Unmanned drones likely to take over Nimrod spy duties
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
As we have no track record for quantity over quality I suspect the range of systems will not happen; would it be cheaper?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..I suspect the range of systems will not happen; would it be cheaper?
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Other goods were of course installed in their stead, particularly on the comms fits.
ORAC
I suspect the key element in your article appears in the first paragraph
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?
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
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Whether this results in an affordable, certificated and acceptable system is a different matter
Predator B Guardian anyone?
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/...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...
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/...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...
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 9th Dec 2012 at 09:06.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Duncan, I think you know what I am getting at, like the ability to minimise time to datum etc.
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.
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.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 10th Dec 2012 at 06:20. Reason: Fat fingers and a small keyboard