Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

It is easy to forget just how big Watchkeeper is. I also thought it flew higher.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Having seen stacks of footage of drones in action in Ukraine, particularly TB2, could Watchkeeper perform a similar role?

The much vaunted Russia A2AD system being a massive flop, couldn't Watchkeeper exist in this space?

How technological are the Turkish drones?

They seem to be doing a tremendous job and still going strong weeks into the war.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Luke jones wrote: 18 Mar 2022, 22:08 Having seen stacks of footage of drones in action in Ukraine, particularly TB2, could Watchkeeper perform a similar role?

The much vaunted Russia A2AD system being a massive flop, couldn't Watchkeeper exist in this space?

How technological are the Turkish drones?

They seem to be doing a tremendous job and still going strong weeks into the war.
They’re very similar in size and method of control, watchkeeper has all weather sensing and can fly in civil airspace (this is quite difficult to do).

There was an armed proposal



A lot of image damage due to who the army initially thought could “fly” it!
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
TSharpe28

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Got to be a step change getting these things armed, or similar like it.

The TB2s are making an enormous difference right now. New videos out every day.
Seems the RU anti air isn't even picking them up.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Having a couple of small munition on Watchkeeper would be useful for targets of opportunity as long as this capability doesn't cause its prime role to be neglected

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by topman »

The army could use them in the kamikaze role, they've plenty of experience of watchkeeper piling in.
These users liked the author topman for the post:
Jensy

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by TSharpe28 »

topman wrote: 19 Mar 2022, 09:21 The army could use them in the kamikaze role, they've plenty of experience of watchkeeper piling in.
Then they whole fleet will be gone fast in a conflict. :)

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Big enough for Hellfire???

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Luke jones wrote: 19 Mar 2022, 10:58 Big enough for Hellfire???
No too big. You’d be looking at things in the 10 kg weight range unless you wish to remove some of the sensors.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote: 19 Mar 2022, 11:14 No too big. You’d be looking at things in the 10 kg weight range unless you wish to remove some of the sensors.
Given we already operate LMM there just isn't any reason why we can't just get some Fury. If the RA aren't getting this now...we're mad. And resurrecting the Fireshadow loitering munition...mind you...Fury is 8 years old...thats how daft we are..

Thales in Belfast should be very, very busy with NLAW orders, Starstreak 2 to reload the stockpile, Fury and LMM...

Image

It's marketed in the US by Textron.

https://www.textronsystems.com/sites/de ... asheet.pdf
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
SW1

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote: 19 Mar 2022, 12:33
SW1 wrote: 19 Mar 2022, 11:14 No too big. You’d be looking at things in the 10 kg weight range unless you wish to remove some of the sensors.
Given we already operate LMM there just isn't any reason why we can't just get some Fury. If the RA aren't getting this now...we're mad. And resurrecting the Fireshadow loitering munition...mind you...Fury is 8 years old...thats how daft we are..

Thales in Belfast should be very, very busy with NLAW orders, Starstreak 2 to reload the stockpile, Fury and LMM...

Image

It's marketed in the US by Textron.

https://www.textronsystems.com/sites/de ... asheet.pdf
Would agree

Thales belfast are extremely busy with non mod customers in particular.

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

I strongly disagree with arming Watchkeeper.

It is not a strike asset. It is an STA asset. For the same reasons we do not mount ATGM on much of our armour, and why the FV514 was acceptable without RARDEN. Giving everything an offensive capability detracts from the primary purpose, which impacts the training, personnel and prioritisation of the assets.

If we need more UAS Strike capability then we need to buy more platforms. Not erode the current capability at a time when artillery with massed and precision strikes is climbing the priorities again.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

RunningStrong wrote: 19 Mar 2022, 19:45 I strongly disagree with arming Watchkeeper.

It is not a strike asset. It is an STA asset. For the same reasons we do not mount ATGM on much of our armour, and why the FV514 was acceptable without RARDEN. Giving everything an offensive capability detracts from the primary purpose, which impacts the training, personnel and prioritisation of the assets.

If we need more UAS Strike capability then we need to buy more platforms. Not erode the current capability at a time when artillery with massed and precision strikes is climbing the priorities again.
I agree to a degree. But....unless we get more UCAV, specifically for the AAC to run alongside AH-64E (the GA Mojave seems to make a lot of sense in that regard as control may be possible from AH-64E as standard, although we need a national build capability as well...) then Watchkeeper may be the only game in town for the Army. And Protector will never be available in large enough numbers, or be able to have the local control that an Army asset has. Even hanging 2 x Fury from a Watchkeeper could be very useful to engage time critical targets, or high value items like SAM systems that are discovered in normal operations. By all means concentrate on ISTAR but with an additional string to the bow.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Adding a light weapon to a reconnaissance asset does not a strike platform make! Adding the ability to engage something that maybe shooting at it or indeed a high value targets of opportunity should be part of it primary purpose. Nor does having the option mean it needs to carry it all the time either.

Likewise we should be issuing anti tank, anti air weapons to as many vehicles and units as possible. If the present conflict has reminded us of anything there is no front lines anymore every unit is as likely to be hit in open conflict and we better be ready for it. If that means we need to invest more in training and the skill set of the individual soldiers then so be it.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 3):
TSharpe28SD67Dahedd

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Timmymagic wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 09:56
RunningStrong wrote: 19 Mar 2022, 19:45 I strongly disagree with arming Watchkeeper.

It is not a strike asset. It is an STA asset. For the same reasons we do not mount ATGM on much of our armour, and why the FV514 was acceptable without RARDEN. Giving everything an offensive capability detracts from the primary purpose, which impacts the training, personnel and prioritisation of the assets.

If we need more UAS Strike capability then we need to buy more platforms. Not erode the current capability at a time when artillery with massed and precision strikes is climbing the priorities again.
I agree to a degree. But....unless we get more UCAV, specifically for the AAC to run alongside AH-64E (the GA Mojave seems to make a lot of sense in that regard as control may be possible from AH-64E as standard, although we need a national build capability as well...) then Watchkeeper may be the only game in town for the Army. And Protector will never be available in large enough numbers, or be able to have the local control that an Army asset has. Even hanging 2 x Fury from a Watchkeeper could be very useful to engage time critical targets, or high value items like SAM systems that are discovered in normal operations. By all means concentrate on ISTAR but with an additional string to the bow.
You start hanging missiles off the platform, you reduce endurance, you reduce operational altitude, you reduce the primary capability.

If an adversary is unscreening SAM sites to take on an unarmed STA drone then the opposition is playing their hand very easily.

Fitting lightweight missiles with incredibly limited fragmentation (considering the typical dispersion of a SAM battery) isn't the answer to that.

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 11:30 Adding a light weapon to a reconnaissance asset does not a strike platform make! Adding the ability to engage something that maybe shooting at it or indeed a high value targets of opportunity should be part of it primary purpose. Nor does having the option mean it needs to carry it all the time either.
Then we should never have bought an unarmed UAS in the first place and instead all budget should be allocated to properly armed UAS with sufficient fire power to actually destroy a "target of opportunity". A 2kg warhead is not it.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

RunningStrong wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 11:50
SW1 wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 11:30 Adding a light weapon to a reconnaissance asset does not a strike platform make! Adding the ability to engage something that maybe shooting at it or indeed a high value targets of opportunity should be part of it primary purpose. Nor does having the option mean it needs to carry it all the time either.
Then we should never have bought an unarmed UAS in the first place and instead all budget should be allocated to properly armed UAS with sufficient fire power to actually destroy a "target of opportunity". A 2kg warhead is not it.
On that I would not disagree.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Couple of things. Wasn't Watchkeeper ordered at a time when arming a UAS was either not done or in its infancy, such as the CIA having a few armed platforms flying around the Middle East? Also does anyone know if Watchkeeper has the power to even effectively carry anything beyond its current sensor packages? Lastly, maybe we should be looking at purchasing a armed UAS for the AAC to give troops a local, persistent air asset that can be operated by them as well as possibly being a Wingman for the Apache Guardian.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
KiwiMuzz

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Not really watchkeeper was ordered in 2007, predator b (reaper) first flew in 2001. Even then the trajectory was clear. watchkeeper was very unique in the requirement to fly in civil airspace. Also had the benefit of being a line of sight rather than satellite system.

Anything else would of run in to the cap badge protectionism. Watchkeeper being royal artillery with gunners operating it against the larger more complex systems which would have mandated pilots and at the very worst as far as the army was concerned army air corps operators. As it soon became clear gunners aren’t pilots and the aac and raf had to step in anyway.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Lord Jim

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Just looking at the clips coming out of Ukraine now, there are dozens or more, TB2 is making a massive difference, it's a real game changer.

The fact they are mostly still flying, over three weeks into the war, and shown destroying stacks of RU equipment (Inc SAM systems) is incredible.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

RunningStrong wrote: 19 Mar 2022, 19:45 I strongly disagree with arming Watchkeeper.

It is not a strike asset. It is an STA asset. For the same reasons we do not mount ATGM on much of our armour, and why the FV514 was acceptable without RARDEN. Giving everything an offensive capability detracts from the primary purpose, which impacts the training, personnel and prioritisation of the assets.

If we need more UAS Strike capability then we need to buy more platforms. Not erode the current capability at a time when artillery with massed and precision strikes is climbing the priorities again.
I agree that fires are climbing the priorities again.
However, at this point in time there is nowhere near enough if it, and it's outranged.

Arming Watchkeeper would be a huge forcemultiplier and would give a huge boost rangewise aswell.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Caribbean »

Personally, I see no issues with adding light weapons to Watchkeeper. The Russians have just used re-purposed Israeli Forpost drones (originally surveillance-only drones) to attack and destroy a Ukrainian artillery battery, despite the fact that Israel stopped supplying spares six years ago. Watchkeeper actually has a higher payload capacity (150kg) than the Forpost (120kg)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Got to be a pretty quick win there.
Surely wouldn't exactly break the bank either.

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote: 21 Mar 2022, 11:10 Personally, I see no issues with adding light weapons to Watchkeeper. The Russians have just used re-purposed Israeli Forpost drones (originally surveillance-only drones) to attack and destroy a Ukrainian artillery battery, despite the fact that Israel stopped supplying spares six years ago. Watchkeeper actually has a higher payload capacity (150kg) than the Forpost (120kg)
Only video I've seen is against a single MLRS. There's no way a lightweight drone carries sufficient ordinance to destroy a properly spaced battery.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I don't think they would serve much purpose taking out high value armoured targets but for low value low cost targets like insurgents in the back of a pick up or laying IED's having LMM mounted on a Watchkeeper makes sense.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
Dahedd

Post Reply