IAC UAVs

[The Blue Max]

Looking at the new advancements in UAV technologies I wonder how long it could before we see these coming here if ever..

The RAF/USAF have advanced from the old predator design to the modern day MQ-9 the benefits for use in Ireland could be used for internal security operations, maritime surveillance, close air support, ATCP etc..

A big plus could be support to DF contribution UN/EU BG Army units deployed overseas , The units (UAVs) could be based in country and could operate for long periods up in the air armed with Hell fire AGM or other guided munitions aswell A Stinger AAMs.

Troops on the ground may be more assured that force protection and improved intelligence assets are available close by no matter how far they are from base on patrols.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General..._Force_version

May be only a pie in the sky idea but may be easier to maintain and deploy overseas with appropriate equipment and care staff then trying to deploy a PC-9 or Aw139 etc..

[HavocIRL]

We already have a limited UAV capability

[turbocalves]

We already have a limited UAV capability

The Air Corps dont, Unless I am wrong our UAV is an arty asset.
I think blue max's point is that the Air corps could develop some proper UAV capability.

It seems to make sense they could replace the Garda ASU defender with something along the UAV route that seems an obvious one, but whether it would be cost effective i dont know.

Though I'm sure the AC have somebody looking into it.

[danno]

uav

only a matter of time before being used for marine recon,save afortune compared to having pvs steaming about.

[Tadpole]

Not going to happen any time soon.

Biggest stumbling block is integration in civil airspace, that hasnt even been cracked by the Yanks let alone the Paddys.

Second is cost. Anything in the HALE capacity currently takes about 5 times the manpower and at least 3 times the cap ex of a manned system such as a maritime SKA200. There are no saving to be made with UAVs, the only advantages are persistent surveillance and ability to be lost without loss of life.

Just look at current US doctrine, there is actually a shift back to some extent towards manned platforms, an example is Project Liberty.

[Tadpole]

only a matter of time before being used for marine recon,save afortune compared to having pvs steaming about.

UAVs cant board suspect boats, you still need boots on the ground, or in this case ships in the water.

[Goldie fish]

There is a rotary wing UAV, the Camcopter S-100 currently on the market, being pushed at the maritime sector.


It may not be able to board, but you can take a very close look

[Tadpole]

Theres no doubt UAVs are cool bits of kit but they, like everything else need to do the job effectively and at the right price. That machine is well over a million bucks an RoA of about 50km and currently can only fly in restricted airspace.

[Goldie fish]

$400,000 for the UAV above.

[Tadpole]

$400,000 for the UAV above.

TBH I am very surprised at that. Is that for a total system or the air vehicle only? LoS or BLoS comms?
A reasonable payload for a system like that is, in itself, is in the order of $200,000.

If it is actually $400,000 for a full system we should have bought those and not the Orbiter! Yes I know not man portable but 6 hr endurance and much better for FIBUA operations.

[Tadpole]

Looking at this recent article:

http://defensenews-updates.blogspot....mcopter-s.html

A system would appear to cost about $1.5mil although unconfirmed it sounds about right.

[25 pounder]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did'nt the DF in Chad have uav with them and a couple went mia.

[The Blue Max]

UAVs cant board suspect boats, you still need boots on the ground, or in this case ships in the water.

Either can the Casa horse

I suppose flying in within civil aviation flight path tbh as im working in that area just get the IAA on board from the start not after they would be purchased and decide on doctrine.

The potential for long linger up in the air following and monitoring vessels with potential for underwing stores such as lifes rafts, flares etc..

The Army have a limited UAV capability I was more looking at potenitial for UAVs as deployable assists overseas with UN/EU BG or in maritime role/internal security etc..

[Vickers]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did'nt the DF in Chad have uav with them and a couple went mia.

See post 79 on below

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...ost+UAV&page=4

Also see

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...light=lost+UAV

[Tadpole]

The reference to boarding wasnt about your thread it was in reply to this:

only a matter of time before being used for marine recon,save afortune compared to having pvs steaming about.

Still need PV to board the suspect vessel found by the UAV.

I suppose flying in within civil aviation flight path tbh as im working in that area just get the IAA on board from the start not after they would be purchased and decide on doctrine.

IAA will take its lead from EASA which requires sense and avoid capabilities at least equivalent to manned aircraft before they will be allowed in civil airspace. While under development it still isnt available and when it is it will cost a small fortune.

The potential for long linger up in the air following and monitoring vessels with potential for underwing stores such as lifes rafts, flares etc..

The Army have a limited UAV capability I was more looking at potenitial for UAVs as deployable assists overseas with UN/EU BG or in maritime role/internal security etc..

The Army have the capability that they currently require. If they need bigger they would be better off going for a manned platform such as the DA42 at the lower end (Used on contract in Afg by the RAF) up to something like a SKA200. Anything bigger is a waste for the DF as would be tactical UAVs upwards. They just could not support the logs footprint of larger UAVs.