Unmanned bombers being built: e.g. X-47B

That is the air intake for the jet engine.

 

"Northrop is building the navy bomber under a $636 million contract awarded in 2007."

That's peanuts!

 

Here's the "FutureWeapons" segment about the X-47B

part 1
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-K4pk25zD4[/ame]

part 2
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBrVRTVNph0&feature=related[/ame]


Apparently, there are some similar planes according to their wiki page:
Boeing Phantom Ray X-45C
BAE Taranis
Dassault nEUROn
EADS Barracuda
MiG Skat
and so on...

 

Pics and video from the first flight are here at the Northrom Grumman site:

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=209544

 

ahahahahah that WSO's name is Mick Jaggers. But yeah, I think I created a thread on this plane a while ago...the Navy could definitely use it sooner rather than later. The development timeline for these things is sooooooooooo longggggg

 

X-47 makes first flight(s)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/02/14/AW_02_14_2011_p28-288506.xml&headline=X-47B%20Sorties%20Ramping%20Up

I wonder how stealthy the airframe is relative to the B-2 and F-22.

 

Stealthier, actually. Low observables signatures are proportional to the size of the vehicle and the X-47 has way less surface area and heat signature than either of the other two. Plus it is newer and has the latest LO technologies.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Right, with all things being equal (barring size of course). But I'm sure cost and maintenance are issues, especially maintenance for a carrier based aircraft. I don't know anything about LO technologies and how far they have come, but I suspect that the B-2 has some of the latest, or at least whatever they can add on and isn't dependent on the design of the airframe. But I imagine that the stealthier the plane, the higher the maintenance and the higher the cost of to develop/manufacture. I don't think it's practical to have a carrier-based aircraft that requires as much maintenance as the B-2 to maintain LO (just guessing). Furthermore, the F-35 is a newer airframe than the F-22, but not nearly as stealthy given the design/cost requirements. It's possible they would make sacrifices in LO to keep costs down.

I guess this question would be hard to answer too without knowing the exact role of this aircraft. Is the intention for this to be a mini-carrier based B-2 that can penetrate the thickest air defenses on day one of a conflict and destroy the important stuff so the less survivable aircraft can come in on day two? Or is it more of a stand-off ISR/strike platform that can get much closer than 4+ gen aircraft, but not right to the heart of air defenses like a B-2 or F-22?

 

I have no interest in aviation platforms, that are not manned by humans.



I realize it is safer, perhaps mission effective, and financially advantageous, for certain systems to be unmanned.



This week, I just spoke to a pilot who flew the F4U, A.D., and F8U-1, during his amazing career.

 

Unmanned platforms interest me the most...they have so much potential without the limitations of human endurance. Not to mention, there are significant benefits to avoiding another Gary Powers incident...with unmanned platforms, the tolerance for high-risk missions suddenly becomes much higher. Not to mention, foreign governments are much more willing to let robots fly around their airspace than manned aircraft..then they can look their people in the face and say "there are no Americans here"

 

Alex- The X-47 is a test vehicle and a bit small for what they may eventually need. The B-2 has second generation LO technology. We have learned a bit since then.

Shipborne operations are rough on everything.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

the new remote flown stuff thats still coming is amazing.