U.K. UAV's/Drones

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:but how much higher will drone losses be against Electronic Warfare and Proper Air defence system
Much higher, that's why alternatives to GPS navigation and autonomous operations are important, and in development, for times when there is heavy jamming. (Electromagnetic not Bob Marley :) )

As for protected airspace I suppose that is why taranis has a stealth design and autonomous capabilities to avaid both layers of defence.

Drone useage will be very different in a peer on peer war.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by marktigger »

yes but if you have jamming you can't really do anything but preplanned blind weapons release. There is no real time imagery or telemetrey! then there is spoofing feeding false intelligence or hacking

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:yes but if you have jamming you can't really do anything but preplanned blind weapons release. There is no real time imagery or telemetrey! then there is spoofing feeding false intelligence or hacking
That's why taranis can, supposedly, autonomously designate its own targets locally. No need to talk back to base. Its then an ethical question of machines killing.
@LandSharkUK

Lugzy
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 09 Sep 2015, 21:23
Mongolia

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Lugzy »

marktigger wrote:but how much higher will drone losses be against Electronic Warfare and Proper Air defence system
A Good and valid point ! , I admit current drones like Reapers wouldnt last long in a well defended air space they are slow and not very stealthy , they did the job in the low intensity wars we have been involved in over the last decade or so , But as you said what happens when we run up against a top peer military , who's defences include the latest military and electronic hardware current drones just won't cut it ,

we need a UCAV able of supersonic flight , incorporating the latest in stealth design , it needs to be able to carry out missions across continents , day and night in all weather conditions , plus be able to penetrate highly defended enemy airspace and be able to carry both air to air or air to ground munitions internally is preferred , have secure comms , data links , also Be able to achieve a lvl of semi-autonomous operations . Plus advanced targeting , both air to air and air to ground , possibly carrying advanced electronic warfare/jammer software /equipment.,,,,,,

This is were I bring up Taranis or the future son of , that's the future , most of the above can be ticked off with what as already been achieved by taranis , I just wish the UK Goverment invested to bring taranis into operation in the early 2020s instead of shelving it , then waiting until the joint Anglo/French UCAV in the early 2030s , this would be an opportunity lost for us , and a waste , yes Taranis was built as a tec demonstrator, but it works , it's what is needed there is demand , why the hell not go for it !!!

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by shark bait »

Lugzy wrote:This is were I bring up Taranis or the future son of , that's the future , most of the above can be ticked off with what as already been achieved by taranis , I just wish the UK Goverment invested to bring taranis into operation in the early 2020s instead of shelving it , then waiting until the joint Anglo/French UCAV in the early 2030s , this would be an opportunity lost for us , and a waste , yes Taranis was built as a tec demonstrator, but it works , it's what is needed there is demand , why the hell not go for it !!!
We don't actually know to what degree it works, but it certainly looks promising. I think we would all like to see the the government throw some weight and money behind it and aim to develop a real system. It would be a great show of UK talent and force.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:yes but if you have jamming you can't really do anything but preplanned blind weapons release. There is no real time imagery or telemetrey! then there is spoofing feeding false intelligence or hacking
That's why taranis can, supposedly, autonomously designate its own targets locally. No need to talk back to base. Its then an ethical question of machines killing.
shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:yes but if you have jamming you can't really do anything but preplanned blind weapons release. There is no real time imagery or telemetrey! then there is spoofing feeding false intelligence or hacking
That's why taranis can, supposedly, autonomously designate its own targets locally. No need to talk back to base. Its then an ethical question of machines killing.

That then becomes very interesting from a Legal and Rules of engagement point of view.

But its fairly Obvious drones/UAV aren't the great panacea they have been herald many will revert to what they were originally developed as ......Air Defence Targets

Lugzy
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 09 Sep 2015, 21:23
Mongolia

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Lugzy »

@marktigger , I'm guessing you just don't buy into drones , that's ok but you would be very mistaken if you believe that's all they are good for :-)
Right now there are UAV/UCAV being developed in other countries which will change the way warfare will be fought forever , technologies advance , science advances so should military thinking , or be left behind , whether it's in space , on land , in the air , on or under the water , drones of all shapes and sizes are here to stay . And they will only get more advanced and deadly .

The U.K. Is one of the leaders in advanced drone tec , we should be investing in what we do well , and start to think out side the box ,

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Tiny Toy »

marktigger wrote:That then becomes very interesting from a Legal and Rules of engagement point of view.
It's already a very interesting question and has been discussed for some time at the highest levels, most notably last April: http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2015/04/humancontrol/. However, weapons systems that effectively fall under the LAWS definition as set out by Moyes and Sharkey and discussed at the UN are already in widespread use, including anti-ship missiles, CIWS, and some of the more advanced land and naval mines that are capable of detonating based on a very specific sensor stimulus profile.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by jonas »

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:yes but if you have jamming you can't really do anything but preplanned blind weapons release. There is no real time imagery or telemetrey! then there is spoofing feeding false intelligence or hacking
That's why taranis can, supposedly, autonomously designate its own targets locally. No need to talk back to base. Its then an ethical question of machines killing.
marktigger wrote:yes but if you have jamming you can't really do anything but preplanned blind weapons release. There is no real time imagery or telemetrey! then there is spoofing feeding false intelligence or hacking
I thought this para from wiki was quite interesting:-

"Military analysts, policy makers, and academics debate the benefits and risks of lethal autonomous robots (LARs), which would be able to select targets and fire without approval of a human. Some contend that LAR drones would be more precise, less likely to kill civilians, and less prone to being hacked.[169] Heather Roff replies that LARs may not be appropriate for complex conflicts, and targeted populations would likely react angrily against them.[169] Will McCants argues that the public would be more outraged by machine failures than human error, making LARs politically implausible.[169] According to Mark Gubrud, claims that drones can be hacked are overblown and misleading, and moreover, drones are more likely to be hacked if they're autonomous, because otherwise the human operator would take control: "Giving weapon systems autonomous capabilities is a good way to lose control of them, either due to a programming error, unanticipated circumstances, malfunction, or hack, and then not be able to regain control short of blowing them up, hopefully before they've blown up too many other things and people."[170]"

Lugzy
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 09 Sep 2015, 21:23
Mongolia

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Lugzy »

Don't think I like the thought of a machine deciding when and what to attack tbh , the decision to exercute an attack mission and the release of munitions must be one made by a pilot , the human component must be kept , maybe autonomous take off/landing , flight by way of waypoints etc to get to the target , but not the business end .

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by downsizer »

We are so risk averse nowadays I don't see is going down a fully autonomous route for a long, if ever, time.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

downsizer wrote:We are so risk averse nowadays I don't see is going down a fully autonomous route for a long, if ever, time.
I agree but on that note can you not see others arguing that fully autonomous operations are desirable precisely because we are so risk averse???

At any rate, I guess it boils down to whichever lobby carries the greater sway.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by downsizer »

I meant shit scared of killing the wrong jinglie rather than risking pilots lifes. Lawyers have more sway than warfighters at present.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

downsizer wrote:I meant shit scared of killing the wrong jinglie rather than risking pilots lifes. Lawyers have more sway than warfighters at present.
Sorry, i wasn't clear. I meant i wondered if there would be a lobby that seeks to use fully autonomous technology as a means of preserving the safety of personnel but you seem to have answered that anyway :D

Again though, i agree with your original statement. If there is any impediment to fully autonomous technology then it will be for fear of causing collateral damage and the argument that it could help to save personnel will have to take a back seat...

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Tiny Toy »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:I meant i wondered if there would be a lobby that seeks to use fully autonomous technology as a means of preserving the safety of personnel
Fully autonomous does not preserve the safety of personnel any more than remote controlled, arguably the opposite.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:If there is any impediment to fully autonomous technology then it will be for fear of causing collateral damage and the argument that it could help to save personnel will have to take a back seat...
Fully autonomous is hardly going to happen for the find=> kill loop. Personnel savings come from elsewhere. An illustration:

50 CAPs
„ 50 MQ-9 CAPs
„ + 7 a/c in constant transit
„
„„ 10 pilots per CAP
„ 500 pilots required
„ + 70 pilots to transit a/c
570 Total Pilots
„
„
„ 5 pilots per CAP
„ 250 Pilots required

„ + 0 to transit aircraft
„

56% Manpower Savings

So, ability to control several a/c at the same time is the key; autonomous for the transit part has a fairly subdued manpower impact (saving) in comparison.
- the third factor is that if you can make some of your CAPs fully autonomous (purely surveillance, over a predetermined orbit/ orbits) you can save some (more), but might miss out on targets of opportunity

PS The ratio of 7 to 50 is clearly determined from how far to the theatre the UAVs fly in, for station
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by jonas »

Have I got my wires crossed here, I read UJ's post as meaning, saving personel as in saving lives, and not in saving manpower which the above post seems to be addressing.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

A few things have been confirmed today at RPAS 2015:

Scavenger is Protector and Protector is an enhanced Reaper:

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by GibMariner »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:A few things have been confirmed today at RPAS 2015:

Scavenger is Protector and Protector is an enhanced Reaper:
The other tweet I'm about to refer to seems to have been removed so I'll place it here for reference:


Forgive my ignorance, but I thought Taranis and the FCAS programme were merged together - or a later development of Taranis might be used to fulfill the FCAS requirement. Is the FCAS programme even still active?

I'd appreciate it if anyone can enlighten me.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by jonas »

UK moves forward on unmanned helicopter
Michael Peck, Contributing Writer 8:02 a.m. EDT October 6, 2015
SW-4 RUAS

Finmeccanica-AgustaWestland has completed the concept demonstration for a British unmanned helicopter.

The Capability Concept Demonstration (CCD) for the Rotary Wing Unmanned Aerial System (RUAS) included 27 hours of demonstration flying and 22 automatic simulated deck landings using its SW-4 RUAS Solo technology demonstrator, according to a Finmeccanica-AgustaWestland news release.

The test included "demonstrating the operability of a RUAS, pseudo deck landings and various mission capabilities," Finmeccanica-AgustaWestland said. The UAV landed on a simulated frigate landing pad.

The CCD also studied using the rotorcraft system for mine hunting, hydrographic survey and airborne surveillance capability.

http://www.c4isrnet.com/story/military- ... /73385272/

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

jonas wrote:Have I got my wires crossed here, I read UJ's post as meaning, saving personel as in saving lives, and not in saving manpower which the above post seems to be addressing.
Yes, that is what i was getting at. Though i suppose Tiny's and downsizer's answers equally apply in that case too though as theoretically as it makes sense to me now that a fully autonomous system probably doesn't offer all that much in the way of extra safety as compared to having a pilot controlling an RPAS from many hundreds/thousands of kilometres away.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Gabriele »

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought Taranis and the FCAS programme were merged together - or a later development of Taranis might be used to fulfill the FCAS requirement. Is the FCAS programme even still active?

I'd appreciate it if anyone can enlighten me.
They have not quite been merged. Taranis remains a national technology demonstrator, like NEURON for France. Lessons learned with Taranis will be part of what the british industry brings into FCAS, which is the joint programme with France for an UCAV for 2030.

Taranis was never going to become an operational product. It doesn't even have actual bombs bay, but only a simulated weapons capability. It is more about stealthness and aerodynamics and autonomy in flight.
For the rest, no weapons and an old Adour engine. Its uses and prospects have been wildly overestimated by the media, as i've said more than once.
When they said that Taranis is "the most advanced aircraft ever made in Britain", they should have been shot on the spot.
Even as a demonstrator, it can only demonstrate so much. There apparently is a "Phase 3" in the test campaign scheduled for 2016, but a "Phase 4" might never follow.

FCAS is a relatively young programme UK - FR programme.
You might be still thinking of FOAS, then DPOC, finally absorbed into the F-35 budget...? Taranis was never directly connected with those, although an UCAV was an option.
But, let me say it again, Taranis as it is today will never be an operational UCAV. It literally misses pieces, for that. It would need to be scaled upwards and the final design would have to include things that simply aren't there at the moment.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by GibMariner »







User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Gabriele wrote:
There supposedly was a 1 billion funding line for the SCAVENGER requirement in the 10 years equipment programme.


Hilarious, history repeats itself. Didn't half of the 2 bn that went towards the Tier1 partner status with F35 come from deleting the FOAS as a buedget line item?
... OK, now we are not talking about deleting, but rather getting an accelerated "bang for the buck" so I am all for it.
FIRST, I am not poking fun at Gaby who has been accurate all along, it just happens that this quote seems to capture what people spending their days, full-time, can tweet... many days after.

So next time you see a line item with a billion, it is just for studying a requirement (that we can buy 20% of, by spending that bn, as we have come to realise that the 100, or even 80% for that matter, is not affordable.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by GibMariner »

Gabriele wrote: They have not quite been merged. Taranis remains a national technology demonstrator, like NEURON for France. Lessons learned with Taranis will be part of what the british industry brings into FCAS, which is the joint programme with France for an UCAV for 2030......
Thanks for clearing everything up Gabriele!

Post Reply