Thanks Thanks:  17
Likes Likes:  29
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 156
  1. #51
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    True of the NW (not so much the SW, but the E, SE) but it is still significant - http://www.iaa.ie/files/2008/images/...3_IAA_map2.jpg
    Last edited by DeV; 10th September 2011 at 11:03.

  2. #52
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Look at your flight lanes.

  3. #53
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking at my map It's all class G airspace out there. Responsible for your own separation when vfr. That would not inhibit the navy wishing to deploy a uav if needed for operations. Liaison with the iaa would be useful but not absolutely essential.

  4. #54
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by balkanhawk View Post
    Looking at my map It's all class G airspace out there. Responsible for your own separation when vfr. That would not inhibit the navy wishing to deploy a uav if needed for operations. Liaison with the iaa would be useful but not absolutely essential.
    Separation with a very small, purposefully hard to see, with a small radar cross-section UAV?

  5. #55
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Separation with a very small, purposefully hard to see, with a small radar cross-section UAV?
    And an empty sky......

  6. #56
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking at my map It's all class G airspace out there. Responsible for your own separation when vfr. That would not inhibit the navy wishing to deploy a uav if needed for operations. Liaison with the iaa would be useful but not absolutely essential.
    It absolutely inhibits UAV operations. UAVs in any civil airspace must have the same 'sense and avoid' capability as good as a standard piloted aircraft.
    As you say
    Responsible for your own separation when vfr.
    except that a UAV without sense and avoid cannot provide its own separation.
    No UAV is currently fitted with a viable sense and avoid system.

  7. #57
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    What is the incedence of R.C aircraft striking Commercial aircraft? Because that is what we are talking about here. Line of sight control of small drones. Not UAV Predators flown from the bunker in Abbeyshrule.

  8. #58
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,971
    Post Thanks / Like
    I cant believe the negativity here

    I was at the commissioning on friday and spoke at length to some people there who know what the navy want.

    I fully support the development and use of UAVs here and personally think most of the concerns are laughable for what were talking about using...
    "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."

  9. #59
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    I cant believe the negativity here

    I was at the commissioning on friday and spoke at length to some people there who know what the navy want.

    I fully support the development and use of UAVs here and personally think most of the concerns are laughable for what were talking about using...
    +1

    Thank you.

  10. #60
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sorry guys but this isn't negativity, its realism.

    I have already stated that the Navy will have no problem operating under radio control regulations but that is below 400' and less then 500m or line of sight whichever is LESS.

    Now, what exactly is the usefulness of a UAV that's only 500m from the vessel? A good pair of binos will do the same job. I can understand the usefulness in an Army role for looking over a hill or behind obstacles such as walls or buildings, but the Navy dont have that issue, at least not one that can be solved with a 500m range.
    IF you want to expand past 500m then you are into UAV regulations in civil airspace. It really is as simple as that.
    I fully support the Navy in their efforts but they need to be realistic in what can be achieve and how to do it. There is no point building a BLOS system without first engaging with the airspace regulators, its not like flying the RC helicopters for tracking exercises. Meanwhile there's no point spending time and effort of a system that is of no practical maritime use, even if its to assist a commercial company because maritime testing would be pointless.

  11. #61
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    I also forgot to mention that current RC regulations do not allow night time operations.

  12. #62
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
    Sorry guys but this isn't negativity, its realism.

    I have already stated that the Navy will have no problem operating under radio control regulations but that is below 400' and less then 500m or line of sight whichever is LESS.

    Now, what exactly is the usefulness of a UAV that's only 500m from the vessel? A good pair of binos will do the same job. I can understand the usefulness in an Army role for looking over a hill or behind obstacles such as walls or buildings, but the Navy dont have that issue, at least not one that can be solved with a 500m range.
    IF you want to expand past 500m then you are into UAV regulations in civil airspace. It really is as simple as that.
    I fully support the Navy in their efforts but they need to be realistic in what can be achieve and how to do it. There is no point building a BLOS system without first engaging with the airspace regulators, its not like flying the RC helicopters for tracking exercises. Meanwhile there's no point spending time and effort of a system that is of no practical maritime use, even if its to assist a commercial company because maritime testing would be pointless.
    Can I stop you there. Please.
    Where, in this thread, anywhere is it indicated that the Naval service is aquiring, building or even testing Large UAVs?
    What is in hand however is the MENTION of the possibility that industry who MAY be involved in the constrouction of Naval UAVs MAY chose to do R&D as the as yet unbuilt MERC3 facility, and in doing so have the use of as yet unbuilt naval vessels. It is one of many options being made available.
    Also, the earth is not flat. If you increase the elevation of your viewing point, you also increase your visible horizon. This is why (amongst other reasons) Radar are located on the highest point of the ship. It started 95 years ago with Barrage balloons being used for observation on the notoriously flat landscape of the low countries, and before that lookouts being placed high up the mast of sailing ships.. A short range, low tech UAV would provide another bit of over the horizon vision, when required. As I said before, small naval forces are not adverse to hiding around a headland, while observing a suspect vessel by other means.
    Our geography provides ideal locations to sest such technology, in realistic environments...
    Should a company engaged in such a design chose to do so.

    However the key here is that the NS are actively supporting the MERC3 Project with their partners in 3rd Level institutes and the business world. This is not something that should be discounted because of a potential risk to ATC operations. Indeed, our relatively uncrowded skies could provide a template or framework to allow UAVs to interact safely with normal commercial aircraft ATC operations. But the process must start somewhere, Hopefully that will be where MERC3 comes in.

  13. #63
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,971
    Post Thanks / Like
    Also, and this may or may not have an effect on the type / size of UAV that is ultimately pursued, but the new integrated masts which are appearing on more and more foreign naval vessels were a major part of the various dinner discussion around more than one table in the galley. For the first time in a long time I was sitting amidst some very positive and forward looking officers in our defence forces. They are very positive about the MERC3 endeavor too.
    "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."

  14. #64
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can I stop you there. Please.
    Where, in this thread, anywhere is it indicated that the Naval service is aquiring, building or even testing Large UAVs?
    What is in hand however is the MENTION of the possibility that industry who MAY be involved in the constrouction of Naval UAVs MAY chose to do R&D as the as yet unbuilt MERC3 facility, and in doing so have the use of as yet unbuilt naval vessels. It is one of many options being made available.
    Also, the earth is not flat. If you increase the elevation of your viewing point, you also increase your visible horizon. This is why (amongst other reasons) Radar are located on the highest point of the ship. It started 95 years ago with Barrage balloons being used for observation on the notoriously flat landscape of the low countries, and before that lookouts being placed high up the mast of sailing ships.. A short range, low tech UAV would provide another bit of over the horizon vision, when required. As I said before, small naval forces are not adverse to hiding around a headland, while observing a suspect vessel by other means.
    Our geography provides ideal locations to sest such technology, in realistic environments...
    Should a company engaged in such a design chose to do so.
    I am sorry Goldie but I never suggested that either. I just suggested that the NS have two ways of doing this if they wish to in the future.
    1. LOS (Meaning you can physically see the UAV) or 500m whichever is LESS during daylight hours, under RC legislation; or
    2. A BLOS system that requires airspace segregation and is likely to be very expensive.

    Thats all.

    WRT MERC3, its great that the NS are involved in the promotion of third party business and possibly providing test bed vessels for possible future Irish UAV companies and NS UAV operations. So good for them. However, I dare say if the NS have spec'd the ships for UAV operations then they have a future requirement above and beyond a flight test donor vessel. That capability will also have to be shaped around legislation and still leaves them with the following question.

    Is a UAV as per 1 above of any use to the NS or are the NS going to be able to afford / operate a UAV as outlined in 2 above. 1 above certainly cannot extend vision with any credibility OTH or around headlands and cannot fly at night. Item 2 will be expensive and operationally restricted by airspace, but you get what you pay for.
    Unfortunately there seems to be a thought process out there that airspace regulations dont apply to either / or the NS or off the West Coast because of low traffic density. I am merely saying that if the NS are going to be involved in any UAV operations, even as a third party they need to understand what can and cannot be legally achieved and how that effects the type of system, its operational capabilities / restrictions and the cost.

  15. #65
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,971
    Post Thanks / Like
    how do you know that they HAVEN'T evaluated and studied the necessary rules, regulations and laws about airpsace wrt fully fledged UAV operations off the coast of ireland?
    "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."

  16. #66
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    how do you know that they HAVEN'T evaluated and studied the necessary rules, regulations and laws about airpsace wrt fully fledged UAV operations off the coast of ireland
    Hows about you read my posts?

    Never have I said that the NS haven't taken regulations into account simply because I dont know. The DISCUSSION, in previous posts was about UAV capability, LOS vs BLOS etc with some posts suggesting that it was simple to do because there is nothing out there. My comments were in response to these posts that any UAV operation would have to fall into two legislative categories which produce very different types, capabilities, restrictions, costs. As this was a discussion about the NS on a NS discussion board it was with reference to potential NS UAV operations. Nothing more.

  17. #67
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is all speculation. I think we have to assume that since the Naval Service specified a flight deck and a UAV requirement for the new OPVs back in 2006, that they have worked out exactly what the operational requirements are (for example, the US Navy is looking to provide a number of Arleigh Burke destroyers with six or seven medium-sized UAVs, to provide 300-600 hours of live video each month); and have also engaged with the IAA to sort out airspace regulatory concerns. Anything less would be piss poor planning and management.

    We should also recognise that there has been an explosion in UAV development and deployment in recent years, including naval UAVs. The issues highlighted in this discussion are not specific to Ireland and I would be very surprised if similar issues have not been addressed and progressed and maybe even solved, within other navies.

    Finally, we should recognise that the global trend is for naval vessels to increasingly function as platforms for the launch, control, operation, recovery, maintenance and repair of a variety of surface, sub-surface and airborne unmanned vehicles. It is good that this appears to be recognised within the Naval Service, and hopefully we will see these trends become evident in 2014 with the launch of the first of the new OPVs (although it would be nice if the Commodore could tell us now what exactly we can expect.)

  18. #68
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Challis Heliplane


  19. #69
    gunner at heart Archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like the diagram that explains why the wing is only on the port side.

    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  20. #70
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another interesting idea? Unmanned Gazelle for the Royal Navy:



    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...onversion.html

  21. #71
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    A bit big for a flying camera.

  22. #72
    Serf hedgehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    14,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Aside from all the joking I do about the sea hags- I really have great respect and admiration for our NS, and I think this new lad I/C seems to be head and shoulders above any General type wearing the green uniform.

    Be that as it may- WTF is this thread about?
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  23. #73
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hedgehog View Post
    Aside from all the joking I do about the sea hags- I really have great respect and admiration for our NS, and I think this new lad I/C seems to be head and shoulders above any General type wearing the green uniform.

    Be that as it may- WTF is this thread about?
    http://www.merc3.ie/

  24. #74
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,971
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe change the title to include MERC3 reference?
    "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."

  25. #75
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    Maybe change the title to include MERC3 reference?
    Maybe people should start reading links in posts? Dos yo momma still wipe yo ass?

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
  •