backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 94 comment(s) - last by tatoruso.. on Aug 24 at 4:17 PM

Artist rendering of the X-47B in combat  (Source: Northrop Grumman)

  (Source: Northrop Grumman)

  (Source: Northrop Grumman)
Northtrop Grumman and the U.S. Navy will fly the X-47B in late 2009

The U.S. military is furthering its funding of unmanned vehicles for combat. Just last week, DailyTech reported on the U.S. Army's new SWORDS unmanned robots which roam the Iraqi battlefield carrying M249 machines guns -- and in turn put human soldiers out of harm's way. The military's latest unmanned project leaves the desert behind in order to take to the skies.

The U.S. Navy on Friday awarded Northrop Grumman a six-year, $635.8 million USD contract to further develop the X-47B fixed-wing unmanned air system (UAS). The funding for the Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) program will allow Northrop Grumman to conduct take-offs and landings from the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

"We are proud of our legacy of innovation and creativity in developing new combat capabilities and are pleased to be selected to lead this revolutionary advancement in unmanned systems capabilities," said Northrop Grumman's Scott Seymour.

"The UCAS-D award is the culmination of several years of effort with the Navy to show the benefit of melding the capabilities of a survivable, persistent, long-range UCAS with those of the aircraft carrier," continued Northrop Grumman's Gary Ervin. "The UCAS-D program will reduce the risk of eventual integration of unmanned air systems into carrier environments."

Northrop Grumman will build two X47-B aircraft for the U.S. Navy -- the first of which will take flight during the closing months of 2009. The company expects to begin the first carrier landings in 2011.

The X-47B, a sister-ship to the X-47A, has a cruising altitude of 40,000+ feet and a combat radius of 1,500 nautical miles. The stealthy vehicle can carry an internal payload of 4,500 pounds and can travel at high subsonic speeds.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Love em
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/6/2007 11:19:09 AM , Rating: 5
I was watching Future Weapons for the past few weeks and these bad boys are on there every night.

Just think, remove the human pilot and aircraft can make 10G turns, and accelerate or make maneuvers that would normally render a human unconcious or kill him.

Ah, the days are coming when we can finally deploy as many aircraft as we can build, we will no longer be hindered by how quickly we can train pilots, we can now quite literally "build" an air force, and perhaps someday an army as well.

I am pleased to see these unmanned aircraft and vehicles supplementing our forces, it allows a force multiplier on the cheap, and it's more politically popular. American's die less, bad guys die more..... yeap, that works well in the minds of the American public.




RE: Love em
By rtrski on 8/6/2007 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well, we still need to train operators. But as you say, the force multiplication factor still applies. Presumably with good software a single 'remote pilot' can control an entire small squadron of aircraft on a given mission, assuming limited autonomy for things like collision-avoidance and self-defense (countermeasures) on the part of the aircraft itself.

I just hope the SW gets vetted pretty well. Remember recently some F-22's that were manned and the first ones flying across the international date line all got their power shut down by some sort of time synch related SW bug?


RE: Love em
By kextyn on 8/6/2007 1:20:55 PM , Rating: 3
The glitch wasn't time related. They use zulu time I believe. It was actually the GPS coordinates.

"A group of F-22s heading across the Pacific for exercises in Japan earlier this month suffered simultaneous total nav-console crashes as their longitude shifted from 180 degrees West to 180 East."


RE: Love em
By CSMR on 8/6/2007 2:05:47 PM , Rating: 3
Operators are cheap; planes are expensive. Unless the operators are in the air that is; then they are expensive.


RE: Love em
By bkm32 on 8/16/2007 10:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
The Terminator Trilogy, iRobot, The Matrix Trilogy. Hello!!

When will we learn that the only way to end human losses fighting wars is to STOP FIGHTING WARS! We think we are so clever finding new and interesting ways to kill each other, dont' we?

At any rate, if the apololyptic futures painted in the above movies (excluding iRobot) is any indication, we'll eventually band together to kill machines instead of each other.

I'm a Bible beliver, and as such I don't actually believe in a robot takeover of Mankind. BTW, this last statement is not a "flame".


RE: Love em
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2007 11:31:28 AM , Rating: 5
We'll still need pilots. We won't be putting weapons in the control of machines for a while. Human pilots will likely still control fighter type aircraft and operate the weapons. A human pilot will always be better than a machine. A remote interface will let the pilot execute said high-G maneuvers and still remain in control of the weaponry.

What this will let us do is not loose any pilots in the future. So we won't have to be worried about battlefield losses. Which yes, the American public will approve of.

While I don't like seeing our troops die, right now its a part of combat. You shouldn't sign up if you aren't prepared for it, even in peace time. And simply sitting in our own country waiting for the attack to come so we don't loose anyone overseas doesn't work.

Really considering the amount of time we've been in Iraq, our casualty rate is extremely low. It doesn't make any of those deaths easier for the families to deal with. But as military operations go, our casualty rate is stellar considering how hostile the environment is and the length of time we've been there.


RE: Love em
By marvdmartian on 8/6/2007 11:39:53 AM , Rating: 4
That's true. But now, instead of our pilots being "Top Gun" types, with perfect eyesight and looks like Tom Cruise's, we can get the dweebs that live in their parent's basements, and have mastered video games, to pilot these bombers. Imagine remote guided fighters, and some uber-geek being able to brag the the hot chicks he meets, that he's an ACE!! ;)

One question I have.......if these are unmanned, why does the artist portray them as still having a cockpit-shaped area & windshield (that, even though blacked out, still is a windsheild shaped piece)???? Wouldn't the aircraft be more stealthy without the cockpit bulge??


RE: Love em
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/6/2007 11:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
The electronics packages are housed there, its the best place to put them and makes design easier as they already know the flight dynamics of a fuselage with a cockpit.


RE: Love em
By helios220 on 8/6/2007 11:53:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
One question I have.......if these are unmanned, why does the artist portray them as still having a cockpit-shaped area & windshield (that, even though blacked out, still is a windsheild shaped piece)???? Wouldn't the aircraft be more stealthy without the cockpit bulge??


That is not a blacked out window, that is the air intake for the propulsion system.

quote:
The electronics packages are housed there, its the best place to put them and makes design easier as they already know the flight dynamics of a fuselage with a cockpit.


It is true that that the aerodynamic tendencies for traditional manned aircraft are better known and this has some influence over the design, however that characterization is over simplified. Alas, the details are proprietary but not a bad guess.


RE: Love em
By stromgald on 8/6/2007 12:19:28 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, that's not a cockpit area or a windshield. It's an air intake. There are better images on Boeing and Northrop Grumman's website. Most UCAV designs are similar to the B-2's flying wing design for better stealth, so that's what the flight dynamics are probably based on.

Electronics for these things are still generally held in the nose of the aircraft to my knowledge because that's usually the best place to hold radar and avionics. With the engines near the rear, and bombs near the middle, you need something to 'balance' the aircraft. However, I wouldn't be surprised if radio antennas and some other electronics are spread throughout the aircraft.


RE: Love em
By twajetmech on 8/7/2007 12:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
That's the inlet for the engine, not a cockpit


RE: Love em
By Merry on 8/6/2007 11:32:02 AM , Rating: 1
But surely unmanned fighting machines only serve to make war 'cheap' and more justifiable. It makes me kind of uneasy to think that nations could have a war over a trivial matters because not many people will die.

Bit of a moral dilemma going on there is you ask me.


RE: Love em
By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2007 11:39:36 AM , Rating: 3
> "It makes me kind of uneasy to think that nations could have a war over a trivial matters because not many people will die"

Isn't minimizing deaths during warfare a good thing? If two nations have a war, and the only result is a lot of machinery winds up destroyed, isn't that better than 250,000 dead troops? Or worse, a few nuked cities?

Autonomous warfare is, like all technological advances, a mixed bag. But by and large, I think its going to be much more positive than negative.


RE: Love em
By Bonrock on 8/6/2007 12:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's worth noting that your logic is only valid if both sides have robots and unmanned aircraft at their disposal. If only one nation has the robotic combat technology at their disposal, that nation could become far more likely to start wars--after all, none of their human soldiers would be in harm's way.

Since this is the more likely scenario--I don't see any other countries besides the U.S. who have this kind of technology available right now--robotic warfare will probably result in many more deaths due to wars that otherwise would not have been fought. This will hold true for at least the next 15-20 years until other countries catch up with American technology.


RE: Love em
By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2007 12:53:04 PM , Rating: 5
> "If only one nation has the robotic combat technology at their disposal, that nation could become far more likely to start wars--after all, none of their human soldiers would be in harm's way"

True only if one assumes that nation is wholly unconcerned with collateral damage to the other side. That certainly doesn't fit the description of the US, which has always bent over backwards to minimize In fact, a nation wholly unconcerned with enemy casualties will most likely not break stride over losing a few tens of thousands of their own troops.

Also, while autonomous warfare lowers the human toll, it generally increases the financial costs of war. Human life is cheap-- mult-million dollar autons are not. Given the current degree of concern over the dollar costs of the Iraq war, I think the conclusion that future engagements would be more likely runs counter to logic.

We've been seeing this same trend already since WW2. Wars cost more to fight, but kill less people per dollar spent. That means the "people back home" suffer a larger hit in their pocketbook, whether they're actually slugging it on the front lines. All in all, I think that makes war less likely, not more.


RE: Love em
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 8/6/2007 1:12:51 PM , Rating: 5
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."


RE: Love em
By bespoke on 8/6/2007 1:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Part of the reason the Iraqi army losses in Gulf Way I & II were thousands of times higher than ours was due to our technology being one to two generations ahead of theirs (of course, the severe mismanagement of the Iraqi military and the complete lack of morale were even more deadly, but I digress). This will allow us to be even more callous in our choices of who to fight and when.

BTW, the UK, Germany and perhaps France aren't too far behind the US in UCAV technology.


RE: Love em
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2007 1:10:34 PM , Rating: 4
Yes but that doesn't mean we're going to just start attacking anyone and everyone who's technology doesn't match our own.

Look at the good side. And also make note that while we inflicted far more casualties on their military than they on our own, we also minimized civilian casualties through the use of our technology. Instead of blanket bombing an area like in WW2, we used cruise missiles worth a million bucks each to take out a single building.


RE: Love em
By SirLucius on 8/6/2007 1:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to agree with masher. Just look at how many times we've been asked to put more money into the Iraq war, and look at the response from people. As much as people don't like the loss of human life, I'd say the loss of cash is a greater incentive not to go to war.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't having more robotics in warfare lower the number of casualties? It seems like having computers do all the hard work in terms of targeting would yeild more accurate results when targeting facilities and leave less opportunity for casualties. Again, I'm just guessing. I have no idea how much of piloting is left up to the actual pilot now.