Whilst we were discussing a potential sale of the Boeing P8 Poseidon to the UK should the MoD find a couple of billion down the back of the sofa it is interesting to see that at the lower end of the scale there is development activity.
Indra have also developed a light maritime reconnaissance aircraft based on the Tecnam P2006T aircraft.
Pop over to Naval Technology to read the story
In an older post I had a look at the Tecnam
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/future-uk-maritime-patrol/
and
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/03/a-spare-3-47-and-an-iou-for-mpas-what-shall-we-buy-then/
If you read the information at the link it also describes how the next step is conversion to an optionally manned aircraft.
Read more at the Indra website
Obviously not in the same class and obviously it is not for submarine hunting but for the near offshore role, looks cheap as chips and if equipped with a Seaspray 5000E, AIS and electro-optical turret, non too shabby in the top trumps kit list.
Click here to read the data sheet.
We have seen the optionally manned K-Max in Afghanistan, the NG Firebird and the Diamond DA-42 based Aeronautics Dominator
With recent US reports stating very clearly that unmanned systems are not as cheap to operate as the brochures tell us is the optionally manned option worth a serious look?
Think that in light of all the Unmanned craze that is going on, we might have lost sight of the original purpose of UAV systems, that is, cheap sensor systems you won’t mind losing taking a peek at something when the alternative is to get your head blown off sticking it into a hornet’s nest or down the lion’s throat for a closer look.
This doesn’t really apply in MPC and AEWC, the number of times these aircraft actually get in danger is incredibly rare, and for situational awareness, nothing beats a human being. This is why even with all the cameras and sensors, it is still common for a tank commander to stick his head out the hatch for a look around.
Optionally manned to me might be the worst of both worlds, you’ll either end up with a totally manned system for awareness while the remotes gather dust, or end up as a remote system with the manual controls gathering dust.
Observer,
Not sure if that ‘I’m expendable’ tag is the only criteria thats driven UAS development to be honest?. I think that there is also a large element of ‘I can stay airborne for 3 days without the wife getting narky…and I dont need a pension pot in 20yrs time’!.
On the latter grounds Maritime Recce (i.e non-ASW bits) and even AEW (with the caveat of needing signal relay or LOS to disseminate) both sit very well within the framework of missions that unmanned platforms can offer real value for.
If ‘optionally manned’ means that you can use the sensors where there is bandwidth to support unmanned ops and, if there is a lack of suitable comms, revert to more local organic processing techniques then, perhaps, there is something to be said for it.
i’m liking that, twin engine helps to avoid squeaky bum if over water, optionally manned in my eyes means self deploying (no issues over/in CAA airspace. something like could go on ops without hampering commitments at home (use in a hi/lo mix). But the lowering of the sights through a bomb bay style door sells it for me, ally as you like!!