Anglo - French UAV
Discussion
http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-to-announce-drone-...
BAe is looking to team up with Dassault to build some RC aircraft.
Do we really need a non-American drone or is this just a way of keeping the European aerospace industry ticking over?
Predictions? It will be delivered years late and 3-4 times over budget, will lack vital capability and will end up being scrapped in about 20 years time in favor of buying American. At that time it will become the Red Arrows new aircraft. On the plus side I bet you could fly some pretty tight formations if you link up all the aircraft to a single RC joystick operated by a man in a cap and an anorak.
BAe is looking to team up with Dassault to build some RC aircraft.
Do we really need a non-American drone or is this just a way of keeping the European aerospace industry ticking over?
Predictions? It will be delivered years late and 3-4 times over budget, will lack vital capability and will end up being scrapped in about 20 years time in favor of buying American. At that time it will become the Red Arrows new aircraft. On the plus side I bet you could fly some pretty tight formations if you link up all the aircraft to a single RC joystick operated by a man in a cap and an anorak.
Ayahuasca said:
http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-to-announce-drone-...
BAe is looking to team up with Dassault to build some RC aircraft.
Do we really need a non-American drone or is this just a way of keeping the European aerospace industry ticking over?
Predictions? It will be delivered years late and 3-4 times over budget, will lack vital capability and will end up being scrapped in about 20 years time in favor of buying American. At that time it will become the Red Arrows new aircraft. On the plus side I bet you could fly some pretty tight formations if you link up all the aircraft to a single RC joystick operated by a man in a cap and an anorak.
This role can be done by some nightvsion gear bolted to a light aircraft. BAe is looking to team up with Dassault to build some RC aircraft.
Do we really need a non-American drone or is this just a way of keeping the European aerospace industry ticking over?
Predictions? It will be delivered years late and 3-4 times over budget, will lack vital capability and will end up being scrapped in about 20 years time in favor of buying American. At that time it will become the Red Arrows new aircraft. On the plus side I bet you could fly some pretty tight formations if you link up all the aircraft to a single RC joystick operated by a man in a cap and an anorak.
They are effectively paying 45 billion simply to avoid a few dozen members of the armed forces getting shot at. Which is terrible value. It would be far cheaper to pay the Taliban to stop at home.
Eric Mc said:
So you think European air arms should only buy American products?
Not necessarily, no.Interested however on why it is better for the UK / France to develop a UAV from scratch when an off-the-shelf solution might be more effective and cheaper. It seems that the overriding concern may not have much to do with UAVs and more to do with boosting UK / France relations and industy.
Ayahuasca said:
Not necessarily, no.
Interested however on why it is better for the UK / France to develop a UAV from scratch when an off-the-shelf solution might be more effective and cheaper. It seems that the overriding concern may not have much to do with UAVs and more to do with boosting UK / France relations and industy.
Because we can support it ourselves, add what we want, etc. we will not have to rely on other nations to use it.Interested however on why it is better for the UK / France to develop a UAV from scratch when an off-the-shelf solution might be more effective and cheaper. It seems that the overriding concern may not have much to do with UAVs and more to do with boosting UK / France relations and industy.
TheHeretic said:
Ayahuasca said:
Not necessarily, no.
Interested however on why it is better for the UK / France to develop a UAV from scratch when an off-the-shelf solution might be more effective and cheaper. It seems that the overriding concern may not have much to do with UAVs and more to do with boosting UK / France relations and industy.
Because we can support it ourselves, add what we want, etc. we will not have to rely on other nations to use it.Interested however on why it is better for the UK / France to develop a UAV from scratch when an off-the-shelf solution might be more effective and cheaper. It seems that the overriding concern may not have much to do with UAVs and more to do with boosting UK / France relations and industy.
TheHeretic said:
Ayahuasca said:
Oh right. Like Nimrod AEW3 and Nimrod MR4A you mean? How did it go with those again?
No need to get snarky. You asked a question, I have a reasonable reply. If you don't want responses, don't post the thread. 
There is nothing wrong with supporting UK industry, but we should be clear that that is the main concern, and not the UAVs themselves.
I'm probably wrong but I think their efforts would be better spent on a smaller unit fitted with IR and capable of being stored in a back pack with 20-30mins endurance before it requires a quick change of battery. The unit cost should be in the £2-5k range rather than the silly money they cost at the moment.
Watching all these Afghanistan programmes on at the moment, the boots on the ground seem utterly reliant on Apaches for intel on enemy positions, which is madness given their cost per hour.
Something like those ipod controlled multi-rotor camera toys would be far more useful as the cost would mean that every patrol could take one out with them.
Watching all these Afghanistan programmes on at the moment, the boots on the ground seem utterly reliant on Apaches for intel on enemy positions, which is madness given their cost per hour.
Something like those ipod controlled multi-rotor camera toys would be far more useful as the cost would mean that every patrol could take one out with them.
rhinochopig said:
I'm probably wrong but I think their efforts would be better spent on a smaller unit fitted with IR and capable of being stored in a back pack with 20-30mins endurance before it requires a quick change of battery. The unit cost should be in the £2-5k range rather than the silly money they cost at the moment.
Watching all these Afghanistan programmes on at the moment, the boots on the ground seem utterly reliant on Apaches for intel on enemy positions, which is madness given their cost per hour.
Something like those ipod controlled multi-rotor camera toys would be far more useful as the cost would mean that every patrol could take one out with them.
But can they launch Hellfires (or whatever) ?Watching all these Afghanistan programmes on at the moment, the boots on the ground seem utterly reliant on Apaches for intel on enemy positions, which is madness given their cost per hour.
Something like those ipod controlled multi-rotor camera toys would be far more useful as the cost would mean that every patrol could take one out with them.
Ayahuasca said:
TheHeretic said:
Ayahuasca said:
Oh right. Like Nimrod AEW3 and Nimrod MR4A you mean? How did it go with those again?
No need to get snarky. You asked a question, I have a reasonable reply. If you don't want responses, don't post the thread. There is nothing wrong with supporting UK industry, but we should be clear that that is the main concern, and not the UAVs themselves.
And the US doesn't get every military project right.
Look at what is happening with the F-35 to see how well buying US hardware can go.
Ayahuasca said:
rhinochopig said:
I'm probably wrong but I think their efforts would be better spent on a smaller unit fitted with IR and capable of being stored in a back pack with 20-30mins endurance before it requires a quick change of battery. The unit cost should be in the £2-5k range rather than the silly money they cost at the moment.
Watching all these Afghanistan programmes on at the moment, the boots on the ground seem utterly reliant on Apaches for intel on enemy positions, which is madness given their cost per hour.
Something like those ipod controlled multi-rotor camera toys would be far more useful as the cost would mean that every patrol could take one out with them.
But can they launch Hellfires (or whatever) ?Watching all these Afghanistan programmes on at the moment, the boots on the ground seem utterly reliant on Apaches for intel on enemy positions, which is madness given their cost per hour.
Something like those ipod controlled multi-rotor camera toys would be far more useful as the cost would mean that every patrol could take one out with them.
You could even fit a laser pointer to it. Psychologically, if one of your mates is about to set up an IED and a red spot appears shimmering on his chest, you are VERY likely to stop what you're doing and RLF.
eharding said:
shauniebabes said:
This role can be done by some nightvsion gear bolted to a light aircraft.
The target role is typically operating up to 30k feet, endurance up to 48 hours. What type of light aircraft did you have in mind?rhinochopig said:
I'm probably wrong but I think their efforts would be better spent on a smaller unit fitted with IR and capable of being stored in a back pack with 20-30mins endurance before it requires a quick change of battery. The unit cost should be in the £2-5k range rather than the silly money they cost at the moment.
Watching all these Afghanistan programmes on at the moment, the boots on the ground seem utterly reliant on Apaches for intel on enemy positions, which is madness given their cost per hour.
Something like those ipod controlled multi-rotor camera toys would be far more useful as the cost would mean that every patrol could take one out with them.
They already have stuff like that - the British Army have Desert Hawks and T-Hawks.Watching all these Afghanistan programmes on at the moment, the boots on the ground seem utterly reliant on Apaches for intel on enemy positions, which is madness given their cost per hour.
Something like those ipod controlled multi-rotor camera toys would be far more useful as the cost would mean that every patrol could take one out with them.
shauniebabes said:
eharding said:
shauniebabes said:
This role can be done by some nightvsion gear bolted to a light aircraft.
The target role is typically operating up to 30k feet, endurance up to 48 hours. What type of light aircraft did you have in mind?When you've finished, had a shower and some counselling, come back and tell us if you rather go through that again or have a robot do it for you (and if you *do* want to do it again, it will at least confirm you're every bit as much of a weirdo as has been rumoured).
Westland Lysander had a ceiling height of 21k feet, cruise speed of less than 200 Mph, a range of 600 miles, and appears to have a max loading of 2000 lbs (1000 kg, incl crew).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lysander
Fundamentally, even with lots of development, it's crap by modern standards.
Did you mean something like the Super-Tucano COIN planes ? They're pretty much the best current prop driven combat aircraft.
Either way, as has been pointed out, getting a crew to fly something like this for up to 48 hours would seem difficult.
You'd really need a larger crew, 4 at least, operating in shifts. Which means a much bigger aircraft, possibly negating any stealth aspect.
And you'd idealy like lots of them.
What intrigues me is the high cost of the UAV and UACV planes.
The current generation don't fly fast, or are high performance in any way.
The sensor equipment they carry doesn't necessarily need to be super-sneaky state of the art stuff, if all they're doing is providing intel.
And no life support for pilots.
So why are they expensive ?
UACVs which fly fast and have state of the art sensors will always be expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lysander
Fundamentally, even with lots of development, it's crap by modern standards.
Did you mean something like the Super-Tucano COIN planes ? They're pretty much the best current prop driven combat aircraft.
Either way, as has been pointed out, getting a crew to fly something like this for up to 48 hours would seem difficult.
You'd really need a larger crew, 4 at least, operating in shifts. Which means a much bigger aircraft, possibly negating any stealth aspect.
And you'd idealy like lots of them.
What intrigues me is the high cost of the UAV and UACV planes.
The current generation don't fly fast, or are high performance in any way.
The sensor equipment they carry doesn't necessarily need to be super-sneaky state of the art stuff, if all they're doing is providing intel.
And no life support for pilots.
So why are they expensive ?
UACVs which fly fast and have state of the art sensors will always be expensive.
Why are they so expensive?
Well, you could build them like R/C planes in a shed. Seriously, you could. But if you did that, you have a problem.
BAE systems employs around 39,000 people directly in the UK, and goodness knows how many subcontracting jobs depend on it. Buying stuff off the shelf from America risks those jobs. So one of the aims of defence procurement is to retain design capability.
With the lengthening timescales for defence procurement - At the end of WW2 a jet fighter could be knocked up in about 2 years, give or take, and now it takes 20 years or more from start to finish - design staff don't get much opportunity to keep their skills current. So we have new things made when we could have bought off the shelf to ensure that in the future we can continue to have new things made that could be bought off the shelf.
Well, you could build them like R/C planes in a shed. Seriously, you could. But if you did that, you have a problem.
BAE systems employs around 39,000 people directly in the UK, and goodness knows how many subcontracting jobs depend on it. Buying stuff off the shelf from America risks those jobs. So one of the aims of defence procurement is to retain design capability.
With the lengthening timescales for defence procurement - At the end of WW2 a jet fighter could be knocked up in about 2 years, give or take, and now it takes 20 years or more from start to finish - design staff don't get much opportunity to keep their skills current. So we have new things made when we could have bought off the shelf to ensure that in the future we can continue to have new things made that could be bought off the shelf.
911newbie said:
What intrigues me is the high cost of the UAV and UACV planes.
Building a simple aircraft is quite easy. It is when you start adding things like a particular range, a particular performance envelope, the need for interoperability with existing systems, the need to carry weapons, the need for real time communication and control etc that things become more complicated, since all of those requirements will have implications on the others. In addition, the thing still has to be safe to operate - it might not have a pilot but it still flies to and from airports, and over towns and cities.The material cost of building is often only a fraction of the overall cost of the programme because it costs a lot of money to develop them in the first place. If you are going to build 20,000 of them then the unit cost will be low since the development is spread out, but if you only buy a few tens of units, then each one will be very expensive.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff