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.

 

First Ever In Flight Pictures Of The X-47B

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
First Ever In Flight Pictures Of The X-47B









Pictures show aircraft in cruise configuration with its landing gear retracted - love to see the pics of it in attack mode !!




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Link:

www.businessinsider.com...

second line



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
well that doesnt look like a waste of money



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


Yep, Your money



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


Yep, Your money

not american, but your right the people pay for that crap..i mean its good to see technology but when its for the miliatary it always makes your worry. i just hope it isnt used to kill anyone, but im asuming it will.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Another link in the mechanized unmanned fleet that will eventually prey on us.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Did you see them
 

sorry to be the partypooper, but this has been posted yesterday.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 13-10-2011 by icepack because: added link



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
is it just me or does that first pic look awfully alot like alot of UFO typical pictures??

starting to think most ufo sightings over the years have been advanced military aircraft more and more now.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I was going to say from the first side picture of the craft it looks like a UFO. So it has the atypical stealth configuration designed to outsmart radar. Robot wars here we go!



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by Did you see them
 

sorry to be the partypooper, but this has been posted yesterday.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 13-10-2011 by icepack because: added link


Oh well - I did try the search - obviously not well enough - Thanks for letting me know

rgds



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Did you see them
 

yeah, i couldnt find the thread either at first, i only remembered i read it yesterday. there should be an option in the search function to sort by date.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Imagine one of these being launched from the X-47B

Drones carrying drones

gizmodo.com...



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
It's fuel mileage and range must really suck. Can't refuel. Small weapons payload.

Does it offer much more a Cruise Missile couldn't do?

If they wanted something to loiter around in airspace a long time a prop version would have been better.


It's like the F-35 and how effective it will be for the Navy. Less range than a F-18, not really effective in a Pacific War. Just looks pretty.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
This video says it was released in 2008, I wonder if that means made public in 2008
www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Did you see them
Imagine one of these being launched from the X-47B

Drones carrying drones

gizmodo.com...


You know what I just realized?

Common perception is that it's horribly wrong to manually pilot an aircraft into a building, but it's totally acceptable to remotely guide an aircraft into a building.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The x-47b is not just a waste of money. It is a safer, lower cost aircraft that will be of great utility to the armed forces. Aircraft such as this help to save lives (even though this is achieved through the killing of hostile individuals in foreign countries). Not only do they make the world a safer place for Americans, but they also limit the risks taken by U.S. military personnel by being remotely operated. On a tangent, this site is full of posts by people who blatently deny anything that a government entity claims. Much of the time, people make statements attacking things of which they possess very little to no understanding, making claims based on absolutely no facts. It is wonderful to be open-minded and investigative, but it is just plain irresponsible and harmful to others to make such severe claims simply because they are more appealing or you simply like to contradict everything that the government says. Use Occam's razor. Google the term if necessary.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
It's fuel mileage and range must really suck. Can't refuel. Small weapons payload.

Does it offer much more a Cruise Missile couldn't do?

If they wanted something to loiter around in airspace a long time a prop version would have been better.


It's like the F-35 and how effective it will be for the Navy. Less range than a F-18, not really effective in a Pacific War. Just looks pretty.




Performance

Maximum speed: subsonic

Cruise speed: 0.45 mach (342 mph)

Range: 2,100+ NM (3,889+ km)

Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,190 m)


Armament
2 weapon bays (Provisions for 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) of ordnance)[14]


They would always be nice to have constantly over a Carrier Battle Group.

edit on 16-10-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
0

log in

join