Military Review

American drone X-47B first landed on an aircraft carrier

90
American drone X-47B first landed on an aircraft carrier

The American drone X-47B made the world's first landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier, according to a press release from the US Navy.


Landing was made on the deck of the aircraft carrier George HW Bush, which was located in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Virginia, reports RIA "News».

"Improving and introducing new technologies, such as X-47B and the ones following it, will allow aircraft carriers to maintain their role throughout the 50-year service life," said US Naval Secretary Ray Mebas.

In May, the 2013 of the year this UAV carried out the first take-off with the help of the aircraft carrier's steam catapult, and then made nine flights with a touch of the deck, which simulated actions during landing.

The US command assesses the prospects for placing UAVs on aircraft carriers as an event that brings the combat capabilities of the entire type of troops to a new level.

The X-47B was designed using stealth technology and is designed for a wide range of operations: from prospecting and reconnaissance operations to attacking the enemy. It is expected that serial models will begin to enter service with the US Navy in 2018.
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. experienced
    experienced 11 July 2013 10: 23
    +1
    The Papuans have more problems, Russia and do not care (censorship) winked
    1. little man
      little man 11 July 2013 10: 26
      +6
      Well I do not know. I personally am not pleased.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 11 July 2013 10: 52
        10
        Sat down hi................................
    2. Gato
      Gato 11 July 2013 10: 50
      +9
      Quote: seasoned
      Russia and do not care

      Why?
      C-300 or 400 and even earlier SAMs will overwhelm such an UAV. One, two, ten. And if there will be a lot of them? Or a lot?
      In all wars, the American agility was stopped by the possibility of losses of l / s, and they were not particularly taken into account with material costs.
      But it seems that they are purposefully solving this problem. And it doesn’t care
      1. Vlad_Mir
        Vlad_Mir 11 July 2013 10: 53
        +4
        You can fill up if it enters the air defense work area, and if it sees air defense. But this is not necessary at all!
      2. fisherman
        fisherman 11 July 2013 11: 00
        +1
        and they were not particularly reckoned with material costs.


        he is also not a penny

        besides, now they are more limited in their financial wastefulness

        don't care, and in any case, we need to have (look for) fairly cheap retaliatory measures
        1. Gato
          Gato 11 July 2013 11: 45
          +3
          Quote: fisherman
          he is also not a penny

          Yes, but in any case it’s cheaper than a manned aircraft similar in combat capabilities (taking into account the training of the pilot).
          In addition, with serial production, the cost drops sharply.
          In this, apparently, and savings.

          one must have (look for) fairly cheap retaliatory measures

          I doubt very much that it will turn out cheaper - these are either air defense systems or UAVs - hunters. Or some completely exotic already.
        2. Papakiko
          Papakiko 11 July 2013 19: 51
          +1
          Quote: fisherman
          besides, now they are more limited in their financial wastefulness

          Do you personally control the printing press of the Fed or are you called Ben Bernanke?
          No savings in the mattress are not expected. hi
          Keep an eye on the "swamp" of the media and filter out.
          What kind of money do the "honest" armies in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan consume and what "Papuans" are they made of?
          1. fisherman
            fisherman 12 July 2013 02: 18
            +1
            Do you personally control the printing press of the Fed or are you called Ben Bernanke?


            either I have a question, or Bernanke

            it’s hard to say when and how much financial incentives for the US economy will be reduced

            No savings in the mattress are not expected.


            Do you serve in the Pentagon? :)
      3. Vadivak
        Vadivak 11 July 2013 11: 50
        +8
        Quote: Gato
        And if there will be a lot of them? Or a lot?


        This is the whole point of drones, if the pilot of the aircraft should be healthy, technically savvy and trained, then the representative of the Olympic reserve team of the Union State Circus can control the drone,
      4. Locksmith
        Locksmith 11 July 2013 12: 33
        -5
        Quote: Gato
        And if there will be a lot of them? Or a lot?

        And this is already a full-scale war, and drones can’t live there - they simply suppress the control and coordination channels — thank God they still don’t have their own brains to think independently, and they cannot distinguish a working air defense system from their own on the battlefield.
      5. VAF
        VAF 11 July 2013 12: 39
        +3
        Quote: Gato
        S-300 or 400 and even earlier SAMs will overwhelm such an UAV.


        And if the AKP UAV with a launch range of more than 500 km, while wink
        1. Joker
          Joker 11 July 2013 14: 22
          +4
          And if the AKP UAV with a launch range of more than 500 km, while

          This history is silent, in any case, Seryozh, the range of destruction of our caps will be higher than any existing and not yet invented rocket wink Here, after all, "invisibility" must be taken into account and a bunch of factors. S-300 shot down 9 out of 10 missiles during tests, it is not yet known which ones, if unguided, then this is a complete priest, with controlled ones it will be much more difficult. In general, I think that the future belongs to drones, you can beat the unmanned T-50 and make such turns on it that the audience’s hair will stand on end, but the Americans do not really want to engage in close combat, they like to shoot from afar and all weapons under this is sharpened, and for close combat, drones, even if the exchange is 1 to 3, then all this will not be in our favor at all, we have airplanes with a gulkin nose, I generally keep quiet about drones. The 21st century is in the yard, I am sure if we still live in the USSR, then we would have some kind of super-maneuverable invisible unmanned bomber with a nuclear engine soldier For now we are content with crafts from the circle of young model airplanes.
          1. VAF
            VAF 11 July 2013 17: 07
            +2
            Quote: Joker
            the range of destruction of our caps will be higher than any existing and not yet invented rocket


            Hi Oleg drinks The first lines of the post "killed" completely laughing I thought for 15 minutes under the table ... but then I couldn’t resist laughing ... I’ll go .. "I will pour it!"

        2. kirieeleyson
          kirieeleyson 11 July 2013 14: 26
          -1
          Greetings) If so, then you need to water them today. Preferably biological weapons. And if technology is pure but where to us)) Develop systems of our global missile defense system outside the country, as an option, put up the base base. But this is the last century, probably.
      6. crazyrom
        crazyrom 12 July 2013 06: 12
        0
        Quote: Gato
        C-300 or 400 and even earlier SAMs will overwhelm such an UAV. One, two, ten. And if there will be a lot of them? Or a lot?

        A rocket will always be cheaper than an airplane. If there will be VERY many of them, then our missiles will become completely free, the people will do everything to win, in 3 shifts will work to save the Country. And these American toys are piece goods. From them the only sense is to wet the Papuans.
    3. VAF
      VAF 11 July 2013 12: 53
      +3
      Quote: seasoned
      The Papuans have more problems,


      Lyosha, a little "humor" (and what remains request )

      Everything is like in the Terminator - I came ... wassat hide your glasses.leather jeans and jackets..and motorcycles " wink

      1. Bronis
        Bronis 11 July 2013 13: 53
        +4
        There is no cause for concern. Terminator Medvedev will lead ... he was filling up ... wassat
      2. Bronis
        Bronis 11 July 2013 13: 54
        +4
        There Arnie with myelophone ... waiting for the third ... from the future
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 11 July 2013 14: 02
          +6
          Quote: Bronis
          They’re thinking ...
          And what is there to think, Mr. Terminator was explained back in the Tretyakov Gallery that the guy better not rock the boat wassat I consider him the most decent American (and that Austrian crying )
          1. Bronis
            Bronis 11 July 2013 14: 06
            +5
            Arnie recognized the picture ... from the first part ...
        2. MilaPhone
          MilaPhone 12 July 2013 09: 29
          +2
          Quote: Bronis
          There Arnie with myelophone ... waiting for the third ... from the future

          It is he who distracts him while the third and fourth slammed his motorcycle, jacket, jeans and shotgun.
          1. Bronis
            Bronis 12 July 2013 10: 38
            0
            Quote: Bronis
            There Arnie with myelophone ... waiting for the third ... from the future

            And here is Milafon in person !!! laughing Well, byvat ... good
      3. Pimply
        Pimply 11 July 2013 15: 16
        +4
        In general - very much. And very cool. A new stage in development.
    4. VAF
      VAF 11 July 2013 12: 55
      +3
      Quote: seasoned
      Russia and do not care (censorship)


      I will continue .... "humorously" wassat

    5. Do not care
      Do not care 11 July 2013 18: 40
      +1
      Totally agree!
    6. Siberian German
      Siberian German 12 July 2013 03: 51
      0
      yes no it’s all more serious - you need to understand a little against whom this technique is used - it is used little against the Papuans
  2. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 11 July 2013 10: 29
    +3
    Well then. Perhaps we have no choice but to "congratulate" our competitors. I hope we are preparing an adequate answer.
    1. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 11 July 2013 10: 51
      -1
      [quote = Zerstorer] The Papuans have problems [/ quot
      Agree
      [quote = Zerstorer] I hope we are preparing an adequate response [/ quote]
      Adequate answer to what? On the X-47V? Its capabilities are modest compared to traditional manned attack aircraft, and it is also easy to mine even for basic air defense systems, not to mention modern fighters of generation 4 and above.
  3. Wedmak
    Wedmak 11 July 2013 10: 37
    +4
    Probably worth congratulating our sworn friends. They planted a radio-controlled machine on the deck. I wonder how things are with her weapons?
    1. VAF
      VAF 11 July 2013 12: 46
      +3
      Quote: Wedmak
      Probably worth congratulating our sworn friends. They planted a radio-controlled machine on the deck.


      Hi Denis! our .. media are "modest". not just planted, but re-"launched" after taxiing and again .. planted



      They already have the F-18s themselves come and sit ... completely in the "automatic", but in the news about this ... no ... not even discussed wassat

      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 11 July 2013 14: 47
        0
        They already have the F-18's come and sit themselves ... completely in the "automatic"

        Privet Sergey. But this is curious. Although I do not see any special obstacles at the current level of electronics. Civilian aircraft fly on a machine gun, only few people think about it. To be honest, you can safely shove the machine for a full cycle - takeoff, flight, landing. The question is - will passengers trust him? And who dares to board such a plane?
        We supposedly have an answer ... on the T-50 (they say !!) there will be a system of automatic return to base. Thought with automatic landing. I hope the truth.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 11 July 2013 15: 17
          +2
          Landing on the deck has always been considered the most difficult moment, and the fact that they managed to automate it is a huge step forward
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 11 July 2013 15: 44
            +1
            Landing on the deck has always been considered the most difficult moment,

            Difficult for whom? For a person, because the reaction should be at a subconscious level, it is time to think "what to do?" too little.
            But the Americans have very extensive experience in such landings and the entire process has been worked out as much as possible. So why not automate it for landing in a regular situation - it’s clear, a little wind, little excitement, etc.
            But whether this machine will be able to land the plane in the presence of interference ... this is a big question.
        2. VAF
          VAF 11 July 2013 17: 19
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          Civilian aircraft fly on a machine gun, only few people think about it.


          "Citizens" have long been entering the "Automata" (in the AZP), it is immediately felt because the turns are very sharp! At all airfields where there are DY and higher .... everything is in the AZP .. up to leveling.

          Quote: Wedmak
          To be honest, you can safely shove the machine for a full cycle - takeoff, flight, landing.


          They have been flying like this for a long time. Therefore, they are fighting .. like peas, God forgive me for saying that!

          Therefore, the level of training .. no!

          Ours also fly to the AZP (entry to the neighbor) if there is a SP-50 or PRMG-7 well, and accordingly, equipment is installed on the plane.

          And the approach and landing in the machine .. these are two different things, and even more so on an aircraft carrier!
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 11 July 2013 20: 02
            +1
            Quote: vaf
            "Citizens" have long been entering the "Automata" (in the AZP), it is immediately felt because the turns are very sharp! At all airfields where there are DY and higher .... everything is in the AZP .. up to leveling.

            In the Yekaterinburg "Koltsovo" all the pilots place the aircraft in hand.

            Quote: vaf
            They have been flying like this for a long time. Therefore, they are fighting .. like peas, God forgive me for saying that!

            Just a few days have passed since the last confirmation of your words.
            (San Francisco)
  4. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 11 July 2013 10: 37
    +1
    Robots are increasingly conquering the armies of the world ... No matter how we keep up
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 11 July 2013 15: 57
      +3
      as if ... already left.
  5. Gato
    Gato 11 July 2013 10: 43
    +2
    I wonder how many such UAVs will fit on an aircraft carrier?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 11 July 2013 10: 51
      +3
      Well, if you use multi-level parking ... a lot.
  6. Nayhas
    Nayhas 11 July 2013 10: 47
    +8
    This moment has long been expected throughout the world, now we can say with confidence about the era of deck-based drones that has begun. UAVs repeat one in one history of manned aviation, at first only reconnaissance functions, then switched to air strikes, the next step is fighter unmanned aircraft.
    1. AK-47
      AK-47 11 July 2013 11: 50
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      the next step is fighter unmanned aircraft.

      And an unmanned aircraft carrier. what
      1. fisherman
        fisherman 11 July 2013 11: 59
        -1
        anyone who pushes this idea to the State Department and the Capitol, as a vital necessity for them, can be given the Hero of Russia :)
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 11 July 2013 17: 12
        +1
        Why not? Well, maybe not completely without people, but the crew is permissible for no more than 300 people.
  7. Russ69
    Russ69 11 July 2013 10: 52
    +2
    It remains to urgently catch up and catch up with the amers. There is something SVR will do.
    They created scientific companies, now immediately let them get a demobilization chord. How to create a similar device, so go home right away smile
  8. LM66
    LM66 11 July 2013 11: 15
    0
    Does it automatically land itself or is it controlled like models?
    1. White
      White 11 July 2013 11: 28
      +1
      Automatic machine.
      1. AK-47
        AK-47 11 July 2013 11: 56
        0
        Quote: White
        Automatic machine.

        I doubt the operator controls the take-off, flight and landing.
  9. uhu189
    uhu189 11 July 2013 11: 23
    +4
    This is the prototype of the 6 generation strike aircraft, as I understand it. Not a fighter yet, but almost a bomber and a scout? And the USA does not waste time in vain sad
  10. rus9875
    rus9875 11 July 2013 11: 35
    +1
    Orbital drone should worry us much more - X-37 So far we have nothing to show against it
  11. gregor6549
    gregor6549 11 July 2013 11: 46
    +6
    You can again giggle at the "near-minded", but if the essence of the question, then all this is more than serious. Landing even a manned vehicle on the deck of an aircraft carrier is a very difficult matter, and even more so for a drone. So there is a major success of Northrop Grumman, which would not be a sin to learn, especially given Russia's serious lag in this area. It is to learn and not to throw klikuhs and hats, as here many "professionals" are used to doing. Here, after all, it is not far from equipping UAVs not only for aircraft carriers, but also for all more or less large surface ships, and possibly submarines. Why not if you use a UAV with short or vertical takeoff and landing. In addition, such UAVs can be equipped with radar and other sensors and thereby greatly increase the detection range of air and sea targets. I’m not even saying that the loss of a UAV, for all its high cost, is still preferable to the loss of a living pilot.
  12. Gato
    Gato 11 July 2013 11: 48
    0
    It is also interesting - did he sit on "autopilot" or was the operator guided him?
    The fact that he used the aircraft carrier’s drive systems is for anyone, but was the flight program autonomous or on the instructions of the operator?
    1. bulgurkhan
      bulgurkhan 11 July 2013 20: 12
      +1
      Takeoff and landing are fully automatic. This promises a huge gain in the training of pilots, because questions of training, fatigue and basic well-being disappear. Such an aircraft carrier will stand for a year or two without loss of combat readiness.
  13. Apollo
    Apollo 11 July 2013 11: 54
    +4
    stock footage in the topic



  14. awg75
    awg75 11 July 2013 11: 59
    +2
    at the moment I don’t think that it’s a combat-ready unit, but in the future I think it can turn into a big problem ..... you need to look for your tricky nut on this tricky bolt
  15. Gato
    Gato 11 July 2013 11: 59
    0
    And who knows, the development of the Skat MiG UAV is still underway?
  16. fzr1000
    fzr1000 11 July 2013 12: 06
    +5
    I see nothing funny. Whatever they say, but the United States is great. Maybe they will fall apart someday, but so far they are riveting more and more advanced weapons. And that is our problem. Because while we can stop this UAV operator in only one way, to demolish nuclear weapons to hell with the place where he sits, which is also not easy.
  17. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 11 July 2013 12: 09
    +1
    We need to develop electronic warfare, and in the light of such news on airplanes. And AWACS aircraft, respectively. First, detect these drones, then try to drown out, well, in extreme cases, only shoot down!
    1. uhu189
      uhu189 11 July 2013 13: 47
      +1
      Yes, you don’t particularly drown it, it is completely autonomous, it controls itself, and not from the operator. But surely it is still vulnerable to electronic warfare equipment anyway.
  18. Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 11 July 2013 13: 01
    -1
    After the well-known case with Iran, I just want to ask "for whom?" :)
  19. White
    White 11 July 2013 13: 02
    0
    Please note - there are a lot of equipment on the deck and there are people. Absolute confidence that everything will go smoothly.
  20. LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 11 July 2013 13: 21
    0
    This news is old! She has been on the site for several weeks! or am I wrong?
    1. VAF
      VAF 11 July 2013 13: 32
      +4
      Quote: LaGlobal
      or am i wrong?


      Not right .. then there was a run with a touch. Now there are two full landings with take-off from land and repeated. With take-off from the deck! drinks
  21. spirit
    spirit 11 July 2013 13: 25
    +2
    YES! They do everything leisurely and systematically, without jumps and transfers. 5 points
  22. gregor6549
    gregor6549 11 July 2013 13: 56
    +2
    X-47B made its first flight 4 February 2011 year on the basis of the US Air Force Edwards in California. At the end of November 2012, the device first flew into the air with the help of a catapult located on the landfill. In mid-May of this year, the X-47B took off for the first time in the history of such aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier, and only a few days later completed a series of simulations of landing on an aircraft carrier with a touch of the deck.

    Denis Fedutinov, an expert in the field of unmanned systems, editor-in-chief of the profile publication UAV.RU, believes that this is a real technological breakthrough. "The development process is proceeding very quickly, which means that soon enough the US Navy will receive a full-fledged attack unmanned aerial vehicle, with a range of more than 2,5 kilometers at full combat load, which will be capable of being based on aircraft carriers." In general, this will fit very well into the Pentagon's favorite "long arm" strategy, he commented to Interfax.

    According to him, there is nothing of the kind in Russia at the moment. "If R&D on the creation of deck modifications of drones is not set in the near future, for example, in the framework of work on projects of attack drones implemented by Sukhoi and MiG, then they will not appear in the foreseeable future," he said.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 11 July 2013 14: 46
      +1
      Yes, we would at least deal with "land" drones. Then with the deck.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 11 July 2013 15: 16
        +2
        It is precisely in deck UAVs that the Russian Armed Forces need first of all, and primarily for reconnaissance of air and sea targets outside the detection zones provided by shipborne radars and other sensors, and to provide target designation by their anti-ship missiles outside these zones. And then "to top up, then they fly, but where to get" On land, these tasks are poorly solved with the help of manned vehicles and ground reconnaissance equipment, and at sea there is complete blindness. Yes, and to cover their ships from the air outside the zones of destruction of the ship's air defense systems and for the time being, too, there is nothing. Yes, and all these SAMs and ZA systems will not cope with a massive raid, given that take out and put a couple of three missiles on each target.
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 11 July 2013 15: 25
          +1
          I can not argue anything. recourse
          1. VAF
            VAF 11 July 2013 18: 04
            +1
            Quote: fzr1000
            I can not argue anything.


            And I’m 150 cognac and ... objected drinks , though with + !, but still ... "objected" repeat
        2. VAF
          VAF 11 July 2013 18: 01
          +1
          Quote: gregor6549
          It’s just the decked UAVs that Russian aircraft need in the first place,


          I’ll say bitter, but the truth ... dear Grigory is wrong. But only because we don’t have that fleet. Who needs deck UAVs, on and in general UAVs, even with a manual launch, because then the scanty number of ships in our fleet ... nothing will save!

          But on land, yes there ... there are still troops and equipment that can oppose the aggressor!

          For a thought you naturally +!, But I said what I said! soldier
          1. gregor6549
            gregor6549 11 July 2013 18: 38
            +3
            The bitter truth is that all this was already in the USSR. And UAVs are diverse and even automated control systems for units of these UAVs up to the regimental level. And all you need is to find these backlogs and bring them to mind on a more modern elemental base. The task is difficult but quite feasible. And in the process of fine-tuning the old groundwork, new thoughts will appear. Well, it’s time for GLONASS to have the one you need and not the one that turns out. Without it, accurate positioning systems for all of these UAVs are worthless.
            1. VAF
              VAF 11 July 2013 21: 51
              +2
              Quote: gregor6549
              The bitter truth is that all this was already in the USSR


              And this is part 1 and the main .. "bitter truth"! I agree completely! +! soldier
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 11 July 2013 21: 57
                0
                And I believe that our SV needs mainly small UAVs. And the Air Force is reconnaissance. Drummers only for poopuyas.
  23. rudolff
    rudolff 11 July 2013 14: 11
    +3
    There is nothing to comment on. Well done. You can step aside and nervously smoke. Do not forget that this is an experimental prototype for testing technologies and what the real machine will be, one can only guess.
  24. tnk1969
    tnk1969 11 July 2013 14: 27
    +1
    Maybe it is already worth now on the basis of scientific companies or, most likely, on the basis of strong companies engaged in software products, to create a basis for the development of programs for neutralizing such UAVs at the level of communication "Operator-drone". Disconnect for a while such a connection and intercept control. And only as a last resort to destroy such drones. After all, this is also money.
    And measures in this sense are well done. They spend such money on UAVs to save the lives of their pilots ... This is worthy of respect. Even despite the sequestration of their military budget ...
  25. Odysseus
    Odysseus 11 July 2013 15: 06
    +4
    I’ve said it many times, and I’ll repeat it, the X-47 is the most dangerous of all US aviation programs. Moreover, unlike the F-35, it develops practically without transfers and delays.
    Very low ESR, long range and flight duration, no risk for the pilot and lower cost compared to a similar manned aircraft make the X-47 an extremely dangerous enemy.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 11 July 2013 15: 55
      +1
      Quote: Odyssey
      I have said many times

      I fully support your comment, I want to add that the Americans are actively working on a UAV group flight program and this is a weapon against which it is almost impossible to create a defense.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 11 July 2013 16: 12
        +1
        The Americans are actively working on a UAV group flight program, and this is a weapon against which it is almost impossible to create a defense.

        Have you seen fireworks exploding in stages? First, one big explosion, then a dozen small ones .. continue or is the idea of ​​a struggle clear? wink
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 11 July 2013 16: 46
        +3
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        that the Americans are actively working on a UAV group flight program and this is a weapon against which it is almost impossible to create a defense.

        I see such methods of struggle
        1) EW
        2) Fighting carriers before launch. Since 1991, Russia could have been rather indifferent towards aircraft carriers because the struggle for supremacy over the sea has lost its relevance, and the aircraft carriers did not bear a particular threat directly to the Russian Federation because of the insufficient combat radius of aircraft. From 2018- They will pose an immediate threat to the territory of the Russian Federation. New low-noise submarines are needed.
        3) Fighting satellites. But here I am poorly versed in how realistic this is. Xs.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 11 July 2013 23: 35
          +1
          Quote: Odyssey
          Fighting satellites. But here I am poorly versed in how realistic this is. Xs.

          It’s too difficult to fight space groups, 20000 km altitude, if you destroy a couple, the system will still work, it may work less efficiently.
          Denis offers cluster bombs to knock out sectors.
          It turns out that any method of struggle is costly and not particularly effective.
          Maybe your "Skaty" to bring to mind, perhaps it will be cheaper.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 12 July 2013 01: 04
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            It’s too difficult to fight space groups, 20000 km altitude, if you destroy a couple, the system will still work, it may work less efficiently.

            I also always thought so, I was always skeptical of the fight against satellites.
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Denis offers cluster bombs to knock out sectors

            And this is a witty thought smile
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Maybe bring your "Skaty" to mind, perhaps it will be cheaper

            Well, there’s still no horse lying around. Although it is necessary to finish.
            By the way, the PRC is also building an analogue of the X-47. It is interesting with what lag behind amers it will go into production with them.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 12 July 2013 09: 53
              0
              Quote: Odyssey
              By the way, the PRC is also building an analogue of the X-47. It is interesting with what lag behind amers it will go into production with them.

              The article was on English-language sites as Americans take offense at the Chinese for spying and stealing technical documentation, so I won’t be surprised if the PRC soon appears the same as the United States with only Chinese identification marks and a camera on the UAV's computer cover.
              Quote: Odyssey
              Well, there’s still no horse lying around. Although it is necessary to finish.

              Russia's top leadership in the person of Putin recently voiced a huge need for the development of such an apparatus (something like delaying death is similar), so I think that in a year it will try to take off.
    2. bulgurkhan
      bulgurkhan 11 July 2013 20: 25
      +1
      And how much will they gain in the training of deck aviation pilots !? These devices will leave the factory and immediately take part in the hostilities, then lie for a year in the warehouse and, if necessary, instantly get back into business again. No loss of skills.
  26. Army1
    Army1 11 July 2013 15: 13
    +1
    Americans are good fellows no doubt. But for himself and against us. So I see no reason to admire and rejoice from ear to ear, of course impressive. But our Buran, which was lost in due time, also does not leave me indifferent. We must work in silence, and preferably without the slogans: "Has no analogues" (we have the best) and "We have nothing like this, we cannot, we are stupid (we are worse than Mozambique). We can do no worse, the question is in financing and his control.
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. And raid
    And raid 11 July 2013 17: 46
    -1
    Well done, cool, work well, do not slurp cabbage soup !!! They and the Japanese will soon have some robots to fight with us, but it seems that women are giving birth to new women. Or do not give birth?
  29. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 11 July 2013 17: 48
    +2
    It is extremely interesting here, what is the level of EPR in this UAV? After all, if you consider that the X-47 has internal compartments for weapons, then this can be a very serious argument for breaking through serious air defense.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 11 July 2013 18: 43
      +2
      Good question. The answer is also nothing. Disappearingly small EPR. So to find and ensure stable tracking of this unit will be quite difficult. Moreover, he will not break through air defense alone. So calling it shock, the authors did not sin much against the truth
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 11 July 2013 21: 58
        0
        Disappearingly small EPR

        From what angle? and at what height? Is it like a raptor 0,0002? wassat
        1. gregor6549
          gregor6549 13 July 2013 07: 48
          0
          Of course, the EPR depends on the angle of the detected object in relation to the radar, as well as on what principle of radar is used to detect it. For combined radar systems (that is, when the radar transmitter and receiver are not separated from each other), the EPR value of this UAV is of the order of 0.1-1.0 depending on the angle. For remote radar systems, the EPR value of the same UAV increases on average 10 times. But the trick is that most modern radars are built according to a combined scheme, which means that the chances of timely detecting and destroying such UAVs by such radars are very small. And then who did not have time, he was late
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 11 July 2013 23: 08
      0
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      It’s extremely interesting here what the ESR level of this UAV is.

      Why do we need his EPR?
      This dish does not fly at will of a person’s hand in the cockpit, but by means of high-speed transmission-exchange of digital data for many kilometers.
      For this they will "catch" him and beat him with his muzzle on the ground. hi
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 12 July 2013 00: 59
        0
        Quote: Papakiko
        For this they will "catch" him and hit him with his muzzle on the ground

        Saying a lot easier than doing. UAVs have been used for more than 20 years. So far, there has been one semi-mythical case of control interception.
        Moreover, encrypted data transfer channels now do even for relatively simple UAVs. What can we say about the X-47.
        Although, of course, we must work in this direction too.
  30. rudolff
    rudolff 11 July 2013 18: 52
    +1
    Aron, if we add to the low level of radar visibility the lack of constant communication with the operator, and also the presence of an inertial navigation system, then this is a real problem for air defense. In any case, passive means to detect such a machine will be very difficult, if at all possible. And turning the radar into active mode is not always safe.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 11 July 2013 19: 22
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      Aron, if we add to the low level of radar visibility the lack of constant communication with the operator, and also the presence of an inertial navigation system, then this is a real problem for air defense. In any case, passive means to detect such a machine will be very difficult, if at all possible. And turning the radar into active mode is not always safe.

      Do you mean that X-47 can work to destroy targets in a specific square according to a given program, and not according to the instructions of the operator? That is, this machine should have its own radar and programmed separation of priority goals? This is too much.
  31. kundyshev
    kundyshev 11 July 2013 21: 43
    -1
    What is the alarm about?
    For air defense facilities of the object there is no difference whether the GOAL is inhabited or not. Detection - Alien - Escort - Aim in the zone - DESTROY! ALL !!! How does it differ for the enemy from any dangerous air target?
    Only because "IT'S COOL"! Only for the GOS anti-aircraft missile - this is the lyrics! D E N L D I D E N Y F K I D E N L A T A
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 12 July 2013 00: 51
      0
      Quote: kundyshev
      What is the alarm about?
      For air defense facilities of the object there is no difference whether the GOAL is inhabited or not. Detection - Alien - Escort - Aim in the zone - DESTROY! ALL !!! How does it differ for the enemy from any dangerous air target?

      Anxiety that the EPR of the target is small, there may be many goals, a target with a huge range of action, an all-day target and armed with high-precision weapons (also with a rather large radius of action)
  32. rudolff
    rudolff 11 July 2013 22: 27
    +2
    Aron, I did not mean the complete independence of this machine in the search, selection and selection of targets and in deciding on their destruction. Her level of robotization is certainly quite high, but this is not a robot. At the same time, working on a ground target with previously known coordinates, without the participation of the operator and even without using GPS, is quite capable of it. The same can be attributed to the use of anti-radar missiles. The machine itself is able to start them in case of detection of radar exposure. In addition, the system of information interaction of the 35s and UAVs is now being actively tested, when the former are used to target the latter. As for the availability of its own radar on board, probably this is already too much for the Americans. Although technically quite possible. Wait and see.
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 12 July 2013 00: 46
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      As for the availability of its own radar on board, this is probably for the Americans too much

      This shit will be installed
      The UCAS is equipped with electro optics (EO), infrared (IR), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), inverse SAR, ground moving target indicator (GMTI), electronic support measures (ESM) and maritime moving target indicator (MMTI) sensors.
  33. serezhasoldatow
    serezhasoldatow 12 July 2013 00: 34
    0
    "Buran" landed in a machine gun from space
  34. Alex96
    Alex96 12 July 2013 09: 03
    0
    Yes, it’s good when we have it.
  35. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 15 July 2013 02: 20
    0
    "Well done", they quickly mastered the landing after takeoff ...