UK Defence Forum

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.

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.

Luke jones wrote: ↑19 Mar 2022, 10:58 Big enough for Hellfire???

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.

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...



It's marketed in the US by Textron.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)