USAF is being even more short-sighted than usual to not make it a requirement that NGAD weapons bays be deep enough to hold 2000lb bombs, even if they only spec the payload out to ~4000lbs of AAMs.
Source for weapons requirements?
USAF is being even more short-sighted than usual to not make it a requirement that NGAD weapons bays be deep enough to hold 2000lb bombs, even if they only spec the payload out to ~4000lbs of AAMs.
Weapons weights. AMRAAMs are ~350lbs each, AIM9s 200. 4000lbs of AAMs is ~10x AMRAAMs and 2x AIM9s.Source for weapons requirements?
I would absolutely love to explore something like this with you guys, but i’m going to be away from my computer for at least the next year come June… Perhaps you all can talk Paralay into it!It would be interesting to create a 3D model of your proposal to explore if the volume required for weapons, fuel, engines, intake ducting, systems, etc. would actually result in a feasible aircraft (concept)... Tempting.
Btw, can you elaborate what mission profile is assumed for the 1700 nmi combat radius?
E.g.:
View attachment 726846
Weapons weights. AMRAAMs are ~350lbs each, AIM9s 200. 4000lbs of AAMs is ~10x AMRAAMs and 2x AIM9s.
In what way?Horrific.
I’m interested in manned vehicles. I’m a fan of man. Thinking machine only fighters? Nah, passIn what way?
as a step up from what the F22 carries in missile terms.Where does the 4000 lb number come from?
I m the same , and if ennemy could jam or hack UAV all finish on the ground, to dangerous to much with unmanned in my opinion.I’m interested in manned vehicles. I’m a fan of man. Thinking machine only fighters? Nah, pass
I’m interested in manned vehicles. I’m a fan of man. Thinking machine only fighters? Nah, pass
as a step up from what the F22 carries in missile terms.
6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM9s is ~2500lbs. 6x 500lb missiles (like Sparrow) is 3000lbs. Meteor is 420lbs, in case the AIM260s are something like that. The "2x 1000lb, 2x AMRAAM, and 2x AIM9" load seems to be the physical max in terms of bay volume, and that's ~3200lbs.
Given the distances NGAD will have fly, it makes sense to carry more missiles than F15 or F22 natively do. Super Hornets and Eagle IIs have been showing ~10x AMRAAMs in heavy AA mode. So I went with 10x AMRAAM weights (~3500lbs) plus 2x AIM9 weights (~400lbs) for ~3900lbs, then rounded to nearest 1000lbs to get 4000. If the AIM260 ends up heavier, I would increase the expected weight carried to ~6000lbs (10x500, + 2x200)
Yes those numbers are MINE.So you made the numbers up? I am not seeing a source in that post.
I generally enjoy your posts, but I think no one here has anything like a good idea of where NGADS requirements are at.Yes those numbers are MINE.
I have laid out the reasoning for why I think they're close to what the USAF is planning.
I’m interested in manned vehicles. I’m a fan of man. Thinking machine only fighters? Nah, pass
The reality is that the human in the cockpit is rapidly becoming the weak point. The X-62A is showing the way to the future. We are also talking about AI here, not something continuously controlled from the ground/remotely with an ability to be hacked.I m the same , and if ennemy could jam or hack UAV all finish on the ground, to dangerous to much with unmanned in my opinion.
Oh I know. The autonomy is the way around the hacking or jamming. Although probably the latter more than the former.We are also talking about AI here, not something continuously controlled from the ground/remotely with an ability to be hacked
Why is the human the weak point?The reality is that the human in the cockpit is rapidly becoming the weak point. The X-62A is showing the way to the future. We are also talking about AI here, not something continuously controlled from the ground/remotely with an ability to be hacked.
Why is the human the weak point?
These trials are very tightly controlled and scripted, as yet no computer has come close to sustaining even “sense and avoid” GA flying due to the complexity and unpreditctability of the air environment. The “is it an enemy, what course of action to do?” is something so difficult we cant even specify a trial - all AI stuff starts with (human decided) assumptions that drastically simplify the situation for the computer to then process.
Endurance for these aircraft is engine oil limited, not the pilot. The offload of “routine flying” to computers with the human as a mission controller makes that even more pronounced as the human can take “time out” in a way they cant at the moment.
There have been so many artist concepts that I really wonder whether hidden in them the real design? There are likely subtle differences. Look at the YF-22 and F-22. But if you look at the artist concepts certain common themes appear.Once the company for the contract is selected, how long might we be waiting to see art? Perhaps we could look at other similar programs (F22/YF23) (F35) ?
Why is the human the weak point?
These trials are very tightly controlled and scripted, as yet no computer has come close to sustaining even “sense and avoid” GA flying due to the complexity and unpreditctability of the air environment. The “is it an enemy, what course of action to do?” is something so difficult we cant even specify a trial - all AI stuff starts with (human decided) assumptions that drastically simplify the situation for the computer to then process.
Endurance for these aircraft is engine oil limited, not the pilot. The offload of “routine flying” to computers with the human as a mission controller makes that even more pronounced as the human can take “time out” in a way they cant at the moment.
Quite, the issue is “define combat”. Combat, or rather, the role a human pilot performs, is such a wide span of tasks and yet these trials have to telescope their focus on very, very narrowly defined tasks to even be comparable.Indeed, these are experimental trials in a controlled environment... However, even if an AI based combat system advances to a point were is becomes superior to human pilots. Usually AEH and SW are considered items of certification. I'm keen to see how a fully-autonomous, entirely AI based combat system, is going to be certified (by humans). Ultimately, someone needs to be responsible/accountable.
Compared to developing AI that cannot yet fly a GA aircraft iaw the ‘see and avoid’ of the average ‘puddle jumping’ pilot?Human pilots are more expensive in terms of time and money to produce
Likely, evidence being? Piloting is not predicated on “reaction times” but decision making. Balancing a vast array of factors with very changeable priorities and doing the right thing. Not a strong point of software - I’m deep in the engineering aspects of teams writing sw to deliver functionality of complex defence avionics and it is taking millions and years to not very well deliver limited functionality that is actually quite repeatable process based, let alone deal with the variables of flying / combat air decision making. In a previous existence I was in the back of the jets making decisions on the fly, there I wrote sw to aid the process part of it, but that took a lot of effort and again was very limited vs the scope of I/pilot as decision maker.as well as weight in the aircraft. Increasing they likely also have longer reaction times compared to an AI.
These cheap planes have kinematics, LO and avionics akin to piloted ones right? How does that make them cheap? If they dont, they just die to something that is better.But being able to create lots of cheap planes that can fight a conflict as an attritional versus survival battle is going to enable a lot of tactics that would probably not be effective with human pilots.
That is extraordianrily optimistic. I think we’ll see the same platforms as today in the 2030s and likely the 2040s. To get FCAS/NGAD into service is going to make F35 look cheap and quick.In the short term the USAF seems to intend to use primarily as off board sensor and weapon platforms under human control. But I think in the 2030s we will see them sent on mid alone, perhaps with a satellite link to ground controllers on a specialized gateway aircraft.
Compared to developing AI that cannot yet fly a GA aircraft iaw the ‘see and avoid’ of the average ‘puddle jumping’ pilot?
Compared to the hordes of other people that make up the pyramid of the air force?
Could we save far more money investing AI in automating some of their functions? A sqn has what, 30 people on it for every pilot, and thats just the sqn, let alone the rest of the pyramid.
I think aircrew account for 2% of the RAF. (Yet 98% of its leaders…!)
Likely, evidence being? Piloting is not predicated on “reaction times” but decision making. Balancing a vast array of factors with very changeable priorities and doing the right thing. Not a strong point of software - I’m deep in the engineering aspects of teams writing sw to deliver functionality of complex defence avionics and it is taking millions and years to not very well deliver limited functionality that is actually quite repeatable process based, let alone deal with the variables of flying / combat air decision making. In a previous existence I was in the back of the jets making decisions on the fly, there I wrote sw to aid the process part of it, but that took a lot of effort and again was very limited vs the scope of I/pilot as decision maker.
There is a huge post in “why are we trying to replace pilots” that Ive not got time to write now, although given they’re the most annoying twats on the planet I’m definitely up for it - I just dont see it as realistic or sadly, desirable.
These cheap planes have kinematics, LO and avionics akin to piloted ones right? How does that make them cheap? If they dont, they just die to something that is better.
On a large high end fighter, the pilot isnt really imposing that much of a constraint. The constraints are sensors/antenna, integration (software) and engine oil.
That is extraordianrily optimistic. I think we’ll see the same platforms as today in the 2030s and likely the 2040s. To get FCAS/NGAD into service is going to make F35 look cheap and quick.
The end of manned aircraft was pronounced in 1957, viewed through a very narrow optic that seemed sensible then (to some!), this penchant for AI/unmanned is the same mistake.
Horrific.
The big difference developing a software agent to fly a plane and training a pilot to fly a plane is eventually when the software agent is perfected, it can be copied to a thousand aircraft. So while there is a high up front cost, there also is a huge potential payout.
Machine learning is finicky enough that you'd probably need to spend at least the same amount of time on every airframe type though.
For non-nuclear, I'd agree with that.AI air superiority fighters are probably going to be the nuclear fusion of TACAIR for the next 40 years I'd guess. AI bombers will probably see combat in the next decade if America and the PRC decide to blue ball the world and skip their 2027 "Taiwan and chill" date the navies setup.
Something like MQ-28 or -58 that drops a couple SDBs on a HAS or oil tank is not really that advanced, though, so "bomber" is relative.
Depends on where the AI pilot sits. If the CCAs have their flight control laws worked out and tested with human pilots remotely operating them, then the AI plugs in where the human pilots were giving instructions, there's much less demand for AI learning time in the planes.Machine learning is finicky enough that you'd probably need to spend at least the same amount of time on every airframe type though.
Is a guidance system an AI? A kalman filter is pretty damn smart...For non-nuclear, I'd agree with that.
I'm not seeing people being okay with AI in charge of nukes anytime soon.
Depends on where the AI pilot sits. If the CCAs have their flight control laws worked out and tested with human pilots remotely operating them, then the AI plugs in where the human pilots were giving instructions, there's much less demand for AI learning time in the planes.
It is, but the question is AI releasing (or not releasing) nukes. By the time the guidance system(s) are in control, the go/no-go decision has already been made by people.Is a guidance system an AI? A kalman filter is pretty damn smart...
Sounds like a missile to me.Those aircraft can sit in a sealed container in the munition dump or aircraft shelter waiting for assembly in a conflict.
Sounds like an ICBM or SLBM to me.AI operated nuclear bombers
@Kat Tsun said AI bomber:No one ever stated AI should be in charge of nukes. Like, literally no where on this thread or in any USAF release ever. As far as i know, only the movies War Games or Terminator have ever prosed that as a USAF idea.
AI air superiority fighters are probably going to be the nuclear fusion of TACAIR for the next 40 years I'd guess. AI bombers will probably see combat in the next decade if America and the PRC decide to blue ball the world and skip their 2027 "Taiwan and chill" date the navies setup.
I thinking the same could it be a NGAD design derivated ? 2 seats, look like a supersonic design with canted tails and a F-111 size...
So is getting all the converted airliners blown out of the sky because they are the farthest thing from stealthy...So what next for the USAF tanker force if the current plans are up in smoke? Looks like the stealthy tanker is just too expensive, it is a shame because I liked some of the designs.
@Kat Tsun said AI bomber: