UAV Northrop Grumman X-47B - New Photos

156
UAV Northrop Grumman X-47B - New Photos


Not many people saw the X-47B from close range: it was mainly its manufacturer Northrop Grumman and test operators of the naval fleet. That was until Tuesday, July 31, 2012, when the Navy Program Executive Office, responsible for developing the so-called Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System, UCLASS), demonstrated to reporters the X-47B in all its metal flesh.

First impression: it is much more than in photos and video clips. This unit, with a wingspan of 19 meters and bat-shaped chassis, looks even bigger. When he stands on the chassis, you do not leave the feeling that a person may be inside the X-47B (despite the fact that this contradicts his purpose), only now there are not enough stairs. In the end, X-47B to become one of the most autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles at the disposal of the US military.

The idea of ​​UCLASS (X-47B is only a demonstration model), which involves the abandonment of joysticks and computer drives that are used by UAV remote control operators. Instead, thanks to the Northrop software, UAV operators will only indicate where they would like to send the drone. "They are smart enough to act in unforeseen circumstances," said Captain Jaime Engdahl, program manager for unmanned aerial vehicles of the Navy. He has the intelligence to respond to these circumstances. "

The Navy has not really been willing to reveal what is behind the "GPS accuracy" that helps the craft find its aircraft carrier. The Navy was also quick to remind reporters that the X-47B is just a demonstrator, not yet armed or carrying any sensors. The device is located in Pax River, where the catapults and aerofinishers necessary for testing are located. drone and testing assumptions that the navy would indeed be capable of launching an unmanned aircraft from an aircraft carrier and returning it safely. The drone made its first flight into the Pax River on Sunday, a 35-minute flight over Chesapeake Bay at an altitude of 2200 meters and a speed of 333 km/h.

Next year, the Navy plans to launch the X-47B from Pax River to the deck of an aircraft carrier — just with the aforementioned mouse click. The plans consist in taking the drone into service with the Navy for the 2019 year (this date has recently moved a year).

However, even such autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles like the X-47B cannot do without human participation. A Northrop test pilot named Gerrit Everson (Gerrit Everson) can prove it - a white device is attached to his forearm, called a control and display unit. Equipped with six buttons and connected to the batteries located on the Everson belt, it was created by Nintendo to control the device on the deck of an aircraft carrier. The control unit is needed to install the drone on the aircraft carrier's catapult and to take it under control as soon as it lands on the deck, as well as to move the drone along the aircraft carrier. Everson holds the handle and turns his wrist; if X-47 was running, his nose would move with the wrist.


The control and display unit for the X-47B is used to control the drone during taxiing on an aircraft carrier. It is not used for takeoff.

Another thing the navy is going to test is how the crew of an aircraft carrier works with robot-drone. In deck flights aviation there is no room for error, and so far the sailors only knew how to interact with human pilots. At Pax Air Base, a commander named Jeff Dodge explained how the navy “digitized the aircraft carrier” so that the X-47B can better understand everything else that happens on the flight deck in order to integrate it with manned aircraft.


Flight simulation room on the Patuxent River naval aircraft carrier.


There is even a toggle switch that Dodge calls the "Pickle Stick" (push button for longitudinal trimming): that can send a signal that prohibits landing X-47B, if the robot is going to land on the deck at the wrong angle.

At the bottom of the bulba nose behind the chassis is the second set of valves. There, in the cargo hold, the aircraft can carry two 900-kilogram bombs.

The rest of the plane is even stranger than it seems at first glance. To call him a mini-stealth bomber would actually be wrong. There is something fat in him with a stoop back. His wings do not taper; they bulge like bent biceps and a second time around the wingtips. In place of the cockpit, there is a red air intake slot, which makes the car look like a Cylon Raider spaceship from the Battlestar: Galactica television series. He may be in the armament of the aircraft carrier until the end of the decade, but it is not insane to still believe that the X-47B looks like something supernatural.
156 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    6 August 2012 08: 26
    They say a lot about the advantages of these flying birds, but who knows about the disadvantages?
    1. Svistoplyaskov
      +1
      6 August 2012 08: 43
      He has only one drawback - his technical and practical data do not correspond to the psychological effect on which this device is designed like the F-117.
      1. +28
        6 August 2012 08: 55
        The whole question is how many can stamp them. If as F-117 then there will be little effect, but if as f-16 or f-18, then the effect will exceed all expectations. In addition, the Americans are actively working on the creation of UAV networks (flocks), and this is already a very serious weapon.
        1. +2
          6 August 2012 09: 01
          Quote: professor
          Americans are actively working on the creation of UAV networks (flocks), and this is a very serious weapon

          Professor, but they all work according to the signal from the kompunt, can the signal not be drowned out or intercepted?
          1. +17
            6 August 2012 09: 13
            1. X-47B is not just a UAV, but a robot that does not need to be connected with an operator.
            2. The signal is almost impossible to drown out and intercept. I wrote about this in the comments more than once, I can repeat the explanation again.
            1. +2
              6 August 2012 10: 35
              Quote: professor
              X-47B is not just a UAV, but a robot that does not need to communicate with the operator.

              A signal that is almost impossible to drown out or intercept.
              1. +13
                6 August 2012 12: 20
                A signal that is almost impossible to drown out or intercept.

                Well, if you connect your jamming station to a nuclear power plant, place the antennas on balloons and stupidly kill all the communications, including yours, with white noise, then you can drown out. But it’s impossible to intercept everything.
                1. 0
                  6 August 2012 13: 12
                  Quote: professor
                  Well, if you connect your jamming station to a nuclear power plant,


                  I was somewhat surprised, not that the signal cannot be jammed or intercepted, but that in your comment one phrase somewhat refutes the other
                  X-47B is not just a UAV, but a robot that does not need to communicate with the operator.
                  in this case, no connection is needed
                  The signal is almost impossible to drown out and intercept.
                  in this case, a connection exists.
                  Sincerely.
                  1. +11
                    6 August 2012 13: 53
                    Does a manned airplane need communication? And if it disappears then the plane will certainly crash?
                    1. -2
                      6 August 2012 14: 47
                      Quote: professor
                      Does a manned airplane need communication? And if it disappears then the plane will certainly crash?



                      Quote: professor
                      X-47B is not just a UAV, but a robot that does not need to communicate with the operator.

                      1. +5
                        6 August 2012 16: 34
                        There is no contradiction, if that.
                    2. +2
                      6 August 2012 16: 30
                      Quote: professor
                      Does a manned airplane need communication? And if it disappears then the plane will certainly crash?

                      In my opinion, this is obvious.
                      Well, if the autopilot controls.
                      Rockwell demonstrated the Athena automatic flight control system, which is capable of landing a conventional aircraft without human intervention. The work of the Athenf autopilot was clearly illustrated by the example of a small single-engine aircraft, which several times took off and landed only along the coordinates of the runway.
                      Source.
                      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/18/rockwell_bonanza_handsoff_landing/
                  2. +4
                    6 August 2012 15: 20
                    The principle of operation of this UAV is as follows: connection-statement of the problem-autonomous execution. Accordingly, most of the time this drone works without receiving signals, respectively, and that it is impossible to intercept what is not. That's what the professor meant. And he talked about the interception purely hypothetically.
                    1. +1
                      6 August 2012 15: 59
                      Quote: Joker
                      The principle of operation of this UAV is as follows: connection-statement of the problem-autonomous execution. Accordingly, most of the time this drone works without receiving signals,

                      X-47B is not just a UAV, and the robot is not in need of communication with the operator.

                      That is, it does not need to communicate with the operator at all.
                      Thanks so much for the clarification. I did not talk about signal interception at all.
                      The professor writes that this is a robot that does not need to be connected with the operator, that is, autonomous, and then writes that the signal cannot be intercepted or jammed, which implies that the robot is not autonomous.
                      1. +3
                        6 August 2012 16: 44
                        You see, there are different modes. You know, like a vending machine. You can be single, and you can queue. Didn’t think about it?
                      2. 0
                        6 August 2012 17: 44
                        Quote: Pimply
                        You see, there are different modes.

                        I understand that. But the statement that he does not need a connection with the operator is somewhat ambiguous. And the goal of the developers in the end is that he would fly and perform tasks absolutely autonomously, but at the moment there is no solution to this problem. Believe to cope by 2018.
                        And about the fact that the aircraft can fly in autopilot mode was mentioned in 1912.
                      3. 0
                        7 August 2012 01: 06
                        Yes, in general, the battery life on various drones (not at all, but nevertheless) appeared, if memory serves, two years ago.
                      4. 0
                        7 August 2012 17: 11
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Yes, in general, the battery life on various drones (not at all, but nevertheless) appeared, if memory serves, two years ago.

                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        And about the fact that the aircraft can fly in autopilot mode was mentioned in 1912.


                        Historically, the first development in the field of aircraft control automation was an autopilot, developed by the American company Sperry Corporation in 1912; it provided automatic retention of the flight course and stabilization of the roll.
                      5. 0
                        April 23 2015 13: 50
                        The signals of the navigation satellites, he needs them.
            2. +7
              6 August 2012 11: 35
              The signal can be muffled and suppressed the question of what means to invest in it.
              And here are the internal interaction algorithms within the group. Methods of target selection, response to threats. This is much more interesting.
              1. vpm
                vpm
                +5
                6 August 2012 14: 26
                And here are the internal interaction algorithms within the group. Methods for target selection, threat response
                Of course, and by the way, the most vulnerable within such a group will be not so much the means of communication as the interaction algorithms of individual drones. The space for application and at the same time counteraction will be very wide. This can be said a new type of war, a battle of different algorithms, and if Americans make strike drones as part of a group, then it is logical to expect the appearance of, for example, drones - fighters that will also act as part of a group and in conjunction with air defense.
            3. -1
              6 August 2012 12: 20
              The signal is almost impossible to drown out and intercept.


              It is also impossible like on the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel, which the Iranians drowned, intercepted and safely planted in their home? Or do you want to say that communication with the operator on the X-47 and RQ-170 is so revolutionary and radically different from each other, like a Chinese radio-controlled toy airplane and a supersonic anti-ship missile?
              1. +11
                6 August 2012 12: 25
                Believe more fairy tales or learn materiel.
                I'm tired of dispelling this myth. wassat
              2. +5
                6 August 2012 16: 35
                The Iranians did not plant a drone at home. Failure resulting in a fall. They distributed very beautiful footage of the landing, but the trouble is the footage from the demonstration video of this unit.
              3. +1
                21 August 2012 22: 15
                Rus_87,
                I wonder if this shit in the air can be brought down? If possible, by what?
        2. wolverine7778
          +3
          6 August 2012 16: 21
          Imagine a professor if they are stamped, in the future, wars will come down to a mouse click on the item "destroy armored vehicles of such and such a country" or "clear the water area of ​​ships", and the commanders will only have to watch the war of combat robots winked
        3. 0
          April 23 2015 13: 48
          That's it, the packs, and if also with the leaders, then drain the water. Our defense industry is the next challenge.
    2. White
      +7
      6 August 2012 09: 58
      The question of the advantages and disadvantages of these devices is open, we can only get an answer when they begin to operate.

      But I want to say that what I have written more than once, if they teach the X-47B to land on an aircraft carrier and refuel in the air, this will be a giant step in development, and the capabilities of the aircraft carrier will increase even more.
      1. axmed05
        +4
        6 August 2012 11: 10
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        They say a lot about the advantages of these flying birds, but who knows about the disadvantages?
        The disadvantages of these birds are that they are afraid of our moment 29
        1. Tirpitz
          +8
          6 August 2012 11: 33
          The disadvantages of these birds are that they are afraid of our moment 29 Do you believe that yourself?

          At 37 seconds, when the moment came into the operator’s field of vision, it was already possible to launch rockets in an instant. (the pilot was lucky that the drone was just a scout without weapons).
          1. axmed05
            +2
            6 August 2012 12: 54
            Quote: Tirpitz

            The disadvantages of these birds are that they are afraid of our moment 29 Do you believe that yourself.?

            At 37 seconds, when the moment came into the operator’s field of vision, it was already possible to launch rockets in an instant. (the pilot was lucky that the drone was just a scout without weapons).
            The operator noticed a moment at 37 seconds, and the pilot noticed this drone earlier, went into combat position and launched a missile at it. (The pilot in such a position did not care with or without a drone armament)
            1. White
              +4
              6 August 2012 13: 09
              MiG shot down Hermes 450 I think the X-47B will have much more room for care and maneuver
              1. Diesel
                +6
                6 August 2012 18: 32
                Any robot can be fooled, have not yet come up with such electronic brains that are better than human ingenuity)
              2. Protey
                +1
                6 August 2012 19: 19
                Yes, this one did not even try to maneuver.
            2. +7
              6 August 2012 13: 42
              A single UAV is of course an easy target. But if it is integrated into a common network with other UAVs, aircraft and an air defense system? There is an option that MiG would have to save his own skin.
              1. axmed05
                +6
                6 August 2012 13: 49
                Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                A single UAV is of course an easy target. But if it is integrated into a common network with other UAVs, aircraft and an air defense system? There is an option that MiG would have to save his own skin.
                BLAGBLABLABLABA MIG also has many relatives.
              2. 0
                21 August 2012 22: 22
                Tourist's Breakfast,
                Is it possible that the twinkles act alone, and the SRV, and the REB. Not without reason the amers in Iraq were afraid of our reb up to usier.
            3. Tirpitz
              +8
              6 August 2012 13: 45
              Quote: axmed05
              The operator noticed a moment at 37 seconds, and the pilot noticed this drone even earlier, went into combat position and launched a rocket on it

              And what, even if over 50km I noticed why I didn’t hit it earlier. This is an ancient Israeli apparatus, the operator was in sight for about 10 seconds, this would be enough to capture the target and launch missiles. Conclusion: the Russian Air Force at that time considered (I do not know how it is now) drones as toys non-hazardous, for which they could pay a lot.
              1. axmed05
                0
                6 August 2012 14: 18
                Quote: Tirpitz
                And what, even if over 50km I noticed why I didn’t hit it earlier. This is an ancient Israeli apparatus, the operator was in sight for about 10 seconds, this would be enough to capture the target and launch missiles. Conclusion: the Russian Air Force at that time considered (I do not know how it is now) drones as toys non-hazardous, for which they could pay a lot.
                The fact that this is an ancient drone was probably noticeable from far away, and spending expensive long-range missiles on ancient objects is stupid. (I would have shot him down from a machine gun).
                1. Tirpitz
                  +5
                  6 August 2012 14: 30
                  Quote: axmed05
                  and spending expensive long-range missiles on ancient sites is stupid

                  Indeed, zinc coffin is cheaper. MiG is also cheaper you think. Do not write nonsense.
                  1. 0
                    6 August 2012 21: 31
                    What nonsense? When was the UAV fired by explosives? Or maybe right away in a vertical maneuver from an aircraft gun? smile
                    1. 0
                      7 August 2012 17: 00
                      By the way, the "Predator" can carry 4 "Stingers", as it turned out.
                      1. 0
                        7 August 2012 17: 10
                        Where is the droushka?
                      2. 0
                        7 August 2012 17: 28
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator#Specifications
                      3. 0
                        7 August 2012 17: 57
                        From the way, the first ever air battle between a UAV and a fighter:

                        An Iraqi MiG-25 shot down a Predator drone performing reconnaissance over the no fly zone in Iraq on December 23, 2002. Predators had been armed with Stingers, and were being used to "bait" Iraqi fighter planes, then run. In this incident, the Predator didn't run, but instead fired one of the Stingers after the MiG engaged with its own missiles. The Stinger's heat-seeker probably became "distracted" by the MiG's missile and so missed the MiG, and the Predator was destroyed. This was the first time in history a conventional aircraft and a drone had engaged in combat.
                2. +2
                  6 August 2012 15: 25
                  Are you a joker or something? You hypothetically imagine how a pilot can from an airplane cockpit at a distance of 30 km. see the silhouette of the UAV, and even recognize it laughing you have eagle eyes, however, but in reality it was like that, just ours already knew in advance what drones Georgia has, so they acted that way. And one more fact, many generals said after the war that drones were sooooo hard to detect at a long distance, so maybe the pilot had to approach a short distance to defeat. This is all of course my guesses.
                  1. +3
                    6 August 2012 16: 39
                    Respected. UAVs are very, very different. They have a number of limitations. However, who knows what would happen if the UAV was a strike? Another, more advanced model. And there are dozens of them
                    1. 0
                      6 August 2012 21: 30
                      And what is a UAV with explosive missiles?
                      1. 0
                        7 August 2012 01: 13
                        The question is interesting. Until it shoots, we won’t know, right. winked

                        In fact, it is unlikely. There are a couple of drones that, in principle, can carry (the same Eitan, for example), but there is a big question in general regarding all the functionality - it is seriously classified.
              2. Diesel
                +4
                6 August 2012 18: 40
                In a second, in case of guidance, Birch would beep for a moment, after which he would perform a missile defense and shoot him from a safe angle and distance, alas, given the flying qualities of drones, fighters can do anything with them ..
                1. +6
                  6 August 2012 18: 58
                  Given that it was an "Israeli" drone, let's assume it would be armed python-xnumx which can be run from behind the shoulder. Tell us how a huge target like the MiG-29 will evade such a missile "by performing an anti-missile maneuver."
                  1. Diesel
                    +1
                    6 August 2012 21: 20
                    Heat traps, no? I understand that there is an autopilot and all that, but you can also get away from missiles that launch in any hemisphere, I may be wrong ....
                    1. +4
                      7 August 2012 09: 17
                      Heat traps will not work, there is a "cunning" seeker. In theory, it is possible to escape, but in practice to escape from a rocket with a speed of Mach 4 and withstanding an overload of 70 g is simply not realistic. And it doesn't matter whether the missile is American or Russian.
                      1. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 11: 31
                        I haven’t found information about overloads in 70 f, so for now this remains only an unfounded statement. In any case, it is possible to evade any missile "It does not matter whether the missile is American or Russian," for this there are a number of special PfP maneuvers. In all articles on Python-5, I found only enthusiastic advertising statements about "unique" GOS, etc., but for some reason I did not come across specific numbers. For example, any missile has a probability of hitting a target by no means 1, even in ideal conditions. As with this, the "python" for some reason decided not to write.
                      2. +4
                        7 August 2012 11: 45
                        In any case, you can dodge any missile

                        Here are the allegations. Show at least one pilot who dodged a modern rocket.
                        Regarding overloads, for example, not the most maneuverable missile Aster with overloads in 40 g at speed in 4 Mach - try to dodge. wink
                      3. +1
                        7 August 2012 11: 51
                        About missile defense maneuvers Do you not know?
                      4. Stealth
                        0
                        7 August 2012 11: 57
                        Quote: professor
                        Here are the allegations. Show at least one pilot who dodged a modern rocket.

                        Sorry, they are not in my cupboard in a pile, so I can’t show ...
                        Quote: professor
                        Regarding overloads, for example, not the most maneuverable rocket Astra with overloads of 40 g

                        40g and 70g are a bit different.
                        Quote: professor
                        try to dodge

                        I am not a pilot, so I can’t try, but there are many types of PfP maneuvers that are both being developed and improved. About two of them I wrote to you below. Anyway, far from everything depends on the overloads that a rocket can withstand.
                      5. +1
                        7 August 2012 12: 05
                        40g and 70g are a bit different.

                        Verbiage however. I wrote that Astra is not the most maneuverable rocket, you look at its plumage and the plumage of Python. But even 40g and 9g are not comparable, as is the speed in 4 Mach. How long does the pilot have to maneuver at a firing range like on a roller? Count and make fun together. wink

                        Regarding the effectiveness of Python, you need to ask the Russian Air Force or the Georgian Air Defense.
                      6. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 12: 30
                        Professor, you are the one who is engaged in verbiage! The fact that the Astra is not the most maneuverable missile does not mean that the python can withstand twice as large overloads (especially if you take into account its sophisticated electronics).
                        Quote: professor
                        How long does the pilot have to maneuver at a firing range like on a roller? Count and make fun together.

                        And you see the video from which it all began and pay attention to how long the rocket flew. Have you looked? Well, now you know how much time the pilot has on PfP in close combat.
                        Quote: professor
                        Regarding the effectiveness of Python, you need to ask the Russian Air Force or the Georgian Air Defense.

                        Well, what did you want to prove by this? That the Russian Su-25, not equipped with a warning system for irradiation and missile launch, were shot down by Soviet Buks? And what does the "python" and the MiG-29 have to do with it?
                      7. +2
                        7 August 2012 12: 59
                        The fact that "Astra" is not the most maneuverable missile does not mean that the "python" can withstand twice as large overloads (especially if you take into account its sophisticated electronics).

                        I’ll look specifically for you milstabdart for testing rockets for overloads. I hope he is in the public domain. About electronics, you have amused me, when falling from the table, the mobile phone experiences an overload of hundreds of g and as a rule nothing happens to it. I’m silent about military electronics.

                        And so how much time did the pilot have to maneuver even if they fired rockets at the same time?

                        Well, what did you want to prove this?

                        Nothing. It is only that the rocket apparently shot down the plane, although it is necessary to ask the participants in the conflict about the effectiveness.
                      8. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 13: 17
                        Quote: professor
                        when falling from the table, the mobile phone experiences an overload of hundreds g

                        Very interesting, how are hundreds of g? Why not thousands? Overloads are dependent on mass and speed. Both that and another at the mobile phone in comparison with a rocket are minimal.

                        Quote: professor
                        And so how much time did the pilot have to maneuver even if they fired rockets at the same time?

                        Were you too lazy to watch the video? Well, especially for you, I measured the time with a stopwatch. Subtracting a second, my reaction turned out to be 3 seconds. This is your little? Well, but the situation could be very different. For example, Mig could attack from above and then he would not have caught the eye of the operator at all.
                        Quote: professor
                        Nothing. It is only that the rocket apparently shot down the plane, although it is necessary to ask the participants in the conflict about the effectiveness.

                        "apparently" knocked down, but maybe not. Maybe she self-destructed.
                        Reread again my previous koment, I am too lazy to write again.
                      9. 0
                        7 August 2012 13: 43
                        Overloads depend on mass and speed.

                        laughing Let's assume that you did not write this, but I did not see it. Have you agreed?
                      10. -2
                        7 August 2012 15: 09
                        Judging by the fact that you did not highlight the "speed" - we are teaching physics ...
                      11. 0
                        7 August 2012 15: 22
                        I didn’t single out because the opponent could say that overload is a derivative of speed (which is correct) and go prove to him that overload is independent of speed.
                      12. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 15: 30
                        Professor, I quote you from the wiki:
                        "Overload is the ratio of lift [1] to the weight of the aircraft."
                        Aircraft weight = mass * g
                        Which of us needs to learn physics?
                        Moreover, mass is a measure of the inertia of the body, and inertia is, in our own words, the ability of the body to change its speed. A change in speed (acceleration) is the derivative of speed, and now read your own comment.
                        So which of us needs to learn physics?
                      13. +1
                        7 August 2012 15: 53
                        You upset me with your wiki and knowledge. In what units is g measured? An elementary question that you are not able to answer. recourse
                      14. Stealth
                        0
                        7 August 2012 17: 26
                        Laganul Internet, like koment did not appear, so I will write again. Professor, I want to upset you even more. You fell low once you go to such an obvious lie. I have written to you below and here I repeat that g (acceleration of gravity) is measured in
                        m / s ^ 2. And believe me, it was not difficult for me to answer your "unsolvable" question.
                      15. 0
                        7 August 2012 17: 32
                        Before blaming lies, look at the time of fasting.


                      16. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 18: 22
                        I looked:
                        the time of my answer to the question about g, posted below - 15:36
                        your comment time is 15:53
                        More questions?
                      17. -2
                        7 August 2012 16: 04
                        Stealth better keep quiet ....
                      18. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 16: 51
                        Your role in our discussion, I can not understand at all. Add fuel to the fire? Or are you a professor logging in from another account? You either express your arguments or be silent, and any student can throw provocative phrases.
                      19. -1
                        7 August 2012 16: 09
                        Professor,
                        Oh come on, google it and go)))
                      20. 0
                        7 August 2012 15: 09
                        Quote: Stealth
                        Overloads are dependent on mass and speed.

                        teach physics ....
                      21. +1
                        7 August 2012 18: 41
                        Quote: professor
                        when falling from the table, the mobile phone experiences an overload of hundreds g

                        Professor, when falling from a table 80 cm high, the mobile phone is overloaded at the moment of falling on the floor about 7g.
                      22. 0
                        8 August 2012 09: 54
                        Show calculations or links.
                      23. 0
                        7 August 2012 15: 07
                        Quote: professor
                        Regarding the effectiveness of Python, you need to ask the Russian Air Force or the Georgian Air Defense.

                        Professor, zero.
                      24. -1
                        7 August 2012 15: 05
                        Quote: professor
                        Regarding overloads, for example, not the most maneuverable rocket Astra with overloads of 40 g at a speed of 4 mach - try to dodge

                        40G for how long? I have ssd in my computer, so it says "up to 1500G", and then very little time - 0,000 ... 1
                        And count the number of zeroes of figs.
                      25. +1
                        7 August 2012 15: 20
                        Your SSD can withstand 1500g for the 1 millisecond, which is enough if it falls or hits it. The same story with the fall from the table of a mobile phone.
                        A trained person holds 9g, very trained (athletes), until 12-15g, but not very long. In a person with overloads, coordination is impaired, the angle of the field of view is narrowed, there is an outflow of blood from the brain (which can lead to loss of consciousness), and internal organs are displaced.
                        The maneuverability of the MiG-29M (overload of a fixed turn, rate of climb, acceleration time) remained at a very high level, while the allowable angle of attack and overload on unsteady maneuvers increased 9 with maximum fuel supply).
                        A rocket on the drum, any overloads are less than the maximum (mechanical destruction of the structure), it does not capture breath and it does not lose consciousness. 40g, as you understand it, can withstand during the time necessary for maneuvering, with another interaction with objects (falling, hitting), the overloads will exceed the permissible ones.
                      26. -2
                        7 August 2012 16: 15
                        That's right, but there are a number of BUT.
                        1. The rocket is not alive, but it has a tensile strength.
                        2. To create this kind of congestion, you need sharp turns at high speed. Pts will act on the steering wheels. shear loads. They also have a tensile strength.
                        3. longitudinal, transverse, etc. forces in bends due to a mismatch between the center of mass and the reactive. strength.

                        As a result, I am sure that such missiles can endure short-term loads (less than 1 second). In principle, this is enough to defeat fast maneuvering targets.
                      27. 0
                        7 August 2012 16: 24
                        Of course, the rocket has a tensile strength, but with a few tens of g nothing will happen to it (let's not forget that the rocket is disposable laughing ) I have previously met a number in 70-g, but now I can’t find the source for an offhand. However, here is a rocket AIM-9 SIDEWINDER for example reaches overloads in 50-g.
                      28. +1
                        7 August 2012 12: 20
                        A lot depends on the launch range and guidance system. There is a STR (radiation warning system). They warn and show the azimuth of the irradiator, and signal capture. They will allow you to turn around and get away from such a rocket, no matter how fast the rocket flies, any shorter distance will fly by than an airplane. In no case do I not say that this is a panacea for missiles). The second point is that the farther the missile, the larger it has mass, therefore the carrier will also become larger. And again, we come to the carrier ala hero of the article. So far, his brain is not as good as the pilot’s brain. And I do not think that at least one of the existing UAVs can have an operational overload of more than 9
                      29. 0
                        7 August 2012 12: 52
                        They will allow you to turn around and get away from such a rocket, no matter how fast the rocket flies, any shorter distance will fly by than an airplane.

                        Bad pick up your thought. Will he leave a rocket flying at Mach 4 speed and overloads of tens of g?

                        So far, his brain is not as good as the pilot’s brain.

                        This is just for now. Vaughn Kasparov’s computer has already won chess.

                        And I do not think that at least one of the existing UAVs can have operational overload more than 9

                        In modern fighters, there are overload limiters so that the pilot does not turn off, the glider is able to withstand more.
                      30. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 13: 21
                        Quote: professor
                        Bad pick up your thought. Will he leave a rocket flying at Mach 4 speed and overloads of tens of g?

                        Yes, the professor will leave. You seem to have no idea what PfP is and what it is.
                        Quote: professor
                        This is just for now. Vaughn Kasparov’s computer has already won chess.

                        Don't you think that chess and close air combat are slightly different things?
                        Quote: professor
                        In modern fighters, there are overload limiters so that the pilot does not turn off, the glider is able to withstand more.

                        Yeah, operational glider overload - 12g.
                      31. +2
                        7 August 2012 13: 47
                        You seem to have no idea what PfP is and what it is.

                        Apparently not only me, but also the Americans, who lost thousands of planes in Vietnam, but everything needed to be completed by PfP. I won’t know why they were so tense about C-300, because there are different PFPs there. laughing

                        Yeah, operational glider overload - 12g.

                        How much? And in what units are g measured? wink
                      32. Stealth
                        0
                        7 August 2012 15: 36
                        Quote: professor
                        Apparently not only me, but also the Americans, who lost thousands of planes in Vietnam, but everything needed to be completed by PfP. I won’t know why they were so tense about C-300, because there are different PFPs there.

                        You already decide what we are talking about, about missiles or all the same about RVV MD.
                        Quote: professor
                        How much? And in what units are g measured?

                        I do not understand the question. What is how much? Gliders are designed for overloads of about 12 g.
                        g is measured in m / s ^ 2, like any acceleration. What is the essence of the question for me remained a mystery ...
                      33. 0
                        7 August 2012 15: 57
                        Now I saw it. If g is measured in m / s ^ 2 then where is the mass? 12g = 9.81 * 12 of the same m / s ^ 2. Oppa, again, neither speed nor mass. Miracles however.

                        You already decide what we are talking about, missiles ...

                        What's the difference? The same python in Georgia was used as a ground-to-air missile. Or do such rockets fly not according to the laws of physics?
                      34. Stealth
                        0
                        7 August 2012 17: 16
                        Professor, you surprise me.
                        Quote: professor
                        If g is measured in m / s ^ 2 then where is the mass? 12g = 9.81 * 12 of the same m / s ^ 2. Oppa, again, neither speed nor mass. Miracles however.

                        What nonsense are you talking about? g is the acceleration of free fall and it has nothing to do with overloads, since I have to deal with your educational program, then kindly learn that overload is a dimensionless quantity, but it is usually denoted in the same way as gravitational acceleration, g. Those. your attempt to drag the dimension from acceleration of gravity to the overload finally failed, and I congratulate you on this!
                        Quote: professor
                        What's the difference? The same python in Georgia was used as a ground-to-air missile. Or do such rockets fly not according to the laws of physics?

                        What's the difference?!! Damn it, if you don't see any difference between the S-75 missile defense system and the "python", then you just have to defend the myth about the invulnerability of Israeli aircraft and not get into topics that require at least any knowledge.
                        The difference is at least in the methods of guidance and energy rockets. In addition, Americans used Vietnam’s PfP maneuvers not without success, but PfP, by itself, is not a panacea for all ills. In any case, the number of launches of missiles does not equal the number of shot down aircraft.,
                      35. 0
                        7 August 2012 17: 46
                        As an amateur, Vicki can offer you definitions of g-that overload. I can still put a couple of non-Wikipedian links too.
                        definition
                        The g-force (with g from gravitational) associated with an object is its acceleration relative to free-fall. This acceleration experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of non-gravitational forces acting on an object free to move. The accelerations that are not produced by gravity are termed proper accelerations, and it is only these that are measured in g-force units. They cause stresses and strains on objects, which are felt as weight (any g-force can thus be simply described, and measured, as a "weight per unit mass"). Because of these strains (weight forces), large proper accelerations (large g-forces), may be destructive.

                        units
                        The unit of measure of acceleration in the International System of Units (SI) is m / s2. However, to distinguish acceleration relative to free-fall from simple acceleration (rate of change of velocity), the unit g (or g) is often used. One g is the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface and is the standard gravity (symbol: gn), defined as 9.80665 meters per second squared, [3] or equivalently 9.80665 newtons of force per kilogram of mass.
                        The unit g is not one of the SI units, which uses "g" for gram. Also "g" should not be confused with "G", which is the standard symbol for the gravitational constant.
                        Measurement of g-force is typically achieved using an accelerometer (see discussion below in Measuring g-force using an accelerometer). In certain cases, g-forces may be measured using suitably calibrated scales. Specific force is another name that has been used for g-force.


                        I’m not going to argue about this anymore; there are more important matters. hi
                      36. Stealth
                        0
                        7 August 2012 18: 38
                        Firstly, I am not a fan of Wikipedia and use it only to quickly provide proof to my opponent and not be unfounded.
                        Secondly, the line you highlighted says that g (acceleration of gravity) should not be confused with G (gravitational constant). To whom and what did you prove for me it remains a mystery request Have I argued somewhere else? I said only that overloading has nothing to do with accelerating free fall, which you confirmed with your last post.
                        I also see no reason to argue about this, especially since it has nothing to do with the topic of the question: "the ability of a UAV to withstand a manned fighter in air combat."
                      37. +1
                        8 August 2012 10: 57
                        "Overload is the ratio of lift [1] to the weight of the aircraft."
                        Aircraft weight = mass * g

                        Overloads are dependent on mass and speed.


                        In order to finish this flood, let's solve the problem for the eighth grade. Two cars, say the 1 formula, accelerate from zero to 250 km / h and brake sharply to a halt (by the way, the real case happened with Martin Brundle in the 2007 year in Indianapolis, which led to a separate conversation with him). The first does it in 1.78 seconds (real time), the second let's say in 5 seconds. Especially for you: the mass of cars is the same, but the first pilot weighs 70 kg, and the second 140 kg. Attention to the question: what kind of overload will both pilots experience?

                        Attention answer:
                        The first pilot will experience overload at approximately 4g since it will achieve negative acceleration at 39 m / s ^ 2 (39 / 9.8 = ~ 4).
                        The co-pilot will experience overload at approximately 1.5g since it will achieve negative acceleration at 13.9 m / s ^ 2.

                        And now the pilots have changed places, but the braking time of each machine has not changed. Will overloaded test pilots change? Answer: no, they will not change since weight has no relation to the size of overloads.

                        What nonsense are you talking about? g is gravity acceleration and it has nothing to do with overloads

                        And as we see the acceleration of gravity (~ 9.81 m / s ^ 2) is related to overloads.
                        Thank you for attention.
                  2. +1
                    6 August 2012 22: 40
                    Link where these missiles are used with UAVs do not share or any other explosive missile? I’m silent about the fact that a moment came from the back hemisphere and the UAV would have to hang the missiles backwards) or they would still turn around to the PPS, I’m silent about going into the tail instantly))) this is generally fun))). Yes, and you can leave in every way, if you notice in time. For such missiles as you brought inergy reserve less than the instant, and I think less than the r-73 which instantly shot down UAVs. Let's not ascribe UAVs the possibility of BVB or DVB, they do not sharpen it under it).
                    1. 0
                      7 August 2012 09: 19
                      I am silent about the fact that for a moment I came from the back hemisphere and the UAV would have to hang the missiles backwards)

                      Keep silent and at your leisure take an interest in TTX of the Python.
                      1. +1
                        7 August 2012 12: 05
                        I ask you not to indicate what to do. Do not get personal. Once again, I ask you to share a link where this, or any other air-to-air missile, was used from an Israeli UAV. If I'm not mistaken, only the Predator AIM-9 can shoot, but it is comparable or even loses the p-73. And now compare the maneuverability and power of the moment and the same traitor, And he, in turn, is already a fairly large target, unlike the Georgian drone. I propose to close the topic, since no one UAV, like interceptors or fighters of gaining superiority in the air, is going to use it for now. Of course, I understand that you’ll get out of your way to prove to us all that Jews are the best gunsmiths in the world wink and that UAVs are super weapons. But why do you need it?
                      2. +2
                        7 August 2012 12: 13
                        Have you read what it means to shoot "from behind the shoulder"? Have made sure there is no need "hang rockets backwards". wink


                        Of course, I understand that you’ll get out of your way to prove to us all that Jews are the best gunsmiths in the world and that UAVs are super weapons. But why do you need it?

                        And where am I arguing here that the Jewish gunsmiths are the best? Give an example.
                        But UAVs and modern air-to-air missiles, that’s yes - super weapons in whose independence they are manufactured.
                  3. Stealth
                    +2
                    6 August 2012 22: 41
                    Quote: professor
                    Tell us how a huge target like the MiG-29 will evade such a missile "by performing an anti-missile maneuver."

                    In general, it would be better for you to talk about this with an air force veteran, but in general, the essence of the maneuver, as far as I know, is such a turn of the plane relative to the rocket so that the engines are shielded from the GOS by the fuselage of the plane + shooting of the LTC. There is another way, because the distance was very small, then at the moment of launching the rocket from the drone, the pilot could turn so that his course was perpendicular to the course of the drone and the launched rocket, then he would leave the sight of the seeker faster than the missile could deploy after him (the target capture sector of such seekers usually 45-60 degrees). This maneuver is applicable only in close combat, but this is precisely what we have observed here. And now the main question: can an UAV do something like this? Therefore, the possibility of confronting the UAV and the fighter has not even been considered.
                    1. +2
                      7 August 2012 09: 25
                      Therefore, the possibility of confronting the UAV and the fighter has not even been considered.

                      Even Hermes would have a chance against the MiG-29 if he had been armed with a corresponding air-to-air missile and the enemy had been detected from the radar from the ground. The fact that GOS missiles Miga generally caught Hermes is simply a miracle, IHMO is precisely why Migu was so close to getting the drone.
                      If instead of Hermes the drone described in the article was controlled by non-Georgians, then given the difference in the orders in the EPR and the thermal visibility of both, Mig would not have a chance. Therefore, these robots should be treated with great caution.
                      1. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 11: 17
                        The problem is that Mig can evade a missile or use a medium-range missile, but an UAV does not have such capabilities. At the moment, there is not even a UAV capable of using an RVV. In any case, the drone will lose the battle to the manned fighter due to disparate capabilities for maneuvering and speed of decision-making.
                      2. +1
                        7 August 2012 11: 37
                        In any case, the drone will lose the battle to the manned fighter due to disparate capabilities for maneuvering and speed of decision-making.

                        A very bold statement, given that the maneuvering of a manned aircraft is limited by the pilot's overload (if I am not mistaken, the 7-9g), and the drone has a structural strength, that is, there is a difference in order. The manned fighter will not have a single chance. This is one of the reasons that the F-22 and F-35 are the last manned fighter.

                        PS
                        Well, neither MiG nor any other aircraft can evade missiles like Python.
                      3. 0
                        7 August 2012 15: 17
                        Quote: professor
                        Well, neither MiG nor any other aircraft can evade missiles like Python.

                        Professor, you are already sick of your pradact Placement.
                        Correct phrase should read like this:
                        Well, neither MiG nor any other aircraft can evade a modern rocket of the melee cc.
                      4. 0
                        7 August 2012 15: 25
                        Semantics. The main thing that can not.
                      5. Stealth
                        0
                        7 August 2012 15: 38
                        It can very well. Read the news: "Laser cannons will teach pilots to avoid missiles" (http://warfiles.ru/show-10981-lazernye-pushki-nauchat-pilotov-uhodit-ot-raket.h
                        tml). Are Americans so dumb? So explain to them that they should not spend money in vain ...
                      6. White
                        0
                        7 August 2012 11: 42
                        A very controversial statement by the current US UAVs is really not maneuverable and cannot use the RVV, but they were originally designed by all the current UAV reconnaissance vehicles.
                        X-47B is created as a drummer on this use of a wide range of weapons in it is laid down initially.
                        I don’t agree with the maneuverability and speed of decision-making at all. UAVs do not have restrictions on overloads carried by the pilot, so if the target is set, the drone is potentially much more manoeuvrable than a manned aircraft. And in making decisions, the pilot makes decisions based on information from the screen indicators (in modern fighters, this information is very filtered by the computer so that the AI ​​is already making decisions in some way).
                      7. Stealth
                        +1
                        7 August 2012 12: 09
                        Quote: White
                        And in making decisions, the pilot makes decisions based on information from the screen indicators (in modern fighters, this information is very filtered by the computer so that the AI ​​is already making decisions in some way).

                        The difference is that in a manned fighter, decisions are made by a person, and the computer only makes it easier for him to receive information and "smooths out" his actions, avoiding an emergency. The UAV can have 2 options:
                        1. Management from the ground, but then consider the mandatory delay in transmitting information, i.e. the gain in reaction time remains with the manned aircraft.
                        2. UAV-robot with autonomous control, it is devoid of the shortcomings of the first option, but has a bunch of others, in particular, the capabilities of robots are not yet comparable with the capabilities of people, which means that in tactical terms fighter robots will again be much inferior to manned ones.

                        Quote: professor
                        A very bold statement, given that the maneuvering of a manned aircraft is limited by pilot overloads (if I am not mistaken 7-9g), and the drone has structural strength, that is, there is a difference in order.

                        The difference is by no means in order; modern aircraft can structurally withstand overloads of up to 12 g. This is certainly more, but not by much.
                        Quote: White
                        The manned fighter will not have a single chance. This is one of the reasons that the F-22 and F-35 are the last manned fighter

                        a very bold statement, well, time will tell.
                        Quote: professor
                        Well, neither MiG nor any other aircraft can evade missiles like Python.

                        Maybe a professor, maybe ... In principle, there is no such weapon, from which there would be no protection and "python" is no exception. Ultimately, the skill of the pilot will decide.
          2. +2
            6 August 2012 13: 04
            Well vryatli, the drone would have time to do this, it takes time to capture the target, launch and all that
            1. Diesel
              +1
              6 August 2012 21: 39
              I agree, the fighter pilot has his own eyes and radar, the drone operator has only cameras))
          3. +1
            6 August 2012 22: 33
            UAV with explosives? And about capture and fire, are you kidding me like that)? You seem to be a little unaware of how this works), and the UAV by the moment was the back hemisphere; in order to attack it, at least it had to be deployed at first. Or will you argue that he had all-angle rockets could melt))? Or did another operator control a hump turret), like the IL-2?
            1. gor
              gor
              0
              7 August 2012 09: 16
              I’m interested in something else. The Russian Foreign Ministry and my oath swore that this moment was not theirs at all))))))))))))) and now it turns out you refute such respected ministries))))))))))) )))) if these are not double standards, namely what do you like to convict everyone of, what is it then?
              1. axmed05
                0
                7 August 2012 11: 34
                Quote: gor

                I’m interested in something else. The Russian Foreign Ministry and my oath swore that this moment was not theirs at all))))))))))))) and now it turns out you refute such respected ministries))))))))))) )))) if these are not double standards, namely what do you like to convict everyone of, what is it then?
                Dear MIGA turtle, these are our aircraft, but they may belong legally and to other countries if they were sold to them.
            2. 0
              7 August 2012 10: 47
              Theoretically, if the UAV operator receives data from the ground-based air defense radar, it can also deploy the drone in advance. And the rocket does not have to be with IR GOS, better with a combined one. All the same, the UAV has a very big advantage due to its low visibility, forcing the fighter to approach close range.
              1. axmed05
                0
                7 August 2012 15: 57
                Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                All the same, the UAV has a very big advantage due to its low visibility, forcing the fighter to approach close range.
                A drone with suspended missiles in the radar range becomes more visible, which makes it easier for the pilot to detect and destroy it from long distances.
                1. 0
                  7 August 2012 16: 32
                  If I understand correctly, the X-47B does not have external suspension points. His weapons are mounted inside the fuselage.
        2. 0
          21 August 2012 22: 18
          axmed05,
          Pleased - this shit can be knocked down. +++
      2. +3
        6 August 2012 12: 57
        He was already boarding an aircraft carrier, in my opinion a year ago it was. I watched the program, very interesting, they showed how the control is going and how the drone calculates its further movement. It's cool there, they put dots on the maps and he flies around them and takes pictures of them on GPS.
        1. +8
          6 August 2012 13: 01
          This is just a concept.



        2. White
          +2
          6 August 2012 13: 05
          He didn’t sit anywhere else. There were experiments with the automatic landing of the F-18 under the control of the pilot in the cockpit.
          1. +2
            6 August 2012 15: 26
            Beautiful machine, like a UFO straight)) if there is an adequate price for it, it will replace the unsuccessful F-22 and F-35.
            1. +5
              6 August 2012 16: 41
              F22 and F35 are quite successful cars. It’s just created at the limit of modern technology, and with uncharted areas it’s always like this - the one in front catches the first rake. But he gets the prize - also the first.

              Will not replace. Complementary
              1. bulgurkhan
                0
                6 August 2012 18: 06
                I pressed the wrong button, I’ll have to repeat it in words, plus.))
              2. Protey
                +1
                6 August 2012 19: 25
                Very expensive, however!
              3. Stealth
                +2
                6 August 2012 22: 47
                Quote: Pimply
                F35 are quite successful cars.

                The F-35 is an unsuccessful car in its concept. If you studied the history of this aircraft, then you would know that it was originally created as an LPI. But then, in view of the refusal to sell Raptor, the NATO allies demanded not LFI, but MFI. And the Americans tried to drag the plane from one class to another. The result is obvious: a worthless exterminator, a worthless bomber, a disgusting attack aircraft. Plus to everything, he also "did not get". The electronics, of course, will be excellent on it, but this is still not enough to compensate for the other shortcomings.
                1. 0
                  7 August 2012 01: 10
                  Let’s see when he enters the series en masse. So far, all that is supplied is a small-scale assembly, low-shutdown by personnel pilots
                2. gor
                  gor
                  -2
                  7 August 2012 09: 22
                  But how do you know so much about f-35? To judge something, you need to know something about it. And you, without knowing anything, look just ridiculous. How funny is the statement of some people that the T-50 surpasses the raptor. The T-50 still knows nothing about itself plainly, not just surpassing anyone else. On paper I can surpass the boxing world champion. But there is only one problem. I can’t surpass it
                  1. 0
                    7 August 2012 13: 47
                    What does the T50 have to do with it. It seemed to be only about the Raptors and Lightning
    3. +4
      6 August 2012 16: 33
      While this is a prototype, it should have many shortcomings. Seriously, it will be possible to speak about them in a year or two after they go into the series
  2. Eugene
    +5
    6 August 2012 08: 46
    Nevertheless, the F-117 was shot down very little - the whole 1. As far as I know this is a record.
  3. +2
    6 August 2012 08: 59
    Quote: Eugene

    However, the F-117 was shot down very little - the whole 1.

    Dear Eugene, you are mistaken! VAF will come, I think will tell in detail about the Iraqi losses request
    1. +5
      6 August 2012 09: 14
      He’s not mistaken, only one was shot down - the rest is bikes.
      1. +2
        6 August 2012 09: 40
        Quote: professor

        Not mistaken, only one was shot down - the rest is bikes

        Professor, what about Iraq 91 year?
        1. +6
          6 August 2012 09: 48
          And they shot down a lot? wink
          This topic has been procrastinated hundreds of times. Where is the evidence of objective control?
          In general, F-117 does not apply to the topic.
          1. +2
            6 August 2012 09: 51
            Professor,
            Quote: professor
            In general, F-117 does not apply to the topic

            I agree! Http: //www.licey.net/war/book5/tanki
      2. +2
        6 August 2012 10: 26
        Quote: professor
        Not mistaken, only one was shot down

        Tell me if you took part in hostilities in 2003, F-117, in Iraq and what is the result of their participation.
        And do you have any data on the removal from service of the F-117 in quantitative terms by years in 2006 - so much so, 2007 so much, 2008 so much so.
      3. +5
        6 August 2012 16: 59
        By the way, which is very strange, given their ability to fall without any help, about 10% of the planes crashed for technical reasons.
        1. Protey
          +4
          6 August 2012 19: 29
          It is kept in the air only thanks to electronics - an iron with an iron, and even a subsonic one. It is only in Amerov’s action films that dashingly flies.
  4. borisst64
    +8
    6 August 2012 10: 02
    "on a bat-shaped landing gear"

    If they ask me what shape the legs have in a bat, I will recall the chassis of the drone.
  5. Num lock U.A.
    +5
    6 August 2012 12: 48
    Skynet is already nearby, a little more and will create a base, well, and then there will be a fairly small error in the program
    1. +2
      6 August 2012 13: 01
      What the Chinese want)))
  6. +3
    6 August 2012 13: 36
    In the lower part of the bulbous nose

    It became very interesting to me what kind of "bulbous nose" this is. It turns out in the original "bulbous, beak-like nose".
    Which translates as "bulbous, beak-shaped nose". Hour by hour is not easier.
    1. Protey
      +3
      6 August 2012 19: 36
      Not so random nose
  7. Pravdoruba
    +2
    6 August 2012 14: 24
    With such speed it will not fly far. And if it flies to us, then it will not have time to hit the road !!!!!!!!!!!!!
  8. Darck
    +3
    6 August 2012 16: 03
    I just can’t understand, where does the hawk, if the article talks about Pegasus? Or are they again trying to connect mushrooms with raspberries, so that at least they try to lower the development?
    And if it flies to us, then it will not have time to hit the road !!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Most likely it will be used as support for ground units, kmp, for example, in conditions when the enemy’s air defense is suppressed (not high speed, just suitable for high-precision bombs). And if you collect more of these birds, you can already use it against air defense itself .
  9. +3
    6 August 2012 16: 28
    You can talk a lot about such products ... one thing is clear. They are dangerous. They are dangerous even by the fact that they create in the country that uses them a false sense of permissiveness and impunity. "Just think they will knock down a piece of iron, a man is intact." ... knowing the psychology of the Yankees, this is an extra reason for pressure for them. This is a pure drummer. Therefore, the first to create an unmanned fighter will be able to dictate the terms. And God forbid, they will do it first ... then it will be possible to count the clock just before the war.
  10. +1
    6 August 2012 16: 54
    In general, I look at GPS is the Achilles' heel of modern weapons. Everything is tied to it. Interestingly, is it difficult to disable satellites in orbit?
    1. +2
      6 August 2012 17: 48
      no, just launch a couple of tons of 200-k nails into orbit ... laughing
  11. +3
    6 August 2012 17: 59
    If he lands on deck, then for sure a special aircraft carrier will be developed for the UAV, small in size, with a minimum of crew, and much cheaper than usual !!! And once again taxpayers’s denyu will not be cut !!
    1. +2
      6 August 2012 18: 14
      And this is possible, but why. Under these devices, the capacity of modern aircraft carrier will allow to quadruple the power of the wing.
      It will be an iron caput. Flock of piranhas. And the worst thing, they, as I said above, will not be sorry to throw into battle.
      Again, I repeat, our mathematical school graduated specialists who were able to create the most advanced pursuit algorithms to date using a combination of external / passive / semi-active / active guidance equipment.
      That is why our air defense / missile defense systems are among the best, if not the best. Having such a reserve, it is necessary to throw it at the development of a UAV of a fighter, only they can effectively deal with such an air wing. Everything else, air defense, etc. these are second-tier systems. If this is not done now, then there will even be no one to regret.
      1. +10
        6 August 2012 18: 20
        our math school graduated specialists

        One "but", most of these mathematicians are sitting in universities and offices in California, Haifa and in the West and are not going home ... No.
        1. +3
          6 August 2012 18: 24
          This is far from the case. Yes, there are many who are there, but just as many are here who are ready to work. The problem is that setting goals and a competent development strategy are not visible. Then alas, I’ll be ready to agree. recourse
          1. +7
            6 August 2012 18: 37
            Come on, youth wants to become managers. What is the contest for matfak? From my observations, those who finished the matfak are looking for a way to get down.
          2. go
            +5
            6 August 2012 23: 06
            Quote: Pacifist
            This is far from the case.


            This is true. All the best I know from my studies (those universities in Moscow) either left or work in the West. firms in Moscow. As a normal engineer, I know only one thing from my graduation in Russian firms.

            And the problem is not the absence of a development strategy (although it depends on what you mean by strategy), but the problem is that the guys want to live a normal life besides patriotism.

            For comparison: an old man from the research institute came to us - offered to work for free, also came from the special services - these generally (according to the Chekist) promised golden mountains and nothing concrete - we decided that they should hang noodles on others' ears. True, there was one good option for a domestic company that makes good car alarms, but the direction is already very narrow - one went to them, but now it is already in the intel.

            Now a general electrician is an example: they offer a competitive program to those who graduate from a university. If you enroll in it, then you continue to study your specialization for two years and at the same time start working on projects, while you are already being paid a specialist salary, somewhere around 2500 euros per month, i.e. you still study, and you already have a salary. You finish the program raise. And so do most normal campaigns.

            Those. here's what to do! Go to universities, create attractive programs in domestic firms for promising young engineers, immediately pay them a normal salary, and not consider them suckers who should work for free.

            Returning to the beginning, of course, there was still an army of managers who selling each other goods produced in the east and west want everything at once! They do not produce anything, only money, which develops only foreign production, i.e. in your own country it’s a soap bubble (or if you want an oil-gas) bubble.
            1. 0
              7 August 2012 00: 00
              Quote: go
              Those. here's what to do! Go to universities, create attractive programs in domestic firms for promising young engineers, immediately pay them a normal salary, and not consider them suckers who should work for free.

              Who will go to universities. The dream of most officials.
            2. +2
              7 August 2012 02: 36
              Yeah, hold your pocket wider, our hucksters will never do that. We chuckle at the Americans that they have the only goal in their life to earn more money, because they at least plow like elephants, but they want to do nothing without becoming a millionaire. The Americans didn’t stand with our hucksters, they would sell their mother if there was excess profit from this.
            3. 0
              7 August 2012 02: 46
              I completely agree, I will subscribe to every word.
    2. Protey
      +1
      6 August 2012 19: 39
      Better Aircraft Carrier - Robot! Then finally, the whole war will be sitting at home at the TV, eating popcorn and picking cola. laughing
  12. bremest
    0
    6 August 2012 23: 59
    Do not underestimate this weapon. It will take some time, they will establish production, reduce the cost of UAVs and then they will be able to stamp them in hundreds, and this is already dangerous for our country.
  13. +1
    7 August 2012 01: 51
    This machine is the future. Let everything look damp now, give fifteen to twenty years to break in and it will make a revolution. In addition, over time, they will become cheaper and cheaper, in terms of characteristics they will surpass manned aircraft.
    1. Protey
      +2
      7 August 2012 19: 06
      If the design of the airframe is strong enough, then it will be able to perform such maneuvers that the pilot simply can not withstand physically.
  14. 0
    7 August 2012 12: 26
    I look at it - I like it, but purely my opinion - it will fly normally only after they come up with artificial intelligence, otherwise nothing.
  15. 0
    7 August 2012 19: 54
    I wonder how long it will take us to create something like that?
    1. Axel
      -1
      8 August 2012 01: 51
      25 years no less
  16. Darck
    +2
    8 August 2012 15: 46
    If the design of the airframe is strong enough, then it will be able to perform such maneuvers that the pilot simply can not withstand physically.

    Specifically, this bird will not be able to make special maneuvers, the design does not allow it. And at an average speed of 500 km per hour, the overloads are not large, even those 900 km that it squeezes to the maximum, such speeds are common for fighter pilots. you need to say when a drone appears developing under 2 mach ++. Here there is already the topic of overloads and advantages more relevant.
  17. +1
    12 August 2012 21: 22
    New photos of the UAV Northrop Grumman X-47B