this is a WAG.

2600:4041:7A92:8000:4D6F:DECE:B140:6C6F (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Robertjamesftw: Can you explain why you think the stock market reaction shouldn't be included? To me, because of Boeing's triumph over Lockheed Martin, a reaction of something (like the stock market) should be included because it shows, well, reaction. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

we don't typically cover the reasons *why* a particular designation exists under the tri-service system on other articles Leaving aside the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, the reason we don't cover the reasons is that usually there isn't any indication of why a particular designation exists. In this case, there is a comment about it. It comes from Trump, who is...well, Trump, but that doesn't mean we should exclude it on that basis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, and leaving out the WP:VNOT concern, Trump doesn't actually explain the reasoning -- "the generals picked it" is quite literally how it works every single time. So why are we highlighting it, if not for the implication of what it *didn't* say? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

To further elaborate on this: for the vast majority of US aircraft designations, we don't cover the reasons because they're sequential. 1, 2, 3, 4; 130, 131, 132; etc. In cases where they aren't we do tend to cover it: F-20 (should have been F-19), mentioned on F-19 (and just added to the F-20 article from there). F-35 (F-24), mentioned. B-21 (B-3), mentioned. OA-1K (A-15), mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, but compared to say, the F-20, F-35, etc. we don't know *why* it was skipped, and the quote does not help us understand why, unless we're accepting that it's being used to imply a reason that it doesn't explicitly state. "The generals picked it" does not explain "why" they picked it, which is the actually encyclopedic information here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course it's now moot since they have said why it was picked since this conversation started. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We don't generally cover any sort of stock market reactions in aircraft articles, because it's usually not relevant to the aircraft itself. Something like that would typically go in the company article, provided it was passed WP:NOTNEWS. At the moment, this doesn't appear to be noteworthy based on the sources. The same would apply to the Trump/F-47 connection. BilCat (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the dueling comments from the NYT and Trump. Once we had the whole story from the USAF, we don't need this sort of recentism and political commentary from either side. It will make the article shorter for now, but as seen on long articles like the F-35, this sort of info will have to be removed at some point anyway as the article gets longer. It's much easier if we do this now. BilCat (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Stated performance

Have we given consideration to including information about this aircraft's projected performance? Currently we have a high level government official stating that it has a speed of over 2, which is not something you see very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:A7D:B0B0:98A2:C5F1:3926:2C4D (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering that this proposed fighter has not even been designed yet, comments about performance is purely speculative Looneybunny (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It has been designed, it flew in 2020 iirc. Juju376 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Prototypes have reportedly flown. Anything beyond that is speculation. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

In the case of the F-22 and the F-35, the first flight of the plane happened 5 years after the contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin. In the case of the F-47, the contract was awarded to Boeing in 2025, so it's likely that the first flight of the official prototype won't be until 2030. It could be earlier, but I think that this would be pretty unusual. 45.146.232.93 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If it’s from a reputable source, I’d say yes, but you need to clarify on the “speed of over 2” I would assume you mean this in Machs, as for it being something not seen very often, that’s not entirely true, but we need to find out if he means with after burners engages or if it means without, because if it can go Mach 2 with after burners, that isn’t super special (the F-22 for instance goes Mach 2.25 with afterburners engaged), but if it can go Mach 2 without needing afterburners, that would be VERY significant. Juju376 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

ITN Closed comment

@Masem: B-21 Raider was posted to ITN but f-47 was closed. IIRC the raider was itn but similar.. yet noone closed it?
Both were prototypes reveal, although one is in production. 80.212.144.89 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because the B-21 flew, but the F-47 has only been announced? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that NGAD has been flying for years; it's not clear whether that's actually the F-47 or a different prior demonstrator, but the point is we don't know conclusively that the F-47 *hasn't* flown at this point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

What is ITN? KHarbaugh (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

In The News. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Only other public image of the plane

This image from the DARPA website I think should be added to the page, At least temporarily as more and more details about the aircraft are known, but I don’t know on which section of the article to place it. CL-1201 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would add much to the article from an encyclopedic perspective. The image is of noticeably lower quality than the infobox image, and it actually obscures more of the aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It does show a different angle, making it easier to see that the forward section of the wings appear to be chine's rather than canard's as they looked like (to me anyway) in the other rendering. Given that these are artist renderings, one or both could be wrong, but it may be worth including given that there isn't much else to go on. Doemse (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

These are promotional-type images which may or may not be representative of the final product. We don't need to go overboard with these images just yet, even if they are PD. BilCat (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

making it easier to see that the forward section of the wings appear to be chine's rather than canard's as they looked like (to me anyway) in the other rendering. That's exactly the problem. The canards are still there, but are obscured so they appear as chines if you don't looks close enough. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Warn about F-47 misinformation

I have to warn you when you looking up about Boeing F-47 you might have come across video explain F-47 ability please DO NOT TRUST their claim because the ture ability are highly classified 171.5.241.88 (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I presume from your comment on the X-44 that you are talking about a YouTube video. YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources for things like this, any claims require reliable sources. So nothing to worry about here.

«ΤΞΔ» (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RELIABLE is a policy that prohibits use of unreliable sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Development flights

Article notes that development flights have "been flown" for years but that a "first flight" is expected in 2029 (contradictory) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryankgibbons (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

No contradiction. You are combining two different things: The program has been flying X-planes...since 2020 and the F-47 is slated for first flight by...early 2029. Pemilligan (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, prototypes use an X- or XF- designation and pre-production aircraft use a YF- designation, while the production aircraft uses the F- designation. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow

I’m a new editor on Wikipedia, and I certainly don’t think this is how the talk page is supposed to be used, but nonetheless I think it’s really neat to see a new Wikipedia page arise seemingly out of thin air, and I imagine that it must be very sparse to witness. Pretty cool. CL-1201 (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally, no, but in this case, I'm sure the editors who did the bulk of the work appreciate your thanks. In reality, it doesn't "arise out of thin air", but is written based on the editors reading and summarizing the cited sources. It can be hard work, but also is very rewarding to see comments like yours. I wasn't very involved in creating this article, but I have been involved with others in the 18 years I've been on Wikipedia as an editor. I know I've always appreciated the compliments. BilCat (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn’t a very good analogy, but I’m excited to be a part of the wiki nonetheless! CL-1201 (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I was taking it a bit too literally. BilCat (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It's always a great time in my experience working on a fresh article -- we get them fairly regularly in this topic space on Wikipedia (modern weapon systems and defense programs) but this one is obviously getting a ton of extra attention because a) the publicity surrounding it in the media right now, and b) because NGAD in particular and sixth-generation fighters in general have been long and hotly awaited. The only way this article could be even more laser focused to attract attention is if someone threw in "hypersonic" as a buzzword somewhere. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Addition for design

While we know pretty much nothing about the F-47s design, we do know its landing gear only has 1 wheel on at least the front landing gear, this suggests it probably weighs less than the Chinese 6th gens since those have 2 wheels on each landing gear suggesting it is heavier, should this be included? Oh and the design section doesnt mention canards. Juju376 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources discussing this, we cannot speculate in the article based on the images. Doing so would be WP:OR. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Especially since the images are just artists' renderings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The stuff I mentioned can be drawn from the photos the USAF published. Juju376 (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Which are, as mentioned above, just artists' renderings, not actual aircraft. And inferring anything from them is the defintion of WP:OR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

oh I see, sorry I’m fairly new to Wikipedia editing, I didn’t know about WP:OR, but yeah that’s textbook OR, my bad Juju376 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons cat?

Hiya, BilCat. This edit deleted {{Commons category|Boeing F-47}}; was that intentional? PRRfan (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• All images there except the last one (infographic diagram) are like the infobox image; the nose with smoke and/or clouds covering most of the aircraft. These images don't show that much, in other words. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I see four distinct images: the infographic, an artist’s concept of the F-47 aloft, a photo of the plane in the hangar, and that photo annotated with “Air Force” and logo. (There’s also a cropped version of the latter, plus a weird low-res image that’s been nominated for deletion.) Four distinct images, each of which might be used for different purposes, ought to justify the Commons cat link. PRRfan (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I've re-added the Commons category under the new "External links" section. I'm assuming the intention was to move it there but was accidentally left out. Regardless, the category does exist and is populated, so I see no reason to exclude it even if most of the the current images are all similar to the one in the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it was an accident. I was editing while tired! BilCat (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Potential name

I was surprised while reading the most recent issue of AirForces Monthly to see the F-47 referred to as "Thunderbolt III" in a reliable source! Apparently this is purely speculation, after a Googling (based on the fact the P-47 was Thunderbolt...), but a heads-up that this is "in the wild". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Let me suggest "Phantom III".

This has two justifications:

The relation to stealth, and the relation to its predecessors, the Banshee, Demon, Voodoo, and the Phantoms I and II (skipping over the Eagle and Hornet).

KHarbaugh (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

We can't speculate or make up names to use in the article. We can only cover names discussed by reliable sources. That said, we should probably wait for names known to originate from the US government rather than speculation before we cover anything here. - ZLEA ^TǀC 14:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC)