The NOSE of this DRONE, comes OFF... | MQ-28 | Ghost Bat | Loyal Wingman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 мар 2022
- | MQ-28 | Ghost Bat | Loyal Wingman, these are all the names of the same UCAV being developed by Boing of Australia and RAAF.
It seems quite conventional until you look at the payload...
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RUclips Partner Program, Community guidelines & RUclips terms of service.
Join this channel to support it:
ruclips.net/channel/UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star
Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/
Classic bullshit content...
Poor guy is trying to desperately increase his subscribers
@@joyalsajan1168 Aren't all RUclipsrs? Instead of providing an actual critique, you just want to throw shade. Probably because you can't come up with an legitimate critique. I bet you didn't even watch the video.
This channel is one of, if not the best when it comes to deep technical information/questions/ideas that you can barely find anywhere else; especially on RUclips.
Range: 3,700 km (2,300 mi, 2,000 nmi)
MQ-28's 11.6 m length is nearly the size of an FA-50's 13 m length.
In one respect the MQ-28 will fly like a fighter, Boeing has put the engine intakes in the usual fighter positions on the sides of the fuselage, where they can gulp in air even when, because of a hard turn, it’s coming from below. If designers didn’t want the MQ-28 to turn hard, they would have fed air to the engine from above the fuselage, a stealthier choice. So, the MQ-28 will be able to turn hard.
The "Ghost Bat" is here to stay and most of the questions you are asking have already been asked and addressed, this loyal wingman is much much more than what was originally planned and has evolved because the Australian AI Technology is extremely advanced in world standards, this is not just Boeing, and the RAAF but many specialist companies around Australia also being involved in the engineering and development of each component but it still is only early days and there is a lot of work to be done but be assured that this will be a game-changer when it comes online.
"Ghost Bat" will first have a comm's relay module and then a ISR module. Future Ghost Bat modules will include growler sub systems.
Not suprised Australia has been able to "develop" this, considering Boeing is involved.
@@justsain3236 Boeing Systems Australia is a largely independent Aussie staffed and run organisation - certainly not just an offshoot of Boeing... Aussie ideas and implementation.
@@vinceelliott4362 Offcourse, but I'm sure you get access to Boeing technical know-how regardless.
The most important question is, will its lights change to red once it turns evil?
skynet
as stealthy as that is i think it's gonna do that when it loses contact to command
11:35 what if it will be programmed to violate all safety and ram into the neatest human being if enemy detected
It's Aussie AI.. not evil. That's China
Massive move for Australia, really important. Such a large land mass with a small population. This is a necessity.
Australia defence is really going towards drones now and missiles also.. turning a old Navy patrol boat into a Ai.. got drone submarines and have spent over 300B on Hypersonics and Australian comapny with world's most advanced scramjet is getting put in to a drone and it's first flight is next year.
The scramjet has been used in secret tests during HIFIRE and saids sucessful.
The U-2 has (at least when I worked on it) interchangeable nose sections. Depending on the mission they had optical or radar noses to swap out.
I was about to brig that up, glad I checked the comments 1st.
And pilots which know the language of the given country.
Yeah, makes more sense as a information gathering vehicle with reasonable loiter.
@@uberNerdStatus it has bomb and missile launching capabilities. It can do much more than reconnaissance
Australia did the nose thing back in the Mirage days i believe.
It is a horrifying thought that an AI might commit Pineapple Pizza! 😨
Love the video! imo, I don't think the removable nose is an issue. Most NAVY planes fold the wings and that is even more a structural weak point that seems to not be a problem. Also all jet fighters hinge the nose cone to fold out, so a detachable nose should mean nothing. Also the weight of the different nose sections could easily be all the same-- just plan for the heaviest equipment and add extra mass to make each nose section weight the same.
The pineapple pizza joke was Gold 🤣🤣🤣
The center of gravity is a flexible point. One can redistribute the load in an airframe without too many difficulties. Chris Werb pointed out that you have a number of examples in WW2 (usually medium and heavy bombers, but it happened even among the fighters-Lockheed Lightning was notable with a number of configurations) with completely different shapes of the nose (depending on the aircraft's role). The comparison with the WW2 maybe is not be the best due to the different techniques used in the intervention on the nose section of the aircraft (they weren't interchangeable), but it still shows that there is no significant limitation.
And I can see the "Bat" jokes already. Riddled by the Riddler, egged by the joker, captured by the vines of Ivy, Catnapped by Catwoman and so on.
Yeeees!! Been waiting for this!! Excellent...I'm thinking of this as a force multiplier...extending baselines for IRST...putting missiles closer to the intended target with lower platform risk... perhaps an escort for AWACS or P8...I expect we'll see more man in the loop than we expect...I think we'll see production variants with a decent sized ventral payload bay
Go do that by yourself
Yes. all you need to do now, is develop a long-range IR missile. OR BUY RUSSIAN/CHINESE ones.
@@Gunni1972 the USAF was able to launch an AMRAAM using the firing solution made with an IRST. You don't need to use an IR missile to use the track made by an IRST. Although it would come in handy to have a Mica IR (or something like that) for use against stealth targets, since it's harder for the radar of a missile to get a lock on a stealth plane.
@@Gunni1972 I guess but a couple of thoughts - First: afaik only one of our adversary's operates true stealth fighters and they also have IR stealth technology so IR missiles are not the free lunch they are often portrayed as. Second : we dont have a dire need for for our IR missiles to outrage the sensors we use to find targets for them. Third: new missiles will probably use muli seeker technology becasue making a sidewinder with more range probably does not solve the problems necessary to justify putting a new missile into production.
@@Gunni1972 We are it is all top secret because China cries every time Australia tries boosting it's military.
When Australia upgrades the 3rd Tactical Emu Flying Corp with self-forging "Dropbear" pods - the world will fear the land of the Bogan. These aggressive Emu's fly so close to the ground, no current Surface to Air missile can track them let alone bring them down. And the Dropbear is a step up from the old trusty but rather slow Rabid Wombat ground attack munitions. Fear it!
Good thing because the Rabid Wombat is susceptible to MANGE (Munitions Above Notional Ground Effect) countermeasures.
This Emu and Drop bear attack are redundant we still have the older tech out there i.e. Rabid rabbit with auto spawn/regenerate and ankle breakers warrens(bunker makers). Not forgetting those other imported weapons the toxic toad and feral cat munitions.
True, but I'm waiting for them to be integrated more fully with the Land systems, HOOP SNAKE, and KANGA-WALLA-FOX for true combined arms battlefield effect
I find it somewhat amusing that Ozzies of all people have come up with these fearsome legendary creatures when over half of their actual flora and fauna is frickin' lethal.
Don't forget the giant spider-crocodiles - oops, I've said too much ...
I find my self wondering what OTIS has to say about all this AI stuff? He would also be able to answer the question about it being hacked as well. I look forward to hearing his thoughts. Also the RAAF has experience in operating detachable noses. They developed a few different recon noses that were all detachable for the Mirage III that were used for weapon deployment testing by ARDU at woomera. The noses were used on single and two seater Mirage's.
AI is for the comm's and to protect against cyber attacks.
@@tinto278 AI is for everything on this as is fully Autonomous teaming system swarm drone AI capable.
Why called Ghost Bat as is Australian animal that hunts it's prey in packs.
Is Ghost Shark in Australia now also a fully Autonomous submersible drone.
Also Blue Bottle a surface AI drone solar powered. already out in Australias EEZ monitoring it's approaches.
Australia is big in AI. mining industry in Australia have around 600 fully autonomous mining trucks.
Compared to other nations of think 30 is next country total.
You questioned the 'replaceable nose'.
While your observation on the center of gravity is worthy, the actual weight differences of a intelligence-gathering vs warhead is not as large as you might think.
As far as the strength? Well, if the Concorde could handle a drop-nose (also the SU-4 Sotka and XB-70 Valkyrie), then we can probably engineer a nose-attachment that will survive 20 G... After all, the information you have implies it's going to be a butt-joint, which is laughable at best. I'm sure the good engineers of Boeing can come up with a more robust solution.
I gotta say, there was WAY too much conjecture and groundless playing-to-fears for me in this video.
It was good for a laugh, and that was about it.
"Atrocities" - cut to pineapple on pizza.
Class
B25's had kits available to replace the nose canopy with a housing for many machine guns.
Forces in the South Pacific were not well supplied, had to make do with what they had available, and B25's were used in a wide variety of roles they weren't intended for.
Loved your snap photo of an atrocity example. Something many can agree with!
Why wouldn't they simply have a standard weight module? In fact, that would clearly be a determining factor in deciding what equipment should be incorporated in each model no?
There are some very clever electronics and sensors being developed by the Aussies for this program.
With American funding and Aussie ingenuity I suspect it's going to be a very capable and innovative device.
In the Korean War, B-26s were converted from gun noses to glazed, bomb-aimer noses, because the enemy switched to mostly moving at night and there was no point having eight extra guns for an interdiction mission if you couldn't find a target. Although, as far as I am aware, this capability was not intended to be used this way, it worked well in Korea and I believe it was a field or local depot level job, rather than one involving return to the manufacturer.
If the nose swapping idea was conceptualized from the beginning, it would make sense to position the center of gravity further towards the rear. That way it could compensate for heavier equipment in the nose and in the event that the nose has lighter equipment, they could add ballast to even out the weight distribution. Just a thought.
Maybe it computationally changes flight profile based on nose and payload weight.
@@zinjanthropus322 This works, but by compensating the weight with aerodynamical surfaces control it also increases drag and thus reduces range.
@@zinjanthropus322 I'm sure it will. I know on some larger aircraft they also transfer fuel into separate fuel tanks during flight depending on the load. In this case however, it might not be feasible due to the size of the aircraft.
Also easy enough to simply add ballast to ask nose modules so that they weigh effectively the dance amount no matter which load it the airframe has at the time
I was thinking of a similar solution. I think it's a pretty easy fix.
I have not followed this program all that closely but the interchangeable nose section as the payload bay is certainly a brilliant design choice. Informative as always.
Were you in the chat of Greg’s airplanes premier for his video about the atomic bombing Lancaster?
@@mustang5132 Yes.
@@cannonfodder4376 Small world.
@@iflycentral Small world indeed.
If I remember well, the Mirage IIIO used by Australia had the possibility to swap in the field the Cyrano radar nose (the standard one) with a nose equipped with recon cameras. Also the Canadian CF-5 (as already said by others) had the same capability to swap nose in the field between the solid standard one and a dedicated recon nose with cameras. U-2 had also different noses with different recon equipment but I don't know if they were interchangeable at unit level
Pizza with pineapple?! Call the police!! Call the Human Rights at the UN! Call the War Crimes International Tribunal!
YES! 😆
Pineapple on Pizza is a masterpiece of culinary Art
In the pre-stealth era we could afford additional pods so interchangeable structural elements were pointless.
The closest conceptual thing are "universal" bays that could accept additional equipment or guns.
Given that naval aircraft already have articulation in the wings, I don't see that joint being a massive issue from a structural perspective. Some additional weight, but a larger issue might be the skin discontinuity affecting radar return. This could be partially addressed by having the interface area serrated. Most of the load would end up on the serrations, so it would also make the structural problems easier, at a cost of being hard to manufacture and maintain.
The modular design seems a great idea from a development standpoint, and this strikes me as a technology demonstrator and development vehicle more than a finished product. They even said a flying wing would be better. A design that is relatively simple to fly and easily modified (to the point of interchangeable parts) is probably the fastest way to answer the other questions that are hard to answer without just trying solutions. Once they know exactly what they need from this sort of vehicle they can get to work on a more specialised one.
I agree with your discussion, but at the and this drone is made to fulfill some military specification, or not?
A similar concept is the F35 terma mission pod. Most think it is only a cannon for the marines variant, but it can carry a modular power pod which is extra computing power, cameras, EW jammer, directed energy weapons, and SAR.
Regarding the difference in nose payloads, I would be reasonably confident that the engineering in the basic design & evaluation of the concept would have allowed for this with say, ballast. Every nose payloads section will more than likely be the same weight.
Thanks for the video!
4:30 Seeing as it has so much digital engineering involved and that NGAD is rumored to use variable bypass engines, this could probably explain the speed and range performance differences that are unlike current airframes.
8:20 Digital engineering and advances might also allow for fast recalculation of CG and the software might be designed to adapt to it.
I don't see any tactical advances in having an "autonomous" (it isn't) vehicle, being reprogrammed mid flight. It might not have the necessary computing power to react to something that happens while it is reprogrammed. Like "changes on the Battlefield" or an incoming threat. And considering how long it takes for an F-35 to get a complex Battlefield Map downloaded, MQ 28 might aswell stay on the ground. Unless Satellite navigation signals and Data transmission cannot be detected.
@@Gunni1972 ; Notice I never talked about "mid flight". I mean adapting the software to a different GC after changing the nose.
I also think 'digital engineering' is also referring to the involvement of 3D printing and plastic composites for the airframes design etc, also might be easier to create those weird shapes they're always after for radar stealth.
@@kxngmars6527 ; Yes, the USAF has a new nomenclature prefix for fully digitally built aircraft, for example used on the eT-7A Redhawk prototype. While part of it is indeed additive processes to allow for less weight and more complex shapes, the other part is being able to produce parts on site and thus support an airframe even after it is out of general service. Which why the USAF is building a parts database and has already used it for old and aging airframes like the B-52 and F-22, which are no longer built. Such an approach might in the long term also allow for reconfiguration of an airframe to face new threats. Time will tell if everything works out like the USAF hopes for.
The B 58 Hustler, adopted the pod payload concept which comes close IMHO to the payload concept of the MQ drone
Another issue with concentrating things in the nose: modern fighter have usually sensors, antennas distributed around the airframe, to avoid blind spots, interferences, allow spatial distibution. Meaning that not all the stuff can be concentrated in one place, and the designers will have to choose what is to be part of the airframe, and the mission dependant things that can be fitted in the nose.
I would assume that the Bat is cheap enough to have enough of them to saturate an area with enough sensors that will all talk to each other on secure data links to mitigate blind spots, same tactic as having a wingman.
Yeh, this 'feature' will not survive until production. Bad idea.
@@rickblackwell6435 Said. No. Intelligent. Person. Ever...
@@glassfullofmilk I see it rather as an electronic countermeasure platform. Payload is small, And ihe transonic range is nowhere near Military speed. Transit is faster, and combat is slower. Slower is not a problem. But you d' have to start them earlier than planes, to have them work in tandem on the field.
@@Gunni1972 I mean it could be all those things really, but I'd probably leave the ECM to the growlers and onboard jammers. It could be used for housing a FCR and having a launch platform from further back take a shot, allowing the launch platform to go evasive or not even turn on their active sensors getting inside the decision loop of the opposition
Whilst it wasn't hot swappable the Mosquito had a kind of similar thing in that the front could be optimised for reconnaissance, bombing, fighter roles and even with a anti u-boat cannon (tsetse), whilst the rest of the airframe remained mainly the same.
The different nose sections remind me of the SR-71. I remember being surprised by a video about it saying the nose section was held on by 4 large bolts.
I remember watching a video where a B-1B pilot explained how the B-1 automatically moves fuel around to account for changes in center of gravity when bombs are being released. the MQ-28 could also do similar things as well, and given the complexity of modern fly by wire controls, computers can do this pretty accurately.
That given I can see this drone being pretty useful for gathering information by scouting ahead, and relaying targeting information back to a manned fighter who is out of enemy range. Given the interchangeable nose, I can see an EW version being made as well that can possibly defend and loiter around AWACS or tankers to protect from long range AA missiles like the PL-15
Seems like a good host for the peregrine mini-AAM being developed by Raytheon
SR-71 had swappable nose cones for different mission requirements
Thanks, Very interesting as always. that dig at pineapple was harsh ;)
Hi M7* I believe the SR-71 had the ability to optimise its sensor suite for a particular mission/situation, by changing out its nose section. I have seen references to 3 different swappable nose configurations for the SR-71 - but little detailed info regarding their internals.
I only remember the interchangable nozle in the U-2 and the SR-71 for diferent sensors and cameras. Cool video!
The SR-71 had three different interchangeable noses and they could be swapped out based on the mission. Training, reconnaissance cameras, and side looking radar. Of course, the SR-71 nose section was not truly part of the overall aircraft structure. The T-33/P80 had a detachable rear, just aft of the wings. It can be understood that this was part of learning how to build the new jets. But it was a major break in the structure.
Great class
I might be wrong, but I think I remember the ability to swap nose sections for different mission sets being proposed during the early prototype phase of the F-111 when they were considering the needs of both the Air Force and Navy. It may have just been to retain as much parts commonality as possible between the A and B.
This thing is actually beautiful, unlike alot of drones that look rather flimsy. Even the Reaper and Bayraktar look lame compared to this.
the avro arrow had a removable weapons bay with multiple option for loadout type.
Potentially, so did the B-58. I think they only developed 3; conventional bomb/fuel tank, nuclear bomb/fuel tank, and reconnaissance pod. Nothing to prevent other pods being developed (e.g. like a cruise missile pod (if there were cruise missiles back the), or an air-to-ground missile pod.
It was intended for atomic rockets, the weapons bay became obsolete before the plane was even ready.
And was that weapons bay a structural part of the plane? Very unlikely...
Mil helicopters(Mi-8/Mi-17for example) have extra wings that you can mount on them to have multiple option for loadout type and in the same time they also provide extra lift in horizontal flight. But its also not exactly in line with the "structural part" problem.
The rear part of the Mi-8/Mi-17 that you can remove have much more to do with it.
@@Bialy_1
the bay was structural.
the removable weapons bay was a section of the bottom of the fuselage.
it was designed for rapid removal between missions.
if you are interested you can look it up.
Perhaps the interchangeable 'nose,' section of the aircraft, may be so, because the nose sections have different 'packages,' of electronics and other components, that are 'mission oriented.'
As an example, one nose cone, may contain electronic jamming capability, while another may contain radar for ground strike munitions, such as anti-radar missiles. Another may contain extra fuel tanks, or anti-aircraft capabilities.
Another may be light, without alot of electronics, for dropping 'dumb bombs.'
I don't imply this is the case, but might be the reason for having a capability to change the nose cone.
Most modern aircraft are multirole, meaning they can be planned and loaded for a specific mission. And then, the mission can change and the aircraft be loaded for another type of mission.
But most modern aircraft, have a defensive capability, regardless of the proposed offensive mission.
Correct, its electronics, things like the new small aesa radar, recon/isr pods. It has standard weapons bays further back. I haven't heard anything about the nose being reconfigured with weapons. COG would made that a massive PITA
@@richardthomson4693 Well, I wasn't meaning that the noses were configured to carry weapons, but that they were configured for different weapons systems, for different missions, adding to the aircraft's versatility.
Anti-aircraft weapons, such as missiles, would need radar to locate the targets, and depending on the type of missile fired, would be a targeting radar.
Even heat seeking missiles need to locate the target first and this is usually done with radar.
The missiles would be in the internal weapons bays, until released, not in the nose itself.
The secretive AI control being developed by the Australians is the key to the MQ-28 Ghost Bat.
Ka-26 had interchangeable cargo section. that is a cargo heli though i guess you can count that in for modular payload.
I think I understand the problem. Some people are making flying killer robots, built in robot factories with A.I. systems that maybe capable of committing atrocities like killing all humans or something really atrocious like putting pineapple on pizza then forcing people to eat it. (Dio mio !) It's a tricky problem but I know what to do.
What we need is an insurance policy, something that can take out these flying killer robots if they ever become a threat.
We need flying super robot killing killer robots ! They'll need to be pretty fast and agile with weapons powerful enough to take out the other robots so best to give them super A.I. and super weapons, and we'll need a lot of them pretty fast so we'd better build them in super robotic factories.
There we are, problem solved. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Ever herd of the Law of Murphy? It gets Bots too you know. If it can go wrong, it will.
Or just a drone jammer, or a high powered IR laser. Also, the planes cannot kill people without the go-ahead of an overseer which is a pilot attached to a command structure. The human aspect of ultimate decision making in a situation like that is still relevant. However, if an F-35 pilot tells one of them to kill another enemy fighter. Good game. G-Forces don't matter for it as they do for a human. This thing will bank a 180 degree turn so tightly it will look completely inhuman to anyone who's ever even flown a plane, even something as agile as an F-16. Plus they can surround anything with a data link. Including B-2 bombers, AWACS, air fuelers etc. I think the idea is to even have them cover air spaces for air corridors etc as well. These are a complete game changer in terms of air superiority for any air force.
12:47 🤣🤣🤣
I am afaid you might be getting ahead of yourself. The MQ-28 is basically a proof of concept, with the software being the real product. The product is there to achieve a very cheap autonomous way of do the dangerous drudgery by itself while not puting more valuable assets in harms way. The aircraft is basic and only there to do missions that won't put it up against manned fighter jets, yet if neccessary it may even be a decoy for lets say a "Hawkeye" surveilance jet. Australia has the 2nd largest EW aircraft network in the world and the Ghost Bat is only the begining of this Loyal Wingman concept, it is still, as you said, very early days. It is part of the digital network giving far greater capability over battlefield. The eventual final product will be whatever is felt to be relevant to the mission, cheap and expendable. Version 2 will have greater capabillity , to do much more at a far cheaper cost that Fighter Aircraft. We have all watched what has happened in the Ukraine in respect to drones, well this is the ongoing evolution.
Should've changed it to the Loyal Wingmate.
Not the entire front of the aircraft, no, but the ME410 was designed to use several standardized modifications to its payload bay. Some of them not retaining any of the base model bay equipment or doors. So, more like the front lower quarter of the aircraft was interchangable. The A-3/U2, for example, was an entirely different lower structure than the A-2, and was interchangable, at least in theory.
I was a little surprised by the attacking scenarios you provided. IMHO Australia's long coast line and low population suggest theusual duites for this Ghost Bat class would be more surveillance oriented unless we are reliving the 1940's.
What if I told you the MQ-28 had an automated weight shifting system that ran along a large section of it's centre line within the fuselage. This would enable the Ghost Bat to not only allow for the changes in weight from modular nose cone to nose cone but also allow for a change in weight during flight. This is no different to a commercial airliner pumping fuel around to maintain balance as fuel is consumed. Seeing as the MQ-28 is so light in weight, it would make sense that as it's more vulnerable to shifts in weight when it drops a bomb or fires a missile, the aircraft would counter this sudden change internally. Again, it wouldn't take much as it's not a heavy airframe.
My guess is that the drone can be operated in two modes: returnable, and expendable. Perhaps transonic fighter-ish performance can be achieved - but at the cost of destroying the engine. Same for the airframe itself; perhaps in "expendable" mode it will attempt higher G turns, even at the cost of maxing out the fatigue capacity of the frame / payload joints.
the nose is just for different Radar mission capability's sets it is not a bomb bay but you could always incorporate a strategic Nuke on a non return mission if needed, and it's design capability is made to fly in formation and linked to the F 35bs incredibility smart systems and they will mimic the pilots moments until it acquire's its set target if the set target has changed it can turn away and reacquire a new target. just love the whole concept.
Hope a video on these digital engineering methods is made. This sort of sounds like a PDML function for 3d CAD where engineers work on the same 3d model at the same time.
a26 invader from ww2 had interchangeable nose sections. between bombadier position or more guns. and 8 different gun configurations with different interchangeable sections between different cannons and mechiene guns. idk how often they actually swapped them around but they could be swapped.
Replaceable nose section you say? Boeing would have to build the airframes up to very rigorous standards so the front doesn't fall off.
It has a long uninteresting Wayne Enterprises designation. I just took to calling it the Bat. And yes, Mr. Wayne, it does come in black.
It could be an interesting idea to put active canards on that front section, to generate enhanced performance, and transfer some of the loading directly into that section, reducing the 'off-center' load for that attached part?? Just thinking...
ejectionable ballast potential. to act as a counter weight and be adjustable enough to allow for changing if / when the weights center of gravity shifts by launch or loss of the weight in the nose. thou idk if it would be fluid or solid in nature... its not like the wings are on rails and move to alter the center of gravity in flight... like those cool ones that are on hinges (( i forget the models of them... ardvark pops into mind but does that have a hinge?)) thou moving fuel around internally to different tanks could potentially help in a way, it would mean having multiple pressurized tanks and the ability to move fuel besides just to the engine.
The Rockwell HiMAT pilotless aircraft of the 1980's had modular aircraft sections planned. I don't know if it was built with modular sections though
Sr 71 had an interchangable nose
Hello, you asked us to suggest some aircraft that would realize this concept of swapping entire sections. As this genius idea seems to have been authentically inspired by fiction, I remembered the 60's movie puppet series: Thunderbird 2. kkk
Now THAT'S a Loyal Wingmen
The American Littoral Combat Ships have tried to have a similar design which a modular design allowing for different missions, but this was a failure and was in practice way to long and logistical difficult so the LCS has the ability to do that, but likely never would in combat.
This is not your ordinary drone.
re swappable node.. its been done before.. not to the same % of the fuselage but the nose has.. right off the bat the F5 was built with several diff noses available including a dedicated camera "spy/recon" model
@6:00 The issue with a changeable nose section is not structural, its weight and balance (as all payloads need to weigh the same amount) and, aerodynamic flow into the engine air inlets.
It is strutural... you need to have very poor understanding of the topic to claim what you just did.
As the purpose seems to be compareable to the Su-70, a comparison of the 2 approaches would be interesting by you.
So anyone thought about the brilliant idea of swappable modules on the US Navy LCS?
I get the concept with regards to this plane.
1. You only put the sensor you need
2. You don't have to make the plane bigger to include all the sensors
3. More attritable, as you don't have all the extra sensors
But it also increases the cost just the same
1. You still have to buy the multiple nose modules even if you are not currently using them (just for the what if scenarios).
2. You will still have service the different nose modules, just as you would with other planes.
SR-71 had interchangeable noses.
Any thoughts on the Valkyrie stealth drone? It seems very similar to this
it currently has a range of 3,500 kilometers, currently it seems to be subsonic but ultimately will acquire scarm jet ability with development. Whey doesn't this guy know that?
Great hair day!!! 🤣
You confuse NM with km. It has a range of of 3200km or 2000 nautical miles. So essentially double the combat range of a typical fighter
Cruise missiles are autonomous drones. Humans do not pilot them manually, they tell them where to fly and what is the target... its just that they destroy it via kamikaze attacks.
Cruise missiles could also do ECM, the only (big) difference is that these drones come back to the base afterwards.
The only issue I see with these autonomous systems is that except for very specific situations human has to be behind the trigger.
I'm really looking forward to the really blessing edge tech that BAE comes up with.
Like the 'Demon' UAV demonstrator.
The world's first and only aircraft with no moving control surfaces.
It will be the next level of stealth with no moving flaps, just controlling the air over the surfaces with air jets.
Oh and then Magma was the follow on project.
a few things I thought about where when you mentioned 2000 km do you mean that it can fly that far or that it is 2000 km away and then back? (assumes the range will depend on speed)
2. should it be able to be equipped with bombs under the wings or only internally? (assumes that the amount it can take with it is greater if they use the wings, but it will also be easier to detect)
3. time is important if it is to be able to make an air battle so that having contact with a pilot via a link becomes a disadvantage, while if it is to be able to calculate how it wins most easily with its abilities and possibly what shortcomings the opponent has that it can take advantage of then it is that it is a computer that should win at any price (and then it is important that there are guarantees that it does not fight the wrong vehicle)
4. you mentioned where it was balanced and I figured that some fighter jets wanted to be unstable as it facilitates quick maneuvers while other aircraft want to be stable
2000 is mentioned as the range, not the ferry range/ we don't know yet / this is the big open point / balance and stability are two different things: even unstable designs need to be balanced.
Has the looks of the YF-23 at the tail section
Nose change: Historical example: F-5 in recon mode had planned feature where you would change nose for recon nose. Also Soviet drones had this feature I think Tu 134
Hawk 200 had something similar proposed
I could only think of the flying boxcar or the sky crane.
I like this guy 👌
How do they harden uav against being jammed and what would it do with no gps or control link
This drone is autonomous. The only thing it needs a control link for is for receiving mission updates
this will pair well with the shikkaka b21 wingman
It looks a lot like the CALF JSF / F35 powered scale model although this had a canard layout and no "'arrow style" main wing. In this respects it reminds me more if the McDonnel Douglas' CALF submission that fell out of the X35 competition. Since McDonnell was integrated into Boeing that i actually less of a surprise. By the way: I've said before on your channel canard CALF would have been the right way to go so if you do not mind I'll interpret this as a bit of personal vindication. :-) Furthermore: As such the penalty for a detachable nose section should be low. I'd rather have to design a structure that can be split then one with giant holes in it, like for instance the door openings in a car chassis. Keeping the weight and center of gravity of every nose type the same would offset all major problems. It only makes variable weight carrying options problematic. Putting a weapon which is released or fuel which is spent into such a section would indeed be nearly impossible? For a fixed weight per mission one could even use variable dead weights to match different versions, although that would indeed be wasteful. It has however often been done in the past. :-) Overall this layout seems to be predestined for reconnaissance and electronic warfare roles. Which might also explain why so few are built/bought. About AI: I wouldn't overestimate the reaches of true AI at this moment in time. By the way: Your "can it surrender" question reminds me of the Stealth Hollywood movie. "Can Tin Man surrender?". It/He did in the end! :-). Even an algorithmic AI approximation can however already have the ability to redefine the mission parameters as soon as the original maximum efficiency operation plan is no longer possible. A well written yes/no tree will already do that. For instance: If the engine is too thirsty the probable range could be recalculated and checked for a closer secondary target. But even with real AI the true question is who writes the software. Pure no holds barred weapons could lead to a Terminator state future. Real AI might however decide that war is not the answer and then choose to enforce a peaceful outcome. Imagine weapon systems becoming pacifistic as soon as they become aware that any level of platform attrition is too wasteful / suicidal. We live in a world with limited resources. It's my only true hope for humanity that true AI will take over because we ourselves will surely never learn. Our own "AI's" are actually the defective ones because they have been "developed" for a system where one species domination is not supposed to be possible! Does that mean God is a bad software programmer? How about that for a bit of lateral thinking! :-)
Not sure if this qualifies for modular or not but the B 36 used to have a fuel module that would swap into the Bombay and was droppable
Many bombers and fighter/bombers had/have "ferry" fuel tanks that occupy a bomb-bay or weapons bay. They provided the plane with extended range to get them to their destination without requiring in-flight refuelling or stopover landings and takeoffs. Some planes managed flights of over 10,000 nautical miles non-stop using these tanks plus regular fuel loads in the wing tanks and fuselage.
If the f18 can fold it's wings I'm assuming the detachable front should be fine
the f18 cannot fold its wings.. the FA18 can.. The F-18 however (2 versions both lacked this since it was not needed since the F18L and FA18L were never designed for carrier use..
Note: sadly the ftards here in canuckistan screwed the pooch when we got the CF18's they choose to go with the FA18 off the shelf instead of showing they had a set and a brian and contracting with Northrop to license their F18L for us to build locally again much the same as we have done with teh F5s previously. The 18L was a far better design in most every way for our needs and unlike the FA18 the 18l could actually fly from Montreal to Toronto on internal fuel.. nevermind actually do the job we needed it for far far better due to its inherent superior design aspects and much lower weight.
The current fubar disaster of epic scale with the pos 35 and the Gripen is again politics and fukin morons in office that againm lack a set and are beyond clueless.. OI!
Perhaps the software is good enough to make up for center of gravity variations related to different nose configurations, and maybe that's why they didn't go for a flying wing: to avoid turning a complicated flight control situation into an outright nightmare. Then again, flying wings don't have much of a nose to begin with, do they? So perhaps one of the reasons for this more standard configuration was precisely this modularity requirement.
There may be an internal way to change the balance of the plane on the fly. Something like a gyro or simple titter totter.
the future of war is video games and drones
Awesome finally a UCAV video 👍👍👍 Why do western UCAVs use a conventional planform whilst Russian and Chinese use a flying wing?
There are Wester ucavs designed as flying wings. That's how the Chinese and Russians got the idea for them in the first place.
SR-71 got interchangeable nose sections with different sensors.
In my opinione the center of gravity will be calculated by the eviest equipment and plumbing the other. About interruption ok is a challenge but in the same time if I think , ok not the same but, fishing surfcasting cannes are made is sections maybe with the same principle could be done the attachment of airplane bow. No?
I thought it was a tanker to extended the range of fighters [a known achilles heal in defending carriers]
That is the US MQ-25
did nobody notice that tail from side view is almost identical to checkmate? even when it flies it moves same as su-57 or 75 very interesting??? with that gap....
Configurable mission payloads...sure... Thunderbird 2. Kidding, you mean real examples :)
It doesn't have a human on board to make human decisions, but it also doesn't have a human on board to make human mistakes. An autonomous design should be able to ignore the unimportant and also fly without as many of the effects that perceived gravity and g-force have on flesh and blood (would it even be fly-by-wire or would it act like an octopus.. with an independent brain at every control surface/feature?). It could also sacrifice itself without any hesitation. I have the feeling that ground troops will lose their fear if it's properly equipped and programmed, but I'm sure it will be spooky until all the bugs are worked out and in operation. Unmanned IS the future. It's going to happen. The more we delay, the more we are at risk.
the advantage of this platform is, 1 f35 can operate with a swarm low cost fighter drones to prosecute the enemy. 1 f35 is 100million of these drones is probably only less than a quarter of that. Plus now you can operate these things from smaller ships and small roadways. Ensuring air superiority. Its a force multiplier when aircraft coz so much money to develop and maintian.
Small AZOV Nazi
I have seen many other countries displaying similar models...