Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UAV for the new OPV's?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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://team-blacksheep.com► http://youtube.com/nastycop420► http://facebook.com/teamblacksheep► http://plus.google.com/+nastycop420► http://twitter.com/Bla...


    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        Correction $6000 a piece...if you buy 100!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Why not link up with a university on this? The Aeronautical Dept at UL springs to mind.

          Comment


          • #35
            It is also to support MERC3

            Comment


            • #36
              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.


              Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                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...

                Comment


                • #38
                  If an organisation is trying to secure business/funding and isn't checking etenders regularly for appropriate projects, then it deserves no sympathy.


                  Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                    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.
                    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
                    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by morpheus View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Have you read the tender?

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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Have you read the tender?
                              Have you read the post? Its a reply to Ropebag not suggestions for the tender.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Contract awarded to:
                                Skytek UAS Ltd.
                                Glengara,
                                Mountain Road,
                                Carrigaline,
                                Co. Cork.


                                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X