PDA

View Full Version : Northrop Grumman unveils Firebird Drone/Manned vehicle


Less Hair
10th May 2011, 11:07
One year after its first flight this Scaled Composites creation got unveiled. It can be flown manned or unmanned and is said to compete with the Predator B UAV.

source and pic:
Northrop Grumman enthüllt Firebird - FLUG REVUE (http://www.flugrevue.de/de/militaer/uav/northrop-grumman-enthuellt-firebird.50555.htm)

Finally drone operators can be real pilots.:E

fltlt
10th May 2011, 19:16
Should have done this a long time ago.

glad rag
10th May 2011, 22:16
Yes, they are well behind the drag curve now, how well can they innovate and surpass the benchmark.

ColdCollation
11th May 2011, 10:56
Ain't that just the Edgley Optica? :}

Trogger
11th May 2011, 11:46
Great solution to the pilot shortage - when you have some spare lying around, stick them in the cockpit, when you don't let some spotty kid fly it from his bedroom in Badiddlyboing, Odawidaho...

:ugh:

jamesdevice
11th May 2011, 13:35
the review I read of it some months ago was that the pilot was only there to legally allow flying in controlled airspace, as a kind of lookout. The intention was for the craft to fly autonomously (not remote controlled) with the human there simply as a legal nicety. Takeoff, landing and flight would all be preprogrammed and automatic The other reason for the crewman was that under some circumstances the satellite data uplink can run out of bandwidth, so rather than relay real-time data back to the spook bunker, you have an intelligence officer in the plane to analyse the data immediately and make action decisions. But - he's a mission specialist, NOT a pilot. The aircraft still flies itself, but can be optionally manned Don't forget that Northrop-Grumman are already in this game with the -very successful -Global Hawk, which can, and does, fly totally autonomous ocean-ranging missions. Would make a very cheap Nimrod replacement

Brat
11th May 2011, 14:35
How novel.

Build a drone then put a chap/pess in it.

Trogger
11th May 2011, 14:39
The other reason for the crewman was that under some circumstances the satellite data uplink can run out of bandwidth, so rather than relay real-time data back to the spook bunker, you have an intelligence officer in the plane to analyse the data immediately and make action decisions.

Let's hope he doesn't have to deal with a call centre in India when the little green internet light goes out...

"Hello sir, my name is Bhob - is your router turned on?"......:ugh:

BEagle
11th May 2011, 15:22
If ever the daft idea of some passenger in a drone ever became reality, who on earth would put their faith in being at the mercy of an off-board operator?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/DSW.jpg


:eek:


Mind you, a few drone aerobatics initiated by the off-board operator to wake the bugger up would be fun.

jamesdevice
11th May 2011, 15:56
theres a review and video of it on this page Northrop Scaled Composites Firebird - OPV-UAV | robotics news | robotpig.net (http://robotpig.net/robotics-news/northrop-scaled-composites-firebird---opv-uav-_2060) direct link to the video YouTube - Northrop Grumman Firebird optionally manned aircraft And the comment about the Windows crash may be too close to the truth: don't forget that one of the major backers of Scaled Composites is Paul Allen - the 'other' Microsoft co-founder

Mechta
11th May 2011, 16:55
When RAE Farnborough flew a Mainair weight-shift microlight as a UAV in the mid 1980s they did some flights with a pilot onboard, but with it flown from the ground. On one ground-controlled landing they wrapped the microlight in a ball around the guy with his neck on the line. He was not amused...

Perhaps some sort of torture chair for the ground-based operator which ensures he feels as much pain as the 'guy in the sky' will keep the operator focussed on the job in hand?:E

Thud_and_Blunder
12th May 2011, 10:22
How novel.

Build a drone then put a chap/pess in it.

The chap-pess being Hanna Reitsch - read the bit about the test-flying(!)

It's all been done before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_103R_%28Reichenberg%29)

Mechta
13th May 2011, 16:16
Thud & Blunder, without wishing to split hairs, the Reichenberg was converted from a UAV but not still useable as one. The De Havilland Queen Bee (Tiger Moth) and Airspeed Queen Wasp were early optionally manned UAVs used as aerial targets, the pilot being there to get it to its place of use. There may have been other earlier ones. There is speculation that these two led to the use of the term 'Drone'.

There is a Queen Bee G-BLUZ still on the register. The main difference from a normal Tiggie being a wooden fuselage.

Captain Neville's Flying Circus - Queen Bee G-BLUZ (http://www.captainnevillesflyingcircus.org.uk/page16.htm)

http://homepages.tesco.net/wisecracker/GFX/WASP.GIF

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/queen_bee_500.jpg

Wensleydale
13th May 2011, 20:16
And the comment about the Windows crash may be too close to the truth: don't forget that one of the major backers of Scaled Composites is Paul Allen - the 'other' Microsoft co-founder

What is the latest state of play with using Windows within aircraft software? Will Microsoft accept responsibility and accreditability in the event of a "mishap" or will someone else, such as the PT leader, have to carry the can? Also, will they define the configuration of their software within an aircraft? Indeed, are they DAOS accredited? Security against viruses may also be a problem....

just wondered having been away from the coalface for a while.

iRaven
13th May 2011, 20:30
Wensleydale

The Predator series has flown over 1,000,000 flight hours without it happening, so why would it start now? Also, contrary to popular belief the system is not connected to the internet and so the only way to get a virus would be through a data brick or CD - just as easily as a manned aircraft's Flight Management System or Flight Computer could be loaded by rogue code (ie. Its not easy!). Therefore, there is no difference between the manned and unmanned scenarios.

A manned aircraft with rogue software is just as unflyable as an unmanned aircraft in these days of fly by wire - its just that you're very unlikely to kill the UAS/RPAS pilot (unless it crashes into their cabin!!!). :cool:

iRaven

WillDAQ
13th May 2011, 21:05
The Predator series has flown over 1,000,000 flight hours without it happening

It has however crashed a lot in that 1000000 hours.

Not a problem for a drone, but I don't think the guy riding shotgun will appreciate it.

Lima Juliet
13th May 2011, 21:16
According to the USAF Safety Center website (Air Force Safety Center - Aircraft Statistics (http://www.afsc.af.mil/organizations/aviation/aircraftstatistics/index.asp) click on Q-1 for Predator and Q-9 for Reaper) there are 87 in over 900,000 and we know the UK lost one and passed 20,000 hours recently - accident rate is less than 1 in 10,000 flying hours, which is a lot better than Sea Harrier that was 1.88 per 10,000 flying hours (see DASA website).

Come on chaps please stop speculating and get your research right!

LJ :ok:

jamesdevice
14th May 2011, 00:21
"What is the latest state of play with using Windows within aircraft software?"

So far I've seen nothing to suggest that Microsoft have contaminated that far, but its certain that the Type 45 Destroyers and the new carriers will be running "Windows for Warships" aka a very securely locked down version of Windows 2000 (which is no longer supported by M$)
Apparently HMS Torbay has been fitted with it and the rest of the sub fleet are to follow (or may already have done so by now - my data is a couple of years old)

Wensleydale
14th May 2011, 07:30
Thanks for the replies about microsoft software....

The big question however is who is going to be held responsible for certifying that the software is safe for operation? As I understood things a while ago, Microsoft will not certify or guarrentee the configuration for Windows 2000 which appears to be a popular choice - therefore, who will carry the can should something go wrong? Its not just the safety of the aircraft on its own, but the safety of the "customers" (eg those on the receiving end of a weapons system or even aircraft being controlled by an "ATC" service from an ISTAR platform). Current rules state that the design authority must be DAOS certified and if Microsoft will not play ball then the poor PT will have to certify in their stead.

On the subject of viruses - if your system involves plugging in laptops or sticks to update it then there are big risks - especially if Windows is at the base of the system. And before anyone jumps down my throat I know of an occassion where a non-authorised laptop without the requisit anti-virus software was used (fortunatey not in a microsoft based system). Yes, this was against the rules, but aircrew will be aircrew if it saves time or makes life easier! (It was dealt with at the time).

The B Word
14th May 2011, 08:18
Wensleydale

The answer to your question is I don't know, but I'm sure someone does. However, I would like to point out that malicious attacks on software are as big a problem for something like Reaper as it is for F22, F35, Typhoon and A380 - almost all new aircraft use software and digital control these days.

The B Word

jamesdevice
14th May 2011, 12:28
The worry about pen drives is a genuine one.
I recently had to sanitise a laptop that had been contaminated with (among other viruses) Stuxnet
This had been infected when a pen drive was used to transfer engineering files from the onboard systems of the Libyan oil tanker the guy was working on. How the tanker got infected I don't know, but via a pen drive would seem likely.
The ramificatons of Stuxnet (or similar) program going live on the control software of a tanker are horrendous.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stuxnet

SASless
14th May 2011, 12:43
A Drone with a human pilot aboard....only the military could come up with a concept like that!:rolleyes:

OH....they did....called Fighter Jets....the button pushers sit in the vehicle rather than a Nissan Hut in Nevada.!:E

jamesdevice
14th May 2011, 13:04
I take it you know about Boeing's offering for the USA BAMS maritime surveillance project?
An "optionally manned" Gulfstream 550 which can fly with or without pilot. Or with or without mission specialists....
It could theoretically fly with the backseaters but no pilot, but somewhere theres a quote from Boeing saying that they were not contemplating doing that
...yet