Robot plane drops bomb in successful test

[Balschoiw 0]

Robot Plane Drops Bomb in Successful Test

Quote[/b] ]A robotic plane deliberately dropped a bomb near a truck at Edwards Air Force Base on Sunday, marking another step forward for technology the U.S. military hopes will one day replace human pilots on dangerous combat missions.

Under human supervision but without human piloting, a prototype of the Boeing Co.'s X-45 took off from the desert base, opened its bomb bay doors, dropped a 250-pound Small Smart Bomb and then landed.

The inert bomb struck within inches of the truck it was supposed to hit, Boeing said, adding that had the bomb contained explosives, the target would have been destroyed.

The X-45A was preprogrammed with the target coordinates and used the satellite-based Global Positioning System to adjust its course.

Horton, who was sitting 80 miles from the target, authorized the drone to drop the bomb, which was released from 35,000 feet as the plane flew at 442 mph.

The military sees such aircraft taking part in its most dangerous missions, such as bombing enemy radar and surface-to-air missile batteries, in order to clear the path for human pilots.

The Y-shaped, tailless plane has a 34-foot wingspan and weighs 8,000 pounds empty. It is the first drone designed specifically to carry weapons into combat.

I only hope the intel the drone is fed with is up-to-date and not flawed.

[shadow 6]

Very interesting, but is it human-controlled or is it auto-piloted?

How will it succeed when coming under enemy AA-defences?

How about evasive maneuver and countermeassures?

[Commander-598 0]

Quote[/b] ]Under human supervision but without human piloting

Pays to read.

[bmgarcangel 0]

I believe we have already had non-human controlled airplanes in the air. Bassically the drone shit that we already heard about, some of them can fly without human control now via a new program designed by this aerospace company. All they do, take off, follow terrain and waypoints, go to target area, take pictures, and go home. Then they land on the runways without any human interfence.

All that has to happen before they go, a little airport type car comes up and uploads the mission information.

Human controlled drones have already fired their missiles in anger and killed some terrorists but right now, this company that designed this autopilot thing for computers ot fly on without human interference, is working on a ID program that would target vehicles, make sure its a friendly vehicle by tags, shape and other things, and if its not a friendly vehicle, they would fire.

~!Bmgarcangel

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

It's remarkable to note that the US considers a munition landing 'near' a target as a hit. Apparently US ground attack pilots are credited with a hit in training if they hit within a KM of the target... while other nations require the actual target to be, you know, hit.

The important aspect of this drone is that it doesn't need a human to press the fire button (as the other UAVs do ATM- by remote) - it can fly its entire mission without intervention (although it is monitored)

[MLF 0]

Baron you dont need a direct hit using a 250lb bomb to destroy the vehicle.

[Scorpio 0]

Depends on the impact radius of the bomb. If it doesn't hit straight on the target but destroys the target, I'd say it is a hit. Although that isn't pretty efficient in training as you need all the accuracy and skill you can get.

[MLF 0]

i do smell BS when it comes to the 1km thing that baron talked about, but if a bomb lands within inches of you its still gonna blw u too bits.

[brgnorway 0]

Interesting! A hit is a hit is a hit lol. I remember my surprise when I served in the Norwegian Coastal Artillery and discovered that the 120mm seafront battery actually didn't target the ships directly! Instead, they defined a target area - a large circle - that was bombarded by all 6 cannons. It was more effective with this "lottery" method compared to using time to target individual targets.

[bmgarcangel 0]

I already know it is BS. I already know a pilot who has been in the airforce for the past 12 years of his life. He's flown the B-52, F-15, and currently flys the A-10. he'll tell you thats total BS because if it were like that, we wouldn't have graduating pilots.

Ya nut case

[bmgarcangel 0]

Anyhow, if a bomb hits like right next to a vehicle or like really close to it, say 10 15 to 30 feet away, depending on the type, it will destroy the vehicle. But don't go and say that other countries can make a direct hit on a tank with a bomb because thats in some respects, a waste of a bomb depending on the type.

The type of bombs used to kill tankss are usaully the ones with all the other smaller explosives that shoot out of it when it flys over its target.

Did you guys know one Larger version of the Maverick can destroy a whole Sam site cause of its blast radius?

And that ain't a direct hit~!

~Bmgarcangel

[NavyEEL 0]

It's remarkable to note that the US considers a munition landing 'near' a target as a hit.  Apparently US ground attack pilots are credited with a hit in training if they hit within a KM of the target... while other nations require the actual target to be, you know, hit.

It said it landed "within inches"... many people can't even throw darts (consistently) with that kind of accuracy, so a bomb landing just inches short of a truck seems pretty accurate to me.

[denoir 0]

Since regular military GPS has a precision of between 0.5 - 1 m, it was a very good shot

Anyhow autonomous UAV's are the future for aircraft. The big issue is going to be Friend or Foe identifications. As long as you're up against 3rd world countries, burst transmition directed radio tags will do. If you're up against a country with a semi-modern military radio tags are suicide as they effectivly tell the enemy where to aim. I suppose that visual/IR and radar classification of targets is going to be the big thing there.

[Badgerboy 0]

Anyhow, if a bomb hits like right next to a vehicle or like really close to it, say 10 15 to 30 feet away, depending on the type, it will destroy the vehicle.  But don't go and say that other countries can make a direct hit on a tank with a bomb because thats in some respects, a waste of a bomb depending on the type.  

The type of bombs used to kill tankss are usaully the ones with all the other smaller explosives that shoot out of it when it flys over its target.  

Did you guys know one Larger version of the Maverick can destroy a whole Sam site cause of its blast radius?

And that ain't a direct hit~!

~Bmgarcangel

Which Maverick would that be? The AGM-65 with the largest warhead is the G.

Considering the size of an average fixed SAM site (Assuming we are talking about the standard Russian design), is a radar system in the middle of a star, with launchers at its points. It's highly unlikely a AGM-65 could destroy the entire site, particuarly as the warhead tends to be focused.

A cluster munition could do the job, but the higher it disperses, the less saturation you get with the bomblets.

Dumb bombs are still used against many targets including tanks, mainly because they are cheap, and most countries have large stockpiles of them. You use precision munitions in a high threat environment as to minimize the risk to the launch aircraft.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

1) I didn't say which munitions they were firing.

2) My PSI was a FAC and worked with US pilots all over the world.

3) If the munition destroys the vehicle, that is a hit. If it lands within a K of it, but doesn't destroy it, that shouldn't really be counted as a hit.

[MLF 0]

ok so what munitions were they using that can consider a hit up to a km.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

All of this discussion is of course pointless, as anyone who took the time to actually read the article would know:

Quote[/b] ]The inert bomb struck within inches of the truck it was supposed to hit, Boeing said, adding that had the bomb contained explosives, the target would have been destroyed.

Instead we just have to turn this into a pissing contest, don't we?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Very interesting, but is it human-controlled or is it auto-piloted?

How will it succeed when coming under enemy AA-defences?

How about evasive maneuver and countermeassures?

aehm dont ask these questions they are so negative!

Anyhow first one would have to ask other questions. What if the plane is shot down, what is the loss, what is the cost of such a plane. And please take into consideration that usually not the expense finishes a war before it is won but the resistance on the homefront because of casualties.

[C4P741N 0]

All they do, take off, follow terrain and waypoints, go to target area, take pictures, and go home.  Then they land on the runways without any human interfence.  

I wish the AI in OFP could manage this more often

[bmgarcangel 0]

Anyhow, if a bomb hits like right next to a vehicle or like really close to it, say 10 15 to 30 feet away, depending on the type, it will destroy the vehicle.  But don't go and say that other countries can make a direct hit on a tank with a bomb because thats in some respects, a waste of a bomb depending on the type.  

The type of bombs used to kill tankss are usaully the ones with all the other smaller explosives that shoot out of it when it flys over its target.  

Did you guys know one Larger version of the Maverick can destroy a whole Sam site cause of its blast radius?

And that ain't a direct hit~!

~Bmgarcangel

Which Maverick would that be? The AGM-65 with the largest warhead is the G.

Considering the size of an average fixed SAM site (Assuming we are talking about the standard Russian design), is a radar system in the middle of a star, with launchers at its points. It's highly unlikely a AGM-65 could destroy the entire site, particuarly as the warhead tends to be focused.

A cluster munition could do the job, but the higher it disperses, the less saturation you get with the bomblets.

Dumb bombs are still used against many targets including tanks, mainly because they are cheap, and most countries have large stockpiles of them. You use precision munitions in a high threat environment as to minimize the risk to the launch aircraft.

It was the AMG-65. I meant, radar site. We even got to watch it being first to the target. He has lots of videos from his missions!

[Leveler 0]

So the US is now building dumb airplanes for inept third world air defences? Well it is gonna be different when the Chinese start flooding the market with cheap microwave countermeasures. Unmanned fighters and bombers is a narrowminded tactic and a large step backwards (at least with current technology).

[aj_addons 0]

how bigs the blast radius on a M.O.A.B that could the same sight in one go probably but doubt the c130 would get near it though

[theavonlady 2]

Why is this such a big deal when there are already Predators firing missiles?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

.deleted.

As I said before unmaned is not stupid at all. They are easier to shoot down so what? What counts is that no more bodybags return home! This is not a "nice gesture" but the only way to win a long-term war. The longer a war lasts, the more people get killed, the more the support on the homefront will diminish. A western country doesnt get beaten anymore in a war, it retreats because of too heavy losses and lack of civil support.

Money is less of a factor. No bodybag, no handcuffed pilot as hostage, no bodies dragged through the streets can be shown in the newspaper, only proken planes.

And what about the impact on your enemy. Do you know how frustrating it must be for the troops to only capture machines? What can they show on TV to support their troops?

[aj_addons 0]

hopefully they will honda make great walking robots already another 20 years we might have mechs