Great pic of a IDF soldier with a Tavor and a Mini UAV

[IDFM203]

I just thought id post this great pic that I find while browsing that site that I took it from.

http://www.defense-update.com/images/casper200.jpg

Well most of the pic is self explanatory, so I will just highlight two things.

As you can see this soldier has the Israeli made Tavor and also has a UAV which is actually a mini and "backpackable" Israeli designed UAV called the Casper 200 (http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/casper200.htm) and it is just one of many new Israeli designed mini or micro UAVs such as the Mosquito Micro UAV (http://www.defense-update.com/products/m/mosquito.htm) or many many other Israeli designed micro UAV's (http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-2-04/feature-mav.htm) (on the left side under where it says "MAV Links" there are links to just a few of them) that Israeli combat infantry soldiers and elite soldiers will be using (and some have been already for quite some time ;) )

Shalom :D

[Marsuitor]

Hey wondering, Is the Tavor set to be the new service rifle across the board in the IDF, or will the CAR-15 and/or M4 be kept? I heard some stuff that only border guards on the less tense borders and certain police units were to be issued the Tavor. True, or?

Interesting piccie btw, reminds me of a friend who does model planes! p-)

[gilgoul]

Hey wondering, Is the Tavor set to be the new service rifle across the board in the IDF, or will the CAR-15 and/or M4 be kept? I heard some stuff that only border guards on the less tense borders and certain police units were to be issued the Tavor. True, or?

Interesting piccie btw, reminds me of a friend who does model planes! p-)

in the best of world, the IDF would comand a bunch of tavor to make it the standart weapon, but due to budgetary cuts and the US equipement program (that allows us to buy in the StaTES WITH US $$), the chance to see the Tavor in all units is pretty low.

[IDFM203]

Marcus,

Well I first I should say that on the Tavor I would also defiantly welcome the comments of other Israelis as to what they might know about this, but from what I know so far, it will be widespread though it will be a phased process where increments of them will be handed in the coming years and not a overnight switch.

Now indeed as gilgoul pointed out, because of budget reasons and I will add that the fact that in the past few years the IDF got tons of M4's well because of all that, till it’s a standard issued weapon of all in the IDF will be years from now.

As for it going to just the border guard well I havent heard any such thing though I don’t deny what you say though I have not read or heard that.

As of now they were in combat testing and in actual combat deployment in Givati and in Tzanchanim (and also in some elite units) and that is all I know up to know as to who has used the Tavor till now.


As for your last comment, well yeah I somewhat hear you, though understand that the real ingenuity is in the surveillance capabilities and technologies and not only on the actual “plane” though for that as well it is a little more advanced then your verge model plane ;)

Shalom :D

[HELEX]

Wow, I didnt know about this US-only clause.

[IDFM203]

Wow, I didnt know about this US-only clause.Just curious where in this post did you see that?

Ok, the 2 point something billion a year that Israel gets from the U.S for defense (it gets another billion of non defense), around 70 to 80 percent of it must be spent back in the U.S.

Understand also that Israel’s defense budget is around 9 to 13 a year and what is not paid by the U.S. (Well minus that 2. something from 9 to 13) the rest is paid by Israel and that money has no clause to it.

The Tavor can be made in Israel and bought by the IDF, however the IDF is indeed in a budget crises and also we in the past few years we got tons of M4's and as such it is just not feasible for the IDF to go out and change over everyone to the Tavor in one shot.

Though there is some plan where the Tavor will be made in the U.S. and as such it will come in as part of the aid that Israel gets but I don’t know if that plan is happening or is going to happen and from what I have read that hasn’t happened at all

I hope this explains it a bit.


Shalom :D

[HELEX]

Just curious where in this post did you see that?


In gilgouls Post, what other US Equipment is the IDF using? Exept large things like the F-16s and stuff. What are they thinking about the M-4 compared to the Galil and Tavor?

[ronin2172]

he didn't say US only he said the program allows them to buy US equipment in the US with US dollars at US prices, thereby making it cheaper to buy US weapons (m4 etc.) than producing it yourself.

As for the galil I read that it was not universally loved in the IDF (especially the various SF units, with the exception of the Naval Commandoes), the issues they stated was mainly due to weight and accuracy concerns.

Not saying that what i read was correct, or stateing this as fact, but it would make sense as Israel does have a sophisticated arms industry which has allowed israel to produce homegrown weapons systems when there was a cheaper alternative avilable (It's more expensive to design, and produce a homegrown system than buy one 'off the shelf') .If the Merkava wasn't a great tank i'm sure israel would have procured more M60's as they are cheaper and then modifiy them in service, as this would be a huge savings in cost (but the Merkava is one of the best tanks in the world so making the extra expense worth it)

[IDFM203]

As for the galil I read that it was not universally loved in the IDF (especially the various SF units, with the exception of the Naval Commandoes), the issues they stated was mainly due to weight and accuracy concerns. You are 100 percent correct!!!

In all combat infantry and elite units, the Galil is not looked on favorably at all for exactly the reasons that you said, and also I should add the fact that the with the Galil (or even the AK) you cant attach the many attachments that you can to a M4 or a M16 and even if you can its not as easy as it is to do it to a M4 or a M16 etc….


S13 (naval commandoes) they use the ak47 and they continue with it now for its part of their tradition but also another reason is that the Ak47 provides a deniability factor when on mission beyond Israel’s border (if you need more explaining on that in my follow up reply I will do so or you can go to isayeret.com and they elaborate more on what I just said)

Speaking of Isayeret.com, they have a great article on why we prefer the M16 over the Galil/AK and they also dispel the money factor as to why we use it, for that article click Here (http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm)

Shalom :D

[ogukuo72]

At the risk of starting another AK vs M16 debate, as well as at the risk of hijacking this thread, the reasons given in the article are similar to the ones given in a book on SOG as to why SOG men preferred their CAR-15 to the AK - better accuracy, better sights, better control arrangements (thumb selector switch, bolt retaining catch & magazine release button), lighter weight and more compactness.

As I remembered it, the author commented that the AK had only one advantage over the CAR-15 - that of reliability. An AK NEVER jams, no matter what was done to it. A CAR-15 has jammed on him once or twice on the range, mainly because of faulty or old magazines.

A procedure was established where he fired a full magazine load from all his magazines before a patrol, and replace those faulty ones. Using this procedure, his CAR-15 NEVER jammed on him in combat.

[HELEX]

When I hear about jams in M-16 system, always the Ammo or Magazines are blamed and never the Rifle..... :roll:

Firing all full Magazines to check it works properly... sounds like a thing that I never want to use.

[ronin2172]

what is your problem with the m16/ m4? u always take the time to slam it...u even implied once that it never works in the field...that even moved royal to make a comment. It's not perfect so what, no rifle is, but it does the job and that's all that counts and damn if the amount of people who use it means anything a whole lot of people feel the same. Before u say....that's because it's so cheap.... remember SF units can choose whatever weapon they want no matter the cost. but the majority of them choose a variant of the M4/m16 family

Do u work for Heckler and Koch? U seem to take this a bit too personal, that or u have a vested interest (and i don't know how that'll get served here).

[ronin2172]

what is your problem with the m16/ m4? u always take the time to slam it...u even implied once that it never works in the field...that even moved royal to make a comment. It's not perfect so what, no rifle is, but it does the job and that's all that counts and damn if the amount of people who use it means anything a whole lot of people feel the same. Before u say....that's because it's so cheap.... remember SF units can choose whatever weapon they want no matter the cost. but the majority of them choose a variant of the M4/m16 family

Do u work for Heckler and Koch? U seem to take this a bit too personal, that or u have a vested interest (and i don't know how that'll get served here).

[ronin2172]

oops sorry double post

[Marsuitor]

When I hear about jams in M-16 system, always the Ammo or Magazines are blamed and never the Rifle..... :roll:

Firing all full Magazines to check it works properly... sounds like a thing that I never want to use.

Won't comment on M16 reliability, but the full auto procedure does make sense IMO. From my experience on mainly the G3, a rifle that operates desirably on full auto most likely wouldn't create any problems semi. You're not just testing the mags in this case, but the entire action of the weapon, in a way that is more strenous to the rifle than regular semi.
The few times i've had the G3 jam on me would be due to some of the weapons themselves being completely worn out after about thirty years in service, but they still worked remarkably well still. There's also a little story about a patrol in some other company from us in Kosovo who were fired upon by some dick thief with a pistol. The pointman cocks his weapon in preperation to return fire, but it jams. So instead they piss off in the opposite direction. The pointman has his weapon checked by the armorer according to SOP and it turns out that it was so filthy and full of crap that the bolt wouldn't lock(!) Moral is that he could thank his own uselessness for not having a life on his conscience... :bash:

[gilgoul]

Just curious where in this post did you see that?


In gilgouls Post, what other US Equipment is the IDF using? Exept large things like the F-16s and stuff. What are they thinking about the M-4 compared to the Galil and Tavor?

The galil is not regarded that well among infantry and other combat unit.
The tank units recive it and love it for it`s sturdiness, something you can `t expect from an m16 (try to throw it in a tank a few times and you`ll understand).
As for equipement, a lot of aquipement are now american made, even with Israeli design, because of the famous FMS (foreign military support), that is a hidden subvention to american armament industry.
For instance, the shoes i received are israeli design, but made in USA, with the brand name Mc Rae!!!!!!
You`ll notice also the helmets of support units are US PASGT fritz, flak jacket of the armour are also the ols american flak.
we use hummers and jeeps (althought assembled in Israel), m113, hoshkosh trucks and so on.
Still, the US has fortunately not succeded to impose us the Abrams or the MG m60, or some other pieces of crppy equipement .
;)

[gilgoul]

I changed my mind on the m16a1, at least the carbine one (CAR15), I perceived one in relatively good shape, and in a shooting session of two days, in a really dusty place and more than 250 round shot, i didnt have to suffer a single fire incident out of the ones intentionnaly provoked. even with suspicious looking ammos that looked like they received some water 10 years ago.
I enjoyed also the balance and the size of the weapon, getting completely familiar with it and achieving pretty decent results.
the problem relies on the long one, that is really not correctly balanced, apart from the "A3" that i had the pleasure to shoot at night (the flash suppressor is relly cool and get you in line, impressive).

:D

[big80a2]

Saw a soldier with a Tavor in Bersheva Burger King last summer.
He had two magazines striped together and some soft stuff wraped around it.

[Gordon]

Are you sure ... according to some "experts" on this forum you can not use a Bullpup with two magazines strapped together ..... :cantbeli:

[Marsuitor]

Still, the US has fortunately not succeded to impose us the Abrams or the MG m60, or some other pieces of crppy equipement .
;)
Aww, come on now! I've got the feeling that your Merkava is damn fine, but don't give the Americans that, they've worked so hard on it! :lol:


Are you sure ... according to some "experts" on this forum you can not use a Bullpup with two magazines strapped together.....
?? Just a matter of weapon shape and magazine spacing when striping the mags. Use a chunk of something if they don't go as is...
Who said that btw?

[Gordon]

It was meant as a joke, I wasn't being serious.

The whole bullpup vs normal rifle shape argument comes up alot and I remember seeing in a recent topic someone, I think it was mustamato (maybe), posting about why they believed the bullpup was the worst of the two ... one of his reasons was that you couldn't use double mags or C-Mags with bullpups, which is obviously wrong.

[Uninen]

Yeah, Israelis are funny that way.. as they tape the mags together in "L" shape, and not in your average "somali ak style".. (side by side basicly) :P I guess mustamato didnt see that comming.. :lol:

[gilgoul]

Yeah, Israelis are funny that way.. as they tape the mags together in "L" shape, and not in your average "somali ak style".. (side by side basicly) :P I guess mustamato didnt see that comming.. :lol:

WHAT??????

L shape, since the old times of the Uzi I haven`t seen anything like that.

Magazines are to be put side by side, and if you don`t have the little clip that helps, just tape a shell between the two mags, and please no upside down stuff, it`s ridiculous and you usuallyend up stuffing the lower mag with dirt everytime you take prone position.

[Javehn]

Yeah, Israelis are funny that way.. as they tape the mags together in "L" shape, and not in your average "somali ak style".. (side by side basicly) :P I guess mustamato didnt see that comming.. :lol:

Really ? ;)
"They" put the magazines on "L" form only on Uzi (and it's not taped also ) . Funny , because on all other weapons "they" put the magazines together side by side ;) . And on Somali style (Side by side , when one magaine face down and one up ) , if you lying on the ground , an stucking your lower taped magazine into the mud ... Or bullets starting to disconnect from the magazine . I don't think you ment that one ?

And i also didn't liked the Galil , but when a part of a tree falling down on your tank , om weapon mount , and your weapon isn't breaking appart , that's good enough .

[obd]

the Abrams aint a crappy tank by the way. In fact, its more battle proven than the Merkava which has yet to see extensive combat against latest Russian designs.......Oh, and its also faster than the Merkava. According to official report the Merkava has a lower sustained speed making it easily outmanuevered in amror warfare.......

Basically, an Abrams column can deny the fight and pick the time and place of combat... On the up side of the Merkava it can house troops ( a few) and it has some of the best crew protection around but I put it this way: In several cases of tests, the 120mm sabot smoothbore could not penetrate the frontal armor of the Abrams.....maybe also not the Merkava...

My point is it would be damn hard and up to crew skills to destroy eachother hehehe.... In this case US tankers have far far far more recent combat experience in large scale armor warfare against late model Russkie designs.... When was the last time Isreal faought a really large scale armor battle? The 1960's?? MAybe in 1973? That a LONG time... If you were to take 100 of the best American tankers in the latest M1 Abrams design and 100 of the best Isreali tankers with latest Merkava and put them in a desert and say "go at it" I would put my money on the Americans hehehe.

Oh and by the way, you Isrealis should buy the US Bradely... It has prooved by reports of US tankers, to be one of the most highly effective IFV's around... IT withstood RPG's and its Bushmaster cannon was said to be even more devestating to Iraqi dismounts and technicals and even T-72's than the M1 Abrams!!!! Funny, but numeroud crews reported destroying T72's with rear and side hits from the Bushmaster...... Do you Isreli's have anything like the Bradley??? The m113 seems outdated even in its most updated form..... I say take lessons learend and buy the Bradley!! Its a super platform.....combat proven even agains MBT's....Also its far far faster than m113 and can keep up in manuever warfare with the M1 Abrams....which still holds the record for largest distance covered in shortest time in combat for a tank (from Gulf War 1)

[big80a2]

the Abrams aint a crappy tank by the way. In fact, its more battle proven than the Merkava which has yet to see extensive combat against latest Russian designs.......Oh, and its also faster than the Merkava. According to official report the Merkava has a lower sustained speed making it easily outmanuevered in amror warfare.......

Basically, an Abrams column can deny the fight and pick the time and place of combat... On the up side of the Merkava it can house troops ( a few) and it has some of the best crew protection around but I put it this way: In several cases of tests, the 120mm sabot smoothbore could not penetrate the frontal armor of the Abrams.....maybe also not the Merkava...

My point is it would be damn hard and up to crew skills to destroy eachother hehehe.... In this case US tankers have far far far more recent combat experience in large scale armor warfare against late model Russkie designs.... When was the last time Isreal faought a really large scale armor battle? The 1960's?? MAybe in 1973? That a LONG time... If you were to take 100 of the best American tankers in the latest M1 Abrams design and 100 of the best Isreali tankers with latest Merkava and put them in a desert and say "go at it" I would put my money on the Americans hehehe.

Oh and by the way, you Isrealis should buy the US Bradely... It has prooved by reports of US tankers, to be one of the most highly effective IFV's around... IT withstood RPG's and its Bushmaster cannon was said to be even more devestating to Iraqi dismounts and technicals and even T-72's than the M1 Abrams!!!! Funny, but numeroud crews reported destroying T72's with rear and side hits from the Bushmaster...... Do you Isreli's have anything like the Bradley??? The m113 seems outdated even in its most updated form..... I say take lessons learend and buy the Bradley!! Its a super platform.....combat proven even agains MBT's....Also its far far faster than m113 and can keep up in manuever warfare with the M1 Abrams....which still holds the record for largest distance covered in shortest time in combat for a tank (from Gulf War 1)

on the merkava vs abrams has been debated alot... the merkava is made for israeli condisions.

I think if bradly would come to Israel it would be modivided ... and that nice.... really want to see what Israel will add to the Strykers that are bound to come...

[big80a2]

Are you sure ... according to some "experts" on this forum you can not use a Bullpup with two magazines strapped together ..... :cantbeli:

yep I am :D he also ate a king wopper and a banana milk shake :lol:

[IDFM203]

the Abrams aint a crappy tank by the way. In fact, its more battle proven than the Merkava which has yet to see extensive combat against latest Russian designs.......
First of all the Merkava saw battle against Russian tanks in the 1982 war in Lebanon.

Secondly when has the U.S. tank force really been tested in the battlefield in recent times?

Anyways I am not an expert on tanks but perhaps my friend Javehn would want to perhaps elaborate on some of his past exercises between his Merkava and the U.S. Abrams that he participated in :D

Oh and also elaborate how the Merkava did in the Golan and how the Abrams did there ;)


obd I am sure you will defiantly like to hear what he has to say p-)



Oh and by the way, you Isrealis should buy the US Bradely... Perhaps we should I mean already some of the Armour on the Bradley as well as some of the electronics systems on it are Israeli made :D

shalom :D

[Javehn]

First of all the Merkava saw battle against Russian tanks in the 1982 war in Lebanon.

Secondly when has the U.S. tank force really been tested in the battlefield in recent times?

Anyways I am not an expert on tanks but perhaps my friend Javehn would want to perhaps elaborate on some of his past exercises between his Merkava and the U.S. Abrams that he participated in

Oh and also elaborate how the Merkava did in the Golan and how the Abrams did there


obd I am sure you will defiantly like to hear what he has to say


No , man , let them think they are better ;) . They paying us the money , you know p-) .

But it wasn't so much problem of a tank , more outdated tactics there , when we kicked their asses big time ;) . The only mechanical problem was , that the Abrams tracks couldn't suffer the land on Golan , and broke down in half a day p-) .


Oh , and Merkava had shoot the **** out of T-72 in Lebanon . But that's not so rellevant .

[Mark_Aspen]

These kinds of arguments do get silly after the umpteenth time. IDFM is correct, the US hasn't had to go up against the C team, much less an A team. Iraqi armour was almost 2 generations old during the Norman's war. On the other hand, we haven't fought massed armour since 73.

BTW Obd, the Sinai battles were the largest, some as big as anything seen on the Eastern Front or N. Africa. While the Egyptians normally didn't perform at the level the Israelis would, In the early parts of 73 they fought set piece actions that they'd rehearsed, and had the advantages of numbers and surprise. All told though it was their RPGs and Saggers that took a toll, not their armour.

As to man for man, I don't know. Until now I'd say that the only Americans who could see and feel a threat since 1975 were those on the DMZ in Korea. That makes the training that much more significant. In Israel it's, learn what to do, go to a border area. The one area that the Israeli armoured corps. deliberately stressed was the sniper's adage of one shot -- one hit.

[big80a2]

Hmmmz really would like to see the merkava 4 in real live!!!
anyway have a question about the mk4 it doesn't have a loaders hatch ... and thus so no MAG on that side (right when facing the front). How is the IDF trying to solve this thing?? especialy in Urban combat?
just a thought.... is it therefor they actually updated the Mk3 Baz to the version shown at LIC 2004. This mk3 is quite good adapted to urban combat.

chears

[2RHPZ]

A couple of more articles at Micro UAV

Mosquito Micro UAV
Israel Aircraft Industries

The Mosquito 1 is a micro UAV designed by Israel Aircraft Industries, in response to the Israel MOD Defense Research & Development Directorate (DRDD) micro systems technology development. First flight was performed on January 1, 2003. The miniature saucer shaped plane weighs 250 gram and as a wing span of about 30 cm. The vehicle carries a miniature video camera and already performed several flights with up to 40 minutes endurance each. The Mosquito is launched by hand and lands on its skids at the end of its mission.

The company is planning to test the advanced Mosquito 1.5 version soon. This improved design will weigh twice the Mosquito 1 weight, will be capable of flying a 60 minute mission with enhanced video camera (two gimbals provide roll control with electronic image stabilization), and carry improved avionics, enabling fully autonomous missions.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/m/mosquito.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-2-04/mav-darpa.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/images/mosquito1.jpg


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micro UAV's - the future of unmanned surveillance - INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS: Micro-UAV Flies Like an Insect

At the recent biennial 2003 International Robot Exhibition in Tokyo, Seiko Epson Corp unveiled the world's lightest and smallest UAV helicopter, the Micro Flying Robot, which Seiko said it plans to be the vehicle for an equally small flying camera. Surprisingly, the machine looks a bit like a scaled-down version of DeVinci's unrealized 16th century plans for a helicopter.

The manufacturer built the device so that it could fly into dangerous areas or areas hit by disasters in place of human beings and see what the situation is. Another example would be for the micro-UAV to fly into a building flattened by an earthquake and see if anyone was trapped inside.

The prototype shown weighs an incredible 0.35 ounces and measures 2.8 inches in height. It can be operated by remote control but at present must be powered through a wire from a generator. Seiko Epson spent three years developing the Micro Flying Robot. The company is now working on developing a suitably light onboard battery, and showed the robot at the exhibition to generate such interest among battery makers.

Unmentioned were the potential military applications. Such a UAV could provide over-the-horizon reconnaissance capabilities for individual soldiers on the battlefield once suitable power and lifting capacity are achieved. Such a micro-UAV would also be very useful in urban combat, or investigating caves and bunkers. Even with a thin wire attached to power the UAV, and send pictures back, a tiny, hovering night vision camera would be a real lifesaver.

The flying robot uses two counter-rotating propellers powered by an ultra-thin ultrasonic motor, and balances in mid air by using a linear actuator-based stabilizer. In the last decade, the US military has been quick to adopt technologies like this for battlefield use, and this is the sort of thing that quickly shows in the hands of American troops

http://www.gizmo.com.au/pics/2373_01.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micro-UAVs Possible in Near Future
by Dale Kuska
Special to the American Forces Press Service

MONTEREY, Calif. -- A Navy SEAL creeps silently through dense bushes, and approaches a structure with American citizens held captive inside. He needs to see inside the building to find how many hostages there are and exactly
where they're located, but he cannot simply walk up to the building. He reaches into his belt and opens a small canister to release a micro-unmanned aerial vehicle -- a two-inch rotary aircraft that can fly quickly into the building to collect data and assess the situation.

Sounds futuristic, but vehicles like this are approaching reality, and at the Naval Postgraduate School, here, a two-man team is working to bring such vehicles to life. "Our particular vehicle is remotely-piloted, meaning there will be someone on the ground providing the control, like a remote-controlled car. There would be a camera inside to provide real-time video information, which gives the operator the ability to see where he's flying," said electrical and computer engineering Professor David Jenn, who's been working on the project with doctorate student Bob Vitale. Surveillance during hostage situations is just one use for a micro-unmanned aerial vehicle. It could also inspect hazardous areas, such as an area contaminated by a chemical attack, or other instances when sending humans would be too risky. Plus, its small size gives other advantages. "It would be portable,so it can be carried on a SEAL's belt, for example, and, when he needs it, he can simply open the canister and flies it off," Jenn said. "These things are very small, they're covert, they are very difficult to see, and even if you do see them, they're very difficult to shoot down."

The primary focus of Jenn's research is to find an innovative power source for such a small aircraft. If you use a battery, it's too heavy," he said. "Besides, batteries will not provide a lot of power for a long duration of time. (In our research) we're using an off board source of energy. An antennae would track the vehicle and provide a microwave beam to provide energy to the
vehicle. The vehicle receives it, rectifies it, then uses that energy to power the motor. "One of the biggest advantages of using microwave power is that you can make these UAVs smaller and smaller. With a battery, if you continue making it smaller, you lose power," Jenn explained. Jenn and Vitale's approach for obtaining power is ground-breaking.

"We've never seen anyone transfer power in this way before. In the past, people have used a microwave dish antennae with a large, flat panel suspended over it to gather energy. With a micro-UAV flying, this panel wouldn't work, because once the UAV flew off to the side, it wouldn't be able to receive energy and therefore would fall to the ground. The antennae we're working on is multi-directional, so it can continue to send energy no matter where the micro-UAV is," said Vitale. "We've also been able to use the body
of the aircraft as an antennae." Jenn and Vitale's goal is to fit required sensors into a small, graphite canister weighing no more than a piece of paper, so these micro-unmanned aerial vehicles must do more than maximize use of space. "The types of sensors DoD would like to see in here are a video camera, radiation sensors, chemical sensors, and maybe even [Global Positioning System]," Jenn said. "There's also talk of using these as communication relays. All this equipment can be packaged together, but it's the weight that creates a problem."

Even with weight as an issue, these tiny vehicles are making progress."We've already demonstrated we can transfer power with microwaves. We've performed tests on the safety issues of microwaves, and we've shown that having multiple ground stations [sending microwaves] is the best possible method, said Jenn. "Now we plan to show how we can power these UAVs
using radar systems -- systems the Navy already has."

(Kuska is a writer at the Naval Postgraduate School.)

[2RHPZ]

War on Terrorism Boosts Deployment of Mini-UAVs

Michael A. Dornheim / Los Angeles and Michael A. Taverna / Paris
Originally published in AW&ST July 8, 2004

Small man-portable reconnaissance drones are finally seeing action as the war on terrorism brings home ground troops' need to see over the next hill.
Close-up on-ground battles in Afghanistan have pushed the services to order for the first time significant quantities of mini-unmanned aerial vehicles (mini-UAVs) for operational use. The U.S. Special Operations Command (Socom) has ordered over 80 mini-UAVs based on the AeroVironment Pointer, more than all prior Pointer orders combined since the hand-launched 8.4-ft.-span aircraft became available in 1989. The order came from emergency funds to fight terrorism, and the aircraft may already be operating in Afghanistan.The Air Force's Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom AFB, Mass., has started the FPASS program, ordering an initial batch of 4-ft.-span mini-drones from the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. It is a quick reaction program for rapid fielding, in part to detect people with shoulder-fired missiles lurking to attack aircraft, and will lead to a competition for more drones. Both AeroVironment and Lockheed Martin have several other mini-drone programs underway that are short of production.

"There's a lot more interest post-9/11," said Eric Knutson, Lockheed Martin program manager for the Sentry Owl family of mini-UAVs, from which FPASS is derived. "Before 9/11, we focused on technologies, wringing out the impossible. Now the services tell us they need hardware, forget the reports."
"With these aircraft, forces can quickly see not too far away," said Robert F. Curtin, AeroVironment vice president. "It fills an information hole for them." Interest in small UAVs is also growing rapidly in other areas of the world, particularly in Europe, which will acquire an estimated 500 vehicles within the next three years, primarily for testing and evaluation. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) continues to push the technological edge with micro-drones that are not quite ready for prime time. Its prior fixed-wing micro-drone program has concluded, but their small 6-in. size, arbitrarily chosen by Darpa, is at or beyond the edge of practical broad use. However, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is continuing to work on a Microstar micro-drone. Darpa has moved on to the Organic Air Vehicle (OAV), a hovering ducted fan designed to fly to and perch on a vantage point to conduct extended reconnaissance. "Organic" means it is organic to, or controlled by, a small infantry squad. The OAV is supposed to be scalable within a 9-29-in. range of duct diameters. Darpa has also started a new micro air vehicle program, which is the OAV shrunk further to 6-in. dia. so it will fit in a backpack. While acknowledging the value of perching, some industry experts believe that the ducted fan configuration is not suited for this task, in particular because of its poor ability to hover over a fixed point with much wind. They consider the 6-in. size even more impractical. "It's a very tough requirement, and we don't think it's possible in the next several years to build a vehicle that anyone would be happy with," one expert said.

AeroVironment's Pointer can carry an 8-12-micron long-wave infrared uncooled camera or a color visual camera, and stay aloft 90 min. using high-performance lithium-sulfur dioxide primary batteries. The airframe with batteries only weighs 8.3 lb., and the entire system fits in two rifle boxes, but is heavy enough that it is usually carried on a jeep. The U.S. Army's Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) program bought four systems in 1999 for evaluation and liked them, but found the ground station too big, Curtin said. The company shrank the ground station to less than half-size, and also shrank the airframe to a 4.4-ft. wingspan from 8.4 ft. This new version is called Raven and has the same payload as Pointer, but now is man-portable. The aircraft fits in two packs that weigh a total of 8.5 lb. Endurance is about 80 min. Like Pointer, a joystick can mark map waypoints or directly control the aircraft. As a follow-on to the MOUT contract, four aircraft and two ground stations will be delivered to the Army by October.

Filling roughly the same niche as Raven is the Naval Research Laboratory's Dragon Eye mini-drone. NRL fixed the outer shape as a twin-engine 4 ft. X 1-ft. rectangular flying wing, and it is being produced by AeroVironment and BAI in Maryland. With the clunky design, endurance is only about 45 min. on 1.5 lb. of primary batteries. Control is via a laptop, and imagery is viewed with TV goggles, instead of a hooded TV screen. Operational range is 5-10 km. (3-6 mi.). AeroVironment is working on an enlarged Pointer, called Puma. It is also electrically powered and is to have more capability, including 2.5-3-hr. endurance. In Europe, the area of greatest activity may be in France, which is working across a broad area embracing micro-UAVs and mini-UAVs.

French aerospace research and development agency Onera is studying a future generation of micro-UAVs for urban warfare applications that would be capable of entering buildings. The 5-million-euro ($4.9-million), four-year project, called Remanta, is investigating both ornithopter and vibrating wing concepts. The study brings together a multidisciplinary team that is focusing as much on key technologies such as artificial muscles, micro electro-mechanical systems, micro-control and lightweight structures as aerodynamics and architecture. The objective is to prepare the way for a workable design that could be fielded between 2010-15. Initially, engineers are targeting sizes of 15-40 cm. (6-16 in.), although final designs will be smaller. "Because of the difficulties encountered, we have adopted a strategy different from that in the U.S., starting large and then working down," said Rene Mathurin, who is responsible for UAV development at the French defense procurement agency DGA. "Experience in the U.S., which aimed at under 15 cm. initially and now appears to be looking at bigger sizes, seems to bear out the soundness of our approach." The DGA, which is funding the Onera work, is also sponsoring a pair of medium-term initiatives aimed at developing somewhat larger hovering miniature UAVs for use in exterior urban warfare environments.

Last week, the DGA unveiled a 1.6-million-euro three-year university contest intended to generate breakthroughs in miniature UAV design. The contest, patterned after one already in existence in the U.S., will downselect 20 proposals for a flyoff under operational conditions, with the winner getting a 15,000-euro cash prize. Each team will be eligible for up to 40,000 euros in public financing to build their UAVs, which can be up to 70 cm. in length. To start in September, the competition will be open to graduate students of any nationality, but only French citizens will be eligible for public financing. Interested parties should consult www.onera.fr or www.defense.gouv.fr/dga.
In parallel, the DGA plans to shortly issue a request for proposal (RFP) to industry for a 40-cm. miniature UAV demonstrator (AW&ST June 17, p. 63). A dozen or so firms have already shown an interest in tendering, according to Mathurin.

The best ideas will be integrated into an operational procurement to be launched in 2006. Several hundred units are to be acquired under this program, which seeks to have operational UAVs in infantry hands by 2007-08, Mathurin said. In the nearer term, the DGA plans in 2003-04 to issue RFPs for larger (50 cm.-1.5-meter) mini-UAVs that could be fielded by dedicated servicemen at the battalion level. Around 100-150 units would be procured, for deployment toward mid-decade. The target price for these mini-UAVs is under 4,500 euros. A sign of the growing international market was the large number of small UAV systems on show at the recent Eurosatory defense exhibit here in June.

Sagem presented a hand-launched electric-powered 2.1-meter (7-ft.)-long mini-UAV, the TMD3, that can be carried broken down by a single infantryman and assembled in the field in just 5 min. Resembling AeroVironment's Pointer, distributed in Europe by EADS/CAC Systems, the 3-kg. (6.6-lb.) TMD3 has a long 3.4-meter wing to save power. Capable of flying for more than 1 hr. at speeds of 30-120 kmph., the TMD3 can carry a stabilized payload, including a digital data link capable of transmitting over a 10-km. radius, company officials said.

ANOTHER FRENCH FIRM, Technisolar-Seni, exhibited a pair of electric-powered mini-UAVs equipped with wing-mounted solar arrays. One is equipped with landing gear that allows it to return with stored data, obviating the need for a data link. The other is a knocked-down unit.

Singapore Aerospace Industries displayed a hovering mini-UAV capable of transitioning from vertical to horizontal flight. Equipped with extendable landing gear, the 66-cm.-long 2.3-kg. composite unit, developed with Micro Autonomous Systems, will be capable of hovering for up to an hour with a top horizontal speed of better than 50 kt. Payload is presently limited to 0.5 kg.

Also developing a hovering mini-UAV is Bertin of France. This 30-cm.-dia. 1.4-kg. hovering UAV has an endurance of about 30 min. and can carry a 0.2-0.4-kg. payload, including a tiny inertial navigation unit developed in-house to control stability.

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/ncof/ncf_n80.htm