DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Av Week Extra » Classified Bids Submitted For UK UAV

Classified Bids Submitted For UK UAV

This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.

Three companies are vying to secure an unmanned air vehicle demonstrator contract at the heart of the British Defense Ministry’s so-called Novel Air Capability Vision, but details of their respective proposals for the program are being treated as classified.

BAE Systems, missile manufacturer MBDA and Cranfield Aerospace are understood to have submitted proposals at the end of October. The contract for the selected concept could be awarded early in 2010.

The overall program is intended to run for around three years with the aim of providing a flying vehicle, along with the possibility of an “experimental operational capability” by 2015.

Neither MBDA nor BAE Systems were in a position to discuss their respective submissions beyond confirming them.

The novel effort is being pursued alongside more “conventional” Defense Ministry UAV and unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) projects, its Mantis and Taranis technology demonstrator programs, respectively. BAE Systems is leading the Taranis UCAV and Mantis medium-altitude long-endurance programs, while its Herti tactical system is once again undergoing operational evaluation in Afghanistan.

One aim of the air capability vision is to drive innovation and technology exploration to meet what is a challenging set of “essential and highly desirable requirements.” These include system survivability, maneuverability, payload integration and transit speed.

In discussing the general aims of the capability vision initiative, the ministry describes the effort as intended to “tackle … high-risk, high-return” opportunities offering a “step change in planned or future capabilities.”

The program could be of particular significance to MBDA. Expanding into the UAV sector using its guided-weapons expertise is a clear growth path for the European company, though it could place it in direct competition with its parent companies, BAE Systems, EADS and Finmeccancia

MBDA is teamed with Selex Galileo and GKN, with its proposal dubbed Black Shadow.

The outline requirement for the Novel Air System program is to look at development of a reusable long-range strike platform capable of penetrating and operating in defended airspace. A target range of more than 600 mi. is called for; another design driver is that the air vehicle be capable of being launched and recovered from a frigate-size ship. The last requirement would suggest a vertical take-off and recovery design.

The design should also have a loiter capability in the target area to engage the target, carry out damage assessment, and to reengage if needed. The ability for the system to be operated in an urban environment is also required.

Novel Air Capability is one strand of the U.K.’s Defense Technology Plan that was unveiled last February. The driver behind the novel air capability element of the overall research effort was to examine a “more cost-effective means of achieving the effects currently provided by manned aircraft and cruise missiles by using new concepts in [UAVs and] unmanned combat air vehicles,” according to the technology plan.

Discussing the concept further its adds: “The specific effects under consideration are the delivery of novel payloads over remote hostile territory and, specifically, within the urban environment.”

Read the rest of this story, hear about Av Week’s trip to The Stan, see Merlin in the mountains and get another take on the Ospreys in Helmand from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military​.com.

– Christian

Share |

November 10th, 2009 | Av Week Extra, Drones | 49475 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/11/10/classified-bids-submitted-for-uk-uav/Classified+Bids+Submitted+For+UK+UAV2009-11-10+13%3A33%3A04christian You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Caught on Tape: JSF | Stitching a Stretchy Crotch » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Charles says:
    November 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    They could go joint with our program…and hope it turns out product faster than JSF.

    Reply
  2. stephen russell says:
    November 11, 2009 at 1:35 am

    Stuff for a new 007 movie?
    Wow.

    Reply
  3. Jimbo says:
    November 11, 2009 at 9:57 am

    Sigh, is the UK government wasting my tax money again by developing something to create jobs even though they could simply be bought of the shelf from another nation . This will be another grand waste of time and money like BAE UCAVs that have come before this and come to exactly nothing. All the while there is a war going on that UK troops are seriisuly under equiped and under strangth for, nice priorities from the idiots in government…
    I give up with this insane idiocy, we need a modern day Guy Fawkes to succeed and start over again.

    Reply
  4. Charles says:
    November 12, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    They should “joint” it with the US and use the saved development money to fund more pressing priorities.

    Reply
  5. Gismo Fly says:
    November 19, 2009 at 11:03 am

    We need innovation to win this war.…and the next one. Let’s not have any limits on imagination and originality in developing weapons for the good guys. If the prototype fails.…move on to the next idea.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up?
    • South of the Border Mayhem
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
    • Rise of the Cyber Arms Dealers
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    Recent Comments
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      Actually, no! Our economies are not interdependent. We...
      rugerblake
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      You can bet the farm that those 150...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Quote: "China would undeniably...
      Benjamin
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      How about we produce 5 more B2s and have it...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      China would undeniably destroy all the...
      Alex`
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      I have an even better idea –sell them...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      I would say that because Taiwan has 146 F16...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Mainly because the Taiwanese don't...
      andercon05
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Go with the Euro Fighter. Obama will sell...
      Phillip
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Excellent article on strategypage.com called...
      WJS
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage