PDA

View Full Version : UAV for the new OPV's?



Banner
22nd July 2010, 16:56
Hi All,

Would anyone care to speculate as to what UAV will be used on the new OPV's when they arrive in a few years time?

I believe the specs call for the new ships to be "UAV capable" and at 90M I'd believe there should be plenty of space aft to accomodate the neccesary landing area/equipment etc.

Personally I only have a limited knowledge of such vehicles but id be interested to see/hear peoples thought's on such an important element of the new Patrol vessels.

I assume something like the Firescout http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/firescout/ is far too advanced for our needs (Id be amazed despite desires for future proofing if we ever choose a weapons capable UAV) but Google didn't really throw up too many other alternatives.

Anyone care to share thoughts?

Thanks in advance

DeV
22nd July 2010, 18:55
The tender document states the current naval UAV... but no one on the board seems to know what it is.

easyrider
22nd July 2010, 19:26
As I mentioned on another thread, the German Navy will be equipping each of their K-130 corvettes (~90m) with two Schiebel Camcopters.

http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/3865_02.jpg

http://www.marinebuzz.com/marinebuzzuploads/ScheibelCamcoptercompletesseatrials_11432/camcopter_s100_1.jpg

paul g
25th July 2010, 15:04
The tender document states the current naval UAV... but no one on the board seems to know what it is.

it actually states

Flight Deck UAV ops only, deploying current naval UAV’s with redundancy for medium size VTOL tactical UAV


which can be read as those naval UAV's currently on the market as well as larger ones

DeV
25th July 2010, 15:30
To me it reads as UAVs currently inservice with the NS as there already is medium size tactical UAVs on the market.

Open to correction.

Jetjock
25th July 2010, 15:57
Current Naval UAV's as in Naval UAV's currently available. There are no current Irish NS UAV's. If there were specific data re size and type would have been provided. The only current UAV in DF service is the prone to being homesick Orbiter.

Gunner75
25th July 2010, 23:43
Thats what you get when you strap a camcorder and a Tom Tom SatNav to a homing pigeon. :-D

Tadpole
5th September 2010, 22:37
Actually its like every other computerised system:

S**T in, S**T out.:-D

Dogwatch
22nd June 2011, 13:36
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-wuDzwGI_oGw/Sp5u8ZX_rfI/AAAAAAAAN-I/6yy4tzkCT-w/CAMCOPTER-S-100-1.jpg

Schiebel is extremely pleased to announce that it has partnered with French shipbuilder DCNS for the purpose of deploying its unrivalled and in-production CAMCOPTER® S-100 Unmanned Air System (UAS) onboard their new Gowind class of OPV (Offshore Patrol Vessel), L ADROIT which was launched in May.

The Gowind Class L'ADROIT, previously known as Hermes, has been designed to operate, amongst other capabilities, a UAS, and by installing the appropriate cabling and supporting equipment during build, has been fitted out to operate the maritime proven CAMCOPTER® S-100 from day one.

The ship will be used primarily to conduct maritime surveillance and reconnaissance missions as well as anti-piracy and anti smuggling operations and is believed to be the first vessel ever to be designed and built to purposely carry a UAS.

http://www.schiebel.net/AcmsFile/1147/0/550/2011_06_20_CAMCOPTER_S-100_INTEGRATION_INTO_DCNS_N.pdf

Jetjock
22nd June 2011, 14:07
We were just discussing that aircraft on the OPV thread two days ago. Seems to be growing very popular for Naval ops. Ironically developed in a landlocked country.

warthog
15th November 2011, 16:14
I wonder could they be developed to launch a life raft? could be very useful secondary role for it
giving time for either a vessel to steam to a scene or for a SAR chopper to make it on scene

hptmurphy
15th November 2011, 17:58
I wonder could they be developed to launch a life raft? could be very useful secondary role for it
giving time for either a vessel to steam to a scene or for a SAR chopper to make it on scene

Ever try lifting a life raft?

the scale of the machine we are talking about is just above model aeroplane scale..look at the Armys and ask what could it carry.....?

warthog
15th November 2011, 23:42
it's got a 100lb payload,it seems that there is a good number of 6 man rafts weighing in between 60-90lb available?

Goldie fish
15th November 2011, 23:44
it's got a 100lb payload,it seems that there is a good number of 6 man rafts weighing in between 60-90lb available?

What weight/capacity are the rafts dropped from the CASA?

RoyalGreenJacket
15th November 2011, 23:46
I wonder could they be developed to launch a life raft? could be very useful secondary role for it
giving time for either a vessel to steam to a scene or for a SAR chopper to make it on scene..............it's got a 100lb payload,it seems that there is a good number of 6 man rafts weighing in between 60-90lb available?

seems a pretty decent idea warthog, i didn't realise they had such lift capacity.

would be a decent asset to have, but what is their range?

i guess the victims would need to be identified first by another air asset for this to work, otherwise the life raft would be deployed from the local vessel.

Tadpole
16th November 2011, 11:07
Its certainly an idea but not really feasible for this size of UAV. Remember that the UAVs payload must also contain its fuel and EO/IR payload. Therefore if you have a 60lb liferaft and a 20lb EO/IR payload in the machine then its only got 20lbs of fuel. Not sure what its RoA with 20lbs of fuel would be but its likely the vessel itself wouldn't be to far away.
Also of concern is the actual bulk of the liferaft. It wont fit under the aircraft unless the legs are extended, possibly effecting its landing characteristics. Mounting on either side would cause huge CoG issues.

The smallest raft I have seen was a canister packed air droppable 2 person liferaft designed for mounting on the wing of the Cessna 337. Not sure if they are still in production but this system would certainly work but it really is in the domain of full scale aircraft sized machines.

hptmurphy
16th November 2011, 14:07
Given the above mentioned factors if a Naval vessel is not within range of dropping a Rhib and people are in the water without immersion gear in reasonably rough weather, its too late any way.

Anything greater thatn about 10 or fifteen miuntes and people won't even have the strenght to climb in to rafts.

How would UAVs be effected by weather condition, wind rain, poor vis etc.?

Goldie fish
13th January 2012, 01:16
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WozyI_Cq4E0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Saab this time.

RoyalGreenJacket
13th January 2012, 01:26
whatever they buy - i reckon they'll need to buy quite a few extra as i can't see them always returning back to ship safely.

Goldie fish
13th January 2012, 01:39
Don't go there :)

Jetjock
13th January 2012, 01:45
Don't go there :)

A pity the UAV's in Chad were not told the same in relation to the Curragh...

RoyalGreenJacket
13th January 2012, 02:03
Don't go there :)


A pity the UAV's in Chad were not told the same in relation to the Curragh...

to be fair - it happens to the best of them:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tPqqxsYkdlc/TuHWVyw2tSI/AAAAAAAAGHY/wVILEC_kW4E/s1600/he+Iranian+Revolutionary+Guards+show+display+US+RQ-170+Sentinel+drone+Tehran+r+this+week%252C+as+an+u nidentified+colonel%252C+right%252C+talks+to+the+c hief+of+the+aerospace+division+of+Iran%2527s+Revol utionary+Guards%252C+Gen.+Amir+Ali+Hajiz.jpg

hptmurphy
13th January 2012, 02:11
whatever they buy - i reckon they'll need to buy quite a few extra as i can't see them always returning back to ship safely.

Its a reality , ever why RC model fliers operate from big fields as opposed to back gardens????

Concept doesn't differ much!!!

Goldie fish
13th June 2012, 17:27
A first step?


Contract in Detail: -
Refurbishment & Refit of Naval Service Rotary Wing Aerial Targets

3.1 Introduction

In 2003 the Naval Service procured a small fleet of remote control rotary wing aerial targets (Ornith S2500). Recreational model aircraft enthusiasts usually fly this type of aircraft, however the Naval Service intended to employ these relatively inexpensive aircraft for target tracking drills and deploy them as disposable targets. The program met with limited success because pilots found the aircraft’s lack of stability interfered with tactical objectives. Moreover, since few personnel attained competency, upkeep of an operational pilot corps proved burdensome.

Remote control helicopter technology has progressed significantly since 2003. Autopilots reduce the complexities of unit operation. Systems can be retrofitted and when accompanied by ground control software, transform recreational model helicopters into autonomous platforms. Advances in wireless network technology and camera technology have led to widespread availability of telemetry and audio-video transceiver devices.

3.2 Concept
The Naval Service, as an initial step towards developing an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) knowledge base, is interested in retro-fitting its existing rotary wing target fleet with commercial off-the-shelf autopilot systems and associated ground station, in order to produce a scale model UAV fleet. These will have NO operational role in the NS but will be used as a platform for the NS to explore the utility of operational rotary wing UAVs in future. They will also resume their role in NS gunnery training.

This concept incorporates a desire to preserve and re-utilise the existing NS assets (the rotary wing targets and and ancillary equipments) and simultaneously progress the in-house knowledge base for UAV operations. Consequently it is a requirement of the project that the successful tender utilises the existing assets in the manner described insofar as current technology and budgets allows and avoids the purchase of additional airframes.

3.3 Desired applications
The retrofitted rotary wing targets will be capable of:
a. The revival of the original gunnery support program. The autopilot equipped targets, used in conjunction with ground station software, will circumvent the difficulties that handicapped the original project and permit operation by Operational Training Centre personnel for Anti Aircraft training drills and demonstrations in the area of the Operational Training Centre on the Naval Base Haulbowline.
b. Sensor development. The retro fitted helicopters will perform as a test-bed for sensor development or sensor evaluation allowing Naval Service to provide a practical support to partners in IMERC.
c. Informing any future training program for future UAV developments in the NS.

3.4 Proposal
The successful tender will deliver a program that will:
a. Provide the ideal autopilot system, parameters to include cost, performance, the potential for systems to be adapted for a range of roles, and technical support.
b. Retro-fit TWO rotary wing targets with hardware and commission as scale model UAVs including ground-station.
c. Provide the software and hardware required to achieve the objectives.
d. Provide an initial basic payload day-light TV sensor allowing recording, and ideally, transmission of images from the helo (feasibility, budget and technology may be discussed further with POC)
e. Conduct a flight test program in order to establish the scale model UAV’s limitations and determine its suitability for the proposed roles.
f. Deliver a basic operator training and maintenance programme to a class of not less than three NS operators, the proposed training syllabus to be submitted as part of the tender. Tenderers should specify the maximum number of places available on the training course.
g. Document the all above work in the form of a detailed project file to be handed over on completion of the project to the NS point of contact.

3.5 Further Specific Requirements
a. Selected autopilot equipment should be transferable between airframes giving a redundancy capability.
b. Repair & retrofit element of this project should not take longer than four (4) months.
c. Some minor repairs will be required to re-commission the existing fleet for this purpose. The successful tender will include the repair of the existing fleet and will undertake to preserve and if necessary repair the assets during the course of the project. The fleet may be viewed at the Naval Base Haulbowline Operational Training Centre by appointment.
d. Alterations to the existing equipment to retro fit will be permitted with approval of NS POC.

3.6 Supplied by the Naval Service
The NS will supply the following:
a. Ornith model helos x 5 and ancillary equipment, tools and spares
b. Secure equipment storage location
c. Work space (subject to permission from NS authorities and security clearance of contractor)
d. Briefing/conference facilities
e. Classroom facilities for delivery of contracted training
f. Point of Contact

3.7 Timescale
Various elements of this tender will be delivered in 2012 & 2013. The following is the expected delivery timescale. As specified in Section 3.5b above, the crucial elements of the project should NOT take longer than four (4) months:
2012:
a. Provide the ideal autopilot system, parameters to include cost, performance, the potential for systems to be adapted for a range of roles, and technical support.
b. Retro-fit TWO NS rotary wing targets with hardware and commission as scale model UAVs including ground-station.
c. Repair of the existing fleet and preservation/ repair of the assets during the project.
d. Provision of all software and hardware required to achieve the objectives.
e. Provision of an initial basic payload day-light TV sensor allowing recording, and ideally, transmission of images from the helo (feasibility, budget and technology may be discussed further with POC).
f. Conduct of a flight test program in order to establish the scale model UAV’s limitations and determine its suitability for the proposed roles.
g. Conduct of a flight test program in order to establish the scale model UAV’s limitations and determine its suitability for the proposed roles.
2013:
a. Provision of syllabus and delivery of a basic operator training and maintenance programme to a class of not less than three NS operators.
b. Documentation of all work in the form of a detailed project file to be handed over on completion of the project to the NS point of contact.


From etenders.

Herald
14th June 2012, 14:55
seems to be similar to one of these.
http://www.rctube.eu/download/rc/instruction/manuals/Robbe%20Taurus%2050.pdf

Goldie fish
14th June 2012, 15:57
I don't think the R/c heli is the important bit, it's the creation of a suitable auto-pilot operating system, for ease of use.

Tadpole
14th June 2012, 16:03
Interesting that the platform doesn't appear to be in production any more, although many similar ones are. Might have been more prudent to build on a similar low cost COTS platform to give some future proofing. No point building on a COTS platform that's no longer COTS. After all, a new platform of similar style will be minimal cost versus the autopilot etc that is being bought anyway.

Goldie fish
14th June 2012, 16:08
I'm sure that an autopilot for one could easily be adapted for use in another. It's just a matter of having the right input channels surely?
Pitch/yaw/drag/lift etc...

pym
14th June 2012, 16:53
There are a lot of low cost autopilot systems coming on stream now for RC aircraft - like the ArduPilot/Arduino set up.

They can be easily adapted for different RC aircraft so there's no problem developing a system for this out of production platform - you're promptly going to be blowing them out of the sky anyway and the same systems and knowledge can be adapted for more recent platforms.

This seems like an ideal project for college teams to work on & gain experience.

morpheus
14th June 2012, 17:02
right up MERC3's alley.

pym
14th June 2012, 17:08
Sorry just saw the mention of optics etc, still makes sense to use existing aircraft for the initial steps

Here's a video from an RC aircraft over NYC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cSxEqKQ78#!

Would be easy in adapting an existing RC plane and use it for topcover on boarding missions, simple to launch from the extended deck on the P60's and just a net to capture it on landing.

Tadpole
15th June 2012, 01:39
Makes sense using an existing system, if that systems components can be supported in the near future ie engines, gearing, blades, tail rotors, body structure. If they cannot then regardless of the AP system its a dead duck.

Also the ArduPilot/Arduino and most other low cost systems are open source autopliots and not cleared for use in commercial systems (which this is as it is going to be sold to the Navy). The guys would need to gen up before they take anything in case they buy a lemon or worse an insurance nightmare in the event of an accident. Micropilot are one of the worlds leading UAV AP makers but those systems are at least a couple of grand each just for the board.

Tadpole
15th June 2012, 01:42
Correction $6000 a piece...if you buy 100!!
http://store.micropilot.com/product-p/a-2128-heli.htm

Jetjock
15th June 2012, 02:16
Why not link up with a university on this? The Aeronautical Dept at UL springs to mind.

DeV
15th June 2012, 08:16
It is also to support MERC3

Goldie fish
15th June 2012, 08:52
Lads, lads, its a tender. all the suggestions being made by you will no doubt be submitted if the organisations mentioned are on the ball.

ropebag
15th June 2012, 09:45
Lads, lads, its a tender. all the suggestions being made by you will no doubt be submitted if the organisations mentioned are on the ball.

you might be surprised about how many orgs/companies might not see/read/understand/see the relevence of the tender, but on reflection on boards like this think 'actually, we could do that...'.

you'd be amazed at some of the 'home grown' stuff coming out of 32 Regt RA and its associated TA units - give switched on blokes some bits to play with and a bit of cash and the results can pour in. even the Crabs are being helpful...

Goldie fish
15th June 2012, 09:51
If an organisation is trying to secure business/funding and isn't checking etenders regularly for appropriate projects, then it deserves no sympathy.

morpheus
15th June 2012, 10:35
you might be surprised about how many orgs/companies might not see/read/understand/see the relevence of the tender, but on reflection on boards like this think 'actually, we could do that...'.

you'd be amazed at some of the 'home grown' stuff coming out of 32 Regt RA and its associated TA units - give switched on blokes some bits to play with and a bit of cash and the results can pour in. even the Crabs are being helpful...

What sort of stuff? Ive been toying around with a homebuild UAV idea for an infantry unit but havent gotten much further than starting looking at various platforms, software and cameras.

ropebag
15th June 2012, 11:48
What sort of stuff? Ive been toying around with a homebuild UAV idea for an infantry unit but havent gotten much further than starting looking at various platforms, software and cameras.

thats basicly what they have done - some of it is obsolete platforms that are being used as testbeds for newer systems that they are building/buying OTS, and some is effectively building a model aircraft from bits the local model shop, and putting either 'home-built' systems or OTS systems in them. the expensive/difficult bit is not building an aircraft with a camera in it, its putting an air vehicle where you need it to be and making the capability networked so that the feed can be down-linked to anyone on the ground who needs it, and having the bloke on the ditch looking at the same picture as the Battery Commander with half-a-dozen L118's dialled in, and the BC knowing which bunch of blokes lying in a ditch with rifles is our bunch of blokes, and which bunch of blokes lying in a ditch with rifles is the Taliban - and getting that capability into a cheap and easy-to-operate enough system that every Inf Coy in the Army can operate it without having a REME/RA bloke looking after the fiddly bits is the holy grail: the bloke/Company who manages it can retire instantly.

Tadpole
15th June 2012, 12:26
Homegrown invention is great and its how ideas are started and would be fine for training scenarios but homebuilt UAVs have no place on a modern battlefield mainly because:

1. They don't have proper redundant autopilots with EM testing and safety features up the ying yang. If everybody could use Ardupilot based on cost they would and Micropilot would be out of business.
2. Signal Security: Security of the UAV control system from other users, ie the enemy
3. Signal spectrum: Very few areas left in the modern battlefield and there are specific regions for UAVs, usually ones that require expensive equipment.
4. Transmission security: Do you want the enemy to also know the guys with rifles behind THAT ditch are yours. Without Tx security you are potentially also providing the enemy with footage.
5. Environmental capabilities: Wing, Rain, Dust etc

Yes, all of the above can be sorted out but its expensive to do so by which time you are approaching if not beyond the cost of a commercial UAV.

As for MERC3 I dare say if this tender is aimed towards them then they prob had the heads up long before this was published. Talk of UAVs and MERC for a long time now.

DeV
15th June 2012, 12:32
Have you read the tender?

It is for anti-aircraft training (and sensor development with IMERC).

ropebag
15th June 2012, 14:39
Homegrown invention is great and its how ideas are started and would be fine for training scenarios but homebuilt UAVs have no place on a modern battlefield...

oh absolutely - what is being done is to expand the Armys understanding of UAV ops at a sub-unit level, help us understand what capabilities we want to develop and how they can be developed, and to keep BAES and QinetQ on their toes by being knowledable about the requirements/systems that they are developing for us that will eventually be bought for large lumps of cash.

this stuff is available - its just too expensive, and too technically demanding to be shoved out to every Inf Coy/Mortar Pln in the Army - this work is intended to help make the eventual solution a bit cheaper, and a bit easier to operate than it might otherwise be.

Tadpole
15th June 2012, 16:46
Have you read the tender?
Have you read the post? Its a reply to Ropebag not suggestions for the tender.

Goldie fish
7th August 2012, 15:41
Contract awarded to:
Skytek UAS Ltd.
Glengara,
Mountain Road,
Carrigaline,
Co. Cork.

BANDIT
8th August 2012, 05:27
I do n ot think that a home grown school project type UAV would be appropriate for the NS or DF for that matter. However many countries that do not have a technology tradition have developed capable UAV that have been used in combat. Sri Lanka is one as an example. I know the DF have spent a lot of money over the years educating officers in UCG and elsewhere. Many leave after their 9 years and do very well in the commercial world. We have a good research facilites in Ireland , a record of innovation in many areas it should be possible/ maybe even commercially desirable to develop a home grown UAV.
I think at times that in the search for the perfect weapon/ system, carrying equipment, rifle , whatever we often tend to ignore thewell tried tested and just plain good

Goldie fish
8th August 2012, 05:37
Do you read threads, or do you just look at the heading and presume what the thread is about?

BANDIT
10th August 2012, 07:49
Have u read the previous threads?

Tadpole
19th March 2013, 17:03
Royal Navy have a tender out for contracted shipborne UAV support. Contract is for 300 flight hours per month with a minimum spec of operations out to 40nm and 8hrs endurance. Primary sensor is to be EO/IR. It will be interesting to see what they go for.

Goldie fish
9th August 2013, 20:55
from across the pond.



Fire Scout surpasses flight hour record aboard USS Samuel B. Roberts
Helicopter Strike Maritime Squadron (HSM) 46, Det. 9 recently surpassed the MQ-8B Fire Scout’s previous monthly flight hour record while performing operations at sea aboard USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG 58).

In June, four Fire Scouts that embarked on the frigate flew 333 flight hours, exceeding the unmanned helicopter’s previously monthly operational flight time record by more than 110 hours.

While at sea, the Fire Scouts regularly fly 18 hours per day while providing a 12-hour real-time intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) orbit to combatant commanders.

“The teams from USS Samuel B. Roberts and HSM-46 have built on the great success of earlier deployed operators,” said Capt. Patrick Smith, Fire Scout program manager. “Their perseverance and mission effectiveness have demonstrated the real difference that maritime-based ISR can make to combatant commanders.”

This is the Fire Scout’s sixth underway deployment aboard a U.S. Navy frigate. Just like earlier deployments, the ship receives communication upgrades that allow the aircraft’s Full Motion Video (FMV) camera feed to be distributed to the ship’s Combat Information Center (CIC) and to commanders at military installations throughout the world.

"None of these achievements would be possible without the hard work and efforts by the entire team aboard USS Samuel B Roberts,” said Lt. Cmdr. Mike Gerhart, HSM-46, Det. 9 officer in charge. “We are just two months into our six-month deployment, but the operators and maintainers have put in significant hours supporting the needs of the warfare commanders. They can be justly proud of setting a new standard for embarked operations of the Fire Scout.”

http://seawavesmagazine.blogspot.ie/2013/08/fire-scout-surpasses-flight-hour-record.html?spref=tw

Jetjock
10th August 2013, 02:31
You would need a flight deck of Eithne's proportions for something like the Firescout. 8.4m rotor diamater.

Something like the Schiebel Camcopter is a more likely bet.

Goldie fish
16th September 2013, 13:56
Canterbury Coastguard UAV.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yY6JvCshcCw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ancientmariner
5th May 2015, 10:39
You would need a flight deck of Eithne's proportions for something like the Firescout. 8.4m rotor diamater.

Something like the Schiebel Camcopter is a more likely bet.

On another thread we were looking at using daughter craft for extended in shore/harbour patrols from a mother vessel ie OPV. UAV's are a popular operational/ observational tool. There are now current trials using a standard 6m Rhib fitted as a microlight with a flying speed of 45/48knots. Polaris FIB of Italy is one in production. I think calm seas are required for take off and landing.

25 pounder
11th June 2015, 12:36
Are there any futher developments in getting UAV for the navy?

na grohmití
11th June 2015, 19:01
Are there any futher developments in getting UAV for the navy?

There is a company developing UAVs who intend testing them from Irish Naval vessels. This is ongoing.

Spark23
11th June 2015, 23:22
Awful waste any amount of foreign companies manufacturing uav's now to a better standard, just purchase of the shelf!

Jetjock
17th June 2015, 22:20
Awful waste any amount of foreign companies manufacturing uav's now to a better standard, just purchase of the shelf!

Absolutely, it's foolishness to be dependent on this as the only UAV option for the NS, especially when the company involved has zero design pedigree with experience extending only to short range quadcopter aerial cameras and minor regulatory and licencing interactions.

We are 40 years behind the rest of the world on over the horizon UAV experience. Major aerospace companies are involved in their development. Experience is not acquired overnight. Naval launch and recovery further complicates the design process .

Forget pie in the sky(pun intended) and buy off the shelf or we can forget naval UAV ops for the foreseeable future. Boeing Scaneagle is an ideal candidate.

Orion
17th June 2015, 22:55
Awful waste any amount of foreign companies manufacturing uav's now to a better standard, just purchase of the shelf!

Nothing that Irish industry and innovation can't improve on?

Really?

Jetjock
17th June 2015, 23:28
Nothing that Irish industry and innovation can't improve on?

Really?

Given sufficient time, there undoubtedly is. Start with something realistic though, maybe by developing a man portable Orbiter type UAV for the Artillery corps.

Orion
17th June 2015, 23:43
Aim low ... yeah yeah yeah

Jetjock
17th June 2015, 23:56
Aim low ... yeah yeah yeah

Crawl. Walk. Run. Or fail spectacularly.

Orion
18th June 2015, 00:04
Crawl. Walk. Run. Or fail spectacularly.

Ok I get it, Irish bad, foreign off the shelf good. Even if the foreign off the shelf was built to a foreign requirement for conditions not matching Ireland's. Sounds like a plan.

Jetjock
18th June 2015, 01:48
Ok I get it, Irish bad, foreign off the shelf good. Even if the foreign off the shelf was built to a foreign requirement for conditions not matching Ireland's. Sounds like a plan.

Just no.

Proven, functioning , reproducable under economies of scale, good. New, unproven design, unproven manufacturer be it Irish/American/French or Mongolian: Bad. I'm sorry but that's a fact because you're obviously either somehow connected, hopelessly irrational or drunk.

Generation one Irish Naval UAS must be a proven design. Under EU tendering requirements and the DoD's own recent requirements in same process for proven capability they most likely will be. A welcome development to see the NS engaging with industry but as a complete novice to UAV ops, it must be able to draw on the experience, procedures and training of other operators, something that can only be done by operating the same type. By all means become a proving ground for home grown designs when in house UAV expertise is at sufficient levels.

Last I'm saying on the matter as I fear you're taking insult from cold facts .

The real Jack
18th June 2015, 02:29
Ok I get it, Irish bad, foreign off the shelf good. Even if the foreign off the shelf was built to a foreign requirement for conditions not matching Ireland's. Sounds like a plan.

Irish = bad because not COTS, unless if some Imerc money fart somehow does what global defence companies cannot do and invents the perfect UAV. Maybe Irish weather and other operational parameters are entirely unique so can only be solved by an irish designed UAV constructed of COTS parts - anyway it'll be ****ed because of Irish export defence licensing or lack thereof. Imerc could go for simpler non pie in the sky projects that might actually sell...

expat01
18th June 2015, 07:18
It may not be the best option operationally, but I see this as a potential pay off a longer term benefit. Linking the defence forces to development and investment for Irish industry is essential if we are to secure government and public interest in defence. We've missed this boat and bus several times before. Maybe if they get this right defence won't be a dirty word in the irish economy. Building the defence forces has to be seen as something Irish people can make money from. If that happens, the defence forces stand to benefit in the longer term.

DeV
18th June 2015, 08:26
It may not be the best option operationally, but I see this as a potential pay off a longer term benefit. Linking the defence forces to development and investment for Irish industry is essential if we are to secure government and public interest in defence. We've missed this boat and bus several times before. Maybe if they get this right defence won't be a dirty word in the irish economy. Building the defence forces has to be seen as something Irish people can make money from. If that happens, the defence forces stand to benefit in the longer term.

Exactly, as I understand the UAVs are coming from an IMERC company

Banner
18th June 2015, 09:54
Just a quick but I believe important question on this: Timescales? When are the UAV's coming? Is it only when P63 is in service? is there even a plan in place to have something airborne by 2017? or 2020? Or ever? Or is it (as it seems to be) all just talk?

ODIN
6th August 2015, 23:34
Interesting article here, http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/06/aerovel-flexrotor-fisheries/, regarding the Aerovel Flexrotor. A UAV capable of vertical take off and landing and can operate for two days.

In operation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQDEp7TvEg

pym
4th October 2015, 15:35
Another way of doing things..

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ja7y_L58zBo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If the NS is still working with an Irish company on the sail technology which is meant to increase efficiency and host sensors, maybe they should have a chat with DARPA.

na grohmití
4th October 2015, 15:58
Darpa do their thing, IMERC does its thing.

pym
4th October 2015, 21:07
Sure, but there's an obvious opportunity for some shared development. Politically, meh, yeah there'd be problems.

But both systems could allow for dramatic improvements in surveillance range, especially for over the horizon UAV ops.

restless
4th October 2015, 21:19
Another way of doing things..

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ja7y_L58zBo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If the NS is still working with an Irish company on the sail technology which is meant to increase efficiency and host sensors, maybe they should have a chat with DARPA.

would the ship not have to steam into wind for this system to work, limiting its ability to deploy?

DeV
4th October 2015, 22:32
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/naval-service-in-historic-kite-sail-tests-256600.html

The real Jack
4th October 2015, 23:16
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/naval-service-in-historic-kite-sail-tests-256600.html

Monday, January 27, 2014......

pym
4th October 2015, 23:16
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/naval-service-in-historic-kite-sail-tests-256600.html

Yep and that article is from 2014 - haven't seen any pictures or reports of trials as of yet.

The real Jack
4th October 2015, 23:25
I'll eat my hat when a kite manages to pull a few thousand tons of steel and saves fuel in the process.

DeV
4th October 2015, 23:26
Yep and that article is from 2014 - haven't seen any pictures or reports of trials as of yet.

http://www.seai.ie/News_Events/Press_Releases/2015/Defence-Forces-Unveil-Innovative-Ship-Mounted-Kite-System-at-SeaFest-.html

pym
4th October 2015, 23:32
http://www.seai.ie/News_Events/Press_Releases/2015/Defence-Forces-Unveil-Innovative-Ship-Mounted-Kite-System-at-SeaFest-.html

Cheers, a land based stationary demo - that's what I meant.

DeV
5th October 2015, 08:37
I know but that's all I have to offer

ancientmariner
5th October 2015, 10:41
Cheers, a land based stationary demo - that's what I meant.

There is a long way between laboratory theory, and display testing, with real time use at sea. Such systems will be very much subject to weather conditions and the breaking strain of the launch wire and the capacity of the winch to reel it in in a sudden squall. the weather at 300m is often different to sea level conditions. Have any of the frontline Navies tried it or do they prefer Blimps and MPA's with the Mark 1 eyeball.

pym
5th October 2015, 11:45
I don't that at all - which makes the turnaround time in the DARPA project all the more impressive.

The variable of course is the funding.

morpheus
5th October 2015, 13:22
few more articles from around june / jily that i found and a discussion on reddit which i havent bothered reading.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/how-a-bit-of-breeze-and-a-big-kite-can-save-on-seagoing-energy-costs-1.2296224

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/naval-service-to-broaden-horizons-by-flying-kites-1.2297873

https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/3dsygo/irish_navy_to_begin_commercializing_fuel_saving/

ancientmariner
5th October 2015, 14:38
few more articles from around june / jily that i found and a discussion on reddit which i havent bothered reading.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/how-a-bit-of-breeze-and-a-big-kite-can-save-on-seagoing-energy-costs-1.2296224

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/naval-service-to-broaden-horizons-by-flying-kites-1.2297873

https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/3dsygo/irish_navy_to_begin_commercializing_fuel_saving/

This sail away story is detracting from various uses of sails. The usual visual horizon, stated by The Irish Times, is not ever 200 miles.According to my Tables the sea horizon at 10 metres, height of eye is 6.57 miles away, and at 300 metres is 36.02 miles away. Seeing 3000 miles away is poppycock giving the curvature of mother Earth. The articles in general are an offence to genuine research and are in the same category as Turlough Hill electricity generation. There are NO free lunches.

Sparky42
8th February 2017, 20:15
It's been a while but an interesting article on something the DARPA is working on:
https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2017/02/07/drone-launch-and-recovery-system-in-20-foot-container/

Graylion
8th February 2017, 22:05
I'll eat my hat when a kite manages to pull a few thousand tons of steel and saves fuel in the process.

Enjoy! http://www.skysails.info/english/ Want some mustard with that?

The real Jack
8th February 2017, 23:23
They're not pulling much mustard in one tech demonstrator, for such a world saving technology it's odd they've transitioned to flogging performance management software for non kitey ships. I can't find any recent news about the project either.

ancientmariner
12th February 2017, 23:10
They're not pulling much mustard in one tech demonstrator, for such a world saving technology it's odd they've transitioned to flogging performance management software for non kitey ships. I can't find any recent news about the project either..

all this Kite stuff is a long way from UAV's, which at least are controllable and can do specific observational or interdiction tasks. Kites will only work if the wind suits the direction in which the ship wishes to travel. The idea of kite sails on ships has a certain merit but also introduces hazards and inconveniences that add to the shipboard burdens for crews.

Jetjock
13th February 2017, 02:16
.

all this Kite stuff is a long way from UAV's, which at least are controllable and can do specific observational or interdiction tasks. Kites will only work if the wind suits the direction in which the ship wishes to travel. The idea of kite sails on ships has a certain merit but also introduces hazards and inconveniences that add to the shipboard burdens for crews.

It's mooted use as a sensor platform within the NS is also dubious, as you would end up with an expensive system with certain weather limitations that is usable only some of the time. The technical aspect of sensor integration is mind boggling to say the least.These kites fly figure of eight patterns to stay in the sky. The processing capability needed to come up with any usable information from a kite mounted array is huge.

If you need better situational awareness and on board systems are insufficient, build the ships with aviation capability. Simply put there are no vessels anywhere near the size of the P60 worldwide being built without a flightdeck and hangar. A kite is not the answer.

Then there is the absolute ridiculousness of an overt kite on a supposedly covert platform. It's going to light up on even the most basic radar. The function of a NS vessel is not to save fuel. The cynic in me wonders if given the long lead time for this project, that this is all just an effort to be seen to be proactive about cost saving.

DeV
13th February 2017, 08:51
It's mooted use as a sensor platform within the NS is also dubious, as you would end up with an expensive system with certain weather limitations that is usable only some of the time. The technical aspect of sensor integration is mind boggling to say the least.These kites fly figure of eight patterns to stay in the sky. The processing capability needed to come up with any usable information from a kite mounted array is huge.

If you need better situational awareness and on board systems are insufficient, build the ships with aviation capability. Simply put there are no vessels anywhere near the size of the P60 worldwide being built without a flightdeck and hangar. A kite is not the answer.

Then there is the absolute ridiculousness of an overt kite on a supposedly covert platform. It's going to light up on even the most basic radar. The function of a NS vessel is not to save fuel. The cynic in me wonders if given the long lead time for this project, that this is all just an effort to be seen to be proactive about cost saving.

It's an R&D job

ancientmariner
13th February 2017, 17:56
It's an R&D job


The bottom line for all Naval packages aboard ship is that the derivation of New concepts should come from Naval Sources, or it's allied industries. Such improvements should make the equipped vessel a better fighting platform. We can help out Marine Industry in certain projects but remember we are NOT an adjunct of Industry or it's R&D. There are many out there think the Naval Service is a free platform for their projects.

DeV
13th February 2017, 19:25
The bottom line for all Naval packages aboard ship is that the derivation of New concepts should come from Naval Sources, or it's allied industries. Such improvements should make the equipped vessel a better fighting platform. We can help out Marine Industry in certain projects but remember we are NOT an adjunct of Industry or it's R&D. There are many out there think the Naval Service is a free platform for their projects.

It is Government, DoD, DF and NS policy to engage with Irish enterprises and educational institutions.

It is not as if the "Writer" class are being delivered with BFO kites permanently attached

ancientmariner
14th February 2017, 19:49
It is Government, DoD, DF and NS policy to engage with Irish enterprises and educational institutions.

It is not as if the "Writer" class are being delivered with BFO kites permanently attached

Yes, Engage where possible for our benefit such as professional equivalency between Service grades and courses run by 3rd level Institutes. Looking at kites ,such as SKYSAILS demo videos, it is clear they are unstable and uncontrollable by nature. They sheer and oscillate from Port to Starboard and back again in the following wind as seen. I do not see how it would also provide a stable electronic observational platform with accurate positional information of distant targets.

pym
14th February 2017, 20:16
Yep there are a whole variety of issues with the sails, but hey if nothing else, I guess it would be a nice HF antenna :)

If they do find their way on to a NS vessel, I'll take a wild guess and say it will ultimately just be for a trade mission to China or the like as a R&D demo - for operational purposes though... just too many issues.

danno
15th February 2017, 00:03
For a radar to see out 3000 miles or whatever is being claimed a fair bit of watts would be needed to power the system.

Jetjock
15th February 2017, 01:29
For a radar to see out 3000 miles or whatever is being claimed a fair bit of watts would be needed to power the system.

Most likely square miles. Then there's the computer processing required to decipher anything useful from a radar platform that is moving rapidly in 3 axis relative to the platform below and the sweep area of the radar.

Archimedes
15th February 2017, 12:43
Yes, Engage where possible for our benefit such as professional equivalency between Service grades and courses run by 3rd level Institutes. Looking at kites ,such as SKYSAILS demo videos, it is clear they are unstable and uncontrollable by nature. They sheer and oscillate from Port to Starboard and back again in the following wind as seen. I do not see how it would also provide a stable electronic observational platform with accurate positional information of distant targets.

The figure of 8 that the SkySails kite performs is done deliberately to keep the kite flying in the middle of the power zone. At launch and recovery, the kite is put into 12 o'clock mode where it points straight up until it is flying stably almost directly overhead. If it were to have a radar onboard, you would switch to this mode every few minutes to do a few sweeps and then revert to power mode.

The system currently being developed will use a much smaller kite, not designed for power which will be stable all of the time and not do figure of 8s. The radar will have a range of 40nm as compared to about 12nm from the mast of a ship. This is limited by the size and power or the radar rather than the height of the platform.

The point about a warship not wanting to fly a big sign saying "here I am" may be valid in certain scenarios but not when you have a handful of ships searching the vast expanse of the Irish EEZ for needles in a haystack.

ancientmariner
15th February 2017, 17:52
Radar horizon and radar range are dependent on the radar antenna height, and crucially the nature and height of the target. For example if radar is at a height of 15metres, then horizon range is 8.5 nm. To achieve 40nm the antenna would have to be at a height of 328metres. If the target in the first case was land at 30metre height then it could be picked up at 8.5nm+12.1nm giving a total of 20.6 nm for the mast based antenna on a normal ship.Assuming a ship with about 9metres height was your target , then an aerial height of 230metres would be required to see it at 40nm ie 6.6 + 33.5 or 40.1 nm. I think all in all, a ship launched drone might be more useful in operational surveillance.

DeV
15th February 2017, 18:11
Radar horizon and radar range are dependent on the radar antenna height, and crucially the nature and height of the target. For example if radar is at a height of 15metres, then horizon range is 8.5 nm. To achieve 40nm the antenna would have to be at a height of 328metres. If the target in the first case was land at 30metre height then it could be picked up at 8.5nm+12.1nm giving a total of 20.6 nm for the mast based antenna on a normal ship.Assuming a ship with about 9metres height was your target , then an aerial height of 230metres would be required to see it at 40nm ie 6.6 + 33.5 or 40.1 nm. I think all in all, a ship launched drone might be more useful in operational surveillance.

Kites don't need to return to the vessel to refuel

It isn't the only tool in the box it will/would give the commander more options

Graylion
15th February 2017, 20:13
as regards processing power - a masthead is not exactly holding still, so the issue is not unique to a kite. Amplitude and frequency may both be higher, but it is a solved problem and the computing power should be easily provided by a modern PC - of the more powerful variety.

Medsailor
16th February 2017, 09:08
Kites don't need to return to the vessel to refuel

It isn't the only tool in the box it will/would give the commander more options

Its more a question of what you are actually mounting on the kite. The radar antenna only, the antenna and transceiver, antenna transceiver and signal processor? If its only the former then the losses in 250+ metres of waveguide/coax will be wicked, if the latter then weight becomes an issue and the kite starts to get pretty big.

ancientmariner
16th February 2017, 18:03
I agree and waveguide is a dangerous emitter of rays if it gets damaged or even pinholed. There are problems to be overcome such as curvature of the earth and the true height and distance of the target. Air temperature vis -a-vis ground temperature has an effect on range. Overall some form of air patrol and/or a good ESM, ECM, and ECCM systems fitted aboard ship, will always be useful and give one's ship more freedom of action.

danno
16th February 2017, 21:52
Its more a question of what you are actually mounting on the kite. The radar antenna only, the antenna and transceiver, antenna transceiver and signal processor? If its only the former then the losses in 250+ metres of waveguide/coax will be wicked, if the latter then weight becomes an issue and the kite starts to get pretty big.

Cannot the signal be TX'd to the ship thus avoiding the coax.

Archimedes
17th February 2017, 00:37
As far as I am aware, the system currently being worked on will use a Simrad 4G radar with an ethernet output that connects to ship via wifi.
There are always going to be trade-offs between range, weight and power requirements but that is what they are starting with.

ancientmariner
17th February 2017, 09:43
a New horizon for Simrad yacht radars with a jump from 200feet low range in harbour to 36nm max range . Will the info be available to everybody with a similar receiver? Cheap at 1995USD but poor definition of targets especially land features. It seems to me this is exploratory technology , untried in an extreme marine naval environment.

Graylion
17th February 2017, 21:59
Its more a question of what you are actually mounting on the kite. The radar antenna only, the antenna and transceiver, antenna transceiver and signal processor? If its only the former then the losses in 250+ metres of waveguide/coax will be wicked, if the latter then weight becomes an issue and the kite starts to get pretty big.

Since the kite is effing big as it is pulling the ship, this is probably not an issue.

Medsailor
18th February 2017, 14:21
Since the kite is effing big as it is pulling the ship, this is probably not an issue.

Not with that dinky radar, no. I imagined something a bit more substantial.

DeV
21st September 2017, 22:43
Aeolus started sea trials today on Eithne.

expat01
22nd September 2017, 09:24
The god of winds...cue jokes!

DeV
22nd September 2017, 11:52
HeliKite being used to raise a sensor pod using modified COTS technology to produce a cost-competitive highly capable surveillance suite.

https://m.facebook.com/login.php?next=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2Firis hnavalservice%2Falbums%2F1457594974323394%2F%3F__t n__%3DC-R&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2Firishnavalse rvice%2F&_rdr

TangoSierra
22nd September 2017, 11:57
Aeolus started sea trials today on Eithne.

US DARPA have something very similar installed and testing on their USV sub hunter platform

ancientmariner
22nd September 2017, 12:58
It's a helping out project and may have a significance in the future. We should concentrate on drone technology including relevant delivery systems.

TangoSierra
23rd September 2017, 12:56
US DARPA have something very similar installed and testing on their USV sub hunter platform

It's called TALONS

https://youtu.be/PKjR3qodL-4

ancientmariner
2nd October 2017, 10:29
We also must consider the asymmetric possibilities created by remotely operated systems both surface and air in particular. Sustained locked on fire using today's technology is a must in an environment growing in danger from that very same technology.

ancientmariner
9th October 2017, 10:59
We also must consider the asymmetric possibilities created by remotely operated systems both surface and air in particular. Sustained locked on fire using today's technology is a must in an environment growing in danger from that very same technology.

Noticed in the media that elements of the PDF(-) had a practice firing of an update version of the RBS 70 at a Bofors Range. It included a Demo of a MANPAD system. Although portable the Air Defence unit can be mounted on a vehicle? Ship maybe??

pym
9th October 2017, 14:19
Noticed in the media that elements of the PDF(-) had a practice firing of an update version of the RBS 70 at a Bofors Range. It included a Demo of a MANPAD system. Although portable the Air Defence unit can be mounted on a vehicle? Ship maybe??

The RBS 70 is a MANPAD system and it has been deployed by the Aussies on their naval vessels:

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_SAM_RBS-70_Australia_Naval_lg.jpg

You still need an air search radar though to have some clue of what's out there.

I think it would be adequate against helicopters, but would struggle with fastjets and you can probably forget about sea skimming missiles etc.

The DF systems were updated to Bolide class and got some new sights etc, but I haven't heard anything about the DF procuring NG units. I imagine Saab are keen to demonstrate the NG gear as the Swedes are apparently moving away from the RBS 70 towards an IRIS-T based SAM system.

Jetjock
9th October 2017, 15:21
Noticed in the media that elements of the PDF(-) had a practice firing of an update version of the RBS 70 at a Bofors Range. It included a Demo of a MANPAD system. Although portable the Air Defence unit can be mounted on a vehicle? Ship maybe??

It's size would put it in the top end of the MANPADS range.

It was deployed by the RAN on board ships as a stop gap. It is wholly unsuitable for use from a moving/unstable platform. Vehicle mounted versions cannot be fired on the move. It is guided by a laser that requires the operator to keep the target aircraft in the cross hairs on the launch platform optical/infra red sight - no mean feat on land let alone at sea. The operator is also fed target information from a networked Giraffe radar - something impossible from current ships.

When the RAN deployed army RBS 70 on an LPD in the 2003 Iraq war the released a lot of photos of same - possibly as a deterrent given the actual capability was quite limited.

Any shipborne MANPAD must have a fire and forget capability. There are a number of navalised variants of the MBDA Mistral that fit the cost/capability/deck space profile for current vessels.

ancientmariner
9th October 2017, 18:02
It's size would put it in the top end of the MANPADS range.

It was deployed by the RAN on board ships as a stop gap. It is wholly unsuitable for use from a moving/unstable platform. Vehicle mounted versions cannot be fired on the move. It is guided by a laser that requires the operator to keep the target aircraft in the cross hairs on the launch platform optical/infra red sight - no mean feat on land let alone at sea. The operator is also fed target information from a networked Giraffe radar - something impossible from current ships.

When the RAN deployed army RBS 70 on an LPD in the 2003 Iraq war the released a lot of photos of same - possibly as a deterrent given the actual capability was quite limited.

Any shipborne MANPAD must have a fire and forget capability. There are a number of navalised variants of the MBDA Mistral that fit the cost/capability/deck space profile for current vessels.

Good to know. Obviously naval variants should have as much target positive engagement as
possible with the fire and forget option.

Sparky42
9th October 2017, 22:03
The footprints for systems seem to be getting smaller:
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2017/10/09/martin-uav-hopes-to-sell-the-us-military-on-its-vertical-take-off-uav/

ancientmariner
17th October 2017, 10:01
The footprints for systems seem to be getting smaller:
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2017/10/09/martin-uav-hopes-to-sell-the-us-military-on-its-vertical-take-off-uav/

Try anything with a range of functions BUT no fiddly fuel mixes which leads to confusion as to what is mixed or NOT.