US Navy's X-47B UCAS Aircraft

THey have proven the carier operation part of the strike package with the X-47B. If things were as they should be, that aircraft would already have gone through full trials and be in production.

But the administration in between did not want it...and so we do not have it.

Like THAADS in the 1990s which was ready to move forward but was cancelled by linton, was them several years later resurrected by Bush and is now fact and in place.

Perhaps we will see the X-47B resurrected at some point. We should...it would be the perfect combo with the F--35s.

Jeff Head said:

THey have proven the carier operation part of the strike package with the X-47B. If things were as they should be, that aircraft would already have gone through full trials and be in production.

But the administration in between did not want it...and so we do not have it.

Like THAADS in the 1990s which was ready to move forward but was cancelled by linton, was them several years later resurrected by Bush and is now fact and in place.

Perhaps we will see the X-47B resurrected at some point. We should...it would be the perfect combo with the F--35s.

Click to expand...

Exactly, the Clinton team "submarined" the F-22,,, the Bush team didn't help matters at all, Rummy and Cheney, and Bob Gates were all ignorant of the critical need for overwhelming airpower to neutralize the op-for early on,, Obama team did the dirty deed!

Those were years where the Army basically ran the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs, and Air Force Chief of Staff attempted to defend the F-22 and was fired during the Clinton years, very sad, and put us way behind the 8-Ball...

The X-47B isn't really big enough to do the tanking mission, and Northrup Grumman are busily working on the B-21, its gonna take all they've got to produce 100 airframes, so its a matter of priorities,, hopefully they will allow someone else to buy into the X-47B and expand it for the tanking mission.

So, it's to be seen who'd be the first navy to deploy UCAV, then?

Air Force Brat said:

Exactly, the Clinton team "submarined" the F-22,,, the Bush team didn't help matters at all, Rummy and Cheney, and Bob Gates were all ignorant of the critical need for overwhelming airpower to neutralize the op-for early on,, Obama team did the dirty deed!

Those were years where the Army basically ran the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs, and Air Force Chief of Staff attempted to defend the F-22 and was fired during the Clinton years, very sad, and put us way behind the 8-Ball...

The X-47B isn't really big enough to do the tanking mission, and Northrup Grumman are busily working on the B-21, its gonna take all they've got to produce 100 airframes, so its a matter of priorities,, hopefully they will allow someone else to buy into the X-47B and expand it for the tanking mission.

Click to expand...

Well, it was for such a long time that the US have been enjoying uncontested air dominance...besides it's still decades before China can pose enough of a competition to warrant funding into these areas.

MwRYum said:

So, it's to be seen who'd be the first navy to deploy UCAV, then?

Click to expand...

Nope Rotary wing Firescout UCAV. The question is who will be the first deploy a long range UCAV from the deck of a carrier.
From a logical perspective the Carrier deck is a natural place for a fixed wing UCAV. The carrier already has locally facilities perfect for use as Drone operations. Organic maintenance facilities, fuel supply, armaments, communications and space for drone operators.

MwRYum said:

Well, it was for such a long time that the US have been enjoying uncontested air dominance...besides it's still decades before China can pose enough of a competition to warrant funding into these areas.

Click to expand...

True, but from my perspective,, having 500 F-22s rather than 183 or so would have "extended our reach" when it comes to maintaining the peace... Those F-35s will do the job, but the F-22 offers so much more from a "tactical" perspective.

As the Navy moves ahead with the larger autonomous tanker,,, and they will, they need seriously up their game with the F-35C, that will give our Carriers the long range punch that they need.. I'm rather certain that USAF will begin development of a long range, very L/O tanker fleet in the very near future,, as all have pointed out, our legacy tankers are quite vulnerable, unless heavily defended, and that takes away resources from the mission.

I'm disappointed that Northrup has moved away from the X-47B based tanker,,, in my frank opinion, that extended reach is critical in responding to any future threat.

Air Force Brat said:

True, but from my perspective,, having 500 F-22s rather than 183 or so would have "extended our reach" when it comes to maintaining the peace... Those F-35s will do the job, but the F-22 offers so much more from a "tactical" perspective.

As the Navy moves ahead with the larger autonomous tanker,,, and they will, they need seriously up their game with the F-35C, that will give our Carriers the long range punch that they need.. I'm rather certain that USAF will begin development of a long range, very L/O tanker fleet in the very near future,, as all have pointed out, our legacy tankers are quite vulnerable, unless heavily defended, and that takes away resources from the mission.

I'm disappointed that Northrup has moved away from the X-47B based tanker,,, in my frank opinion, that extended reach is critical in responding to any future threat.

Click to expand...

The R&D costs were figured on 750 aircraft and that was the agreement.

Clinton tried to hold it up and succeeded in doing so, but it got going very well under Bush.

Then in the middle of prodution, Obama cancelled it after 184 aircraft were built. Then immediately omplained how expensive they were.

I know people personally who worked in the higher levels of the prgrsm management. They all knew that what the Sec Def was saying at the time on behalf oc Obama was pure D Bravo Sierra.

But Obama oakyed the cacellation anyway...saying Russia and China would not even roll out a prototype until the mid 20s.

So?

But that was a lie too. We all know that the next year, 2012, when the SecDef went to China they embarrassed him by rolling out the J-20 while he was there. Made him look like an abslute fool and an a$$...which he and Obama were.

Well, now we have 178 birds flying when we should have over 700, and they had to spread out the cost over 178 birds./

They are still hands down the best thing flying, and in terms of kinematics and stealth combo for air superiority, they will remain so until the 6th gen airraft come out...despite the J-20 or the PAKFA. Neither of them will be able to compete.

In fact the only aircraft that might, is the F-35 with its sensor fusion and stealth combned together with the same weapons. The F-35 is atually better at overall sensor integration.

Luckily, the F-35 is coming along and doing quite well now and we are going to field (the US alone) probably close to or over 3,000 of them.

So that is helpful, and the three versions will maximize their utility off of carriers, off of LHDs and LHAs, and off of regular airfields.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Nope Rotary wing Firescout UCAV. The question is who will be the first deploy a long range UCAV from the deck of a carrier.
From a logical perspective the Carrier deck is a natural place for a fixed wing UCAV. The carrier already has locally facilities perfect for use as Drone operations. Organic maintenance facilities, fuel supply, armaments, communications and space for drone operators.

Click to expand...

Yes, the US and others have already been deploying unmanned arieal vehicles from carriers and destoyers and LHDs, LHAs, LPDs, etc.

But the X-47B was a well armed, combat capable fixed wing aircraft, with good range and great comms.

Each F-35s would be able to control three of those airraft on their front door, allowing them to go in and do a very effective job of SEAD before the F-35s ever got there...and the neat thing about it was that they could do so without ever announcing their (the F-35s) presence.

A very effective combo...in addition to allowing the aircraft to perform autonomous partol missions on behalf of the carrier groups.

Of course they could also be controlled by the carrier, or through the satellite, or the backup omm system made available by the Triton/Global Hawk/P-8 network, from almost any place in the world.

Very sad..and IMHO almost wreckless...that the Obama admin chopped them like they did and then tried to cover it up by saying they were going to turn it into a tanker.

Well, we need tankers...but the best available unit for that is aklready built and siting out in the desert with hundreds and hundreds of hours still on their airframes and that would be the S-2Bs out there. They already showed they could perform a tanker funtion and we have enough to put four on each and every carrier with an effective testing, maintenance, training, and backup set of airraft too.

We have answers to these issues...we just need leadership that is made aware of them and then ahs the backbone to implement them.

Jeff Head said:

Yes, the US and others have already been deploying unmanned arieal vehicles from carriers and destoyers and LHDs, LHAs, LPDs, etc.

But the X-47B was a well armed, combat capable fixed wing aircraft, with good range and great comms.

Each F-35s would be able to control three of those airraft on their front door, allowing them to go in and do a very effective job of SEAD before the F-35s ever got there...and the neat thing about it was that they could do so without ever announcing their (the F-35s) presence.

A very effective combo...in addition to allowing the aircraft to perform autonomous partol missions on behalf of the carrier groups.

Of course they could also be controlled by the carrier, or through the satellite, or the backup omm system made available by the Triton/Global Hawk/P-8 network, from almost any place in the world.

Very sad..and IMHO almost wreckless...that the Obama admin chopped them like they did and then tried to cover it up by saying they were going to turn it into a tanker.

Well, we need tankers...but the best available unit for that is aklready built and siting out in the desert with hundreds and hundreds of hours still on their airframes and that would be the S-2Bs out there. They already showed they could perform a tanker funtion and we have enough to put four on each and every carrier with an effective testing, maintenance, training, and backup set of airraft too.

We have answers to these issues...we just need leadership that is made aware of them and then ahs the backbone to implement them.

Click to expand...

two outstanding posts Master Jeff,,, both honest and to the point, thankfully the F-35 has a decent shot to survive future idiots attempting to derail an aircraft that because of the Clinton, Gates, Obama ignorance and stoopidity in killing the F-22 is coming along as an answer to a "crisis" and I don't use that word lightly.

Those "Stooges", "MOE, LARRY& Curly" nearly ripped the heart out of the DOD,,, they have done irreparable damage that will take at least the next 10-15 years to rectify!

and before I go, I would say that between you and Master Popeye that I have been "converted" to the X-47B,,, even though I hate tailess and unmanned with a passion, to be honest, that's become a very fine aircraft, that will perform a critical mission and keep our airmen safer!

MwRYum said:

Well, it was for such a long time that the US have been enjoying uncontested air dominance...besides it's still decades before China can pose enough of a competition to warrant funding into these areas.

Click to expand...

NO, we take our "competition" very seriously,,, I wouldn't write anyone off, just because they may not have the resources we would want,, they are indeed a serious threat, and we take them each one, very seriously!