Pics of the Day: X-47B From Above

Speaking of Northrop Grumman-made UAVs, check out these new photos of Northrop’s stealthy X-47B. The downward-looking pics show the plane — designed to test out how to operate a fighter-sized, stealthy UAV from an aircraft carrier — flying from an angle I’d never seen before. They make it look all the more badass, even if it is only a concept jet.

The jet caused a stir in a small town in Kansas last month when locals mistook a shrink-wrapped X-47B being trucked from California to Maryland for a UFO!


  • Klem


  • STemplar

    You don’t read much about the program itself. I hope it is moving along smoothly. It will be such a boon for strike from CSGs.

    The pics are fantastic as well.

  • Michael

    I know in the article you mention this is a concept jet, but this is one I hope gets to production…or something a lot like it.

  • Cthel

    are those flying-boom refuelling markings on the top?

  • Lance

    Strange its both ugly and cute at the same time.

  • phil

    I wonder what kind of targeting radar that thing has and where they’re hiding it.

    • Darrell

      Iran will find out as soon as it lands in Tehran…

    • I doubt has one. It’s probably a JDAM bird, dropping bombs on fixed targets with known coordinates. It could probably also drop anything laser-guided, so long as something else is painting.

  • Anonymous

    Can radar bounce off 2 objects and return to the source to register an object? It seems with an inward facing inlet for the propulsion, radar can bounce off off one side, hit the other, then travel back to the source.

    Whereas if it was a triangle facing outwards, it would bounce off to the side of the aircraft.

  • Michael

    Very nice design!

  • ptitz

    i wish i had one of these when i was a kid.

  • Sanem

    finger licking good, thanks!

  • DC2 Jennings

    I have one question: how can a Navy hose and drogue plane refuel this thing? looks like it uses Air Force hardware…..

  • dddd

    Question: where is the radar on this thing? If it is in the nose, it can’t be very powerful, right?

  • Darren

    Nice peice of kit. Too bad Australia cant afford them.

  • 7654321

    Its not more bang for the buck here; the cost of computer system to operate this thing is outrageous simply because it does not have a rudder or T-tail, and the argument that its invisible just doesn’t wash because it has a heat signature that is unmistakable.
    Whats really happening here is cost overruns, misappropriation of funds and basically lying to the public about things like performance, as well as falsifying documents.

  • BigRick

    Put a gun and some missiles on these and they can become wingmen controlled by the WSO in the F18 two seaters.

  • TH1

    simply awesome

  • Gene

    Great view of Edwards AFB along with the UAV.

  • Ben

    Port side “wing root” there is a forward opening hatch, looks like its designed to open during operations as it has a radar defying serrated edge, is this for a gun ? never heard of anyone thinking or arming a UAV in this way ? thoughts ?

  • marcello

    every time i see something like this i can’t help but wonder “holy cr*p! how can it even be flying?!?!”…

  • Pat

    That says a lot about Kansans if they thought it was a UFO. At least it didn’t go through Oklahoma or Arkansas.

  • jamesb

    I STILL want some with a driver in it…..
    I’m old school….
    Sometimes those things just up a quit on ya….

    BY the way what happened to the Irainian Drone recovery story?

    Was that real ……
    Or Memorex?

  • scooterva

    The true beauty of a UAV like this the lack of the pilot physically in the aircraft. What are the limits of current fighter platforms? The pilot, materials, fuel, and weapons.

    1. A pilot can only stay on station so long
    2. A pilot can only take x number of g-force
    3. The materials the aircraft is made of can only take so much stress
    4. It can only hold a fixed amount of weaponry

    I’d love to see what type of maneuvering this thing could do considering there is no human limits to consider, just physics.

    Obviously – there are drawbacks – such as command and control being lost – where having a pilot is a good thing.

    I foresee a force structure where both manned and unmanned aircraft are part of the playbook, and both to be used when they have the advantage depending on the situation.

    • Sanem

      on maneuvering, make an unmanned version of the X-31 and the sky’s the limit

      human pilots will be part of future aircraft, but as a sort of payload capability needed for certain missions

      btw a human pilot won’t neccesairily make modern aircraft more reliable or even more effective
      – they’re all 99% computer controlled these days and linked, so they can be attacked by cyberwarfare, think Stuxnet virus for aircraft
      – if manned aircraft were unable to communicate reliably, they’d be almost as helpless as a UAV, as they couldn’t use AWACS, refueling, guided weapons… either

    • Jay

      The manuevering on this aircraft is anything but impressive.

      1. It’s stealth. If the bank is at a high enough degree it will pop up on radar due to its RCS being flashed like a strobe light.

      2. The wing design by itself is very unstable, that is why a computer controls the
      B-2 more than the pilot does. Remember the B-2 crash? That was due to computer error not pilot error.

      Due to these factors and them wanting it to stay in the air unlike the RQ-170 they would limit it to very stable parameters.

  • Johnny

    Wonder which alien ship design they got this from lol

  • So is this the new design we are going to “send” to the Iranians? Why wrap it up with a little bow while we are at it?

  • Bob


  • Miauw Miauw

    It’s a You F Ooh

  • Davyd

    The radar is probably a unit very similar to the B-2s. Therefore an array can be hidden anywhere along the leading edge (perhaps where the wing-walk lines on the port wing are serrated) and be potent indeed. The boom receptacle on a Navy jet is confusing. Purposeful deception? Or just for this test article most likely.

  • rubens marchiori

    muito bonito, mas que pra isso, se nós preocupamos bem menos com a nossa vida, devemos nos preocupar mais: com a qualidade da vida e do planeta