X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Taking Shape On Board Lincoln

navy.mil ^ | 1/17/2010 | Lt. Cmdr. William Marks

[TokuMei]

MANY capabilities of carriers have been radically improved, however the question of range has not been improved NEARLY as much as most people believe —mostly missions occur within 500 or so miles of the carrier. This is not a huge improvement over the 1940’s.

Improvement of ASM’s mean that the Navy still worries about carrier safety —they want the persistence that has brought so much success to the AF and Army.

China’s recent development of ASBM’s makes this need all the more dire.

I...am tempted to recommend that the USN just commit 100% to the X-47, and screw the F-35, maybe.

[Vroomfondel]

ping

[Rebelbase]

[katana]

This is a shot from Grumman's site:

[CodeToad]

“An unmanned drone landing on a pitching carrier?”

Doesn’t the F-18 autoland anyway?

[magslinger]

SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

[DesScorp]

"Think Predator with a pilot at remote controls.

I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall that what really made this different from the other UAV's is that there is no remote control... that this plane is literally a robot, with a mission programmed into it. You load the mission program, fire up the UAV, and get out of it's way. The goal is for it to be completely autonomous from startup to shutdown, including robotic takeoffs and landings, with everything controlled by software. With something like a Predator, it's just a remote control toy writ large. This really is more like a cylon. Build it, tell it where the target is, and turn it loose.

[SZonian]

Then carrier landings will be very problematic as they have to program the vehicle to touch down at a specific altitude above sea level. If the deck is pitching, I suspect they’re going to plant a few of these before they get it right.

All of this is pure speculation based on DesScorp’s post to me. If what he says is correct, then my theory may have merit. (Disclaimer since I don’t actually work on that one and have no inside knowledge.)

Cheers,
SZ

[Francis McClobber]

The Navy has been using an ACLS system for years. It’s pretty effective, especially during blue water ops on a pitch black night. Calms nerves and reduces bolters. The UCAV will use a similar system.

[SZonian]

This is what’s so great about FR.

Thanks for the info.

FRegards,
SZ

[Francis McClobber]

The X-47 will be controlled much like the Global Hawk, where an operator may direct the flight including course, airspeed and altitude changes, but the aircraft flies itself. It will not be a set and forget aircraft.

The Predator is far more that a toy. It is remotely piloted, with a pilot controlling the flight control surfaces of the aircraft. It is capable of autonomous operation as well, but that is not it’s primary use.

[Francis McClobber]

No sweat.

I spent some time flying in the Navy and working in the UAV biz at GA-ASI.

[1010RD]

This idea seems stupid. What do you think?

[ken5050]

In the 80’s the Navy was working on a program for rocket boosted artillery shells from battleships. I believe they would have had a max range of 200+ miles. ( and by today I think the range would have been substantially more) Since something like 80% of the world’s population lives with 200 miles of navigable water..the idea of the New Jersey lying offshore and lobbing in those big shells with pinpoint accuracy would have been awesome..and a lot cheaper than Tomahawks at $1 mil+ @. Unfortunately, the Navy scrapped the plan, and the battlewagons..