Probably not, I think that there is a very large overestimation as to the capabilities of AI in comparison to having a human in the cockpit. It's just no feasible, and I don't think it will be feasible for quite some time.
Pilot on board? I am out of my depth here, but how would that be different from fly-by-wire?
Sorry I can't be bothered to figure out how that multi quote thing works right now, but...
That seems like it's going to do weird things to lift across the wing roots.
I don't think it's possible, yet. We've got the basic mission planning figured out, but not the automatic defensive maneuvers.
What automatic defensive maneuvers here are we talking about here? because that seems like one of the few spaces in which AI would actually be very good at. There was an article posted elsewhere that a much less ambitious project than DARPA's ACE program demonstrated ai controlled aircraft was able to not only conduct evasive maneuvers optimally, but also plan and coordinate in such a way that originally disadvantaged AI controlled aircraft were able to continually compress the human controller's timelines and force the human aggressor onto the defensive.
I think the trick is connecting the defensive maneuver into offensive maneuvers that is still lacking.
The main intent is to get rid of the gap between fuselage and canard, which should improve frontal RCS, and in addition keep the distortion of airflow in front of the intakes small.
Have a look at Su-57 LEVCONs
That can be easily done by tapering the edges from both sides.
It is not about rare or frequent in total time from takeoff to landing, but something needs to be available when needed, even for short time which could be critical like landing, refuelling, dogfighting, escorting, etc, especially during winds.
True, but the above point should kept in mind - availability when needed.
There the top boundary layer stream created by Levcon is also separated by top gap with intake.
I know, I know, but there is still a gap... I think my proposal is feasible, or at least not completely unfeasible
Like I said before, there is other control surfaces + TVC as well, to ensure sufficient control authority.
It's a conceptual design. A real world implementation may or may not feature a DSI bump, a splitter plate, or other means of boundary layer management. I'll leave that to the experts
I was referring to your previous comment "And this one still obstructs intakes when down" Nothing of concern i think.
Nice although I think actual NGAD will have angled wings like the YF118G probably not to the same extreme angle though
Mind you, BoP was designed inherent stable, had no fly by wire, and no TVC. I will be interesting to see if F-47 has indeed dihedral wings, as published CGI suggests.
The radomes for these renders and diagrams all look so tiny for some reason - unless radome size isn't really a major factor when it's focusing on planform and control details...Apparently, this is Boeigns solution:
It's fine with the new radar elements based on gallium nitride (GaN) technology and for the same range. And fine for a demonstrator.
With the spade nose shape, it may look flat from the side angle, but they are much wider than the traditional nose shape.
That's my hope - that these designs are demonstrator territory and actual designs would feature a much wider array than even the F-22.
This is my possible F-47 model
How much power are CCAs required to generate to power robust sensors and AESA radars? I'm thinking about a Mach 2, supercruising, high flying next generation air dominance aircraft utilizing small AESA radars onboard subsonic CCAs flying at medium altitudes. That doesn't really make as much sense as flooding these with different types of passive sensors, IRST, and electronic warfare more tailored to the concept and within SWaP margins of these relatively small and simple air vehicles.
Yeah like you said - there's a lot of other factors in there.
Can't tell if you are being serious but ... why wouldn't fighters begin moving towards the J-36 size? Are there any reason besides cost that a large fighter like that would be disadvantaged by? At what point does it become "too big"?
IIUC, larger fighters can struggle in terms of maneuverability. I believe that they need more airframe mass for strength to hold the same g-forces.
It comes down to requirements. NGAD will have 70+ percent combat radius improvement over F-22. It will be Mach 2 capable and supercruise with a greater supersonic radius than F-22A. It will generate a lot more power and cooling capacity than the F-22 or F-35. A lot more. And, it won't have three, four, five or six engines nor be supersized relatively speaking.
I know I'm asking a terribly stupid question so please bear with me but...
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the three engine point still doesn't sit well with me. That's like one short of four. Imagine the array size, power and cooling that fourth could afford. Such a lost opportunity. For NGAD, I would have gone with four. Two side inlets. One on the top, and one on the bottom. Engine three gives me power for large array. Engine four powers my DEW and space weapons.
Not certain about powergeneration but I assume max thermal load should be at least 170 kW plus whatever increase there is from M2 to M2.5 from the friction.
