The Navy's X-47B Will Be So Autonomous, You Can Steer It With Mouse Clicks

Fox News ^ | 13 Apr 2011

[mandaladon]

To fly the military's baddest, most technologically advanced planes, you once had to have what Tom Wolfe called "that righteous stuff" -- the willingness to strap yourself to a jet-fuel laden machine and push it to the very limits of its mechanical capabilities. Nowadays, unmanned systems have taken the human danger out of some combat missions, though human pilots remain at the sticks.

But not for long.

The Navy's experimental X-47B combat system won't be remotely piloted, but almost completely autonomous. Human involvement won't be of the stick-and-rudder variety, but handled with simple mouse clicks.

Speaking to reporters at the Sea Air Space convention near Washington, reps from both Northrop Grumman (maker of the X-47B) and the Navy said the X-47B would be piloted not by human handlers in some steel box in Nevada, but by 3.4 million lines of software code. The rest of its functions will be able to be handled by non-pilot personnel (or your average child), as they will only require clicks of the mouse; a click to turn on the engines, a click to taxi, a click to initiate takeoff, etc.

For flyboys proudly boasting their nighttime carrier landing cred, the idea is anathema. But given the difficulty and danger of carrier takeoffs and landings, automating them is one way to ensure safety--provided the systems work the way they are supposed to. The X-47B has already taken to the skies from Edwards AFB earlier this year, but this is a Navy plane. As such, it will begin "learning" the ins and outs of carrier operations via simulated takeoffs and landings starting in 2013.

[FReepaholic]

...The Navy's X-47B Will Be So Autonomous, You Can Steer It With Mouse Clicks...

It's not autonomous if you steer it.

[Redleg Duke]

Steer it with mouse whats?????

[mvpel]

Have you seen the movie "Surrogates?" The infantry in the "peacekeeping" operation are all remotely-piloted robots controlled by teenagers.

[TalonDJ]

The Navy's X-47B Will Be So Autonomous, You Can Steer It With Mouse Clicks

That is Automation, not Autonomy. You would think a reporter might know the meaning of words.

[org.whodat]

Cost is what 1 billion each, what a waste of money.

[TalonDJ]

I’ve read that as much as 25-30% of the plane is devoted to the pilot/crew..space, protection, life support systems

It is actually a bigger constraint than that. Humans are a fixed size. So if the plane gets smaller that percentage goes way up. This means in order to make a plane cost effective you have to built it a certain minimum size. Also people are a certain shape which dictates things like a canopy which really increase your frontal area (drag). So lets say you decide you want a nice small plane that carries 1 or 2 bombs and fills the role as a sort of reusable cruise missile. Making a UAV this size and shape is easy and cost effective. Making such a craft into a manned vehicle just does not make sense. So you change your plans and make it bigger. And of course that means you can make fewer of them.

[TalonDJ]

If it can land on a carrier, in a storm, at night...have they worked out a plan for mid-air refueling?

There are a lot of things a human can do that a robot can't. Landing a plane is NOT one of them.

[Secret Agent Man]

Blue screen of death from above?

[NonValueAdded]

In a related story, well-known actor Rip Torn was granted a Presidential pardon and appointed as head of the armed forces recruiting command. _Resident Obama made note of Rip’s prior experience with these matters.

[CodeToad]

“So now the Navy will have to relegate pilots to video game junkies”

Yep. Everything being planned out now is designed without a pilot. Bombers don’t need pilots, fighters with 360^2 sensors don’t need pilots, tankers don’t need pilots, etc.

Imagine a fighter that can withstand 45 G turns. No human aircraft, regardless of its capabilities, will ever approach that turn radius. Imagine a fighter than can fire its guns or launch missiles or fire an energy weapon with extreme accuracy at the exact nanosecond needed. No human fighter will match that fire capability.

Imagine a tanker that can orbit on station for 72 hours and do so cheaper than we can today and deliver more gas than currently possible. Imagine a bomber that does the same.

Imagine because there is no human factors required that the cost can come down 50% so we can have more of these aircraft, negating any failure resulting from technological failures where an onboard pilot might have had the chance to correct the issue with loss of the aircraft.

Imagine sending in these aircraft into hostile areas where we might otherwise shy away from using manned aircraft.

Being a pilot is sexy, cool, and exciting, sure, but I want to win wars.

[Elsiejay]

I thought it required the “right stuff” to pilot such aircraft. When did it become “righteous stuff?”

[al baby]

o man thats too funny

[al baby]

Are you channeling John Lennon?

[montyspython]

Humans still need to make decisions, no matter how technically advanced a system is made it lacks those intangibles.

Its not about sexy.

[MindBender26]

Lived near MacDill AFB in Tampa during Cuban Missile Crisis. When they scrambled, one would always go over the house, full throttle, at about 200 feet AGL.

It WOULD get your attention!

[montyspython]

I’ll have to check that out.

[CholeraJoe]

I see a trackball for sighting in the Hellfires.

[AFreeBird]

[PapaBear3625]

Imagine a fighter that can withstand 45 G turns. No human aircraft, regardless of its capabilities, will ever approach that turn radius. Imagine a fighter than can fire its guns or launch missiles or fire an energy weapon with extreme accuracy at the exact nanosecond needed. No human fighter will match that fire capability.

Now imagine that the only thing a future politician or bureaucrat needs in order to use such a force against domestic opponents is a bunch of people willing to click some mice.

[AppyPappy]

True but what politician is going to trust the operator?