Droning on!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droning on!
What FLIR turret is it carrying? Can't see from that picture.
Also, does that fixed undercarriage not somewhat impede the FOV at lower elevations from a target?
I believe it uses a Wankel engine - so does it have to be supplied with Avgas?
I have previously flown fixed-wing surveillance with FLIR camera, mostly as pilot but occasionally as a stand-in sensor operator, and I'm intrigued at whether UAV operators can fly & operate them as effectively as manned aircraft.
It must be very difficult to operate them tactically without having the benefit of the wide FOV of the human eyeball scanning the ground - e.g. how does the ground operator read ground features to avoid noise-traps? How does he spot opportunity "targets" to orbit and dupe the real target into thinking they are not being watched? We used these and other tricks of the trade and it was a real team effort between pilot looking out of the window and operator looking into the screen to get the most out of the platform.
Also, does that fixed undercarriage not somewhat impede the FOV at lower elevations from a target?
I believe it uses a Wankel engine - so does it have to be supplied with Avgas?
I have previously flown fixed-wing surveillance with FLIR camera, mostly as pilot but occasionally as a stand-in sensor operator, and I'm intrigued at whether UAV operators can fly & operate them as effectively as manned aircraft.
It must be very difficult to operate them tactically without having the benefit of the wide FOV of the human eyeball scanning the ground - e.g. how does the ground operator read ground features to avoid noise-traps? How does he spot opportunity "targets" to orbit and dupe the real target into thinking they are not being watched? We used these and other tricks of the trade and it was a real team effort between pilot looking out of the window and operator looking into the screen to get the most out of the platform.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 24th Feb 2014 at 12:34.
It's going to be interesting for the operators to figure that kind of stuff out TS.
The Hermes could well have a much lower noise signature than some of the aircraft it'll replace or work along side.
The Hermes could well have a much lower noise signature than some of the aircraft it'll replace or work along side.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is much smaller than an aircraft that carries two aircrew, and likely much quieter as well - which means that a ground target is less likely to notice it, or to realize it is as close as it is if they do.
Both these will lessen his ability to realize he is the subject.
Both these will lessen his ability to realize he is the subject.
and doesn't need to land.
For the price of that program, they could have bought a similar size fleet of DA42Ms with the same turret:
- a proven off-the shelf platform which would have another 150kg or so additional payload for other sensors at full fuel/crew
- which could operate in civ airspace so be used on UK ops and self-deploy overseas
- which would run on Avtur so not need a whole supply chain dedicated to it
- which would arguably require less training for the crews (who could also come and go to other ME platforms)
- which could operate in a wider range of weather conditions
- could be more easily flown tactically and which would be less likely to accidentally fly into CBs and mountains
- which are probably as quiet as Watchkeeper when fitted with the hush kit
- would have re-sale value.
The Watchkeeper can it seems stay up for about 15 hours which is better than a small manned platform and I suppose it is more "disposable" but whether these are crucial to the army requirement I don't know.
it's a bit ironic that there is/was a DA42M at Wilson Nairobi on contract to the British Army to act as a drone emulator for BATUK. It self-deployed out there and is operated by a team of two with no other infrastructure.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 25th Feb 2014 at 05:44.
TS
The RAF and British Army already have plenty of manned ISR like DA42 - Shadow R1, Islander and Defender. HMForces did have a dabble with it for a while and I seem to remember at the time that the DA42's lack of significant payload capacity (equipment and crew) compared to the larger types ruled it out (having a long endurance with 2 crew and only an EO/IR payload was too limiting). Also, a lack of defensive aids further ruled it out when first talked about. I know things are different now, but by then it was too late.
What the Army wanted was their own capability that could be flown by the Royal Artillery to augment their AS90s, GMLRS and arty pieces. They wanted something to replace the abortion that was BAE Phoenix and got Hermes 450, which is well proven by the israelis whilst they waited for Watchkeeper (which is H450 on steroids).
By the way, flying into CBs and mountains is a little tenuous - please give the operators a bit more credit than that!
LJ
The RAF and British Army already have plenty of manned ISR like DA42 - Shadow R1, Islander and Defender. HMForces did have a dabble with it for a while and I seem to remember at the time that the DA42's lack of significant payload capacity (equipment and crew) compared to the larger types ruled it out (having a long endurance with 2 crew and only an EO/IR payload was too limiting). Also, a lack of defensive aids further ruled it out when first talked about. I know things are different now, but by then it was too late.
What the Army wanted was their own capability that could be flown by the Royal Artillery to augment their AS90s, GMLRS and arty pieces. They wanted something to replace the abortion that was BAE Phoenix and got Hermes 450, which is well proven by the israelis whilst they waited for Watchkeeper (which is H450 on steroids).
By the way, flying into CBs and mountains is a little tenuous - please give the operators a bit more credit than that!
LJ
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, the Army have a history of waiting for the RAF so integral is the key. They (the RA) are very capable and really do get the land requirement which is why an ISR platform, on hand, manned fully is just the job.
Bad England from me, I meant that the pilots can do 8hr stints then change crews without it landing - a subtle difference to a manned ac!
If it is as popular and capable as the 450, proven on operations, brilliant; all with less manning, less pomp and a lot more understanding.
Bad England from me, I meant that the pilots can do 8hr stints then change crews without it landing - a subtle difference to a manned ac!
If it is as popular and capable as the 450, proven on operations, brilliant; all with less manning, less pomp and a lot more understanding.
