The Royal Navy say their British ships led the way in “game-changing” NATO autonomous exercises off the coast of Portugal.
Frigate HMS Lancaster and minehunter HMS Hurworth tested the use of uncrewed tech – from drones to underwater survey vessels, which could be used by NATO on the front line of operations in the future.
“For the month-long trials, more than 11 warships, 120 autonomous vehicles and 1,500 military and civilian personnel from 15 NATO countries took over the waters near the Troia Peninsula, Portugal. This is the first time the Royal Navy has sent ships to the exercise, with previous participation involving crewless boats and drones. It’s enhanced presence in the exercise, hosted by the Portuguese Navy, comes as this year marks the 650th anniversary of the Treaty of Tagilde between England and Portugal – the oldest alliance in the world.
HMS Lancaster played a key role by serving as the command hub for the multitude of autonomous systems, feeding information to the other ships in the task force to allow them to make crucial decisions during the numerous scenarios. This allowed the task group to see and utilise the range of drones, underwater vehicles and vessels.”
Jim Beaton, the Royal Navy and UK lead for the exercise, said:
“REPMUS 22 has been a game-changer, first through the trial of an autonomous asset ready combat system in HMS Lancaster, from where we were able to distribute an autonomous system operating picture to a NATO task group. This is a huge advancement, and we have taken that forward to support two NATO Standing Naval Forces. Dynamic Messenger saw us take autonomy to sea in a NATO context. Additionally, we have been able to bring some of the navy’s newest operators to the exercise, getting their feedback on the system and starting to push that experience back into the fleet.”
What was tested?
First up was REPMUS – a testing ground designed to allow large-scale experiments for NATO navies and their industry partners. During this period the ships and crewless technology were put to the test through a range of scenarios above, on and below the water.
“Exercise Dynamic Messenger followed, where the tried and tested uncrewed systems were integrated into operations both at sea and ashore. This was the first exercise under NATO command to use autonomous underwater systems, testing readiness across a variety of challenges including submarine threats and sea mines.
HMS Lancaster carried out trials with Puma, an Uncrewed Air Vehicle primarily used for surveillance. The battery-powered, hand-launched UAV is designed to cope with challenging environments across the globe, and is predominantly used for intelligence gathering.”
OT, but close to many peoples heart on here! 😳
Ares being tested at ATDU 9th October.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gU_dbOkGxg
Ummm
Hey it’s alive, Ajax is alive (with apologies to Brian Blessed). Looks like it might need a mud shield for the driver mind, or is he just wiping the sweat off his stressed forehead.
And it is going faster than 20 mph.
To be fair despite my mockery that is at least a good sign I guess, they feel confident enough to push it a bit to test the effects within H&S regs and for a fair distance too. Do you know what the ungainly bustles are for Daniele, protection storage or what?
No idea.
I agree, I like to try to stay positive regards Ajax. Another video with Ares sounded like a box of bolts before, I was hoping maybe some improvements had been made.
And I like Mr Blessed too.
Met him once I was shocked just how small he is, probably best to fit on tv screens back in the day.
😡
Ian, mate! I was being positive! She Looks good at Bov.
Just the “more than 20mph”… nothing serious!👍😁
Should have replaced those steel tracks with band tracks. It would be a lot quieter.
So can someone explain to me: did Ares suffer the same vibration issues as Ajax or are we only just getting around to testing Ares for the problem?
Ares was “delivered” before Ajax. It’s a less complicated vehicle. Without the turret it is also much lighter. So in theory, it be less noisy and troublesome. The majority of the reports refer to Ajax, not the rest of the family. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see the rest of them suffering as well.
I’m thinking that this public testing of Ares is an encouraging sign; that Ajax is getting there and they are making doubly sure that Ares is not suffering the same problem.
I think the poster who shared it on Twitter was also referencing earlier footage when it sounded a whole lot worse.
I have only heard of light tracked vehicles having band tracks. So, they are also OK for medium weight vehicles?
Soucy have said their tracks are good up to 45t. They were first trialled on M113s. Which is not that much heavier than CVR(T). The first proper operational test was with the Norwegian CV90s in Afghan. The reports were that it drastically reduced crew fatigue, you could have a conversation in the back without shouting or needing headsets. It gave a much smoother ride and also helped with fuel consumption. One CV90 did have its band track destroyed by a controlled IED. This was repaired by the crew, who had the option of a splice repair or replacing the whole… Read more »
Damn that thing is noisy, i have nothing to compare it to though, perhaps all military vehicles are that noisy. Thanks for sharing, i hope the project will eventually yield good results.
Perfect for a recon vehicle😂😂😂 it is seriously loud in the video. It may well be the frequency of those noises that are causing the issues with crew.
I will wait for a professional opinion as videos can be difficult to gauge sound.
Here’s a CVRT going similar speeds down a road.
It sounds really loud as well.
Videos are so difficult to gauge.
https://youtu.be/ZWJUCdHUhYk
At last, the voice of reason👍
I used to drive a CVRT and I’d say the noise levels seem to be pretty much the same, maybe a pitch higher though. Have to say I’d love one of those on my driveway, that would scare those f××kwit drivers round here shitless.
World’s strongest bloke Eddie Hall has bought one (Scorpion if memory serves). He has a YouTube channel showing how much it cost to fill up with petrol (still has Jag engine).
Yes, they sound much better especially when sat next to a 432. Our Regt only had 1 (Samaritan) and burnt off anything else the Regiment had. There were only a couple of guys trained to drive a CVRT so often we’d get ducked to drive the M.O. around on exercise. Because it was a manual gearbox when you were changing down the box you would have to slow right down when changing from 4th to 3rd and be doing less than 8000 revs or you were in danger of blowing the gearbox. Also if going too fast the vehicle slows… Read more »
Do they get their mufflers from Morgan? 😛
Monkey spanker, stand next to any AFV when they start up their engines without ear plugs and you’ll be numb in the ears for the next half hour. When they start their engines the ground moves. First time I heard those things start I was with a German Gepard unit, the complete MT area started their engines all at once, headache and rally marks was the order of the day.
See Mike, there is the crux of the matter! Many many posters on here and politicians in fact have absolutely no idea on how noisy a tracked vehicle is and accept Youtube as evidence. Stand next to a CR2 at full chat, then tell me about noise and vibe.
Cheers
I once was recieving a brief in an armoured unit. The officer briefing us started talking, then a CRARRV started up about 15m behind him, and the world just turned to noise. Couldn’t hear a word he said until the CRARRV moved off.
All armoured vehicles are loud, CVRT was loud, 432 is loud, Warrior is loud, Ajax is loud, it’s just a fact of life.
Why are all armoured military vehicles loud? It isn’t just a fact of life. There’s physics and engineering involved. There’s almost certainly money involved. I’d be willing to bet that some engineers from Bently or Rolls Royce could easily advise on lessening the noise — at a price. Is it a design criterion the army, like the owners of luxury cars, are willing to pay for (out of those 1200 Ajax requirement specifications)? Somebody on this site told me that ships are getting quieter, even if they are not specified with floated rafting and the like, as engines become more… Read more »
By the way, it’s nothing to do with weight. I can see a new-looking 12 ton double-decker bus passing twenty yards from my window, half as heavy again as CVRT, and I can barely hear it.
Steel tracks are one of the noisier elements of a moving tracked vehicle. Even with rubber pad inserts, which are really there to protect roads. The flexing, constantly moving hinges and resonance of a steel track not only causes noise, but also vibration. This is a bit like on a train where you hear and feel the train traveling over the welds in the track. As each wheel passes over the hinge joint it causes a jolt which is transferred through the suspension to the hull. Which is then felt by the crew. This can be reduced significantly by using… Read more »
It does have something to do with weight, but not in the way you’re thinking. DaveyB already covered a lot of what I have to say, but to add on to his points: Buses are designed for comfort on tarmaced roads. Noise reduction is a very high priority, not only for the sake of the riders but for the people who live around the, by default, densely populated routes. Armoured vehicles are designed for a balance of mobility, protection, and firepower. No double decker bus is going to be doing 50mph through knee deep mud, or be required to pull… Read more »
I’m sure 19th century admirals would have looked at ship’s accommodation for modern ratings and declared it a total waste (once they got over the whole women thing) and asked why wasn’t the money being spent on more guns. Yet for all we carp on this forum about FFBNW, I’ve never heard anyone propose sailors go back to time-sharing their hammocks to pay for Mk41 silos. If the Government ever stops cutting army numbers and retention becomes a bigger thing, it’s possible delivering tank and recon crews or infantry in the best shape to fight might get a priority bump.
Again ships are not a good comparison point. Land warfare and naval warfare are apples and oranges. I’m sure a lot of modern ship designers would love to be able to cut back to shared hammock spaces but then what would happen to retention? Same reason that the British Army is building modern Z type accomodation instead of 20 man shared huts. You can’t leave a ship, and you don’t switch a ship off. You can do both with an AFV. A ship also doesn’t really have a maximum size. Want to build a 100,000t ship? The only thing stopping… Read more »
Cheers, though wonder how much the windscreen option costs🙂
What recently ‘broke my heart’ was the apparent ease with which GDLS conjured up another Abrams 😭
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/abramsx-next-generation-main-battle-tank-breaks-cover
Hope the tests go well and we can get these into service. Just noticed on Janes that GDLS have won the contract for the Light Tank in the States. Looks like it will be a 40 ton beast with a 105mm/120mm gun. Possibly just possibly if GD can fix the Ajax issue then in return for the UK keeping faith we could get a few hundred at a reduced cost. Yes I know back to my old arguement for a heavy division, but a combination of heavy MBT, a light fast tank and IFVs with 40mm (I would prefer the… Read more »
Hi Ron
I can agree with that idea, even that seems beyond our Divisional aspirations at present.
DM, I agree that is seems to be beyond our asperations, but with a wounded unpredictable bear and a dragon that is starting to wake, It is time to invest and build for what might come around the corner. I am sorry to say but even if the Ukraine wins their conflict the bear will not forget that NATO helped with equipemnt, training and intel. The only real way to get peace in Europe is for Russia to join NATO until then we need a hard hitting force for Europe and a mobile flexible force for the rest of the… Read more »
The question is did the crew all need a week off to get over the experience.
Too slow, we should be all over this and stop endless trials already. The future is MQ-9BSTOL, Transwing, V-280 Valor and T-650. Shame BAE are so timid and won’t commit and actually build something, or better still acquire a UAV manufacturer.
I’ve said it before. They will be trialling yet more stuff years from now, with nothing having entered service or committed to actually build something.
To “inform decisions” that are then kicked further down the road.
Yes I learned more in the year working after Uni in my chosen profession than the 3 years there. That’s no criticism it was great experience and preparation but fact is it cannot truly replicate vital factors discovered in real life experience so as in this case, you need to start at some point using something in that environment, learn from it and go to the next stage, it’s not wasted time and money, whereas preparing endlessly prior to that hoping for the ‘perfect solution’ and then committing to large orders very often is.
And yet they are committed to operational drones on HMS Lancaster in the Gulf by next year. I really hoped as it was taking part in REPMUS, we’d get the new rotary drones earlier, be they Camcopter or AW Hero. It was disappointing to read they were still working with Pumas.
Exactly. Puma….🙄 Can we get away from these hand thrown toy aeroplanes and get something…meatier?!
Hopefully T-650 is and will be brought into service at least in small numbers asap. Next year will be crucial here. It’s a fantastic and flexible platform that would gain a great deal from use in active service at least in a frontline testing regime to push its potential and learn how best to develop it further. Will that happen, who knows. But one thing is certain either it, or similar concept will be a game changer on the battlefield in ways that few would have envisaged just 6 months ago even if it might be 5 years before the… Read more »
Agree, especially now that DJI has been put on the US sanctions list, we have a great opportunity to break into the drone sector and create some actors of scale in Europe.
I see BAe have teamed up with Malloy to market the T-650. With the breadth of skills and knowledge within BAe, it does make you wonder why they haven’t built anything comparable. It’s almost like they are adverse to building concepts and then trialing them in the real world!
Didn’t they show images of the T-650 fitted with a Stingray. I wonder if they’ve done any drop tests yet. Would be a force multiplier when teamed up with a Merlin and T23.
This was at DVD 2022
Aah there it is. What sensors/links would it need or benefit from to fully exploit that set up, anyone know.
I thhink they had the same model at DSEI a year ago, carrying a Stingray. The question is have they built and flown it yet? If models were all that was needed, Russia would have half-a-dozen aircraft carriers.
Yes, it’s the same model. If it was the same expo, the Malloy holding the Stingray torpedo was hanging from the ceiling.
A nIce insight here from Bae.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/t-650-heavy-lift-electric-uas-concept-vehicle#
Indeed though it’s the triple Brimstone fitting that really interests me. I wonder if a similar Martlet fit out might be useful at sea for some of the roles that the Wildcat would be expected to undertake ie getting eyes, assessing threat and being able to nullify it, especially in adding breath to that capability that a Frigate could seriously exploit maybe prove vital in some hostile environments. Exactly the sort of questions that need to be answered in realistic scenarios I guess.
I don’t see why not. Designating the target would probably be done from the ship or by the Wildcat. It definitely would add a force multiplication factor to proceedings. The obvious situation being in the Gulf, where the Wildcat is flying recce or checking out a ship, without Martlet fitted, then using the drone as a weapons carrier when needed. Another scenario is where the Wildcat needs to carry a boarding team. You can use the drone as an additional offensive/defensive layer for overwatch or close air support. The other option is if it can carry a pair of Stingray.… Read more »
I think AeroEnviroment would make a good fit with BAE Inc. but unfortunately BAE senior management seem to be more interested in counting dividends than looking to the future.
T-650 looks good. I’m looking for an air fryer; save on the electric.
“The future is MQ-9BSTOL, Transwing, V-280 Valor and T-650.” All are for future = not fielded yet, nothing to shame UK not having any of them. Also, how can you say they really are the future? MQ-9B STOL emerged this year. Promising, but still looking for customer. Transwing, very new, isn’t it? V-280 Valor? Why not Defiant? Who knows? T-650 yet to come We know ScanEagle did the work to some extent, but it never became a world standard (Too high loss rate). Camcopter is famous and is “tested” in many agencies. But, if you carefully look at the actual… Read more »
You have hit the nail on the head. Expensive is not needed. If there was ever an example needed I present watchkeeper. Over priced and out of date rapidly.
In my view the developments need to be in power management, and plug in systems/payloads.
That way the actual flying bit can be modified, replaced rapidly as better drones emerge.
So all the drones have the same connectors, management systems, pylons etc. that way industry can easily make attachments that can be taken on and off as required.
I think the glacial pass of testing and testing and testing is a thing of the past. If you look at the Isreali defence contractors, they develop at pace because this is an ingrained mindset. We are stuck in a Cold War mindset. The Valor beats the Defiant on every relevant metric, but it’s “new” so the old guard are against it. As Steve Jobs said, if you listen to customers what they want is a better Nokia (bad paraphrase). Just as the Valor is the obvious choice the same applies to the MQ-9B STOL, the MQ-9B is a proven… Read more »
You should ask why no one bought the V-22 beside USA.
Valor is too complicated, heavy and big.
It’s smaller and less complicated than Osprey, that’s for sure. When do you take the plunge and try something new? Third generation? Fourth? If the US Army select it, I’d say there’s a very good case for trialling a marinized version of Valor, with the possiblity of assembling 50 of them in the UK for both the Navy and the Army. I think other countries such as Italy and Japan would also be interested, especially Italy if they are being assembled under licence by Leonardo in Yeoville. It’s optionally manned, so it can do the 24/7 AEW and tanking roles… Read more »
Italian AF general already said he do not want the Valor complications and prefer the Sikorski proposal.
In Defensenews
Guy sounds like an idiot (paid for) anyone with aviation experience will know that a prop aircraft is miles less complicated than a helicopter.
What you talking about? Since when Valor is a “propeller aircraft”.
The clue is in the rotary things on the wings.
Sorry to butt in. But a tilt-rotor is significantly more complicated that a helicopter. When in the helicopter mode, the tilt-rotor still makes use of a swash plate that changes the disc angle. The range of movement is not as much as the helicopter’s. But think of the mechanics needed to lock and unlock the swash plate when transitioning to and from forward flight. However, the tilt-rotor is significantly more efficient in forward flight than a helicopter. Hence the Valor’s longer ranger and much higher cruise speed. The Defiant has some key advantages for Army use. It is much nimbler… Read more »
Sorry to disagree DB, but the Defiant is a complex beast and “experts” in the helicopter business have stated this, including Bell who looked at this option, a double bladed helicopter with pusher prop. The purported advantages are wishful thinking I’m afraid. The Valor is a 3rd gen tilt design with much simplified layout. The non-tilting engine is a major simplification to a design which has been flying for 20 years. So no, logic does not suggest that a 3 prop design is “simpler” than a fixed wing tilt shaft design.
Right, I never said that the Defiant was not complex. Compared to a standard helicopter it is in a different league. Let’s be honest the Defiant uses brute force to overcome the traditional disadvantages of a helicopter. These are blade stall and unbalanced leading blade lift. As a traditional helicopter flies faster, even though the rotor rpm stays the same, the local airspeed over and around the tips, increases faster than that over the main body of the helicopter. The first problem it will come to is an unbalanced lift component. Where the leading blade generates more lift,… Read more »
A very fulsome analysis. I think the takeaway is that both are complex compared to existing solutions, but one has had more opportunity for testing and evolution. The Blackhawk is an old design and I’m sure both solutions will be orders of magnitude better. I note that the decision has been delayed again. I suppose one solution would be to split the initial order 50/50 and see who wins out on in-service performance.In view of the size of the overall requirement.
You’re welcome, mate. Of the two, I would say the Defiant is slightly more in tune with the US (Green) Army’s needs to replace the Blackhawk. However, the Valor can give the Army something they haven’t had before, which is long range (fast) insertion. As at the moment they have two options, either using C130s for a tactical air drop or using Chinooks. With the C130 air drop, you can guarantee at least 5% of those jumping out of the plane will have some form of landing injury. Plus, any heavy equipment will need to be thoroughly prepared prior to… Read more »
Typo at the end there I think! But I agree and I think the Valor would make a good addition to our QEs and Marines. Especially at the price that US adoption would mean and the option of UK assembly.
Oops my bad. Meant I preferred the Valor. I think it would be great aircraft to replace the Merlin in both the assault and ASW role.
If I recall correctly the USAF said they don’t want it either. It’s armies and navies seem to have the requirement.
Well actually the Japanese have also bought the V-22. And as I’ve said before, if you bother to look up the metrics, even the defiant team don’t pretend that they can win on any performance metrics. As for complexity, I presume you are of the Nokia generation if you think the Valor is more “complex” than the defiant.
It is clear that Valor have much more moving parts and mechanisms.
Take a look at Valor beside Defiant. If you can’t see which is more complex and has more moving parts, Specsavers may be able to help.
Took a look. It look like Valor is much more complicated than Defiant.
Just imagine how you put your weight load on your rotors. From mechanical engineering point of view, Valor is much more complex than Defiant.
“Specsavers may be able to help.”
Is that your level?
Well the thing is Alex, if something is blindingly obvious and someone refuses to see it then options are humour or abuse. The requirements of the program are tough for a helicopter, twin rotors are complex and have issues, everybody in the industry knows this, otherwise the only manufacturer in regular production with this type wouldn’t be Russian (where safety is not a major consideration) Some would argue that the Valor is more complex than a normal helicopter, this is arguable, but that a twin rotor with a pusher prop is more complex than both is not a rational argument.… Read more »
“Just as the Valor is the obvious choice the same applies to the MQ-9B STOL”. Still far from convinced. Yes, Valor is a promising approach. But, it has “potential” drawback in some aspects. V-22 is famous for NOT good maneuverbility in helicopter mode. When in landing, the most risky moment, V-22 is much more vulnerable than normal helicopters. Also, it is very famous for complex and time consuming maintenance. Very expensive in this point. On the other hand, of course the cruise speed is faster. To avoid enemy air-forces attack, it will be important. So, in mid-course, V-22 is much… Read more »
DOT, the V22 is a big beast and meant to be a big beast. Not meant to be manoeuvrable, especially using old tech. You do realise that with FBW this is mostly software these days right. The only reason the Valor won’t win is if the old guard insists on a “helicopter”. As I said the Valor wins on all observable metrics.
Thanks, If you have some information that Valor’s maneuvability as a helicopter is as good as normal helicopter, please let me know? “Observable metric”, to my knowledge, does not include it. An Osprey is three times more expensive than a Chinook, but the latter can carry heavier cargo and more soldiers. Actually, the latter is MUCH more popular worldwide. But, as they differ a lot, comparing these two are not easy. On Valor and Defiant, I think the same applies. Please note I am NOT saying Defiant is better. But, all available information says they differ in figure of merit.… Read more »
The Osprey is a 2nd gen aircraft and quite complex, the Valor is a 3rd gen aircraft design to be cheaper to maintain and to be less complex to fly. Now as to metrics, yes it flies faster and further. It has better fuel consumption and cost per flight hour. Yes it can fly higher and better in hot conditions. But other than that, they are pretty much equal.
There are a few academic papers that go into the advantages; no need for a tail rotor and manoeuvrability and dis-advantages; complexity, cost, weight of coaxial designs. But this is a good summary;
https://www.quora.com/Why-coaxial-helicopter-rotor-blades-are-so-uncommon
Regards.
I would not compare the V22 to the Chinook. The V22 was designed to replace the USMC CH46 Sea Knight. This is a smaller version of the Chinook if you will. The V22s design is heavily compromised due to the restriction placed on it operating from the Wasp class LHD. It had to be capable of taxing past the island, with the nacelles in the vertical position. With at least 5ft of clearance between any of the ship’s structure and the prop-rotor tips. This meant the prop-rotor blades are shorter than ideal. Which then means they have a higher nominal… Read more »
IMO the issue with drones for Recce is staying power. Much like helicopters in the attack role, you can put a drone up to correct fire, or do an aerial recce, but eventually the thing will have to come back.
Foot and armoured recce on the other hand has the advantage that once you set an OP you can keep it there for literally days, continuously, noting everything that comes and goes.
That is a good point. So maybe 21 and 23 will go back to their stay behind roles, or a variant of if not actually staying behind a moving front. Perhaps 4/73 and the HAC need augmenting if more money is going on ISTAR, as the DS said.
On the other hand, perhaps too much duplication?
The Transwing technology looks interesting, even cool, but will it scale? At the current size it’s no more use than Puma or Sky Mantis, which the Navy currently have, and at least the latter is built in the UK. Transwing would need to be able to deliver OTH radar information back to the ship for longer and for less money than Camcopter to be the future in its class: so a payload of at least 15-20kg, against Camcopter’s 50kg. For USN light VertRep, it would probably need a payload of 25kg+, but the RN is just going for the heavy… Read more »
Still, we have supplied UUV mine hunters to Ukraine
Next, I would like to see the Seacraft Victa and Kraken K50 when they are done at these exercises in the future.
Just checked out the Victa, pretty much the exact vehicle I envisaged in a few other threads here, having seen what’s happening in the Black Sea, though I was thinking purely autonomous but that offers its own series of problems used at distance so may be more distant a prospect to be useful militarily. Meanwhile a manned solution at least offers some of that potential earlier and a few others too specific to having humans on board.
I guess it would be more for special forces insertion. I think I did see somewhere about the Royal Navy looking for autonomous function and this was still suggested as an option because it covers the functions. I don’t see why they can’t partner up with another company to make an autonomous version. I have also just noticed that it looks like Stingray (TV show) without the large prop at the back.
Yes you are right, having seen a different pic now I remember reading about this project earlier in the year. Sounds quite impressive but some way from what I was envisaging but still some overlap no doubt and all a learning curve.
This is similar in concept but also has potential as an autonomous design I think.
http://highlandsystems.me/kronos-submarine/
Not very transportable friendly. Their product designs look like they are done because someone thought they looked cool.
Not too bad. There’s a picture of it on the back of a trailer with the wings folding upwards.
Oh yeah lol. Would it fit in an ISO container?
Only if you chopped it into little bits first.
Hi, to shed a little light a few of the OT comments about AJAX below: Yes User Validation Trials have started. At about 1:50 the ARES is at full chat (42mph) for the benefit of the viewer, lovely! “Rubber” band tracks? Well, trialled on WR so may make an appearance?? Coping with the All-Weather Track at Bovvy? Smooth as a baby’s bum, comments on the “outdated” torsion bar suspension Mr Wait? All the “bustles” are to carry the MOD mandated CES and C Supps that will be needed. Paul P…. the perceived N & V issues have been addressed and… Read more »
Thx for the bustle info, though ‘CES’ always meant the Consumer Electronics Show to me but that would be a little cramped in there I suspect despite their prominence.
Hi Mr Spy, stands for “Complete Equipment Schedule”, all the tools, tents, cooking stuff, ropes, hammers etc, you get the drift.👍
Cheers
At least CES in Ajax won’t be TRN.
Thanks mate 😉
Excellent! 😊
It’s good that we a testing this equipment out but has any one asked the question how would we use it or get it to real locations in real time to be of use. Can they be launched from a T23 or T45 or for that matter a T26 or T31. We did miss a trick in not having a stern ramp in the T31or T26. Yes I know the T26 has a stern ramp for operating either a RIB, USV or towed array. As these ships will be the primary ASW vessels of the RN then its a towed… Read more »
Can you share whatever your smoking!
OT good news…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/12/royal-navy-wildcat-helicopters-carry-20-missiles-first-time/
That is impressive.
Impressive indeed; the more so if one Wildcat with fairly short range missiles can take out a swarm of fast attack craft without being shot down. I thought Martlets had to be ‘single threaded’…one at once.
I’m not sure why they have to be single threaded, but even if you are firing at a rate of one every 10 seconds as the craft come into 5-mile range, it’s still pretty impressive.
Smaller missile-carrying FAC often only have anti ship missiles, and even if they carry MANPADs, the Wildcat would be firing with height and distance advantage. If the opposition are big enough to be carrying real SAMs, you’d be reaching for Sea Venom anyway.
Yes, indeed. Wiki quotes Martlet velocity as mach 2, roughly 1500mph and having a SACLOS guidance system; so I think that means the operator would have to keep a target 5 miles aways ‘in his sights’ for 12 seconds. Stinger has a maximum range of about 3 miles I think. At 30mph a FAC would take 240 seconds to close the range from 5 to 3 miles. In 240 seconds you could loose 20 missiles each of which could hit its target in under 12 seconds. A well thought out weapons platform 🙂