X-47B operating alongside an F-18, impressive stuff
http://theaviationist.com/2014/08/18/x-47-operates-alongside-f18/

on a side note, I’m reading “Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War”, where the Pentagon’s bureaucratic workings are explained, and most importantly how the Navy sidestepped the Air Force by sabotaging the F-111 while developing the F-14 in secret

I’ve pointed this out before, but while the USN is officially committed to the F-35, it does show clear signs of rejection (like leaking data that it would be more expensive to maintain than legacy aircraft, and somehow not explaining to LMT how to do the hook right) and they’re working very hard on getting the UCLASS concept proven

meaning that if something were to “happen” to the F-35 (as “happened” to the F-111), the USN will be ready and waiting with the UCLASS to fill its shoes
I bet the reason the USN is stalling on the UCLASS RfP (“imminent” over a month ago), is because there’s a bureaucratic battle going on to protect the F-35

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

if I were on the ground, UAVs would be my first choice for CAS
24/7 overwatch, direct video link and communications relay gives me an (IR) god’s eye of the battlefield and ensures long range networking
instant strike, seconds rather than minutes, soon with direct ground control, reducing the chance of friendly fire and giving gun control to the people in the field who understand the situationt the best
and once UAVs finally start carrying micro-munitions, they’ll be able to destroy soft targets all day long. and if they implented something cheaper and lighter, like radio-guided grenades, a single UAV can carry enough weapons to kill hundreds of infantry targets
and all this for a fraction of the price of an A-10 and certainly a B-1, but without risking a pilot’s life

and soon we’ll have the AQ-10, giving us the best of both worlds

I’m wondering why they didn’t buy UAVs (instead)
Saudi Arabia has bought the Chinese Wing Loong, said to cost about $1 million
compared to $36 million for a Mi-35 through $61 million for an AH-64D, you could get an entire squadron of Predator-level UAVs for a single attack helicopter

considering the succes of UAVs over Iraq and the recent losses of attack helicopters over Ukraine, one would think it clear that UAVs are the more efficient if not the much more effective investment

any word on what an air war between the two would look like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force

Russia has clearly the edge in both numbers and equipment
and probably in training, supplies and maintenance
they’re using the same equipment,so I’m asuming the Russians know perfectly well how to jam soviet-built missiles and radars

tactically speaking Russia has a major advantage with its AWACS, tankers, and advanced fighters like the Su30 and Su35
for ground support Russia has an impressive array of ground attack aircraft, plus a large number of strategic bombers
not to mention its large and advanced helicopter force
while defensively the Russian military wields a fearsome number of specialised SAM and AAA units close to its ground troops
combined with AWACS, this would make any Ukrainian air attacks equal to suicide

on top of that Russia claimed a number of Mig-29s in Crimea
and there’s always the risk of Ukranian pilots defecting, rather than facing an overwhelming enemy force

I’d say Ukraine is clearly outmatched here
in the opening phases superior aircraft, missiles and AWACS would result in easy and fast Russian air superiority
after that the Russian Air Force can send its attack craft to target any Ukranian forces, dug in or on the move, and pin them down or destroy them, crippling Ukranian mobility and with that their effectiveness
this would the Russian military to move up quickly in a Blitzkrieg style attack, destroying any opposition with more air cover

DARPA is moving ahead with its X-Plane program:
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/03/18.aspx

I’m interested in the Sikorsky tailsitter concept, without the rotating engine parts needed by the tiltwings, it should be a more elegant an efficient design. and there’s not much reason for a UAV not to be a tailsitter, computers don’t care which way is up

plus if you put some wheels underneat you can easily make it into a CTOL aircraft, increasing take off weight
maybe a detachable carriage, and the aircraft can just land vertically