UAVs, Let’s Try This One

Posted on by

Here is a UAV that is already in use by the Navy. The ScanEagle, is so small it could operate routinely from the Webber Class WPCs.

Wing Span 10.25 ft (3.12m)
Length 6.5 ft (1.98m)
Max Take Off Weight 44-48.5 lb. (22 kg)
Max speed 80 knots
Cruise speed 50 knots
Ceiling 10,000 ft
Max endurance: 15 hours

In it’s “dual bay” configuration the sensor package can include a synthetic aperture imaging radar in addition to video. It can use standard diesel fuel, but it won’t use much since the engine is less than two horsepower.

It was reportedly used during the Maersk Alabama piracy incident in April 2009 (the first of three times pirates attempted to take the ship).

I think its worth a closer look, like perhaps a deployment on a 210.

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/ScanEagleIraq.jpg

A video of it in operation is here, including a launch and recovery from what looks like a fishing vessel less than 80 ft long.

Of course if this system becomes standard on the Webber class they will have to be reclassified as WCVL–Coast Guard Aircraft Carrier, Light. (Lee, thanks for the inspiration.)

Navy News Service – Eye on the Fleet

Image:   110225-N-RC734-011.jpg
Description:   Guy Mcallister, from Insitu Group, performs maintenance on the Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) aboard the amphibious dock landing ship USS Comstock (LSD 45).
Guy Mcallister, from Insitu Group, performs maintenance on the Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) aboard the amphibious dock landing ship USS Comstock (LSD 45).
110225-N-RC734-011 PACIFIC OCEAN (Feb. 25, 2011) Guy Mcallister, from Insitu Group, performs maintenance on the Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) aboard the amphibious dock landing ship USS Comstock (LSD 45). Scan Eagle is a runway independent, long-endurance, UAV system designed to provide multiple surveillance, reconnaissance data, and battlefield damage assessment missions. Comstock is part of the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group, which is underway in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility during a western Pacific deployment. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Joseph M. Buliavac/Released)
 

119 thoughts on “UAVs, Let’s Try This One”

  1. Question, Why are we not Funding this stuff for the US Coast Guard. Why hasn’t someone in CG HQ gone to the company and buy it for the fleet. Doesn’t anyone in CG prescribe to the Of the Shelf concept, when it comes to modernizing the US Coast Guard.

    Reply ↓

    • The Coast Guard does plan on buying a proven system. Right now they seem to be planning on using the Navy’s MQ-8 Fire Scout (which is still in development). But the Coast Guard is not planning on putting them on ships until 2025 according to this article. That I find incredible, in fact inexcusable.

      http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/coast-guard-unmanned-aerial-systems-enlisted-032611/

      Fire Scout is a 600 pound helicopter, with a 27.5 foot rotor diameter, much bigger than the ScanEagle, too big to operate from the Webber class. And it does not have the endurance of the Scan Eagle.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-8_Fire_Scout

      Reply ↓

      • They are probably waiting till the Navy wears out their first batch so we can get a deal on some used ones. 😉

      • +1 When I’d talk with my dad we agreed that the CG and Marines of his time (1959-70) had a lot of similarities, hand me downs from other agencies but we made them work (EG: Parkhill secure HF, Navy didn’t like it so we got stuck with it).

      • Chuck,
        How come the US Coast Guard is not buying something that is proven to work and that has been used right now by the US Navy and the USMC. Why are they waiting and wasting our money for them Navy’s MQ-8 Fire Scout, when they can get the Scan Eagle right now and put them to use in the Coast Guard Fleet. The Scan Eagle is perfect for the new FRC, the National Security Cutter and the OPC. Can u imagine having a Scan Eagle for all the FRC’s, National Security Cutters and the OPC.

      • I may not be as confident in it as you are, but I do think it deserves a serious try.

      • Chuck,
        I’m all for off the Shelf technology and stuff that is new and being used by other navies around the world. I’m for stuff that can be readily be available and can be used by the fleet right now. As far as the Scan Eagle goes, if the US Navy and the USMC are happy with their Scan Eagle, then it should be a no brainier for the US Coast Guard as well.

      • Chuck you’re right the Fire Scout is too large for FRC sized ships while Scan Eagle is. The Fire Scout I was told recently is expected to be IOC with the USN by next FY.
        The other part of the equation is keeping NAVAIR out of the UAV pad design and construction process~

  2. One of the problems with UAVs is they do not always come back. So, how many will be allotted a cutter? However, by 2025, I’ll probably be drooling in my oatmeal; if around at all.

    Reply ↓

  3. Presumably you would take more than one, but as you see they don’t take up much room. I think fully equipped with sensors they are about $300K. Not pocket change, but way cheaper than helos.

    Reply ↓

    • I think this is a bit off. Insitu says that no model of the scan eagle vehicle costs more than $100,000, and avionics magazine says :

      “The air vehicle itself carries a price tag of $72,000, but the cost of the complete system, including launcher, sky hook vehicle, and ground support package, rises to $420,000. ”

      Assuming the truck is 50,000, that makes it about $300,000 to install a launch and recovery system on the ship (not including integration costs) and $100,000 for each vehicle.

      Reply ↓

  4. There are more issues at play with UASs than availability in the market place. The areas we would need to fly small tactical UASs are areas that are already crowded with other aircraft.

    Below is a small blurb from a recent FAA issue paper on UASs.

    “The Bottom Line

    The introduction of UASs into the NAS is challenging for the FAA and the aviation community. UAS proponents have a growing interest in expediting access to the NAS. There is an increase in the number and scope of UAS flights in an already busy NAS.

    The design of many UASs makes them difficult to see and adequate “detect, sense and avoid” technology is years away. Decisions being made about UAS airworthiness and operational requirements must fully address safety implications of UASs flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft, and perhaps more importantly, aircraft with passengers.”

    Reply ↓

  5. They can keep it!
    Yes, it does a lot, but its not truly portable if you have to drag around a launch and retrieval platform.
    Fine if you’re far enough from the action, but thats about it.

    Reply ↓

  6. Considering Master Chief Ayer’s point, I had been thinking in terms of using it away from National airspace, but there is another reason that while you might be able to use ScanEagle from 270s, 378s and NSCs, using them from Webber class cutters would be problematic. The larger ships have air search capabiliity and can keep track of air traffic in the vacinity while the Webber class cannot. Taking that in consideration, on second thought, I would also see a problem in deploying them on the smaller ships.

    Reply ↓

  7. RADM Jim Olson was a big advocate of looking into these types of platforms as early as 2003. Matter of too many issues not enough time or staff. We had 1 person in the capabilities shop at HQ looking at UAVs and that was primarily watching after the cx’d Eagle Eye with ICGS and setting up our 1st Predator proof of concept flights in AK. Many of the issues discovered then still apply as the discussion has turned most recently above with air space deconfliction etc. Even at 300K getting this capability now is difficult, We have no FY budget approved as I write, the FY12 process is well underway and HQ types are likely already into FY13. Squeezing in more is problematic as it would suggest not doing something in current/near term budgets or trading off something already planned for in out years. Creatively, it can be done but in numbers to make a difference while I’m still afloat, likely not. I hope we can see something fielded prior to 2025, I would love to have UAV capability alongside my manned helo, I can assure you it would go to good use in the AOR I’m familiar with.

    Reply ↓

    • A UAV capability would be wonderful. That said, too many people are still operating under the business as usual mindset when it comes to budgets.

      As a nation we simply cannot afford continual 1.5 trillion dollar budget deficits, and hard choices are going to have to be made. DOD has woken up to the new reality, but sadly, DHS has not. Their leadership is still banging the “no price is too high for security” drum, and this attitude in the long run simply isn’t going work – and, I’m afraid, the Coast Guard is going to suffer for being part of the delusional cloud hovering over the Nebraska Avenue Complex.

      Reply ↓

  8. “Now that money has ran out, we all must begin to think.”

    -Admiral of the Fleet Sir John “Jacky” Fisher, RN

    Reply ↓

  9. Using UAVs is one of those programs that might allow us to do certain missions at a lower cost, but there are other airframes as well. The HC-144 presumably cost less to run than the HU-25. It certainly ccst less than a 130. Equippiing a Beech King Air or diesel engined Diamond Twin Star with the sensors that we intend for UAVs would allow us to patrol a fraction of the cost of even the HC-144.

    Unfortunately on the ship side it looks like we are committed to doing more with each ship more expensively, but having fewer ships overall.

    Reply ↓

      • Perhaps range and speed of some other options are comparable to a 144 but no where near a 130. We don’t need C130s everywhere, but where we do, we do. Recall the original ICGS plan was based on all fixed wing missions being accomplished by the Casa 295ER. (ER being extended range) Significant isues drove changes that resulted in ICGS selecting the 235 (HC-144 CG designation); and coupled with aquisition of 6 C-130J models force planning (Korn study) resulted in the fw mix you see the CG moving towards today. Small UAVs could be useful but issues are well covered above and we now have the 144 in aquisition. To what benefit would we gain by diversifing into multiple platforms that do essentially the same thing? Training, logistics, ramp space, etc all apply and add major cost to a program.

      • According to what I was told by a member of the team that chose the 235/HC-144, the “significant issues” that drove the selection of that aircraft was cost – not mission accomplishment. The C-295 would have been a better aircraft than the 235, both in range and endurance, being very close in capability to the C-130. Alas, the budget wasn’t there.

        What is interesting about that is the fact that for all the years the Coast Guard was in DOT, we were told that being in that Department is what hurt the CG at budget time. So how have things really changed with the move to DHS? Even before the current budget crunch, the CG was forced to make mission compromises on aircraft recapitalization, and has struggled to rebuild the surface fleet.

        As Roger Daltrey sang, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

      • @Anonymouse I agree with you that the C-295 would have been a better choice. What’s your take on the C-27J Spartan. Do u think the USCG should have gone with the C-295 or the C-27J Spartan

      • DOT was better for the fa ct they left the CG alone. Federal Register changes that used to take weeks alt most to be rubber stamped, now sit up there for months at a time because DHS is a bunch of micromanaging blow hards. Not to mention under DHS the culture of the CG has changed into more of an alphabet soup LE agency instead of an Armed Service which performs civil functions.

  11. UAVs on an FRC? What a ridiculous idea.

    Most patrol boats do not have an ET assigned and while it is fun enough to grab the popcorn and watch the BMs level of frustration go higher and higher as they try and troubleshoot electronic systems underway, I cannot imagine them trying to do the PMS checks on something like a UAV. That is something I would not want to wish on any of my crews.

    Thanks for the laugh though. LOL!

    Reply ↓

    • We don’t have the ship’s crew fly helicopters either. I would think any UAV det would include a couple of properly trained operator/maintainers.

      Still, as noted above, there are probably other reasons it is not practical right now. That does not mean we can’t use these on 270s and larger.

      Reply ↓

  12. DODBizz (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/12/f-35b-deliveries-in-2011-and-a-10-year-cash-crunch/) reports from the Navy League Sea Air Space Exposition:

    “Meanwhile, Coast Guard Chief of Staff, Vice Adm. John Currier said that his service needs two new classes of maritime surveillance UAV to replace the Coasties’ HC-130 Hercules transports and its fleet of helicopters that are currently being used “inappropriately” as maritime surveillance aircraft. The service needs a broad area surveillance drone (sounds like the Navy’s BAMS) that can patrol wide swaths of ocean like the HC130s currently do and a smaller UAV that can serve as the eyes of the Coast Guard’s cutters in the same way the service’s choppers currently do, said Currier. Key to this will be following the Navy’s UAV programs very closely since Coast Guard doesn’t have the R&D cash needed to develop brand new UAVs for these missions.”

    Reply ↓

  13. NOAA has had good sucess using Scan Eagles off our ships in the Arctic…they are simple, cheap, and reliable systems with a relatively small footprint onboard.

    Reply ↓

  14. We have been working through the process to experiment with ScanEalge’s aboard CG Cutters for a few years now. I manage a project at the University of Alaska and we own four of these aircraft and have three operators. Most of our work to date has been in support of science or emergency response operations, including flight operations off two NOAA research ships.

    Reply ↓

  17. Another new optionally manned UAV with 40 hour endurance coming to the market. This could allow a lot more flexibility in moving assets around the US:

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2011/05/09/AW_05_09_2011_p52-316747.xml&headline=Northrop%20Grumman%20Aims%20To%20Take%20On%20Predator&channel=awst

    and “Empire Challenge” May 23‑June 3. A demonstration of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. I hope the Coast Guard has representation:

    http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2011/pa041311.html

    Reply ↓

  22. Pingback: Boxer Crew Provides Community Support to Thai school | MaritimeSecurity.Asia

  26. Defense Industry Daily has a good review of the “Fire Scout” program as a free sample. One question, having read it is, will the Navy’s desire to enhance its capability by using a larger airframe make the program unattractive to the Coast Guard?

    There is also an indication that the Navy is extending their effective range by controlling them from helicopters.

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-fire-scout-vtuav-program-by-land-and-by-sea-updated-01316/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_content=Malaysia

    Reply ↓

  27. This is about a demonstration in Europe, but it sounds an awful lot like what the Coast Guard does. Concerns using an “optionally manned”. In this case it is probably a modified Diamond Aircraft DA-42 powered by twin turbo-charged diesel engines that run on Jet-A fuel.

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2011/11-21-Airborne-Border-Surveillance-Frontex.html

    Information on the unmodified aircraft here: http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft/da42/specs_da42_tdi.php

    Reply ↓

  30. The new version of Firescout, the MQ-8C (http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=253223), is to be based on the Bell 407 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_407), which is a 6,000 pound gross weight helicopter, 41’8″ long with a 35′ rotor diameter. This may make is less suitable for the new generation of cutters. It might work on the NSC paired with a manned helicopter, but on the Offshore Patrol Cutter it may be large enough to preclude also carrying a manned helo.

    It is not clear if the Navy will continue with development of the current smaller MQ-8B.

    Reply ↓

  36. Pingback: Summer 2012 “Delivering the Goods” Available - CGBlog.org

  44. “PATUXENT RIVER NAS, Md., 30 Dec. 2012. U.S. Navy officials have issued an urgent order to equip the service’s MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter with the Telephonics Corp. RDR-1700 maritime-surveillance radar system.” Read the full report here:
    http://www.avionics-intelligence.com/articles/2012/12/AI-Firescout-radar.html

    This is good news for the CG, since the CG has long contended the system needed a radar, while the Navy had apparently persisted in the belief electro-optic systems were sufficient.

    This should result in radar equipped Firescouts in about a year.

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment