Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robot Jet Fighter Takes First Flight

Posted by Roblimo on from the look-ma-no-hands dept.

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."

11 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Not a Jet Fighter by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Not a Jet Fighter by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Very true. But once the avionics and autonomous flight systems are tuned, building and flying fighter and bomber UAVs is going to be cake. Kids going through the pilot pipeline now are probably some of the last armed forces pilots who will do so.

      Now, before you huff and say, "No way will software and electronic kit replace people wholesale in military aircraft!", I'd think about it a bit. I was able to watch a UAV dock, refuel, and detach from a KC-130 tanker ~7 months ago, with no human intervention. Refueling? Check. Carrier takeoffs/landings? Almost here. You can have some pretty amazing flight characteristics when you don't have to support the human body in flight.

    2. Re:Not a Jet Fighter by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I recall correctly, the F-4 originally mounted no guns. When it was offered to the Israelis, they had to demand that they be incorporated into the planes slated for them. In action in Viet Nam, American pilots also learned how stupid this concept was, and remedial action was taken.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Not a Jet Fighter by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Informative

      F-4 was originally going to be four 20mm cannons, then Sparrow came along and they deleted the single internal cannon.

      Vietnam showed that Sparrow wasn't that effective at long range and Sidewinder had too limited of engagement envelope so by the F-4D in 1967 they carried an external gun pod, and the F-4E had an internal M-61 cannon in '68/69.

      The models Israel got were the F-4E which already had the cannons.

    4. Re:Not a Jet Fighter by cshotton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As it turns out, the real problem on these platforms is power generation. With synthetic aperture radars, flight control systems, on-board mission management systems, laser designators, EO sensors, and LOS and BLOS/satellite comms gear on board, the problem of supplying electricity for all the systems becomes critical.

      I worked on the original J-UCAS program which transitioned from DARPA to the Navy, and designing the autonomous flight and mission management systems was the easier part of the problem. Creating the comm infrastructure (software defined radios), the operational procedures, the peer-to-peer cooperation, and mundane stuff like dealing with air traffic control turn out to be much harder in practice.

      Definitely one of the coolest projects I have ever worked on and I'm glad to see one of the J-UCAS derived UAVs finally getting into the air.

      --

      Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
  2. Errors by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:I for one by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would, if only I could find them.

  4. A Taste of Armageddon by Spikeles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From there, robotic jet fighters could prove to be valuable assets in a modern military that is increasingly automating its approach to war.

    Dont say we didn't warn you.

    --
    I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
  5. Re:Wrong by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. Missiles... by sirsnork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:Missiles... by lelitsch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Physics!

      First off all, nobody is going to shoot down a UAV with an RPG, unless it is hovering at very low altitude. If you got this idea from Black Hawk down, the helicopters got shot down while they were basically hovering at roof level. A small plane going a few hundred mph is impossible to hit.

      The physics part comes in, because a small missile with lower mass, much higher thrust to weight ratio and much smaller control surfaces can pull much higher g's than anything with large wings. A F-16 can pull around 9G before things start coming off, this might be able to do 15, a light AA or SA missile can pull 20-50.

      So yeah, it might out-turn more than a manned plane, but not a missile.