In late August, 700X Naval Air Squadron conducted the first flying trials of the Peregrine RWAUS from HMS Lancaster in the Gulf of Oman.
Secured under the Future Tactical Uncrewed Air System (FTUAS) programme, the RN selected the Schiebel S-100 Camcopter as the basis for Peregrine. The aircraft will be equipped with the Thales I-Master radar, a compact, lightweight airborne surveillance radar that offers ultra-fine Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery, Maritime Moving Target Indication (MMTI) and Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI) modes.
Peregrine will operate in the intelligence-gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance role.
The Austrian-made Schiebel S-100 is a very mature platform that has been in service with civilian and military users since 2005, having successfully performed more than 2,000 deck launches and recoveries from ships including in challenging winds and sea states.
It is extraordinary that it has taken the RN so long to acquire a viable RWUAS. An urgent capability requirement was issued in mid-2022. Thales and Schiebel completed factory acceptance trials of the S-100 and radar integration in August 2023. but it has taken a further year to get this well-proven aircraft to sea. Once fully operational, Peregrine will eventually offer a low-cost alternative or complementary capability to the crewed Wildcat helicopter. It will also greatly add to the situational awareness of the frigate, especially valuable in the complex maritime environment of the Middle East.
Hurrah! About time too.
I understand that 18 months ago we contracted for a 2-year managed solution, if memory serves for £10m a year for one ship. Janes wrote that it was only for one UAS. (I had originally assumed at that price we’d be getting at least three or four.) This need to be made fully operational asap and a financial case made for a more permanent and very much cheaper solution.
Given previous comments about 24-hour-a-day surveillence I’m hoping Janes was wrong about the number of drones. www. janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/sea/thales-and-schiebel-to-supply-uk-royal-navy-with-rotary-uas-solution-to-meet-peregrine-ucr
S-100 is in operation in 17 countries and RAN has been operating S-100 for 6 years and is phasing them out end of 2024, what took RN so long?
Do you know what they are replacing them with?
It’s okay, I found it. Boeing Insitu RQ-21A Blackjacks: like an overgrown ScanEagle, and rebranded Insitu Integrator in Australia to signify locally sourced add-ons. Lighter weight than S-100, much longer endurance, but importantly, not radar capable. It looks like it wasn’t the RAN’s choice and their programme has been merged with the Army’s. The Army are getting 24 for A$650m, that’s about £14m a piece.
Interesting , I cant find any formal decision on that for RAN. I have a feeling they dont have the money.
For the Army they have selected a range of types with different capabilities such as Integrator and 2 different bigger types.
I cant see a rail launched long winged UAS being suitable for OPV and Frigates
They would use FLARES for launch and recovery for shipboard operations.
Jon, I guarantee you are 100% wrong about the RQ-21A/Integrator being not radar capable…
It takes time to collate a robust Safety Case and meet all requirements that the Military Aviation Authority dictate.
6 years , it seems they never got that far
‘The number of S-100s under consideration at the time was not disclosed, although an unconfirmed media report referred to an initial procurement of 40. The sole source decision was made days before the Coalition government entered into a caretaker period….However, it has now been reported that the Labour government has scrapped the acquisition
3 were used for evaluation as you mention, from 2018
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/schiebel-s-100-camcopter-acquisition-scrapped
Commercially, 2 basic S-100 and a control station is (or was) about US$2M
Isn’t there a larger Schiebel S-300 with increased range, speed, 24 hour endurance, higher altitude and payload also available? Shouldn’t the RN be looking at that too and maybe have both?
Yes there is, but until we know what we are using Peregrine for, we don’t know if it’s worth buying extra payload or higher altitude.
It’s fine to to start with the smaller but know the bigger might be even more useful and is already being used by other Navies, I believe the Korean and soon to be French.
A bit like Grumman F4F and F6F of WW2…just make it bigger all round
How does the radar these carry compare with something like Crowsnest?
Massively less powerful. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Crowsnest radar and associated processing and display systems take more power than the Peregrine engine puts out in total.
The radar is also already in use on the Watchkeeper UAV.
This is a 200kg all up weight drone. The radar is minuscule.
Feel like the RN have been trialling various lightweight surveillance drones for about a decade now!
How much faffing around is needed before they go with a type and get it rolled out across the fleet.
Five of these please, one for each of the River B 2’s
Completely agree!
Can a river permanently embark one of these without a hangar? I know they’re small but it’s not like you can just stuff one in a broom closet, maybe they can build some sort of small, semi-permanent hanger (basically a shed) on the flight deck? depending on the room taken you might have to give up operating Merlins and only use Wildcats, but it could be a worthwhile trade-off.
The River B2s have space for an ISO container on each side, forward of the flight deck. One could be utilised for storage, maintenance and control of 1+ S100s
Cool hopefully we eventually get a RWUAS on every escort and opv in the fleet
They’re not aerials, they’re antennas. Fact check your articles before publishing.
What’s the difference? Feel free to be technical.
An aerial is any structure used to transmit or receive signals, while an antenna specifically refers to the component that performs this function.
Nice cut’n’paste, but Google’s first answer isn’t always definitive. If you look down your list of Google answers you will see things such as as antenna is the American form while aerial is the British; or there is no difference between them at all. None that I can spot would make the usage in the article wrong. I just want to know why John is apparently outraged at what he percieves to be a mistake. I might learn something.
Glaciers move at a faster pace! For the price of these we should have 5/6 containers with 2 of these a piece and be on all the rivers by now. BAE should have by now made the CMS be compatible with output as that was a separate requirement. £2 for this commercially as someone also mentioned.Why so slow!
DRS
Same reason that the Patrick Blunkett expereimental ship took over six months to get certified for sea = overall there is far too much paperwork being generated by far too many many bureacrats – most of who have no desire whatsever to speed things up
Nobody “employed” (note 1) in military avaiation safety certification seems to have “twigged” that these drones are all unmanned (note 2) craft = so they should be very easily be capable of being tested being tested out in remote areas, including out at sea.
That testing of drones could easily be done without risk to life.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. I will not, on principle, use the word “working”
Note 2. A reques to all “girlie pilots”: is it still offically called an unmanned craft: or, in the 21st century, is it more poliically correct to use the term uncrewed?