X-45 Drone bomber

Antares · Post by **Antares** » 2004-04-19 06:12pm

I wonder why nobody else made about this earlier:

http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucav.html
better:
http://www.invisible-defenders.org/prog ... s/x-45.htm

The articles describes the first drone bomber which can attack a target completly autonomous.

A single word comes to my mind after reading this, SkyNet.
Yes, call me paranoid

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-19 06:16pm

It was posted about earlier, in HAB.

Antares · Post by **Antares** » 2004-04-19 06:25pm

oh, i see

i searched for "X-45" and onyl one thread appeared so i thought it wasnt mentioned.

whats HAB?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-19 06:26pm

Its a private forum for the Heavy Armour Brigade. Don't worry about it.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-04-19 08:55pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Its a private forum for the Heavy Armour Brigade. Don't worry about it.

How can one access this forum?

Supreme Monkey Lord · Post by **Supreme Monkey Lord** » 2004-04-19 08:58pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Its a private forum for the Heavy Armour Brigade. Don't worry about it.
How can one access this forum?

Suck the Great Leader's tiny dick, which he compensates for with large mechanized vehicles.

jus kiddin', contact Sea Skimmer.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-04-19 09:13pm

Ah, so that's what they're using the X45 for. Kool.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-04-19 11:10pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Its a private forum for the Heavy Armour Brigade. Don't worry about it.
How can one access this forum?

By being given the rare honor of joining the Heavy Armour Brigade.

*Warning: Hazing ceremony is most definitely not for the weak of heart or body*

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-20 12:24am

I wasn't hazed... Not going to be either. Now then, I'm up for CAP duty.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-20 08:01am

I wasn't hazed, because I'm a founding member. Hence the rank.

The 'A-45' or 'B-45' or whatever it ends up being will be an effective bomb truck for low intensity conflicts, at least.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-04-20 08:16am

In service in 2006?

Erm... why are Boeing giving away lots of details about cutting-edge military aircraft?

Or is it just deliberate misinformation designed to distract the USA's enemies away from the possibility of these things already being in frontline service?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-20 08:17am

Peregrin Toker wrote:In service in 2006?

Erm... why are Boeing giving away lots of details about cutting-edge military aircraft?

Or is it just deliberate misinformation designed to distract the USA's enemies away from the possibility of these things already being in frontline service?

It doesn't offer them anything sensitive.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-04-20 08:30am

Vympel wrote: It doesn't offer them anything sensitive.

Oh...

(BTW - I still haven't seen an Aurora)

AdmiralTDM · Post by **AdmiralTDM** » 2004-04-20 08:33am

awesome, but I dont trust it if people are not flyin it...

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-20 08:38am

AdmiralTDM wrote:awesome, but I dont trust it if people are not flyin it...

Umm....praytell why?

Or do you mean people on the ground flying? Or do you mean people actually IN the thing flying it. It's MUCH better to have pilots on the ground flying it, as, for one thing, the Aircraft is not restricted by what G-forces the pilot can withstand, allowing for very high-G manouvers. I drool for the day when we have unmanned AS fighters. That's going to be fucking awesome. Once the U.S. has reliable ASUAV's (There's a neat acronym, and YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST, DAMMIT! I'M COPYRIGHTING THAT SHIT!) {Ay-Swav(ala Rico Suave)} anyway, we will truly rule the skies then.

*cackles maniacally*

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-20 09:12am

The pilot not being in the actual aircraft will mean the pilot on the ground will have a much harder time getting effective situational awareness, not to mention loss of the 'feel' of the aircraft when you're actually flying it. Frankly, I don't think fighter UCAVs that can replace manned fighters will be viable for at least 25 years.

Antares · Post by **Antares** » 2004-04-20 09:19am

Right.

At the moment interceptor pilot can take how many G's? 8-12? And this only for seconds.

Unmanned stuff can fly curves which generate G-forces equal to the material stress the weakest part of the object can take or at least close to it.

When to pilots with same experience and with the same interceptor fight each other the one wins that can take more G's because he can fly smaller curves and thus out-maneuver his opponent.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-20 11:11am

Right.

At the moment interceptor pilot can take how many G's? 8-12? And this only for seconds.

Unmanned stuff can fly curves which generate G-forces equal to the material stress the weakest part of the object can take or at least close to it.

When to pilots with same experience and with the same interceptor fight each other the one wins that can take more G's because he can fly smaller curves and thus out-maneuver his opponent.

I doubt you'll find many fighter schools that teach "he who pulls more Gs wins"- it's about seeing the enemy first and positioning yourself for victory at the outset- air combat at all stages is an energy fight. And the SA of a remote piloted fighter will be complete shit. Period. At BVR, no fighter or prospective UCAV has the capability to dodge a modern missile within it's kill envelope (and how the UCAV fighter pilot would keep his eye on the missile, buggered if I know); it's ability to pull more gs will mean little to the enemy that knows when to fire. At WVR, the aircraft with the actual pilot will always have a much better idea of where his enemy is. Until they can accurately simulate 'sitting in the cockpit', robot fighters are a pipe dream.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-20 11:17am

AdmiralTDM wrote:awesome, but I dont trust it if people are not flyin it...

but you can heroicly fly it with your X-Box from the safety of your living room... then it will be just like your legendary exploits as a sniper.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-04-20 01:54pm

Vympel wrote:The pilot not being in the actual aircraft will mean the pilot on the ground will have a much harder time getting effective situational awareness, not to mention loss of the 'feel' of the aircraft when you're actually flying it. Frankly, I don't think fighter UCAVs that can replace manned fighters will be viable for at least 25 years.

Even if UCAVs are less effective in combat then human piloted aircraft, they ought to decrease the price of these things enough to make it worth while, in addition to the advantage of less body bags.

I also wouldn't underestimate current AI in a dogfighting situation. The sky doesn't have all the clutter that makes life hard for robots to get around.

Antares wrote:Right.

At the moment interceptor pilot can take how many G's? 8-12? And this only for seconds.

As I recall you can take 12 Gs for about 1 second before going unconcious. Also, the force distorts the shape of your eyeballs so you can't see.

I believe you can take 9 Gs for almost 10 seconds before blacking out, though. At least with a G suit.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-04-20 02:00pm

No pilots=No POWS+No propaganda for Islamis barbarians on I'll Justjeerya.
Aren't pilots the one component that production is limited on? Removing that bottleneck gives you the abliity to field even greater numbers. Training time can be upped greatly, without the wear and tear on the plane, giving it a longer service life without sacrificing realism of the training. Simulators now aren't up to snuff, because of the G forces the pilots only experience in the plane itself, not a simulator. You fight as you train, and there would be no detctable difference between the real thing, and a simulation when using RPVs.
Hell, it gives the "A" teams of Top Gun school the ability to take over from lesser pilots when they get shot down, (transfer of command) or have these planes spread out over a larger area, effectivly having more pilots in one place at a given time. 1000 planes,with 500 pilots means you have 2 fully manned airbases on opposite ends of the world.500 here, and 500 there. The piolts at either or neithor airbase. The "B" teams, and "C" teams can fly them into position, and hand off controle when the situation warrents it. Let the good do the grunt work, and the great do what only they can do, like kicking fucking ass!.
Then there is the idea of pulling shifts on long missions, greatly reducing pilot fatigue. Not being subject to G forces will prolong a pilots carreer, as the cumulative effect of these G forces fuckes up their eyes. Eyes are the main medical reason pilots get retired from service by the flight surgeon. Ask any commercial pilot why he retired from the military, and most will point to their glasses, and talk of getting them as a naturale part of the aging process. Glasses or contacts=Grounded.
The big advantage of humans VS remote controle in tanks and other ground vehicle is when they break, the crew can get out and fix it, and continue the mission if need be as infantrymen.
This option is not open to the fighter pilot, as his jet will either make it back , or it won't, and there is almost nothing he can fix from inside of his cockpit.
Also, the planes still have to be serviced and armed, but the support crews are in rear areas, and are less of an investment in time and money. Unless someone is going to argue that the service crews are harder to recruit, train, and retain. The fitness needed by fighter pilots seems to me far above that of the crews. With it, come a shorter career.When was the last time a mechanic was forcibly retired because he needed to wear glasses, or his heart couldn't stand 8 Gs? I WANT men that are starting to need glasses because of age in MY talent pool of techs.

Downsides might be "highjacking" controle, or just simple jamming.
I don't know what the hell I'm talkng about here, so I'll ask for better informed opiions about such.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-04-20 03:38pm

Rogue 9 wrote:I wasn't hazed... Not going to be either. Now then, I'm up for CAP duty.

Give us time.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-20 03:54pm

Rogue 9 wrote:I wasn't hazed... Not going to be either. Now then, I'm up for CAP duty.

neither was i, and i got a battalion of comman..... i mean a marching band.

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2004-04-20 03:59pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote: Downsides might be "highjacking" controle, or just simple jamming.
I don't know what the hell I'm talkng about here, so I'll ask for better informed opiions about such.

According to the first link, though:

In a typical mission scenario, multiple UCAVs will be equipped with preprogrammed objectives and preliminary targeting information from ground-based mission planners. Operations can then be carried out autonomously, but can also be managed interactively or revised en route by UCAV controllers should new objectives or targeting information dictate.

So, if the signal from the ground flight crew is jammed, it'll still be able to complete its objective.

That won't stop an enemy from sending out false signlas, like telling the drone to halt its attack, I guess...

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-04-20 04:42pm

Cosmic Average wrote:
EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote: Downsides might be "highjacking" controle, or just simple jamming.
I don't know what the hell I'm talkng about here, so I'll ask for better informed opiions about such.
According to the first link, though:

In a typical mission scenario, multiple UCAVs will be equipped with preprogrammed objectives and preliminary targeting information from ground-based mission planners. Operations can then be carried out autonomously, but can also be managed interactively or revised en route by UCAV controllers should new objectives or targeting information dictate.
So, if the signal from the ground flight crew is jammed, it'll still be able to complete its objective.

That won't stop an enemy from sending out false signlas, like telling the drone to halt its attack, I guess...

Uh... encryption?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

X-45 Drone bomber

X-45 Drone bomber

hmmm

Re: hmmm

Re: hmmm