US Navy launches X-47B from Carrier

Status
Not open for further replies.

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
20,296
Location
Virginia Beach
For those of you unfamiliar with the X-47B, it's a Hornet-sized, 45,000#, stealthy, unmanned, autonomous warplane. It's a demonstrator, not intended for combat, not yet... It's autonomous, not remotely piloted like the Predator/Reaper, it can fly by itself and is designed to carry roughly 5,000# of ordnance internally...

This is a big milestone in the development of a unique capability for the Navy.


http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=74120

Naval Air Forces Commander Calls X-47B Catapult Launch from USS George H.W. Bush a Pivotal Moment in Naval Aviation:

USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH, at sea (NNS) -- The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System demonstrator (UCAS-D) completed its first ever carrier-based catapult launch from USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) off the coast of Virginia today.

"Today we saw a small, but significant pixel in the future picture of our Navy as we begin integration of unmanned systems into arguably the most complex warfighting environment that exists today: the flight deck of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier," said Vice Adm. David Buss, commander, Naval Air Forces, the Navy's "Air Boss".

The unmanned aircraft launched from the deck of George H.W. Bush at 11:18 a.m. It executed several planned low approaches to the carrier and safely transited across the Chesapeake Bay to land at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., after a 65-minute flight.

Buss called the launch a "watershed event" in naval aviation and said he expects that decades from now, a future "Air Boss" will have a picture of the X-47B launching from Bush behind his or her desk just as he has a picture of aviation pioneer Eugene Ely's first-ever landing on the deck of a ship in 1911 behind his desk today.

"This ship and her crew continuously meet the challenges placed before them," said the ship's commanding officer, Capt. Brian E. Luther. "The successful launch of the X-47B is yet another first on USS George H.W. Bush. We were excited to host the experimental aircraft, and are proud to know we have played a part in a significant milestone in naval aviation."

Completing another important first for the UCAS-D program, the team demonstrated the ability to precisely navigate the X-47B within the controlled airspace around an aircraft carrier at sea and seamlessly pass control of the air vehicle from a "mission operator" aboard the carrier to one located in the Mission Test Control Center at NAS Patuxent River for landing.

"The flight today demonstrated that the X-47B is capable of operation from a carrier, hand-off from one mission control station to another, flight through the national airspace, and recovery at another location without degradation in safety or precision," said Matt Funk, lead test engineer for the Navy UCAS program.

Prior to the catapult launch on Tuesday, the UCAS test team also conducted deck-handling and ship-integration testing to demonstrate the capability to safely operate the X-47B in the dynamic, unforgiving environment of an aircraft carrier flight deck.

"This event is a testament to the teamwork, professionalism and expertise of everyone involved with X-47B program," said Rear Adm. Mat Winter, program executive officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons. "Their work will positively impact future unmanned aviation development for years to come."

Over the next few weeks, the X-47B aircraft will fly approaches to the ship multiple times and eventually land on the pitching flight deck, said Navy UCAS Program Manager Capt. Jaime Engdahl.

The UCAS team will conduct additional shore-based testing with the X-47B at NAS Patuxent River in the coming months before its final carrier-based arrested landing demonstration later this summer.
 
Takeoffs from a carrier are one thing.
Landings are another. I can see why they are taking a few more months to develop the system before they attempt that one.
I think I heard some time ago that they had done landings on a simulated carrier flight deck on land. Things are tougher when the deck is pitching.
 
Agreed. They've been doing Mode 1 (coupled to ACLS) landings at Pax River for a while to check things like flight control/power response and approach stability. X-47B will be landing on a carrier later this year.

Don't discount the difficulty of the launch, though. The rate of acceleration, the rapid change in airspeed and the fact that the airplane is locked in pitch/roll/yaw with the ship until the shuttle clears creates a very challenging set of conditions for a flight control system.

As an example, the F/A-18 launches with the pilot's hand on a grab handle, not on the stick, because pilot input during the cat stroke can overwhelm the flight control system and cause an undesired aircraft state at the end of the stroke. We lost at least one Hornet to that cause early in the airplane's service history....
 
Astro, it's a good thing you were in a few years ago and got to fly a fighter. Looks like your old job will be on the chopping block in the near future.
 
Yay more 100's of billions thrown in trash for sake of defense and ultimately spying on citizens....

And lets do that instead of helping people have better education, infrastructure, and healthcare.

MORE DRONES!!! GO America!
 
It's not a reconnaissance platform, so it can't spy on you.

Ultimately, it will be cheaper to fly & maintain than manned aircraft. It needs no training.

So, it saves $$, and the rest of your point is specious.

But, if I were a nation considering war with the US, I would be very, very worried about squadrons of stealthy autonomous warplanes deployed just off my coast aboard US Navy carriers....
 
Voltmaster, We don't have "normal" jobs anymore.

We have technologically advanced jobs.

Who makes your clothes?
Who makes your cars?
Who makes your workspace?
Who makes your computer?

Now, who designs all those things?

I'm just glad that someone here in the USA still has a job. I don't care if it is "another" billion dollar war project. Better than another billion dollar government sponsored program that is broken.

This thing, and it's future generations, may keep us on the winning side of WWIII.
With the world the way it is I'm not expecting our economic outlook to last long. It seems that our economic outlook is based on fuzzy math. It kind of works, until you look at the numbers.

The way I see it, We need something like the M4 Sherman Medium Tank that we can crank out, yet be advanced enough to really kick some tail. We don't have the population or the will to handle significant losses of Human life.
These "drones" fix that issue.

I really have a soft spot for all the toddlers my friends have. 18-20 years from now they will have matured, and so will this technology.
I expect that to be near the end of the timeline for how long we can pull off the fuzzy math economics.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It's not a reconnaissance platform, so it can't spy on you.

Ultimately, it will be cheaper to fly & maintain than manned aircraft. It needs no training.

So, it saves $$, and the rest of your point is specious.

But, if I were a nation considering war with the US, I would be very, very worried about squadrons of stealthy autonomous warplanes deployed just off my coast aboard US Navy carriers....


Very well stated, this has been in the pipeline for a long time. Drones will be far more economical than manned planes, so a considerable savings is a real benefit. Plus their performance can be amazingly more than a manned plane because a computer can withstand G's better than meat!
 
The best is, no G forces on a person, so high g turns with say another aircraft would make this plane deadly..............
 
The high G is interesting, but would be utilized for defensive maneuvers since it is designed for a strike role, not fighter (air to air).

The potential cost savings over a manned airplane is huge. You only have to fuel and maintain for actual combat sorties...a pilot costs millions to train. Millions more to keep current/proficient.

There is, in addition to stealth, one other huge advantage to no pilots. No Americans in a high threat environment. No potential rescues or POWs...
 
Originally Posted By: SuperDave456
Voltmaster, We don't have "normal" jobs anymore.

We have technologically advanced jobs.

Who makes your clothes?
Who makes your cars?
Who makes your workspace?
Who makes your computer?

Now, who designs all those things?

I'm just glad that someone here in the USA still has a job. I don't care if it is "another" billion dollar war project. Better than another billion dollar government sponsored program that is broken.

This thing, and it's future generations, may keep us on the winning side of WWIII.
With the world the way it is I'm not expecting our economic outlook to last long. It seems that our economic outlook is based on fuzzy math. It kind of works, until you look at the numbers.

The way I see it, We need something like the M4 Sherman Medium Tank that we can crank out, yet be advanced enough to really kick some tail. We don't have the population or the will to handle significant losses of Human life.
These "drones" fix that issue.

I really have a soft spot for all the toddlers my friends have. 18-20 years from now they will have matured, and so will this technology.
I expect that to be near the end of the timeline for how long we can pull off the fuzzy math economics.



I am studying computer engineering I know that normal jobs dont exist.

We dont need to keep wasting money in DoD and bail out WalllSreet.


We need to focus on getting kids education so that if they want be engineerins , doctors , and watever else they are able to.

How do u expect people to be in technology sector when most of the people are not ready for these jobs from early age, and are unable to pay for college?

most people i know are studying social sciences because they were told they dont need more than algebra all their life. They will never survive higher level math because they have been cheated all their life with public education.
I think money needs to be directed at important stuff not that technology is bad.

Instead of spending 100 million on a defense project how about we focus on better solar pannels , nuclear reactors, and more efficent cars.

Mobil1 is popular and effective because they spend last two decades researching with cutting edge technology. We can solve all world problems if we do the same.
 
Last edited:
Who do you think developed Nuclear Reactors? Solar panels?

We spend less of our Federal $$ (by percentage) on defense now than we have at any point in our history. So, with the Federal budget now focused on other things than The Constitutional Requirement for common defense, you've already got your objective stated above.

But in the meantime, here is a cost-saving project that is cutting edge in materials, design, robotics, control systems and aerodynamics....just like you wished for...developing new technologies...employing thousands of our best engineers and computer scientists.

It's just what you hoped for...
 
Last edited:
Quote:
It's not a reconnaissance platform, so it can't spy on you.

With a 5000# payload it could easily carry plenty of surveillance gear but there would be no need for this aircraft domestically. Smaller drones would be much easier and cheaper to use.

Quote:
Instead of spending 100 million on a defense project how about we focus on better solar pannels , nuclear reactors, and more efficent cars.

Central planning doesn't work, and our enemies don't like us any better simply because we might spend less on a smaller military.
 
True. Smaller would be far far cheaper than a jet engined stealth plane. Think Cessna vs Hornet.

Further, carriage is internal (to preserve stealth and handling) so adding surveillance would require considerable work.
 
Please...

No fighter pilot can see the enemy's face these days...simply doesn't happen. That doesn't make us immune to the reality of war.

The ones you need to worry about are the politicians who choose to go to war. With lower risks to our forces, they have a smaller political risk...

If you want a more germane scifi series than TOS, I would have chosen Battlestar Galactica, in which humanity built robots to do their work, to their ultimate detriment...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Please...

No fighter pilot can see the enemy's face these days...simply doesn't happen. That doesn't make us immune to the reality of war.

The ones you need to worry about are the politicians who choose to go to war. With lower risks to our forces, they have a smaller political risk...


I was speaking figuratively on the seeing the enemy's face. Your second paragraph speaks directly to what I was thinking.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top