Worth a read - UAV problems

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This report from the GAO in the US. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04530t.pdf)

Seen here (http://eureferendum.********.com/#113476708998787203) first.

Comments?

[NR DROOP]

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz !

[Jackonicko]

The blog writer turned out a nicely crafted piece, I think.

The end of the line

I wonder how many others noticed? Tucked into John Reid's statement to Parliament yesterday – and also buried in his Defence Industry Strategy - was a statement of quite earth-shattering importance.

Referring to the introduction of the Eurofighter and the Joint Strike Fighter, he told us that these aircraft would last us 30 years, and then went on to say:

Our current plans do not, therefore, envisage needing to design and build a future generation of manned fast jets beyond the current projects – that is some 30 years away.

Certainly, DefenceNews seems to have picked this up, writing: "The MoD appears to have formally brought down the curtain on the design and development of fast jet aircraft in the UK". And that it is – that is the end.

A nation in the vanguard of aviation that built the Sopwith Camel, which saw off the Red Baron, which built the Spifires and Hurricanes of World War Two, its first operational jet fighter, the Meteor, moving on the Hawker Hunter and the Lightning, we then took the multi-national route to build the Tornado and now the Eurofighter and the Joint Strike fighter.

Now, no more. Never a glad day when British skies will be defended by the product of British skill and engineering.

Instead, the dour Mr Reid had decided that we shall invest in a joint industry/government technology demonstrator program looking at unmanned (he calls them uninhabited) aerial vehicles (UAVs) and hopes that investment in UCAV technology could also enable Britain to contribute to an international manned program should it eventually emerge.

Considering that we have pulled out of the joint UK-US programme, code-named FOAS on this side of the pond, this almost certainly means that Reid is thinking of buying into the French-led Neuron programme, stripping away the last of our independent warplane design capability.

The worst of it all though is that this monumental decision has been taken with even the scintilla of a debate – or protest from MPs. Yet, in pinning our future on UAVs, Reid is not necessarily right.

By coincidence, the US General Accountancy Office today issued a report on UAVs, confirming their usefulness but also drawing attention to the manifest problems of operating multiple craft, not least because the transmission frequencies they use are too congested, and many are unable to switch to less-crowded frequencies.

This is, in fact, a problem that is going to intensify, as the commercial pressure for radio frequencies intensify and, in the final analysis, will always limit the number of UAVs which can be operated in any particular theatre. As technology stands, and the foreseeable future, the manned fast jet will be needed.
But, on a cold winter day, a dour Scottish politician decided otherwise, and brought the UK to the end of the line, protentially committing us to a strategic reliance on untried technology built by an untrustworthy partner. And no one said a word.

I'm cautious about UAVs and UCAVs, I must say.

1) Reliance on UAVs controlled via data link strikes me as leaving an obvious potential vulnerability. It looks rather like the old Warpac system of strict GCI control of manned fighters. The concept must have looked great before developments happened in jamming and SEAD.....
2) Will a 'pilot' sitting back in the control room ever have the SA required to maximise efficiency in the air-to-air role? (Won't the nation that retains manned fighters have an edge over the UAVs?)
3) No man on board for tactical recce? Really?
4) Isn't a human on the scene, looking down at the situation, essential for CAS?

I wonder what the air power professionals on PPRuNe think, how they would address my layman's concerns, and what other doubts they might have themselves? Is this Sandys all over again? Senior people being blinded by the 'promise' and 'potential' of a largely untried technology?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See this thread from 2002 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52740&highlight=robot).

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Notwithstanding the valid argument regarding the potential vulnerability of datalinks, don't confuse 'unmanned aerial vehicle' (or Remotely Piloted Aircraft to give it the current USAF parlance) with 'autonomous'. The current batch of systems are definitely man-in-the-loop and the Predator in particular has proved itself to be capable in the TAC Recce and Urban CAS roles.

SBG

[Archimedes]

Forgive the 'non-professional' butting in, but I don't think it is Sandys all over again, JN, for several reasons.

There seems to me to be notably more caution about the 'technology will do everything' from those I encounter at the Purple Learning Centre between the ranks of Flt Lt and 2* (no names...). If the technology sings, dances, makes a decent cup of coffee, etc, then perhaps the Typhoon and JCA will be the last manned FJ, but I don't get the feeling that there are an array of people from Air Officers downwards who see everything ceasing to be unmanned.

The source of the blog worries me a little too- if I'm not mistaken, it's the same chap who appeared on the army means a while ago after the report by some think-tank on the 'secret selling out of the UK's defence industy to Europe'.

He claimed that the Typhoon would use 'exclusively French made missiles', made errors about the C-17 in RAF service which were brushed off with the apologia that the report was written some time before and had been overtaken by events (which it hadn't, and had he never heard of proof reading?), completely misunderstood the farce that was Trigat, and made a number of other attacks on the current government for decisions taken when Portillo was Sec of State. I pointed out some of the more egregious errors and got a holding reply that didn't convince 100%, I'm afraid.

And again, I don't think he's thought through what the White Paper says, and has missed some of the possible alternative interpretations.


Personally I'd say that this is the more relevant paragraph:

Our plans to retain onshore the industrial capabilities required
to ensure effective through-life support to the existing and planned
fast jet fleet – and to invest in developing UCAV technology – will
also provide us with the core industrial skills required to contribute
to any future international manned fast jet programme, should the
requirement for one emerge. This recognises both the uncertainty of
our very long term requirements – with the possibility that we shall
want to replace elements of the Typhoon and Joint Strike Fighter fleets
with manned aircraft (my emphasis).

And again - bet hedging takes place here:

Therefore, whilst there is no current requirement for a newdesign
manned aircraft beyond our extant plans, future procurements
of uninhabited and/or manned platforms are envisaged.


Emphasis towards unmanned, since that's what everyone will have been suggesting, but manned isn't excluded in the way that Sandys saw it.

For the GR4 replacement:

We are alive to the potential military capability that UCAVs may play in this force mix... (again, my emphasis)

And -

As we are introducing two new highly sophisticated manned
combat fast jet aircraft types which are intended to last for more than 30
years, current plans do not envisage the UK needing to design and build a
future generation of manned fast jet aircraft beyond these types.

That, to me, reads as - 'it's a long time away, and we're not going to start planning for the JCA replacement yet.' (inference being that the whole point of the DIS is to ensure that any future manned FJ takes less time to come to fruition than the Typhoon has). That may be unwise (why not have a contingency study on the back-burner), but then again...

Also, and at the risk of sounding like an apologist for the SoS, the point by the blogger about Reid calling UAVs 'Unihabited Air Vehicles ignores what he actually said:

Hansard, cols 1464-1465, 12/12/05: That will help us to better understand the potential military benefits of uninhabited aerial vehicles—sometimes referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles, I have been instructed to say.

From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) says "unpersoned". I think that everyone knows that we are talking about the development of what was previously referred to as a drone—no offence is meant to anyone in the Chamber. [Laughter.]

That is a serious investment in unmanned aerial vehicles....

Hardly the Sec of State succumbing to political correctness. Chatham House rules forbid, but I have heard a former communist now in a position of some authority and answering to 'Dr Reid' use the term 'unmanned' rather than 'unihabited' before. I suspect that there may be something of a civil service/ministerial running joke going on here, rather than the 'dour' hand of PC.

Sorry, that's a little long - but my interpretation is that this is a case of 'far, far in the future and we're not going to make any plans for a replacement for JCA and whether there'll be a pilot in it just yet'. The blogger seems, IMHO, to take a glass half empty view that isn't entirely sustained by the evidence, especially if the nuances and lack of firm commitments that litter statements like this are taken into account.

[Archimedes]

WEBF,

thanks for the PM, which made me look again at the report.

I perhaps ought to share the result of this with a wider audience, since it makes the blog a little less valid as a source, I fear.

I thought I'd seen it the report before, to be honest. I had. In fact, I quoted two lines of it in a lecture I gave in June 2004...

The blogger says:

By coincidence, the US General Accountancy Office today issued a report on UAVs

Which means that I'm either pyschic or... the report is from March 2004! So why, I wonder, did the blogger say 'today'? :suspect:

Taking the March 2005 GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05395t.html) (html format), you get a more positive view of UCAVs with what seems a balanced assessment of capabilities versus problems. The issue for the GAO seems to be one of joined-up thinking at a strategic level so that the full potential of UAVs/UCAVs can be realised - not a warning that the theory and practicalities of the technology are miles apart.

The position, as I said above, seems to me to be one of 'No need to think about a manned platform just yet'. Who knows what'll be required or possible when JCA goes out of service? Why plan a sixth generation manned platform now when starting thinking in (say) 2025 - 20 years before the new platform is required - might give you a seventh generation manned platform instead?

I do not see the DIS as marking the end of the manned FJ platform in the UK. It might be that JCA is the last one, but DIS does not explicitly say so. The key issue, I think, and covered on the DIS thread, is one of what the implications and intentions for a national capabilty to produce defence equipment are. It's here that the DIS is open to question. The blogger, sadly, doesn't seem to have spotted this (although quite what his interpretation would be - probably that all military kit in the UK will henceforth be built by the French and Belgians - could be...er... interesting)

[chevvron]

You can't say 'Predator' It was already used as the name of a VTOL interceptor in the '60's TV series 'The Planemakers'.

[EU Referendum]

Wrong link... See: Here (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0649.pdf)

The latest GAO report was published on 13 December. Interesting observations on all-weather capabilities (lack of).

[steamchicken]

Richard North is a tiresome political hack, and after his cretinous intervention in the BA 3 engine transatlantic thread I don't think he can be taken seriously.

Apparently we have to maintain an independent capability to build fast jets at all costs, including not depending on THE FRENCH!!! for missiles. But he is also furious about Storm Shadow on the grounds it cost more than just buying more Tomahawk - of course it cost more - we developed it ourselves, with THE FRENCH!!! and kept the capability in house! At the same time, we shouldn't waste money on building UAVs and certainly not take part in anything involving THE FRENCH!!!, because anyway we can always buy them off the Americans, so we don't need to maintain that capability..but we should also put our money into 5th generation fast jet manufacturing.

A couple of months ago, North was wittering about making army uniforms abroad rather than, presumably, in Lancashire (and if you think making clothes in the UK is cheaper than in China you need your head examining), and moaning about the decision to get Iveco trucks (is that almost FRENCH!!!? it sounds it! Whoops, it's Ford Germany's trucks division, give or take a few..THE HUN!!!) rather than American ones. So - we need to retain key high-tech industries like aircraft design....and textile mills! And we can happily get rid of low-tech lame ducks like UAV and missile manufacturing. And the truck makers can go too.

So, to put it in a nutshell, we ought to give up industrial capabilities and buy off-the-shelf US kit, but we also ought to retain the capabilities and make our own.

And, in the event that the US refuse us the JSF technology transfers, how does his assertion that France is "an untrustworthy partner" stack up? What Anglo-French or other European kit do we have that we aren't allowed to maintain, like Trident or Tomahawk?

And how does Richard North, HAMMER OF THE FRENCH!!!, square all this with acting as an "adviser" to Philippe de Villiers, leader of the Mouvement pour la France, as he did to such effect during 2004-5? Wasn't that a bit, er, French?

[EU Referendum]

Richard North is a tiresome political hack, and after his cretinous intervention in the BA 3 engine transatlantic thread I don't think he can be taken seriously.
Generally, anyone who resorts to ad hominem abuse has lost the argument. What is it about me that worries you so much, that you have to be so rude and aggressive?

However, dealing with specifics, firstly, I did not intervene on the BA 3 thread, cretinous or otherwise. I only signed up to PPrune yesterday. As to the rest...

Apparently we have to maintain an independent capability to build fast jets at all costs, including not depending on THE FRENCH!!! for missiles.
Why is it wrong to want an independent capability to design and build strategic war materials? What, when the Swedish can build the Gripen (with the help of BAE Systems) and the French can build the Rafale, is it wrong for the UK to aspire to have its own capability?

But he is also furious about Storm Shadow on the grounds it cost more than just buying more Tomahawk - of course it cost more - we developed it ourselves, with THE FRENCH!!! and kept the capability in house!
You complain about my advocating a capability "at all costs" in respect of building fast jets, although I make no such assertion. But I do complain about the taxpayer having to pay a unit price of £1,090,000 for Storm Shadow when, if we had waited, we could have purchased JASSM (not Tomahawk) at £167,000 per copy.

At the same time, we shouldn't waste money on building UAVs and certainly not take part in anything involving THE FRENCH!!!, because anyway we can always buy them off the Americans, so we don't need to maintain that capability..but we should also put our money into 5th generation fast jet manufacturing.
I am concerned that we will rely too much on UAVs but I do not think I have suggested anywhere that we should not invest in the technology. I am puzzled why prematurely we pulled out of FOAS co-operation with the US and am concerned that working with the French on Neuron (should we do so), when the French have signed UAV deals with Russia, might strain even further our relations with the US.

A couple of months ago, North was wittering about making army uniforms abroad rather than, presumably, in Lancashire (and if you think making clothes in the UK is cheaper than in China you need your head examining)...
I "witter" do I? How kind of you to say so. Are you happy about British uniforms, paid-for with taxpayers' money, being subcontracted to China?

... and moaning about the decision to get Iveco trucks (is that almost FRENCH!!!? it sounds it! Whoops, it's Ford Germany's trucks division, give or take a few..THE HUN!!!) rather than American ones.
No, the Iveco Panther FCLV, which is Italian built by the Italian company's wholly owned military vehicle division, purchased at £413,000 each when a better South African built vehicle (the company owned by BAE Systems) could have been obtained considerably cheaper.

You are confusing this with the support vehicle contract, which went to MAN trucks. These vehicles will be built in Austria, when two Anglo-US consortiums offered a higher UK-build component to better spec. Is that wrong? Stewart & Stevenson would have built the trucks in Birmingham, using a British design firm.

So - we need to retain key high-tech industries like aircraft design....and textile mills! And we can happily get rid of low-tech lame ducks like UAV and missile manufacturing. And the truck makers can go too. So, to put it in a nutshell, we ought to give up industrial capabilities and buy off-the-shelf US kit, but we also ought to retain the capabilities and make our own.
This is straw dog territory... not worth answering, as I make no such assertions.

And, in the event that the US refuse us the JSF technology transfers, how does his assertion that France is "an untrustworthy partner" stack up? What Anglo-French or other European kit do we have that we aren't allowed to maintain, like Trident or Tomahawk?
This is a laughably simplistic approach to a serious problem. However, if we are working very closely with the French, who are illegally passing US technology to the Chinese, why would you expect the US to give us their highly sensitive technology?

And how does Richard North, HAMMER OF THE FRENCH!!!, square all this with acting as an "adviser" to Philippe de Villiers, leader of the Mouvement pour la France, as he did to such effect during 2004-5? Wasn't that a bit, er, French?
Don't know where you got that from. Is is pure invention. Not only have I never acted as an advisor to de Villiers, during 2004-5, I was working as a parliamentary advisor in the Westminister Parliament.

[steamchicken]

I presume you will be demanding, then, that the Bruges Group remove the claim from their website that you were "Research Director" for his European Parliamentary group? Given that you write most of it, I would have thought you would be aware the Group was making this "purely invented" claim?

Why is it wrong to want an independent capability to design and build strategic war materials?

Aren't missiles as much strategic war materials as aircraft? Or UAVs as lorries, which anyway are available in commerce without fuss? Your position is internally inconsistent. By the way, I hope you will join me in condemning any UK cooperation with the US in defence technology, as US technology quite often turns up in Israeli equipment on sale to the highest bidder, including India and China. This is a serious security risk and one that should not be taken lightly.

More generally, this is a particular case of the general principle that Eurosceptics are implacably opposed to any loss of exclusive national sovereignty, unless the party gaining influence over Britain is the United States, when it is all well, good and patriotic.

[EU Referendum]

I presume you will be demanding, then, that the Bruges Group remove the claim from their website that you were "Research Director" for his European Parliamentary group? Given that you write most of it, I would have thought you would be aware the Group was making this "purely invented" claim?... etc, etc.

You are a sad individual. Look at your own assertions and then look at my responses.

[steamchicken]

Quoted without comment: EU Referendum said:
Generally, anyone who resorts to ad hominem abuse has lost the argument. What is it about me that worries you so much, that you have to be so rude and aggressive?

[EU Referendum]

You are a sad individual.

Not abuse... merely a statement of fact.

[mystic_meg]

err..what, exactly, has this playground squabble got to do with UAV problems, or am I missing something here girls?