Military Review

Shock American drone X-47B first took off from an aircraft carrier

127
14 May 2013, the drone X-47B for the first time in stories took off from the deck of the US Navy aircraft carrier "George Bush", which was located in the Atlantic off the east coast of the country in the region of Virginia. The X-47B took off at 15: 18 GMT. The drone was launched from the deck of an aircraft carrier with a catapult, which is designed to launch deck aircraft. In flight, the drone was operated by an operator aboard the ship. In this part of the flight was conducted offline without the participation of the operator. During the test flight, X-47B made several test approaches, and also demonstrated its interaction with the equipment installed on the aircraft carrier, after which he flew over the Chesapeake Bay and sat down at the military airbase Patricknt River, located in Maryland.


During the final stage of the 65-minute flight, the UAV control was successfully transferred to the ground operator. A drone taking off from the deck of the “George Bush” aircraft carrier is one of 2's X-47B units built by Northrop Grumman and intended to demonstrate autonomous operations, including taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier, as well as combat operations at a distance of 50 nautical miles (92,6 km). The goal of this project is to practice new technologies that are necessary to create autonomous combat unmanned deck aircraft. After a series of test takeoffs X-47B, which will last several weeks, it is planned to carry out the first landing of the device on the aircraft carrier.

Work on the creation of the deck UAV for the needs of the US Navy began in the middle of the 2000-s. 2 of the company, Boeing, which in 2002 introduced its drone X-45 and also Northrop Grumman, which introduced X-47A Pegasus, were engaged in the creation of the device. Subsequently, the command of the US Navy signed a contract with Northrop Grumman for the creation of a device - a technology demonstrator, which was named X-47B. Using this project, the US military wanted to assess the capabilities of a machine that would operate from one deck with manned aircraft, and also determine the need for vehicles of this class.

Shock American drone X-47B first took off from an aircraft carrier

In the course of this project, the US Navy plans to form requirements for carrier-based drone drones, the first of which is expected to be adopted by the American army in 2018 year. At the same time, a formal tender for the creation of X-47B was announced back in March 2010. According to the requirements that were made public by the US Navy, shock deck UAVs must be able to be in the air for at least 11-14 hours and carry a payload in the form of various weapons, sensors and sensors or fuel to refuel other aircraft in the air. The military also wanted drones to use a variety of stealth technology. At the same time, there were no special requirements for the layout of the devices.

First of all, promising UAVs are planned to be used for reconnaissance, observation and reconnaissance, as well as for conducting high-precision strikes against various ground targets. At the same time, the capabilities of drones should be expanded through the implementation of a modular design. If necessary, the UAV can be easily supplemented with various signal relay systems, electronic countermeasures or specialized reconnaissance equipment. In March 2013, the US Navy announced that the new drones should use existing technologies for launching, landing, controlling and exchanging information. The military are going to announce the winner of the competition to create a promising UAV before 2016.

According to representatives of the US Navy, the drone X-47В has a range of more than 4 thousand. Km. at an altitude of more than 1200 meters. In this case, the flight can be fully autonomous under the control of the on-board computer equipment, the operator can interfere with the flight of the device only if necessary. This X-47V compares favorably with other UAVs, which are already used by the US military. The X-47B drone has a folding wing and 2-me internal bomb compartments, which can be placed various weapons weighing up to 2-x tons. The UAV can accelerate to 1035 km / h. Currently, the drone is not installed any additional combat systems.


Currently, the cost of the US Navy for the X-47B project is already about 1,4 billion dollars. His first flight demonstrator shock deck drone made 4 February 2011 of the year. In 2012, the Pentagon issued a directive according to which weaponwhich is able to independently select and hit a target automatically (without human intervention) should not be applied by the USA for at least a number of the next few years. Despite this, the American press and human rights activists express their fears that too rapid development of UAVs can lead to just this.

Over the next few months, X-47B will have to take part in a series of tests. In particular, the military are going to check the takeoff of the drone from the deck of a moving aircraft carrier. After this, the drone will have to make a series of landings with the use of aerofinisers at the military base of Patuxent River. A total of at least a dozen landings are planned to be carried out on land using an aero-finisher. After that, the device will move to the key stage of testing - landing on the deck of the ship at rest and in motion, with a nervous and calm sea. It is reported that in the future the range of weather conditions under which flights will be performed from the deck of an aircraft carrier will be expanded.

In general, the test program for the new UAV is nearing completion. According to the developers, it will end completely before the end of 2013. Next year, the U.S. Navy will analyze all the information received during the implementation of this project, and on its basis will draw up a final list of requirements for promising strike deck drones. In total, starting in 2007, Northrop Grumman assembled a total of 2 aircraft prototypes of the X-47B drone. The US military does not intend to pay for the construction of additional X-47B vehicles. After completing a series of tests, the constructed samples will be transferred to aviation museums.


In 2014, the US military plans to conclude a contract for the creation of a deck-mounted drone with all 4 tender participants, but an agreement on the manufacture and supply of UAVs will be signed with only one of the four. So the company Northrop Grumman is going to offer the Navy military drone, built on the basis of X-47B, Lockheed Martin - Sea Ghost, Boeing drone based on Phantom Ray, and General Atomics - Sea Avenger (a continuation of the Predator and Reaper family). At the same time, of all the named devices, only X-47B and Phantom Ray took part in the actual flight tests.

Over the next 30 years, the US Department of Defense expects to increase the number of UAVs in service with the country immediately 4 times - to 26 000 units. At the same time, the military plan to achieve these figures not only by manufacturing the drones themselves, but also by reworking already built aircraft into drones (for example, the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack planes can lose the pilot), as well as by creating optional manned combat aircraft . Each year, the number of new technologies and the tasks they solve increases, so it may well be that in the distant future, deck UAVs will take off already from the deck of crewless ships.

Opinions of Russian experts

Vadim Kozyulin, director of the program of the Center for Political Studies of Russia on Conventional Weapons, in an interview with the publication Vzglyad noted that drones are the aircraft of the future. According to him, in Russia this case was missed a little. The solution by the Americans of a technical task to take off a UAV from the deck of an aircraft carrier is a signal that a person is becoming less and less popular for waging war. The possibility of launching autonomous drones from the deck of aircraft carriers is a new milestone in the development of weapons.


Considering the fact that technologies are continuously improving, and some of them allow airplanes to be in the sky for a long time due to the use of solar energy, there are practically no unattainable territories. Today, the fleet can deliver UAVs anywhere in the world, in the long run, such devices can be in the air indefinitely, and given the fact that this is a drone drone, it can hit targets, transmit information, remaining unobtrusive, since today there are not so many effective means of detecting such devices, said Kozyulin. According to him, computer wars are becoming more and more reality.

Former commander of the Strategic Missile Forces Viktor Yesin notes that Americans today are ahead of everyone in this direction. Although at one time the USSR was a pioneer in the creation of unmanned aerial vehicles, but after the collapse of the Union, a very long pause arose, almost until 2008, there was no active development in this area. According to Esin, the use of UAVs must necessarily be regulated by international treaties. Attack drones are a completely new direction that can be a destabilizing factor in the military-strategic balance in the world. In the event that the world community cannot agree on any restriction on the use of such devices in the future, their destabilizing influence can only increase. The ability of these vehicles to conduct autonomous combat operations represents a great danger to stability in the world.

According to Esin, you need to accept the relevant documents. It is necessary that all states take appropriate measures, develop a legal framework for the use of these weapons. According to Victor Esin, the UAV is difficult to identify. Unlike aircraft, there are no identifying marks on them. If such a device worked against you, then against whom to respond? Yesin noted that as far as he knows, today terrorists are also interested in shock drones.


It is worth noting that in Russia, according to statements by the former Air Force commander Alexander Zelin, the creation of the first drone drone is expected only by 2020 year. Back in 2008, the Ministry of Defense of the country announced the start of a program to create modern samples of reconnaissance UAVs, 5 billion rubles were allocated for this purpose. But to execute this program immediately failed. None of the Russian UAV models presented under this program not only did not correspond to the technical assignment issued by the military, but did not pass the tests themselves. As a result, Russia was forced to purchase the necessary equipment, as well as a license to manufacture it from Israel.

Information sources:
-http: //lenta.ru/articles/2013/05/15/x47b/
-http: //www.vz.ru/society/2013/5/15/632659.html
-http: //www.popmech.ru/article/13138-istoricheskiy-polet-x-47b
Author:
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. SergeyIV
    SergeyIV 17 May 2013 08: 42
    10
    At first glance, a good car. At least we have nothing to oppose with the American. On the other hand, even if the real characteristics are worse, they will simply be crushed by the quantity
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 17 May 2013 14: 17
      +1
      At least we have nothing to oppose with the American.
      In vain you say so. If you look at this problem from the other side. Turning 180 degrees. Here is some good news. The Ministry of Defense and the Severodvinsk repair shipyard Zvezdochka signed a contract for the repair and modernization of nuclear submarines with a durable titanium hull Karp and Kostroma, project 945 (code Barracuda) built in the 70s, which were already decommissioned a long time ago and 80s of the last century. Once upon a time these boats were called nothing more than "aircraft carrier killers". The main tasks for the boats of this project were to monitor strategic submarines and aircraft carrier strike groups of a potential enemy and ensure their destruction at the beginning of a conflict. So how to look at a glass in which liquid is poured, in half its volume. It’s either half full or empty. laughing
    2. Joker
      Joker 17 May 2013 14: 19
      +3
      according to him, in Russia this case was missed a little.

      I would say already missed, now we are lagging behind, and much more, the Airborne POSSIBLE only in 2015 will have its own drone and then reconnaissance to 2020 will give God a percussion, another year 3 will finish it, and in the US they already rivet a bunch of BPL drums. The Americans, no matter how cool they are, see that the soldiers have nothing in terms of morale (maybe they are better than ours or at the level of skills) and decided to rely on aviation in WWII, and now they have also switched to UAVs. in general, to exclude casualties and possible panic among military personnel due to losses in major collisions. We would take an example from us, because there really is something to be learned, the Americans from each war endure and implement experience, while we act by scientific method.
      1. Joker
        Joker 17 May 2013 16: 56
        0
        Minus can answer what I am wrong or how did ostriches do things and head in the sand?
    3. M. Peter
      M. Peter 17 May 2013 15: 38
      +1
      Quote: SergeyIV
      At first glance, a good car. At least we have nothing to oppose with the American. On the other hand, even if the real characteristics are worse, they will simply be crushed by the quantity


      We 90s will go around for a long time ...
      But nothing terribly catastrophic happened for us. This is just a drone, not a death star capable of taking out our entire army in one blow. It becomes sad and a little envious when reading such news, but there is someone to learn from. And the goals and objectives for us and the "pilot" aircraft will be able to fulfill, with the advent of such an aircraft, the United States (I repeat) did not receive much advantage. Those who will now fill in about the fact that they say people are protected and the like, and this UAV is not worth 5 kopecks, in such a good conflict, they will be protected in the same way as the raptor. wink
    4. beard999
      beard999 17 May 2013 19: 30
      +5
      Quote: SergeyIV
      At first glance, a good car. At least we have nothing to counter American

      I don’t understand, but how did you determine that “the car is good”? X-47 is not even a pre-production product. The exterior is certainly nice, but everything else is premature to judge. DARPA with "Northrop Grumman", X-47 began to saw from the late 90's., And promise to create a serial product only after 7 years (by 2019). And it is not known whether they will meet these deadlines or not ...
      And why "we have nothing to oppose"? To date, the combat capabilities of the X-47 are very similar to those taken out of service by the Americans with the F-117, respectively: the maximum take-off weight is 21,2 and 23,8 tons, the maximum weight of the BN is 2,0 and 2,25 tons, the ceiling is 12,2 and 13,7 km ... The speeds of both cars are subsonic ... From the fact that he was unmanned, the X-47 was not vulnerable, he did not become at all. If you are already talking about the prospect of 2020, then why do you think that such UAVs are too tough for Vityaz, S-300PM, S-300V4, S-400, S-500 air defense systems? Su-35S and PAK-FA fighters? Modern EW tools?
      And besides, similar work is also being carried out in our country - the well-known R&D “Okhotnik" of the Sukhoi Design Bureau (together with MiG and Tupolev). Of course, we are significantly behind in terms, but given the fact that when creating the Russian UAV, it is planned to use the groundwork “as part of the development of technologies for fifth-generation aircraft” (as Poghosyan said http://www.aex.ru/docs/3/2013/1 / 28/1720 /), then we have a chance to create this LHC in less time than the Americans plan to do.
      Quote: SergeyIV
      On the other hand, even if the real characteristics are worse, they will simply be crushed by the quantity

      Have you met, wherever it may be, specific, official figures on the estimated number of purchases of UAVs of the X-47 type? Me not. The device is by no means cheap. So far, subjectively, no one even stutters about any bulk purchases. Moreover, the Americans, until 2035 inclusive, have yet to purchase more than 2000 units. F-35 (in the most optimistic forecast at a price of 90 million apiece). Even the Americans, there is hardly enough money for massive parallel purchases of UAVs such as the X-47 and the F-35 fighter.
      Well, in the end, if your “is simply crushed by quantity,” understood as a possible war between Russia and the United States, I strongly doubt that UAVs will be the determining factor in it. I will assume that in the case of such a scenario, towards the X-47, Russian “unmanned” products like 15F173 and 15F175, as well as their more modern counterparts, will fly. Not until the UAV will be there, believe me ...
      1. bulgurkhan
        bulgurkhan 18 May 2013 00: 28
        +1
        And why do not you compare the F117 and X47B key indicator of a military aircraft - the combat radius? Those. can I randomly pull numbers and make crap?
  2. Canep
    Canep 17 May 2013 08: 56
    -1
    Let him first put him on the deck of the ship, in average statistical weather. (hello to the minus minors!)
    1. Professor
      Professor 17 May 2013 09: 05
      +7
      He does not need to be planted, he does it himself. The UAV automatic landing system is well-developed.
      1. JonnyT
        JonnyT 17 May 2013 09: 20
        +2
        Himself on deck ???? And then what
        he flew over the Chesapeake Bay and landed at Patuxent River Military Airbase, located in Maryland.
        ??
      2. Canep
        Canep 17 May 2013 09: 20
        +2
        Good professor to you, I have not been waiting for you for long. Now about landing. I already wrote that it is difficult even for an experienced pilot to land a plane on deck in bad weather, and newcomers can generally eject.
        Quote: Professor
        The UAV automatic landing system is well-developed.

        If this were so, why the UAV only took off, and did not land immediately on the deck. Then there would be no bazaar. The automatic landing system for the F-18 is still in the experimental stage, it’s too early to talk about its completion, and even more so about adopting it. And in F-18 there is a pilot who can land the plane himself.
        1. Professor
          Professor 17 May 2013 09: 26
          10
          Quote: Canep
          If this were so, why the UAV only took off, and did not land immediately on the deck.

          Because Americans are not Russian or even Israelis and work strictly by the book. According to the test program, only take-off was planned; only take-off was done. The time for landing will do, and they will do it. While automatic landing is practiced on the ground.

          Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland (4 on May 2013 of the year), a demonstrator of the Unmanned aerial combat system (UCAS) X-47B makes its first landing as a coastal base. The unmanned aerial vehicle uses a brake hook to engage the MK-7 arrestor. This type of braking is required when boarding an aircraft carrier. (Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman)

          PS
          The UAV automatic landing system is already successfully operating and is landing the device in any weather and visibility onto the strip, taking into account the glide path.

          (Here is an example of such a laser-based system OPATS - Laser-based UAS Landing System) Will put on the deck.
          1. Canep
            Canep 17 May 2013 09: 41
            -5
            If they work off landing on the ground in this way, then I guarantee you that the plane will crash the first time you land in the sea, unless of course there is a calm sea. There is no swinging and moving deck on the ground, namely a deck located above the sea.
            1. Professor
              Professor 17 May 2013 09: 51
              12
              Quote: Canep
              If they will do this landing on the ground

              How it is"?

              There is no swinging and moving deck on the ground, namely a deck located above the sea.

              You accidentally did not confuse an aircraft carrier with a yacht? Read about pitching on irregular excitement, not everything is so bad. wink The amplitude of the angle of heel when rolling the aircraft carrier on board is quite acceptable for automatic landing, well, and even more so.
              BASICS OF DYNAMICS OF VESSELS ON A WAVE
              1. Canep
                Canep 17 May 2013 10: 17
                -3
                In such weather, even the pilots will not land the plane on deck. And such weather is not uncommon in the ocean.


                And this UAV so far can only land on deck:


                Did you hear anything about the screen effect? The deck is at a decent height above the sea.
                1. commentor
                  commentor 17 May 2013 10: 30
                  +9
                  Sooner or later, drones will land on the decks of aircraft carriers, it’s stupid to argue with that. It may be difficult for you to imagine the level of development of computational methods, but, believe me, now computational complexes take into account an order of magnitude more input than a person. And they respond faster.
                  1. Canep
                    Canep 17 May 2013 10: 45
                    +2
                    Programs are written by programmers and not pilots. That the drones will begin to land on the deck I have no doubt, the question is how much they will break them until they learn to land. And repair of an aircraft carrier will be required more than once in the process. And to the account
                    Quote: commentor
                    It may be difficult for you to imagine the level of development of computational methods

                    I have been working with computer technology since 1986, in my youth I even worked in programming, and I know what software errors can turn out to be. It will be necessary to work out the software either on the ship, or better on the layout of the deck of the aircraft carrier, which should be able to swing. It is not possible to take everything into account on a computer simulator, and he himself may have software errors. Remember how many times your Windows has been updated only this year, and each update is the elimination of software errors. So minus the health.
                    1. commentor
                      commentor 17 May 2013 11: 25
                      -1
                      Now everything is changing in the amount spent on the project.
                      The more they beat, the more it will cost.
                      The question will or will not be worth it, the answer is known in advance - "will."
                2. commentor
                  commentor 17 May 2013 10: 32
                  0
                  This is the question of UAV link rotation in the near future will not be resolved, it seems to me.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 17 May 2013 10: 42
                    +4
                    Most likely not links, but UAV networks.
                3. Roll
                  Roll 17 May 2013 10: 36
                  0
                  fellow In such weather, the UAV will not only land, but will not fly to the mission, I think the pilots too. Every system has its own parameters of use.
                4. Professor
                  Professor 17 May 2013 10: 42
                  +7
                  So he was put on deck exclusively for testing, including taxiing. Have you seen the joystick of his control?
                  Be patient, in a year it will both land and take off from the deck. No one has the experience of using carrier-based aircraft like the Americans.
                  Quote: Canep
                  Did you hear anything about the screen effect? The deck is at a decent height above the sea.

                  Why did they drag the screen effect? request
                  1. Canep
                    Canep 17 May 2013 10: 48
                    -2
                    When landing on the deck, it occurs abruptly when the plane crosses the end of the ship, this can not be worked out at the ground airfield.
                    1. Delta
                      Delta 17 May 2013 11: 20
                      +5
                      Quote: Canep
                      When landing on the deck, it occurs abruptly when the plane crosses the end of the ship, this can not be worked out at the ground airfield.

                      and deck pilots take off immediately from the deck when they are trained?
                  2. Papakiko
                    Papakiko 17 May 2013 14: 14
                    +2
                    Quote: Professor
                    Be patient, in a year it will both land and take off from the deck. No one has the experience of using carrier-based aircraft like the Americans.

                    I strongly agree with you on this and even more.
                    (the article is a bit not relevant already)
                    They have been coaching each "iron" for 5 months already. In November, the first flight prototype was loaded onto CVN 75 "Harja Tryumont". Only Lincoln does not participate after drowning in Seattle.
                    There is an opinion that these "flyers" are also available on "Dunya Izyakhauer" located in CVN # 69. as well as on CVN №68 NuMiss ", who studies with Yu. Koreans.
                    1. Papakiko
                      Papakiko 17 May 2013 14: 44
                      +1
                      And then pokatushki on the deck, already from the month of January (watch from 11 minutes).
                5. Delta
                  Delta 17 May 2013 11: 18
                  +2
                  Quote: Canep
                  In such weather, even the pilots will not land the plane on deck. And such weather is not uncommon in the ocean.

                  Well, how does the drone differ from a conventional aircraft?))))) no one has stated that it can perform miracles that are not subject to conventional aircraft, violate the laws of physics and throw up clouds with your hands)))
                6. old man54
                  old man54 17 May 2013 20: 42
                  -1
                  of course it’s not mine, but what kind of helicopter does it cost on this barge on a PP in a storm? :)) Like, we have a lot of them, it’s not bad if it gets washed away, so what? :)) unwise people :))
              2. JonnyT
                JonnyT 17 May 2013 10: 44
                0
                How would you not like, but this drone has never been planted on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It is about imitation landings. there were no real ones. Although this year the Americans promised to do it, but so far, only an imitation!
                1. Professor
                  Professor 17 May 2013 10: 57
                  0
                  Quote: JonnyT
                  How would you not like, but this drone has never been planted on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

                  You look at the dates, too early for him to sit on the deck. Patience.

                  Quote: Canep
                  When landing on the deck, it occurs abruptly when the plane crosses the end of the ship, this can not be worked out at the ground airfield.

                  Then I watch how the plane throws up when landing on the deck ... laughing
                  And it will work.
                  1. Canep
                    Canep 17 May 2013 11: 05
                    -4
                    Professor you have Winda how often is it updated?
                    1. commentor
                      commentor 17 May 2013 11: 40
                      +5
                      You as a person "about the topic" confuse categories.
                      "Windows" is an open software system, where the factor causing errors is, first of all, third-party software products that use the system architecture, and some of its errors. The second motivating factor is the user. The third is compatibility.

                      A closed system, with a closed development cycle, with a strictly oriented architecture and tasks, is much better predicted. Entire models and software cover tests are being built, which at the development stage allow us to identify bottlenecks and dangerous places.

                      Trust my words. Catch a plus for trying to analyze and compare. hi
                      1. Canep
                        Canep 17 May 2013 12: 09
                        -2
                        Quote: commentor
                        Windows "is an open source software system

                        Since when did it become open, do you have its source code?
                        Quote: commentor
                        where the error-inducing factor is, first of all, third-party software products

                        Do you think third-party programs create errors in the Windows code?
                        Using these third-party programs, these errors are detected, and Microsoft then plugs the holes.
                        Quote: commentor
                        The second driving factor is the user.
                        Is the user making a change to the program code? Windows was created for the user, and should work without errors under his control.
                        Quote: commentor
                        A closed system, with a closed development cycle, with a strictly oriented architecture and tasks, is much better predicted.

                        This system should not work in the laboratory but in the ocean. And it cannot be 100% closed; most likely, various systems (gyroscopes, radar speed meters, etc.) from various developers and manufacturers (like in Windows) are used in an airplane, and their compatibility will create its own problems.
                        Quote: commentor
                        Entire models and software cover tests are being built, which at the development stage allow us to identify bottlenecks and dangerous places.
                        These models are also software products in which there may also be errors.
                    2. Joker
                      Joker 17 May 2013 14: 06
                      +1
                      Professor you have Winda how often is it updated?

                      Can I answer? For 3, as I have 7, I updated it with 1, when sp1 came out and that's it, the automatic update turned off, because there is no sense in micro updates, besides, these updates didn’t affect how the OS worked , and works, no hang for 3 year. So it copes with its tasks and without upgrades; moreover, after installing c1, no difference in work was noticed. Again, it seems to me incorrect to compare the OS of the computer and the UAV stuffing, on the computer it is sharpened for a huge number of functions, and in fact the UAV doesn’t have one or two flights, shooting and everything, watch movies and play on the UAV laughing as well as on the Internet to climb. So there is no need to update many.
                      1. Canep
                        Canep 17 May 2013 14: 53
                        +2
                        My antivirus starts to swear if there are no fresh updates of Windows. If you use Kasp, Nod, or Avast antivirus then you should regularly receive a message that the Windows has not been updated for a long time.
                      2. viktorR
                        viktorR 17 May 2013 15: 13
                        +2
                        not a single hang in 3 years

                        Oh you and liar my friend ... oh and liar good
                        Have you even turned on your computer for three years after installing sp1? wink
                      3. Beck
                        Beck 17 May 2013 17: 23
                        +5
                        Yes, it is sad and sad when an economic rival and a potential adversary take such achievements into the air.

                        And where are those Urashniki who ate me on a page when I said that the Russian military aircraft industry was 20 years behind the American one.

                        MiG-29 and Su-27 were made after the F-15 and F-16. PakFa is only just being lifted to the wing, after it, while the Raptors have been flying for 20 years.

                        While they put PakFa on the wing, while they put them in military units, the amers will already have unmanned aerial vehicles in service. And again, have to catch up.

                        These catch-ups are essentially hopeless; there will always be a 15-20 year lag. The only way out is that in the bowels of the military-industrial complex there must be some kind of scientific and technological breakthrough, so that if you do not have to be ahead, then at least be at the level.

                        I invite Urashnikov to the red button, since logic will not allow you to say something adequate, you will press the button in your comfort.
                      4. Canep
                        Canep 17 May 2013 17: 32
                        -2
                        Quote: Beck
                        The raptors have been flying for 20 years.

                        The fellow countryman Raptor has never been used in combat operations in service since 2005. And then at some exhibition were the F-22 and Su-37. Our amers offered aerial combat (imitation) they refused.
                      5. Beck
                        Beck 17 May 2013 20: 40
                        +2
                        Quote: Canep
                        And then at some exhibition there were F-22 and Su-37. Our amers offered aerial combat (imitation) they refused.


                        Land. I am in a general context. Of course there are, as elsewhere, some flaws, breakdowns, failures, but they are eliminated. And why the amers did not agree to an imitation, and there are a thousand reasons. And imitation of imitation of discord. Roughly speaking, the sports Yak-52 in a maneuverable simulation at medium altitudes will put any fighter in its ears. But in modern combat, without all the accompaniment of electronics, what will it cost.

                        Something like that.
                      6. Lone gunman
                        Lone gunman 19 May 2013 18: 50
                        0
                        , even though it’s rude to compare the Yak-52 and Su-37, well, damn the admins, how can one not cover such clerks here? am
                  2. Lone gunman
                    Lone gunman 19 May 2013 14: 39
                    +1
                    I agree on one thing, thanks to your Yidomasson euromafia, we are lagging behind, but not by 20 years, but by 7-8 years, and that is because we do not have a printing press to print candy wrappers that are not secured with anything, if "raise" literature and use it in the net, then suddenly someone will reconsider their worldview and go to a monastery, if there is a conscience, most of the Western developments were made in our research institutes ... and people, you will listen to more such scribblers ... you will not respect yourself , all this pours from one watering can ...
            2. Professor
              Professor 17 May 2013 14: 31
              -1
              Do you compare Shirpotrebovsky software product written in India and software written in America according to the milstandard? How often do F-16s beat due to software failure? And f-117?
              1. JonnyT
                JonnyT 17 May 2013 16: 55
                +2
                written in america according to milstandard

                At work, I have to deal with machine tools made in the USA. Iron is good, but the software is rare shit, the whole curve and buggy. And with most firms
              2. Canep
                Canep 17 May 2013 17: 09
                +2
                Do they still make machines in under inches? Our (in Ekibas) bought Caterpillars (dump trucks and bulldozers) mats began in 2 weeks when a bolt broke on the bulldozer - the inch turned out to be. The outer diameter of the thread is 25 mm. They said that they would bring it within a month. Ours naturally changed to M24 and did not wait for the American bolt (let them spin where they should). It is good that all Amerov firms were expelled from Ekibas (and indeed from all of Kazakhstan too).
              3. Samuray
                Samuray 17 May 2013 19: 20
                +1
                Really kicked out? But what about Borusan Makina, the official dealer of caterpillar in Kazakhstan? And why do you have such hatred for everything foreign? For example, I work with Caterpillar technology and I see no problems. Moreover, they produce metric bolts.
              4. Canep
                Canep 17 May 2013 20: 01
                +2
                The management of the cut developed the same hatred, they did not buy more kats, but they had to buy dies and taps for cutting an inch thread at American prices, in Europe they are produced only by the British, but their prices are even higher. It is difficult for the managers to reach the price of a 1 "die - $ 200, and on the M24 - $ 20. They switched to Komatsu, everything is metric. But the Americans were kicked out: understand - they bought out large enterprises where the owners were Americans (and not only).
              5. Professor
                Professor 17 May 2013 20: 11
                +2
                Quote: Canep
                It is difficult for managers to reach the price of a 1 "die - $ 200, and on the M24 - $ 20.

                Your leadership is kind of weak. Have they heard about ebay? There are any dice for a penny. How much do you need? I will find you. hi

                PS
                Here in 2 minutes I found a set of leech dice and for only $ 55
              6. Canep
                Canep 17 May 2013 20: 34
                +1
                In this set there is no 1 "die, here is a trifle. And the die holder for the hexagonal die is not visible. And you do not need to write that it can be held with a wrench.
              7. Canep
                Canep 17 May 2013 21: 07
                +1
                Quote: Professor
                Have they heard about ebay?
                In 2004, this flea market was not yet there, and the accounting horseradish will go to purchase from dubious suppliers. Do not forget we are talking about the largest coal mine in the world, and you and your ebay are scampering, they are asking suppliers of all constituent documentation if the conversation is about prepayment. And where then to look for that farmer from Kansas who will not send this die.
              8. Professor
                Professor 17 May 2013 21: 07
                -1
                So you find or do it yourself? wink
              9. Canep
                Canep 17 May 2013 21: 09
                +2
                I don't have a single Caterpillar. Why do I need an inch die. laughing Read a little higher, it seems at the same time unsubscribed.
    2. Professor
      Professor 17 May 2013 20: 07
      -1
      Quote: Canep
      Do they still make machines in under inches?

      Are you serious? In your opinion, is an inch (inch) the minimum value and division price? What is tenth you know? Boeing flies all "not in the metric system" and does not cry.
    3. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 20: 33
      +1
      The 767th in the metric system was made, and the fuel gauge in kilograms. Because of this, one almost crashed, the tanker was caught unprepared and poured 22500 pounds on a passenger flight to a place of 22500 kg. The plane managed to land at an abandoned military airfield in the center of the United States. Flight in my opinion from Chicago to Los Angeles, but this film was shown on NG, the series "Air Crash Investigation". And no need to be clever, you perfectly understood that I meant the inch system of measures.
    4. Professor
      Professor 17 May 2013 21: 11
      -1
      No need to be clever, even 787 bolts and nuts are spoiled, I know this first-hand, so to speak.
    5. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 21: 32
      +1
      There can be any bolts there, and navigation devices have already begun to be placed under the metric system. And about the emergency Boeing - it had a faulty fuel gauge, operation with such a defect is allowed, provided that the 2nd pilot controls the refueling using the refueling device's instrument, and the refueling operator inattentively "checked" it according to the refueling list. In general, if interested, watch the movie.
  3. Professor
    Professor 17 May 2013 20: 04
    -1
    I can’t say about machines, we work on Swiss CNC, but milstandard leaves a certain imprint on the quality of products.
  4. Canep
    Canep 17 May 2013 20: 45
    0
    The CNC quietly switches from inches to meters, but it is good when you need a batch of 10 parts, or a very complex part, 1 screw on the CNC (CNC) to do a lot of trouble, it is easier to pierce from the hexagon, and cut the thread with a die, or with a cutter if the thread is larger M24, on a simple (non-CNC CNC) machine.
  5. Canep
    Canep 17 May 2013 17: 25
    +1
    The software cannot fail (break down, wear out, grow old) dear professor, it either works or does not work. And in the F-16 and F-117 pilots are sitting who can save them. And what programs according to the milstandard are written by some special programmers who do not make mistakes? And what kind of milstandards are these for programmers. Call at least one.
  6. Professor
    Professor 17 May 2013 20: 24
    -1
    You surprise me very much today. Neither the F-16 nor the more F-117 without a computer will not fly a mile. And no pilot will save them. Here's an example of milstadart: MIL-STD-498

    And what programs according to the milstandard are written by some special programmers who do not make mistakes?

    Admit, but much less. If you have been dealing with programming, you need to understand how important standardization is.
  7. Canep
    Canep 17 May 2013 20: 53
    +1
    MIL-STD-498 - canceled in 1998 and replaced by the civilian standard EIA J-STD-016, it regulates the organization of the software development process. Something like ISO 9001 for programmers only.
  8. Canep
    Canep 17 May 2013 21: 43
    +1
    About F-117 in Wikipedia:
    In the entire history of the operation of F-117 aircraft, according to official data, 7 cars were lost (a little more than 10% of the total number built), including one F-117 was shot down during the fighting. “Nighthawks” flew a total of about 220 hours [000], that is, a raid on one loss amounted to about 10 hours.
    April 20, 1982 - F-117A (ser. number 80-0785), Lieutenant Colonel Bob Ridenhauer "Bandit 102." The plane crashed on takeoff due to an incorrectly configured flight control system at the factory. The pilot didn’t have time to eject got serious injuries and was written off from the flight work.
    July 11, 1986 - F-117A (ser. number 81-0792), Major Ross Mulhare (The Bandit 198). The plane crashed into the ground in the Bakersfield area of ​​California during a night flight. The reason is disorientation pilot who had a small touch on the F-117. Major Mulhair died.
    October 14, 1987 - F-117A (ser. number 83-0815), Major Michael Stewart "Bandit 231". The plane crashed into the ground near Tonopah during a night flight. The reason is disorientation pilot who had a small touch on the F-117. Major Stuart perished.
    August 4, 1992 - F-117A (ser. number 85-0801), captain John Mills (John Mills) "Bandit 402". The plane caught fire during a night departure near the Holloman air base and exploded in the air. The reason is ground error technical personnel during maintenance. Captain mills safely catapulted.
    May 10, 1995 - F-117A (ser. number 85-0822), captain Kenneth Levens "Bandit 461." The plane crashed into the ground in the Zuni area, New Mexico, during a night flight. The alleged reason is disorientation pilot who had a small touch on the F-117. Captain levens died.
    September 14, 1997 - F-117A (ser. number 81-0793), Major Bryan Knight "Bandit 437." The plane crashed in the air and crashed into a building during an air show in Chesapeake, Maryland. The accident occurred for a technical reason that led to loss of pilot control. On earth, 4 people were injured. Major Knight safely catapulted[11].

    Do not you think that if the pilot died then the accident is attributed to his disorientation, and if he survived then to technical problems, including the failure of the control system. I think the control system is to blame for most accidents. F-117, as you rightly said, it is impossible to pilot without a computer.
  • Simple
    Simple 17 May 2013 20: 10
    +2
    "There is no swaying and moving deck on the ground, just the deck above the sea."


    What prevents this laser gunner from being programmed to simulate "pitching at sea" movements?
    1. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 20: 59
      +1
      Then the earth must be rocked, I wrote above about it.
      1. Simple
        Simple 18 May 2013 00: 09
        0
        "... Then the earth must be pumped, I wrote about it above ...."

        Earth can be left alone.
        Now, when a person’s head is spinning, does the earth remain in place?
        Relative coordinate systems.
  • Sirocco
    Sirocco 17 May 2013 14: 30
    +2
    . The UAV automatic landing system is well-developed.
    Mr. Professor, you don’t tell me the reason for the Israeli UAV landing on water a few days ago. And then all this hype is incomprehensible.
    1. Professor
      Professor 17 May 2013 14: 50
      0
      The engine over the sea in the Netanyi area failed (look at the map where it is) and so that no one on earth could be killed; Last time, the wing collapsed when the device was tested with special load, which one they did not want to talk to. hi
  • Delta
    Delta 17 May 2013 11: 15
    +3
    Quote: Canep
    Let him first put him on the deck of the ship, in average statistical weather

    For some reason, "Buran" once sat down in automatic mode without any problems. Not on deck, of course, but the difference is not great. Especially if we compare the sizes of these two aircraft (drone and "Buran")
    1. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 11: 29
      +1
      And you heard that when the Buran landed, the leadership was ready to destroy it because at some point it behaved inappropriately. And ask how many spacecraft were lost due to software errors, and not only ours.
      1. Delta
        Delta 17 May 2013 11: 38
        0
        Quote: Canep
        And you heard that when the Buran landed, the leadership was ready to destroy it because at some point it behaved inappropriately

        and yet he sat down. This is a fact. And the fact that drones are used quite actively and not only for reconnaissance is also a fact. And somehow all their program errors (where would they be without them) are a lesser evil than the loss of the crew. This means that there is not much time left before using aircraft carriers.
        1. Canep
          Canep 17 May 2013 11: 53
          +2
          Not everything is so simple, an accident when landing a drone can damage both an aircraft carrier and aircraft on deck. Loss of one drone here is likely to cost. On the example of Windows, you can clearly see how many mistakes programmers make, each update is a bug fix. In the case of a drone, half of the errors will lead to the loss of the device. An error when landing on an aircraft carrier is a damaged aircraft carrier, and several more aircraft on deck. At one time, the 486 processor had an error at the firmware code level. So minus, wait and see.
          1. Delta
            Delta 17 May 2013 12: 06
            0
            Quote: Canep
            An accident while landing a drone can damage both an aircraft carrier and aircraft on deck.

            the same thing happened more than once during the accidents of ordinary decks with pilots

            Quote: Canep
            So minus, wait and see.

            you have a minus - something obsessive?
            1. Canep
              Canep 17 May 2013 12: 13
              0
              I have already answered this question.
              1. Delta
                Delta 17 May 2013 12: 15
                -2
                which one?
                1. Canep
                  Canep 17 May 2013 12: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Delta
                  Quote: Canep
                  An accident while landing a drone can damage both an aircraft carrier and aircraft on deck.

                  the same thing happened more than once during the accidents of ordinary decks with pilots

                  Quote: Canep
                  So minus, wait and see.

                  you have a minus - something obsessive?

                  Are there many questions?
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 17 May 2013 12: 32
                    -1
                    one. I don’t remember the answer to it. It will not be difficult to recall your position on the cons? Very often it sounds to you.
          2. Gregazov
            Gregazov 18 May 2013 00: 43
            0
            Access to memory over 1 Mb was obtained as a result of a programmer’s error, not only on a 486 machine, but earlier.
  • AK-47
    AK-47 17 May 2013 09: 04
    +4
    Vadim Kozyulin - program director ... noted that drones are the aviation of the future. According to him, in Russia this business was missed a bit.
    ... Russia was forced to purchase the necessary equipment, as well as a license for its manufacture from Israel.
    ... The solution by the Americans of the technical task of taking off UAVs from the deck of an aircraft carrier is a signal that a person is becoming less and less in demand for warfare.

    Amazing strategic myopia of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
    1. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 09: 10
      +1
      In order to have a drone now, it was necessary to start development 10-20 years ago, and at that time, officers were not even paid salaries for drunks and liberals. The enthusiastic designers brought what was started, but there was nothing to say about new developments.
  • SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 17 May 2013 09: 32
    -8
    Quote: Professor
    The UAV automatic landing system is well-developed.

    Developed by yourself ?! laughing laughing laughing Once at a time it is not necessary ..... !!!
    1. Professor
      Professor 17 May 2013 09: 35
      +6
      No, young man, not himself. Other smart people have developed. Moreover, the loss of apparatus during its use was not.
    2. Marine One
      Marine One 17 May 2013 10: 33
      +5
      Quote: SIBIR38RUS
      Developed by yourself ?!

      Your humble servant has been doing this for about 5 years now. And quite successfully. And we sit down and take off. You don’t have to jerk and slam the champagne plugs, but force development.
      1. Professor
        Professor 17 May 2013 10: 44
        +4
        Quote: Marine One
        And quite successfully.

        And to brag is what? And what UAV are you landing, Israeli? wink
        1. Marine One
          Marine One 17 May 2013 10: 51
          +4
          Not Israeli, although I’m familiar with the devices that you bought from the Russian Defense Ministry. Prof, unsubscribe a little later in PM, if interested.
          1. Professor
            Professor 17 May 2013 10: 57
            0
            Very interesting. hi
          2. commentor
            commentor 17 May 2013 11: 27
            +5
            Many are very interested. :)
            If there are no internal contradictions, then write your specialty.
  • newcomer
    newcomer 17 May 2013 09: 36
    +3
    Quote: Canep
    Let him first put him on the deck of the ship, in average statistical weather.

    are there any doubts? Do you think that a pilot sitting in the cockpit can land an aircraft on the deck, but an operator with a joystick in his hand, sitting in the "bubble" of an aircraft carrier, will not be able to do this?
    1. Professor
      Professor 17 May 2013 09: 39
      +9
      I repeat, the operator does not land the UAV on the deck, the UAV itself lands and the hand does not flinch at the computer and the adrenaline does not go off scale.
      1. Canep
        Canep 17 May 2013 09: 44
        -2
        Did you hear anything about software bugs?
        1. Professor
          Professor 17 May 2013 10: 58
          -1
          Have you read anything about debugging? wink
          1. Canep
            Canep 17 May 2013 11: 36
            +2
            Software errors for this unit can only be detected during actual operation at sea. At ground ranges it’s not possible to take everything into account.
            1. kostiknet
              kostiknet 17 May 2013 12: 28
              +3
              People, what are you arguing about? So far, the statistics are "with a sparrow nose." Three / four years will pass, then argue (if there is anything)
            2. Simple
              Simple 17 May 2013 20: 21
              +1
              "Software errors for this device can only be detected during real operation at sea. At land ranges, everything cannot be taken into account."


              In 2011, almost the same words were said by US Vice Admiral Mark Fox:
              "..." You experience something in the desert and it works great. But the sea world is the world of a harsh and unforgiving environment ... "

              http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/killer-drone-secret-history/all/
    2. viktorR
      viktorR 17 May 2013 15: 18
      0
      Can not! Firstly, the plane is felt "booty", and secondly, it should be landed by automatics, not an operator.
      1. Delta
        Delta 17 May 2013 15: 49
        +1
        Quote: viktorR
        Firstly, the plane is felt "booty", and secondly, it should be landed by automatics, not an operator.

        interesting, but how do drones feel like a booty year and at the same time take off, land, perform combat missions?)))
  • ehan
    ehan 17 May 2013 09: 38
    +7
    1,4 billion and is already flying ... Cool. With us for that kind of money we would only have made a present in point. In my opinion, instead of 51 billion for the Olympics, it would be better to spend on the development of modern weapons.
    1. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 09: 46
      +3
      The Olympics are also only propaganda weapons. And roads are hotel stadiums and airports will remain for later.
      1. Hon
        Hon 17 May 2013 11: 24
        +3
        Quote: Canep
        The Olympics are also only propaganda weapons. And roads are hotel stadiums and airports will remain for later.

        For that kind of money, the whole country could be repaired))) And it’s not a fact that it remains, it can turn out like a road to the APEC summit. By the way, cracks have already appeared on the Adler-Krasnaya Polyana road ...
    2. Hon
      Hon 17 May 2013 10: 07
      +9
      So they rogue simply can not afford the normal costs))) Not that we
      1. Canep
        Canep 17 May 2013 10: 26
        +4
        This road is generally a masterpiece! If it is tiled with $ 100 bills at a cheaper price.
        1. Canep
          Canep 17 May 2013 10: 51
          +1
          $ 156250 per linear meter of road.
      2. mbr0969
        mbr0969 31 August 2013 18: 53
        0
        Well, see how many Fed gave out a boble in three years, and who doesn’t want to talk, even to Congress.
        About Haliberton and Blackwater, too, have not heard - it happens.
        Adler Krasnaya Polyana is also a railway branch between cases ..
        35 kilometers of bridges and overpasses, as well as breaking through rocks about 26 kilometers of tunnels and 9,5 kilometers of service and ventilation tunnels.
        This is not for you to rivet a racket in a white robe in a warm workshop)))
  • Roll
    Roll 17 May 2013 09: 44
    +5
    drinks China and Europe rushed after the amers to catch up; we need to cooperate closely with them otherwise we will be late. As for landing on an aircraft carrier in bad weather, alternative options are also possible, for example, refueling in the air and on the mainland airfield., And then again on the aircraft carrier. In general, this direction in aviation is very scary, the creation of autonomous systems is very controversial. If a drying pilot does not want to attack a superhorn pilot without a reason, then two operators of different drones can easily arrange an air battle. For example, the Chinese operator of a flying sword can easily ram x-47. But how this conflict will be resolved, what legal norms, who is to blame, remains to be established.
  • SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 17 May 2013 09: 55
    -4
    Quote: Professor
    Moreover, the loss of apparatus during its use was not.

    Do not worry dear, will be! laughing Themselves will not fall, so help :) With the first fallen - I will certainly open the champagne :)
    1. Mcsim
      Mcsim 17 May 2013 16: 29
      +1
      Well Duc in Iran intercepted one drone
      1. Professor
        Professor 17 May 2013 20: 25
        -3
        So the storytellers pulled themselves together. They didn’t land that UAV; it itself fell. Since then it continues to fly over Iran, but only at the Persians the cage has broken.
        1. Gregazov
          Gregazov 18 May 2013 00: 47
          0
          And why did it fall if the software is up to par and error free?
          1. Professor
            Professor 18 May 2013 08: 24
            0
            Not why, but why. Maybe a fly hit him in the eye? wink
            Any equipment has failures and manned too.
  • SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 17 May 2013 10: 25
    -3
    I remember a proffessor the other day the Israeli miracle UAV crashed expensive :) :) :) I already wrote about this. I look forward to the next good news :) The more often this happens, the sooner we America and their allies (including the Jewish six hopeless) will put their tongue in y ... we will! success in development ... laughing laughing laughing
    1. Marine One
      Marine One 17 May 2013 10: 48
      12
      A position bordering on criminal idiocy. It is very reminiscent of officials from the Defense Ministry and the military-industrial complex, who, dropping their fat cheeks from the table, argue: "Yes, we have them, but what for is it necessary, it is falling." And according to the results, you have to pay for it with the blood of soldiers.
    2. Professor
      Professor 17 May 2013 10: 53
      +2
      Quote: SIBIR38RUS
      proffessor

      Young man, learn to write professor correctly or replenish yourself with emergency situations. fool

      the other day an Israeli miracle drones crashed costly

      Aircraft tend to fall (Newton damn), but accident rates deserve attention. Do you know what they are? I know, I even laid out an article about it. So go ahead and learn the materiel, it can help you. Although such knowledge will not help urapatriots like you. request

      The more often this happens - the sooner we America and their allies (including the Jewish six hopeless) tongue in .. we put it!

      Please do not shove us your tongue in w..y, from such a rough one you have ... wink
      1. smprofi
        smprofi 17 May 2013 14: 20
        +4
        Quote: Professor
        Young man, learn to write professor correctly

        and what? others can, but not him? laughing

        1. Professor
          Professor 17 May 2013 14: 51
          0
          Duc others already around the corner eat up the mare, maybe he will join. wassat
  • leonardo_1971
    leonardo_1971 17 May 2013 10: 51
    -2
    we need to develop a control capture system. imagine a UAV takes off, turns around and strikes at its own. while it's fantastic. but we are Russian people!
    1. Professor
      Professor 17 May 2013 11: 00
      +1
      Quote: leonardo_1971
      we need to develop a control capture system

      Start right away with the perpetual motion machine. Why bother with the little things?
    2. JonnyT
      JonnyT 17 May 2013 11: 32
      +2
      This is certainly great, but hacking the control channel code is not an easy task, and even more so it cannot be done quickly, it’s simpler to develop detection and destruction tools
      1. Simple
        Simple 17 May 2013 19: 35
        0
        It is even easier to develop a system of "kickbacks" in the United States.
        1. mbr0969
          mbr0969 31 August 2013 18: 49
          0
          She is already developed there is not weak ...
    3. Roll
      Roll 17 May 2013 11: 37
      0
      wassat And why the capture system is only for UAVs? And the rockets, how cool amers launched the rockets, and we Russians took control and were redirected to the Chinese or Amers, and the satellites of the amers do it, they launch them into space, and we Russians took control and take off the cream. Wonderful, but unrealistic.
  • Roll
    Roll 17 May 2013 11: 32
    +2
    wassat If you understand the difficulties of landing an UAV on an aircraft carrier and why there should be a big accident. The UAV hit the aircraft carrier is very small. The main issue is the capture of trss. If the UAV missed the cable, it could go to the second round. Damage to the chassis from rolling, of course a nuisance, but not fatal. In addition, there are now self-learning programs and algorithms with the rudiments of Artificial Intelligence, which significantly reduces the complexity of programming. Plus, there are systems such as a thread, and the screening effect can be created under a blow of air from below. Therefore, what I am taught in the near future is landing on aircraft carriers I have no doubt.
  • Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 17 May 2013 12: 12
    0
    The dude in the first photo, the one who knelt down on one knee and put his hand in the traditional signal to the pilot of a manned aircraft, "for takeoff", looks very comical.
    Kneeling a vile little man in front of the car))
    1. Delta
      Delta 17 May 2013 12: 15
      +2
      cyborgs flooded the entire planet))))))))))))
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 17 May 2013 13: 24
    +1
    I hope that in Russia the brain will not just stupidly stand in line for a deck UAV, but remember what an asymmetric response is. Any UAV is primarily satellite systems, communications and GPS. The proven technologies for the destruction of such facilities are an excellent response to any innovation in the field of UAVs and not only.
    1. Kuzkin Batyan
      Kuzkin Batyan 17 May 2013 13: 41
      0
      right, knowingly invent weapons based on new physical principles. I aimed the beam at the device, and the electrical circuits in it stopped working. They said that there are electromagnetic bombs in Russia the size of a capacitor from an old Soviet TV. There is almost no current information about this weapon, and the capabilities of this weapon. Maybe in the film "striking force" was exaggerated about the possibility and existence of such bombs.
  • smprofi
    smprofi 17 May 2013 13: 32
    +4
    Colleagues
    what are you arguing about, breaking spears, scattering minuses? the tests have just begun. Do you want everything to be done at once on the first flight? The gringos do not think so, they adhere to the principle "they walk along Deribasovskaya gradually, they walk slowly along Deribasovskaya". however, they are doing the right thing.
    did you perform a landing test with aerofinisher cables? completed on May 4, 2013.



    Did you take the take-off test from the deck of an aircraft carrier? completed on May 14, 2013.



    so what? bad pace?
    in general ... yes, gringos are confidently developing and using UAVs. even a medal has already been established for operators (by the way, the first medal established after the Second World War!). so what? jerked a cool little sos-sola and slapped someone.



    and after honestly "worked shift" in a bar or home to his wife. and there the medal is already in store. and any experiences!

    however, while the gringos are learning from the UAV, with the same X-47B, the Iranians are "learning" to intercept and plant them on other models.

  • Takashi
    Takashi 17 May 2013 14: 10
    +2
    a lot of photos of this UAV on an aircraft carrier can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/

    1.http: //www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/8745308748/in/photostream

    The main foty come with this:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/8741845204/in/photostream/
    1. smprofi
      smprofi 17 May 2013 14: 26
      0
      why not refer to the original source http://www.navy.mil/? especially since there, as a rule, in high resolution (3 912px × 2 794px)
      1. Simple
        Simple 17 May 2013 19: 52
        0
        "... usually in high resolution (3px × 912px"

        Good evening.
        On this Takashi link, photos can be taken in Original (4256 x 2832).
  • Tourist Breakfast
    Tourist Breakfast 17 May 2013 16: 55
    +3
    ... According to Viktor Yesin, UAVs are difficult to identify. Unlike airplanes, they do not have identification marks ...


    In the photographs in the article, the identification marks are clearly visible.
    1. Oleg Rosskiyy
      Oleg Rosskiyy 17 May 2013 21: 01
      +1
      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
      In the photographs in the article, the identification marks are clearly visible.

      Well, this is during the test, then they will be deleted.
      1. Tourist Breakfast
        Tourist Breakfast 17 May 2013 21: 48
        +1
        Well, this is during the test, then they will be deleted.


        I would like to hope that you were joking like that.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Army strong
    Army strong 17 May 2013 21: 32
    +4
    Dave Lorenz (L.) and Bruce McFadden, Northrop Grumman deck operators, discuss the launch of the X-47B on Tuesday on the flight deck of the USS George HW Bush
    1. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 22: 50
      0
      These two warriors look like cyborgs. laughing
  • Army strong
    Army strong 17 May 2013 22: 04
    +1
    Quote: Canep
    Quote: Beck
    The raptors have been flying for 20 years.

    The fellow countryman Raptor has never been used in combat operations in service since 2005. And then at some exhibition were the F-22 and Su-37. Our amers offered aerial combat (imitation) they refused.


    Not in combat, but raptors have been on alert at least since 2007
    Photo
    F-22 NORAD 90th Fighter Squadron performed the first interception of two Russian Tu-95MS "Bear-H" bombers over Alaska on November 22, 2007.
    1. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 22: 46
      +1
      Something amers are not using the invisibility as intended, as an interceptor. This is to prevent the intruder from seeing who knocked him down. The F-22 was designed as a strike aircraft. Maybe he is only good for what "bears" to chase? (amendment - conditional interception)
      1. Army strong
        Army strong 18 May 2013 00: 14
        +2
        Quote: Canep
        Something amers are not using the invisibility as intended, as an interceptor. This is to prevent the intruder from seeing who knocked him down. The F-22 was designed as a strike aircraft. Maybe he is only good for what "bears" to chase? (amendment - conditional interception)


        Yes, the plane turned out to be too expensive, especially if you use it to "conditionally intercept" the Bears.


        According to sabzh, I think the future for UAVs. The ability to eliminate the weak link (in physical terms, the restriction on maximum overloads) - a pilot who also needs to be trained for a long time and expensively - is already good
      2. Beck
        Beck 18 May 2013 09: 14
        +4
        Let me mention one thing.

        The term "invisible" was put into circulation by journalists and many understand it literally, and some are angry when such planes are spotted.

        In KB, such aircraft were developed only as subtle. The calculation was simple. It's rude of me. The plane flies at a speed of 1000 km per hour. An ordinary plane is spotted for 200 km. There are about 12 minutes to issue commands, direct missiles and shoot down an airplane. An inconspicuous aircraft with 200 km is not detected, it is detected from a distance of 100 km and here about 6 minutes may not be enough to make a decision. A stealth aircraft manages to complete its task.

        Something like that.
  • studentmati
    studentmati 17 May 2013 23: 08
    0
    The beauty!!! The apotheosis of design and technological thought !!! good Although adversaries. Deep sadness that Russia is again "In the non-smoking carriage." crying But they caught up with 40 years ... But they caught up at the end of the 80s and began to overtake ... What reaction should we expect from the rulers today?
  • Knucklhead
    Knucklhead 18 May 2013 12: 19
    0
    Well, hold on and quiver the aircraft carrier ....................... tblisi !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Professor
    Professor 18 May 2013 15: 49
    +3
    On May 17, 2013, the American attack drone X-47B first "landed" and "touched the deck" and "made a full run."
    ATLANTIC OCEAN - MAY 17: In this image provided by the US Navy, an X-47B unmanned combat air system (UCAS) demonstrator performs a touch and go landing May 17, 2013 on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush ( CVN 77) in the Atlantic Ocean. This is the first time any unmanned aircraft has completed a touch and go landing at sea. George HW Bush is conducting training operations in the Atlantic Ocean. (Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Timothy Walter / US Navy via Getty Images)

    [/ Center]
    [/ Center]
    [/ Center]
    [/ Center]
    [/ Center]
    [/ Center]
    [/ Center]
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 18 May 2013 16: 07
    +1
     Canep  Yesterday, 09:41 ↑
    If they work off landing on the ground in this way, then I guarantee you that the plane will crash on its first landing at sea ...

    - I don’t see the logic, so the F-18 with the pilot can board an aircraft carrier, but there’s no drone? NURSERY ... it feels like you are still programming in basic and playing tetris ...
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 18 May 2013 17: 59
    +1
    Beck (3) Yesterday, 17:23 ↑
    Yes, it is sad and sad when an economic rival and a potential adversary take such achievements into the air.

    - I agree with Beck completely! The Russians squandered the time while holding on to the Soviet Union’s achievements, and hopelessly lagged behind the USA in aviation by 10 years, only something breakthrough that would make it possible to jump right to the 6th generation, and this will probably be the drones will be able to rectify the situation ... in the meantime, urapatrioty here they dream like something, sometime, somewhere there it will fall ...
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 18 May 2013 21: 59
    0
    this monster has one significant Achilles' heel. if you intercept the channel that controls this drone, he will be able to hit his ship. as hackers already did it. and in the USSR in the 70s a complex was developed to intercept the aviation control of NATO countries. so we have experience.
    1. Professor
      Professor 18 May 2013 22: 10
      0
      Quote: bublic82009
      if you intercept the channel that controls this drone, he will be able to hit his ship

      laughing

      Quote: bublic82009
      as hackers already did it.

      It’s possible in more detail, I haven’t laughed for a long time, just don’t rush, I’ll go pour myself some wine, interesting stories go better for him.
  • darksoul
    darksoul 19 May 2013 22: 47
    0
    We don’t need to chase them, it’s useless .... the printing press works for them day and night, we need an asymmetric answer .... either sink the aircraft carriers with submarines or shoot down satellites, autonomous not autonomous but without radio control and GPS navigation far they don’t fly away .... we don’t have to go in cycles for 26000 drones, ours needs to understand how to make sure that at one point they don’t stupidly take off and ideally fall from the sky with fire rain. Soviet designers have always been famous for the fact that even the most daring American equipment was found to be a cheap effective simple plug, you should go this way ..... if you chase after them ... well, we will build our UAV by 2020 ... then state tests, fine-tuning crazy and 5 UAVs per year))))
    1. Professor
      Professor 20 May 2013 07: 57
      -1
      Quote: darksoul
      Soviet designers have always been famous for the fact that even on the most daring American equipment they found a cheap effective simple plug, you should go this way .....

      Here it is a miracle weapon
  • Snob
    Snob 14 May 2015 20: 43
    0
    Judgment Day is getting closer. With each such tsatskoy which is not controlled by a person, a sense of impunity and false omnipotence increase.