Northrop Grumman X-47B UCAS-D

LM participation

The Skunk Works is a teammate-subcontractor to Northrop Grumman on the X-47B. The Skunk Works workshare includes development and fabrication of the arresting hook, control surfaces, and edges, including the engine inlet lip.
 

Attachments

  • 1655133433823.png
    1655133433823.png
    298.8 KB · Views: 270
Last edited:
sublight_ said:
sferrin said:
X-39 said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...r-capable-unmanned-jets-are-headed-to-museums
Click to expand...
A damn shame we weren't smart enough to produce them. You can be sure China won't make that mistake.
Click to expand...
They may have after all, the "RQ-180" might be like an X-47 "C" or "D". But the "B" sure was beautiful.
Click to expand...
he meant a stealthy long range naval deep strike platform which the navy been looking for since the a-12 failure
 
Western Museum of Flight said:
The X-47 Story: Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft.
Paving the Way for Unmanned Carrier Aviation. The Navy Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) with the Northrop Grumman X-47B performed the first-ever catapult launch, airspace/deck operations, and arrested recovery aboard an aircraft carrier of a tailless, unmanned,
autonomous aircraft, and later pioneered unmanned, autonomous aerial refueling. Together with its X-47A predecessor, these programs demonstrated technologies for Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft. Learn about the history and accomplishments of these programs and former Navy UCAS Chief Engineer John Whittenbury.
Click to expand...
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/3_P13ih1-Y0?si=yDYe8RnbMFVZUzye
Code: 
https://youtu.be/3_P13ih1-Y0?si=yDYe8RnbMFVZUzye
Enjoy your Sunday evening on the couch. :cool:
 

Attachments

  • 1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (5).jpg
    1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (5).jpg
    140.6 KB · Views: 82
  • 1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (4).jpg
    1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (4).jpg
    33.2 KB · Views: 63
  • 1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (3).jpg
    1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (3).jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 60
  • 1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (2).jpg
    1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (2).jpg
    44.8 KB · Views: 59
  • 1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (1).jpg
    1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (1).jpg
    42 KB · Views: 64
  • 1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97.jpg
    1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 68
  • 1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (6).jpg
    1_9386e968ff6fab6abfd97879e7d33c97 (6).jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 82
EmoBirb said:
Pretty much what I think every time I see it. To this day the X-47 seems like one of the most mature and promising tech demonstrators that never went into production. They would be an incredible asset for any carrier air wing.
Click to expand...

So true.
But how to justify the F-35C (and then the whole commonality based JSF conundrum) if you replace it by a UCAV having similar weapons load, with more range and arguably better stealth?
Did the Navy really had the choice?
 
Manuducati said:
So true.
But how to justify the F-35C (and then the whole commonality based JSF conundrum) if you replace it by a UCAV having similar weapons load, with more range and arguably better stealth?
Did the Navy really had the choice?
Click to expand...

I don't think X-47B (or a hypothetical MQ-47 I suppose?) would have usurped the F-35C, far from it. This could have been the Navy beating the AF and anyone else in UCAV-Fighter integration. An F-35C, MQ-47, MQ-25 and E-2D mix sounds incredibly lethal. And the "MQ-47" could have supported the F-35C as a high end but still cheaper and less costly to lose force multiplier.

Eventually the Navy will come around to this anyway, given the progress with the USAF CCAs and developments in China, Russia and Europe. But the Navy could have beaten them all with a formidable platform years prior.

What I wonder as well, could an X-47B operate from America-Class LHDs? I wonder because China had a similar LHD/Drone Carrier type vessel, IIRC it's called Sichuan, however it has a single EMALS. Would a catapult be necessary for an X-47B/America-Class combo too, or would it be able to work without it, in theory?
 
Manuducati said:
So true.
But how to justify the F-35C (and then the whole commonality based JSF conundrum) if you replace it by a UCAV having similar weapons load, with more range and arguably better stealth?
Did the Navy really had the choice?
Click to expand...
You mean like having the A-6 and F-4 at the same time? Different roles.
 
Sferrin said:
You mean like having the A-6 and F-4 at the same time? Different roles.
Click to expand...

I mean the F-35C (as the Legacy and Super Hornet) is a multirole platform that has shortcomings compared to more specialized airframes, including the ones you've just talked about.

Swap the F-35C for a X-47B derivative as Legacy Hornet replacement, gaining better range and stealth for air-to-ground (plus a secondary air-to-air role with superior loitering time, autonomously or serving as flying missile magazine for other platforms, be it AEGIS, E-2D or Super Hornet), leaving the air-to-air role mainly to the F/A-18E/F, saving them some precious fatigue life.
Then replace the Super Hornet with a F(/A)-XX optimized for air-to-air, optionally two-seater when situation demands (UCAV wingman control, strike leader, long missions...)

Just a personal point of view
 
Manuducati said:
I mean the F-35C (as the Legacy and Super Hornet) is a multirole platform that has shortcomings compared to more specialized airframes, including the ones you've just talked about.
Click to expand...
As did the multirole F-4 compared to the A-6. Doesn't change the fact that both had their places as would an F-35 / X-47 combo.

F-4 --> F-35
A-6 --> X-47
 
My point being...
X-47B + F-35C < X-47B + F-xx(*)

(*): F-xx being a more air-to-air oriented design.
 
Manuducati said:
My point being...
X-47B + F-35C < X-47B + F-xx(*)

(*): F-xx being a more air-to-air oriented design.
Click to expand...
What it should be is X-47B + F-35C (to replace legacy Hornets) and F/A-XX (to replace Super Hornets). X-47B & F-35C fill completely different roles.
 
Manuducati said:
So true.
But how to justify the F-35C (and then the whole commonality based JSF conundrum) if you replace it by a UCAV having similar weapons load, with more range and arguably better stealth?
Did the Navy really had the choice?
Click to expand...
I think that really is the problem.

The X-47 bomb bay was just too small when the F-35C was coming with basically the same capacity while stealthed.

I suspect we're going to see a bigger strike UCAV accompanying the FAXX, one more or less the size of the NG ATA proposal. Similar payload, anyways. Not needing a cockpit might make it possible to make the airframe a bit smaller. call it an "X-47C or D" with a ~10-12klb payload, twice that of the -B model.



litzj said:
Seems to be stupid but I have question that
is there any information related to flywing type UCAV's maximum g or turn-rate performance ?
Click to expand...
Not in the open literature, I don't think.

I'd honestly be surprised if they could take more than about a 60deg bank angle and the ~2-G load that corresponds to. I know the B-2 has issues with sliding out of the sky at extreme bank angles so has admitted bank angle limits in the flight controls, and IIRC that extends to all flying wings.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom