It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is X-47B passing torch to Okhotnik-B?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
www.deagel.com... and www.deagel.com... both the specifications are about the same, along with same claimed 2020 release date. www.defenseone.com... -"Instead, naval aviation leaders have consigned the X-47B to museums, even as they struggle to define the next step in unmanned carrier aviation. The Salty Dogs were built as prototypes for an unmanned attack aircraft, with a low-observable design, 4,000-pound internal payload, and range beyond 1,500 miles. But once they arrived, naval aviation leaders had a surprising change of heart. Instead of long-range strike, they said, the capability most needed on the carrier was long-range surveillance. Yet the Navy had just finished buying 68 unmanned MQ-4C Triton broad area maritime surveillance vehicles, enough to serve the fleet’s carrier strike groups, according to the program’s requirements documents." So are they really turning these attackers into tankers?

www.uasvision.com... There was also talk in their state armament plant of investing money on drone technology. Does this mean they are less likely to withdraw from a similar project like the X-47B?




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

The X-47B was never meant to be UCLASS, unless Northrop decided to offer it and it was selected. . After JUCAS it was used as a demonstrator and didn't even come close to meeting the MQ-25 specifications.

Contrary to what everyone believes, the X-47B was not sent to be UCLASS and then had the Navy change requirements. They were sent to Pax to prove that a UAV could safely operate off a carrier deck. That's all.
edit on 12/4/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

Hate to be that guy, but is there any evidence that the Russian ucav even exists?

After all, the Russians appear to have abandoned the mikoyan skat and hand it over to the Chinese. Them they went off to buy Iranian UAV tech. Their own UAVs have been the us and China badly. And Europe for that matter.

That would strongly imply to me this ucav is a paper plane only.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It didn't even have a weapons bay did it?



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I believe it did, but was never used for anything.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Well they do claim the SU-57 can fly on its own using a centralized computer don't know if that technically counts as a drone. sputniknews.com... they are talking about autonomous T-14s, autonomous torpedo's that try to trick SONAR into thinking they are fish, Polyana-d4m1 controlling air defenses as being autonomous. I remember that they lagged behind to the point of buying drones from Israel.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

When they demonstrate autonomous flight for an su-57, then I will believe the Russians can do what they say.

The problem is the or russians say a lot and do rather little. In the past 15 years they claimed to have three different space capsules to replace the Soyuz in the works. None have been more then wooden mockups.

They are the inverse of China: they talk only a little and do a frack load. I watch China rather closely now for aviation and space developments. Russia, much less so.

If oil prices go back to $75/barrel, then Russia is worth watching.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

"The problem is the or russians say a lot and do rather little. In the past 15 years they claimed to have three different space capsules to replace the Soyuz in the works. None have been more then wooden mockups. "

Come on even the US and Europe buy most of their rockets they cant be that bad. I bet your not optimistic about their 45 day trip to Mars with monkeys. They are also part of the lunar moon station project.

You watch China closely more than Russia in the space and aviation projects? www.asian-defence.net... quwa.org... They cant even BS right. They go from a 1m2 at 450km detection range to a 3m2 or 5m2 detection range at 170km. There is a reason why they copied SU-35 engines and bought aircraft from Russia in the 1st place.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

There's a world of difference between the Russian space program and the Russian aerospace industry. Dealing with the Russian Air Force can be an adventure. I've dealt with them more than once, and every time had my hair stand up from things they told me, or wanted to do with the aircraft.

As I've said repeatedly, Russia has great engineers, who can do some interesting things with their ideas. The problem is that their production and quality control, both of which have improved quite a bit in the last few years, still have some distance to go to catch up with other nations.

In some fields, I'd take Russian equipment over western equipment, but most of the ones I would are either one time use or limited use scenarios.They've done a hell of a job closing the gap in several areas though and if they can get consistent funding levels, and their quality control down, i see them getting a several year advantage in those areas quickly.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

The us uses their rockets to ferry astronauts to the international space station. We do this because we retired the space shuttle and the commercial crew flights have been delayed. The launches by Boeing and spacex to the space station are about a year out. Then using those Russian rockets will end.

Some commercial aerospace companies place SATs on Russian rockets. That can and does end badly. In fact their failure rate has been climbing. They lost Ione this week, frex.

As for the Russians joining the deep space gateway? Well, NASA agreed to a study as to what Russia can participate in. However, no agreement has been made as to what or if they will participate. NASA, BTW, is absolutely willing to study anything with anyone. Actually doing something though...

Once administrations shift here in the us, you can bet russian participation will be limited, if not stopped. The dsg is supposed to start construction in 2021 or 2022 with the second SLS launch.

You notice the Russian science module has slipped in its launched again?

I'm with zaph that the Russians are excellent prototypers. They are not good manufacturers.

Sputnik news et al should be carefully weighed. Some of what they report is accurate. Some is blatantly propaganda.

Zaph: those components or that equipment you mentioned, how much of it is from the Soviet era rather than Russian per se? Ie designed pre 1991?

Now back to China: the j-20 has had its IOC. They flew with their own local engine (Russian free) already (blame Canada!). They are cranking out aircraft carriers. They don't sit and brag. They just do it.

BTW, you can count me in as far as the su-57 being a cool looking plane.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Interestingly it's all either pre-91, or post 2012. I don't think any of it was built between those years.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: wewuzkangz

There's a world of difference between the Russian space program and the Russian aerospace industry. Dealing with the Russian Air Force can be an adventure. I've dealt with them more than once, and every time had my hair stand up from things they told me, or wanted to do with the aircraft.

As I've said repeatedly, Russia has great engineers, who can do some interesting things with their ideas. The problem is that their production and quality control, both of which have improved quite a bit in the last few years, still have some distance to go to catch up with other nations.

In some fields, I'd take Russian equipment over western equipment, but most of the ones I would are either one time use or limited use scenarios.They've done a hell of a job closing the gap in several areas though and if they can get consistent funding levels, and their quality control down, i see them getting a several year advantage in those areas quickly.


Some of their logging/military trucks are well built and easy(ish) to repair in the field. Talking about the KAMAZ, GAZ, URAL, ZIL, KRAZ stuff. Some of the videos are impressive.

Of course our Oshkosh HEMTT is pretty awesome as well.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: wewuzkangz

I've dealt with them more than once, and every time had my hair stand up from things they told me, or wanted to do with the aircraft.



Go on....
What else are those crazy Caucasians doing over there?



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

The one that sticks in my mind is the time they came in and their brakes overheated during the taxi. They asked for a fire truck (which was standard procedure anyway to make sure they didn't catch fire). Truck gets there, one of the crew guys goes over and wants them to break the hoses out and spray water on the brakes to cool them.

Everyone out there was like, "not only no, but hell no". Come to find out that was pretty much their SOP for hot brakes.

The other fun one was talking to one of their pilots. He was flying the Tu-154 at the time, but had experience with the Condor as well. After they had one lose power on takeoff, they changed takeoff procedures. I don't know if they are still in effect, but at the time, they lined up on the runway, went to full power, with brakes set. At the end of two minutes at power, if all four were turning, and the instruments read good, they released the brakes and off they went.
edit on 12/7/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Some light reading about the Russian Concord or Tu-144..
From Wiki
en.m.wikipedia.org...

"Early flights in scheduled service indicated the Tu-144S was extremely unreliable. During 102 flights and 181 hours of freight and passenger flight time, the Tu-144S suffered more than 226 failures, 80 of them in flight. (The list was included in the Tu-144 service record provided by the USSR to British Aircraft Corporation-Aérospatiale in late 1978, when requesting Western technological aid with the Tu-144, and probably incomplete.) Eighty of these failures were serious enough to cancel or delay the flight.

After the inaugural flight, two subsequent flights, during the next two weeks, were cancelled and the third flight rescheduled.[20] The official reason given by Aeroflot for cancellation was bad weather at Alma-Ata; however when the journalist called the Aeroflot office in Alma-Ata about local weather, the office said that the weather there was perfect and one aircraft had already arrived that morning. Failures included decompression of the cabin in flight on 27 December 1977, and engine-exhaust duct overheating causing the flight to be aborted and returned to the takeoff airport on 14 March 1978.

Alexei Tupolev, Tu-144 chief designer, and two USSR vice-ministers (of aviation industry and of civil aviation) had to be personally present in Domodedovo airport before each scheduled Tu-144 departure to review the condition of the aircraft and make a joint decision on whether it could be released into flight. Subsequently, flight cancellations became less common, as several Tu-144s were docked at Moscow's Domodedovo International Airport.

Tu-144 pilot Aleksandr Larin remembers a troublesome flight around 25 January 1978. The flight with passengers suffered the failure of 22 to 24 onboard systems. Seven to eight systems failed before takeoff, but given the large number of foreign TV and radio journalists and also other foreign notables aboard the flight, it was decided to proceed with the flight to avoid the embarrassment of cancellation.



IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Sat Dec 9 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed mammoth quote, and added source and EX TAGS




top topics



 
1

log in

join