Home » Air » Drones » Video: Navy Launches First Ever Drone From Carrier

Video: Navy Launches First Ever Drone From Carrier

by Brendan McGarry on May 14, 2013

130514-N-ZZ999-006The U.S. Navy for the first time launched a drone from an aircraft carrier in what officials hailed as a historic milestone in naval aviation.

The batwing-shaped craft, known as the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System, or UCAS, on May 14 was catapulted 11:18 a.m. local time from the deck of the USS George H.W. Bush in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Virginia Beach, Va., according to the service.

The drone, made by Northrop Grumman Corp., was controlled by an operator aboard the ship but flew largely autonomously. After multiple approaches to the nuclear-powered carrier, it crossed the Chesapeake Bay and landed at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., about an hour later. (The vehicle is set to attempt a landing aboard a carrier at sea this summer after completing a shore-based arrested landing earlier this month.)

“USNavy history is made!” the Navy said in a message on its official Twitter account. “Was airborne at 11:18A. More to come.” The service later released video of the launch.

Vice Adm. David Buss, commander of Naval Air Forces, in a release called it a “watershed event” and drew comparisons to pilot Eugene Ely’s first-ever landing of a plane on the deck of a ship in 1911.

The flight marks “an inflection point in history on how we will integrate manned and unmanned aircraft on carrier flight decks in the future,” Rear Adm. Mat Winter wrote in a post on the Navy’s official blog beforehand.

The mission showed that the craft – which is about the size of an F/A-18 Super Hornet – can be flown within controlled airspace above a carrier, the Navy said in the statement. It also proved that control of the vehicle could be passed from an operator on a ship to one on land, it said. Prior to launch, the team also conducted deck-handling and ship-integration tests.

The technology is designed to extend the range of a carrier group. The X-47B can fly about twice as far as a manned F-35C fighter jet.

Northrop has built two aircraft for the UCAS program, which has cost $1.4 billion over eight years. It’s designed to demonstrate the technology and inform a larger effort to build the Navy’s armed, carrier-based drone fleet called Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike, or UCLASS.

The service has said it plans to request proposals for a preliminary design review for the UCLASS program this month, followed by a similar request for technology development next month.

Northrop is expected to square off against other defense giants for the work, including Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. Lockheed is pitching the Sea Ghost, Boeing the Phantom Ray and General Atomics the Sea Avenger.

Links to video for mobile users:

http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​h​k​n​s​b​s​w​L​F​w​o​&​a​m​p​;​f​e​a​t​u​r​e​=​y​o​u​t​u​.be

http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​6​v​d​l​l​3​F​E​a​K​U​&​a​m​p​;​f​e​a​t​u​r​e​=​y​o​u​t​u​.be

Share |

{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }

Prodozul May 14, 2013 at 11:41 am

Is there anyway I can watch it?

Reply

Nick May 14, 2013 at 11:50 am

Enlist.

Reply

Mitch S. May 14, 2013 at 4:52 pm

I hear with the budget cuts it's tough to get in – there are way more applicants than open positions.

Reply

Prodozul May 14, 2013 at 5:13 pm

Thank you DT!

Reply

blight_ May 14, 2013 at 12:50 pm

Wonder if they'll bring back the parasite aircraft concept too…UAV's would be perfect for it, being potentially far more compact than the parasite aircraft of olde that had to carry a pilot.

Reply

davidz May 14, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Maybe, but their role is arleady partially fulfilled with long range missiles.

Reply

drg68 May 17, 2013 at 2:24 pm

Most parasite aircraft from the old navies were used for reconnaissance. Drones as parasite aircraft would be perfect for this. The could loiter at the edge of a ship's radar range and extend the area a ship could patrol.

Reply

Big-Dean May 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm

The Navy seems to be taking the long view here. They realize that the future is not just a few hyper-expensive manned fighters but a mix of high (manned) and low (drones) is the best approach.

Imagine a future where drones can do air defense and dogfight. Imagine a future where 4 or 5 drone attack manned fighters in unison. Image a drone that is a kamikaze. Imaging a future where first or second strike are carried out by waved of autonomous drones. Imagine a CAP with drones, ultra long endurance and range. Imagine a E-2D with a couple of surveillance drones they control remotely than can be used to do passive surveillance and link it back to the E-2D, without the E-2D having to go active and give away it's position. The possibilities are endless

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 5:13 pm

Endless, yes. But you have to imagine a whole lot. Replacing the entire fleet of manned aircraft, well, would be kinda tough to imagine.

Reply

UAVGeek May 15, 2013 at 4:07 pm

Go watch the 5th Episode of Battle Fairy Yukikaze OAV, you'll see how manned and unmanned aircraft can work together.

Reply

David Vance May 15, 2013 at 11:20 pm

Hey Big Dean … Some of that stuff is already here. Specifically in regards to kamikaze, look up the Israeli IAI Harop.

Reply

CHRIS WYSER-PRATTE May 16, 2013 at 7:37 pm

IMAGINE A FUTURE WITHOUT WAR.

Reply

DavidL May 18, 2013 at 2:16 pm

Sounds like your vision of the future doesn't include a world where human beings get along with each other without the desire to kill each other in even more efficient ways. Not a world I want to be a part of.

Reply

Steve B May 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm

Imagine an enemy hacking the satellite feed with all those pretty birds being used against us.

Imaging running out of bandwidth.

Reply

blight_ May 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm

Which is probably why the Navy needs to insist on local control, either from a P-3, a P-8 or from the carrier itself. It may be too much to assume that future one-man aircraft be asked to control other aircraft while dogfighting.

Reply

CharleyA May 14, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Or the backseat of a F/A-18F/G…

Reply

blight_ May 14, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Makes you wonder if teleoperation capability can be shoehorned into a Super Hornet.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 7:46 pm

Well, if the Growler is any indication of anything.

Sword707 May 14, 2013 at 4:14 pm

I like this idea, A two seater aircraft could potentially command up to four UCAS/UAV. The co-pilot who controls the weapon system could have a display that allows them to taskout commands to the drones or even give them patrol/attack path.

Imagine four next gen F18 Honerts commading 16 drones…. (sorry had to do it.)

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 5:11 pm

Multi-tasking to the extreme.

Reply

STemplar May 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm

F22s have already repurposed TLAMs in flight. The ability already exists. This system is also going to have a higher level of autonomy in a strike capacity. Plus, sorta have to know something is coming and where to be able to know to even try and hack it.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Much more likely. A P-8 could hold WAY more pilots on board than any fighter. And it offers range.

Reply

EW3 May 14, 2013 at 8:01 pm

I'd go with a Hawkeye.

It might be OK for manned fighter aircraft to have one or two UCAVs for SEAD purposes in an initial wave attack, the Hawkeye could manage dozens of these. Remember the X-47B is not a remote control aircraft. You tell it where to go and what to do and it does it on it's own. Very little bandwidth or supervision.

It'd be like the way AWACs directed air operations over Iraq.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 10:41 pm

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Do this aircraft have air-to-air refueling yet? I believe it would be something that should be incorporated in the design.

Reply

EW3 May 14, 2013 at 3:46 pm

It''s pretty hard to hack an satellite RF signal.
Remember that satellite comm antennas are very directional by nature so you'd have to get between the transmitter and the receiver, otherwise the antenna will not pick up the hacking signal.

Reply

Tempest May 14, 2013 at 6:06 pm

A very strong counter-signal will do it. If the cable and connectors are not properly shielded, the signal will leak in.

Reply

CharleyA May 14, 2013 at 6:18 pm

These UAS have other datalinks besides sats. But hacking into will not be easy, and no, the Iranians did not hack or spoof the RQ-170, contrary to colloquial belief.

Reply

EW3 May 14, 2013 at 7:39 pm

Yes that was me. Thanks for remembering.
With SATCOM you have some similar difficulties as you do with GPS spoofing.

Think of a SATCOM satellite antenna as a flashlight pointed down, and the X-47B having a flash light pointed up . We can use very narrow beam width antennas because we know the location of the satellite and can point right at it. (Just as we know where a GPS satellite is.) If you are not in the antenna hot spot your signal strength drops way off (numbers like -30dB
are not unusual outside of the hot spot).

One other thing to consider is that the receivers at each end actually are made up of multiple receivers. This is the same as with GPS. A typical civilian GPS receiver (the size of a dime) has 24 channels. It can listen to a different GPS satellite on each channel at the same time.

This applies to SATCOM because if I have multiple receivers, if I get two different signals from where there should only be one satellite, I know someone is yanking my chains. If I detect that condition, I point the antenna towards another satellite (as there are usually several available) . So the enemy needs another RF source.

It's basically a game of RF chess.

Reply

LPF May 15, 2013 at 6:21 am

Simpler to take out the satelite as you will know that path they are takin

Reply

blight_ May 15, 2013 at 8:03 am

Possible, which is why even the earliest UAV's could be operated from mobile ground stations, and even the Firebee could be operated from a C-130. We elect to use satellites so we can operate from American shores, but it's not mandatory.

EW3 May 15, 2013 at 5:07 pm

Since we would know where the ABM was shot from, I feel sorry for the shooter.
Also, getting an ABM to geosynchronous orbit would take many hours.
With mid-orbit or LEO communications satellites, new ones keep coming into play (much like GPS satellites).

blight_ May 14, 2013 at 9:20 pm

EW3, my post disappeared and took your reply with it; which is hanging out in my inbox as a IntenseDebate reply. Want me to repost?

Reply

STemplar May 14, 2013 at 1:57 pm

F35C better light a fire under itself. If this program works out the USN will have what it needs to reduce the buy on F35Cs.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 15, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Who is complaining……?

Reply

Davis May 14, 2013 at 3:25 pm

Stealth UAV launched for the first time off of one of our eleven nuclear powered aircraft carriers – Suck on that China!

Reply

Ben May 14, 2013 at 5:01 pm

Yet even with that monumental accomplishment, all it would take for China to stop it would be a single lucky submarine. They'd say "suck on that, America!"

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 5:10 pm

Uhm, "one simple submarine" won't just get into a carrier fleet so easily. Radar, and VA class subs, as well as anti-sub aircraft, will see to that.

Reply

Ben May 15, 2013 at 12:16 pm

One "lucky" submarine. I'm not so stupid as to think any old sub can slip through at the drop of a hat.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 15, 2013 at 8:18 pm

If you want to win a war with luck, good LUCK.

Belesari May 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm

Which is why you have subs escort the CSG.

If the Navy got its head out of its ass it could also have Frigates helping out and S-3 vikings but then thats a different navy

Reply

Ben May 14, 2013 at 7:55 pm

Of course, but what are the odds they'll detect and intercept them 100% of the time? The Chinese continue to invest heavily in their subs, and consequently they continue to get better, because they're fantastic for fighting the assymetrical war that that China needs to fight in order to match us.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 8:41 pm

95%. Like I said, VA class are just small Seawolf Class subs, and the Seawolves are known to be some of the most advanced subs in the world. I would imagine that these Chinese subs you mention are quite, loud. They are some ways behind the USN sub fleet. Besides, our sonar and radar equipment is some of the best in the world; Chinese stuff are ripped off Russian designs.

orly? May 14, 2013 at 11:49 pm

People like you keep forgetting that the Navy's been tailing Soviet designed subs for decades.

What makes you think the Navy all of a sudden forgot everything they've learned?

Davis May 15, 2013 at 12:20 am

Ben, ever watch Family Guy?

I hereby declare you winner of the Sir Buzz Killington Award!
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i106/evilt72/bu

Congratulations!

STemplar May 15, 2013 at 5:01 am

They buy subs, they don't invest in them. They conduct less than 10 patrols a year with their SSNs. They've never conducted a single deterrent patrol with a SSBN. They have no way to communicate with them underway.

STemplar May 14, 2013 at 4:32 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufu4qUNkOVs

For those that would like a link you can watch.

Reply

Bruce May 14, 2013 at 10:03 pm

I was hoping this video would show the initial climb… all i got was pants.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Applause all around, Northrop Grumman!

Reply

Dfens May 14, 2013 at 6:12 pm

This headline is incorrect. I know several drones who have been launched from carriers!

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 6:29 pm

Like….? Doesn't really matter if there have been launched drone before. Were they stealthy?

Reply

Dfens May 15, 2013 at 2:19 pm

Not stealthy at all. In fact, I could only wish they were the least bit stealthy.

Reply

matt May 14, 2013 at 10:26 pm

Imagine your family being the only on to survive because of these things? Granted.. The goal now is whoever has the most wins.. Or whoever has the biggest punch wins. But… I think life is better then that.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 14, 2013 at 10:46 pm

Uhm, puppy loving peace forums are that way –>
Defense talk is right here.
"News" agencies <–

Reply

Nick May 15, 2013 at 12:01 am

Take that F-35C piece of shit! So basically an RC plane cats from a flat top and the F-35C can't even trap during a roll on test, WTF! Oh did I mention this is just a demostrator. It's gets better, this demo plane even has twice the range! To sum it up, this rather large RC plane will be a a fraction of the cost, twice the range, probably reach IOC sonner even though its not even in production, he'll the RFP just went out, will trap soon and the F-35C is in production and has been in development for 12 years now and is no were near flat top ops any time soon! I don't get it!

Reply

William_C1 May 15, 2013 at 5:55 am

You do realize the redesigned tailhook for the F-35C has just entered testing, correct? The reason the X-47B has a range 33% greater than the F-35C on internal fuel is the fact that it is purely subsonic design using a non-afterburning engine that generates significantly less thrust in military power. Supersonic performance comes at a price in fuel economy and other areas, that's basic knowledge about aircraft design.

This is far from a fully operational design, which is the goal of the UCLASS program. This is a demonstrator that is part of the UCAS-D program which served as a proof-of-concept for UCLASS. There is a lot of hard work between now and then that won't be done overnight. Chances are Northrop's final UCLASS design will have significant differences. Boeing and Lockheed will likely submit their own proposals too.

Reply

Nick May 15, 2013 at 12:19 pm

Read my post again! My post clearly says demostrator. The redesign hook may be testing but the full roll on hasn't been done yet. Afterburning, subsonic, basic knowledge, who cares, my point is its lack of range compared to a demo plane. And the production ucav (who ever wins the contract), will most likely reach IOC before the F-35C does.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 15, 2013 at 8:20 pm

This isn't really an RC aircraft. Far from it. Northrop ain't no Air Hogs, their aircraft can, you know, land and takeoff better.

Reply

William_C1 May 15, 2013 at 5:59 am

Congratulations to all involved in this. Automated carrier landings have been done before, but never in this sense.

Reply

Sanem May 15, 2013 at 9:01 am

a lot of talk about hacking UAVs
but people seem to forget that anything with a two-way data link, be it an F-35, an AMRAAM, a satellite… can in theory be hacked or at least jammed

UCAVs will be pure death in air combat, because they'll combine stealth with relatively cheap numbers and superhuman team work. where humans tend to fight alone first and as a team second, UCAVs will always fight as a team first, in a dazzling ballet of interlocking fields of fire, where any number of UCAVs might be positioned or even sacrificed to draw the enemy into a location where there is no mathematical room for escape, aka a turkey shoot. disciplined, fearless and expendable, they'll be the perfect soldiers

Reply

Tony C. May 15, 2013 at 9:08 am

The future is now for naval aviation. The US Navy can mix manned and drone platforms into mission packages not even imagined a decade ago. An armed drone can do the dirty work to get the manned systems in and out of the target area safely.

Reply

Rick Eriksen May 15, 2013 at 9:04 pm

Stealth UAV launched for the first time off of one of our 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers – Suck on that Finland!

Reply

Red Dogg May 15, 2013 at 11:44 pm

Hey back in the day USN used MQM74's to actively engage F4's/A4's in ACM……This UAV stuff is better but the concept is not new. They will engage the enemy and lets hope they will be well armed. The 74's only use a tailpipe smoke and we were not the aggressor unless the Range cleared us for same. Then we could turn from target to aggressor and scare hell out of them because they could not see us until we went into the chute!!!LOL

Reply

Terry Draper May 16, 2013 at 5:14 am

Why the need for huge expensive NIMITZ/FORD class carriers when all the bugs are ironed out in operating the UCAVs? We could put them on smaller escort carriers (WW II size CVE's or smaller) and substantially reduce crew cost. Some of the prior comments indicated we had 11 carriers. We could have had 11 carriers if the stupid people in the Navy didn't decommission the ENTERPRISE-what a waste of my tax dollars!. Would she have sunk from rust or whatever if they sent the ENTERPRISE on another Gulf tour? I think not. The Navy never learned anything from the air force how you keep 50+ year old B-52's in the air with more service to come. To consider a ship at 50 years of age a liability is stupid. They are putting NIMITZ class carriers into 4 year rehabs. They should have done the same with the ENTERPRISE. And, are the UCAV's an omen that Naval Aviation is going to shrink substantially.

Reply

CharleyA May 16, 2013 at 7:17 am

CVE sized vessels are far more vulnerable than larger CVN designs, and is not big enough to handle a Hornet sized UAS, nor generate useful sortie rates. Even a larger LHA probably could not embark more than 15. Big E was wasting your tax dollars by staying in service. It was two generations old, and cost a ton of money to work up for each deployment. Plus the Ford class will require fewer crew and generation far more electrical power – a requirement that was not foreseen when Enterprise was designed back in the '50s.

Reply

blight_ May 16, 2013 at 9:16 am

CVEs could never launch meaningful sorties, even in WW2 when aircraft were smaller, slower and could take off from their flight decks.

The first two America class LHA's will be an interesting case study in "mini aircraft carriers".

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 19, 2013 at 12:54 pm

"Rehabs". You mean the refueling of their nuclear reactors? The Enterprise, as good as it was, was designed for the 51 years of its service, and boy did it do it well. As much as I support the Big E, you must remember that if we kept it, than operating costs would be expensive, especially with the new Ford class being put into service. Also, ships likes the Tarawa 1 and "escort carriers" hardly have the deck space to keep these drones functioning.

Reply

Guest May 17, 2013 at 8:35 am

Also, don't forget that these drones can pull turns at G's that would make a human black out. Train the next generation of video game aces and these thing will be capable of doing things in a dog fight that no human flown plane could ever do.

Reply

arturner May 17, 2013 at 8:06 pm

The Ford class carriers use a magnetic railgun, not a steam catapult. That allows them to tailor the launch forces to each kind of aircraft, meaning much less wear on the planes.

The railgun requires much more power than is available on the Enterprise or the Nimitz class carriers.

Reply

marta June 12, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Bob Hayner August 5, 2013 at 7:24 pm

Incorrect! …F6F drones were launched during Operation Crossroads in 1946-47 off the deck of the USS Shangri-La CV-38!

Reply

Ben May 15, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Never said they have, nor did I intend to. We've easily got the best Navy in the world but at the same time it's important to remember that it's not invulnerable.

I'm just the kind of guy who will never make the mistake of underestimating an enemy. Call me crazy, but I consider it a healthy quality.

Reply

Steve B. May 15, 2013 at 12:44 pm

It's entirely possible to both hack the satellite systems as well as the ground stations. If anyone thinks this is going to be a cakewalk in terms of reliability, there will be a rude awakening the first time we try to use these in earnest against a sophisticated enemy (read- China). As well, when the satellite is not available, these things do indeed become controllable from a mother ship. That makes the mother ship the target. This is really not much different a concept then the good old cold war days when we knew we had to target the Soviet controlling systems, leaving all those drones – Soviet pilots trained to respond to ground control, DOA.

Is there a need for these ?, certainly. But we do not want to be putting all our eggs in one basket with this stuff. We will still be needing a lot of aircraft with people in them.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 15, 2013 at 8:17 pm

No one is 'underestimating'. But just looking at Chinese subs, you can see that their noise signature is, well, massive. Plus, yet again China is to prove its handiness in Subs.

Reply

Ben May 15, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Look at that. And it happened way back in 2007. That could have been a game-changing surprise had it happened during wartime. Seems I'm not crazy after all ;)

Reply

David May 15, 2013 at 11:27 pm

One other thing to toss in here too is the 'language' the UAS is using to fly. Just because you hack the signal doesn't mean you speak the native language. That in and of itself is going to require a ton of reverse engineering that isn't going to happen on the fly.

Reply

STemplar May 16, 2013 at 5:23 am

It was embarrassing, but then again it's a lot easier to sneak up on a carrier that has announced ahead of time weeks and months where it will be and what it will be doing as opposed to one that is at war deploying a new system that quadruples it's existing strike radius.

Reply

Ben May 16, 2013 at 6:03 pm

I guess I can't expect to convince a guy who's name is a former carrier that it's vulnerable to anything.

Reply

Ben May 16, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Excuses don't bring back a boat from the bottom. Are you saying the Chinese can't possibly predict where a carrier might deploy in wartime? If it's been done in this instance, it can be duplicated unless we take it more seriously.

Reply

STemplar May 17, 2013 at 2:52 am

I dont think l was making an excuse. Just pointing out facts about the incident. A Song class is not going to be able to do that with a CSG underway at speed.

Reply

Fevriul May 17, 2013 at 4:26 am

You get a spy into the C&C they could do more damage with one well timed leak than any one missile. Hand the C7C codes to an enemy and the US could have its drone fleet turned against its own people

Reply

Toink May 17, 2013 at 4:33 pm

seriously, if war ever broke out between 2 nations that had everything to lose in the contest, throw conventional weapons out the window.

Nuclear, Chemical, Biological and direct to the point wack the leader is where you will win it.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE May 19, 2013 at 12:50 pm

How do you know that I am not referring to the future Ford Class carrier, Enterprise?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: