X-47 made 1st carrier launch

[JimTX]

Gents, I think you're pickin' at nits here.

Of course, the trial and error learning curve leading up to where the '47 is now, was rife with glitches, failures, start-all-over-agains and yes, the very necessary expedient of having a human drone operator being "hands on", as the human element whipped the tech element into shape. Many operators, flying many airframes, over many years.

And, I have no doubt, that such an operator was indeed on standby throughout the recent carrier trials, just in case.

Oh, and I have no problem understanding that the '47, in it's present form, is a development platform, and is about as "combat ready" as Michael Moore at Parris Island.

But, either these carrier tests exhibited autonomous takeoffs, circuits and landings, or they were man-operated drones. Either-Or. An operator on standby as "safety", is not a man-operated drone, unless he hits the "intervention" switch.

Now, if the USN claimed that these were autonomous evolutions, and they were in fact flown by a human operator, then USN heads should roll, manufacturer's heads should roll, and so-called "journalists" heads should roll.

As I stated earlier, the design brief for the '47, was for either a fully developed operational version thereof, or it's progeny, would eventually evolve into carrier air wing units. The test '47, was developed to full scale, including weapons bays, exactly for the reason that it's development is intended to produce operational hardware, and not just X-15 type test and research airframes.

The operational goals for these aircraft, is to be capable of being sent and execute missions, even while having to autonomously execute evasive tactics, route adjustments, tanker hook-ups, and other eventualities. All of which are to be driven by the software and processors carried in flight, and not via external link.

Whether they'll ever get that much autonomy into the system is the zillion dollar question, but it's clear that such is the goal.

Eventually, they'll get there. I have no doubt that this will be years, decades even, in the coming. But it is coming, I have no doubt.

But, unless the entire enterprise was just one huge lie, I will stick to my assertion.

It. Is. Not. An. R. O. V.

Prove otherwise, if you will.



Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

[Aesop]

Gents, I think you're pickin' at nits here.

Of course, the trial and error learning curve leading up to where the '47 is now, was rife with glitches, failures, start-all-over-agains and yes, the very necessary expedient of having a human drone operator being "hands on", as the human element whipped the tech element into shape. Many operators, flying many airframes, over many years.

And, I have no doubt, that such an operator was indeed on standby throughout the recent carrier trials, just in case.

Oh, and I have no problem understanding that the '47, in it's present form, is a development platform, and is about as "combat ready" as Michael Moore at Parris Island.

But, either these carrier tests exhibited autonomous takeoffs, circuits and landings, or they were man-operated drones. Either-Or. An operator on standby as "safety", is not a man-operated drone, unless he hits the "intervention" switch.

Now, if the USN claimed that these were autonomous evolutions, and they were in fact flown by a human operator, then USN heads should roll, manufacturer's heads should roll, and so-called "journalists" heads should roll.

As I stated earlier, the design brief for the '47, was for either a fully developed operational version thereof, or it's progeny, would eventually evolve into carrier air wing units. The test '47, was developed to full scale, including weapons bays, exactly for the reason that it's development is intended to produce operational hardware, and not just X-15 type test and research airframes.

The operational goals for these aircraft, is to be capable of being sent and execute missions, even while having to autonomously execute evasive tactics, route adjustments, tanker hook-ups, and other eventualities. All of which are to be driven by the software and processors carried in flight, and not via external link.

Whether they'll ever get that much autonomy into the system is the zillion dollar question, but it's clear that such is the goal.

Eventually, they'll get there. I have no doubt that this will be years, decades even, in the coming. But it is coming, I have no doubt.

But, unless the entire enterprise was just one huge lie, I will stick to my assertion.

It. Is. Not. An. R. O. V.

Prove otherwise, if you will.



Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

You seem to have a problem with language.
Let's start simple.

It. Is. Not. An. R. O. V.

Poppycock, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt.

Eventually, they'll get there. I have no doubt that this will be years, decades even, in the coming. But it is coming, I have no doubt.

Look, hate to be YOU back at you, but either it IS an ROV, or it WILL BE an ROV, but it can't be not one now, AND one now.
Sing it with me: "o/* One of these things is not like the other...o/*

But, either these carrier tests exhibited autonomous takeoffs, circuits and landings, or they were man-operated drones.

They were man operated drones. And there's no Santa Claus. Might as well get it out of the way all at once.

Now, if the USN claimed that these were autonomous evolutions, and they were in fact flown by a human operator, then USN heads should roll, manufacturer's heads should roll, and so-called "journalists" heads should roll.

Sh'yeah, that will happen, because the Navy, like defense contractors and the press, is death on people who stretch the truth in press releases.

In other news, there's no Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Magical Unicorns.
With that proviso, go back and read the press releases from Northrup and the Navy a wee bit more critically.
For reference, a SeaSparrow, ASROC, or Harpoon is far more "autonomous" as you understand the word. You (and everyone from the CIC on the ship to the Washington Post) can tell this, because when they push the "launch" button, it blasts off and largely goes about its mission.
Nota bene there aren't 20 guys standing around to give it a push or paste feathers on the wings, or a pair of officers with handcontrollers next to the launch rail in case it forgets how to fly.
When simply pushing a button sends an A-47 Attack UAV on a mission anywhere but in another iteration of CallOfDuty Modern Warfare, give me a holler.
If you're going to stand by that assertion until it's reality, you might want to roll up a comfy BarcaLounger for when your knees get tired of all that standing.

So it seems clear where the problem is for you.
The media and the military-industrial complex may have been a bit less than clear about what the rest of us consider objective reality.

Were you one of those guys really surprised that your Polaris Submarine for $6.98 turned out to look a lot like a cardboard refrigerator box with some snazzy stick on dials and gauges? Did you miss the part in the copy where it said "200 pound test fibreboard"? Some of us, you see, have been dealing with weapons system press releases a bit longer than you.

So maybe grab a beer over near a flight line sometime, and ask military pilots about the difference between manufacturer's published specs, like for instance aircraft range or top speed, versus actual performance in service, and then performance under working loadouts with actual ordnance hanging on the wings.

It's pretty much the difference between what waitresses declare on their tax returns, versus the actual tips they receive.