Raven pic

[Michael Emrys]

Recently discovered this image of the Raven. This gives some idea of why it can be afforded to issue down to the company level. This is about the size of certain kinds of model airplanes, which it resembles. One thing I found odd is the white color. Seems like that would make it more visible at the altitudes at which it operates. I wonder if later models are camouflaged better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_RQ-11_Raven#/media/File:Raven_UAV.jpg

Michael

Edited December 1, 2016 by Michael Emrys
Could not enter pic directly.

[Machor]

I'm purely guessing here, but I think the white colour is the colour of the plastic the parts are molded from, and camouflaging them is not worth the return versus the performance loss resulting from the extra weight of the paint.

[The Steppenwulf]

13 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Recently discovered this image of the Raven. This gives some idea of why it can be afforded to issue down to the company level. This is about the size of certain kinds of model airplanes, which it resembles. One thing I found odd is the white color. Seems like that would make it more visible at the altitudes at which it operates. I wonder if later models are camouflaged better.

 

Given its extremely small size, its unlikely to be spotted - actually a greater chance of being heard. Besides that, white against the sky does not set it drastically against the background; surely aircraft are not camouflaged from the danger of ground spotters but higher altitude fighter aircraft, which is irrelevant (again) given the size and role of this UAV?   

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Given its extremely small size, its unlikely to be spotted - actually a greater chance of being heard. Besides that, white against the sky does not set it drastically against the background; surely aircraft are not camouflaged from the danger of ground spotters but higher altitude fighter aircraft, which is irrelevant (again) given the size and role of this UAV?   

Battlefields are noisy places, and its engine is small. If it is flying high enough to make spotting unlikely, I'd venture that it is even less likely to be heard. And anyway, without a visual sighting, how likely is it that ground fire is apt to be effective? As for the greater danger being from other aircraft, again I would venture that spotting and then attacking from a fast flying aircraft would be even more difficult, especially given that the aircraft is apt to be busy doing other things, like delivering ordnance or avoiding interception. No, at least for the present time, I'd guess that the greatest danger for small low-to-medium altitude drones comes from ground fire. But that could change in the not too distant future (pilotless interceptors?).

Michael

[Machor]

Just linking to Panzer's post here FYI:

I do agree that some camo work - sky blue or ghost grey - could reduce the chance of spotting, but the engineering window here has to count every single gram. That being said, experience in the field against an industrial nation could change priorities.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

It's been a while since I was in the same room as one, but at least some drones are that lovely boring lightish grey that anything that the military flies is colored.  

As far as small drones go, I'd contend the dangers are as follows:
 

1. Loss of connectivity.  They're small platforms, usually controlled by fairly modest transmitters.  Most have a return to launch point feature to keep them from being lost, but they're ineffective if they can't send back information/are just coming back to the launch point after 1-2 minutes.

2. Ground fire.  They're fragile, fairly slow, and don't fly very high

3. Flying into things.  They're not hyper agile, most of them fly fairly sedate patterns with sensors aimed at finding objects, not navigation....so an unexpected object is something they're not going to avoid very well.  

[Machor]

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

3. Flying into things.  They're not hyper agile, most of them fly fairly sedate patterns with sensors aimed at finding objects, not navigation....so an unexpected object is something they're not going to avoid very well.

Could WW1 barrage nets make a comeback as anti-UAV nets? Ideas, ideas...

[JUAN DEAG]

5 minutes ago, Machor said:

Could WW1 barrage nets make a comeback as anti-UAV nets? Ideas, ideas...

There are far more advanced things being developed for counter-UAV capabilities...

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/counter-drone-exercise-black-dart-expands-moves-to-eglin-afb/

Nets don't seem very practical in a modern war because you would have to be able to move immense amount of nets with the fighting force and cover it from 360 degrees and prevent UAVs from flying under it or over it. Even in a border security type application it would not be a practical solution. 

[VladimirTarasov]

Nope there are heavy jammers that can ruin any UAV's day.

[Codename Duchess]

On 12/1/2016 at 1:51 PM, The Steppenwulf said:

Given its extremely small size, its unlikely to be spotted - actually a greater chance of being heard. Besides that, white against the sky does not set it drastically against the background; surely aircraft are not camouflaged from the danger of ground spotters but higher altitude fighter aircraft, which is irrelevant (again) given the size and role of this UAV?   

Generally with larger aircraft you have lighter tones underneath for concealment against the sky and darker ones on top to conceal from above. It's surprisingly effective.

[akd]

This is how America deals with UAVs.

[A Canadian Cat]

And the Dutch too: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/01/dutch-netherlands-police-birds-unauthorized-drones?client=ms-android-bell-ca

[Michael Emrys]

On December 1, 2016 at 11:51 AM, The Steppenwulf said:

...actually a greater chance of being heard.

Actually not. Just last night I was reading an article where it was mentioned that the Raven at least is electrically powered and extremely quiet.

Michael

[The Steppenwulf]

3 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Actually not. Just last night I was reading an article where it was mentioned that the Raven at least is electrically powered and extremely quiet.

Michael

I didn't know that and I accept the point. The point about camouflage however must stand:-

 

18 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Generally with larger aircraft you have lighter tones underneath for concealment against the sky and darker ones on top to conceal from above. It's surprisingly effective.

and

 

On 01/12/2016 at 11:42 PM, Michael Emrys said:

 As for the greater danger being from other aircraft, again I would venture that spotting and then attacking from a fast flying aircraft would be even more difficult, especially given that the aircraft is apt to be busy doing other things, like delivering ordnance or avoiding interception. No, at least for the present time, I'd guess that the greatest danger for small low-to-medium altitude drones comes from ground fire. 

 

 .... both chime with the point I was making; that ground camouflage on the top is an excessive measure, and the natural white/grey is akin to the sky camouflage colour of the under-side fuselage of manned aircraft anyway.

[TheForwardObserver]

I have a lot of experience searching through fields for crashed Ravens and IMHO it would make the job tougher if they were camouflaged.
EDIT: There is no rescue mission so unfulfilling as those launched in the pursuit of Raven recovery.  We had a guy that needed to be MEDEVACed three times on one deployment, because he kept spraining his fat wobbly cankles-- at least we could tease him mercilessly about his cankles putting everyone's lives at risk, but Ravens-- they show no regret or embarrassment, no thanks or relief.  Almost like they expect you to rescue them-- like you owe them-- well listen here Raven-- we owe you nothing.

Edited December 5, 2016 by TheForwardObserver

[gnarly]

1 hour ago, TheForwardObserver said:

 because he kept spraining his fat wobbly cankles

This forum never ceases with the education it provides.

 

I had to google that....

[John Kettler]

TheForwardObserver,

Always good to get the user's viewpoint. This video doesn't inspire confidence in me, so I hope it's tyros in training we see rather than trained troops. I do notice two things in particular: 1) The Raven is gray, not white; 2) the whine it makes is quite noticeable, but my understanding is the high-pitched sounds don't carry well at a distance.

Naturally, things go smoothly in the manufacturer's video for the Raven B.

Regards,

John Kettler