Originally Posted by
Engines
unmanned_droid,
Thanks for coming back. Yes, I was aware of the X-47B stuff back in 2013. I apologise if I gave the impression that the team hadn't demonstrated launch and recoveries from the deck - but there is a big difference between doing this with an 'X plane' (which is basically a flying shape) under experimental test conditions (which is what they did in 2013) and getting an operationally effective aircraft (at representative weights) to carry out launch and recovery enough times under all the various conditions to be able to say that it's a sufficiently safe and reliable evolution that the USN can incorporate into their operational plans.
The fact that it's taken this long indicates (at least in my view) how hard it has been for the team to 'cross the t's and dot the i's'. By the way, this shouldn't be taken as any form of criticism. Getting from initial demonstrations to operational clearance is a long and tough process, and the team behind the MQ-25 deserve to be congratulated.
My main point was to try to explain why landing a UAV on a carrier is not at all like landing on a land runway. Again, my apologies if I didn't make that clear.
Best Regards as ever to all those dotting the i's and crossing the t's,
Engines
I think I may have a slightly more optimistic outlook on the readiness of the appropriate systems, that's all. Whilst the X-47B had an X designation, I don't really class it as an 'X-plane'. I imagine that had more to do with politics.
Since the X-47B was an NG product, I imagine the cross fertilisation in the airframe and systems is limited to mostly people job swapping besides specifications laid out in the tender. Of course, much learning will have been captured by the operator during trials which will be being applied here, as I'm sure you know.
Always enjoy your posts.
UD