U.K. UAV's/Drones
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Kratos are now teaming up with aero environment so their new drone can fire canister based small UAVs and missiles. We really need to be getting on board with this one imo
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sa ... velopment/
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sa ... velopment/
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
I'm fairly sure a Kratos aircraft is behind the 'drone swarm' the RAF is experimenting with.
@LandSharkUK
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
UK Maritime and Coast Guard Agency wants drones for its SAR missions
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -missions/The UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) plans to assess the potential use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for SAR missions under a program named « Drone Demonstration and Development Project », a recent tender document reveals.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3246
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Nah, give them the Watchkeepers....if they haven't all been crashed yet...Dahedd wrote:Give them the Predators when the RAF retires them
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Best use for the Watchkeepers is to use them as targets for anti drone systems. I wonder if the Protectors will be used for surveillance over the UK against target identified as a threat by the security services? Obviously they will not be dropping Paveways on SUVs in Chelsea though.
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Shame though, maybe LMM? Less collateral damage!Lord Jim wrote:Obviously they will not be dropping Paveways on SUVs in Chelsea though.
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
They will probably install some sort of joint ANPR/Speed camera so your next speeding ticket could show a picture of your car from above speeding and another getting out when you next stop. The Cameras already exist to take the photos and clearly read the number plate. All they need is a data link into the ANPR system and a GPS reference to measure speed fast and accurately.
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Looks like data from the Australian Loyal Wingman project is shared with the UK
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
I'm pretty sure this was the drone that was also being considered for planeguard from the QLZ, although can't find any links.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
What? One for the dinghy, and another for the rescue diverRichardIC wrote: the drone that was also being considered for planeguard from the QLZ
- saves the winch
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
This bloke is making a RC F-35B (really cool btw, look at his other videos), but he's also built this test frame to help him get used to flighting it and experiment with bits and bob's...
Anyone else think it would make a good (scalable) basis for a UAV???
Anyone else think it would make a good (scalable) basis for a UAV???
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3246
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Not in its current form. There are easier VTOL systems available to UAV designers that would be far more reliable in practice (the tailsitter VBAT for example).Little J wrote:Anyone else think it would make a good (scalable) basis for a UAV???
What's surprising to me is that there have been no attempts to use the F-35 powerplant with LiftSysystem in any UCAV designs, or even scale it down to a smaller jet engine and use the same concept.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Too expensive?Timmymagic wrote:Not in its current form. There are easier VTOL systems available to UAV designers that would be far more reliable in practice (the tailsitter VBAT for example).Little J wrote:Anyone else think it would make a good (scalable) basis for a UAV???
What's surprising to me is that there have been no attempts to use the F-35 powerplant with LiftSysystem in any UCAV designs, or even scale it down to a smaller jet engine and use the same concept.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3246
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Certainly the F135 and LiftSystem is very expensive, and could only be justified by a very high end UCAV. The market for that is very limited. You could argue that unless you're building one to pair it with an F-35B you may as well buy an F-35B...dmereifield wrote:Too expensive?
But utilisation of the same concept with a smaller, less expensive system could be doable. But again it would add cost and complexity, and your market will primarily be Navies with LHD's and small carriers.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
But then making a less expensive version would require an expensive RnD programme first for development and testing etc...no longer particularly cheap then, is it?Timmymagic wrote:Certainly the F135 and LiftSystem is very expensive, and could only be justified by a very high end UCAV. The market for that is very limited. You could argue that unless you're building one to pair it with an F-35B you may as well buy an F-35B...dmereifield wrote:Too expensive?
But utilisation of the same concept with a smaller, less expensive system could be doable. But again it would add cost and complexity, and your market will primarily be Navies with LHD's and small carriers.
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
I'd say the same of the far more established 'rotating nozzle', Harrier style technique, particularly in the shape of the QinetiQ VAAC testbed. It was already capable of landing on Charles de Gaulle with little to no human interaction.Timmymagic wrote:What's surprising to me is that there have been no attempts to use the F-35 powerplant with LiftSysystem in any UCAV designs, or even scale it down to a smaller jet engine and use the same concept.
Whilst unsuitable for 'upscaling' to something the weight of an F-35, it would be highly effective for a smaller airframe lacking all the weight penalties of a pilot.
It also has the big advantage over the Lift-Fan system of not needing to drag around the dead weight of the fan, during level flight, and all the hefty, strengthened panels needed to ensure airflow.
I suppose there just isn't the demand for such UCAVs yet or their flexibility.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3246
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
The big disadvantage it has is that it needs a dedicated engine for that. And there is only the Pegasus. The beauty of the Lift Fan concept is that you can still have afterburning (as Plenum Chamber Burning never really worked well) and could alter an existing engine to power the gearing.Jensy wrote:It also has the big advantage over the Lift-Fan system of not needing to drag around the dead weight of the fan, during level flight, and all the hefty, strengthened panels needed to ensure airflow.
No it wouldn't be cheap, but the F135 is enormous and you're pretty much committed to an F-35 sized platform. And the answer at that point is an unmanned F-35B...dmereifield wrote:But then making a less expensive version would require an expensive RnD programme first for development and testing etc...no longer particularly cheap then, is it?
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Why would you want a supersonic ucav. A non after burning engine optimised for range will be subsonic in nature and more suitable for unmanned missions. The f35 engine system is covered in ITAR and it’s use subject to the whims of US congress no one outside the US will bother developing a platform with that.Timmymagic wrote:The big disadvantage it has is that it needs a dedicated engine for that. And there is only the Pegasus. The beauty of the Lift Fan concept is that you can still have afterburning (as Plenum Chamber Burning never really worked well) and could alter an existing engine to power the gearing.Jensy wrote:It also has the big advantage over the Lift-Fan system of not needing to drag around the dead weight of the fan, during level flight, and all the hefty, strengthened panels needed to ensure airflow.
No it wouldn't be cheap, but the F135 is enormous and you're pretty much committed to an F-35 sized platform. And the answer at that point is an unmanned F-35B...dmereifield wrote:But then making a less expensive version would require an expensive RnD programme first for development and testing etc...no longer particularly cheap then, is it?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3246
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Afterburning has other uses beyond getting over the transonic hump. The ability to accelerate, climb rapidly or shorten a takeoff run is worth the price of admission. But it very much depends on the role a UCAV fills. If its going to operate as a wingman it may need the ability to reach higher speeds to keep up.SW1 wrote:Why would you want a supersonic ucav. A non after burning engine optimised for range will be subsonic in nature and more suitable for unmanned missions.
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
That’s all related to a thrust to weight requirement that does not require after burning to be meet especially if it has low drag. There’s a number of examples out there that demonstrates that.Timmymagic wrote:Afterburning has other uses beyond getting over the transonic hump. The ability to accelerate, climb rapidly or shorten a takeoff run is worth the price of admission. But it very much depends on the role a UCAV fills. If its going to operate as a wingman it may need the ability to reach higher speeds to keep up.SW1 wrote:Why would you want a supersonic ucav. A non after burning engine optimised for range will be subsonic in nature and more suitable for unmanned missions.
There not yet being designed as an interceptor
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
A reheated engine (i.e. after burning) its not always needed for supersonic flight, Concorde being a case in point which was able to super cruise without reheat.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3246
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones
Actually it didn't, but it saved fuel by using afterburner to get through the transonic regime quickly. It could go supersonic using dry thrust but it took more time and fuel to push through.SW1 wrote:Concorde required reheat to get to supersonic flight.