X-47B Makes First Arrested Landing at Sea

[AWP]

Talk to me, Goose.

Just over a decade ago, the Air Force and CIA were arguing over arming Predators and now we have this. Very cool.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=75298

USS GEORGE H. W. BUSH, At Sea (NNS) -- The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator completed its first carrier-based arrested landing on board USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) off the coast of Virginia July 10.

 

[DA SWO]

Sounds like a movie with no hot women in it.....

 

[RetPara]

Incredible potential. Since carrier launch and landing is done by software, not a remote operator, how it will handle high seas and bad weather will be the major determining factor.

 

[DA SWO]

Incredible potential. Since carrier launch and landing is done by software, not a remote operator, how it will handle high seas and bad weather will be the major determining factor.

In theory, the RPV will adjust quicker then a manned aircraft.

There are still technical limits as to missions performed. I am content with ISR or Strike, not comfortable with CAS, SEAD or Air to Air.

 

[RetPara]

ATA though, a RPV should be able to do maneuvers that a human pilot could NEVER do.

 

[DA SWO]

ATA though, a RPV should be able to do maneuvers that a human pilot could NEVER do.

Eventually, at this stage they have to be pre-programmed or risk losing the comm link. Comm link (jamming/hacking) will prove to be the weak link.

 

[AWP]

ATA though, a RPV should be able to do maneuvers that a human pilot could NEVER do.

True, but you still have airframe fatigue to consider. Pulling too many G's can seriously cut down on an aircraft's life cycle. Some of our current airframes have G restrictions placed on them and pulling too many carries consequences in some squadrons.

 

[RetPara]

With RPV's you can build more cheaper birds....

As the F-16 was less expensive (relative to one another) to build than the F-14 or F-15. We have evolved from fighters & fighter-bombers, to one bird that will do everything (F-22 & F-35).

Right now in RPV land there are strike/recon, pure recon, and rotor cargo. While there is a need for RPV's to do everything (Strike/CAS/ATA/Rec) either through modularization, you can mix and match packages for the mission. This has been done for some time. Size matters though. The A-4, F-4, F-8, and A-8 all complimented one another. Carriers, because of their size were limited in the composition of their air groups.

With a large RPV component of a CAG you can still have the little A-4/F16 and honking F-4/F-14. The smaller, one seat RPV equivalent, should be able to be produced in greater numbers than the larger two seat equivalent.

Airframe strength is still a limiting factor of performance. Until the first RPV vs RPV furball, RPV's should be able to out maneuver manned aircraft.

At the moment we hold a decided technological advantage and lead with RPV development. The challenge, and I have little faith that the C & D Ring's will be able to restrain themselves; not to build a single, very expensive model, that can do everything. What size of a payload/fuel could a B-2 Spirit carry if the crew was removed and converted to RPV?

Air To Air Combat will be taking a major leap forward; into the past as the battle for Air Superiority and Air Dominance is going to have to be fought again.

(I know... I read too much Science Fiction......)

 

[DA SWO]

With RPV's you can build more cheaper birds....

As the F-16 was less expensive (relative to one another) to build than the F-14 or F-15. We have evolved from fighters & fighter-bombers, to one bird that will do everything (F-22 & F-35).

Right now in RPV land there are strike/recon, pure recon, and rotor cargo. While there is a need for RPV's to do everything (Strike/CAS/ATA/Rec) either through modularization, you can mix and match packages for the mission. This has been done for some time. Size matters though. The A-4, F-4, F-8, and A-8 all complimented one another. Carriers, because of their size were limited in the composition of their air groups.

With a large RPV component of a CAG you can still have the little A-4/F16 and honking F-4/F-14. The smaller, one seat RPV equivalent, should be able to be produced in greater numbers than the larger two seat equivalent.

Airframe strength is still a limiting factor of performance. Until the first RPV vs RPV furball, RPV's should be able to out maneuver manned aircraft.

At the moment we hold a decided technological advantage and lead with RPV development. The challenge, and I have little faith that the C & D Ring's will be able to restrain themselves; not to build a single, very expensive model, that can do everything. What size of a payload/fuel could a B-2 Spirit carry if the crew was removed and converted to RPV?

Air To Air Combat will be taking a major leap forward; into the past as the battle for Air Superiority and Air Dominance is going to have to be fought again.

(I know... I read too much Science Fiction......)

How does that RPV maintain lock with data link if the receiving antennae is rolling?

Air to Air? that 4-8 sec lag from command to execution is fatal.

Eventually, but not in this decade.

 

[RetPara]

How does that RPV maintain lock with data link if the receiving antennae is rolling?

Air to Air? that 4-8 sec lag from command to execution is fatal.

Eventually, but not in this decade.

I agree to a point.

Furball or gun engagements, not yet. I expect to see the capability in my lifetime though (the variable being how soon I piss off HH6 and I fall off the roof again... six times in succession or fall down the stairs with knife).

Long range, beyond visual range missile engagement... Game On in no more than ten years.

 

[Ranger Psych]

How does that RPV maintain lock with data link if the receiving antennae is rolling?

Air to Air? that 4-8 sec lag from command to execution is fatal.

Eventually, but not in this decade.

Depends if all the onboard systems are interlinked (as expected) and you have a "relatively" simple A2A checkbox. At which point it goes autonomous with preprogrammed evasive maneuvers, launch points, etc etc for weaponry and defensive systems. Antennas on both top and bottom = still able to receive commands, you only need the high gain for transmission. Even less considering if they implement the same sort of setup that the autonomous AH6 has, where it can be controlled/commanded by a properly equipped aircraft nearby.