RAF buys spy planes to monitor enemies from the sky
 

Article on the Daily Telegraph website

Made in Canada? Not quite methinks. IIANM, the product is the Diamond Airborne Sensing DA-42 MPP (Multi-Purpose Platform). Built in Austria? But Aurora Flight Sciences (based in US, but also operating in Ontario??) are now appointed as a sales agent.

Doesn't it have German engines and didn't the engine manufacturer go bust recently?

Correct. Diamond uses the Thielert Aircraft Engines Centurion diesel. TAE ran into financial problems earlier in the year, but resumed production in June following "intensive negotiations with creditor banks and suppliers". I think they are still technically insolvent, but they are definitely supplying engines.

Diamond was also investigating an AVGAS engined variant for the US market. Not sure where that went.

Looking at the details of the Da42 MPP ((see .pdf file) and the potential eighteen hour missions, one cannot help but hope that the crew of four are very good friends :eek: (but they may not be by the time they land...)

Diamond DA42 MPP
 

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jp...p/da42 mpp.jpg

I heard a while ago that the CEO of Diamond Aircraft had mentioned publically that two Diamond DA42 MPPs had been ordered by the UK MOD. These two aircraft appeared on the UK civil register as G-DOSA and G-DOSB and are now on the military register as ZA 179 and ZA 180 respectively. I understand both aircraft are currently as Boscombe Down. There is also a third aircraft at the Diamond factory (G-DOSC) that may possibly be held as an optional purchase by the MOD.

I believe the basic fit will include a day/night gyro-stabilised electro-optical sensor, a Scotty Satcom together with various radios and data links. Most likely the aircraft will operate with a crew of two with much of the data gathered interpreted in near real time on the ground.

The fully equipped DA42 MPP can operate in all weather conditions and at a wide range of speeds, from a minimum of 75 kts to a maximum of 152 kts (IAS). In monitoring mode the aircraft can fly for up to 12.5 hours without refuelling. The maximum range at 50% power setting is more than 1350 nm. The fully equipped DA42 MPP can operate in all weather conditions and at a wide range of speeds, from a minimum of 75 kts to a maximum of 152 kts (IAS). In monitoring mode the aircraft can fly for up to 12,5 hours without refuelling. The maximum range at 50% power setting is more than 1350 nm.

Israel’s Aeronautics company are already marketing an unmanned version of the DA 42, named the Dominator 2 and Diamond aim to deliver anywhere between 20 – 50 DA42 MPP’s next year. If the MOD order proves to be a success, I imagine further orders will soon follow.

Heimdall

Diamond have a dedicated DA42MPP operation, Diamond Airborne Sensing, who seem to be supplying aircraft (with provision for various sensor fits) to a variety of companies who then produce ISTAR versions. They may also market a kitted out aircraft for direct sale.

DIAMOND and Rheinmetall Defence Electronics have developed the OPALE (Optional Piloted Aerial Long Endurance) platform, IAI offer the Dominator UAV version, while Aurora and DO Systems are also offering DA42MPP ISTAR variants.

When I spoke to DO Systems (about three weeks ago), they were tight-lipped and unwilling to discuss it "at this stage" but seemed keen to talk again in a few months. They acknowledged a UK requirement (which they said was still being refined and defined). They would not discuss the requirement, or the proposed equipment fit of their DA42MPP but contrasted it with the OPALE, which they described as having a 'higher level integration'. They did not confirm or deny whether their's would be optionally manned, and certainly made no mention of providing dedicated drones.

I approached DO Systems after hearing that there was an order going through for six DA42MPPs, which were to be fitted out by DO Systems, painted at Thruxton by Edmonsons and perhaps crewed by Tony Buckingham or www.helicrew.co.uk - WELCOME and after becoming aware that there are FIVE further UK military serials allocated to DA42s (in addition to '179 and 180). These comprise another ZA and four ZJs. These presumably include G-DOSC.

Open source material on the DO Systems version suggest that it will be day/night single pilot IFR certified, and will have "A high specification Gyro-Stabilised Electro-Optic and Thermal infra-red surveillance camera such as the Flir Safire III and Westcam MX15 fitted for sustained area or specific target surveillance. Should it be desired HD (High Definition) digital output is now available. A surface mapping radar can also be bore-sighted to the camera, this can prove a great asset when used in the nautical environment. All these sensors allow quality data gathering at discreet stand off distances. Numerous other sensors can also be fitted to the aircraft.

Data linking
Microwave (CoFDM) transmission of secure encrypted video data can be simultaneously transmitted to hand held ground receivers, and to base stations up to 100 Km away. Likewise encrypted data transfer over satcom (Including video streaming) allows worldwide receipt of time critical surveillance information."

CTRL+F does not find the word "galley" anywhere. :suspect:

Exactly what I suggested several months ago - maybe MOD reads Pprune:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...es-nimrod.html

What lucky, lucky, lucky fellows are going to get to fly a light piston a/c hot, high and for 18 hours at a time? They must have friends in high places!

I wonder if these will end up carrying the Thales LMM missile..?

Well hopefully Diamond get their own (Austro) engine up and running soon so that they can get back on track with making a living, the Theilert engine/drivetrain is a joke, something like 300 hours before the reduction gearbox needs to be replaced (if I remember correctly).

18hrs in a plastic pig - no thanks!

The U2/TR1 mission is about 10-12hrs, they use a catheter type device and have astronaut style food - and they are next to useless for the next day after a mission. If we are really considering this for 18hrs then the UAV option has got to be the only way. Even at 12hrs the crew will be knackered and their performance will drop right off after 8hrs or so.

If we're considering less than 8hrs then why not go for something bigger like a KA-350 or Islander, if you know what I mean ;) Or buy more Reapers with weapons' clearances and 8hrs+++ on station? Or a Zephyr derivative with 3 day's+ endurance?

I can't understand what this GA tourer will bring to an already crowded party???!

PS This is a Zephyr and its a British bit of kit...

http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/up..._aiplane_1.jpg

LJ

Ah Zephyr, 61K ft+ Days/weeks/months endurance and all on less power than a Nimjets galley uses. Crew still eats well though.

From a public forum:

UK MOD Airspace Change Proposal for Unmanned Aircraft

Stakeholder Consultation
The use of unmanned aircraft by UK Armed Forces is rapidly growing as a result of their proven success in recent conflicts. As a result, the Ministry of Defence is enhancing its current capability by procuring a ‘new generation’ of unmanned aircraft.

Reasons for the change
Current UK policy specifies that unmanned aircraft activity beyond line of sight must be conducted within a Danger Area or other segregated airspace. The Ministry of Defence already conducts routine flights of its current unmanned aircraft in the segregated airspace above Salisbury Plain; however, this airspace alone is insufficient to accommodate the full training requirements of the unmanned aircraft currently being procured. This proposal seeks to establish additional segregated airspace, in the form of a Danger Area, to overcome this shortfall.

Affected Areas
The proposed new airspace, which has a base level of approximately 8,000 ft, is bounded between Warminster, Andover, Stockbridge and Shaftesbury and is bordered by the existing Salisbury Plain Danger Areas.

Could be a coincidence, but I doubt it. Who would want to spend more than a few 'hours building' moments in one of those

Airborne Control for your UCAV
 

Maybe the light twin is the GCS (Ground Station - which is actually airborne!) for your RAF's MQ-9, which I understand uses Ku Satellite tech link to fly from a remote location. If your GCS was inside an aircraft at (say) 15000, and your Reaper UCAV was at (say) 15000 also, you would have a Line of Sight 'Tether' over the entire AOR, and therefore you would not need the Ku at all, nor its associated infrastructure, .....or is this dreaming.

Hope they've got the problems with the engines and FADEC sorted. :bored:

From memory a rather substantial civilian FTO had to swop their fleet of fancy new Twin Stars for an ageing Beech Duchess fleet!! :E (Don't know if they've swopped back yet or not).

It doesn't find the word "toilet" either. Hope everyone remembers to go before they go or they'll be feet deep by the time they get back:eek:

Hardly the best aeroplane for anywhere such as Iraq or Afghanistan then....

Did you have anything more suitable than a Vulcan pee-tube in the cockpit with you for your 7 hour flights?

If the cockpit gets as hot as you suggest, presumably there will be a need for a lot of water to keep the crew hydrated for 12 hours? Where will that be kept - and how heavy will it be?

The use of such lightplanes in operational theatres is not as simple as the beancounters would appear to understand.

Seconds Out!
 

Oh oh, another Beags -v- brandnew flame fest is in the offing... :eek:
(cf Falklands Airbridge thread)

Beags - calm, calm, deep breaths, there - thats better. Now go for it :}

I'm just wondering where the assumption comes from regarding hot & high.

I shall ignore the fatuous comments made by others.

FW ISTAR clearly requires suitable platforms, not those driven by cost. Whereas the Diamond aeroplane is eminently suitable for certain operations, the aircraft I looked around at ILA seemed rather 'delicate' and I'm not convinced that it would stand up to the rigours of military use without substantial modification. It didn't seem adequately 'soldier proof' - that is NOT a derogatory term, it merely means that it must be tough enough to stand up to high usage by military users, no matter of which hue their uniform, rather than civilian owners. In the same way that the O-2 was rather more robust than the Cessna 337 on which it was based.

Who will fly it? Does that matter? The more important point being that whoever flies and works in it must, as has been said, have a full and sympathetic understanding of the needs of the operational end-user. And be in a suitable condition to do so after extended airborne periods.

Lurking123, my thoughts as well......

More likely big lazy orbits over Brum, Bradford etc.:suspect:

I wonder if the US have any OV-10 Broncos that they could resurrect and sell us?

As an aside, I have also seen that the "Bug Eyed" Optica observation aircraft is supposed to be back in production soon.

If you Google "BAE Mantis" you will see the project that is getting the most impetus to replace the Reaper.

There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks (perhaps someone who knows a bit more will explain why), hence why the UK is shifting to a manned platform like the DA42 as well as continued use of Reapers, etc. The US is also looking to boost its manned ISR capabilities for Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment (requirement for 21 aircraft) with reports suggesting that aircraft like the Seabird SB7L-360 Seeker (as already operated by the Iraqi Air Force) and the Schweizer RU-38 are possible in addition to buying 30 C-12 aircraft.

DefenseLink News Article: More Intel, Surveillance, Recon Assets Set for Central Command

http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/...ai082004a1.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...38a-pic2-s.jpg

CAA don't want them in UK airspace.

They must be afraid of the future of Civil Aviation. I would imagine that within the lifetime of many, the potential for robotic airliners flying GPS routes to an ILS or similar landing must be feasable. In fact within the ability of todays technology and that the future will simply enhance safety and accuracy of such devices. Emergencies could be an issue but from what I have seen there is very little that todays airliner pilot can do anyway due to redundancy of systems already included in the designs of aircraft.

Technology will do to pilots what Garmin did to navigators.

I agree Tigermate, but we're talking of today rather than some time in the future.

I pointed to that in an previous thread on the Mi-17 when the DA42s appearing on the military register was discussed before this article was published, stating that the DA42 would be able to fly anywhere over the UK, whereas a UAV cannot. But that would base the assumption that these were purely for use for a bit of "recreational" flying over downtown Bradford or where ever, rather than overseas. My first assumption was yep these are for use over the UK or even for testing purposes (maybe as part of work to integrate UAVs over British airspace or something like that), but seeing as the Americans are even looking at manned ISR aircraft similar to the DA42 specifically for Afghanistan and Iraq, it becomes obvious that there has been a sudden shift back towards fairly inexpensive manned ISR air assets whereas in recent months/years there was a gradual move towards UAVs in this role.

Cirrus F - You obviously have close links to the manufacturer as well as absolutely no idea about military aircraft operations, particularly ISTAR. Flying in Afghanistan is not like a flying club in the UK.

Lets start with some basics - the glossy brochure and website are very pretty but very vague and have some dubious claims. Alarm bells ringing (I've read lots of similar BAE brochures). What actually is the endurance with the UK operational fit, including payload/sensors, DAS etc, operating from Kandahar with an acceptable fuel reserve. I assume it does have DAS because flying around at 10,000'-15000' AMSL in Afghanistan is a very bad idea without one. I assume it can fit the extended range tanks as well as the full mission kit/crew, whilst giving satisfactory performance. How noisy is it? Twin props not good for this.

Manufacturer quoted running costs are a world away from real UK MOD running costs, even if the MOD started a flying club in Middle Wallop. Add lots more if you are in Afghanistan, with some avionics involved, so be careful with the Islander comparisons.

Intrigued by the sat link - as there is no room for a dish (unless you removed the crew) it must be very limited, certainly not FMV. Also, if it isn't sensitive where does the EO/IR system come from?

I think the real answer is that commanders want ISR now (or at least in the next 12 months) and don't care where it comes from. So anyone who pushes a "cheap" and instant solution gets a contract - UAV manufacturers are already working flat out. I think manned aircraft will be doing ISTAR for a good while yet.

I don't think that anyone would suggest taking a squaddie from a ground unit and putting him in this role for a few months (or do you mean for that day?) whilst his regiment are on the ground. You need specifically trained personnel, if you want them to be any good. Or do you want to take 10 guys from every regiment in the country and train them and keep them trained? Secondly it would produce a very inflexible system, with personnel focused solely on their unit. Of course if the aircraft is only a company level asset then it might be ok (see desert hawk) - but it then becomes an extremely expensive and inflexible piece of kit for the JFC. How about an aircraft operated by people from all services so that each can apply their expertise to the situation where required? What a weird idea, it'll never catch on.

And I think the 1930s view of RAF Aircrew that some have pushed are actually pretty hilarious. Grow up, or better, go talk to the Harrier guys and tell them your views to their face if you ever visit Afghanistan.

Quote:

I'd hazard a guess that a ground-patrol could use that video more effectively in real-time if they can coordinate with an operator directly overhead who has his eyes scanning the ground as well as the video-images, rather than trying to coordinate with an operator in Arizona who can only see the video-images.


I thought that Arizona (Read NEVADA),crews and mission cells flying MQ-1/9 see video and talk directly to the lads in the field (who are seeing the SAME picture - ROVER) - AND also talk to the OPs Dept of the soldiers Headquarters (who are also seeing the pictures) AND can talk to London, Doha, Washington, Langley, (insert any Agency) - AND they too see the video......

Why do all these external agencies need to see the video? - they do not neceissarily, but when they need to , the curent infrastructure copes, or so a friend in the community tells me (where is my Omega!)..

....regardless, I also thought that the UAV flown remotely DOES talk to the soldier just like ANY other aircraft does... and I also thought that the air vehicles DO have 'Normal' radios (AND Qualified Service Pilots).

LJR,

Correct, on many counts. There is alot of bollocks-spouting going on in here from people who don't know what they are talking about.

Idiotic statement. Ask the guys out there on the ground now who they prefer working with and who they are all asking for. Having properly trained, qualified and professional aircrew (from any service) manning a system DOES make a difference.

No they are not. The vast majority of a Reaper AV's cost is in the sensor suite - hence your plastic-pig twin isn't going to offer you much savings - unless you want a crap sensor. Oh, and it doesn't carry weapons, either - so not much good in a TST situation, then.

Utter twaddle, I'm afraid. You clearly have no idea about how this all works. What on earth makes you think that just because we are light-blue, and aircrew, we have no idea what the guys on the ground want? Besides, as has already been pointed out, Reapers are operated by crews from ALL 3 services. The advantage of a remotely operated system is that you can drag whoever you want into the 'cockpit'. Or phone them. Or email / IM them. Try doing THAT in your plastic pig. Crews can swap out at will during the mission, so in general should always be rested and alert. And they're not getting shot at....1 less thing to worry about, more capacity to devote to the mission. Also, smaller theatre footprint (personnel-wise), near-zero risk to human life, etc etc.....

You can select whatever zoom level you require. You can zoom right out to get exactly the same FOV as you would have with the naked eye - except you have the advantage of being able to look around 360 deg, and directly below - and with a number of different sensors. Virtually all UAV sensors have this capability - it is clear you have little or no knowledge of UAV capabilities.

And frankly, ANYONE considering operating an aircraft like this in a hot, high, threat environment wants their head examining. Small, slow, low, no DAS, no air con......

Having spent most of my military time training for and operating on the wrong side of the FEBA, I'm in full agreement with Inquistor. Put up this kind of aircraft and they'll need the services of CSAR far too often, IMHO. UAVs are the way forward.

Some things don't change - you get what you pay for in this world is one of them.

The MoD buying them does not make them good, by default though. It just means that someone thought they were good. They've not actually been tried and tested in a true operational environment. Buying two with options for more, at that price, is small change, even in the cash-strapped MoD.

I well remember someone I knew well who had an MoD procurement budget. Every late Feb/early March he'd be looking around for things to buy, so he could use all his budget. He knew only too well that any underspend would result in a lower figure for the following FY.

The MoD spends money for lots of reasons, and sometimes they happen to get something the sailors/soldiers/airmen actually need.

I expect that the person who bought the Mk3 Chinooks thought he knew a lot about the requirement, too, don't you? And then there's FRES, and then there's..

"Obviously somebody higher up in the MOD than you agrees with me."

somebody at the MOD bought Bowman

Better off with Nokia and Map.

'Broken' £2.4bn radio put troops' lives in danger - Telegraph

"An infantry commander in Helmand described the system, the second most expensive piece of equipment in British military history after the RAF's Eurofighter, as "astonishingly bad".

The radio's coverage sometimes does not extend from one side of a base to the other, while a shortage of batteries means soldiers are being ordered to turn off radios until they come under attack.

The Bowman communication system was supposed to revolutionise command and control in the Army. Its encryption software allowed commanders to talk securely for the first time without the need to encode messages. But in Afghanistan Bowman has been written off as a failure by many senior officers.

Lt Col Nick Borton, the commanding officer of the 5th battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (5 Scots) told Gen Sir David Richards, the Army's second most senior officer, that Bowman "was a broken system"."

"The MOD wouldn't have gambled even a small amount of money if they didn't think there was a pretty good chance of succeeding."

ROTFPMSL!

Nimrod AEW3