BAE Mantis drone doing flight tests in Australia [Archive]

Squirrel 41

16th Nov 2009, 20:50

Sun Who,

Indeed, the "BAES, AW & BVT must remain profitable at all costs irrespective of how poor their performance" document. And we wonder why they can - esp. BAES - be a little overbearing, or even, dare we mention it, "Arrogant"!?! :rolleyes:

it would be most interesting to see how long the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) would last if when "buying British" was not demonstrable value-for-money, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, (nee BURR :yuk:, nee DTI :*) had to pay the difference between the BAES / AW / BVT costs and those of the preferred / lowest cost bidder who many or may not decide to build the equipment in the UK... :hmm:

Let's hope the damn thing gets re-written in concert with SDR 2010 and focusses on value for the front line rather more than in protecting major international companies that happen to operate in the UK from their own incompetence and ineptitude. (See NAO Major Project Reports, passim).

S41

Airborne Aircrew

16th Nov 2009, 22:46

It seems that "Buy British" is a self defeating policy. Could we move towards a "Buy Effective" policy... It might help and it might save one or two lives along the way.

But let's not loose sight of the "big picture"... It's not all "insurgent warfare" - we need to be able to fight in any scenario.

CR2

17th Nov 2009, 00:32

If your German language skills are not quite up to reading the Flug Revue, try this link (Flight International article on the Mantis first flights).

Alternatively hit the Union Flag button at the top right of the Flugrevue website. ;)

L J R

17th Nov 2009, 01:43

Does anyone know what it CAN do that REAPER does not do? ...and I won't even go to the fact that REAPER is doing IT today...

Cows getting bigger

17th Nov 2009, 06:34

You could drive it from Waddo rather than Vegas thus saving the tax payer £2.99 in LOA? :}

VinRouge

17th Nov 2009, 07:42

Does anyone know what it CAN do that REAPER does not do? ...and I won't even go to the fact that REAPER is doing IT today...

Assymetric? :cool:

Cows getting bigger

17th Nov 2009, 07:48

Looks like there is space for a pilot upgrade/downgrade option. :eek:

.... and they have raided the parts bin. I'm sure that tail looks like it has come off something else.:bored:

airborne_artist

17th Nov 2009, 09:42

Mantis, eh - does that mean the users will spend most of their time praying it will work?

robins1

17th Nov 2009, 09:52

scuse me for being thick, but if it's unmanned why does it need a cockpit?

orgASMic

17th Nov 2009, 10:19

For a female pilot? I hear they are quite the thing at the moment.
:ok:

free_hat

17th Nov 2009, 10:59

(in ref to LJRs post)

two different concepts:

One is a remotely operated drone
One is an autonomous system

The difference between these concepts is vast. Reaper is a very capable drone (with some level of autonomous capability), while mantis is a autonomous system demonstrator. Two very different platforms used is very different ways. The UK has had drones since the 80s - thats not a difficult concept to develop. All the hype now is about ASs. Its like comparing bananas and butter.

(sorry)

BEagle

17th Nov 2009, 11:50

I would be VERY worried about anything 't Bungling Baron's had a hand in having ANY degree of autonomy!

"Seth - wherr's 't bloody drone at?"
"Don't know, masterr. 't thing's booggerred off tha' knows...."
"Well, ah'll go to 't foot o'owerr sterrs...."

A shame they didn't call it 't Whippet' or 't Pigeon'......

c130jtechie

17th Nov 2009, 12:05

As you can imagine us Northerners rise above those comments, especially from Southern ex "Seat - Stick Interfaces" . Don't forget whatever happens you'll always need Engineers.

Ian Corrigible

17th Nov 2009, 13:17

The UK has had drones since the 80s
The Phoenix was more of a 'suicide droid' than a drone, and over a third of the fleet flew off into the sunset never to be seen again - hence its nickname "Bugger off." :E

(Though I must admit QinetiQ's latest unmanned vehicle - the Dragon Runner (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/109915/uk-orders-dragon-runner-robots-for-afghanistan.html) - has put the fear of God into me. Apparently it's "...all-seeing, all-listening..." You mean it knows what I did with that intern at the Christmas bash a couple of years ago? And it knows about me fiddling my OSA?)

I/C

DADDY-OH!

17th Nov 2009, 14:16

BEagle

Would you mock accents the same way if the MANTIS was built by HAL of India, or if a West Indian company was the target of your comments?

C130JTechie

As a fellow Northerner, in fact Lancastrian, I normally would rise above it but I find BEagle's comments a tad offensive. I was born, schooled & currently live across the Ribble from Warton & a lot of my friends work at the site. No-one I know speaks that way & I find his comments offensive.

If I was in a bar somewhere in the South of England & some stranger came up to me making fun of the way I spoke I would say the same. I don't see a difference between a public bar & a public forum. An inappropriate remark is an inappropriate remark.

BEagle

17th Nov 2009, 16:02

Well, for all FNMs with a sense of humour, I give you the following great Python sketch:

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: Nothing like a good glass of Château de Chasselas, eh, Josiah?
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: You're right there, Obadiah.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: A cup o' cold tea.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Without milk or sugar.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Or tea.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: In a cracked cup, an' all.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, 'e was right.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, 'e was.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor!
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Cardboard box?
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Aye.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
ALL: They won't!

Thelma Viaduct

17th Nov 2009, 18:15

Who's the fool, the 'Northern Mankey' making & selling the planes, or the Southern Tw@ with no culture buying them?

ian176

17th Nov 2009, 20:42

Who's the fool, the 'Northern Mankey' making & selling the planes, or the Southern Tw@ with no culture buying them?

interesting - which pigeon hole would you put the aussies who are heavily involved in BAE UAV stuff?

Squirrel 41

17th Nov 2009, 20:53

..... back on topic....

Hmm... drones since the 80s? You mean the lawnmower engined AET (Airborne Entrenching Tool)? Really? I still think that they should have planted a rose bush whenever one crashed (err... "landed robustly"). Salisbury would be a lot prettier....

S41

c130jtechie

18th Nov 2009, 06:30

Sorry, off topic

BEagle

Excellent knowledge of the UK....not, and Monty Python but unfortunately wrong County, ne'r mind, I'm sure you will get an Atlas or Road map for Xmas.

BEagle

18th Nov 2009, 08:13

Yes, I've heard that FNMs have this thing about 't Pennines.....

Which begs the question, where is the border between 't North and the 'Soft South'? Of course you just need to look in a butcher's shop - if udders, tails and testicles are on sale, tha' must be in 't North....

Personally I reckon that the border is at 53 deg N - roughly Boston to Whitchurch on the Welsh border.

Anway, 'tis but banterrr, tha' knows.

The UK had drones years long before the 1980s. Although the first 'BAC Drone' was actually a manned aircraft.... It was so slow that it was possible to mount a 'punt gun' in one, formate on a flock of ducks, then blow them out of the sky. A bit of a cheat really.....

In the 1950s the Firefly and Meteor both served as drones, much as the Queen Bee had earlier, although the Jindivik was a rather more cost-effective alternative. After retirement from the FAA, a few 'Vixens were also operated as drones - including the last airworthy example which can be seen at many UK airshows.

oxenos

18th Nov 2009, 12:54

There were attempts to turn an aircraft into a guided missile during W.W.1.
Wikipedia says the project was dropped after the war due to the "shortsightedness of military planners". There's a surprise.

L J R

18th Nov 2009, 15:30

Quote Free Hat :

One is a remotely operated drone
One is an autonomous system

...absolutely 100% :ok:

....However, Autonomy CANNOT do CAS..... :ugh:

...so to compare them is like comparing an F/A-18F to an Islander

Thelma Viaduct

18th Nov 2009, 17:39

interesting - which pigeon hole would you put the aussies who are heavily involved in BAE UAV stuff?

Beagle's the one with the geography degree, you should be asking her.

oldsoak

18th Nov 2009, 19:58

Interesting thing Mantis.
If it is autonomous in that it can get airborne and fly to a designated area carrying weaponry, by itself, is there a possibility that troops in contact on the ground can have an uplink to Mantis, look through its optics onto the scenario below and mark out a target and select the weapon of choice from a drop down menu on a PDA ? Saves relaying info back to controllers in the case of Reaper and all the comms gucciness that implies or the ability to fly the thing on the part of an operator.
"One hellfire here and another there....press accept and bang !"

...mind you, so long as said troops dont get the blue screen of death at a critical moment...

Rigga

18th Nov 2009, 20:55

BEags...
"Personally I reckon that the border is at 53 deg N - roughly Boston to Whitchurch on the Welsh border."

So... no differentiation between the Viet-Taff and the Valley Commando's there then!

The B Word

19th Nov 2009, 00:30

Hmmm!

I suspect that there is not so much success as t'bunglin Baron claims...

I can't believe that the company are pushing pictures of the aircraft "wheels down" if they have flown the aircraft cleaned up. I have read:

Defence Equipment & Support Director Combat Air, Air Vice-Marshal Simon Bollom, said: "These trials at the end of this technology demonstration programme have successfully demonstrated a number of key factors that have helped build confidence in the feasibility of a UK-derived medium altitude long endurance unmanned aerial system".

This indicates that "Spiral 1" objectives are over - these can't have been "stretch" objectives as it certainly doesn't include raising the landing gear! I'd sooner have retractable gear than mission autonomy; how about that for misaligned objectives?! Take a look at UK's Largest Fully-Autonomous Unmanned Aircraft Completes Initial Flight Trials - BAE Systems (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1091013122210.html)

What about the 2x MX-20HD turrets, 4x PXIV and 6x DM Brimstone with Beyond Line-Of-Sight (BLOS) capability that was promised in Farnborough 2008? I doubt that we could wait for all the trials to be completed and then production/manufacture that would probably take at least 5 years - our guys on the ground need armed overwatch now and not 5 years away (probably 10 when BWOS is involved).

IMHO, "Your choice, UK Gov, more UK body bags or save UK jobs waiting for this!"? I do like the quote about "praying" for the delivery of Mantis on time; sadly, I'm afaid, you are probably not far from the truth. It is good to see a large British UAV fly, but Mantis is probably 10yrs too late. We need the "next generation" of UAVs, not a "souped up" 2 engined British Reaper that will deliver (?) in the latter half of the next decade when a far smaller aerospace manufacturer is offering this now:

http://uavinfo.com/index_files/69f21636-ee3e-4524-a72c-e3833cc84f4f.large-2.jpg

Which makes this Mantis look a little second rate...

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=31710

BTW, no mention of the first-flight being delayed over 8 months anywhere in the press/media articles!

Finally, to quote Lock Stock, "I f@©king (f@©king) hate N0rvern M0nkëys"! :ok:

The B Word

The B Word

19th Nov 2009, 00:46

PS. An interesting Media point of view here (on the money IMHO):

Mantis Reaper-clone drone flies [printer-friendly] ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/bae_mantis_flies/print.html)

Here is the "meat":

Both technologies are already available in other machines, however. The latest Predators, produced for the US Army and so unaffected by the US air force's insistence on using fully-qualified human pilots as much as possible, are operated by comparatively cheap tech specialists (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/06/warrior_no_pilot_required/) (US killer robo-plane makes strike without remote pilot ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/06/warrior_no_pilot_required/)) just as Mantis would be. Onboard processing of data-heavy sensor output is already routine in much more basic aircraft (http://www.prioria.com/products/maveric-uas) (Maveric UAS | products (http://www.prioria.com/products/maveric-uas)). And far from being at the cutting edge of drone tech, Mantis is already being eclipsed by such recent offerings as the Avenger (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/predator_c_unveiled/) (General Atomics unwraps new, Stealth(y) robot war-jet ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/predator_c_unveiled/)).
There can be little doubt that if the British forces purchase Mantis, they will pay more for a given level of capability than they would if they continued to buy Predators or other foreign-made products.
Should Labour be re-elected next year it would seem very likely that the RAF will be ordered to buy Mantis nonetheless, as Lord Drayson - one of the British arms industry's staunchest friends in government - has lately returned to the MoD (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/09/draysons_baaack/) (Drayson back at MoD, retains biznovation portfolio ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/09/draysons_baaack/)) with an anomalous portfolio which makes him effectively equal in rank to the Secretary of State for Defence.
However a decision on whether or not to discard Reaper and switch to Mantis appears unlikely before the UK's strategic defence review next year, which all parties have agreed should follow the election.
Rival drone makers have hinted (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1212111/BAEs-Mantis-drone-downed-MoD.html) (BAE's Mantis drone may be downed by MoD | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1212111/BAEs-Mantis-drone-downed-MoD.html)) that the UK MoD - known to be strapped for cash - can't realistically afford to pay British industry to reinvent other people's wheels yet again.
Air Vice-Marshal Simon Bollom, speaking for the MoD, remained non-committal today.

Earlier in the thread I quote:

.... and they have raided the parts bin. I'm sure that tail looks like it has come off something else.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wbored.gif

How about the tail on these bevvy of beauties?

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/buccaneer/buccs%20in%20echelon.jpg

L J R

19th Nov 2009, 01:07

Do The US Army Predators Fire Hellfires...? - Or does the USAF (with its 'Pilot') hold that privilege.....

...answer - USAF=Armed,
US ARMY = UNARMED...

for all those Airpower Graduates.....

USAF = CAS + ISR
US ARMY = ISR....

barnstormer1968

19th Nov 2009, 08:04

Can someone help me out here. Maybe I am missing an obvious point, but isn't mantis an autonomous (to whatever extent) aircraft, while the more advanced (in the above article) avenger is still remotely piloted.

What would be the real advantage of autonomous aircraft. Is it that they are cheaper to fly, or is is that they do not rely on inputs from elsewhere and so cannot have their flight affected by a lack of comms (due to enemy action or whatever).

As I said, I am probably missing something, but as far as I was aware, the only aircraft that could decide who was a goody and who was a baddy*, was the fictional 'airwolf' helicopter.

* I did think of problems related to U.S. software here, in relation to U.S. troops/Chinese embassy staff, but it was in poor taste, so will not mention it:E:(.

t43562

19th Nov 2009, 12:08

The benefit to autonomy that I have seen statements about is that it means you only need satellite uplink bandwidth for the bits of the mission where you want to watch something or blow something up. I don't believe (my opinion only) that actual attacks would be autonomous in many cases.

This makes lots of sense to me. You don't need pilots for the start and end phases of the mission so probably a few pilots can run a fleet of planes - that must have cost savings too. You can also have more planes in one area.

I don't think Mantis has to be physically amazing. i.e. as a software engineer I think that autonomy sounds much more difficult to me than the engineering side of things (AI has been very slow to develop). Software seems to always lag physical stuff. So I'd be thinking low risk on the hardware so that I could put maximum effort into really useful software. But that's just me.

oldsoak

19th Nov 2009, 12:09

AIUI, the idea is that you would have something that you can load up and line up on an airstrip and get it to fly to a grid and perform tasks without constant intervention from a groundstation and an operator. An operator would only be needed for interpreting visual data - ie potential targets etc. You would still need an operator, but the theory is you dont need to train him/her in airmanship etc. It probably might mean that there will be fewer instances of prangs due to pilot error - a major cause of loss to UAV's.

The B Word

19th Nov 2009, 14:47

Can someone help me out here. Maybe I am missing an obvious point, but isn't mantis an autonomous (to whatever extent) aircraft, while the more advanced (in the above article) avenger is still remotely piloted.

Autonomous means that it "does as it is told (or programmed)", remotely piloted means "doing as your told until you believe you know better" - both have distinct advantages/disadvantages but the remotely-piloted offers the most options (as you can design in both options far easier).

One of my favourite quotes from a German WWII General is:

“The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practises chaos on a daily basis.”

If you believe that we can truly program a combat ISR/CAS UAV to react autonomously to this "chaos" then you have probably been watching too much Star Trek.

Anyway, for the more mundane ISR tasks most UAVs can exhibit a level of autonomy by flying a pre-planned mission - or even use the autopilot! However, when this mission switches from ISR to CAS to CSAR to SCAR to ISR to FP to Convoy Protection in an environment where ROZs are springing up left, right and centre, for indirect fire then the remotely piloted solution is most likely to be the choice of champs (and autonomy be the choice of chumps!). I'm not saying "never" but just "not right now" - the last technology "leap of faith" we took was for "sensor fusion" on Typhoon and ask the chaps who fly it just how well that has gone!

Maybe when Windows 57 is released? :ok:

The B Word

Deskex76

19th Nov 2009, 15:15

Afternoon, all, and huge respect to those of you still doing the job, wherever you are, from a long-ago entry in the Retired List.

This might go some way to assist Beagle in yesterday's quest for the border..... /www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/maps/nsdivide/index.html.

The research must be correct as it was conducted in Yorkshire and was reported on the BBC news a year or so ago. Mind you, I had always thought that "The South" must have started somewhere nearer to Crewe than to Gloucester. Goes to show how one's preconceptions can be put right by a good piece of academic research, I suppose....

The B Word

19th Nov 2009, 15:21

A picture paints a thousand words...
http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/maps/nsdivide/north-south_divide_UK_no_labels_blue_red_small.jpg
For the Northerners - yours is the red bit!

From, to quote Lock Stock, a "S0uthern Sh@ndy Drinking Puff!" aka The B Word

Kerosene Kraut

19th Nov 2009, 17:23

The South looks like a Eurofighter!

Chris P Bacon

19th Nov 2009, 21:16

As a "Northern Monkey" who has lived on the south coast since 1974, I have no problems being called one as it is al part of the general banter that goes on. I do take offence when the "F" is used through; it now become not banter but hostile and I treat it in the same way I would a racist insult.

Is the whole idea of Mantis not to give us a totally independant information/operational system where we don't have to let someone look over our shoulder?

fltlt

19th Nov 2009, 21:36

Anything north of Watford Gap was "Cloth Hat and Clogs Country" back in the early 70's. Anyone remember the sorties to the London clubs, cruise in, pick off a bird in the circle, dance, etc. etc. etc. then finally, when a relatively quiet moment came, ask what she wanted to drink, only to watch her turn away, usually with an under the breath "F-----g Northerner". The joys of being a lowly ocifer!

L J R

19th Nov 2009, 23:00

Ian Corrigible

19th Nov 2009, 23:08

I suppose you have to admire their optimism:

BAE to market Mantis UAV to U.S. (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,206073,00.html)

I/C

crisb

20th Nov 2009, 03:30

>>Looks like there is space for a pilot upgrade/downgrade optionActually, this is only used for satellite uplink (when needed)

Cheers

http://www.eco-pe.com/front.png

t43562

20th Nov 2009, 09:26

To Quote the Engineer amongst us....

" you only need satellite uplink bandwidth for the bits of the mission where you want to watch something or blow something up"

...a far enough call, but do the enemy know when to give you notification so that you can get the bandwidth from whoever else owns or shares it??Well, here I have to speculate completely - I am only a civilian software monkey. Bandwidth will probably be allocated automatically and almost instantaneously according to pre-set priorities. If a uav was on a "final run" then it would win over one that was on long-term surveillance.

If your planes are autonomous then it's ok to risk losing bandwidth for a little while when some other very high-priority task needs it. If they need to be flown continuously then you can't ever risk over-allocation. It's like airlines that overbook their flights - well worthwhile as long as the consequences of the occasional conflict are not too bad.

If you try to do too many things at the same time then you are stuffed, of course. But life is not really like that. These uavs probably have to fly for some time to be in the target area and then stay on station until people on the ground are ready to use them or until their targets appear. You probably need a stream of uavs, some on station, some leaving to be refuelled/rearmed and some on their way. So the planes that are coming and going would be using bandwidth if they weren't autonomous.

...or (ATC) - 'Mantis -1 Turn left to Avoid ROZ newcommer'.

Mantis - 1 (no Response) - I have been programmed 7 hour ago - and I need a full altitude block covering the whole AOR to do my mission...
I agree that would be dumb. I would consider autonomy to involve thinking for itself to some extent and being able to take ATC commands somehow (perhaps not voice instructions though) Actually I would expect those commands to be patched back to the operators.

.....autonomy has its place - and a dynamic war is not it!!Maybe - don't know. All the sleek fighter jets seem to have big computers in them to help the pilot. They do so much that I think autonomy is creeping up on everyone. I don't think it's going to be T800 Terminators and human extinction for a while but the things that people imagine have a habit of eventually happening. I do sort of believe that we will create sentient war robots and that they will end up at least trying to kill us all off if only by mistake.

:-)

Spotting Bad Guys

20th Nov 2009, 21:09

Not that I am any kind of BAE Systems fan, but something Mantis has over the competition is that it has been designed and built to meet the airworthiness standards demanded by the CAA to consider the aircraft being flown in UK airspace outside military danger areas (I acknowledge the very tragic situation regarding Nimrod, BAE Systems' role and the airworthiness arguments - this is covered elsewhere and I will not add further comment here).

I was in a position to visit Warton and after looking at the mock-up Mantis air vehicle, saw the tail / vertical stabiliser of the demonstrator aircraft (along with some other items) prior to delivery of the main fuselage. The construction method and configuration would have been instantly familiar to any RAF aircraft engineering tradesman. The GRP construction methods utilised on most other UAVs are more akin to those used in the kit car / custom sports car industry and do not conform to the CAA airworthiness regs. I'm no expert in this domain but I can see what BAE have been trying to do here - if not only to create a competitor for the Reaper that has the potential to be operated in UK airspace - unlike the GA product.

However, I'm completely unconvinced by the rush to try to create an autonomous UAS - even with a man in the loop for weapons release authority. The sense and avoid capabilities being proposed are nowhere close to being safe for manned assets to operate in proximity to the UAS, and this is where the Reaper wins hands down with its crew composition and fully man in the loop operation. The Reaper crews are delivering outstanding support to the ground forces in Theatre right now, and have been for 2 years. Mantis has a long way to go.

The B Word

21st Nov 2009, 07:48

it has been designed and built to meet the airworthiness standards demanded by the CAA to consider the aircraft being flown in UK airspace outside military danger areas

if not only to create a competitor for the Reaper that has the potential to be operated in UK airspace - unlike the GA product

This type of spin is worthy of Alistair Campbell and if I were BAeS I would be careful about their claims about other companies.

Take a look at NASA - Ikhana (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/X-Press/50th_anniversary/on_the_horizon/ikhana.html)

This NASA Predator B (along with the USAF Reapers) fly in Class A, B, C, D and E airspace (they have no Class F) under ATS control on a daily basis. They do not fly in the "zoo" known as Class G, but hey, who would want to? Don't forget that in the UK at transponder is mandated above FL100 (10,000ft approx), Mode S will also be mandated lower by Mar 12 and that there are Transponder Madatory Zones (TMZ) in Class G begining to spring up. Basically, the transponder is the key to keeping the manned and unmanned aircraft apart.

Also take a look at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/air_marine/air/aviation_asset/predator_b.xml

You will see that the US also use Predator B for their Customs and Border Patrol. Once again, no requirement for "military danger areas" and they fly with civil air traffic in unsegregated airspace. So I deduce that BAeS's argument is at best "thin".

Also the Italian Air Force fly Predator A in EUROCONTROL airspace - they did this for the recent G8/G20 summit at L'Aquila (look it up on Google). They are also bound under EASA airworthiness regulations in the same way that the UK is.

Finally, when it comes to airworthiness, consider this. There are aircraft flying over populated areas of the UK that meet following definition:

- Maximum take-off weight not to exceed 910Kg (2006lbs) but may be up to 1136Kg (2500lbs) with the agreement of the Civil Aviation Authority.
- The installed power not to exceed 134KW (180BHP) but may be 194KW (260BHP) with the agreement of the Civil Aviation Authority.
- Power-off stall speed in landing configuration not over 60 mph but may be up to 70 mph with the agreement of the Civil Aviation Authority
- Maximum design speed not exceeding 250mph.
- Amateur built (including from kits providing the assembly work content is at least 51% hours).

These are amaeur built, enthusiast inspected and flown by private (ie. non-professional) pliots - if the CAA can approve these then why not some of the other UAVs? I believe that GA's products fly under the "experimental" category under Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) rules until they achieve full certification (I reiterate that I do not know this for a fact). The "experimental" category has seen most of Mr Burt Rutan's greatest designs fly - he is the designer and chief engineer for SpaceShip One.

Finally, I do note that there are claims that HERTi is the first aircraft to be certified by the UK CAA to fly in UK airspace - it's kinda odd that they keep going to Woomera in Australia to fly it then!

An interesting debate though.

The B Word

Double Zero

21st Nov 2009, 08:03

By the look of it, and the build description by the poster who's seen it, the talfin seems not to have stealth as a priority; there was a saying that Wart On products featured ever larger fins, Tornado anyone ?

I suppose they'll nail on some RAM and say it has the RCS of a young insect.

The B Word,

If they've been watching Star Trek, is it the operator or designer who gets assigned the red shirt ( and pointy hat I suggest ).

In my time with BAe, I started off with no feelings one way or the other re. ' Northeners ', but after years of rude, arrogant and ignorant behaviour, either by deed, on the 'phone, or when visiting Northern BAe bases, I happily support anyone describing ' Whippet Botherers '...

As for ' no culture down south '?!

Take your pick as to what sort of culture, but in this context Farnborough, Brooklands and Boscombe Down spring to mind.

The only culture the clog-hoppers have is the stuff growing in their disgusting thin fizzy beer.

My father is from Aberdeen & mother from Wales, while I was born & live in the south; it's northern England which is the snag, the Scots are great to work with.

So, I won't be betting on anything good from this latest ' bugger off ' twin...probably be useful to include a dustpan & brush with a pre-paid return envelope.

ian176

21st Nov 2009, 08:15

Wart On products featured ever larger fins, Tornado anyone

Thats right -the fin wasn't designed by anyone from Germany or Italy was it.....

The B Word

21st Nov 2009, 08:34

Double Zero

Top post, me old china plate (anyone for cockles, jellied eels and some Chas and Dave?).

Spotter Alert On...

The Red shirts went to security, radio ops and engs - so I guess that's the RAF Police, Regt and engineers sorted?

The Yellow shirts were for the operators and commanders - aircrew and controllers?

The Blue shirts went to the scientists - medics?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/TOS-Crew0.jpg/250px-TOS-Crew0.jpg

Spotter Alert Off...

The B Word :ok:

PS. I just had a thought. If Mantis is designed for UK certification then why go all the way to Woomera as well? There are plenty of sparsely populated areas in the UK and also oversea to do flight trials???

barnstormer1968

21st Nov 2009, 15:53

The B word.

What colour tops did the security chaps wear (you know, the bit part actors who rarely lived long!)

The B Word

22nd Nov 2009, 07:54

That'll be the Red shirt then

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/STObsession.jpg

Spotting Bad Guys

22nd Nov 2009, 19:22

B Word - an interesting debate indeed. It might be spin on BAE Systems' behalf but having witnessed first hand the build standards they appear to be applying, I can say that they are more akin to manned aircraft production than the current UAV methods of construction. This is what they believe to be their 'unique selling point' in a market already pretty congested - the question was asked earlier in the thread as to why the UK was looking to reinvent the wheel - well, in my view this is it (that and the need to conduct sovereign operations of course). I repeat - I am NOT a fan of BAE systems and despise their arrogance and the unseemly degree of influence they appear to have at senior levels.

You are absolutely correct in that Predator A and Bs routinely operate in FAA airspace, under ATC control and with the appropriate approvals in place etc - ISTR the notice required was approximately 90 days the last time I was on a Pred A crew flying one from Creech from 29 Palms - but that was 4 years ago!). I have, however, operated the Pred A in busy airspace in Theatre - of course it can be done, it's just the measure of risk that is carried and that those responsible are willing to accept.
I also have friends and colleagues working for the US CBP operating various UAVs on the US southern border. Whilst it is becoming routine I've heard it is still not easy and doing anything unusual can be a royal pain to coordinate with the FAA and ATC.
Again, the memory fades a little but I think I'm correct in stating that takeoff weight for Block 10 Pred A was 2250lbs - so that takes it above the routine limit for CAA operations you describe. The Pred B (and also Mantis) are much larger with a takeoff weight of 10500lbs for Pred B (about the same for Mantis I think). Even with the Astraea project under way, I think there is still some way to go before we can operate large UAVs in the UK routinely in non-segregated airspace. The decision makers are worried about the potential for a large UAV failing to accept flight commands and droning on in a straight line until it runs out of fuel...coming to earth at some point somewhere down route. We know this is highly unlikely but without a pilot at the controls in the vehicle itself, it will remain a concern for the CAA.
I don't know how good the software is in the Mantis FCS, but I do know how often the control racks or datalinks used to lock up when operating Pred A. Most of the time, the aircraft did what it was supposed to, but once or twice we got a call from ATC asking where the hell the aircraft was going! Acceptable risk on operations, and also probably good enough for the wide open spaces in the US...however, is it good enough for the crowded airspace of the UK? This also answers the question of why these trials are carried out in Woomera..the safety trace for a vehicle that can stay airborne for a long time whilst out of direct operator control will be fairly large.

Cheers

The B Word

22nd Nov 2009, 20:25

SBG

I hear all your points and I remain suspicious of the debate "we're an aircraft manufacturer and GA is not". In fact, Northrop Grumman also encountered resistance to fly Global Hawk in UK airspace - they are a far bigger (and, IMHO, a better!) manufacturer of manned aircraft than the company concerned and they also encountered similar resistance.

I also hear your points on Predator A but the Reaper would appear to be a wholly different, and upgraded, beast. This is what I am talking about, from the GA website:

FEATURES
• Honeywell TPE 331-10 turbo prop (over 12,700 engines in use and has accumulated more than 70 million hours of dependable service on over 75 applications).
• Triple-redundant flight control system
• Redundant flight control surfaces
• Remotely piloted or fully autonomous
• Military Standard 1760 Stores Management System
• C-Band Line-of-Sight data link control
• Ku-Band Beyond Line-of-Sight/SATCOM data link control
• Over 90% system operational availability

I know that "lost link" can be a problem but from what I understand the aircraft will either fly back to base for pick-up by the launch team or fly a pre-programmed flight plan before returning to base - it also squawks to tell the ATC controllers that it is now autonomous.

So I still think the airworthiness argument wears a bit thin. Also, I understand that the Italians have Reapers on order for delivery soon and they still plan to fly the bigger aircraft in EUROCONTROL and EASA regulated airspace - so why can't we? (Hence my suspicion that soomeone is not playing with a straight bat!).

Finally, the FCS could well be an issue if the company responsible for MRA4's FCS debacle is involved! I understand that Global Hawk corrects via its FCS over 50 times a second - hence it is so smooth. I suspect that the inevitable Sinclair ZX81 the company puts in Mantis will be lucky if it updates twice a second (ie. what an above average pilot is capable of).

Thanks for the input and keeping the debate alive (it was starting to turn into a Trekkie Convention!). :ok:

The B Word

Lima Juliet

24th Nov 2009, 19:35

http://www.afblues.com/comics/2008-01-09.jpg :ok:

Safeware

24th Nov 2009, 20:28

To add something to the Mantis /Reaper here&now debate:
UK could arm its Watchkeeper UAVs (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/03/334323/uk-could-arm-its-watchkeeper-uavs.html)

sw

LowObservable

24th Nov 2009, 20:49

But falling unexpectedly out of the sky was exactly what a CBP Predator B did, when the operators accidentally cut all the power.

Mechta

24th Nov 2009, 22:50

Ok,

Hands up everyone who would sleep more soundly knowing that there are UAVs flying in or near the UK airspace in which they fly, or for ground dwellers, flying over them as they sleep?
Hands up those who would prefer a UAV in UK airspace to have two independent engines & propellers?
Hands up everyone who would like the manufacturer to iron the bugs out of all systems over somewhere with almost no-one on the ground (or in the air) to bump into, within an hour's flying time of where it lost uplink or whatever?
Hands up all those who think the RAF would have considered buying Predators/Reapers/Mantii(?) before Officer's Mess sleeping quarters were replaced by dusty fly-infested armoured shipping containers? Oh, and before landing away from a friendly airfield might result in bits of one's anatomy being removed by the locals?
Hands up who is more concerned whether a UAV is made of metal instead of composite, than how reliable its uplink/downlink and see & avoid capability is?

Rigga

24th Nov 2009, 23:02

Of course, it could be that BAe is just developing a proof of concept into something other than military uses?

If it is compliant with UK CAA UAS rules, could BAe be prepping it for a police or traffic role? Where it doesn't need armament - only observation and surveillance gear with effective (and realtime) video downlinks.
Having this travelling up and down motorways might be quite appealing to the Home Office - potentially cheaper than hundreds of police and highways agency vehicles and thousands of staff. It could be operated by a central / single organisation and falls straight into line with the governments "Big Brother" future dreams.

Mechta

24th Nov 2009, 23:31

Rigga, I think you're onto something! BAe are probably touting a Mantis at 10,000 feet as being out of reach of people who want to do this :E:

Speed Cameras (http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm)

Lima Juliet

25th Nov 2009, 19:36

OK, IMHO,

1. Hands up who doesn't believe a certain company will deliver on time?

2. Hands up who is fed up with being promised the Earth and then getting shown Uranus?

3. Hands up who doesn't believe that Defence Funding should prop up UK industry whilst consistantly letting down its airmen?

4. Hands up who thinks the roll-out of Tornado F2s with no radar, EFA (Eurofighter, EFA 2000, Typhoon) without a full RTS, Hawk 128 with dodgy wings and Nimrod MRA4s with FCS problems has already demonstrated the company's true colours?

5. Hands up who thinks the company is all spin and no substance?

6. Hands up who was disgusted to find out that a company had allegedly accepted £400k for a non-existent safety case?

7. Hands up who thinks that a company of over 110,000 with only 30,000 British jobs is not worth paying above the market rate?

ME :ok: :E

Jabba_TG12

26th Nov 2009, 12:15

Just spotted this on NewsNow...

Unmanned drones plan in immigrants crackdown - Eastbourne Today (http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/latest-south-east-news/Police-may-get-unmanned-drones.5861687.jp)

Dunno if it may set any particular trains of thought in motion... :confused:

Tester_76

26th Nov 2009, 12:27

4. Hands up who thinks the roll-out of Tornado F2s with no radar, EFA (Eurofighter, EFA 2000, Typhoon) without a full RTS, Hawk 128 with dodgy wings and Nimrod MRA4s with FCS problems has already demonstrated the company's true colours?

What do you mean by full RTS? Full air to air and air to surface clearances? Isn't the RTS the responsibility of the RTSA and not the contractor (obviously not forgetting in this case EFA/Eurofighter/Typhoon isn't just a BAE product....)?

Lima Juliet

26th Nov 2009, 18:16

What do you mean by full RTS? Full air to air and air to surface clearances? Isn't the RTS the responsibility of the RTSA and not the contractor (obviously not forgetting in this case EFA/Eurofighter/Typhoon isn't just a BAE product....)?

Look up "Case White Eurofighter" on Google for more. The aircraft were not ready for a full UK RTS and had to be flown under test-pilot rules AVP67 by non test-pilots!

This is what Wiki says:

Early RAF Typhoons were based at BAE Systems Warton, where the aircraft was assembled. This arrangement, dubbed "Case White" was intended to provide a smooth entry into service, with the close proximity of BAE staff allowing easy solutions to any technical issues which arise. The first squadrons, No. 17 OEU and No. 29 OCU Sqns, moved to RAF Coningsby in 2005 to begin establishing an initial operational capability (IOC).

RTS all sorted now but to bring it into service quicker so that "the company could iron out any snags" then Case White ran for a couple of years.

Nuff said?

LJ :ok:

Tester_76

26th Nov 2009, 19:07

Yup well aware of case white (had the pleasure of being there....)

Not old enough to remember another aircraft entry into service, but how many start service life with anything other than IOC?

EAP86

26th Nov 2009, 20:20

Actually the aircraft were ready, the RTS, which was an IPT responsibility, wasn't...:O

MOA

29th Nov 2009, 09:39

LJ

You don'y have to be a test pilot to fly under AvP67.

Sun Who

29th Nov 2009, 09:49

From Aviation Publication 67 (MoD Flying Orders to Contractors):

"102.115.1 An approval will normally not be granted for a pilot to carry out experimental, clearance or development flying, or some categories of research flying, in command, unless the pilot is a test pilot; however, some types of development flying and research flying may be approved for non-test pilots."

In my experience, whilst non-TPs do fly under AvP67, it tends to be for very 'basic' non safety critical tasks. No slur intended on my part against the top chaps carrying out these tasks without the TP qual.

Of note for this particular thread, these rules also pertain to UAV-P.

Sun Who.

The B Word

1st Dec 2009, 22:46

Now on YouTube

YouTube - Mantis Test Flight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QuZrsWG-e0)

Safeware

2nd Dec 2009, 12:56

EAP86,Actually the aircraft were ready, the RTS, which was an IPT responsibility, wasn't...

Is rubbbish. The aircraft were ready (ie built), the evidence to support the RTS, to be provided by the Parnter Companies, wasn't. When the appropriate evidence was available and assessed, the IPT and the RTSA could then produce the RTS.

sw

EAP86

2nd Dec 2009, 20:36

"When the appropriate evidence was available and assessed, the IPT and the RTSA could then produce the RTS."

The risk to aircrew must be judged acceptable using either F13 or RTS. This alone infers that "the appropriate evidence was available and assessed" doesn't it and, presumably, the approach would also require RTSA consent?

Safeware

2nd Dec 2009, 20:52

EAP86,

Not sure what you mean by "the risk to aircrew must be judged acceptable using either F13 or RTS". The risks are assessed as part of the precursor to the RTS, the RTS provides the "manual of limitations" for want of an easier description that will keep you within the safe operating envelope.

The evidence available for Case White was not approriate for RTS, or an RTS could have been produced. The available evidence was assessed, and from that, with the full support of the RTSA, the Case White limitations were produced.

sw

i.p.freely

12th Dec 2009, 19:29

Couple of misconception here.

1. No order has been placed, so there shouldn't be any worries about delivering "on-time" or being "over budget"

2. It a technology concept, if you don't spend money on advanced concepts, you are going to lose the know-how.

Why do you think Astute went over budget, people who knew how to build submarines weren't there anymore. You cant just restart complex programs like these without people who knows how. You will have to spend more to get the knowledge back. Something people who wants to cut budget forgets.

So keep purchasing foreign developed technology, let see where you end up 10 years from know. You are a consumer and no longer at the cutting edge technology. Once that sets in, you are at a death spiral, and it will take herculean effort to get yourself out of.

Keep pouring money in the NHS, all you are going to end up with is nation filled with freeloading muslims, who hates you, but will take your free health care.

3. This is not a final product, so if you are concerned about what it looks like or what it can carry, stop! Anything and/or everything can change. Other than superficial similarity is Eurofighter same thing as EAP ?

4. Autonomous System for this systems means, it will carry out the reconnaissance mission, it will not be flown by a human pilot. But if an opportunity arises, human will tell it what to do next. And I'm pretty sure, they've built in override functions.

So all of you naysayers, relax.

L J R

13th Dec 2009, 08:42

Mr Freely - Well presented - therefore I hope everyone will stop comparing this thing to the Reaper...! ....as the MQ-9 is not a concept demonstrator, it is a warplane - and warplanes react to the recce they perform, and drop bombs - and are flown continuously by humans....

concept demonstrators dont.

Once it finishes demonstrating its concepts it will compete with the J-UCAS, which will soon launch and land from carriers as well...

Northrop Grumman Unveils X-47B Navy UAV - Fighter Plane-Size UAV from Northrop Grumman Unveiled - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4296188.html)

The B Word

13th Dec 2009, 13:39

So keep purchasing foreign developed technology, let see where you end up 10 years from know. You are a consumer and no longer at the cutting edge technology. Once that sets in, you are at a death spiral, and it will take herculean effort to get yourself out of.

Instead, buy something over budget and have to make cuts in Service Personnel to buy it! :ugh:

If we had bought F-18E/Fs at £35M each instead of Typhoons at £63M each then the RAF wouldn't be at 41,000 persons and falling right now!

A stark choice really:

Bigger defence budget to buy British - no chance!
Buy British and then have to make personnel savings - there's too few of us left now!
Buy "off the shelf" to save 1,000+ servicemen's jobs vice 500 jobs in British Industry!

The real reason, IMHO, for the demise of the British aircraft industry is poor financial management (usually under shareholder pressure :ugh:), uncompetitive products (both in price and performance) and in-house corruption in the defence industry between customer and supplier. Finally, the most successful UAV companies at present are either state sponsored or owned by successful corporations without shareholders - what does that tell you about our rapidly declining defence industry? Unless it changes its business model it is probably due to whither in the next decade.:(

The B Word

Lima Juliet

2nd Jan 2010, 21:29

How about this? The potential USAF Reaper replacment:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/10/3b431f11-b281-476e-aa15-8889e0a48c1d.Large.jpg

Here is the text to go with it:

Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works has unveiled a concept for the US Air Force's planned MQ-X follow-on to its MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper UAVs. It's stealthy, as one would expect from the Skunks, and it's modular, which is the USAF's watchword for future unmanned aircraft, And it has a couple of unusual features.

The propulsion system is a hybrid: a pair of jet engines for high transit and dash speed, and a turbo-diesel driving a propeller for longer, lower-speed loiter. Used together, the engines can push the UAV to higher altitudes so it can bridge the gap between the medium-altitude Reaper and high-altitude Global Hawk.

The 300hp-class turbo-diesel engine is housed in the pod on top of the central fin, which is there so the propeller can be mounted high between the V tails to shield it from radar.

The fuselage is F-22/F-35-sized, with internal sensor and weapons bays, and is designed to take mission-specific modular wings. A shorter wing would be fitted for the medium-altitude hunter/killer role, providing higher speed at the expense of endurance, which would be around 20-30h at 20,000-25,000ft. A longer wing would boost altitude capability to above 40,000ft and endurance beyond 40h for more-persistent ISR missions.