PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18th Dec 2012, 08:38   #101 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 74
LJ,

Fantastic link and a brilliant idea for a 9 year old!
Donna K Babbs is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 12:24   #102 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 450
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.

Last edited by Surplus; 18th Dec 2012 at 12:33.
Surplus is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 13:11   #103 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 446
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..!

Last edited by betty swallox; 18th Dec 2012 at 13:11.
betty swallox is online now   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 14:03   #104 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pathfinder Country
Posts: 314
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'.
aw ditor is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 14:51   #105 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 496
From the Government Response to the HoC Select Ctee Report on Future Maritime Surveillance... (separate thread)

Quote:
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..!
Party Animal is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 16:05   #106 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 286
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.
Phoney Tony is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 18:55   #107 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 2,534
Jamming earthstations with parabolic antenna on friendly turf isn't easy because we have nasty chaps like these ready to sort the problem out...



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"!

LJ
Leon Jabachjabicz is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 20:10   #108 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,678
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.
Roland Pulfrew is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 20:20   #109 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 2,534
Quote:
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
Leon Jabachjabicz is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 20:31   #110 (permalink)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 71
Posts: 10,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by betty swallox View Post
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?
Pontius Navigator is online now   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 20:49   #111 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,059
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.




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

Last edited by Biggus; 18th Dec 2012 at 20:52.
Biggus is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 21:19   #112 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Age: 96
Posts: 248
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?
Backwards PLT is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 22:14   #113 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 2,534
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?

LJ out
Leon Jabachjabicz is offline   Reply
Old 18th Dec 2012, 22:29   #114 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
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 Thanks

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

Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 18th Dec 2012 at 22:35.
Roland Pulfrew is offline   Reply
Old 19th Dec 2012, 00:11   #115 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 446
I give up.....
betty swallox is online now   Reply
Old 19th Dec 2012, 07:39   #116 (permalink)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 71
Posts: 10,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz View Post
why haven't the RN either planned for it or taken it over in the past?
Oh they tried. Many times.
Pontius Navigator is online now   Reply
Old 19th Dec 2012, 07:51   #117 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 496
Quote:
I do agree a force mix of manned and unmanned is the best way forward.

Quote:
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,

Quote:
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
Party Animal is offline   Reply
Old 19th Dec 2012, 08:04   #118 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: gla
Posts: 33
Quote:
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.

Last edited by GIATT; 19th Dec 2012 at 08:05.
GIATT is offline   Reply
Old 28th Dec 2012, 20:10   #119 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 65
Posts: 124
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

LF
.
Lowe Flieger is offline   Reply
Old 28th Dec 2012, 21:34   #120 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: various locales
Posts: 1,428
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
Green Flash is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 17:45.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network