Mister Frag 0 Posted February 26, 2003 From http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_754117.html?menu=news.technology Pilotless aircraft carrier jet makes first test flight A prototype of a robot jet fighter designed to take off and land on an aircraft carrier has made its maiden flight in the US. The Pegasus, also known as the X-47A, flew for 12 minutes before successfully landing on a runway at the Naval Air Warfare Centre in California's Owens Valley. The arrowhead-shaped plane completed the flight autonomously, following a series of pre-programmed way points. The plane flew to about 3,300 feet and reached a speed of about 150 mph, said a spokesman for the Northrop Grumman Corporation, who made the prototype. The plane is 27.9 feet long and has a wingspan of 27.8 feet. It's a prototype of a future pilotless jet Northrop hopes to build with the assistance of the U.S. Navy and Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Pegasus concluded it's first flight by setting down near a point meant to simulate the cable that jets snag with their tailhooks during carrier landings. Northrop hopes future flights will further demonstrate the experimental plane's capability to land with near-pinpoint accuracy - a must for carrier landings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zverushka 0 Posted February 26, 2003 150 mph? consider it shot down Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zverushka @ Feb. 26 2003,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">150 mph? consider it shot down<span id='postcolor'> PRO-TOE-TIPE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted February 26, 2003 I also believe its a scaled down version. (Not sure what ratio) It actually looks pretty cool from other angles. It will be a long time before you see these flying operationally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zverushka @ Feb. 26 2003,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">150 mph? consider it shot down<span id='postcolor'> Does it matter though if its cheap enough and can carry out its miission ? or maybe its speed was limited by its controls not its design. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IceFire 0 Posted February 26, 2003 More highly trained pilots lose their jobs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Feb. 26 2003,21:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More highly trained pilots lose their jobs. Â Â <span id='postcolor'> you don't know that, as avon lady said its still on the experimental phases so nobody is going to loose their jobs as pilots. there will still be a need for people to send commands to the aircraft as well as their upkeep. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Feb. 26 2003,12:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More highly trained pilots lose their jobs. Â Â <span id='postcolor'> Beats losing your life... These things will be used to attack high-value/high-risk targets. They won't be getting into dogfights with the enemy, they will be used to deliver bombs, and will do so cheaper than cruise missiles because they are reusable. The unit cost of a Mk84 2000-pound bomb is $3,100, and if you can deliver even one of these with a high degree of accuracy (which can even be enhanced using a JDAM assembly), you'll have something that is more effective than the 1000-pound warheard on a Tomahawk cruise missile at a much lower cost, and doesn't risk the lives of highly trained and expensive pilots. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted February 26, 2003 the US are too cheap to make their UCAV's VTOL Or what ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2003,13:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US are too cheap to make their UCAV's VTOL Or what ?<span id='postcolor'> I'm sure that if there was a pressing need to do so, an engineering solution could be found. But these things are intended to supplement manned jets on existing aircraft carriers, so a non-VTOL/STOL aircraft that can be launched using the catapult will be cheaper and more efficient. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 26 2003,22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2003,13:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US are too cheap to make their UCAV's VTOL Or what ?<span id='postcolor'> I'm sure that if there was a pressing need to do so, an engineering solution could be found. But these things are intended to supplement manned jets on existing aircraft carriers, so a non-VTOL/STOL aircraft that can be launched using the catapult will be cheaper and more efficient.<span id='postcolor'> depends . i remember not so long ago about all the praises of the US military and world military analysts about fully VTOL UCAV's and in my opinion VTOL ones would be better than catapult launched ones , mainly because they would be more easily deployable and even a frigate or any other ship with helicopter deck could use it , and that , in defensive and offensive missions , and the room made on the AC's flight deck by the abandon of a part of the Catapult system (1 catapult could still remain for classic anavy ircrafts to take off) could be used to park more of these UCAV's and their armament i know that the V/STOL technology consumates a lot of fuel at the take off of the aircraft and at its landing , but i think that it's a compromise that has to be done .... and then if you still aren't happy , maybe the US defence ministery and arms industry could make a beefed up UCAV that would have a catapult launch ability and with a longer range and that would be used on the remaining catapult ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted February 26, 2003 i think that even if the flight groups would loose in effective combat range , they would win in power and reliability , but that's only if the UCAV's share the same weapon carriage (or at least , a half of what we see actually) as their todays equivalents Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 26, 2003 It's not the first. Small remote control UAVs were launched off the deck of aircraft carriers (or other ships, doesnt really matter). and I think I remember a predator being fired off a ship like a cruise missile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US are too cheap to make their UCAV's VTOL Or what ?<span id='postcolor'> Remember, we have real carriers, not cruisers with ramps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 26 2003,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US are too cheap to make their UCAV's VTOL Or what ?<span id='postcolor'> Remember, we have real carriers, not cruisers with ramps.<span id='postcolor'> heh ? i'm not english , we got real carriers with catapults too in France .... and that since the 60's .... the Foch , the Clemenceau and the Charles de Gaulles ? you think we use elastics to send our jets ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KingBeast 0 Posted February 26, 2003 Well at least our 'ramp clad' cruisers are smaller targets Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2003,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 26 2003,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US are too cheap to make their UCAV's VTOL Or what ?<span id='postcolor'> Remember, we have real carriers, not cruisers with ramps.<span id='postcolor'> heh ? i'm not english , we got real carriers with catapults too in France .... and that since the 60's .... the Foch , the Clemenceau and the Charles de Gaulles ? you think we use elastics to send our jets ?<span id='postcolor'> I'm not sure if you noticed, but the Foch has been sold to Brazil, and the Clemenceau has been decommissioned as well... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 27 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you think we use elastics to send our jets ?<span id='postcolor'> ...yes? Yeah, I know, you guys have the CDG, which, as I recall, was out on its sea-trials 48 hours before heading back to port with propulsion problems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 27 2003,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 27 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you think we use elastics to send our jets ?<span id='postcolor'> ...yes? Â Yeah, I know, you guys have the CDG, which, as I recall, was out on its sea-trials 48 hours before heading back to port with propulsion problems.<span id='postcolor'> don't tell that to anyone ... But , please ,give us a break leave us alone , it's our first nuclear aircraft carrier , nothing can be perfect the first time but , have you heard about the flight deck length problem ? was too short for the E2 hawkeye we also lost a propeller in the middle of the atlantic (or mediterranean , i can't remember) we've also had structural problems ... but now i think we got over these problems and the CDG is (almost) ready to fight Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted February 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 27 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2003,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 26 2003,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Feb. 26 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US are too cheap to make their UCAV's VTOL Or what ?<span id='postcolor'> Remember, we have real carriers, not cruisers with ramps.<span id='postcolor'> heh ? i'm not english , we got real carriers with catapults too in France .... and that since the 60's .... the Foch , the Clemenceau and the Charles de Gaulles ? you think we use elastics to send our jets ?<span id='postcolor'> I'm not sure if you noticed, but the Foch has been sold to Brazil, and the Clemenceau has been decommissioned as well...<span id='postcolor'> i was naming them as exemple of aircraft carriers using catapults those two are very old we had to change them , and if you're interested , the Clemenceau is still seeking a buyer .. it would make a really classy flower pot in your backyard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 27, 2003 French Aircraft Carrier Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 27, 2003 oooh, she's so purty- I'll bet the Germans will love her Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted February 27, 2003 Can we please change this thread into a thread about pilotless navy planes and not into a "my carrier is better/nicer" thread Otherwise I will sink this thread with all its carriers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr. Duck 0 Posted February 27, 2003 Oooh, charles the gaulle... Vive La France!!! Ehm, oops, sorry, that slipped through. Ok, I stop now. Pretty neat plane man, bummer you can't fly the damn thing (only "control" it from the ground). Real pretty, yes... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
