In order to defend against a threat, you have to be able to simulate it for realistic training and evaluation. Navy ships are increasingly threatened by supersonic anti-ship missiles, which can leave defenders as little as 45 seconds from the moment they break the horizon to impact with the ship. The USA’s GQM-163 Coyote target was developed to simulate those, but the Russians also sell an interesting hybrid threat. The 3M54E “SS-N-27 Sizzler” variant of the Klub missile uses the usual sub-sonic, sea-skimming approach in order to extend its range, until it gets within 60 km/ 36 miles of its target. Then it boosts to supersonic speed, and performs evasive maneuvers to confuse defenses.
It’s a deadly threat. Which is why the USA has been funding the Multi-Stage Supersonic Target Program since 2008, in order to develop a target that can bring the same kind of sizzle to defensive exercises.
Flight International reports that Finland has picked Aeronautics Defence Systems’ Orbiter 2 UAV as its future tactical UAV, beating BlueBird’s SkyLite B for a likely EUR 23 million, 55-system contract. The contract signing is expected soon, and once that happens, Finland will join its Baltic Sea neighbor Poland as an Orbiter UAV customer.
Despite their small size and weight of under 10 kg, both systems require a vehicle-towed or mounted catapult for launch, and use parachute recovery. They offer similar performance ranges just above the mini-UAV class, with endurance of around 3.5 hours, and payloads that involve just a small surveillance and laser designation turret. A slightly larger Orbiter 3 variant is available that would have doubled endurance to 7 hours, and increased control range to over 100 km, but Finland appears not to have picked it. BlueBird touted the Skylite’s high-wind, all-weather capability, while the Orbiter can extend its operating control range to 80 km using ground data terminals. In either case, Finland is picking a small UAV with limited range and capabilities, in exchange for higher numbers at relatively low cost. Given the country’s dispersed defense doctrine, it’s a choice that makes military as well as financial sense.
