winning

We have officially received our second rendering of Boeing’s F/A-XX concept, which has now officially won the tender, beating out Northrop Grumman to build the Navy’s next-generation stealth fighter. Let’s take a look at what we can see in this new image and discuss what insights it may provide.

Before we start, it’s worth reminding our readers that we are basing this analysis on two publicly released renders of a highly classified aircraft design. There are deliberate choices made in these renderings to obscure critical features and capabilities and mislead foreign intelligence as to the jet’s intended capabilities. So please keep in mind that the details are bound to change. This is also just a preliminary analysis. We will expand on it once we have more time to digest what we are seeing.

The front quarter view of the jet taxiing to a catapult aboard a carrier shows us a very broad, tailless, heavy tactical aircraft. This is a large jet. Clearly internal volume was a driving design factor, as it should be. You can read more about this in our past reporting here.

The aircraft is depicted with what appears to be a large single-piece canopy with a cockpit for just a pilot. Visibility to the rear looks limited at best. There has been much speculation about the possibility that F/A-XX will have the provisions for two crewmen in order to better take on its complex roles over long distances — in particular acting as a battle manager, including for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) and other drones. This appears not to be the case, and a high degree of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) will have to help with what will be extremely complex tactical problems the single pilot will face. It’s also worth noting that U.S. Navy carrier air wings have retained two-seat tactical jets for frontline use, with the F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler serving today. If F/A-XX replaces these aircraft, it will be the end of frontline two-seat tactical jet operations for the seagoing service.

We see a very broad nose section, which could (and likely would) contain a relatively giant active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. There is also a prominent chine-line edge wrapping around the forward fuselage, which is a normal trait of low-observable (stealthy) aircraft. The nose looks a bit more contoured, similar to the only other rendering we have of Boeing’s F/A-XX, compared to the shovel-like design of the company’s F-47 for the U.S. Air Force. Below the rear of this visible chine-line appears to be the engine intakes, mounted on the sides of the lower fuselage. They look to be a blended trapezoidal arrangement and are also set far back from the nose.

The F/A-XX’s extremely stout landing gear are depicted prominently in this new image, with a twin-wheel nose gear and thick mains. These are customary features for a carrier-based fighter and especially a heavy one like this.

The jet’s wings have a positive dihedral just like the F-47 renders, which seems to be something of a trademark of Boeing’s next-generation fighter design. This Klingon Bird of Prey look harkens back to the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator, which you can read more about here. We also see the wing’s large trailing edge flaps extended, which would be critical to slow-speed terminal operations around the carrier.

Finally, one thing we don’t see clearly is of particular note: the canard foreplanes that have been featured in F-47 imagery, as well as hinted at in Boeing’s only other F/A-XX rendering. It isn’t clear if they may be blended with the fuselage above the inlet areas and are obscured by the steam, or if they simply do not exist in this rendering. The inclusion of canards has been one of the most debated aspects of the F-47 and Boeing’s F/A-XX design, although they seem to make more sense for a naval fighter considering the tailless jet’s low-speed requirements that are needed to fly off the carrier. Again, you can read our past feature about the canards and our follow-up here and here.

While the aircraft clearly shares distinct attributes with the F-47, it isn’t clear exactly how far the commonality between them goes. We could end up with a literal navalized F-47, which would leverage as much efficiency as possible between the two designs, or we could see major design elements and even proportional changes. The requirements imposed by carrier operations do dictate size and weight, to a certain degree. What lives beneath the jet’s skin – hardware and software – will have the most commonality regardless.

There is also the question of the aircraft caught on a thermal imager flying outside of Area 51, which was likely a Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) demonstrator from Boeing, or at least an aircraft related to those efforts based on how unique Boeing’s design clearly is. It’s always possible that the Navy flew its own NGAD demonstration program. The service has been notoriously tight-lipped about its NGAD risk reduction efforts.

United States President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping are set to meet in Washington, DC on Thursday for a summit that is expected to cover trade, artificial intelligence (AI), Taiwan and the US-Israel war on Iran.

In advance of the talks, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Washington had proposed an AI “notification mechanism” with China – effectively a hotline to alert each other when AI incidents threaten national security.

The meeting comes as leading AI companies warn about the technology’s risks, while both superpowers push to accelerate their AI race. In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera compares the US and China’s AI strength in computing power, AI models, spending and research.

Who has more computing power?

Training and running AI requires enormous amounts of computing power. The more powerful chips and computers a country has, the faster it can build and improve AI models, making computing power one of the biggest advantages in the AI race.

Computing power is measured in FLOP/s (floating-point operations per second) – or how many calculations a computer can perform in one second.

Adding up the computing power of all the AI chips a country has gives a sense of its total AI capacity. By that measure, the US is well ahead, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the world’s total AI computing power, while China holds just more than 14 percent, according to Epoch AI, an AI research institute.

The US lead comes largely from its access to the most advanced chips. US company Nvidia accounts for more than 60 percent of global AI computing capacity among major chip designers, while China’s Huawei holds a much smaller, but growing share, according to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index.

Those chips also need somewhere to run. The US has more than 5,400 data centres – the large buildings which house thousands of computers – about 10 times as many as any other country. It also leads in dedicated AI data centres, with 84, more than the next eight countries combined.

Whose AI models are people using?

Frontier models are the most advanced AI systems, such as OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude and DeepSeek’s models in China. They are trained using vast amounts of data and computing power to write, reason and code.

The US has led the development of these models, but Chinese models are gaining ground.

As of March 2026, US and Chinese AI models were closely matched on Arena, a leaderboard where users compare two anonymous models and vote for the better answer. US companies Anthropic, xAI, Google and OpenAI ranked near the top, alongside China’s Alibaba and DeepSeek.

On OpenRouter, a platform that ranks AI models by real-world use, Chinese models dominate the leaderboard. Models from Chinese companies DeepSeek, Z.ai and Tencent hold the top three spots on OpenRouter by tokens processed, the units of text that AI models read and generate.

This is partly because Chinese models are cheaper to use. Many are also open-weight, meaning developers can download, adapt and run them themselves.

Chinese models can now compete with US ones in many real-world tasks, with Chinese AI models “months, not years, behind US frontier models”, according to a July analysis by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

In May, the US government’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) estimated that DeepSeek V4 Pro, released in April, was about eight months behind leading US models.

Who is spending more?

The US is spending far more than China on the infrastructure needed to build AI, giving its tech companies a significant advantage in the race for computing power.

Goldman Sachs estimates that US hyperscalers, the giant tech companies that run large-scale cloud computing and data centres, will spend about $764bn in 2026. That includes Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta and Oracle. By comparison, China’s Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu and ByteDance are expected to spend $102bn.

But China’s spending is increasing faster. TrendForce, a market research firm, expects China’s four hyperscalers’ capital expenditure to rise by more than 80 percent in 2026, compared with a projected growth of 76 percent for US hyperscalers, according to the news agency Reuters.

The spending gap reflects the scale of the US tech sector, whose companies have larger revenues to reinvest in chips, data centres and talent.

Who is leading in AI research and talent?

China is producing more AI research and training more technical talent, but the US remains a magnet for the world’s top AI researchers.

China accounted for more than 27 percent of global AI publications in 2024, including journal articles, conference papers, working papers and preprints compared with 12 percent from the US, according to the Center for Security and Emerging Technology. The figures only cover publications with an English-language title or abstract.

China also trains more top researchers. According to a study by MacroPolo, 47 percent of the world’s top 20 percent of AI researchers completed their undergraduate studies in China in 2022, up from 29 percent in 2019. The study also found that 72 percent of the top AI researchers educated in China were working in the US.

The fight had initially been discussed for November but, with negotiations over the venue dragging on, it now looks set for December.

Staging an open-air stadium fight in the UK at that time carries immense risk.

While Wembley offers unmatched prestige, exposing tens of thousands of fans and a massive international broadcast operation to potentially freezing temperatures, wind and rain was deemed unacceptable.

Moving the event indoors to an arena like London’s O2 would eliminate weather risks, but at the cost of sacrificing tens of thousands of ticket sales.

The Principality Stadium’s retractable roof allows organisers to capture the immense scale, atmosphere and gate revenue of a stadium show while offering full protection from the elements.

The venue’s official seated capacity is just under 74,000, but boxing configurations allow for even larger crowds.

Joshua has already proven he can sell out the venue, having defended his WBA and IBF titles there against Carlos Takam in front of nearly 80,000 fans in 2017 before adding the WBO belt against Joseph Parker five months later.

SACRAMENTO — To hear President Trump tell it, the 60% or more of Americans who worried that unchecked artificial intelligence poses a risk to humanity are just a bunch of suckers buying the latest election-rigging conspiracy peddled by his foes.

“The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened?” Trump posted recently, apparently unaware that heat-related deaths continue to rise.

By the end of the week, his circle of sycophants had adopted that language, along with the strange take that Trump alone would be able to control the rise of superintelligence should it occur. David Sacks, often billed as Trump’s AI whisperer, echoed the hoax line at a Politico event, adding that there was an “orchestrated media campaign” meant to “alarm the public.”

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance called the pleas for regulation from inside the industry, including from CEOs such as Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, a “Trojan horse.” He argued that “Americans shouldn’t be scared of anything,” seemingly backing Trump’s absurd declaration that “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!.”

As someone who has covered this issue, let me just say the concern is not a hoax, not a marketing ploy meant to juice the value of companies about to have an IPO, and not a vast and sprawling plot by Trump’s adversaries.

But it is a complicated, fraught problem in a pivotal moment. The president’s confusion and inaction pose an immediate risk of slamming shut our small window of opportunity to make meaningful decisions about a technology that will almost certainly change the course of history and humanity.

So why exactly is Trump demanding this unfettered charge at oblivion, and what are the options for putting guardrails up despite him?

Trump’s reasoning

The pacifying but slightly terrified response of Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark to Trump hints at just how alarmed those deepest in AI development seemingly feel about both the president’s attitude and the unregulated future he demands.

“We’re grateful for the president’s attention,” Clark said on Fox News. “What we’re saying here is we need to get a sensible, commonsense safety framework … and we don’t roll the dice on some kind of accident.”

Or, as Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put it, “If the only guardrail AI needs is a ‘strong and smart president,’ we’re doomed.”

Like all things Trump, his position involves money. AI is currently a driving force behind the American economy, and if we just cover every inch of open space with data centers, it could keep an otherwise slumpish outlook bright.

OpenAI and Anthropic are also planning IPOs in the not-distant future.

Because these companies are valued at astonishing, 12-zero amounts and because certain stock listing rules will now require that these companies quickly be included in index funds favored by many pensions and retirement accounts, anything that crashes their value — such as investors’ jitters from regulation — could jam up the stock market.

That could affect the lives (and votes) of average Americans.

So despite the long-term risks, the short-term political benefits of the AI gravy train are substantial for Trump.

Then there is the place where Trump actually has a fair point: China. Current AI reflects the values of its creators. It would be disastrous for the free world if superintelligence were trained to favor authoritarianism.

The logic here is if we don’t build “good,” Western-values AI first, we will be at the mercy of “bad” AI, so the possibility of harming great numbers of people is a reasonable, maybe even necessary, risk.

Picking the best path

But is it? Is there a way to instead pursue both geopolitical dominance and safety?

This is where things get messy, and many folks — oligarchs in particular — become invested in keeping the general voter confused.

There is no consensus on a best course of action because we are in uncharted territory and there is actually no way to reliably predict what happens next.

Picking the best path forward, then, starts with picking a camp, a tribe, an outlook. In the broadest sense, there are three possibilities: We attempt to stuff the cat back in the bag; we all try to play nice, as companies and countries, and create rules on the fly; or we just accelerate at full speed, let it rip and what happens happens.

There are obvious problems with each of those.

As an excellent paper by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. explains, which of those camps a person chooses depends largely on just how imminent the danger feels, how feasible it seems to control development of AI and how realistic it is to bank on cooperation — or whether we believe we should and could aim to just continually win a technology war against humans or machines.

These camps, therefore, have little to do with traditional politics. Voters are feeling this issue on a visceral level, one that only a few years ago would have been deemed paranoid and fantastical, and it’s making for strange bedfellows.

Speaking at an conference this week, avowed lefty Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a pause on AI development because he’s in the camp that believes it’s currently too dangerous to go forward without a plan.

At the same conference, ultraconservative Trump loyalist Stephen K. Bannon made a similar point. He also urged Americans not to trust “anything” said by AI oligarchs, and to reject the idea championed by Trump that slowing down is dangerous or un-American.

“If you’re not accelerationist, you are supporting China,” Bannon said. “If you’re not accelerationist, you want America to lose. If you’re not an accelerationist, you’re bad, dumb and evil. Well, the last week has shown we’re none of that, and now we need the time to make the right decision.”

The issue is almost certainly going to be huge and problematic in the midterms — potentially for both parties.

For Republicans, navigating it means tiptoeing between Trump’s egomaniacal, short-term approach and voters who are increasingly intolerant of it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who regularly refuses to cross Trump, has been clear he doesn’t want Congress taking up the issue — despite calls from MAGA stalwarts such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to do so.

“If you’re about to destroy the world, how about, don’t,” Cruz quipped during a hearing on Capitol Hill this week during which he opposed waiving some antitrust rules, as AI companies have suggested — a move that could decrease their accountability if something goes awry.

For Democrats, coming out hard for safety should be an easy decision, seemingly popular with voters. But for a party that had made trademarks of infighting, flailing and uncertainty, it remains to be seen if they can muster the unity to capitalize on this silver-platter strife.

For both parties, it also means finding the courage and will to fight the enormous sums of money AI companies are funneling into elections to ensure any regulations are ones they approve. Politico reported that some Democratic strategists are warning to go soft on the issue to avoid angering those election buyers, because it turns out that even companies clamoring for rules only want the ones they choose.

Ultimately, though, it’s Bannon who cut to the chase with the most important point: Trump holds all the power here.

Congress can’t fix this. Regulation won’t be a single bill but years of work, in a moment when maybe we don’t have years. And more important, the national security aspect has to be handled by the president.

Without the U.S. president leading on a national and global solution, nothing meaningful gets done.

Trump’s position isn’t fostering innovation or safety. He’s simply sending a message of indifference, that he doesn’t really care what happens next — to oligarchs, China or American voters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Unrestrained: Inside L.A. County’s system for issuing and enforcing restraining orders
The California angle: Barabak: As Newsom winds down in California, things heat up in Nevada
The L.A. Times Special: AI crisis heightens the stakes of Xi’s visit to Washington

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

After claims she is sexualising women’s sport, the criticism of Sydney Sweeney’s new advert is growing and TeamGB golden girl Amy Hunt explained why she has spoken out

Athletes have come out in force to condemn a sports betting advert featuring a naked Sydney Sweeney as Team GB’s golden girl doubled down on her criticism.

The American has been slammed following the campaign, which sees the 29-year-old with no clothes on as she pretends to play a number of different sports. The ad, for US sports prediction market company Novig, has been bashed with many suggesting sportswomen are still being defined by their appearance – and not their achievements.

British sprinter Amy Hunt, the four-time European champion, made a cutting comment after her race at the inaugural World Athletics Championship in Budapest on Sunday, saying: “Sydney Sweeney, this is what women in sport look like,” in her interview with BBC Sport after.

She is far from the only athlete hitting out. Sydney’s decision to take part has been widely criticised, with retired swimmer Ariarne Titmus saying she understood this type of “bulls**t”marketing” to be a thing of the past.

Water polo silver medallist Tilly Kearns joined the anger, saying, “I absolutely f***g hate Sydney Sweeney’s new sports ad”, while world champion boxer Skye Nicolson said the ad was making a “mockery” of women in sport.

Amy has spoken more about her decision to join the outrage, and appeared on Good Morning Britain to discuss her post-race remarks.

Telling presenters Susanna Reid and Ed Balls about her reasons for speaking out, the star sprinter said there are already enough barriers in place.

“I think when we’re trying to provide role models for young people and young women in sport,” she said. “We really want to show that it’s about what your body can do, not so much what it looks like. I think when we see the stats of 64 per cent of young girls drop out of exercise and sport before they reach the age of 16.

“We don’t need to place any kind of barrier whatsoever in their way in terms of providing the opportunity and the empowerment for them to still exercise, whatever that looks like, professional or kind of just going to do a park run with your friends.

“So it’s about empowering young girls and young women and young people to show that you really can just get out there and you don’t have to worry what you look like. You don’t have to worry about what you’re wearing.”

When grilled on whether the ad could impact how men view female athletes, she agreed and went on: “That was a big thing this year for us with the introduction of new kind of broadcasting regulations, in showing the correct or the more appropriate angles of women competing.

“It’s important to show kind of young people that it’s okay to be whoever you want to be, to wear whatever you want to wear, to look however you want to look, and you can achieve your dreams.”

While some suggested anger should be directed at the betting firm rather than the Euphoria actress, Novig said in a statement that Sydney is not just the face of the campaign, but has joined as “strategic partner and equity holder”.

Sydney finally responded and in a statement, said the campaign was “about embracing a fun idea”. She went on: “The concept is simple: cut through the noise and put the focus entirely on sports. The campaign brings that idea to life with confidence, humour and a playful edge.”

Watch Good Morning Britain weekdays from 6am on ITV

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.