U.K. UAV's/Drones

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:There not yet being designed as an interceptor
Right now, but by the time one was developed it could be used for that. On a carrier one of the best uses for a UCAV would be operating as the CAP.

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

Back to UK UAV's and Drones..

I've never seen this pic before, and to be honest I didn't appreciate how big Mantis was in comparison to Reaper. Honestly do think we made a mistake not going for it when there was cash available, when I think of where the UK UAV industry should be with the money spent on Watchkeeper (and Phoenix back in the day..). Mantis would have fulfilled the job that Reaper and Protector have done with ease.

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:Plenum Chamber Burning never really worked well
Worked just fine. It was the ground & airframe effects that were the issues.
Timmymagic wrote:The beauty of the Lift Fan concept is that you can still have afterburning
Not during vertical take off or landing tho which was one of the goals of PCB.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
SW1 wrote:There not yet being designed as an interceptor
Right now, but by the time one was developed it could be used for that. On a carrier one of the best uses for a UCAV would be operating as the CAP.
Good luck with that :D

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:On a carrier one of the best uses for a UCAV would be operating as the CAP.
Don't see a problem with that. To keep them small enough to be easily handled (and stored) fly pairs, AKA sensor and shooter... shooting missiles of the air-breathing kind (and the range to go with that).

BTW, the lead article in the latest Navy News deals with Royal Navy trials and aspirations, not mentioning CAP though.
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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7182
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by SKB »


(Forces TV) 1st September 2020
Meet 700X Naval Air Squadron - personnel behind the very first Royal Navy-owned and operated drones. They were part of this year's Exercise Merlin Storm, which featured Royal Marines preparing to deploy to the Caribbean during hurricane season, providing airborne surveillance for the Commandos' helicopters. We joined them earlier this summer as they were getting ready for deployment.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:On a carrier one of the best uses for a UCAV would be operating as the CAP.
Don't see a problem with that. To keep them small enough to be easily handled (and stored) fly pairs, AKA sensor and shooter... shooting missiles of the air-breathing kind (and the range to go with that).

BTW, the lead article in the latest Navy News deals with Royal Navy trials and aspirations, not mentioning CAP though.
For armament, have you chosen between Phasers or Photon Torpedoes?

Of course the RN has had a long running unmanned CAP program, the latest iteration being (lowers voice and looks over shoulder) ...... PAAMS/Aster ..... remember you didn't hear it from me.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: For armament, have you chosen between Phasers or Photon Torpedoes?
I described Meteor in 'code' so that those not ;) in the know would step forward and reveal who they are :lol:
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe before we get to excited about afterburners and long range AAM the UK should get something like AW Hero in service with the RN and Army giving both services OTH eyes and ears up to 100 km for 6 hours and maybe just maybe Hero could be fitted with 2 x LMM or 4 free fall Fury

At this time the Army is using Watchkeeper which has a 150 km range and a max 17 hours but has to use a airfield where as Hero could be on the back of a lorry and part of a Battalion C&C set up

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:Back to UK UAV's and Drones..

I've never seen this pic before, and to be honest I didn't appreciate how big Mantis was in comparison to Reaper. Honestly do think we made a mistake not going for it when there was cash available, when I think of where the UK UAV industry should be with the money spent on Watchkeeper (and Phoenix back in the day..). Mantis would have fulfilled the job that Reaper and Protector have done with ease.

Image
The BAE Mantis is very impressive up close. Considerably larger that its Corax and HERTI stablemates and with six stonking great hardpoints for all manner of toys.

Not going ahead with it as a UK-led programme has probably cost our aerospace industry untold millions and about a decade's advance on our competitors.

Instead we're buying into a second generation of General Atomics products. Perfectly reliable but with little to no UK content, at least until Brimstone has been integrated (though the latest massive Hellfire order suggests otherwise).
Tempest414 wrote:At this time the Army is using Watchkeeper which has a 150 km range and a max 17 hours but has to use a airfield where as Hero could be on the back of a lorry and part of a Battalion C&C set up
There was a proposal from Elbit to integrate Hermes with the former HMS Ocean. No clue if it was ever serious considered by the Brazilians but it suggests that it's viable for a far smaller, older and less flexible platform.

With two massive flat-top assets, I'd say the priority should be on getting a fixed-wing UCAV off their decks before worrying about rotary wing equivalents. We will have very little surplus hangar space for those on the escorts till at least 2030 (when hopefully three Type 26s will be in service).

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:At this time the Army is using Watchkeeper which has a 150 km range and a max 17 hours but has to use a airfield where as Hero could be on the back of a lorry and part of a Battalion C&C set up
The same quote, but a different angle on it:

It has been incomprehensible to me (perhaps the comprehension is at fault :) ) from the beginning that the WK project did not have a truck launch requirement, and only recovery to an airfield
- everything to fill that gap (emphasis on immediate launch from the vicinity of the area where the to-be supported unit is) has been withdrawn from service; OK, these things develop by leaps and bounds but without operators (not just trained, but integrated to other layers of the "kill loop" you can't just order 10 scores of X and 1 of Y
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote:With two massive flat-top assets, I'd say the priority should be on getting a fixed-wing UCAV off their decks before worrying about rotary wing equivalents.
Aussie Boeing LANCA !!!

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Ron5 »

Piccy from the Typhoon radar announcement and what do I see bottom & center left just flown in from the carriers :o

Image

Mind you I don't understand the picture.

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by SW1 »

If we’re looking at history with UK UAVs expenditure we made the mistake by not engaging with General Atomics sooner. Incentives to bring a General Atomics design integration and assembly capability to the uk should of been pursued along the same lines of bringing Raytheon to uk. The facility could of produced vehicles subsequently sold to european allies. We could of developed protector and possibly avenger with uk sensor and weapon providers using common ground infrastructure and brought in different departments and agencies who are now looking at such systems rather than proceed with a number of look alikes that out nothing into service.

We now have another chance with the loyal wing program we can’t make the same mistakes again there potential is huge and long term engagement with Uk industry will be of huge benefit to all concerned long term.

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:Mind you I don't understand the picture.
Networked warfare... except that the superior capabilities of ground scanning and hostile asset detection and classification of the F-35 (I wonder why ;) ) have been left out
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)

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote:Maybe before we get to excited about afterburners and long range AAM the UK should get something like AW Hero in service with the RN and Army giving both services OTH eyes and ears up to 100 km for 6 hours and maybe just maybe Hero could be fitted with 2 x LMM or 4 free fall Fury
I've always thought the larger RUAS make little sense for land forces, unless they're being used for re-supply (like the unmanned Kaman system trialled by the USMC). They'll always be more costly than fixed wing, and unless we get them flying NOE they're going to be even more vulnerable than a fixed wing. Out at sea though they shine. The E/O system is worth the price of admission itself, get a radar on and it gets even better. I'm not convinced that arming them achieves a huge amount for any platform that can carry and operate a helo though (it could make sense on an OPV or MCM vessel though). The real gamechanger would be sticking a dipping sonar on them (nothing special a modified sonarbuoy payload would be fine) and using them alongside a manned ASW helicopter. Finding and localising a contact with a couple of Hero with that sort of payload would be a huge advantage. Particularly if you're having to use active sonar.

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Over land, some observations from the first half of this year:
"Drone footage appears to show the destruction of dozens of T-55, T-62, and T-72 main battle tanks, BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles, Pantsir-S1 and ZSU-23 Shilka short-range air defense systems, and 2S1 and 2S3 self-propelled howitzers."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... 4f1f1e6cd3

Just to point out that both the offensive capabilities and the vulnerability of more conventional SHORAD solutions have been demonstrated "in the field".

Both Turkey's and Russia's failing UAV efforts were rescued by Israel, and Russia (not resting on the laurels of 'observation only' drones used in Ukraine... by now years ago) is now stepping up the efforts to make the drones truly capable of offensive ops
... something that we should take note of, as for types of defences required/ now in place.

On the offensive side we are getting there, but the fleet will be weighted towards the sizeable designs - of which (ANKA) Turkey has already lost 3-6. And we are talking about low intensity, with only occasional bursts of larger scale action
- so either up the size of the fleet and diversify as for sizes
- or make sure the operating concept offers a degree of protection
... or do both
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Caribbean »

An interesting article. It seems to present some challenges to the perceived wisdom that drones are of no use except in completely uncontested airspace.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:On the offensive side we are getting there, but the fleet will be weighted towards the sizeable designs - of which (ANKA) Turkey has already lost 3-6. And we are talking about low intensity, with only occasional bursts of larger scale action
- so either up the size of the fleet and diversify as for sizes
Can understand why we haven't, given the issues encountered to date, but a part of the solution for the UK should have been arming Watchkeeper as proposed in the Polish competition with a small number of the Fury munition.

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:with a small number of the Fury munition
What's that?

Interestingly in the linked article these were labelled as 'micro' as you have to include the launcher in the weight,too:
"The drones are reportedly using MAM-C and MAM-L ‘micro-munitions’— 70- and 160-millimeter rockets respectively, weighing only 14 and 48.5 pounds " whereas the US arm of Nammo developed much lighter munitions... for which I have seen no take-up
- perhaps the new emphasis is anti-armour (for drones, too)?
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)

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:What's that?
It's also sold under the Textron brand. Basically its an LMM without the rocket motor..



It was mocked up on the Watchkeeper for the Polish competition. All UK kit.

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:If we’re looking at history with UK UAVs expenditure we made the mistake by not engaging with General Atomics sooner. Incentives to bring a General Atomics design integration and assembly capability to the uk should of been pursued along the same lines of bringing Raytheon to uk. The facility could of produced vehicles subsequently sold to european allies. We could of developed protector and possibly avenger with uk sensor and weapon providers using common ground infrastructure and brought in different departments and agencies who are now looking at such systems rather than proceed with a number of look alikes that out nothing into service.

We now have another chance with the loyal wing program we can’t make the same mistakes again there potential is huge and long term engagement with Uk industry will be of huge benefit to all concerned long term.
I would have given two thumbs up if I could.

I also think partnering with Australia and throwing in a dash of Tempest stuff, their loyal wingman program could be quite exceptional.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Mind you I don't understand the picture.
Networked warfare... except that the superior capabilities of ground scanning and hostile asset detection and classification of the F-35 (I wonder why ;) ) have been left out
I should have completed my sentence, I don't understand what the picture had to do with the radar announcement that contained it :problem:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Maybe before we get to excited about afterburners and long range AAM the UK should get something like AW Hero in service with the RN and Army giving both services OTH eyes and ears up to 100 km for 6 hours and maybe just maybe Hero could be fitted with 2 x LMM or 4 free fall Fury
I've always thought the larger RUAS make little sense for land forces, unless they're being used for re-supply (like the unmanned Kaman system trialled by the USMC). They'll always be more costly than fixed wing, and unless we get them flying NOE they're going to be even more vulnerable than a fixed wing. Out at sea though they shine. The E/O system is worth the price of admission itself, get a radar on and it gets even better. I'm not convinced that arming them achieves a huge amount for any platform that can carry and operate a helo though (it could make sense on an OPV or MCM vessel though). The real gamechanger would be sticking a dipping sonar on them (nothing special a modified sonarbuoy payload would be fine) and using them alongside a manned ASW helicopter. Finding and localising a contact with a couple of Hero with that sort of payload would be a huge advantage. Particularly if you're having to use active sonar.
Or just leave the humans onboard and not bother effing around with vulnerable and expensive high bandwidth satellite links.

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

Re: U.K. UAV's/Drones

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:If we’re looking at history with UK UAVs expenditure we made the mistake by not engaging with General Atomics sooner. Incentives to bring a General Atomics design integration and assembly capability to the uk should of been pursued along the same lines of bringing Raytheon to uk. The facility could of produced vehicles subsequently sold to european allies. We could of developed protector and possibly avenger with uk sensor and weapon providers using common ground infrastructure and brought in different departments and agencies who are now looking at such systems rather than proceed with a number of look alikes that out nothing into service.

We now have another chance with the loyal wing program we can’t make the same mistakes again there potential is huge and long term engagement with Uk industry will be of huge benefit to all concerned long term.
I would have given two thumbs up if I could.

I also think partnering with Australia and throwing in a dash of Tempest stuff, their loyal wingman program could be quite exceptional.
Personally I would like to see us getting involved with the Northrop Grumman Offering.

Post Reply