Talk:Northrop Grumman X-47A Pegasus/Archive 1

Merge suggestion

 * Agree to merge - we typically cover developmental models in the same article. I can't see anything significant which would warrant a separate article, and having a separate one that's so short also messes up the X-planes list. Akradecki 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No Armament?
How can this UAV engage in combat without weapons? The specifications state it has no armament; this makes no sense to me. Ian01 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was only a demostration vehicle, and never intended to enter service itself. Thus no need for the test vehicles to be armed. - BillCJ 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Doesn't it make more sense to use for the main picture since the current one is copyrighted? Supergeek1694 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That picture comes from the same source and has the same copyright status. Tempshill (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Program terminated

 * The J-UCAS program was terminated on January 13, 2006 as part of the US Military's Quadrennial Defense Review.

This odd line is in the middle of a sort of a timeline, with no explanation. I assume it doesn't mean to say that the X-47 program is terminated? Tempshill (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only the Joint part. The Air Force and Navy went forward with separate programs.  See X-47 page for more.  This has been clarified in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Title
AFAIK, the current article title is incorrect. The X-47A was known as the "Pegasus", but the X-47B has not been named. Furthermore, the X-47A and the X-47B are much, much different aircraft (For example, the B is probably twice the size of A). The article is confusing in that respect. -SidewinderX (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Close enough for government work." And do you have a source for the B not eing named as yet? That's always good to have. Anyway, we'll probably split the B out to its own article eventually, as more info on it is released. - BilCat (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the NGC site never refers to the X-47B as the "pegasus" (http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html), just UCAS, while they seperatly refer to the J-UCAS Demonstrator as "Pegasus" (http://www.atoz.northropgrumman.com/Automated/AtoZ/P.html). -SidewinderX (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty confident that I am right about this... It's hard to find a "negative" source if you will, to prove that something is *not* called something. I think the best thing to do is to just call the article "X-47" or "Northrup-Grumman X-47" (whichever is standard practice) and refer to the X-47A as the Pegasus in the article and just call the X-47B that or UCAS or something. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The X-47 did not have the Pegasus name in the 2004 DoD Model Designation report. At least the X-47A got the Pegasus name.  I can't find any mention of a name associated with B-model after some internet searches. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with this; the "A" is the Pegasus and the "B" doesn't have a name like that, other than "N-UCAS-D", which is basically just its project title. In all honesty, this eventually won't be an issue because I forsee the X-47A and X-47B being split into seperate article... they're just such different aircraft. In the meantime, however, I think having Pegasus on the article title is misleading to readers. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! Since we have 1 photo of each type, and specs for each type also, we might as well start planning the split now. Northrop Grumman X-47 can be a DAB or SIA page. That articvle can be moved to X-47A Pegasus, and create the new one at Northrop Grumman X-47B. The X-47B would need more text, but that's really about all that's needed. Tehre is an old article at Grumman X-47B that was merged to this one, so I'm asking an admin to move it to Northrop Grumman X-47B so we can keep its history. (Sadly, there was no text to speak of.) - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! I'd be willing to to work on splitting the material properly and adding what info is available, but I won't really have a chance to do that until after the weekend. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! I kept most of the original text for the X-47B as background, but it could probably be tightend a bit. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, great! I'll take a look over the two articles and work on the wording and whatnot. -SidewinderX (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just found a pretty nice AIAA paper that I can summarize and use for a more detailed "design" section for this article, so I'll try and break that out in the near future. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW here's a X-47 article from AIAA's magazine, Aerospace America: "Pegasus: UCAVs Look Seaward" It might be of help. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

proposed merge of X-47C

 * Agree - well I would as I am the proposer. A previous merge of X-47C with Stealth aircraft was nonsensical IMHOPetebutt (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't they completely different aircraft? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 22:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirected from UCAS-D
The latest spin on the Pentagon-go-round is...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-unveils-more-information-on-uclass-programme-384589/ Lockheed Martin is revealing additional details about its submission for the US Navy's unmanned carrier launched airbone surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft programme, saying it has already built a full-scale mock-up of the flying wing design.

So do we create a UCLASS page that then links to all the different UAV proposals for the program or wait a week for the program name to change again? Hcobb (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you really think it is constantly changing and in flux, you know the answer to that. WP:RECENT. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

X-47C wingspan
The stated wingspan for X-47C ("172 ft (52.4 m)") doesn't make sense. That's the size of a B-2 and would not fit on a carrier. It doesn't match the payload ("10,000 lb (4,500 kg)") either. The reference is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.39.98 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x47/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)