Read the forum code of contact
By: 7th March 2013 at 11:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Of all the PLAAF airfleet modernisation, only their bomber fleet looks antiquated.
It's just a matter of time that a Chinese-equivalent of the B2 comes about....or remember that RQ-170 that came down in Iran? Already there were rumors that Chinese engineers were asking to take a look at that machine.
By: 7th March 2013 at 15:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-First of all two questions or things to consider !
1. This is not a Chinese-equivalent of the B2 ... at best similar to the X-47B.
2. What will be the second of these two new projects to be unveiled in 2013 ?
Deino
By: 7th March 2013 at 23:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If the black blob on the right at the hanger door is a person then it's not very big. The nose of the aircraft would only be head high.
At best a sub scale model
By: 8th March 2013 at 00:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Of all the PLAAF airfleet modernisation, only their bomber fleet looks antiquated.
Both the Yanks and the Russians use some quite old bombers themselves - B-52 and Tu-95.
By: 8th March 2013 at 01:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Both the Yanks and the Russians use some quite old bombers themselves - B-52 and Tu-95.
True, but they also both use far more modern planes.
The Chinese bomber force is pretty much all antiquated.
By: 8th March 2013 at 02:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Bomber is a costy(in terms of maintenace & safty of the crew) aggresive weapon, whose fire range can be covered by balistic missles/cruise missles/fighter-bombers/long range rocketry artilllery.
I dont think wasting time and money on stealthy bombers is a wise desicion once you master the 100+ tons class transporters. Spend it on AWACS or sth else.
By: 8th March 2013 at 02:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If the black blob on the right at the hanger door is a person then it's not very big. The nose of the aircraft would only be head high.At best a sub scale model
If that blob is indeed a person, it would be similar in size to X-47b
By: 8th March 2013 at 03:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-X-47bs is either a stealth UAV that carries more ammunition or a reuseable reprogramable cluster cruise missle. At least at this stage, it can't beat human pilots in dog fights.
By: 8th March 2013 at 03:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If that blob is indeed a person, it would be similar in size to X-47b
If this person is around 1.7m tall, I'd guess the wingspan of this thing could be around 10x1.7m. so possibly a little smaller than x47b but definitely larger than Dassault nEUROn which has quite similar shape with it based on previous reports.
By: 8th March 2013 at 03:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Bomber is a costy(in terms of maintenace & safty of the crew) aggresive weapon, whose fire range can be covered by balistic missles/cruise missles/fighter-bombers/long range rocketry artilllery.There is no fighter-bomber, cruise missle, etc. that can come close to delivering the mass tons of bombs a Blackjack, B-2 or even B-52 can deliver.I dont think wasting time and money on stealthy bombers is a wise desicion once you master the 100+ tons class transporters. Spend it on AWACS or sth else.
If you are a grunt on the ground and need heavy air support you would be exceptionally glad they still exist.
By: 8th March 2013 at 04:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-There is no fighter-bomber, cruise missle, etc. that can come close to delivering the mass tons of bombs a Blackjack, B-2 or even B-52 can deliver.If you are a grunt on the ground and need heavy air support you would be exceptionally glad they still exist.
With Blackjack especially I'd be worried it was about to drop a nuke or carpet bomb my own position... :p
By: 8th March 2013 at 04:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-With Blackjack especially I'd be worried it was about to drop a nuke or carpet bomb my own position... :p
Yeah the Blackjack is very proficient in both roles.
:p
By: 8th March 2013 at 06:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-There is no fighter-bomber, cruise missle, etc. that can come close to delivering the mass tons of bombs a Blackjack, B-2 or even B-52 can deliver.
If you are a grunt on the ground and need heavy air support you would be exceptionally glad they still exist.
but before they turn their big butts back and heading your location, you will probably be served by enemy artilleries first.
And that solves the mystery why they call you a grunt.
By: 8th March 2013 at 09:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ähhhm ....and can we please stay on the topic ?? YES, the B-52 is fine, the Tu-95/142 too and the Tu-160 even more ... but what the hell has this to to to the topic ???
Deino :mad:
By: 8th March 2013 at 11:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It kinda sucks that all these aircraft look the same. Although it certainly demonstrates that similar requirements paired with similar levels of technology generate similar solutions.
I wonder who'll be next to join the UCAV game: Japan, Korea, Turkey... Brazil? Does Israel have something in this armed/subsonic/turbofan/VLO category?
By: 8th March 2013 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It kinda sucks that all these aircraft look the same. Although it certainly demonstrates that similar requirements paired with similar levels of technology generate similar solutions.I wonder who'll be next in the game: Japan, Korea, Turkey... Brazil?
The thing that will eventually seperate such systems, would be the INSIDE, the software, the architectur brain and the sensor suite. That is what will determine the tricks it can perform such as autonomous operations (Without DL), Carrier ops, Multiple mountable missions etc. US is not going in for such aircraft (X-45, X47 type) so its upto europe and who so ever is next to make maximum use .
By: 8th March 2013 at 11:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The thing that will eventually seperate such systems, would be the INSIDE, the software, the architectur brain and the sensor suite.
Yes, yes, but that is all very boring to lay observer, at least once you get past the first capability/acronym layer (e.g. 'has LPI'). :p
US is not going in for such aircraft (X-45, X47 type) so its upto europe and who so ever is next to make maximum use .
Wot? No intention of following X-47 with production aircraft? :confused:
By: 8th March 2013 at 12:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I would speculate it is a maritime reconnaissance UAV similar in concept to MQ-4C Triton. Except it would be stealthy and could get close enough to geolocate carrier strike groups for attack by ballistic missiles and cruise missile armed JH-7s and H-6s
Wot? No intention of following X-47 with production aircraft?US Navy has repeatedly stated that X-47 is only an experiment with no follow-on operational capability. Pentagon has dictated the Navy's role. Any UAV flown off a ship will be used for counter terrorism. That is not an X-47 like UAV.
By: 8th March 2013 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The thing that will eventually seperate such systems, would be the INSIDE, the software, the architectur brain and the sensor suite. That is what will determine the tricks it can perform such as autonomous operations (Without DL), Carrier ops, Multiple mountable missions etc. US is not going in for such aircraft (X-45, X47 type) so its upto europe and who so ever is next to make maximum use .
Whosoever has the best software engineers- wins (as hardware is or will be available COTS).
I wouldn't hold your breath on truly autonomous systems, if you mean anything more than pre-programmed flight/strike profiles with relatively basic threat avoidance and target discrimination/prioritisation due to sensor fusion.
There will be a 'man in the loop' for a long, long time to come and so called 'artificial intelligence' systems are likely to be a huge anti-climax, if one hopes for 'hollywood style' platforms.
Here the eminent physicist Sir Roger Penrose explains why, from 0:38mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5XYf1GJBhg
Am I reading this right?! There are NO plans for series production of the X-47B!! I'm hugely disappointed (it's my favourite US aircraft):mad:.
By: 8th March 2013 at 13:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Wot? No intention of following X-47 with production aircraft?
USN, is mainly interested in getting a UCAV/UAV land and take off from a carrier . They will not be operationalizing the X-47. As per my knowledge, they may wish for a similar system for recon but not for strike. The USAF and the USN does not need a system that carries a similar load to the stealth/VLO assets they have (F-22, F-35). They want to spend a HUGE ammount of developmental effort (80-100 Billion Dollars) on developing a successor to the B-2 (LRB) that can in the future be optionally manned. For the USAF/USN getting a strategic, global range bomber is of higher concern in the 2025-2040 time frame. The X-45.X-47 etc though cool will only establish technologies for future use, they will not be operationalized.
I wouldn't hold your breath on truly autonomous systems, if you mean anything more than pre-programmed flight/strike profiles with relatively basic threat avoidance and target discrimination/prioritisation due to sensor fusion.
Having a man control it from far, makes them prone to jamming and interference. So i agree it is Far far out, but the eventual goal has to be intelligent, autonomous ops to give you the highest success rate. With DARPA and US DOD that is very high on a list of priorities, and you will see a lot of tech demonstrators showing up in the coming decades that will show greater and greater autonomy.
Whosoever has the best software engineers- wins (as hardware is or will be available COTS).
I have seen the best software teams completely screw up software development because of poor planning and management. So the quality of software engineers, and their experience with defense products is very important, but management and maintaining a defense industrial base is equally important.
Am I reading this right?! There are NO plans for series production of the X-47B!! I'm hugely disappointed (it's my favourite US aircraft).
Like i mentioned above, the X-47 doesnt really provide much capability to the USN/USAF given that essentially it is a VLO asset that puts light-medium load onto a target. That is being done by the F-22 and F-35 anyways (at a tactical level). What the DOD has decided is that they need a Higher more survivable strategic asset. This lead to the non starter FB22 and the NGB both of which were not considered true "strategic" assets ..
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-usaf-targets-long-range-strike-bomber-377597/
Posts: 57
By: vario2012 - 7th March 2013 at 04:46
This is allegedly one of the 2 new prototypes to take maiden flight in 2013