Boeing's next gen fighter concept
 

Boeing's Newest Next-Gen Fighter Concept | Ares

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pssfqaynus.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pssfqaynus.jpg

Can't be right, it has a cockpit with someone in it.

Stick a fin on it and you have a modern version of the Vulcan Avro 707 test aircraft all be it a lot smaller.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contri...Aubry/7901.htm



..

That's a pretty fugly nose.
I wonder if it has anything to do with moving the COP forwards...

Doesn't look like a supersonic fighter aircraft. More like an aircraft designed for long range/endurance. The twin engines are likely the adaptive-cycle concepts under development.

Flying away from the wx I see...more "special" paint?

As NutLoose said, doesn't need a cockpit...

Anything that needs a quick reaction time with a man-in-the-loop needs that person in the aircraft as we have yet to overcome the speed of light.

Additionally, too many designers appear to think that:

- The EM spectrum has unlimited bandwidth at range.
- The EM spectrum is only used by them.
- The EM spectrum can only be used by them.

The US recognises the vulnerability of the space segment in any system, including GPS. Indeed, they are one of the very few that place technologies such as precision automated Astro-trackers on their strategic assets including aircraft such as the B-2, Rivet Joint, X-35B etc, as well as long-range comes that do not rely on satellites.

If we want unmanned fighters then we would have to give them autonomy and that would be a leap of faith for any nation that suffers from poor computer code, viruses, malicious hacking or rogue/disgruntled employees even before we consider any ethical concerns.

Just because there is a cockpit doesn't mean there needs to be someone in it...

Boeing practising? Yes I do know RC targets go back to the forties or so.

I wonder why Boeing don't use their own aircraft in the above tests?

The USAF wants to convert its F-16s to QF-16s, maybe?

Hmmm, could be 280562487962323320148.... ;o)

You can be pretty much assured that at least one further generation of combat aircraft will be manned. Yes, Taranis, X-47, et al will be pretty handy for 'first day of the war' and for certain, other scenarios, but you can forget all this 'optionally manned' or ' retired Colonel with no AD experience trounced in simulator' nonsense.

The simple truth is that, for most missions where reaction 'on the fly' may be needed, you're still better off, by far, with a MK I meat computer on board, and will be for some time yet. A.I. technologies simply aren't advanced enough to cover the full spectrum and probably won't be for thirty years or more. Indeed, it could be argued that to effectively and fully replace the human component, you'd need full - blown 'General A.I.' - at which point, there may well be far worse things to worry about than the prospect of hanging up your flying suit.

Platypus....

Where does the Radar go?
KB

AESA modules can be distributed individually to form the whole. Leading edges are a favoured location when designers discuss such arrangements, but who knows?