Read the forum code of contact
By: - 10th May 2014 at 04:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
UN Falco Drone (Selex ES) Helps Shipwreck Rescue, Saves Lives
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228102[/ATTACH]
Neocons are more dangerous than standing armies
By: - 10th May 2014 at 05:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AUVSI starts in a few days..Should hear interesting stuff..
By: - 14th May 2014 at 10:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We discussed this little beauty some time ago and as much as you can't make a propeller stealthy, you have to say that the LM Fury UAV shows some very interesting design traits...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/auvsi-lockheed-integrates-xgcs-with-fury-uav-399069/
By: - 14th May 2014 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Latest UCLASS requirements apparently solid:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/auvsi-navys-uclass-requirements-trickle-out-399218/
Is it that the navy doesn't know what it want or that it doesn't know what it can afford?
By: - 15th May 2014 at 04:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Latest UCLASS requirements apparently solid:http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/auvsi-navys-uclass-requirements-trickle-out-399218/
Is it that the navy doesn't know what it want or that it doesn't know what it can afford?
It knows what "it can get" in a tough budget environment. The allocated budget is around 3 billion iirc for the research and development phase. The IOC goal is also fairly fast paced (2020 IOC on deck). With that budget and the money already spent on the J-UCAS program (and the X-47B) they can get a set capability that they have designed into the RFI. The Refueling capability would help immensely in the strike mission especially with the the F-35C operations shared by the Lt colonel from San Diego.
Any further capability, from this platform or any other, would have to be paid for and developed over time. The biggest challenges are in developing the concept of operations, handling and managing UAVs along with fixed wing crafts on a rolling high tempo carrier deck and getting basic autonomy nailed down. This is no small task and a properly handled UCLASS will pave the way for capability addition over time. Come the 2020's, where the sequester threat will be gone..a successful UCLASS should pave the way for a boost in investment to build on the platform. Every UAV platform has grown in size, scope and capability. Just look at what happened to the Predator family as it transitioned to the Avenger. No reason why the UCLASS cannot do the same over time.
By: - 15th May 2014 at 04:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To the Navy, every airplane is a Hornet, every surface ship an AEGIS and every carrier is a Nimitz. Its what the Navy's procurement people grew up with and all their processes and procedures allow them to do.
Navy doesn't have enough money to pay for a new development-from-scratch UAV. Especially if they want to treat the procurement like another Hornet and all the baggage which comes with the Hornet development procedure. Expect the Navy's new aviation systems to experience massive over runs and be years late. Of course, the Navy will blame the contractor even though they laid out a program that wasn't achievable due to unrealistic expectations. You don't get $20 billion of technical/development content for $3 billion.
Superhornet is a upsized Hornet, which was developed from a USAF YF-17. Triton is a USAF Global Hawk. MH-53K is an upsized MH-53E. And P-8 is an updated C-40 with fancy electronics. Navy's past 20 year history of developing a completely new airplane which wasn't derived from an earlier model isn't good.
By: - 15th May 2014 at 07:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T Navy's past 20 year history of developing a completely new airplane which wasn't derived from an earlier model isn't good.
Too much salt in your coffee!
By: - 15th May 2014 at 07:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And he confirmed that the aircraft will be capable of being controlled both by line-of-sight and by beyond-line-of-sight communications.*
??????
Well at leat we know that it won´t be an hand held kit or balloon!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228254[/ATTACH]
*Extracted from the article cited above
By: - 29th May 2014 at 20:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
UN calls for wider use of surveillance drones
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228772[/ATTACH]
By: - 31st May 2014 at 04:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is IAI Eitan an armed UAV ?
By: - 21st June 2014 at 17:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its big report on drone crash data for past 10 years. crash rate is far worse than 30 year old used F-16 let alone twin engine fighters. and that's not even air to air war where fighters are laden with EW equipment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/20/when-drones-fall-from-the-sky/
A limited ability to detect and avoid trouble. Cameras and high-tech sensors on a drone cannot fully replace a pilot’s eyes and ears and nose in the cockpit. Most remotely controlled planes are not equipped with radar or anti-collision systems designed to prevent midair disasters.
•Pilot error. Despite popular perceptions, flying a drone is much trickier than playing a video game. The Air Force licenses its drone pilots and trains them constantly, but mistakes are still common, particularly during landings. In four cases over a three-year period, Air Force pilots committed errors so egregious that they were investigated for suspected dereliction of duty.
•Persistent mechanical defects. Some common drone models were designed without backup safety features and rushed to war without the benefit of years of testing. Many accidents were triggered by basic electrical malfunctions; others were caused by bad weather. Military personnel blamed some mishaps on inexplicable problems. The crews of two doomed Predators that crashed in 2008 and 2009 told investigators that their respective planes had been “possessed” and plagued by “demons.”
•Unreliable communications links. Drones are dependent on wireless transmissions to relay commands and navigational information, usually via satellite. Those connections can be fragile. Records show that links were disrupted or lost in more than a quarter of the worst crashes.
By: - 21st June 2014 at 20:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its big report on drone crash data for past 10 years. crash rate is far worse than 30 year old used F-16 let alone twin engine fighters. and that's not even air to air war where fighters are laden with EW equipment.
in defence of UAVs:
- F-16 crashes: http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/
- the report is a bit biased. to give one example, "Military drones have slammed into homes, farms, runways, highways, waterways and, in one case, an Air Force C-130 Hercules transport plane in midair."
what the report quietly forgets to mention is that in that example, the C-130 was at fault, while the UAV was where it was supposed to be
- UAVs are a relatively cheap option, and also an extremely cost effective one, but so they're not designed with durability as a priority
they're also being used like crazy, spending way more time on missions than manned aircraft. as such it's only logical that they'd have a higher accident rate
by comparison manned pilots spend most of their flying career in training missions, designed to minimize errors during operational missions. if UAV pilots were given the same amount of training, they'd probably make way less mistakes
- a lot of the crashes also originate from know problems that the USAF has refused to resolve, or only slowly
for example the USAF has chosen from the beginning not to equip most of their UAVs with automated landing systems, where most of the accidents take place, despite these systems having existed on UAVs since the 90's. the US Army did choose to use such systems, and suffers markedly less accidents during landing
other matters are that of datalink loss and icing. both can be fixed relatively easy, by programming the aircraft with a more advanced autopilot or installing de-icing equipment, both of which are being implemented in varying degrees. either way if these options had been chosen earlier in the acquisition phase, a lot of accidents could have been avoided
another point is that UAVs are used a much more risky way than manned aircraft. prime examples of this is over Bosnia, where manned aircraft were forbidden from flying below a certain level, greatly reducing their effectiveness, while UAVs where often sent much lower in an attempt to spot targets. or over Libya, where an MQ-8 was shot down because it operated within the range of enemy weapons, where other assets came nowhere near the enemy
and a final important aspect is that of pilot fatigue, UAV pilots are being pushed to the limits, while receiving only begrudging recognition and support for their efforts. the USAF could easily solve these problems, by converting more pilots into dedicated UAV pilots, or using NCO as the US Army did succesfully, but they choose not to, probably heavily based on a culturual bias. as such this systematic and unsupported pilot fatigue will also cause a considerable number of crashes which could easily have been avoided with but a cultural mentality change
By: - 21st June 2014 at 20:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and a final important aspect is that of pilot fatigue, UAV pilots are being pushed to the limits, while receiving only begrudging recognition and support for their efforts. the USAF could easily solve these problems, by converting more pilots into dedicated UAV pilots, or using NCO as the US Army did succesfully, but they choose not to, probably heavily based on a culturual bias. as such this systematic and unsupported pilot fatigue will also cause a considerable number of crashes which could easily have been avoided with but a cultural mentality change
you have to understand UAVs are very slow. so it takes hrs to reach battlefield. it can create a lot of fatique. and UAV not cheap. Its huge long term investment in industrial production and training. they have very limited payload. airframes are very fragile. cant imagine they can survive a lot of tonnage load over 40 year period.
By: - 11th July 2014 at 20:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Northrop’s Global Hawk Evaluated in NATO ISR Trials
By: - 1st August 2014 at 11:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good old UAV news. You know where you are with UAVs:
Italy is looking at Hammerhead to replace its Predators, a move which can only be a good thing for the UAV world IMHO.
By: - 1st August 2014 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you have to understand UAVs are very slow. so it takes hrs to reach battlefield. it can create a lot of fatique. and UAV not cheap. Its huge long term investment in industrial production and training. they have very limited payload. airframes are very fragile. cant imagine they can survive a lot of tonnage load over 40 year period.
#1. Drones don't get wary and they are controlled by a crew, which is larger than a simple team.
#2. UAV are cheap, which is why design and IOC are in such short cycles relative to manned platforms.
#3. UAV are disposable by design, their entire life is measured in hours not years.
By: - 2nd August 2014 at 07:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
#1. Drones don't get wary and they are controlled by a crew, which is larger than a simple team.
Larger crew means more expensive to operate.
#2. UAV are cheap, which is why design and IOC are in such short cycles relative to manned platforms.
UAV are not cheap. they not carry much and cannot pull high gs. so airframe is designed for longer airframe hours but without loaded agility of fighter
#3. UAV are disposable by design, their entire life is measured in hours not years.
disposable means its even more expensive to built.
By: - 2nd August 2014 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
UAV are not cheap. they not carry much and cannot pull high gs.
Any clue about that?
By: - 2nd August 2014 at 10:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What JSR says makes perfect sense if you replace "UAV" with "Russian UAV".....
By: - 3rd August 2014 at 02:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any clue about that?
The also do not have TVC so that they can shoot incoming missiles with guns ;)
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 9th May 2014 at 10:22
Thought the recent lull in decent news stories was a good excuse to start afresh.
Here is a link to a story about the Black Knight Transformer VTOL battle ambulance first flight:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/company-releases-helicopter-ambulance-test-flight-video-399051/
The footage can be found of this Ares post:
http://aviationweek.com/blog/video-advanced-tactics-vtol-transformer-flight