Navy’s First Unmanned Stealth Bomber Completes 29-Minute Test Flight
- Posted on February 7, 2011 at 8:51am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
It’s called the X-47B, and it could revolutionize warfare.
The X-47B is the Navy’s first unmanned stealth bomber drone, and on Fridy it completed a 29-minute test flight. How does it differ from, say, a Predator drone? The X-47B can be operated entirely by a computer, removing the need for a human to operatete the controls. And it’s also the first drone capable of taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier.
“Today we got a glimpse towards the future as the Navy’s first-ever tailless, jet-powered unmanned aircraft took to the skies,” Capt. Jaime Engdahl, the program manager for the plane, said in a statement after the milestone light.
The New York Daily News has more about the plane:
Slightly smaller than the B-2 stealth bomber, the X-47B carries laser-guided bombs and can fly at 40,000 feet at speeds faster than 500 miles per hour.
Friday‘s test flight was just a taste of the fighter’s capability.
The Navy and the plane’s designer, Northrop Grumman, have planned 50 more test flights throughout the year.
The first plane will complete testing in late 2011, and a second will begin testing shortly thereafter, the Navy said.
Northrop built the warplane as part of a $636 million contract awarded by the Navy in 2007.
This is the successful test flight:
(H/T: Gizmodo)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 707 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 560 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 379 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 379 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 300 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (147)
TheMarine
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:43amSome of you have the purpose of this plane confused. It is not a combat fighter plane. It is a bomber. It’s purpose is to seek out a target location, deliver munitions, and return home. It doesn’t fight in the sky as some suggested.
Report Post »8jrts
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:05amFinally a worthwhile comment!! Thank you! Most of these people watch too many movies!!
Report Post »I’m counting on a conservative to be Commander in Chief in 2 years, so this may be a very useful tool.
TheGreyPiper
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 12:23pm8J — as opposed to the “useful tool” in the Oval Office now!
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 12:25pmPiper: I think you meant USELESS tool or something that rhymes with tool.
Report Post »TheGreyPiper
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 12:38pmNo, as in “useful idiot.”
Report Post »thejackal
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:34amLOBSTER you are correct, Bill Clinton the Impeached, Dis-barred, sex offender gave the Chinese advanced missile guidance technology via a grant by him to release Hughes Aerospace Technology enertial guidance system designs to “help their fledgeling space program”. The chinese imediately re-fitted all thier ICBM guidance systems to the technology given to them by Clinton. If we are ever attacked by China, Americans will die because of our loser commie, traitor Bill scumbag Clinton.
Report Post »thejackal
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:28amObamao has already said, “In the spirit of Re-Destributive policies I plan on sharing Americas technologies with our friends the Chinese, the Russians and Muslim Extremists”, it’s not fair that we have overwhelming technologies and our competetors do not. In other words the Chinese are already reverse engineering the X-47 from the planes Huessien has sent them.
Report Post »lobster
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:25amReally cool equipment. Just don’t let the chinese wipe out our gps birds. As you recall Der Schlickmeister gave them the technology to do so. Then we’d all be unable to find anything.
Report Post »JustaThought
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:21amOh man! Announcing the X-47B in this article just ruined it for a bunch of UFO-fers who had sworn they had been buzzed by alien aircraft.
Here’s to our forward thinking military towards a more perfect world. Unmanned stealth bombers that can take out even more of our manned enemies. Maybe they can do some practice flights and buzz a few of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Club Houses.
Ooops! Sorry, M-in-the-’Hood. That X-47B was armed and accidentally bombed the Muhammad out of you guys? Our bad! (heh … heh … heh)
Report Post »darlenekay
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:18amDon’t you just love the Navy. I know I do. Let’s hope innovation continues in this country.
Report Post »loyaldefender
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:08amno fate but what we make
Report Post »Redline29
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:04amOK. I used to work on a flight deck (USS Midway) back in the day. I am not yet sure how you are going to get these things to the catapult, and launch. And even more, how to land them on a moving platform. I have many questions about this. re-fueling in flight is one of them. It is cool and creepy at the same time.
Report Post »Xcori8r
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 2:37pmThose things can scoot around with more precision than human ever could manage. Heck, without the computer to micro manage the flight control surfaces at instantaneous speeds, they couldn’t even fly. As far as carrier traps, they’re probably an order of magnitude more reliable and responsive than a human pilot especially in the heaviest of weather.
Report Post »Joseph18
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:00amI can hardly wait when they roll out the maglev aircraft carrier and house a squadron of these drones.Not too mention the stealth cruiser armed with the rail gun.We already have a complete stealth submarine that can launch ICBMs.
Report Post »pescador49
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:00amWhile unmanned vehicles may be the wave of the future, soon our enemies will figure out how to disrupt the communications between ground-based pilot and Unmanned Vehicles. the bad guys will not have to destroy them individually, only disrupt the comm and these vehicles become usless. Don‘t tell it can’t be done just because it hasn’t been done yet. there is no way to keep the Unmanned Vehicles complete secure even using satellite communications.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:11amIt is most likely some if not most of our future enemies and allies have already figured out how to deal with the communication nodes these drones depend upon; one key weak spot would be the usage of the uplinks, to launch a cyber attack I believe is called a “denial of service” type – overload any and all of the nodes with too many requests and relays for useless info.
What I feel is the most likely is a enemy with the resources and ability to turn the machinery against our own; for example, show via pre generated imagery a target that actually is not there at a set of cooridnates for a strike to come in against.
Admitidly, such is not likely in the near future, yet if many a sci fi author can write scenarios about the events in their novels; and some programs on the “military channel” and the web from respected and retired generals give probabilities high enough to make them viable, we need to hope and pray our defenders are taking precautions against such possibilities.
Report Post »Sister_Mary
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:58am“Do you wnat to play at Game?”
Report Post »biggreenboo
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:24amYour computer has a learning disability.
Report Post »5410amh
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:53amI hate robots and unmanned drones for military use it will all backfire on us one day. MARK MY WORDS.
Report Post »The_Outlaw
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:50amSo ‘when exactly’ will the Obammy Administration be giving away this technology to China?
Report Post »BuG
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 7:15pmGive it to them. I think we bought it from them!! : )
Report Post »Joseph18
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:41amI’m just waiting for the maglev stealth aircraft carrier that can house a squadron of these drones and has a fast stealth cruiser armed with a rail gun.
Report Post »Verum Ad Potentia
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:33amPictures of a virtually identical (but completely independently designed & developed & totally not the product of hostile espionage) People’s Republic of China version should be in the news any day now…
Report Post »QuietRiot
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:30amIf they gave up the raptor for this and its effective i can see a great use for these and less manpower involved on ships and danger for them. Now on to the Stealth Carrier diagrams…..
Report Post »rmblount
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:28amI like the idea of keeping our men/women in uniform safe, but it makes me more skeptical of the “good” within our government. We are already being “watched” without warrants under the Patriot Act, watched with unmanned drones, now we could be “removed” without evan Air Traffic Controllers knowing the flight path.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:22amWhen will BHO Give it to China???
Report Post »rmblount
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:28amProbably
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:06amConsider this much, he most likely already has given it to them. Assuming it has not just been outright stolen from us in the first place already via their constant hacker attacks.
Report Post »Mirimichi
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:42pmI’m afraid you might be right about that. He doesn’t care about this country.
Report Post »Ron Burgundy
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:16amThats a sweeeet RC plane I wonder if I can fly it in the field behind my house? Hey Bamster can we get a buzz of the Statue of Liberty already……. I can hardly wait!
Report Post »mikemanners11
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:02amIt is just like Terminator: Rise of the Machines.
War making drones that are autonomous and can think and act for themselves.
Next we will be making a Clone Army….
Report Post »HUNITHUNIT
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:27amThis is a far cry from something that can “think and act for itself”.
Report Post »River0
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:49amNot that far! Try Googling “the singularity” and see how close we are to having intelligent machines. When they reach match point with us – possibly in ten to twenty years – they’ll design themselves and race way far ahead. Humans will be left in the dust. Don’t worry, though. By then most people will have merged with them and it will seem ‘normal’ to be half robot.
Report Post »Darla_K
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:02amThis is really cool. Now we need to send it to our border and protect our Country.
Report Post »Darla_K
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:01amThis is really cool. Now we need to send it to the border and protect our Country.
Report Post »TheAmericanRifleman
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 1:06pmBingo!
Report Post »Helldogger
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:00amGood now use it!! And Kill The Enemy!!! Quit wasting our money on war machines that don’t get used to the fullest. America has lots of enemies waiting for the grave. Let‘s get ’em there promptly.
Report Post »PA PATRIOT
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 8:59amAwesome.
Report Post »Like O” Bammay said,,
“Go make things Americans!”
twofoot_trucker
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 8:58amOH NO! Skynet here we come!
Interesting technology. Going to assume that while there is no “need for a human to operatete the controls”, that will still be an option.
Report Post »OldVet
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:14amA human payload takes up too much of the resources. There is a human at the controls via satelite. Get used to it. Human safe on the ground, more weight and range for the aircraft. Military pilots had a hard time putting their mind around it too. It’s the end of the “Tom Cruise” jet ace era and a major cost savings for the military and the taxpayers. They are recruiting enlisted pilots, another big savings.
Report Post »River0
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:15amThere are now prototype ships, submarines, tanks, and other robots being used and developed for the kind of robot warfare we’ve only seen in Terminator movies. P.D. Singer wrote a book called ‘Wired For War’ that spells it all out. See the videos on his web site.
bolec slodkie
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:28amWrong movie. Try “Stealth” (2005). Why would you replace Jessica Biel with a computer?
Report Post »twofoot_trucker
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:31amOldvet, wasn’t referring to a person in the aircraft. When I was talking about the controls, I was talking about the same type of controls that a person sits at when operating a Predator. My point is, I would hate to think that we are just turning over all that power to Windows 98.
And while this is a great addition, I have a hard time accepting that there is ever going to be an era where all aircraft in the arsenal are missing a pilot. That’s just not going to happen.
Report Post »joe3
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:38amgun rights will not protect us from this, these robots will not be controlled by a moral compass. think, in egypt, if the military was robotic, those protestors right or wrong, would have been toast on the first day. the us military will be 50% robotic in 5 to 10 years. as it is now, our forces will refuse to act upon the civilian population of this country, a robotic military will not. this is bad.
Report Post »Xcori8r
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:45amSlightly smaller than the B-2 stealth bomber ???????????
The B-2 has a max gross weight of nearly 400,000 pounds! Thats one big damn UAV.. or not!
kryptonite
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:53amThere’s a Terminator sequel right before “The Rise of the Machines,“ called ”The Rise of the Red Roach.” We skipped that movie ’cause it was boring, so the makers of Terminator came up with Skynet. In that other movie, America never gets past the Red Roach. HE controls the X-47B. How scary is that now?!
Report Post »slimkendall
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:53amThose Jonas Brothers have more to be worried about now.
Report Post »OldVet
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 9:54amYou will never see an autonomous war machine. The liability of allowing a self aware computer is too much to handle. It works in the movies but we are generations away from that possibilty in the real world. The fact is that the kids who have grown up playing wargames on computers are better at flying these things are better at it than seasoned pilots. There is no “seat fo the pants” sensation, I know I have tried it. Similators with movement turned off are a bitch to fly if you have a lot of hours in the real thing.
Report Post »Besides that, we don’t want to go there. The Chinese are building better super computers than we are and they could probably turn out these drones at one tenth the cost of ours, GAME OVER!
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:05amI have to admit that this is interesting in the way of developments; the stealth plane drones – fighters and bombers have been heard of on and off for many a year now. I just hope and pray that someone can keep a level head with the usage of these things.
Report Post »Hoosier Daddy
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:06amJoe3: Not sure about the 5-10 year timing, but there’s something to be said for having a human conscience behind the trigger. Right now, our individual fighting forces are required to obey “lawful” orders. Robotic drones will obey any orders en masse.
Report Post »thejackal
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:09amTO OLD VET: Apparently you need glasses, this is an autonomious weapon, meaning NO HUMAN at the controls. The flight plan is entirely pre-programmed, the plane flies entirely by it’s self. The Predetor and Reaper drones have a ‘pilot’ that flies them, this puppy is totaly flown by computer. HUGE difference sparky. This is the next gen of weapons.
Report Post »White Devil
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:35amMeanwhile our enemies feverishly study the footage and start reverse engineering a ton of them.
Report Post »twofoot_trucker
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:46am@Jackal;
I am guessing your name is a reference to your manners. Perhaps you should read a bit before you make comments on others. All joking and references to Terminator movies aside, is NOT autonomous.
It can fly a preprogrammed mission on it’s own, including take off and landing. Yes, that is most certainly impressive from an engineering standpoint. Does that make it “autonomous”? Does it make it “self aware” as somebody else mentioned? Not in the least.
Can it fuel itself? Can it program and activate itself? Can it decide for itself what kind of loadout it needs for various missions? Can it alter it’s own mission profile after it has been set in motion?
Right now it is a very impressive engineering achievement. But it is NOT “autonomous”.
Before jumping all over other people, maybe you should be the one to stop, read what was actually said, and do a little critical thinking.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:00amTechnologically interesting, but morally revolting.
Where there is no risk in war, there is no reason to avoid going to war. Make wars into video games for us, and we become little more than cowardly bullies who won’t even face an enemy directly, yet who kills them with impunity.
A robot has no moral qualms about killing you, soldiers might as individuals.
Report Post »tommee
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:18amHey GHOSTOFJEFFERSON
“Where there is no risk in war, there is no reason to avoid going to war. Make wars into video games for us, and we become little more than cowardly bullies who won’t even face an enemy directly, yet who kills them with impunity. A robot has no moral qualms about killing you, soldiers might as individuals.”
Never thought I’d see they day I agreed with you!
Now I‘ve just got to work on you’re archaic notion of living in the past with the constitution :-)
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:28am@TOMMEE
You might be surprised at what other things we may well agree on, but which haven’t been broached as topics on this site yet.
Report Post »Curioso
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:43amThe main obsticle to better performing jet aircraft is the human. Humans typically pass out if they maintain 10 gravities for a short period of time. Modern fighters and bombers have the capability to perform beyond what a human can stand.
Report Post »twofoot_trucker
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:50amJackal.
Autonomous; Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent:
By definition, it is not autonomous. It requires humans to do everything BUT fly. And even in flight, can it really make it’s own decisions about what targets to hit?
But that is ok, you just keep insulting everyone you disagree with. I have yet to offer insult to you, but you have shown by the way you refer to others and myself that there is no point in carrying on the conversation. Lesson learned for me. So have a nice day.
Report Post »Curioso
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:53amLol this is funny all this arguing over this plane this thing has the same capability as a cruse missile with some upgraded software and engineer to make it capable of retuning instead of being destroyed at the end of the mission. LOL
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 12:06pm@Curioso
Cruise missiles are an abomination as well. War should be dangerous for all involved, necessarily.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 12:12pmWell I was “happy” to see that it was ours .. I wonder if we have given the contract to build these to the Chinese yet?
Report Post »REDPILLREADY
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 12:21pmMore rationale for the increasing rivalry and posturing going on between the US and China on the weaponization of space, satellite killing capability, and electronic warfare. The arms race with the Soviets where in large part intended to keep the pressure up and bankrupt the commie regime. Quite a different situation now….We better get our nation’s finances in order real quick because maintaining the strongest military in the world is incompatible with relying on our chief rival for funding.
Report Post »Beck-n-ing The Blaze
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 12:29pmQuick clarification on RIVERO’s post — the author of the book “Wired for War” is P.W. Singer, not P.D. Singer. Definitely two different people. See http://wiredforwar.pwsinger.com/ for more on that book.
Report Post »REDPILLREADY
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 12:44pm@GHOST
Its easy to agree that war is an abomination, its hell, revolting, etc. etc. etc. However, if I understand your logic correctly if we equip our soldiers with ony clubs and loin cloths they’ll be less war in the world? Maybe clubs are too much technology? Perhaps you mean there should be rules for war, where the other guys also have to fight with clubs or their bare hands. You know what, if we‘re going to make rules for war why don’t we outlaw war altogether and just all get along?
While you’re working on answering those questions and ushering in world peace, I think I’ll stick with supporting our military having the most lethal weapons and greatest protection for our soldiers.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 1:16pm@REDPILLREADY
“@GHOST
Its easy to agree that war is an abomination, its hell, revolting, etc. etc. etc.”
It’s even easier when you see it first hand.
“However, if I understand your logic correctly if we equip our soldiers with ony clubs and loin cloths they’ll be less war in the world? ”
You missed my point. Be as high tech as you want, just be there as a human being. Sitting in an air conditioned room in Connecticut guiding a robot bomber over cities in the middle east, killing people while having no more danger to your own person than indigestion from the potato chips your eating, is cowardice. There’s no danger and no risk, making war easy, even trivial, to engage in. It turns the enemy into blips on the screen with no more psychological importance than the mushrooms we make Mario jump on top of. Without bearing the risk of war, while raining the destruction of war onto others, we become a yellow, inhuman monster in short order.
“While you’re working on answering those questions and ushering in world peace, I think I’ll stick with supporting our military having the most lethal weapons and greatest protection for our soldiers.”
Yeah yeah. They’re being made into cowards by design with these kinds of “you don’t have to be there” weaponry. Be as lethal as you want, but be there on the field when you dish it out is all I’m saying, as a former soldier myself. I find the notion of attacking a people that cannot fight back because you’re simply not there, immoral.
“Many, who should know better, think that wars can be decided by soulless machines, rather than by the blood and anguish of brave men.” – George Patton
Report Post »JustAGuy
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 4:00pmObama will consider it gives the US an unfair advantage and will cancel the program.
Report Post »Blazing patriot
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 4:35pmWould you ride in a computer operated / pilotless passenger jet?
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 4:55pmGhost: “I find the notion of attacking a people that cannot fight back because you’re simply not there, immoral.”
—-
“Being there” is a morally subjective concept. Were kamikazes “there”? How about the suicide bombers who get direct access to a carnal paradise by blowing up infidels? What if your enemy engages you directly, but you never saw the bullets coming because they were disguised in civilian clothes? I find those attacks immoral, yet the attackers are “there”.
On the other hand, I would have used any stealth means to blow UBL’s camp off the map without a second thought. I fully believe that if Reagan had not bombed Gaddafi’s camp, jihad would have touched US soil on his watch. To me, morality in war is defined basically in terms of evildoers, and those who fight to stop them. In the case of jihadists, it is they who are at war with infidels, pigs, and their civilian populations, so I would not give them the chance to fight back or put our troops at risk to defeat them because of some inapplicable gentlemen’s-duel notion. Those were Obama’s tactics at Marjah, and as a result the Taliban were able to mine the entire area with IEDs and then flee.
Ultimately, people value and define life differently, so whose opinion of war is right on moral grounds? For all I know, you too might subscribe to the notion that we are the Great Satan; most on the left do. They most likely agree with your characterization of the trigger-happy, conservative, warmongering fatso. Regardless, you are engaging in an abstract, philosophical discussion that leads nowhere in real life. You have the expertise, so perhaps you can tell me in practical terms how you would fight to win the war on Islamo-fascism “the moral way.”
Report Post »DisillusionedDaily
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 6:05pmI want one. Don’t need the bombs but it would be fun to play with the plane!
Report Post »royalstar
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 6:31pmIt is already obsolete or they wouldn’t be releasing info on it. They could fly a B52 in this same way if they wanted to. I wonder what military technology is really out there. Probably wouldn’t sleep at night if we knew or maybe sleep better. They choose to throw the citizens a small bone every once in a while to politically justify spending our tax dollars and or maybe strike fear into our enemies.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 6:43pmTerminator for the Patriots !
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 6:44pmI will die a free man !
Report Post »proliance
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 6:58pm“Slightly smaller than the B-2 stealth bomber…” The B-2′s wingspan is about 110 ft. wider.
And to GhostofJefferson, war should be very, very dangerous to the enemy. It should be painful, brutal and as unfair as possible. Its not a playground game where rules matter above all else. The more devastating it is to the enemy, and the safer it is to us then it will be more likely that no one will want to mess with us.
Report Post »koblog
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 7:30pm“You will never see an autonomous war machine. The liability of allowing a self aware computer is too much to handle.” – Oldvet
Not true, Oldvet. There are already plans for autonomous hunter-killers to be commanded to kill anything that moves inside a predescribed “kill box.”
Just hope no good guys wonder into the box.
Report Post »REDPILLREADY
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 7:59pm@GHOST
I respect your perspective and I sincerely thank you for your service to our nation.
Given the reality of human history dominated by violence and tryanny, I still side with supporting the strongest, most advanced military force on the planet, be it manned or computer operated, as the best means for detering war.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 10:42pmPresident Obama supported the development of this aircraft? He must have supported this idea of advanced aircraft – like the drones pounding the Taliban far beyond what Bush did. How can this be if President Obama is so weak on national defense?
Unmanned air defense is the future of warfare in the air, for now. Next – my prophesy – land warfare.
But of course Blazers know that Obama is opposed to this development in the technology of death..
Report Post »Col. HawK
Posted on February 7, 2011 at 11:58pmI have 5 years flying experience with a ‘Stick’ if anyone is listening, I could use the a Job ASAP, although I’m in Canada. Check out my Flying skills on my YouTube page, I‘ve got a lot better since I took these short vid’s of my flying. There’s more !!!
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/user/ohoh00007#p/u/25/ugj7irs9z8c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV3L1ZtZ4K0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhb645vf1QU
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 8, 2011 at 12:46pm@kryptonite
” “Being there” is a morally subjective concept.”
No its not.
“Were kamikazes “there”? ”
Clearly so, ergo, that’s why many were shot down before they could reach their targets. They were there, as human beings, the “enemy” could fight back against them.
“How about the suicide bombers who get direct access to a carnal paradise by blowing up infidels? ”
Clearly so, they are human beings and can be stopped, thwarted or otherwise engaged at any point.
“What if your enemy engages you directly, but you never saw the bullets coming because they were disguised in civilian clothes? I find those attacks immoral, yet the attackers are “there”.”
At least they’re there. I may get a tip off that they’re coming, for all you know. But they’re there and they could miss and I could strike back.
“n the other hand, I would have used any stealth means to blow UBL’s camp off the map without a second thought. ”
Stealth bombers are still piloted by humans (outside of the context of this article). They may need new tech to engage them, but the pilots still run the risk.
“I fully believe that if Reagan had not bombed Gaddafi’s camp, jihad would have touched US soil on his watch. To me, morality in war is defined basically in terms of evildoers, and those who fight to stop them.”
That’s rather simplistic and troublesome. That excuses all actions if you perceive yourself as “good” and allows persecution of all actions if the other side is “evil”.
“In the case of jihadists, it is they who are at war with infidels, pigs, and their civilian populations, so I would not give them the chance to fight back or put our troops at risk to defeat them because of some inapplicable gentlemen’s-duel notion.”
And I don’t believe you should kill people who cannot fight back against you through any means. Go figure.
“Those were Obama’s tactics at Marjah, and as a result the Taliban were able to mine the entire area with IEDs and then flee.”
No they weren’t. Nothing there was unmanned, and there were troops on the ground.
“Ultimately, people value and define life differently, so whose opinion of war is right on moral grounds? ”
Well, if we’re becoming subjectivists, it seems to me that Christianity goes right out the window, with all of its anti-war injunctions. But hey, at least you can be “sorta, kinda, subjectively good if you view it a certain way” then. :)
“For all I know, you too might subscribe to the notion that we are the Great Satan; most on the left do. ”
What does the left have to do with me?
“They most likely agree with your characterization of the trigger-happy, conservative, warmongering fatso.”
Where did I annotate “trigger happy”, “conservative”, “war mongering” or “fasto”? Show me the post.
“Regardless, you are engaging in an abstract, philosophical discussion that leads nowhere in real life. ”
All moral questions are abstract questions. If you wish to do away with morality, which seems to be the case, your own terms of engagement fail since they rely on “good” and “evil”.
“You have the expertise, so perhaps you can tell me in practical terms how you would fight to win the war on Islamo-fascism “the moral way.””
Use as much firepower as you wish. Just don’t do it from thousands of miles away leaving them unable by any means to defend themselves.
If you adopt amoral pragmatism become like the enemy, then they’ve already won.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 8, 2011 at 12:47pm@proliance
“And to GhostofJefferson, war should be very, very dangerous to the enemy. It should be painful, brutal and as unfair as possible. Its not a playground game where rules matter above all else. The more devastating it is to the enemy, and the safer it is to us then it will be more likely that no one will want to mess with us.”
Another vote for amoral pragmatism. What a brave new world we live in.
Report Post »alexegz30
Posted on February 8, 2011 at 7:06pmTakeoff and landing is still a must with human control, but simple straight forward missions are common with UAV’s. Also, this is just the first “computer independent” UAV. The Avenger has stealth technology as well. Come to think of it, they look very similar.
(Skynet already working on a template?)
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on February 9, 2011 at 7:39am@GHOSTOFJEFFERSON
==“Being there” is a morally subjective concept.
====“No its not.”
Did you overlook my conclusion? “I find those attacks immoral, yet the attackers ARE ‘THERE.’” My questions were rhetorical and meant to point out that your moral compass is clearly different from mine. You find “being there” paramount, because it is intrinsically tied to your concept of morality. However, morality is subjective. Thus “being there” as an “if and only if” condition for engaging the enemy is an absolutely subjective proposition.
=====“Be as high tech as you want, just be there as a human being.” Or, “I don’t believe you should kill people who cannot fight back against you through any means.”
I find that rule of engagement much more troublesome than my simplistic moral code. According to your view, you must afford the enemy the possibility of killing you first when you attack them. Or to be absolutely moral, you must attack in a way that there is a 50% chance that you will die. Your proposition must be that drastic, because if you have ANY other concrete advantage over the enemy — one that ENSURES that they “cannot fight back against you” even though you are there — then being there really becomes inconsequential, right?
Take, e.g., Operation Allied Force in former Yugoslavia. The planes were manned and the bombs were not dropped “from thousands of miles away.” However, the enemy never stood a chance against that barrage of bombs. They were heavily overpowered, period. NATO casualties from enemy fire were zero. “Being there” was not a factor in the ability of the enemy to fight back against NATO.
==Those were Obama’s tactics at Marjah, and as a result the Taliban were able to mine the entire area with IEDs and then flee.
=====“No they weren’t. Nothing there was unmanned, and there were troops on the ground.”
That does not make sense, Ghost. “Being there” is the rule of engagement you espouse, so what do you mean by “No they weren’t?”
==What if your enemy engages you directly, but you never saw the bullets coming because they were disguised in civilian clothes?
=====“At least they’re there. I may get a tip off that they’re coming, for all you know. But they’re there and they could miss and I could strike back.”
Yeah, the kamikazes, the suicide bombers and the jihadists disguised as civilians might miss – or not. BTW, the 9/11 jihadists were modern-day kamikazes. You can spin it any way you want, but surprise attacks generally succeed in killing the enemy. In war a split second can make the difference between life and death, so even if you are on the alert, these attacks are hard to thwart.
If they are highly effective, then why don’t we use these tactics? Simply because we consider them immoral. Since most Americans subscribe to my view that we should avoid putting the lives of our troops in harm’s way whenever possible, allowing them to commit suicide (lose their life) in order to kill the enemy is seen as reprehensible and unacceptable. That is one fundamental difference between them and us. In these cases “being there” is more immoral than sending a drone to do the job, regardless of who is doing the attacking, so I find physical presence, per se, morally irrelevant. I don’t agree with the indiscriminate use of drones, for a totally different reason, namely the needless loss of civilian life.
==I would have used any stealth means to blow UBL’s camp…without a second thought.
=====“Stealth bombers are still piloted by humans…They may need new tech to engage them, but the pilots still run the risk.”
I meant “stealth” as in “stealth attack,” but now that you mention it, if they don’t have the tech, what’s the risk, realistically speaking, that “they can fight back against you?”
==To me, morality in war is defined basically in terms of evildoers, and those who fight to stop them.”
=====“That excuses all actions if you perceive yourself as “good” and allows persecution of all actions if the other side is “evil”.
Not all actions. It is the sine qua non for waging war, but not an absolute justification for doing so. Of course, I still run the risk of being wrong if my sense of morality is based on the wrong code of ethics, but that’s life. I believe we are all accountable for sins of commission as well as omission, so I’d rather be hot than lukewarm.
===== “…it seems to me that Christianity goes right out the window, with all of its anti-war injunctions.”
“Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” So as long as you don’t lead the troops (God forbid), be a conscientious objector — or not. Jesus made you free.
==“They most likely agree with your characterization of the trigger-happy, conservative, warmongering fatso.”
=====Where did I annotate “trigger happy”, “conservative”, “war mongering” or “fasto”? Show me the post.
Annotated? More like “insinuated”.
“while raining the destruction of war onto others” = trigger-happy
“making war easy, even trivial, to engage in” = warmongering
“Sitting in an air conditioned room + indigestion from the potato chips you’re eating” = little/no exercise + overeating = accumulation of fat = fatso
“…guiding a robot bomber over cities in the middle east” = conservative (by process of elimination, since libertarians are an empty set, and liberals don’t have enemies in the Middle East).
==Regardless, you are engaging in an abstract, philosophical discussion that leads nowhere in real life.
===== “All moral questions are abstract questions. If you wish to do away with morality, which seems to be the case, your own terms of engagement fail since they rely on ‘good’ and ‘evil’.”
One can discuss morality in theory (the abstract) or empirically (in practice).
===== “If you adopt amoral pragmatism become like the enemy, then they’ve already won.”
How did we jump from “good”& “evil” to “amoral”??
PS: This post is too lengthy for this format. I say fire Betsy.
Report Post »