Slashdot Mirror
Robot Jet Fighter Takes First Flight
lysdexia writes "The X-47B is a Tailless Flying Robotic Overlord, which requires neither puny human pilot nor extraneous remote control. First flight was 29 minutes, climbing to a height of 5000 ft. Next step: landing on aircraft carrier."
welcome our new stealth overlords.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Nor is it as other websites have called it, a bomber.
X-47 is pure experimental but does have a weapons bay that could theoretically hold two 1000 pound JDAMs. Were a production plane made out of this it would be an MQ - multi-role (M) unmanned aircraft system (Q) or AQ - attack (A) unmanned aircraft system (Q).
It doesn't carry nor is it currently designed to carry an M-61 gatling gun, which every current F designated US aircraft has, nor does it have any missile capable hard points.
And yea, the F-117A is misdesginated too.
oh i think sarah corner is now making a phone call to.. huh what th@#$ ... [connection timed out]
FTA:Northrop Grumman will have to perfect the UAS’ flight for it to survive in that challenging environment. In the next two years its expected that the X-47B will expand its flight capabilities, and begin testing mid-air refueling as it prepares for real world carrier tests in 2013.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
The summary leaves me wondering how it feels about pronouns...
1. Carrier trials are not until 2013 so they are not "next".
2. This isn't a fighter it is an attack aircraft or a bomber. Actually a light bomber but then the F-117 Stealth Fighter was not a fighter but also a bomber and or attack aircraft.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'm sure it's only a glitch
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Quick, get me Edward James Olmos and the chick from Dances with Wolves before the darn things rebel and evolve.
I would imagine that s group of some later version of the bird could fly cover for a single (remote or actual) piloted aircraft. That strategy would insinuate human judgement into the mission, while freeing the robots to do what they need to within those restrictions. Of course, hijacking the flight of robots would then require only gaining control over the piloted craft and changing the mission definition. When do we start seeing these things in movies?
I for one, do NOT welcome our flying robot overlords. The land-based robot overlords are much more effective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wJHj3hOcuI I did this with about $3000 as part of my thesis. Nobody wanted to buy the tech afterward.
If that's the case, it's time to get the hell off the planet/outta Dodge.
F designation simple means its a fighter. Fighter meaning its for air to air combat. A M-61 has nothing to do with it. Having a machine gun has nothing to do with it.
Since most air-air combat will happen far outside any practical use of the a M-61
Guns in a modern fighter is a complete waste of money.
Combat will be done in far to many miles apart to make it worth while.
and no, the F-117A is not an incorrect designation. It's a fucking combat fighter by design.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Dont say we didn't warn you.
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
So...nobody saw Stealth, I take it?
The F/A-18E/F is a very capable fighter/bomber.
The F-35 is not a big enough leap in capability to warrant the price tag and not as stealthy as originally advertised.
UCAVs are the future.
Heres a question for anyone in the know.
Given there no longer needs to be a meatsack in the chair, whats stopping UAV's from being able to literally dodge incoming fire (RPG's, missles etc)?
As long as they could be detected they could theoritically be dodged and destroyed given the ability of being able to do very high G's in a turn.
Normal people worry me!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/bored-predator-drone-pumps-a-few-rounds-into-mount,10159/
The aircraftâ(TM)s sleek tailless design will make it harder to spot on radar, but proves a unique challenge for an unmanned aerial system (UAS).
Last I checked, all the kinks had been worked out of the blended wing design by the time the the B-2 bomber was built.
It was pretty much a matter of throwing enough computing power at a fly-by-wire system to make the craft stable.
And we managed to accomplish this with 80s technology.
I may be speaking out of ignorance, but I can't really see what "unique challenge" is created by a tailless design and can't be solved with 21st century computing power.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Don't these guys EVER watch movies...Dumb...Where's John Connor when you need him...
What's the point of this?
Cowardice rises to the next level: another robot to replace the job of having some consequences to war.
Practicality replacing all that honor warrior crap - makes you wonder just how fat and lazy the future military will become; aside from an increased level of cowardice due to those types thriving...
The direction of all of this is not good; we are going to be the real problem long before the machines are able to take over. Will China rule the world by remote drone and hackers? These machines need to be banned and research to stop them should be performed.
On the lighter side, I'm waiting for DARPA to start funding bioelectric those cell projects so we can look forward to robots that refuel on dead people.... Then if we survive each other the machines will at least keep us around as fuel.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Programmers--Ultimately responsible.
As with any programming, there is the distinct likelihood of bugs--hell, more of an expectation.
I guess that makes every person on the ground beta testers? Still going to rely on the release-and-patch model?
Don't get me wrong the plane is very nice but average geeks have been doing this with rc planes for ages. Do a diy drone search or look for audriopiolt and they can do much cooler tricks than this (take off; land; loop to loop, barrel rolls, you name it) all on its own if you want. It couldn't fit a warhead in it or go as fast or as far but its all the same theory. When this thing can take down a human in dog fight then I might be impressed.
Rocket Surgeon.
Information Super Highway to the Danger Zone.
Original Top Gun on Nintendo Champion here. If they need help landing on the aircraft carrier, I'd be happy to lend my services.
Is it just me, or does anyone else hear Starbuck staying "Oh Frak, here we go again!"?
when the robots rise up and overthrow their human masters, they'll have some pretty effective weapons.
Cowardice rises to the next level: another robot to replace the job of having some consequences to war.
Practicality replacing all that honor warrior crap - makes you wonder just how fat and lazy the future military will become; aside from an increased level of cowardice due to those types thriving...
Are you saying that a nation as rich and powerful as the U.S. should not expend the resources to better protect their military personnel in combat? They shouldn't investigate technology that increases force effectiveness while reducing exposure to counter-strikes? They shouldn't field weapons that could deter a potential adversary from engaging in battle?
Cowardice? If that's what you think then by all means let's take away all those assault rifles from the infantry and make them fight with swords and bows. That stand-off range afforded them by modern firearms is dishonorable don't you know.
You're not an idiot; you're a fucking idiot.
I'm sure there's a joke there somewhere...
This plane can potentially fly in scary, unbelievable ways. It is too bad a full demo will give away too much. I wonder what the minimum turning radius is for a plane moving a Mach 2. Exciting!
-Todd
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
The F/A-18E/F is a very capable fighter/bomber.
The biggest virtue of the Super Hornet is that it's cheap and has a larger payload and more range than the older versions of the Hornet. As a fighter, it's a dog. It's slower, has less zip, less acceleration, and less maneuverability than older Hornets. The F/A-18C pilots that flew against them during trials actually said they felt sorry for them. In the fleet, Tomcat vets call them "Not So Super Hornets". Again, the biggest virtue is the price tag... $50 million apiece, which is a bargain for modern fighters. The CBO says the F-35 could reach $184 million apiece, flyaway. So I predict that we'll be using Super Hornets for a long, long time, and will simply attempt to make up for the plane's deficiencies via training and tactics. It's a great,economical strike aircraft. But the Super is nowhere near where the Navy would like it to be as a fighter.
The F-35 is not a big enough leap in capability to warrant the price tag and not as stealthy as originally advertised.
All true. The F-35 may end up being the biggest military procurement boondoggle of all time. It does nothing well, and at a price astronomically higher than it's competitors.
UCAVs are the future.
Yes,but the problem is that the future is probably far,far away. We're in the infancy of UAV's, practically in the same place as the Sopwith Camel in terms of fighter development. Thus, you're going to see manned fighters in wide production for at least another 50 years.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
What dumb idea.
A Robot bomber plane?
Did I say dumb? I meant stupid.
A robot kamikaze air/air or air/ground drone would have been far smarter and a million times cheaper.
Cheaper? No no no wait a minute, we got to keep those jobs at Northrop Grumman, seeing as how we are all responsible for their profit margin.
Mark my words, it's the social funded companies that are running this country's budget and your tax dollars. But when has any media outlets complained about that one? Sheesh.
If the Navy does manage to deploy UAV with more capabilities, they would have to re-think the role of carriers, you would think I new generation of destroyer type warships capable of launching UAV would be a feasible option to project airpower using UAV.
The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has predicted the evolution of warfare we're observing today as far back as 1986:
It's been some time since I read it, but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like, until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who. A country was able to e.g. form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.
Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem. And we're only at its beginning.
All in all, a recommended read (like many other works by Lem).
It says in the article, "Yet the progress towards automation is probably unstoppable." I am fed up with reading this lame old excuse every time some crackpot scientist wants to play with their favourite new technology at great expense, without having to bother justifying it to the rest of us.
No process controlled by man is "unstoppable". We don't have to have more CCTV, or face recognition in road side advertising, or automated machine gun fire when drivers jump a red light. If it is implemented then someone, somewhere must have taken the decision to implement it, and they can be made accountable if there is a will.
The sad and stupid people who casually pronounce that the introduction of a new technology is inevitable should be lynched by the angry mob of people over whose lives they are attempting to trample. Then they would realise what "unstoppable" really means.
Most of the time people say robot when they mean unmanned/remote control. A land mine is more robotic than the Predator. Someone flies the Predator and fires its weapons. A land mine does what it does without human intervention, that's a robot.
An IR missile is a robot. The "bots" in battle WERE NOT ROBOTS. They were remote controlled cars with armor and weapons.
Even if this thing takes off, lands and cruises on it's own, it's a robot for only those functions. When it can pick it's own targets and fire upon them without asking for permission we'll call it a Robot Jet Fighter.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
The X47 is good, but the X-48 has many uses. Interestingly, the X-47 is similar to X-48. Hopefully, we can speed up X-48 by using the same electronics for testing purposes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...and I think it has signal lock.
Get your dogma outta my yard!
Looks like they're a little behind schedule developing the Ghost X-9. I do think that I saw Sharon Apple giving a concert last year, though.
I hope, when they start numbering them, that they don't assign the number 5 to one of them.
(Sorry, the stealth trailer at the bottom of the article just looked like a rip off to me)
For all your automated killing needs. Now with 20% more contempt for human life!
I believe the dangers most people are overlooking is the human chain element to stop insane orders. To give the president the ability to wage war without a long line of humans with hopefully some level of morals/ethics before dropping the bomb... To say nothing of the lowly tech with the knowledge wanting to #$%$# things up before he kills himself.
I suppose I'm imagining an army of semi-autonomous devices just that will launch on order of anyone with admin privileges, with real people at the other end of the weapons... perhaps even belonging to the same nation paid to develop them...
I for one welcome our new Robotic overlords.
Mike
Just to fill in a few points the others haven't:
A coward who can hide from the risk of consequences/accountability is potentially more dangerous - at minimum it allows more people to get involved who didn't have the courage previously. We are fostering cowardice under the guise of protecting the troops. BTW I've not heard a Pakistani who doesn't think we are cowards for exclusively using drones recklessly with disregard for their innocent lives over our soldiers (who are not innocent.)
Since a lot of people are suckered by the lies that make up wars; the human costs for the "enemy" are completely and conveniently ignored. Therefore, without negative local human cost involved (consequences) there is little to stop a huge segment of the population from supporting wars "without casualties" (remember, the other side doesn't count.)
People think you are a fool if you suggest we replace war with a GAME, because then we'd have more frequent wars and more turmoil and likely just as much or more expense for the GAMES involved etc... But when we make actual war into a GAME are we not ending up in a similar situation?? This is the direction we are heading.
Yes, I think the WISE move is to develop anti-technology technology forcing more military personnel to have to get involved on all sides. Your strawman didn't appear to work (read da thread;) you should THINK out your reasoning a bit more before posting logic errors.
Fear is a fundamental aspect of war; it also fuels foolish notions like new weapons to eliminate fears and also it inspires madness. Really when you think about it, war is all about allaying fears.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news