X-47B Completes First-Ever Carrier-Based Arrested Landing

Yeah what you might see is 1 or 2 manned fighters sent with a package of Uav’s for battle management .

Yeah what you might see is 1 or 2 manned fighters sent with a package of Uav’s for battle management .

And the manned aircraft might not even be heavily involved in the battle. Just as WWII saw battles between ships that never saw each other (aircraft carriers), we've reached the point (actually reached it a while ago) where our pilots don't need to see their targets. Once you reach that stage, you don't need a set of human eyes in the cockpit, since they are relying on the same sensors that somebody flying a UAV would be.

Afghanistan/Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Iraq, have advanced UAV development and management much faster than would have happened during peacetime.

US Navy details X-47B navigation system malfunction on 3rd carrier landing attempt

By: Zach Rosenberg Washington DC

Source: Flight International

The Northrop Grumman X-47B landed twice aboard the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier, but a malfunction with one of its three navigation computers prevented a third landing. The aircraft subsequently diverted to Wallops Field, Virginia, as programmed, for a safe recovery.

"There are three redundant navigation computers on the X-47," says Capt Jaime Engdahl, the US Navy's programme manager for unmanned systems. "We saw an issue on one of those computers and decided we had done enough for the day, flew the aircraft back and landed it."

The aircraft makes its approaches autonomously, without human interference. The computers onboard the aircraft noted the anomaly affecting one of the three precision GPS computers, and though capable of landing using only one, the aircraft is coded to abort landing under those circumstances. After the automatic abort, the human controller elected to divert the aircraft instead of continuing.

"They're working through the data right now," says Carl Johnson, Northrop Grumman's programme manager. "In terms of a malfunction it's probably a minor issue, that when we reset the computers everything will be up and running and we'll have a fully functional aircraft."

Two X-47Bs are flying. The aircraft used for the test has the tail number 502. An identical aircraft, tail number 501, will likely be used for the next aircraft carrier test series on 15 July. If all goes well in the second series, the X-47B's tests will be completed and the aircraft retired. A manned Learjet using X-47B's software will conduct autonomous air-to-air refueling trials in 2014.

The lessons learned from the X-47B demonstrations will be used to address the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) programme, meant to essentially create an operational production UAV for aircraft carriers. Four companies - Northrop, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems - have been selected to perform design work.

“Because after all there has never, ever been a male F-14 nugget pilot put his plane in the drink...”

That doesn’t even rate a ‘nice try’. Re read my response.

Your point regarding male pilots is a fine place to start. When an officer loses a plane or ship he is asked where it is and what happened to it. Many men in this position have reported a sense of shame or inadequacy even when they have risen to great heroism during the loss. An officer is considered to have authority conferred upon him by his actual accomplishments in rising to his rank. His words carry weight and unless contradicted by other evidence are accepted as final.

The fact is that the Hultgrens were grooved in. A male with their scores and backround would never be let anywhere near an F-14. Girl pilots who committed an “automatic fail” on their checkout flights none the less were given a plane.

One who fails to rise to the standards and knows it and yet accepts the gifted rank lacks authority even in their own mind. Such an officer is a massive fault and liability on a flightline. Such an officer may dread the expected “shame” of losing the ship to the degree that they hang a nano too long. Could have been the case with Hultgren. Maybe. Hard to actually know. As I said WILDCARD. Now, what kind of moron cuts a lot of wildcards into a deck when he doesn’t have to?

That doesn’t even rate a ‘nice try’. Re read my response.

It's about what your post deserved.

Your point regarding male pilots is a fine place to start. When an officer loses a plane or ship he is asked where it is and what happened to it. Many men in this position have reported a sense of shame or inadequacy even when they have risen to great heroism during the loss. An officer is considered to have authority conferred upon him by his actual accomplishments in rising to his rank. His words carry weight and unless contradicted by other evidence are accepted as final.

Kind of hard to do when you don't survive, isn't it?

The fact is that the Hultgrens were grooved in. A male with their scores and backround would never be let anywhere near an F-14. Girl pilots who committed an “automatic fail” on their checkout flights none the less were given a plane.

Hultgren was one of the first female F-14 pilots. Do you know how many F-14's had been lost in accidents prior to her death? Around 140. So were every one of those lost by a ace fighter jock who had never had problems qualifying? Not a single one who had their way grooved in? The F-14 was a notoriously hard airplane to fly. Failing to qualify the first time around was not unusual. But of course the only way a woman could wind up in one was if the way was greased.

OK,so who it the aircraft handler giving signals to?

Driver of the tug. SOP for spotting aircraft on an elevator.

“It’s about what your post deserved.”

Why, because I don’t jump up and salute when Gloria Steinem opens her idiot mouth?

“Kind of hard to do when you don’t survive, isn’t it?”

The point was to the traditional condition of BEING an officer. A GENERAL thing, NOT specifically Hultgren. Whiiiiiizzzz, right over your head.

“Hultgren was one of the first female F-14 pilots.”

So what? Her presence was a Political end. It was ORDERED. I’ll repeat: Girl pilots were given license to fly even when they committed an “automatic fail” on their flight test. Have you ever gotten around to wondering how many men rated such an extreme pass? If any man was in some way grooved do you think it is a good thing which ought to be continued?

“The F-14 was a notoriously hard airplane to fly.

You apparently don’t see the assistance this lends to my argument.

“Failing to qualify the first time around was not unusual. But of course the only way a woman could wind up in one was if the way was greased.”

I said nothing about failing the first time around. I said failure was ignored and treated as success.

And YES the only way women qualified for these sorts of jobs was to be grooved. It isn’t a matter of being ABLE to sort of somewhat do the job; the military traditionally gave the next slot to the next BEST candidate. In the case of affirmative action for women this tradition survived only long enough to demonstrate that women couldn’t make it. That’s the way Politics works. Though since all of this information has been known for 40 or so years I doubt you care.