Thanks Thanks:  19
Likes Likes:  46
Dislikes Dislikes:  7
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 119
  1. #51
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  2. #52
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Canterbury Coastguard UAV.

  3. Likes morpheus liked this post
  4. #53
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    888
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    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.

  5. #54
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    43
    Post Thanks / Like
    Are there any futher developments in getting UAV for the navy?

  6. #55
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 25 pounder View Post
    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.

  7. Thanks 25 pounder thanked for this post
  8. #56
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    34
    Post Thanks / Like
    Awful waste any amount of foreign companies manufacturing uav's now to a better standard, just purchase of the shelf!

  9. Likes Jetjock, The real Jack, FMP liked this post
    Dislikes Orion, na grohmití disliked this post
  10. #57
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark23 View Post
    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.

  11. Likes Tempest, The real Jack, FMP liked this post
  12. #58
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,259
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark23 View Post
    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?

  13. Likes Galloglass liked this post
  14. #59
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    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.

  15. #60
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,259
    Post Thanks / Like
    Aim low ... yeah yeah yeah

  16. Dislikes Jetjock disliked this post
  17. #61
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Aim low ... yeah yeah yeah
    Crawl. Walk. Run. Or fail spectacularly.

  18. Likes FMP liked this post
    Dislikes Orion disliked this post
  19. #62
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,259
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    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.

  20. Likes na grohmití, Galloglass liked this post
  21. #63
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    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 .

  22. Likes The real Jack liked this post
  23. #64
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    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...
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  24. Dislikes na grohmití disliked this post
  25. #65
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Last edited by expat01; 18th June 2015 at 06:22.

  26. Likes Galloglass, gibedepusib0ss liked this post
  27. #66
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    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

  28. #67
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?

  29. #68
    Major General ODIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting article here, http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/06/a...tor-fisheries/, regarding the Aerovel Flexrotor. A UAV capable of vertical take off and landing and can operate for two days.

    In operation
    Last edited by ODIN; 6th August 2015 at 22:41.
    What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

  30. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes Herald, TangoSierra liked this post
  31. #69
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another way of doing things..



    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.

  32. #70
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Darpa do their thing, IMERC does its thing.

  33. #71
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  34. #72
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    169
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    Another way of doing things..



    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?

  35. Likes DeV liked this post
  36. #73
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,638
    Post Thanks / Like

  37. #74
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Monday, January 27, 2014......
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  38. Likes pym liked this post
  39. #75
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yep and that article is from 2014 - haven't seen any pictures or reports of trials as of yet.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •