New UK UAV - A glimpse of the future?

[Navaleye]

From the Beeb Here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4617588.stm)

[Avtur]

Hope it is more successful than Darkstar was.

[Data-Lynx]

It's also in the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/corax_unveiled/) and the pic looks like the one offered by Flight (http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/12/20/Navigation/177/203649/BAE+to+launch+fresh+UCAV+project.html) in December. Thought UK was running with Watchkeeper but I am often wrong.http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_UAV_Watchkeeper_WK450_lg.jpg

[sprucemoose]

The BBC and Jane's should both have read around a bit more about a month ago to find out about this:

http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2005/12/19/203649/BAE+unveils+its+UCAV+secrets.html

:cool:

[chevvron]

A model of Corax was on display at Farnborough International 2004 nearly two years ago, so it's hardly been a secret!!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Think the difference is that BAe are claiming the thing actually works... as opposed to being a model... how long ago did we see models of typhoon? And can they get the nosewheel to come down....

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Chalk and cheese, Data-lynx! AFAIK, the BAE J-UCAS clone is designed for stealthy strategic autonomous attack, off-tether. Watchkeeper is very much a limited-range tactical ISR-only asset that requires to be hand-flown.

The Watchkeeper project was de-scoped to limit the aircraft in two key areas: the requirements for Beyond-Line-Of-Sight operations and weaponisation. This has had the effect of turning what could be a quite useful asset in the joint arena into a divisional-level battlefield surveillance tool. A cynic might say that the capability was deliberately dumbed down to preclude selection of the MQ-1 Predator in the competition phase - a much more capable aircraft (higher service ceiling, faster, BLOS, Laser Ranger and Designator, 2 x AGM-114 Hellfires and a Laser Target Marker) but of course is operated by the US Air Force rather than the Army....:rolleyes:

SBG

[ChristopherRobin]

SBG - rarely have I seen so perfect an example of someone not having any idea whatsoever about what they are talking about! WATCHKEEPER is not "handflown", it is a point and click affair that will then fly within its aerodynamic and mission rules to where it is supposed to go. On the other hand, Predator requires a pilot to fly it and is actually referred to as a RPV rather than a UAV. No UAV is allowed to fly off-tether by the MOD whether it is capable of doing so or not (WATCHKEEPER is). Why? The chaps at the place near Old Sarum won't allow it to be signed off of on the MAR to do so. So CORAX would be placed under the same pathetic redtape that ensures every other country will be streets ahead of GB in the years to come!

Predator is a much more capable aircraft than the WATCHKEEPER UAV in the same way that a C-130 is more capable than a Tornado. Actually, they are designed for different things. Predator was actually included in one of the early competitors for the system, but other aspects of the bid ensured it was ruled out.

The requirement was only ever for a divisional level surveillance tool in the first place, it was never "de-scoped" to the particular effect you describe. I think that if you have any knowledge of how the basic WATCHKEEPER UAV is utilised by the country of origin (http://www.elbitsystems.com/lobmainpage.asp?id=161) then you would realise that weaponisation and BLOS capabilities are achievable. The Predator only has BLOS courtesy of US Airforce Satellites. When the RAF start launching some dedicated satellites that the British Army can use, I think that it will be considered as an (expensive) option. There are other ways to achieve BLOS, though, and much more cheaply on a system that was only ever designed to cover a divisional area. The bigger picture is provided courtesy of ASTOR, which, you may be aware is operated by the RAF!

Finally, the analogy I like to use for UAV systems is that the UAV is like the scanner for your PC. The rest of the system involves the PC itself, the software, the training for the fat-fingered chap operating it (you), and in this age of Network Centricity, t'internet is the most important part of all if cross-cueing of other assets (such as ASTOR) is to be achieved.

It seems that in your eagerness to introduce chippy interservice rivalry with your final comment, you have managed to get all the facts wrong! Oh well, never let the facts get in the way of a few sad little prejudices!:ok:

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Hmmm. Facts wrong? I don't think so. So, to respond to your points in no particular order:

With approaching 1,000 hours (mostly combat/combat support) on Predator MQ-1, I am more than aware of the piloting requirements and the nomenclature involved. You can ask any number of operators, service staffers, industry specialists and doctrinal experts and you will get the full range of answers as to what the current en-vogue terms are. The USAF prefers RPA for the MQ-1 Predator - as the system is, as you say, flown by a pilot (IRT and CPL equivalent rated) with personnel drawn from a mix of backgrounds in the right hand seat operating the sensors. The current US industry term is UAS i.e. System implying a capability rather than being airframe specific. The key to the future here is interoperability and commonality.

The Predator does NOT use specialist military satellites for its BLOS capability (which would be a horrendous waste of money) but instead buy up bandwidth on commercial systems - by far the cheaper option and works extremely well; we have no problems controlling the aircraft on operational missions eleven time zones away. Yes, there are other ways to achieve BLOS but this works. Airborne or ground rebro with the bandwidth required to operate effectively beyond the FSCL would be extremely difficult.

Given the requirements of Net Centric Warfare, the UK cannot afford to have any ISTAR asset confined and operated in such a limited fashion as is being planned for Watchkeeper. One of the key lessons from TELIC Ph III was that there were too many stovepiped systems with little or no cross-cueing or passage of information sideways in any sort of timely fashion. Off-platform cueing is essential, but your comments regarding ASTOR are factually incorrect. V(AC) Sqn is badged as an RAF unit but is very much Joint in its make up; a significant proportion of the airborne mission crews and 50% of the ground segment analysis unit will be Army personnel. Also, bear in mind that ASTOR is a strategic asset and will not always be on hand in the way you describe. Making the collections process work for you can be difficult; the Army solution is to own all the assets and not bother with tasking outside - we simply cannot afford to think this way in these financially challenging times.

I've seen the Hermes 450 in action and worked closely with the team that utilised it in the recent operation supporting the border control effort in the southern US (all open source info here). The aircraft is quite noisy - it can be heard at medium altitude - and the sensor package is adequate but nothing special. The airframe is fairly robust but endurance is limited in comparison with broadly similar systems (despite the company's hype). Yes, it was originally designed to cover a divisional area, but much more could have been achieved given the right approach. I saw an early User Requirement Doc that specified BLOS as high on the shopping list. So what happened? It came off the requirement somewhere.

I agree with you that the key to exploiting these systems is a robust high bandwidth comms infrastructure...and well, we know that's not in place yet.

I don't understand your comment comparing the MQ-1 vs Watchkeeper against C-130 vs Tornado. Both UAVs/RPAs were designed to provide persistant surveillance/reconnaissance/full motion video of sufficient quality to provide useful tac int. I'm not into willy-waving but there really aren't any areas where Watchkeeper outperforms the MQ-1, especially with the ability to swing from ISR to attack in a matter of seconds. Off-tether full motion video just does not work - and yes, it is included in the MQ-1's capabilities. The beauty of FMV is that you can select specific active/mobile targets and build up int on activity, routine, patterns and so on. This doesn't work with an off-tether pre-programmed route and it is really a U-2/Global Hawk tactic rather than a tac RPA capability. It continues to be included in the URD and capability docs because none of the procurement people have any experience in operating an FMV asset in anger.

The inter-service rivalry is alive and well - but not here. My unit is also joint and all three services have done well in a new and challenging role. My point was aimed at the Watchkeeper IPT who very firmly did NOT want Predator at any cost. Funnily enough, they have now renamed themselves the Tac UAV IPT. You can read into that what you like.

My original point was to compare a strat UCAS against the Tac nature of Watchkeeper. Wrong? I don't think so. Regarding your comments on airspace, on and off tether, I have flown missions in the CONUS from our launch airfield through busy FAA airspace to and from a USMC exercise area. This would not have been imaginable 5 years ago - never say never!

Rant over

SBG

[BEagle]

"....too many stovepiped systems"

In English, please?

I'm astonished to learn that these UAVs have to use commercial satellite time. Presumably the vendors of such block time know that their satellites are being used for offensive military operations?

[Data-Lynx]

Oh yes they do Beags, cash is a wonderful incentive in this commercial world.

[ChristopherRobin]

SBG - you can rant all you like, but I still say that you're inaccurate on many, not all, of your post. It actually sounds to me like you've gone native in JTFP!

I agree with you that UAVs can be flown thru FAA airspace. But I was referring to the MAR imposed by the MOD and which covers wherever UK UAVs fly - which is rarely in the good old US of A. - My point was that the UK is shooting itself in the foot in this regard, so I think we probably find common ground here as we do on the parlous state of net-centricity in UK forces (no network = no NEC).

As for the Tac UAV IPT being renamed, it was always called that anyway. Rather it is the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS - remember that?) IPT that has been renamed to the Strategic UAV Experiment (SUAVE) IPT - As for TUAV IPT changing the requirement, I don't have the space here to explain to you the UK Defence Acquistion Process (http://www.ams.mod.uk/ams/content/handbook/maintext.pdf), but suffice it to say that only the Director Equipment Capability (DEC ISTAR) is in the position to change the requirement which the IPT then executes.

...and the last 2 consecutive DECs have been from which service exactly?
You've guessed it - none other than the Royal Air Force.

Now let me go on record here that I have the greatest genuine respect for both of them and their staff - they have done a damn difficult job within the severest of fiscal environments. I state their service to illustrate, SBG, that there is rarely people so ill-informed as those who consider themselves to be in the front line.

You may know a lot about Predator operations; but you have demonstrated to me, and anyone else who knows the true picture, that you know precious little about UAV defence procurement. Sometimes it's hard to see the full picture when one's nose is pressed to the coalface.

Good work on JTFP btw.

[Chris Kebab]

Spotting BGs - Fascinated by you guys over there on 1115. The idea of a front-line pilot sitting in an ISO container playing FS2004 (warbird version) for three years strikes me as kind of wierd, marginally better than a tour at Wycombe I suppose. Is this counted as a flying tour? Do you get a 1000 hr patch? Not my cup of tea - UAV flying should be left to navs or air traffickers or at a push I suppose the Army! Or am I missing something....

[BEagle]

Chris Kebab - see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.PDF which decribes how these things are to be operated. Note that, in general UK airspace, the UAV 'Commander' has to be appropriately licensed and qualified to operate the things as would any real pilot. In particular, (see Chap 12 p 1) that may require him/her to hold an Instrument Rating...

Some of the pro-UAV brigade need to realise the hazards the UAV pose to the general public and it is very fortunate that the UK CAA at least is taking a very cautious approach.

[Tarnished]

The CAA (or whatever) of Pakistan were also enforcing a very cautious policy too........ that was until our friends electric decided that OBL's Deputy being invited to dinner was a fair excuse.

[Safeware]

CR,Why? The chaps at the place near Old Sarum won't allow it to be signed off of on the MAR to do so.

As you can read on the QinetiQ thread, BD can neither give, nor take away, so who exactly do you think you are talking about?

sw

[Chris Kebab]

Interesting link BEagle, thanks. Can't say it has tempted me to volunteer - would you? As I said, maybe I am missing something.

Interesting to note the CAA view and (from Spotting BG above) the US licence requirements. Not sure that is the UK military stance. I was at a briefing last year when Watchkeeper was a topic, the presenter commented that the (British) Army have stated that none of the Watchkeeper crews will be trained pilots nor are they ever to be refered to as pilots. This is apparently on the grounds that if they were they would all want flying suits, a set of wings and receive flying pay. It sounded so comical it is probably true. Bit worrying if they ever plan to take these outside of the SPTA or Otterburn.

ChristopherR - re Safeware's point, have Boscombe ever cleared a UAV, or been given one to clear?

[BEagle]

If Watchkeeper is operated other than as a Group 1 or 2 device in UK airspace, then the AAC (Army Aeromodel Club) will most definitely need to revise their ideas:

Group 1
Those intended to be flown in permanent or temporarily segregated airspace
normally a Danger Area) over an unpopulated surface (normally the sea following clear range' procedure).

Group 2
Those intended to be flown in permanent or temporarily segregated airspace
normally a Danger Area) over a surface that may be permanently or temporarily inhabited by humans.

[ChristopherRobin]

Safeware - sorry - I was referring to D Flying - who advise the people who do sign off the MAR (I think - bit hazy here, but MAR is not my area of expertise). And they have been, and continue to be, involved in advising the WATCHKEEPER programme and those who will sign it off in the DPA and MOD main building.

Beagle - sorry to disappoint, but the AAC won't be flying WATCHKEEPER, rather it will be the Royal Artillery - who currently fly the PHOENIX UAV - that will operate the new system (AAC advise on airworthiness matters).

I agree that there are and will be problems with the rules that you outline. I understand that overcoming such obstacles is up to the MOD and beyond the scope of the WATCHKEEPER budget itself.

[Safeware]

CR,

Thanks. I knew who you were talking about, but wanted to make sure everyone else knew you weren't talking about the wrong people.

sw

[Chris Kebab]

Cripes BEagle it gets worse eh? Through class G airspace to mix it with a UAV flown by a gunner? Are the GA community aware of this?

Thank god the CAA and whoever these guys in the MOD who look after this sort of stuff seem to be adopting a cautious approach until they are better understood. Until they are, I presume (hope) they are limited to danger areas. Have seen UAVs operating out in theatre where they appear (supported by our Predator mate above) to do a good job - if you ask me that's where they should stay for now.