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]
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.
If that's the case, it's time to get the hell off the planet/outta Dodge.
Dont say we didn't warn you.
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
Guns in a modern fighter is a complete waste of money.
This has been said several times since WW2, and every time they tried to follow up on the idea, they ended up putting the gun back in. AA missiles are not the be-all and end-all.
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...
Despite that, all US manned fighters have an internal 20mm cannon. The Russians include a cannon in their new fighter/attack, Eurofighter Typhoon has the option for one, the Koreans have one in the T-50, the French have a cannon in their fighters and attack, the Chinese include a cannon, even the Swedes have a cannon in the JAS 39. I guess all of them missed the memo on a cannon being obsolete.
F-117A didn't have one, but it's now retired so it remains true that all US fighters have a cannon. F-117 wasn't a fighter by design, it was designed for the attack role. If F-117 was designed to be a fighter it would have a radar, higher thrust engines and a better thrust to weight ratio. The fact that it's flight systems and parts like the undercarriage are derived from fighter parts doesn't make it a fighter.
Vietnam and the Arab Israeli Wars show very clearly that in some engagements the cannon remains a viable weapons system for a modern fighter.
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.
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!"?
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNuZwY2iDcM
Sold to Polish army for ~$1mil a pop (unofficial, obviously price secret).
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
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.
If you look at the AA role, you might have a point, but what are the chances of us seeing Air to Air engagements this day in age? Maybe in the opening moves before one side's airbases are decimated from cruise missile/drone attacks. Most of the combat today is air to ground. And in that role Guns still have their place. There have several instances where F-15's and F-16's have used their guns for danger close strafing runs in Afghanistan where allied troops were too close to the enemy for bombs.
I've read a number of after action reports that pretty much say the same thing: the Air Force doesn't need F-22's, it's needs more A-10's or a drone to replace it. The most effective aircraft since 1990 are still the B-52 and A-10. And the A-10 was built around its gun. The A-10 can do two things: carry a shit load of mixed ordinance and loiter around a battlefield for on-call CAS. F-15's and F-16's don't carry near the array of weapons and can remain on station for about 20 - 30 minutes before they have to go gas up again and come back. That usually takes an hour or more for a four ship group to refuel and come back.
I know the Reaper is a step towards a replacement for the A-10, but it carries about the same amount of ordinance as an F-16.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
That's been said before, and proven wrong every time. Sometimes, you need a gun. You wouldn't say that since most ground combat happens out of knife range, soldiers do not need to be equipped and trained with knives, but that's basically what you've said here. You want to be equipped for as many situations as is reasonably possible. Needing a gun on a fighter is a real possibility, so you want to be able to equip your planes with them.
Nations have been taking foreign loans to go to war since before man invented the gun. And the USA wouldn't exist if the rebels here didn't get massive military and financial assistance from France, Netherlands, etc. during the revolutionary war.
If automation in warfare leads to cowardice shouldn't you also be railing against the machine gun? Real, brave warriors should have to load their musket one bullet at a time. Or maybe guns themselves are a sign of cowardice -- real men wouldn't attack from a distance. Or maybe any sort of weapon induces cowardice -- no true Scotsman would ever consider going to war with anything other than his wits and his fists.
Seriously, get some perspective before you start spewing inflammatory words like "cowardice" in public.
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
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).
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!
Somehow you got the right words in there, but not the right idea:
Cue Macross Plus, Information High.
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.
If you look at the AA role, you might have a point, but what are the chances of us seeing Air to Air engagements this day in age?
If you aren't prepared for them?
One hundred percent.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
...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!
And the USA wouldn't exist if the rebels here didn't get massive military and financial assistance from France,
Oh, the fucking irony.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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