Boeing unveils updated F/A-XX sixth-gen fighter concept - General

[QUOTE=paindoc;40214708]True. But generally, don't LHD's have naval airgroup support? As an individual it helps, but it seems that in this case having CAG support would just be more efficient. I understand the advantage of having air support onboard though. edit; we might be heading to armchair general waters here[/QUOTE] Probably, I don't understand their plan. It makes no sense to me either.

[QUOTE=paindoc;40214059]Rudderless aircraft really require computers to run them and I've heard of them (through my grandfather, who was in the AF and knew several pilots) they are really hard to fly. I imagine the loads on these would be much greater than a B2 or F117 and I could see that causing problems.[/QUOTE] No, they are really hard/impossible to fly without computers. Fly-by-wire makes it as easy (and even safer) to fly as any other jet.

fly by wire is like playing bf3 yo

[QUOTE=Jaanus;40217574]No, they are really hard/impossible to fly without computers. Fly-by-wire makes it as easy (and even safer) to fly as any other jet.[/QUOTE] Alright, that does make sense. No idea where that came from. Probably tryhard B2 pilots trying to make themselves sound better :v:

And dude, we've been relying on computers since the late 70's. Hell, an F16's stick doesn't move at all, and uses force sensing to control the surfaces.

It looks like the visibility would be awful for the pilot, one of the issues the F35 is apparently having too. Computers are important and all, but in a dog fight, visual contact for the pilot is critical. Don't know why they don't extend the glass like it is on most older fighter jets. All that said, it looks pretty nice.

[QUOTE=Smeetin;40229257]It looks like the visibility would be awful for the pilot, one of the issues the F35 is apparently having too. Computers are important and all, but in a dog fight, visual contact for the pilot is critical. Don't know why they don't extend the glass like it is on most older fighter jets. All that said, it looks pretty nice.[/QUOTE] What, didn't the F35 have that feature where exterior cameras of the aircraft capture images that when combined with the HMD essentially removed the cabin gave the pilot pretty much unrestricted vision in all directions? :v:

[QUOTE=Soret;40210001]We are getting closer to deploying these in space, that is a good sign.[/QUOTE] Because we definitely need to weaponize space.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/FaxxNavy.jpg[/img] I preferred this version

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40236871]Because we definitely need to weaponize space.[/QUOTE] We already did, we tested an anti-satellite missile in the 80's.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40208341]Every modern military jet relies implicitly on computers. Anything fly-by-wire in general is reliant on computers to fly and will cease functioning during a total electronics failure. The F-117 would fall right out of the air without constant computer control, and we've advanced a lot since then. The problem with planes like the B-2 wasn't that they were computer-controlled, but that the systems they used to take input necessary to fly were unreliable. The crash on takeoff a few years ago, for example, was caused by moisture in an airspeed sensor. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] By and large this has always been the case. The F-16 was originally nicknamed the 'lawn dart' since its fly-by-wire control system had a habit of failing.[/QUOTE] Wrong. The F-16s stick doesn't move at all, it relies on pressure from the pilot. Pilots had no idea how much pressure they were putting in, and they would pull too many Gs and blackout then crash.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40236871]Because we definitely need to weaponize space.[/QUOTE] The ultimate high ground.

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;40238395]The ultimate high ground.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure there's some international treaty that outlaws such things in space, but then again who the hell follows international peace treaties anyway.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40239234]I'm pretty sure there's some international treaty that outlaws such things in space, but then again who the hell follows international peace treaties anyway.[/QUOTE] There's the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty"]Outer Space treaty[/URL], but it only forbids nuclear weapons or WMD's.

I am still not used to the look of rudder-less planes. But still, it looks like something you would see in the sky 20 years from now.

The vertical stabilizer+rudder combo on older fighter designs is the main thing that gives them away to radar. Its that same reason our first "truly stealth" aircraft the F-117 Didnt have a perpendicular surface on it. Get used to the flying wings guys, they are the future of military aircraft. Also I believe once the VTOL is perfected, its uses will outweigh its cons. Carriers will be 1/2 the size.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;40237532]We already did, we tested an anti-satellite missile in the 80's.[/QUOTE] Anti satellite missiles have been used recently

[QUOTE=Smoot;40210404]Neat.[/QUOTE] hi

[QUOTE=cqbcat;40214289]VTOL is retarded because jets require a support system, a support system that can only be delivered by cargo planes landing on already existing runways.[/QUOTE] The Osprey is pretty boss though [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/V-22_overpax.jpg[/img] You have to give Boeing props for that one

[QUOTE=Strider_07;40268829] [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/V-22_overpax.jpg[/img] [B]props[/B] [/QUOTE] Pun intended? :v:

[QUOTE=Strider_07;40268829]The Osprey is pretty boss though [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/V-22_overpax.jpg[/img] You have to give Boeing props for that one[/QUOTE] It also likes to crash a lot.

[QUOTE=Strider_07;40268829]The Osprey is pretty boss though [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/V-22_overpax.jpg[/img] You have to give Boeing props for that one[/QUOTE] Rated funny for the pun, even if it was unintentional. And yeah, Ospreys are sweet.

and then there was this beast that was spotted in transformers 2 [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img485/2119/v448lc.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.aviastar.org/foto/bell_qtr.jpg[/img] V-44 Quad Tiltrotor