USN X-47B
 

X-47B heads to sea on carrier duty (pictures) - CNET

Catapult carrier deck launch and arrested landing for the unmanned aerial weapon system.

That’s a negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full.

Welcome to the future.

The last fighter ace is already alive.

Be entertaining if someone exploded a few nukes at the right altitude to fry most of the electronics of such hardware.

Same effect on traditional avionics unless you're flying a Sopwith Camel.

There's a reason why Russian fighters used vacuum tubes till (at least) the 90s.

the Russians own the high tube market and have since 1980.

All those mini sub controls used in deep water exploration and related work are made in Russia.

Most military equipment is EM pulse shielded and they have a limited affective range, its not like the movies.

In the late 50's and early 60's fighter aircraft designers became convinced that guns on planes were obsolete. Experience in Vietnam showed this not to be the case. I think further experience will show a need for a continued role for manned aircraft going forward, just not all aircraft and maybe not in roles we predict now.

Yeah. And even though the AF generals wanted the A-10 'Bolt to go to the Boneyard, it's been deployed in Iraq War v.3 to fight ISIS/ISIL. It followed a path similar to the A-1 Skyraider...... from Korea to Vietnam.
And the F-4 in Gulf1 was nicknamed the Wild Weasel & did recon. work. 25 years before that it was the hottest thing in the Vietnam skies.

When the job calls for a specific weapon, you better have it in your inventory. Just ask the pilots still flying the B-52H.

Back in my days of service, the Navy's RA5C was cutting edge technology. The first military aircraft with fly by wire technology and oodles of other military firsts. A Mach2 missile that set altitude records...above 90,000 feet. ;) Originally designed as a nuclear bomber, the Vigilante was converted to reconnaissance during Vietnam and her losses were the highest of any aircraft in the VN war. But she was a SOB to fly and land on the deck of a carrier. Our squadron lost 2 in '66 and one in '67.....unrelated to any combat action.:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyIOyQniNe0

Different weapons for different times. Air warfare has moved away from the previous models of fighter support for bomber squadrons or close air support for ground troops. Missions now tend to require precision strikes in urban settings and a public that has a substantially higher aversion to overseas casualties.

Its because the wars we have fought since Korea have been against enemies with no organized air force/air defense. The last time the US Air Force was really challenged for territory in the sky was in Korea by the Russians.


A war against a country with an air force and an air defense system, like lets say China/Russia for example would still look very much like WW2 in many respects.

Dogfights, bombing missions, support of large troop concentrations in the field, etc.

Such conflicts tend to force technology to evolve rapidly and drones are great for this. A10's are great against ISIS on plumbers trucks with old Russian AA guns, but not so good against Chinese 4 gen fighters when we don't necessarily have air dominance.

Dude, thanks:). I'm IN the Navy and I never heard of that aircraft until right now.

Skippy, here's a link you should find interesting.

RA-5C Vigilante History

I remember an dependent's day air show we had off the VA Capes. There's an F-4 cruising up the port side from the stern, maybe a quarter mile off. While everyone's eyes are watching the F-4 cruising at moderate speed, here comes a Vigilante screaming just below Mach 1 right alongside the ship. Woosh, come & gone in a split second. What a thrill.:D:D:D:D:D.

Also, the death of manned aircraft has been prematurely called many times. Remember LeMay's "silent silo sitters of the sixties?"

"Bombs Away with Curtis LeMay"

Hands down, the biggest "bomber" in the History of Warfare. From the 8th Air Force in Europe to Tokyo & Japan.

"As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it's done instantaneously, maybe that's more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don't, particularly, so to me there wasn't much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn't make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that's the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible."