Unmanned drones likely to take over Nimrod spy duties

[Blue Bottle]

Unmanned drones likely to take over Nimrod spy duties

Unmanned drones likely to take over Nimrod spy duties | Politics | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/05/unmanned-drone-nimrod-spy-plane)

Where will all the pies's go now....

[FATTER GATOR]

I wonder how many sonobuoys you can get on a UAV?

[Just This Once...]

So we have no money yet we think being the lead customer for something that does not exist anywhere else on the planet (a very large RPAS capable of carrying multiple buoys, torpedos and missiles) together with a high bandwidth satellite network is a good idea???

Have we gone utterly mad?

[getsometimein]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say... Not a chance, at least not within the next 20 years...

I can't see any way we can cater for, or afford, the bandwidth. All other arguments aside, this will be one of the most difficult things to overcome.

Radar video, ESM/ELINT data, Link 11+16, Acoustic data, EOS video, MAD, 2x HF, 5+x V/UHF, SAR Comms, Satcom etc...

I look forward to being proved wrong!

[HAS59]

Philip Hammond the defence secretary, said using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) would be cheaper and less risky than developing an expensive new version of Nimrod.

No doubt, every word of that statement is true but…No one expects a high risk high end capability like the Nimrod MRA Mark 4 is something we can now afford. What we need is an affordable effective Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft.

"It may well be the case that the development of unmanned aerial vehicle technology means that there will not be another generation, for us at least, of manned maritime patrol aircraft."It may well be that we will move straight to unmanned reconnaissance vehicles that can do the task at lower cost and much less risk to the crew."

Equally IT MAY WELL BE that he has been convinced by UAV manufacturers that every other nation in the world with manned MPA’s is wrong and that the UK alone are going to do it the unmanned way.

[HaveQuick2]

Surely that article was concerned with "spy" duties, and not MPA?

Anyway, aren't we supposed to be getting RJ for this?

[HAS59]

That was just the Guardian for you - they probably can't spell Maritime Reconnaissance so they just use more lazy journalist speak and write 'Spy'

[Blue Bottle]

a great man once said:

'The less you know about the subject the easier it is to offer a solution'

This would seem a fine example...:ugh:

[melmothtw]

a great man once said:

'The less you know about the subject the easier it is to offer a solution'

This would seem a fine example...:ugh:


I'm no apologist for the Guardian, but to be fair to the journo he's not offering a solution, but reporting what the defence secretary had to say on the subject.


Unless of course you are referring to the defence secretary, in which case I do apologise.

[Blue Bottle]

The 2nd one :)

[L J R]

Unmanned Drones....as opposed to 'Manned' Drones.....Wouldn't get me inside a drone anytime!

[teeteringhead]

Wouldn't get me inside a drone anytime! Indeed. One always finds a good response to the "don't need pilots - drones will do everything" gang - particularly the "Big Drone" subsection - is:

"Would you go on holiday on an EasyJet Drone?"

...... never had an honest "Yes" yet :ok:

[melmothtw]

"Would you go on holiday on an EasyJet Drone?"

...... never had an honest "Yes" yet http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Think that probably has more to do with the 'Easy Jet' aspect of your question, rather than the 'drone' bit.

[A and C]

The answer to this problem is being built by Boeing at the moment for the US navy, I would think that it would be quite affordable as long as you don't let BAe get involved.

[teeteringhead]

Think that probably has more to do with the 'Easy Jet' aspect of your question, rather than the 'drone' bit. .. but I'm sure RyanAir would try it first!

But when you look at what M O'L pays his pilots, he wouldn't save much!

[NutLoose]

Why does Duncan Sandys keep springing to mind and the year 1957

[Pontius Navigator]

Where will all the pies's go now....

It was only pie at ISK. Down south it was pasties. If it was to be at the major ISTAR base then it would be pork sausage rolls.

But for drone crews get flight rations?

Thinking back to pies, did any other aircraft types ever get flight rations in the Sim?

[Bring_back_Buck]

I guess there are 2 ways of looking at this.

The first and more positive is that at least he is talking about MPA, even though unmanned vehicles are entirely inappropriate for this task, assuming we are looking at a traditional MPA role. He just needs educating and steering away from whatever muppet at BAE is trying to sell him some wonder UAV.

The second way of interpreting it is, we are going to buy an unmanned MPA, when one is developed. As has been pointed out, this would be many many years away, given this governments likely short tenure, it becomes pretty much irrelevant to the current Minister of Defence.

[Blue Bottle]

you can fly a helicopter without a crew

Black Hawk Helicopter Flies Autonomously (http://news.sky.com/story/1022126/black-hawk-helicopter-flies-autonomously)

[Bannock]

Interesting quote from the Guardian though.

"We are managing at the moment using a combination of other assets, occasionally using assets owned by allies to perform specific Nato tasks. It is clear in the medium term we will have to address that gap."

[Lowe Flieger]

There is a capability gap here that will need to be covered, but it is clear that is going to be at least one new government away.

How it will be addressed is conjecture, but it may not be in a single asset a la Nimrod. It may be in a range of different systems which could include 'drones' - surface and sub-surface as well as airborne, and maybe some sort of mid-sized manned platform on a smaller scale than Nimrod, of which many types are springing up in view of the capability requirement, but hard-pressed budgets that don't stretch to the full monty.

A few years from now Poseidon will be known quantity, and may or may not be cost effective for the UK. US unit price appears to be much lower than MRA4, but I am not sure if it is a fair comparison. Given the proposed unit numbers it ought to be competitive and with 20/20 hindsight it might have been better to join that programme than fund a customised development of a very few units - a perennial source of very expensive procurement decisions.

A maritime nation lacking MPA capability, or complementary suite of capabilities, is a situation best rectified as soon as possible.

LF

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

LF,

You don't need 20/20 hindsight to appreciate that the MRA4 vice a P3 option was daft; that was being said by operators in the '90s. I have no doubt that MRA4 was a purely political decision, for which we are reaping the rewards.

Duncs:ok:

[ORAC]

MQ-4C Triton (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mq-4c-triton-bams-uas-us/)

[Pontius Navigator]

a range of different systems which could include 'drones' - surface and sub-surface as well as airborne, and maybe some sort of mid-sized manned platform on a smaller scale than Nimrod

Interesting economic argument here. Do we buy a very small number of 100% all singing all talking systems like the Type 45 or Nimrod or Challenger 2 (?) or nuclear boats or alternatively lots of less expensive (?) single mission systems such as fast patrol boat, coastal submarines, SRMPA etc?

As we have no track record for quantity over quality I suspect the range of systems will not happen; would it be cheaper?

[Lowe Flieger]

..I suspect the range of systems will not happen; would it be cheaper? First up, my honest answer is I don't know. I'm sure the whole life operating cost comparisons could have financial planning software in meltdown. I was making an observation more than promoting the concept but one difference between a '100% capability' and '5x20%' sub-sytems, is that from a capital budgetary point of view, the quantity units can be acquired one at a time and the cost spread over mulitiple years. When it comes to cuts again (inevitable), you can chop some capability without cutting all capability. This is a reality-of-politics view rather than a military capability one, but like it or not (mostly not) that's the way things happen.

As to whether 'drones' are currently cheaper, again I don't have data, but I do recall reading somewhere that the number of people involved in operating UAV's was high - fewer soft-tissue units in the firing line, of course.

My own opinion is that 'drones' of all kinds (air/land/sea) are a very useful additional string to the military bow. But until they have autonomous control, which would entail a huge leap in technical capability as well as issues around ethics and acceptance, they are an adjunct and not a replacement. Maritime patrol could certainly benefit from the persistence available, but I see them as force multipliers or enhancers, acting in concert with a capable manned platform, for the foreseeable future.

But for now, if I were to read tomorrow's headlines and see that the UK was going to get back into the role seriously, using a single high value system, or several new-buy complementary sub-systems, I would feel more comfortable than I do now with the gap. But as the saying goes there are two hopes - Bob and No.

LF

[Pontius Navigator]

When it comes to cuts again (inevitable), you can chop some capability without cutting all capability.

Oddly enough this happened with the Mk 1 and early on with the Mk 2 Nimrods. The vertical cameras were withdrawn as their utility versus their maintenance costs made them ripe for a cost saving. The AS-12 was possibly another case in point with the threat from SAN greater than the capability of the AS-12 but now? The on-top drift sight and other goods were not procured or installed.

Other goods were of course installed in their stead, particularly on the comms fits.

[Roland Pulfrew]

ORAC

I suspect the key element in your article appears in the first paragraph

The UAS will complement the navy's Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force

I don't know SofS but as the capability we are talking about hasn't been in service since he took the helm, I suspect that he is confusing Nimrod R1 and IRS capabilities with Nimrod MR2 and it's very different capabilities. If I were a cynic I would see the fingerprints of T*m M****e all over this article. I would just ask SofS one question: which UAS is going to provide you with a deep water ASW capability within the next 20 years?

[Whitehall]

http://www.baesystems.com/magazine/BAES_051920/look-no-hands?_afrLoop=1204197437280000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null&baeSessionId=d2nrQDbhsy0TTrr21QLdRL9C1F9ZyTWGyh2CnxgLnBhyNr8 97xf2!791695071

[Donna K Babbs]

Fantastic idea. We could then use the spare C130Js with a loadmaster to throw the sonobuoys out for the Jetstream to monitor. :ugh:

[Kitbag]

DKB calm down dear. The Jetstream is to advance autonomous ops, nothing more.

Whether this results in an affordable, certificated and acceptable system is a different matter

[Lima Juliet]

Predator B Guardian anyone?

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/marine/guardian_b.ctt/guardian_b.pdf

Certainly capable of ASuW and with a couple of pods of sonobuoys (sp?) and a beyond line of sight system to support you might be in business. A newly designed long range dinghy drop system could also be used (you can hang at least 2,500lbs ofkit underneath.

Finally, a lot cheaper than MQ-4 Triton...

LJ

PS and we would start to get some capacity in the Pred B program after 2015...:ok:

[The B Word]

And Kerry Katona can deliver all the Dairy Cream Sponges direct from Iceland's main depot. :ok::E

[HAS59]

or you could just buy a handful of C-295's and do it the simple way...

[Roland Pulfrew]

It's a beautiful day where I am. Clear blue skies, cold, fab visibility. Then I read Leon's post, had a chuckle to myself, looked back to the sky and saw a squadron of flying pigs.:rolleyes:

[Lima Juliet]

Luddite . . .

[Pontius Navigator]

What sort of speed can these maritime UAVs achieve?

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

PN,

I don't know, but they are probably quicker than a submarine! :E

Duncs:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Duncan, I think you know what I am getting at, like the ability to minimise time to datum etc.

[Surplus]

Airships, that's what we need, long loiter time, good payload. :E

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz200/pepper2010_bucket/fishing.gif

[Roland Pulfrew]

Leon

Not a Luddite, just a realist, with a knowledge of what it really takes to do ASW. That is in understanding of what it actually requires using current and near term future ASW technologies. I could go into re-lay rates and times. Numbers of sonobuoys required - as a clue it's more than your little toy could carry - data processing and bandwidth.

UAVs are not, despite what SofS and CAS seem to think, a panacea, they are a bit of a trend. Sandys predicted the end of the manned bomber in the late 50s, and we arent there yet, almost 50 years on. UAVs undoubtedly have a place but there are just some things they aren't (yet) suitable for. And probably won't be for (at least) the next 20 years. It seems strange that none of the UAV fashionistas seem to be able to explain why the US, with all its access to technology, are investing in a fleet of P-8s? Have they got it wrong? And if I'm wrong I will gladly get out my gun and start shooting the flying pigs for the BBQ.

[Party Animal]

and with a couple of pods of sonobuoys (sp?)


LJ,

The problem is, the pods would need to be the size of a Ford Transit....

which is one of the reasons the S3 Viking became unuseable as an ASW platform.

[HAS59]

Surplus;

it's Airships that have got us into this mess, and Admirals and Generals we have too many of them. We need a few more Corporals and Flight Lieutenants perhaps but please no more bleedin' Airships.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

PN,

Sorry; I couldn't resist!

You are quite correct. UAVs are fine if they are in the correct place (although I struggle to think where the are going to put 200 odd sonobuoys!); however, if they are in the wrong place, it (currently) would take a long time to get on station. Useful for fleet protection, perhaps, but I'm not sure how it would deal with location of an 'intruder'.

Duncs:ok:

[BEagle]

It seems strange that none of the UAV fashionistas seem to be able to explain why the US, with all its access to technology, are investing in a fleet of P-8s? Have they got it wrong? And if I'm wrong I will gladly get out my gun and start shooting the flying pigs for the BBQ.


Indeed, Roly. If it was that straightforward to use drones for the task, surely the US would already be doing so?

Or perhaps they have more sense than to rush into daft solutions for military requirements - such as PFI tankers and contractorised flying training...:mad:

[INT ZKJ]

You can just imagine the conversation between Hammond and the BAES UAV rep…….

Oh yes Phil, we quite agree, the age of the large MPA is long gone. We wouldn’t dream of going down that route.

But this is your lucky day.

We have been developing the next evolution of UAV, just for this eventuality.
We are calling it the Jindivik MRA4!
Oh we have big plans and even bigger bills…..eeeer I mean dreams for this nearly brand new platform.

We have a stock of nearly new airframes and we are going to put new wings on them……yes new wings…..this would not have been considered possible a couple of years ago. What’s more we are going to put in a new engine as well. But not just any old engine……we are developing a warp drive engine – we’ve seen it on the TV, so it must be possible. You’ll be able to get on task before you’ve gotten airborne. It will be truly amazing.

We are also developing, just for you mind, and might I add, at great expense to ourselves (well at least for the time being) a magic telescope that can do everything you want. It can look half way around the world, look through hundreds of feet of water, look around corners (day or night). In fact I am confident that we can tell you that it can do everything you would want it to do – and more.

Of course, we have a special offer on at the moment, seeing as it’s nearly Christmas, if you wanted to order, say 9 of these unbelievable air vehicles we would only charge you for 21 – what a deal.

I tell you what, as you are our best and most gullible customer – I’ll throw in a set of magic genie lamps that will compliment your magic telescope nicely. When rubbed this little fat man appears (looks a little like your friend George, from Number 11) and offers you three wishes. He is preprogramed to ignore questions such as “Can we have a proper MPA”, or “Can we have some trained aircrew with a wealth of MPA experience”, or “can we have a proper MPA base along with a team of dedicated personnel”.

What’s that you say? Contracts? Oh Phillip, you hurt my feelings – don’t we trust each other? You don’t want to waste all your money on expensive lawyers. Tell you what, as a sign of good faith, we can write up the contracts and let our bankers look over them for you……and as you’ve caught me in a good mood, I won’t charge you a penny, not a penny…..you are a very busy man, all you will have to do is sign on the dotted line.

Just one thing…..some of this technology isn’t quite ready yet, so you might have to wait a little while longer. Also, whilst we are on the subject we could use a little advance on the deal, just to ease our cash flow and keep our investors and directors happy.



Don’t worry old boy, we’ve done this all before.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I'd laugh if only it wasn't so true! Especially the bit about the magic telescope. I thought that was still TS!

Duncs:ok:

[dervish]

What’s that you say? Contracts? Oh Phillip, you hurt my feelings – don’t we trust each other? You don’t want to waste all your money on expensive lawyers. Tell you what, as a sign of good faith, we can write up the contracts and let our bankers look over them for you……and as you’ve caught me in a good mood, I won’t charge you a penny, not a penny…..you are a very busy man, all you will have to do is sign on the dotted line.

Just one thing…..some of this technology isn’t quite ready yet, so you might have to wait a little while longer. Also, whilst we are on the subject we could use a little advance on the deal, just to ease our cash flow and keep our investors and directors happy.


This would be funny were it not for the fact you are suggesting that MoD actually tighten up its contracting methods. I thought it was the norm to fork out 10 times the original price and ask for nothing in return.

[Pontius Navigator]

DD, RP touched on part of it so I shall expand. Time late at datum, drawing at the wrong end of a field a high speed dash at 400k came in very handy. Covert radar search, did it still exist, revisit times meant you needed to balance a search speed against endurance.

Will there be separate single mission type UAV? The high altitude one for sowing and monitoring a field with perhaps an additional surface surveillance capability; one for low level weapons delivery and a low altitude surveillance capability?

Maybe a return to an Ikara type system where the torpedo can be rocket launched from altitude - a second Ford Transit van?

[Yellow Sun]

You can just imagine the conversation between Hammond and the BAES UAV rep……

INT ZKJ

It sounds just like the bloke who tried to sell me a conservatory last week. He's probably working for BAE now!

YS

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

PN,

I agree entirely.

Duncs:ok:

[GrahamO]

Why are sonobuoys the size they are ?

Is it because there has never been a need to make them smaller given there has always been plenty of space on the aircraft ? Unattended Ground Senors were originally very large, and are now very small.

Too many people saying it cannot be done when the whole premise of the size of a sonobuoy is incorrect ? A few years ago the suggestion of armed drones was derided by the pilot community, but thats the way the money is going.

Or could a small sonobuoy be developed which could be deployed by other platforms?

[Just This Once...]

GrahamO, I think the need for smaller buoys has been recognised for years. Everyone wants them smaller and lighter, especially those who operate smaller aircraft like the S3 and helicopters. Only physics has got in the way.

[Courtney Mil]

Graham O, oh Graham O! There's always one, isn't there? Just as the boys boys are having a jolly good time, someone has to come along and stick their oar in.

If we wanted smaller sonobuoys, we'd have asked for them. Now get with programme and accept that these people know what they're talking about.

First time for everything around here, I suppose.

MPA is not for UAVs.

Actually, just realised, I might be getting dangerously close to a new "Decission to axe Nimrod is bonkers" thread.

Hat, coat,etc...

[Lima Juliet]

If wiki is to be believed, then Sonobuoys are ~3ft long and ~5in in diameter. Here is a picture of some being loaded on a P3...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Sonarbuoy_loaded_on_aircraft.jpg/399px-Sonarbuoy_loaded_on_aircraft.jpg

...now either the man is a giant, or they ain't "the size of transit van"!

Now here is an early Predator B with a Virginia Air National Guard (VANG) pod...

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/JPGS%5Cuavs%5Cfalcon%20prowl/predator%20with%20raptor%20pod.jpg

...Again, unless the chap is a midget (or Elf to be seasonal), then it is about 3ft in depth and could probably fit around 20-30 sonobuoys in it vertically stacked. That's 40-60 total for a single aircraft. Let's put a pair up and that gives 80-120 sonobuoys to go hunting with. Endurance 14-16hrs, 180-200kts TAS and the ability to "change out" crews into the control cabin. Operate at ~3-4k/hr at full cost and also able to deliver a multi-mode RADAR, EO/IR, other intel packages and weapons either with small yield Hellfire or Brimstone or another MQ-9 with a big weapon.

How often did the 'Rod deploy a weapon during it's life in anger? Should we leave submarine weapons to SSSNs and surface ships? Would our new flat tops be able to deliver a better weapon from F-35 or a helo as a coup de grace?

Finally, the US have been using MQ-9 in the counter piracy role for several years from the Seychelles. Here is picture of one with a high powered maritime RADAR under the right wing...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/assets_c/2009/11/mq-9%20seychelles%20mystery%20sensor-thumb-560x373-53261.jpg

It might be the only thing we can afford by re-using the REAPER UOR when it's not needed in Afghanistan. How on earth can that not make sense? Surely worth looking at rather than being a 'nay sayer' and having nothing?

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

Also, I thought Sonobuoys operated on ~2metre wavelength VHF across about 40Mhz of spectrum? I don't see monitoring that frequency, digitally encoding it and then firing it back to operator as a particular technical challenge.

Perhaps, you could elaborate upon the technical difficulties of this for say an array of 99 sonobuoys on seperate frequencies? :confused:

LJ

[SwitchMonkey]

It might be a slight challenge operating them in all weathers over the North Atlantic though, or is there a plan to give Reaper some effective ice protection?

[Biggus]

Yes, it had obviously never occurred to aviators, both fixed wing and rotary, conducting ASW, or the companies making the sonobuoys, that smaller lighter buoys would be a good idea for carriage in airborne assets where space/weight is an issue....

So glad one of you non MPA boys thought of it...

Sonobuoys (http://www.ultra-ms.com/capabilities/undersea-surveillance/sonobuoys.html)

Look at the picture on the right, which you can click on to enlarge for some idea of sonobuoy size options.

The laws of physics, battery size, length of hydrophone cable, hydrophone size and possible array requirement, making it capable of surviving a drop from height, etc all set certain physical size limits, if you want your buoy to be at all effective that is....

Look at the picture about half way down the page on this link and see what you have to potentially get in the casing:

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/sound01/background/technology/technology.html

As to sonobuoy usage per hour - just don't go there..... Have you any idea how long 120 sonobuoys would last you on task - I'd say the simple answer is almost certainly no!

Why don't you accept that the (ex) MPA community do actually have some idea of what they are talking about, and their comments aren't simply about preserving their (defunct) jobs?

Still, ASW must be easy, as all ex-AD types are such instant experts in it :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Icing?

The Guardian carries a Raytheon electro-optical and infrared turret similar to the Predator B but with Raytheon SeaVue radar under its belly, offering persistent target acquisition and tracking capabilities and 30h endurance for maritime operations. New features slated for first use on the Guardian include an electromagnetic expulsion de-icing system for wing and tail leading edges, an onboard traffic alert and collision avoidance system, a laser altimeter-based landing guidance system for pilots at altitudes below 100ft (30m), and a Jeppesen electronic flight bag for mission planning and weather information in the ground control station.

But, hey, let's not bother spending 100s of millions developing this because the (ex) boys from Kinloss say it can't be done...:ugh:

[Surplus]

It seems, on paper, that the Guardian has the ability to cover the peacetime ASUW aspect of an LRMPA, I suspect, however, that should the contacts need to be attacked, a second weapons carrying platform may be needed.

But in order to see whether UAVs can undertake the ASW aspect of Maritime Patrol, I have a question for the UAV specialists:

How many UAVs would be needed to provide 24 hour coverage in a 'Choke Point' North of the UK.

Only current UAV platforms modified with current technologies are invited to tender.

Conditions:

1. They would need to carry enough active and passive sonobuoys (approx 200 for 6 hours onsta) to search, localise, track and attack a low range submerged target doing a transit speed. The smallest currently available passive sonobuoys are G size:

Dimensions..............................................16.5 0 in (419 mm) long by
4.875 in (124 mm) diameter
Weight ............................................................ ....... 11.22 lbs (5.1 kg)

The currently available most used active sonobuoys are A size, twice the length of the G size:

Weight ............................................................ ........ 16.4 kg (36 lbs)

2. Must have a Radar with a periscope detection capability. (A Maritime Radar pod is shown in one of LJ's photos - takes up one wing station.)

3. MAD is needed to refine the attack criteria. (or some other 'Top Secret' :hmm: method of providing accurate positional information.)

4. A suitable weapon needs to be carried, if a one shot - one kill weapon is not available, then multiple weapons need to be carried.

The UAVs can be based at any current airfield and must be able to operate high or low level in North Atlantic weather conditions.

It would take 3 or 4 currently in service (Not UK obviously) LRMPA platforms, I'm sure the Nimrod MK4 program workers could furnish the numbers needed to achieve this task, I suspect it would only have needed 2.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Proof if ever it was needed that there are people who know what they are talking about and those that don't. I think Leon must be CAS and i claim my £5.

As a clue Leon sonobuoy usage rate varies depending upon the target, it's speed, it's changes in direction, it's changes in depth, it's noise signature to name but a few. And any! change in just one of these will likely require a relay of a tracking pattern

And of course previous comments about the size of a transit van relates not to one buoy but the several hundred you have to carry to ensure sufficient to track a submarine. And then of course there is weight, but lets not allow that to get in the way of a good theory. A standard A passive directional size buoy, as shown in Biggus's link, are 3 feet long and weigh approximately 31 lbs x a half load of about 100 buoys (note, not a war load) = 3100lbs. Pred B payload is..... Oops! You certainly won't be carrying hellfires and sonobuoys.

Of course the Pred might be doing Indian Ocean surveillance, but again that is ABOVE water not UNDER water. Most on here aren't saying that it can't be used for above water radar picture (assuming of course you can keep clear of cloud and icing conditions) just that there is a lot more to tracking a submarine than people assume. And let's face it, submarines are only going to get quieter! Against some current vessels you wouldn't need your 14 hour endurance, you would have run out of sonobuoys long before that!

[iRaven]

This would solve the podded SeaVue RADAR problem - integrated to the airframe.

http://www.americanlaw.com/immigrationblogboos/wp-content/uploads/Maritime-variant-Predator-B2.jpg

[Surplus]

IRaven, that frees up the wing station problem, how much of the available payload does it take up? The big problem for UAVs doing ASW is carrying all the sonobuoys required.

[Lima Juliet]

Following on from iraven. The GA-ASI brochure mentions an external payload capability of ~1350kgs.

http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/pdf/Guardian.pdf

So looking at the questions; if we're talking 5kgs per sonobuoy then that's 270 by weight, if we're talking the bigger ones then about 90 by weight. Endurance is no problem at 6 hours (they would have 8-12 hours spare!). So for 200 buoys in 6 hours let's say we need 2x Pred Bs and then one on station with 4x airdropped torpedos like Stingray that are about the same size and weight as JDAM (and an MQ-9 successfully carried 4 of those and dropped them against 4 seperate targets at the same time). Now that makes 3 aircraft to accomplish the sonobuoy and torpedo task. As for MAD - I don't see it on the P8 - I wonder why? :hmm:

I'm not saying that Pred B is the answer to our requirement, but it might be an answer. As everything it comes down to money, being able to multi-role and be able to be in a military that often says that an "80% fit" will do.

There are other options on the table and I'm sure (I hope) that far better analysis than my "fag packet" sums are being done. I do however believe that at first look, the SofS' and CAS' suggestion might be plausible with an unmanned system of some sort (Pred B sized as a minimum). It doesn't seem too much of a crackpot plan to me as it does to some...:}

LJ

PS. Standard Pred B can carry 1710kgs under the wings and there's a new model that has just come out that can carry more (Block 1 plus). So you could have more sonobuoys on that aircraft to the one carrying the RADAR.

[pitotheat]

Tac Nav, Co have you considered Barra? All very interesting POV. Perhaps one of the greatest faults of the Maritime community was its unwillingness to consider other options and dismissing suggestions out of hand. Personally I believe this lost the MPA a lot of support from the rest of the RAF community which is why, in part, MPA is no more. How about a dipping UAV working with others to form a barrier/tracking capability.

[WhiteOvies]

Can't see why the UK would spend so much money on the Seedcorn initiative just to throw them away and buy a UAV at SDSR 2015. BAMS or a Predator/Reaper based solution can cover the Maritime Surveillance aspects of the MPA mission but would a submarinr hunter-killer swarm of UAVs be any more cost effective or mission effective than a P-8?

PS I'm not an expert in MPA but the S of S also seemed to confuse the Sea King 7 mission with that of the ASW Merlin. Not convinced he understands much of what he is told but tries to repeat it back when questioned.

[Surplus]

The Indians are getting MAD on their P8s, :hmm: the Americans ummed and aahed for ages before the decision not to have MAD fitted. This was due to the fact that the Americans envisage doing higher level ASW which precludes the use of MAD. High level ASW will create more problems than it solves, the main problem it solves for the Americans is, the P8 don't like it down low.

So for 6 hours

2 x Predator B's for sonobuoy drops,
1 x Predator for weapons carriage and
1 x Predator for MAD ( just to keep the Indians happy), RADAR and EO.

Only the sonobuoy carrying predators would need to be relieved for replenishment.

So for 24 hour coverage, I make that 10 predator sorties to track one submarine. (Assuming the RADAR and Weapon carriers have 24 hours endurance.

Dipping UAVs would mean a rotary type UAV, which is being investigated for use in the P8, and would need to be dropped from a fixed wing platform due to range and speed etc.

10 Predators would be cheaper than 3 MPA, the problem would be the bandwidth needed to operate the UAV swarm and transmit all the data back to be analysed.:8

This number of UAVs could be reduced with bigger payload carrying variants as LJ suggests.

[The B Word]

The MAD capability could be provided by one of the towed types that are fitted to helicopters (they've even fitted one to the Firescout unmanned helicopter which is tiny). Therefore, if using Predator B the number in surplus' example could be reduced.

The B Word

http://www.virtualacquisitionshowcase.com/thumbnail/1574/large

[HAS59]

The current S of S is a career politician and as such knows very little about defence and must rely on being briefed by those who should know more but often don’t. He will be doing a different job in a few years (or months) anyway so let’s just forgive him his rather limited knowledge.

The current CAS is a former Tactical Reconnaissance pilot and as such ought to have an understanding of surveillance (albeit dated) and not related to the Maritime role.
Given this it is easy to see why he is such a fan of ‘Scrimager’ as he calls it and UAV’s (sorry Steve RPAS) in general.

If the MPA job was simply surveillance then it is just possible that in some circumstances an RPV could do the job. But an MPA is much more than that, take a look at all the other countries that operate them and see what they do.

RPV based surveillance could well complement the space based Ship Plot style systems to detect and perhaps identify surface targets – then what?

[Party Animal]

LJ,

It's not that it couldn't be done. It just couldn't be done in a realistic timescale at a realistic cost.

Ignoring the Arthur C Clarke view of the future, the reality is that in the early 80's UK plc tried to design and build it's own AEW ac. It happened to be called Nimrod AEW and although the airframe worked (ugly as it was), we the UK failed completely to achieve the mission and the ac was scrapped. Into the 90's, our biggest defence contractor was tasked with giving the MR2 a lick of paint, new wings and engines and a bit of an upgrade. 15 years later, they/we/UK plc had failed again. Do you really think we could do what your asking on our own. If not, and we tried some European consortium approach, then how long to IOC? RP suggested 20 years. I think nearer to 35!

So developing an entire new system that can operate at 1,000nm with 6hrs on task and the ability to carry 200 sonobuoys and 9 torpedoes that is fully networked linked would be challenging to say the least. Granted, there would be potential to make the add ons a bit smaller but how much smaller is a 500lb bomb nowadays compared to 1940?

We don't just need a real airborne ASW capability now (and ASuW / LR SAR), we have needed one continously since aircraft were invented. That leaves the option of P8 (off the shelf). CN295 (80% performance/30% cost and off the shelf) or leasing/buying old P3's. Then maybe we could start talks with the French in 2020 to look at some form of UAV in about 2050!

[GrahamO]

...So developing an entire new system that can operate at 1,000nm with 6hrs on task and the ability to carry 200 sonobuoys and 9 torpedoes that is fully networked linked would be challenging to say the least.

Genuine question - why does it have to do both ? One platform for search and use something existing for weaponry ? Maybe not as elegant but having something 'cheap' out hunting and only bringing in the weapons at a later stage isn't that bad is it ?

[Biggus]

Graham O,

Genuine question. What "existing" something did you have in mind for weaponry?

Especially given that your MPA/UAV package might be conducting autonomous operations (a choke point perhaps) some distance from land or other UK/NATO maritime assets.


ASW weapons don't have a particularly large area of effect. As with many/most weapon systems, maintaining tracking of a submarine and obtaining a sufficiently accurate attack solution are not necessarily the same thing. The ability to "find, fix and strike" in one platform (UAV package?) is better than trying to maintain tracking while you bring out an attack asset, from what is potentially a long way away, and risk losing the target while you wait for the weapons to arrive. Also, if your MPA/UAV package conducts it's own attack as soon as possible, it is immediately available to re-commence searching for new targets.

[Party Animal]

Graham,

Flexibility and speed of response are the main reasons. Ideally, an MPA should have a full 'sensor to shooter' capability for that instant reaction to a threatening fast and fleeting contact that needs to be attacked immediately. Turning and burning at low level ready to drop a weapon on a 'MAD' mark made this achievable as opposed to calling in the cavalry that may be orbiting above and could take a few minutes to line up on an attack run against a target that can't be seen.

Having said that, ASW helos and MPA regularly practiced working together with the helo directing the MPA as a weapons carrier. A helo in the dip was effectively a large active sonobuoy and the MPA could readily be restocked with torpedoes on return to base unlike the ship that may be at sea without a restock for some considerable time.

[thunderbird7]

The idea of using a UAV as a weapons carrier certainly has merit ('Pony' lynx/wasp/seaking?) and is not a new concept. Perhaps an issue not considered so far is maneuverability at low level. With acoustic ranges being what they are on modern subs, laying tracking patterns is quite a split arse type of flying and I'm not sure a vehicle designed for endurance at high level would be capable of that? Dropping weapons would be possible but tracking and aquiring an attack solution would be a challenge!!

At least it would stop everyone blaming the f*****g pilots for making them sick again...

[Roland Pulfrew]

So in summary we have now moved from finding some utility for our UOR Reapers post Afghanistan LJ 102147DEC12 (assuming they are brought into core - I wonder what other capability/how many jobs will be lost to pay for that?) to we need a different UAV, possibly bigger than the current Reapers, certainly a new version with some ice protection systems LJ 110004DEC12 and 110049DEC12 that might (or might not) be able to do the task of a manned MMA/MPA. Of course there will be no delay in designing, testing and operationalising:yuk: this new UAV.

We may (or may not) need MAD which might be provided by another UAV, possibly rotary wing (always assuming that we have any assets capable of operating this UAV in the right air/sea space at the right time).

We need to redesign all of the sonobuoys to make them smaller (of course ignoring the fact that batteries, cables, hydrophones, floatation devices and transmitter/receivers will take up a finite space) and lighter.

We need to design a UAV portable sonobuoy carriage system, which can carry in the order of 100 sonobuoys varying in weight between 10 lbs and 60 lbs under each wing. Of course we may need to redesign the buoys so that they can be programmed remotely or the pod needs to be able to programme the buoy before release (see above).

We need systems installed in the UAV that can receive data from, lets say, 32 buoys simultaneously and retransmit that via satellite to a suitable ship or ground station. A decent radar, maybe some ESM systems, some TCAS and perhaps some autocat, plus other odds and sods.

We want a weapons carrying UAV that can bring the weapons to the party whilst other UAVs do the tracking of the submarine.

We might want to bring in some dipping UAVs which suggests some sort of hover capability, which suggests rotary wing, which suggests a lot of noise going into the water for the submarine to counterdetect and avoid

With all these UAVs out there its going to be mighty busy.

Now with all these UAVs pottering around we are going to need some form of C2 platform, perhaps with a few people onboard to make sense of the mess. I give you:










http://www.key.aero/central/images/news/1895.jpg


:E

[Biggus]

Watch out Roland....

You'll be called a luddite next, "unwilling to consider other suggestions" and "dismissing ideas out of hand"....

[Bring_back_Buck]

Well said Roland :D

[Pontius Navigator]

Graham, detect to kill solution might be measured in hours as the datum is refined and the kill system is accurately positioned. OTOH you might have only minutes between detect and a kill shot - 6 minutes say. That would require a Nimrod to be within 15 miles or so of the target.

Using two platforms would virtually require two UAVs in near proximity. The failure of one would mean a mission failure. Oddly a larger MPA can operate successful with a high degree of redundancy.

On sonobouys, and to think we used to carry 63 or occasionally 94 (luxury) but that often meant we were channel limited and had to compromise coverage using X or X+1 is we used a Hellier Box rather than a chevron or X+2 or +4. Anything over X meant we ran the risk of running out of sonobuoys or channels. Some buoys designed to die after an hour or so might stay up for 2 hours and an 8 hour field might still be radiating for over 10 hours. The only way to 'free' up channels was to descend below the radio horizon. That rather scuppers the idea of high level loitering. At least with many more channels now that problem is much reduced.

[thunderbird7]

Of course, you could always take one of those Reaper thingies, rip the wings off and put new ones on, re-engine it and pay BAe a s**t load of money to fix it while changing the spec every 5 minutes......

[Surplus]

T7

At least it would stop everyone blaming the f*****g pilots for making them sick again.

They don't have to be flying to do that! :}

[alfred_the_great]

As a professional ASW Officer I'll take Reaper which can drop sonobouys and send the data back and then have someone talk to me at sea about what's going on. Not too fussed about weapon carriage or MAD frankly.

[Lima Juliet]

RP

They said Ned Ludd was an idiot boy
That all he could do was wreck and destroy, and
He turned to his workmates and said: Death to Machines
They tread on our future and they stamp on our dreams.

:E

[betty swallox]

Alfred,
I'm very surprised that you call yourself a "professional" ASW officer, if you're not "fussed" about weapons!





Unbelievable!!!

[alfred_the_great]

Depends doesn't it. The requirement for weapons is significantly smaller than the requirement to locate, localise and track a SM. The weapon train required to sink a modern SSN (or a SSK) is higher than can be easily carried on a relatively small air vehicle, manned or un-manned.

If we're going for a 60% solution I'm going to take as many sonobouys as possible, everything else is just trimmings.

[Surplus]

Most naval chaps are quite keen on the weapons side of the argument when they're bobbing up and down on their targets, sorry, I mean ships. Nothing like a torpedo winding up to concentrate the mind of the submariner, tends to spoil their aim a tad.

[alfred_the_great]

And the last time a Nimrod dropped a torpedo in anger was?

[Pontius Navigator]

And the last time a Nimrod dropped a torpedo in anger was?

And the last time any MPA dropped a torpedo in anger was?

The possibility that an aircraft carries weapons has a deterrent effect all its own. V-bombers, Canberras and Buccaneers could all provide a deterrent effect as they had the capability to drop bombs and you would not know until they dropped them.

Originally a Nimrod had the limited ability for dropping torpedoes but not to attack a surfaced submarine. When it was cleared to drop BL755 around the same time it was known that submarines started to carry SAN as it would be daft to be stuck on the surface and powerless to defend.

You can declare that an economic success as the Nimrod didn't need to carry BL755 but the submarine had to find space to carry the missiles.

[betty swallox]

"And the last time a Nimrod dropped a torpedo was?" EXACTLY my point!!!

[Phoney Tony]

The problem with all RPAS and UAS is their reliance on data links back to a ground station. It would be extremely easy to deny such systems the link back to the analyst/ operator. True some systems could be made autonomous but I suspect any kinetic effect would need a man in the loop. Automatic target detection and classification has been the holy grail of several ISTAR capabilities for over 30 years that I am aware of. These 2 requirements alone drive a requirement for manned vehicles.

[Gnd]

RPAS controlled from the space station????????????:p (and invent a really big Laser?)

[alfred_the_great]

I think you're kind of missing my point. A RPAS only ASW surveillance "solution" is at best a 60 - 80% result, but one that is likely to use current technology and is affordable.

Would I love a low-flying MPA with oodles of range, kit and endurance, dropping weapons and buoys all over the place? Damn right. The chances of getting that on the white-board - zero.

A RPAS that is in service, although yet to come into core, can relatively easily be converted to drop buoys for remote processing, and would be available to the front line in the next couple of years - yes please. Of course it's not perfect but it is flying.

[Phoney Tony]

ATG,

How much Data Link BW do you think you need:

Bloke down the pub told me to operate buoys you need to:

Confirm RF is free before dropping.
Confirm you are clear of surface contacts before dropping buoys.
Confirm buoy is serviceable.
Monitor buoys ..... a rough guess 18kbs per buoy (Bloke down the pub was not sure).
As a guess monitor up to 32 buoys.
Match surface picture with info detected from buoys.

Sure some of this can be done on board the RPAS but needs to be developed.

How do you operate in a radio silent mode, off-tether?

I sense your frustration, but the issues required to operate safely are quiet complex. Bloke down the pub started to bang his head against the wall!

[Roland Pulfrew]

I just love the "relatively easily be converted to drop buoys" bit. On top of the bit by Phoney T, can you tell me how you are going to select the channel required, select the cable length, select the life of the buoy? All of these need to be done manually so you will have to redesign all of your buoys so that it can be done automatically. And then I return you to your UOR RPAS for which no-one has yet designed a sonobuoy carriage system, release system and monitoring/retransmission system.:ugh:

[Lima Juliet]

BLOS datalinks are actually quite difficult to deny without fragging every comms sat in GEO orbit - the jamming kit would quickly become to the top of the target list! You also need a lot of power due to parabolic antenna designs at both ends of the link (ie. most of the gain is within the first 3-4 degrees of beam width). There is also fancy encryption, spread spectrum and LPI techniques to employ as well (but how that works is not for this forum). All of the claimed jamming of things like Scan Eagle have been on LOS links - now that is easier (watch out Watchkeeper!).

18kbps? Not a problem - most BLOS operate at between 2-6mbps - ie. 100-300 times the data rate needed for the notional "mate down the pub" buoy figure.

Clear range procedures for dropping? Not a problem as you would have a great EO/IR capability and also a fine sea search RADAR.

I also concur with Alfred - something like MQ-9 is not the be-all and end-all but a 60-80% fit would do me rather than nothing at all. It would also be useful for other "stuff" that we had MPAs do for us before (and last time that cost some very uneccesary losses over Afg).

Just like there have been accusations of "not knowing anything about maritime", there are a lot of people posting stuff about RPAS/UAS capability that are slightly wide of the actual challenges.

LJ

PS - Higher level sonobuoy delivery? Not a problem and also would seem to be designed with RPAS/UAS in mind as well P8 http://www.virtualacquisitionshowcase.com/document/1545/briefing

[Lima Juliet]

Now here is a design patented over 7 years ago which turns a sonobuoy into a UAS and does away with the need for a MPA or other type aircraft all together!

http://books.google.co.uk/patents/US20050258310.pdf

[Surplus]

Excellent bit of kit LJ, the concept is only spoiled by the fact that the sonobuoys need to be in the RF horizon of the ship in order to pass the information back. The effective range of a modern heavyweight torp is? I think you'll know there is a sub out there by the bang before the buoys get contact.

Just done the calcs and T23 rf horizon for a sonobuoy is 10nm.

[Daf Hucker]

Leon,

18kbps for each buoy (x32-ish) is I agree not a big ask, but how much bandwidth would be required for the EO/IR and the radar, plus all the command data? There is only a limited amount of bandwidth available to support UK military operations, unless we start buying it in the commercial market, not known as a cheap option. Of course if your solution is to provide BLOS bandwidth with a dedicated satellite, how does that effect the cost/benefit comparison with a manned platform.?

I feel that you are trying to force a square, though admittedly rounding, peg into a round hole. Give it another 10-15 years and cheaper bandwidth then I think it might work.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Congratulations to LJ for finding more non-existent stuff to support his case. You have also missed the development of GPS guided sonobuoys which was/is being looked at for the accuracy required when dropping buoys from med/high altitude. I quite liked the PHASE buoy by SeaLandAire but noticed that their buoy still requires manual selection of channel, cable length and life - obviously quite simple and easy in a manned platform but a little more tricky in a UAV, without complete redesign of the buoys. ISTR that the unit price of a standard LOFAR buoy was in the order of £5-600, so it won't take much to start making these very expensive bits of kit.

There seems to be a lot of 'stuff' that's going to need a redesign for it work on a ASW UAV. Now for an 80% solution, with no need to redesign anything, I give you:



http://www.esdpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/esdpa_nws_1001021-01.jpg

[Surplus]

or

http://img.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3207/AP-3C firing_torpedo.jpg (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/aus-air-force/p3839-ap-3c-dropping-a-live-torpedo.html)
http://www.pprune.org/[url=http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/aus-air-force/p3839-ap-3c-dhttp://img.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3207/AP-3C firing_torpedo.jpg

[tucumseh]

I find these types of threads genuinely interesting. So many differing opinions on something (MPA/ASW etc) we’ve done for decades.

But now try to put yourselves in the shoes of some poor DEC SO2 and a DE&S project manager. The loss of MPA means neither has very much experience to draw from, either personal or corporately. The former’s URD is likely to contain a mixture of conflicting requirements and some that defy physics. The latter, because he’s skipped 5 grades, won’t have serviced aircraft or the equipment you discuss, so can’t visualise what the URD’s talking about. And the company will be taking him to the cleaners as that lack of experience means he isn’t properly qualified to sign off the technical and financial approvals, so they’ll blind him with facts and fiction.

The last time I managed a sonics programme, the company were taken aback that some civvy in PE knew what the innards of a sonobuoy looked like, and pulled them up for over-egging a quote. I seem to recall I chopped about 30% from the quote, and got a better performance a year ahead of schedule. Similarly, I once sat listening to a DEC officer listing his “requirements”. No matters how many times you said “increased bandwidth = increased power”, he insisted on a technical spec which doubled the weight due to the sheer quantity of batteries required. Companies have wet dreams over this kind of thing, as it hands blank cheques to them on a plate. A bit like the MRA4 programme.

But hey ho, at least this is being aired on pprune (aka MoD’s primary source of corporate knowledge).

[HAS59]

Spot on ‘tucumseh’ pity the poor individual who has to present the case to whichever minister of the day who will make the decision as to the future of MPA/ASW.

The procurement system has let us down in the past but must have got some things right (surely?)

No matter how many facts or even opinions the poor sod gets there must be a point at which they must ask for advice – where does that come from? Are they going to visit say Canada and see what happens there? It can’t just be left to ‘smart UAV salesmen’ with a magic crystal ball approach to determine our future capability.

(And that’s the salesmen who are ‘smart’ in this instance not the UAV)

[Donna K Babbs]

LJ,

Fantastic link and a brilliant idea for a 9 year old!

[Surplus]

A lot of corporate experience is saying ASW cannot be done by UAVs, they are not getting rich by saying this, they have done ASW in the real world, against real submarines, when 'professional ASW Officers' lost the submarine in the time it took the MPA to climb out back to ISK.

Sorry for the bite.

[betty swallox]

From the latest Flight International...

" The USAF's MQ-9 offers persistence, but cannot match the situational awareness of manned systems".

From the horses mouth, as they say..!

[aw ditor]

This is all beginning to have a 'whiff' of the disaster that was the 1957 Duncan Sandys White Paper. For 'Guided Missiles can do everything' substitute 'UAVs'' can do everything'.

[Party Animal]

From the Government Response to the HoC Select Ctee Report on Future Maritime Surveillance... (separate thread)


The study into Wide Area Maritime Underwater Search (WAMUS) concluded that in the near term the most appropriate solution to a potential underwater surveillance requirement was a manned aircraft.


From the experts mouth, as they say..!

[Phoney Tony]

Daf Hucker is right its not just the buoy data that needs to get back to the analysts/operators. The bloke down the pub also noted that when you have worked out the BW budget, (he did say he had not worked it out properly), you need to multiply the requirement by the number of platforms, simplistically for barrier ops:

Ac going home.
Ac ONSTA.
Ac coming ONSTA.

Poss Hi buoy/Lo Buoy ops.

And 2 24/7 barriers as a minimum concurrently.

Equals possible 6 platforms airborne at any one time, possibly in different theatres.

BW soon adds up appreciate not all of them will be passing all sensor data at once..

PS. Bloke down the pub told me jamming the airvehicle is hard...but the earthstations are not - SPOF.

[Lima Juliet]

Jamming earthstations with parabolic antenna on friendly turf isn't easy because we have nasty chaps like these ready to sort the problem out...

http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/22b2212b97704560a443742eb6460482-417x313.jpg

As for BW - ever heard of multiplexing and link management? You don't need to stream video at high rates if you're doing other tasks that deserve the BW. MQ-9 does this with all of it's sensors - you can select your data rate for what you want to do. For example reduce the frame rate of EO\IR to allow a high data SAR picture to be sent.

Finally, using commercial bandwidth is cheap and also rather 'savvy'. Think about it. If you hide your BLOS RPAS link within commercial networks then they are harder to find than looking at military satellite transponder frequencies - you could call it 'digital dispersion'. It can still be encrypted/decrypted, but using an International Comms Sat, being used by many nations could be very wise indeed (your enemy might have an ally using the same satellite and unwilling to attack it via any means).

I've still not heard a rational reason why CAS and the SofS' original statement is so wide of the mark - all I'm hearing is Ludditism and 'job protectionism'. The US have their own issues with their 'naysaying' personnel giving out quotes like some of the above from Betty and Party Animal - again, normally from those that are either scared of the shift in warfare or simply don't understand what RPAS can and can't do. I do agree a force mix of manned and unmanned is the best way forward.

Some bright spark once said that "UAVs are for Dull, Dirty or Dangerous roles". Well I think they are good for large portions of the MPA role - which is neither "Dirty" or "Dangerous"! :ok:

LJ

[Roland Pulfrew]

And all we are hearing from you LJ is that RPAS are the future of everything without you listening to the experts. It is not to say that it can't be done just that it ain't going to happen in the next 10 to 20 yeas. Lots of people on here have tried to explain why your plastic toys aren't (yet) going to crack this, in the near term. The problems are complex, something that you cannot see because you don't seem to understand what it takes to do ASW. You have completely ignored the points raised by many about buoy numbers, weight, size, the need for a complete redesign of the sonobuoy, it's delivery, it's monitoring etc etc. you have failed to understand the benefits of a manned MMA and the quotes from Betty and PA are all open source and taken from MOD studies and parliamentary reports.

The reason SofS and CAS got it so wrong is because neither of them understand the complexity either. And there are the UAV fanatics within main building who keep saying that UAVs are the future and the solution to everything because they have their own agendas Finally you still have not acknowledged that we seem to be the only nation in the world that think UAVs are the future of ASW. Logic suggests that someone has got it wrong (in the short to medium term) and for all the reasons that people have patiently tried to explain, it would appear to be the UK. That and the fact that politicians regularly confuse Nimrod R1, MR2, AEW3 and MRA4, so it's perhaps not surprising they don't get the complexity of ASW.

As for me, it's lovely of you to think that I am worried about job protectionism or roles and that I am a Luddite (you couldn't be further from the truth by the way) as I will be long gone by the time any replacement comes along.

[Lima Juliet]

plastic toys

Says it all for me, mate. A complete disrepect for something that is doing the overland job, day in day out, saving Coalition lives and providing on call CAS and fantastic multi-sensor ISTAR.

Keep believing they're toys and someone might bring you one for Christmas...;)

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

From the latest Flight International...

" The USAF's MQ-9 offers persistence, but cannot match the situational awareness of manned systems".

From the horses mouth, as they say..!

I was going to try and articulate this before. I have lost count the number of times that SA or feeling in the water have paid off. just some examples:

1. Looking for the Malin AGI believed to be in the Irish Sea. Opted for intermittent radar policy. Entered via North Channel, Mr Murgatroyd switches on ASV, quickly dots dozens of contacts, then back to standby. Third target was the AGI. The only reason it was 3rd was we investigated #1 and#2 as they were on track to the AGI - and there was no racket.

2. Search area was the whole North Sea. Target was the first Krivak 2. Was it exiting the Baltic for North Fleet or the Black Sea? About 30 minutes into the task, poor vis, radar silent and we bounced it.

3. Search area in the Atlantic SE of Iceland. Sea fog, viz about 2 miles or less and sea state zero. Opted for covert radar search. Nothing in briefed area. Eased gently to edge of area and bounced an AGS with its side hatch open and a rib departing in to the fog. By the time we got back the rib was almost back to the ship having been recalled and the next pass it was stowed and the next the hatch was closed.

These were not isolated events nor the skill or intuition of one person but the crew collective.

Can you imagine the RPV MPA crew? For a start you would not have 6 experienced sensor operators nor three WSO nor two pilots. You might have a total of 2 pilots, two WSO and maybe two WSOp. Immediately you have cut the learning and experience gaining potential by 30%. Would they also retain that edge that an airborne crew would have?

[Biggus]

Maybe if the ex-ASW guys had a bit more respect for LJs obvious knowledge about the capabilities of UAS, and LJ had a big more respect for the complexities of airborne ASW (many of which haven't been mentioned and can't be discussed on an open forum) then this (academic) discussion might make smoother progress....


Why did I say academic? Because whether it be a manned platform, or a UAS, this government, AND THE NEXT, won't have any spare cash in the defence budget to spend on airborne ASW assets (other than RN helos).


So discuss, as passionately as you like, the academic values of manned vs unmanned airborne ASW!! But don't hold your breath. :ok::ok::ok:




ASUW, as has already been discussed, and I think generally agreed, could pretty much be done by UAS tomorrow!

[Backwards PLT]

Wise words Biggus.

As someone with some knowledge of both ASW/ASuW and RPAs, I would say that UAVs are outstanding for the ASuW task (and are already being used, with more countries interested) but it will be a looooooong time before they do ASW.

So which do you want your MPA to do? If the requirement is a lot of ASuW with the occasional bit of ASW that the helos can't handle then there may be an argument for a mixed fleet which could work out cheaper. Or not.

Bottom line - we need something and I can't see it being a P-8 / MQ-4C mix!! Refurb'd P-3s anyone?

[Lima Juliet]

Biggus / TLP

Yup, you're both right. No money...:{ No aircraft companies in the UK able to put their own money into their own development programs...:{ and few able able to visualise the potential...:{

I reckon within 5 years we will see ASW capabilities on unmanned aircraft and once again the UK will 'miss the boat' (pun intended) and be left behind the rest of the aerospace world.

My final words on this thread (I promise!). If LRMPA with ASW/ASuW is so very crucial for maritime ops, why haven't the RN either planned for it or taken it over in the past? I don't see them crying into their rum as much as the RAF seem to be crying into their beer about the loss? :confused:

LJ out

[Roland Pulfrew]

LJ: A complete disrespect for

Wrong again. Been there, seen that thanks. Alright I apologise for the "plastic toy" bit and yes I DO KNOW it is very good at what it does. Seen them in operation and I have some good friends and colleagues who have operated Reaper and Hermes.

Now how about you acknowledge that are people here who just might have a better understanding of the complexities of ASW than you have? I notice that your argument revolves around some possible or theoretical technologies, but you fail to respond when knowledgable people point out why few of them are an option - yet. Even when its the MOD and HCDC.

And as for the RN crying into their rum, you might want to call some of them at NWD.

Oh, and if you are buying Hannants (http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/RV4865) Thanks :}

Edited to add: my final word on the subject too; it is (almost) Christmas! :ok:

[betty swallox]

I give up.....

[Pontius Navigator]

why haven't the RN either planned for it or taken it over in the past?

Oh they tried. Many times.

[Party Animal]

I do agree a force mix of manned and unmanned is the best way forward.





Well I think they are good for large portions of the MPA role


So just to make sense of LJ's comments:

Agreeing with manned aircraft = agreeing with an MPA (of some sort).

UAV's good for 'large portions' = not good for all. i.e, ASW!

Sounds like back pedalling to me.

And finally,


If LRMPA with ASW/ASuW is so very crucial for maritime ops, why haven't the RN either planned for it or taken it over in the past? I don't see them crying into their rum as much as the RAF seem to be crying into their beer about the loss?


Sums up LJ's total lack of knowledge of any aspect of the maritime air domain and what the real view is in the portals of NWD, FLEET, MWC etc..

Have a Merry Xmas everybody :ok:

[GIATT]

I reckon within 5 years we will see ASW capabilities on unmanned aircraft and once again the UK will 'miss the boat' (pun intended) and be left behind the rest of the aerospace world.I've been delivering networked computer systems for a very long time, and it would seem you are at danger of falling for the simple == cheap argument that defence suppliers use.

If one looks out of the office window it is a simple task to confirm or deny the presence of a quadraped (dead or alive) in the car park with a high degree of certainty. Doing the same task from the window seat of a short hop aircraft as it banks over the long stay car park is also simple.

It is however fantastically expensive to do the same thing with an automaton. Even then the degree of certainty may not be what you might wish for if you are planning on engaging with said quadraped.

[Lowe Flieger]

Took me until after Christmas to ponder what would be the optimum way to engage with GIATT's quadruped. Concluded that unobserved would probably be best.

Meanwhile, I came across the linked Flightglobal article that reports the USN wants to place a multiple year purchase contract for Boeing Poseidon aircraft. It also mentions that the MPA may be teamed with Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft to extend surface area surveillance coverage, which seems logical enough.

US Navy moves to purchase up to 72 Boeing P-8s (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/US-Navy-moves-to-purchase-up-to-72-Boeing-P-8s-380553/)

LF
.

[Green Flash]

Just a thought (and probably not a good one), but what about something like the ARGOS float network? In fact, I wonder if ARGOS is doing more than was origionaly advertised?!;)

Argo - part of the integrated global observation strategy (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/)

[steamchicken]

Step one: We need to get rid of these complex, bespoke technology development programs and go COTS.

Step two: Systems not platforms! It's the electronics that really matter. We could stick them on a drone and that would be great, because drones!

Step three: The kit don't fit.

Step four: Redesign the electronics.

Step five: The drone isn't capable enough.

Step six: Well, let's use several drones in a [adopts Californian tone] networked swarm.

Step seven: Bandwidth.

Step eight: *Autonomous* drones!

Step nine: The mission profile really doesn't fit with the Reaper airframe.

Step ten: Why not...deploy another tiny UAV from the drone?

Step eleven: And redesign the radios to work securely in the civilian spectrum

Step twelve: Well, at least we'll save on crew.

Step thirteen: Uh, no, you need a crew of five per drone per shift...

Step fourteen: Automated ISTAR!!

So that's a swarming, autonomous, horizontally networked, marinised fleet of UAVs deploying sub-UAVs and using over-the-horizon cognitive radio, with an automatic underwater target classification system, and it's got to use the MQ-9 air vehicle and associated infrastructure. Thank god we didn't start one of those terrible technology development projects!

[Phoney Tony]

If the UN says drone attacks are illegal, will they take retrospective action against those involved in attacks conducted so far?


UN inquiry into drone killings

The use of drones has become increasingly controversial
The UN is launching an inquiry into the impact on civilians of drone strikes and other targeted killings.

There is a need for "accountability and reparation where things have gone badly wrong", the British lawyer heading the investigation told journalists.

Ben Emmerson QC, a UN special rapporteur, said the "exponential" rise of drone technology required a proper legal framework to be put into place.

The inquiry will study the impact of drone strikes in five places.

Twenty-five attacks will be examined - in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Palestinian territories and Somalia.

Mr Emmerson told journalists in London that the increasing use of drones "represents a real challenge to the framework of international law".

If unregulated, he said, the use of drones would continue to grow.

The inquiry will assess the extent of civilian casualties, the identity of militants targeted and the legality of strikes where there is no UN recognition of a conflict.

Defenders of drones say they minimise civilian casualties, but opponents say drone strikes can constitute extra-judicial killing and point to data suggesting hundreds of civilians have died in such strikes.

'War crime'

Drones - or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) - have become an increasingly potent weapon for nations seeking to target militants but there is increasing controversy over their toll on civilians.


Drone attacks have been a key source of tensions between the US and Pakistan
Between 2004 and 2013, CIA drone attacks in Pakistan killed up to 3,461 people - up to 891 of them civilians, according to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The vast majority of the strikes were carried out under the administration of President Barack Obama, it said.

Some kinds of drone attacks - in particular "double tap" strikes where rescuers attending a first blast become victims of a second - could constitute a war crime, Mr Emmerson has previously said, according to the Guardian newspaper.

Addressing journalists on Thursday, he denied the inquiry was unfairly singling out the US and Israel, saying 51 states had the technology to use drones.

He said it was not a substitute for "effective, official and independent investigation" by states, and called for independent investigations where there was "plausible evidence of a war crime".

The inquiry will report to the UN General Assembly in the latter half of the year.

BBC © 2013

[Lowe Flieger]

Lockheed Pursues Possible International Consortium for Maritime C-130 | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130220/DEFREG01/302200023/Lockheed-Pursues-Possible-International-Consortium-Maritime-C-130)

A news item I noticed in Defense News a couple of days ago. Lockheed Martin is investigating the appetite for existing C-130/P3 operators to collaborate on marrying existing airframes with proven and available systems to plug the MPA gap for the UK and others. The potential advantages being the sharing of the development costs, which in any case should be much more affordable than new planes and equipment. And not a UAV in sight.

Others on here will be better able than I to judge the suitability of the Herc for this role but my initial impression is that this is a pragmatic suggestion in these financially constrained times. May be the last we ever hear of it or it may have legs. Given our current MPA capability I think it would be a positive, short to medium term option, even if not the one we would ideally want to see if we had a larger budget.

LF

[leetaxor]

FYI check out https://www.dstl.gov.uk/downloads/Defence%2520Reporter_Winter%25202012.pdf page 3, "deployed sensors review".

And check out the task list for MarCE: http://www.baesystems.com/page/BAES_154726

:)

[leetaxor]

Realised I got the first link pretty fubar: https://www.dstl.gov.uk/downloads/Defence%20Reporter_Winter%202012.pdf

[betty swallox]

The US Navy in Transition: The Case of the P-8 as Part of the Attack and Defense Enterprise | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/tthe-us-navy-in-transition-the-case-of-the-p-8-as-part-of-the-attack-and-defense-enterprise/)

[PingDit]

Use a C-130 and load it with a shipping container fitted out to do either ASuW or ASW. This was one of the options looked at before the Mk4 was decided upon. Simples.

P.S. This will also be appreciated by the UK's pie makers.

[Surplus]

Use a C-130 and load it with a shipping container fitted out to do either ASuW or ASW.or even EW? :8