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

Fox News ^ | 13 Apr 2011

[USNBandit]

For flyboys proudly boasting their nighttime carrier landing cred, the idea is anathema.

Easy to say......for a loser that's never landed a plane on a boat before.

Where is the glory in that? No scary pitching decks, blood curdling power calls, comfort time (on the tanker), rewarding yourself with a slider at midrats. Might as well paint the boats blue and give them to the Air Force.

Of course the SPN-42 (soon to be replaced by the 46) always works, is never broken and would never try to drive you into the back of the ship. Auto landing is always works. (yeah, right)

[MirrorField]

You forgot one thing:
"Imagine a fighter / bomber that can be sent on explicit one-way mission if necessary and can be expended (eg. rammed against opponent) with only concern being taxpayer expense."

[Yo-Yo]

Also people are a certain shape which dictates things like a canopy which really increase your frontal area (drag).

And sometimes there are other things like steerable satellite dishes that add just as much frontal drag to a UAV.

[Francis McClobber]

I don’t know about today, but in the late 80’s early 90’s, aircraft got aboard pretty well by themselves with coupled approaches using the SPN 46. The system was called ACLS.

[CodeToad]

Why they are using a physical dish is beyond me, but expect that to change.

[mcshot]

Ah just land and reboot or reboot and land. When I see military advances I wonder if it will be used against us by evil illegal.

[mcshot]

I loved watching the B-58 do touch and goes when I was stationed at Whiteman AFB, Mo. The Hustler was a screamer and I read they plan on selling the static display at former K.I. Sawyer. At the time Whiteman was a huge airstrip with only hueys for the missile crews and some prop planes. Interestingly few of the base pilots were qualified to fly the flight club trainer because they lacked the hours.
Oh jeez, I just looked at your handle and realize you’re probably a spy. :-)

[Starwolf]

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

[Starwolf]

Looks like things are pretty well worked out - here is yur evidence:

To be clear, those pics are all CGI

[Smokin' Joe]

I would think that a Predator pilot who's theoretically over Afghanistan who sees McDonalds Golden Arches off to the side is going to ask some questions...

True, but there are parts of this country the 'Golden Arches' are few and far between.

[TalonDJ]

“just as much”???
That thing is only like 3 feet hight in the front.

[Yo-Yo]

How much do you think an F-16 cockpit canopy sticks up?

[TheOldLady]

Just Hanging Around?
Haven't donated yet?
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up monthly, and another FReeper will donate $10

[TalonDJ]

You are confusing ‘stick up’ with the entire frontal area of the aircraft. They could make the the whole F-16 more flat but since they have to stick a guy in there that limits things so they don't bother. That design feature was built in at the beginning so it effects more than just the height of the canopy. Look at that picture again. From the top of the canopy to the bottom of the air intake it is 2 or three times taller than those unmanned drones. Since you can't get intake air past a human very easily a manned aircraft has, as a basic design constraint, the frontal area of a sitting human plus the size of the air duct to the engine. Those are fixed. Add to that the area of cross-section of a cockpit and you have more constraints on the design. An unmanned aircraft has other different constraints. In the case of the one showed, one of them is that satellite antenna.

Look, if you don't get why shaving even one foot off an aircraft's frontal area is good then this discussion is pointless and you need to go back to Aerodynamics 101.

[Yo-Yo]

Thanks for the Aerodynamics lesson, Talon, but you completely sidestepped my original reply to your comment.

You said that eliminating the pilot eliminated the drag of a bubble canopy, and I showed you a UAV with a bubble 'canopy' for a different purpose, negating any drag savings.

The rest of your hyperbole is irrelevant.

[TalonDJ]

negating any drag savings.

No, it does not negate the drag savings because the spot for that antenna, if removed, could not hold a pilot (and cockpit controls) larger than a 2 year old. A seated adult is taller than the whole front end of that UAV.