X-45 UCAV unmanned combat aircraft, page 1

Originally posted by American Mad Man
My question is are we ready to trust remote control to carry out our missions? Isnt there a high probability that electronic warfare would prevent comunication with the plane, therefore rendering it useless?

Encoded satellite remote control is coming of age -

The problem of interception, jamming or otherwise neutralizing the UAV's remote control signal is certainly a concern - especially with flight controls & command and control.
However the current advanced state of remote control via satellite is actually rather safe, utilizing "low probability of intercept" (LPI) communications antennas.
The stealth UCAV type aircraft is given it's tasks to perform, and intelligence is downloaded through encoded satellite links.
To help prevent enemy intervention or detection, antennas are on top of the aircraft to better communicate with the satellite and simultaneously shield them from electronic countermeasures and surveillance.

Originally posted by huskers
This is the second try at an armed UAV. The first was the Dark Star (crashed at Edwards during testing). The predators have proven this concept with hellfire missiles and 500 lbs bombs (testing laser guided bombs now).

Dark Star #1 crashed during testing in 1996, but the program continued on into June of 1998 with Dark Star #2.

It is a little known fact (not suposition) that a derivative of the "DarkStar" URAV program was used in Iraq just prior to hostilities. An un-named US Air Force official described it as being the same concept as DarkStar, in that it is stealthy and it uses the same apertures and data links. (AW&ST Jul. 6, 2003)

The classified UAV's operation apparently caused concern among USAF U-2 pilots who noticed high-flying aircraft operating within their flight corridor over Iraq, a proximity they considered too close for comfort. The mysterious aircrafts' flights were not coordinated with those of the other manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft, they said.

An unidentified Navy official said that it had the hull form of the DarkStar, only that it was larger than the original Dark Star, yet it is smaller and carries a "less robust" payload than the U-2.
The Air Force has had a long-standing requirement for a very-low-observable, high-altitude UAV that can fly 1,000 naut. mi. to a target, penetrate modern air defenses such as the SA-10, SA-12 and SA-20 anti-aircraft missile systems, loiter for at least 8 hr. and return to base.

Lockheed's Skunk Works has also been developing a classified UCAV demonstration program at least since 2000 with the idea of competing against Boeing's X-45 and Northrop Grumman's X-47 UCAV demonstrators (AW&ST Sept. 25, 2000, p. 28).

Originally posted by American Mad Man
...was the dark star A to G only or did it have A to A abilities as well?

There is probably very little or no information for this in the public sector...
The technology certainly exists, and therefore the capability exists - but overall the UCAV's point and purpose is Recon and ground attack, not attacking other aircraft.
As the UCAV's develop more over the coming years you will probably see an emergence of A2A capabilities such as AIM-9's, AMRAAM's or ASRAAM's - but don't expect to see remote control dogfights with guns blazing.