U.K. UAV's/Drones

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
cky7
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by cky7 »

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/

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by shark bait »

I'm fairly sure a Kratos aircraft is behind the 'drone swarm' the RAF is experimenting with.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by xav »

UK Maritime and Coast Guard Agency wants drones for its SAR 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.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -missions/

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Dahedd »

Give them the Predators when the RAF retires them ;)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

Dahedd wrote:Give them the Predators when the RAF retires them
Nah, give them the Watchkeepers....if they haven't all been crashed yet...

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by andrew98 »

Lord Jim wrote:Obviously they will not be dropping Paveways on SUVs in Chelsea though.
Shame though, maybe LMM? Less collateral damage!

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Lord Jim »

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. :D

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2331
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by bobp »



Looks like data from the Australian Loyal Wingman project is shared with the UK

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1220
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by RichardIC »



I'm pretty sure this was the drone that was also being considered for planeguard from the QLZ, although can't find any links.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Lord Jim »

Will they be contracting Amazon for the role? :)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RichardIC wrote: the drone that was also being considered for planeguard from the QLZ
What? One for the dinghy, and another for the rescue diver
- saves the winch 8-)
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)

Little J
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Little J »

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???


Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

Little J wrote:Anyone else think it would make a good (scalable) basis for a UAV???
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).

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.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2546
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by dmereifield »

Timmymagic wrote:
Little J wrote:Anyone else think it would make a good (scalable) basis for a UAV???
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).

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.
Too expensive?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

dmereifield wrote:Too expensive?
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...

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.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2546
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by dmereifield »

Timmymagic wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Too expensive?
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...

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.
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?

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Jensy »

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.
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.

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.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

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.
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.
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?
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...

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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...
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
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

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.
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
Senior Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote:
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.
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.
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.

There not yet being designed as an interceptor

J. Tattersall

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by J. Tattersall »

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.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by SW1 »

Concorde required reheat to get to supersonic flight.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:Concorde required reheat to get to supersonic flight.
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.

Post Reply