PDA

View Full Version : Spy Plane intelligence 'lacking' - BBC


Sand4Gold
5th Aug 2008, 07:56
Spy plane intelligence 'lacking'


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44723000/jpg/_44723299_plane_bbc_226.jpg The UK military has bought three Reapers from the US


The effectiveness of unmanned aerial vehicles used by UK military in Iraq and Afghanistan is being undermined by skills shortages, MPs have warned.
The said the reconnaissance drones have "battle-winning" properties, but how the intelligence they gather is processed needs to be improved.
The Ministry of Defence had been "slow" to appreciate their potential, the Commons Defence Committee report added.
The government said it "recognised" the contribution UAVs made.
UK forces currently use three types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) - the American-made Reaper, the Hermes 450 and the Desert Hawk.
The Reaper - of which the UK owns two after a third crashed in Afghanistan - is operated remotely via a satellite link by an operator based in Nevada in the US.
It is used to detect snipers or insurgents and roadside bombs, which have become one of the biggest threats to forces on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is also one of the UK's main tools in hunting down Taleban or al-Qaeda operatives.
The less powerful Hermes 450 and Desert Hawk are both operated in the field.
According to the report, the Army had a 48% shortfall in UAV operators at the start of 2008, while the RAF was 18% shy of the number needed to assess the intelligence value of images.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44731000/gif/_44731658_reaper_466.gif


The committee said that the Ministry of Defence had been "slow" to appreciate their potential and had had to buy in UAVs as a "stop-gap filler" while it awaited the delivery of its new Watchkeeper system in 2010.
"The MoD must address the manning deficits in these areas in order to gain the maximum value from its current and future UAV systems," the committee said.
It also warned that the MoD needed to improve the way the material gathered by the UAVs was processed and disseminated to commanders on the ground, with one major computer programme already experiencing delays.
"The MoD was perhaps slow to appreciate the potential of UAVs, but now recognises the important contribution that they can make," said committee chairman James Arbuthnot.
"The MoD must push forward with its planned improvements so that out Armed Forces can continue to achieve information superiority over the enemy." Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth said UAVs had proved to be an "invaluable asset" for the military. "They have a crucial role to play in future operations and we will continue to invest in them," he said.

What happened to all that corporate knowledge that was gained over the years in NI? Where are these ISTAR specialists? A report like this just highlights the lack of strategic thinking within Air Manning to join up the dots.

AA

Lurking123
5th Aug 2008, 08:13
It shows there are still turf wars between the Services. If ever there was an un-joint approach to capability it has to be the UAV ISTAR piece. Just ask anyone who works in Main Building. Army want radio controlled toys with a B&W camera being flown by Cpl Smith, the RAF want some form of global platform that floats around for a couple of days and has an entire operating team led by Wg Cdr Double-Barreled and bar. Both of these have their place. But if you get down into the Reaper/Watchkeeper territory there are still huge prejudices and efforts to draw boundaries within a decidedly grey area.

andyy
5th Aug 2008, 08:58
& the RN are still not sure what UAVs are for and what ISTAR actually is!

seakinger
5th Aug 2008, 09:23
andyy- and your post shows a lack of awareness of Sk ASAC, and Lx, Sk and Merlin operated surveillance systems.....

but you're a funny guy no less...:D

andyy
5th Aug 2008, 09:56
SK, Glad you like my humour. But there used to be some truth in it, IMHO. Having spent 20 yrs in the RN & 6 in Joint Int jobs I am aware of the platforms you mention but its the PWO master race that often appears to be ignorant of them and their contribution to the Joint ops and int picture. Its a cultural thing and being concerned about ISTAR seems to mean that they can't shout "Zippo 3" in the Ops room. ISTAR is something that "other people do". Even PWO(Cs) were happy to talk Comms but not Int, especially in terms of analysis. But I admit that I am not current now! And if you are suggesting things have changed since I wrote my staff papers in PJHQ then excellent; I am delighted that the RN has discovered "jointery" and its responsibilities to the Int world. You'll be telling me that the RN is intending to make a meaningful contribution to the all source analysis world next. As the Defence Select Committee observed, collection of data is one thing analysis to gain meaningful operational intelligence is another.

seakinger
5th Aug 2008, 11:07
andyy.

to an extent yes, things have got better- certainly in the areas of FMOC and related DCDC work looking at the future maritime environment. The problem is generation of meaningful contributions with reduced budgets, less time deployed, less joint and combined exercises which make putting the doctrine into practise hard work.

As to whether Mr PWO undertakes to embrace it wholeheartedly who knows? He is a strange, insular beast....certainly any navy personnel who have worked in either TELIC and HERRICK HQs/staff jobs are cognisant- but its an education process and will take time.

And yes, Army and RAF views on Tac, Operational and Strat UAVs diverge considerably and in a budgetary environment finding common ground is hard work.

jammydonut
5th Aug 2008, 11:15
Surely they should be recruiting some schoolboys adept with gameboy :suspect:

Occasional Aviator
5th Aug 2008, 11:15
But actually the PWOs have a point - ISTAR is something 'someone else does'. The sooner we can get people to define their INFORMATION needs rather than saying they need a particular platform/airframe, the sooner we can have a proper joint approach.

Doesn't matter who flies what, it matters what information the commander can get. And that has absolutely nothing to do with what ISTAR assests he/she has 'under command'.

pba_target
5th Aug 2008, 11:49
OA - some might say you have just summed up the need for an independent air force....

andyy
5th Aug 2008, 12:58
OA,to a certain extent I agree but the PWO has to understand what information it is that he can ask for, and what the caps & lims of the sensors are that might be providing that info. They also need to understand that "their" ships/ subs/ SK Mk7/ Merlin etc can be used as ISTAR assets to feed into the overall ISTAR picture.

Also, as the RN does not have an Int Branch, but expects PWOs to be a Ships own Int Officer (with the help of the EW & CT Branches) it might be useful if some of them actually did Int training & routinely undertook Int appointments between (and after) their one or two sea jobs as a PWO.

Occasional Aviator
5th Aug 2008, 14:25
Point taken. But who are those RN Officers I've been meeting recently who say they're IntOs then?

alfred_the_great
5th Aug 2008, 17:18
There's an Int cadre, based around the fact that we will aim to appoint people into N2 related jobs at least once per rank, with some Officers being able to deep specialise when required/if they so desire.

A lot of work was put into this programme, and hopefully it'll re-produce a decent N2 organisation, but who knows. The biggest proof of this will come when a Warfare Int Cadre Officer is made a CO of an FF/DD (or IPT TL for Engineers, Base Logs Cdr for the white mafia, etc etc), because until then it'll still be seen as a "branch" for those who couldn't quite cut it in their own world...

Melchett01
5th Aug 2008, 18:09
"until then it'll still be seen as a "branch" for those who couldn't quite cut it in their own world... "

Try telling that to 007! :}

Unfortunately, creating a branch that is only filled on an ad hoc basis will never be a recipe for success. You will have some very good individuals who are specialists in certain areas, but no depth or structure to it.

If you want a dedicated N2 branch, you can't do it on an as and when basis, otherwise you will never be seen as the credible operators that you generally are.

RETDPI
5th Aug 2008, 19:41
Melchett
I cannot agree more.
All the time that "Int" is seen in the RAF as a settling ground for those who failed in their primary aspiration (usually Aircrew) then there will always be a credibility gap.

Unfortunately the Branch never seemed to help itself much in this regard.

You only have one life, I realised

So I left.

(Many years ago)

Bunkerbomb
5th Aug 2008, 21:13
All the time that "Int" is seen in the RAF as a settling ground for those who failed in their primary aspiration (usually Aircrew) then there will always be a credibility gap.

Unfortunately the Branch never seemed to help itself much in this regard.

With all due respect things have moved on from those days...however I digress.

The more interesting element of the report on UAV's is Cttee's direction that the less glamorous direction and dissemination piece be scrutinised further. Getting platforms is only half of the job.:{

Mr Grim
6th Aug 2008, 04:08
There are 2 other problems - first so many think that a UAV is just for ISR/ISTAR when it can do so much more. Second it quickly becomes apparent that a UAV can do 90%+ of the current FJ AG role, whereas the FJ can only do 50% of the UAV role and the UAV can be on task for 10 times as long for 10% of the cost. At that point some people get very defensive about their shiney pointy toys.

Not suggesting that UAVs are totally capable of replacing manned aircraft - not for a long time.

Occasional Aviator
6th Aug 2008, 09:08
All the time that "Int" is seen in the RAF as a settling ground for those who failed in their primary aspiration (usually Aircrew) then there will always be a credibility gap.

As BunkerBomb says, this view is woefully out-of-date.

oldspook
6th Aug 2008, 09:17
Interesting discussion on the side about an RN Int Branch (or lack of). Melchett - your comment that '..creating a branch that is only filled on an ad hoc basis will never be a recipe for success' is dead right - but we were saying this about 20 years ago. At that time I was one of the (v small) RNR PI Branch - and would have been delighted to come back full time if there had been an RN Int Branch.

As it was that RNR Branch was disbanded and we had the option to integrate into the DIS Group, but I chose to come across to light blue in order to continue in the Image Analysis game (same job, same venue - that box in the fields in Huntingdonshire - different colour uniform). Even working in the Maritime shop.

Since then I made regular enquiries about getting an Int job back in Dark Blue - even as an FTRS which is where I ended up in the RAF. No go - despite the increased and welcome emphasison Jointery.

Trouble is - even light blue have looked on FTRS IntOs (even with the 20+ years of Jt Int experience) as rather peripheral characters!

Jackonicko
6th Aug 2008, 09:22
Mr Grim,

Yes a UAS can spend hours on station, and if you have a fairly static situation, that doesn't require your CAS assets to reposition rapidly, or to engage a number of widely geographically separated target sets then its low transit speed isn't an issue.

But looking how FJ air power is used in Afghanistan, that's quite a big 'IF'.

Moreover, looking at the average sortie lengths actually being flown by 39 Squadron, it's clear that the RAF's UASs are being used for missions that could be flown by manned platforms.

And yes, purchase price is low, though the infrastructure requirements and manning required by Predator/Reaper has been massive, and the aggregated cost per mission is high, because the loss rate is staggering.

And if you seriously think that a UAV "can do 90%+ of the current FJ AG role" then you're seriously deluded.



Small scale UAV ops are great to build up expertise in this area, ready for when it really does become a game-changer, to develop techniques, technologies, and tactics and to gain a fuller understanding of capabilities AND limitations.

But at the moment, we are using our UAVs largely for missions where:
a) Their 'loseability' is not an issue (the losses have not been due to enemy action, and a manned aircraft would not have been lost in the same circumstances).
b) Their extended endurance capability is not being exploited.
c) manned platforms would do the current job cheaper/quicker/better and above all with much greater flexibility.

I wonder whether ZA179, ZA180 and the others reflect a recognition of these limitations?

RETDPI
6th Aug 2008, 09:36
As BunkerBomb says, this view is woefully out-of-date.

Whilst I'm absolutely delighted to hear that the world has apparently moved on, I do however recall some lambasting on this very site quite recently regarding the Ops Support Branch - of which I believe Int. is now a part.
"View" and "Reality" are of course different constructs.

L J R
6th Aug 2008, 14:57
Jacko, you assert that 39Sqn's sorties can be flown by manned aircraft. ...Not sure if a Harrier mate would like 12 hours per day 7 days per week, If that IS the case, you are right, however, the point of the thread is that the original comment is that there are not enough MEN (women) flying and operating them. Believe me, that the MQ-9 SYSTEM can provide 24/7 if RAF gave them a few more good men.

Tricorn
6th Aug 2008, 15:17
Can't wait for the time when the engineers only need to 'pop in' for a couple of hours a day to do the TRs/refuel/rearm and send them off again.:ok:

Several days duration would be even better!:D

Jimlad1
6th Aug 2008, 21:01
"As it was that RNR Branch was disbanded and we had the option to integrate into the DIS Group, but I chose to come across to light blue in order to continue in the Image Analysis game (same job, same venue - that box in the fields in Huntingdonshire - different colour uniform). Even working in the Maritime shop. "

Oldspook - times are rapidly changing. If you are still serving them PM me as we may be able to have a useful chat!

In Tor Wot
7th Aug 2008, 01:09
Ancient Aviator

What happened to all that corporate knowledge that was gained over the years in NI? Where are these ISTAR specialists? A report like this just highlights the lack of strategic thinking within Air Manning to join up the dots.

Where to start . . . . The ISTAR specialists were only ever involved at the end of the process after the new shiny things with wings and engines had been bought. :ugh: Little/no consideration was taken of the 'extras' that this kit required as it was in the very unsexy area of A/J6 world and those personnel that would be required to operate/provide analysis etc. As for Air Manning joining dots, they are doing their best to join two bits of 6" string to make a yard stick at the moment - Int An (I) FMDL at the thin end of 60% as I understand it. :eek:

Lurking123

It shows there are still turf wars between the Services. If ever there was an un-joint approach to capability it has to be the UAV ISTAR piece. Just ask anyone who works in Main Building. Army want radio controlled toys with a B&W camera being flown by Cpl Smith, the RAF want some form of global platform that floats around for a couple of days and has an entire operating team led by Wg Cdr Double-Barreled and bar. Both of these have their place. But if you get down into the Reaper/Watchkeeper territory there are still huge prejudices and efforts to draw boundaries within a decidedly grey area.

The whole point here is that the individual Service has bespoke requirements - nothing whatsoever to do with 'un-Jointness'. The real issue however, is not who owns the toys, or operates them, or has them in their ORBAT, but how the information/intelligence from each of them gets shared amongst those that need it.

Getting a UAV airborne and looking at the imagery is the easiest bit, identifying who needs the information/intelligence/imagery (delete as appropriate) and getting it to them is extremely tricky.

Mr Grim
7th Aug 2008, 01:15
Jacko

On some subjects you have decent knowledge for a journo, however on this subject you are so wide of the mark it is faintly amusing!

You clearly have no experience of current ops and how Air power is used in the stan and Iraq. 39 Sqn are flying missions that no other UK aircraft can currently do and certainly far beyond what a FJ can do. The FJ in afghanistan are being used in a certain way because of their inherent limitations, not because the army want to use them that way. You seem to be saying that 39 are flying short (FJ length) sorties. I suggest you check your sources - again in terms of time on task (which is what really counts) the "1 order of magnitude" factor is about right, more depending on which platform you are talking about.

UAS infrastructure is, as you say, far more than buying a few airframes, but it is at least 1 order of magnitude than, say the Harrier infrastructure, lets not even count the AAR assets required.

Loss rates depend on how you look at them. If you count RAF or RAF flown UAVs then 1 is not really staggering. I would actually suggest that it is statistically too early to tell. I think that you will find that we have lost the same number of harriers in the same timescale. If you count all the army operated small UAVs then the losses are much higher but that is a completely different story.

Your a, b and c are all completely wrong. In summary you are actually exactly the problem I was talking about. You have no idea of current UAV capability and missions, although you have an excuse as you are not in the military and cannot know. This is particularly highlighted by the fact that you don't think that UAVs are a game changer. Go ask the USAF why they are replacing F16 sqns with UAV sqns. Go ask the troops on the ground what they think of Reaper.

What? You don't actually have daily contact with the army on current ops.? I am surprised.

TheInquisitor
7th Aug 2008, 05:48
Jacko,

I've always respected your general grasp of Mil aviation matters in the past, but I have to agree with Mr Grim here - in fact, before I scrolled to the bottom of the page, the phrase in my mind was exactly what he has posted - you ARE way, way wide of the mark here.

As he has said, ask the guys on the ground for their view on MQ-9 and her operators, and what they can (and do) bring to the party. Then ask them whether they'd rather have a pair of FJ on task, or a Reaper. The answer may surprise you.

barnstormer1968
7th Aug 2008, 10:31
After reading the above post's I can see that the British forces have been fighting each other for control (or for one of the other forces not to have it) of intelligence for far too long now.

I have a novel solution to end this in fighting once and for all.

Why don't we just ask the "other side" what they are hiding from us, and where!
This will allow two things:
1. It will let us know which of the services was actually looking for the right information in the first place.
2. It will give us time to really get stuck into each other in our ongoing fight against integrated intelligence jointery.

The war on terror may be winnable, the war on jointery however.........:E

Barnstormer1968 (tongue slipping back out from cheek now)

Sand4Gold
7th Aug 2008, 12:21
In Tor Wot,

Where to start . . . . The ISTAR specialists were only ever involved at the end of the process after the new shiny things with wings and engines had been bought.

What process are you referring to?

There were multiple ISTAR platforms operating during the seventies, eighties and nineties, each providing Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance capabilities. Remember, this operation was against one of the most sophisticated terrorist organizations the British military had, to date, encountered.

As each programme was 'retired', or replaced, inter-command and inter-service rivalry took over to such a extent that it saw this expertise scattered to the four winds.

AA

Jackonicko
7th Aug 2008, 13:49
It may surprise you to know, but journalism is all about asking experts the questions, and then making sure that you understand the answers, and know why the answers are as they are. Frequently you have contradictory answers from different parties and interest groups, and you have to weigh them up and take advice as to their relative merit.

If I simply spouted the kind of lame twaddle that I could come up with off the top of my head, or from an uncritical reading of open sources, I'd be a columnist (a Max Hastings or a Lewis Page), who thought that my own opinions were of interest, rather than a journo, who knows only too well that my only value is as a filter and collator - as a conduit for information and ideas, not a source.

There are, in other words, air power experts and practitioners who disagree with you, and it's a synthesis of their views that I'm regurgitating.

The advantages and benefits of UAVs are undeniable - and are very well known. The drawbacks, weaknesses, pitfalls and shortcomings are less often discussed, resulting in this ridiculous notion that UAVs can do 90% of FJ tasks at 10% of the cost.

Which is, I'm assured, absolute and complete bollocks.

Mr Grim
7th Aug 2008, 14:39
Having reread my post I can see that the statement is a bit ambiguous, for which I apologise. I meant 90% of what FJ are currently doing on ops, not 90% of what a FJ can do. Also please don't take this as an anti-Harrier thread, I just use it for comparison as it is our current FJ in theatre. The points are equally valid for Tornado or F16.

So what are UAVs currently useless for? A whole range of stuff - Air to Air, SEAD, Strategic attack, LL through the Scottish hills! On current ops - shows of force (although they are wanted extremely rarely except for unofficial airshows). In terms of speed they are slow (so harrier finally has an aircraft it is faster than!) but when something happens it is usually the FJ that gets there last because the UAV is already there, then doesn't need to go to the tanker 40 mins later!

I would be very interested to know where your info comes from, Jacko, at least in a general sense. Some mate on a sqn, "briefings" from the MOD/RAF, some ex-jag guy???!!?? 99% of the RAF still think a UAV is only good for looking at things for hours on end with a pod and that is it. As with all sources I hope you do a sanity/credibility check. Although I see you talk to the experts - were you on the recent press visit to Creech?

Melchett01
7th Aug 2008, 16:00
Seeing as we've meandered on to ISTAR, I have to say that I'm slightly confused by the current fad amongst the high paid help for 'end-to-end ISTAR'.

From what I can gather, this takes the intelligence cycle (note the word cycle) and stretches it out into a linear process. Now unless I am mistaken, the whole point behind the intelligence cycle is that it allows the decision makers to evaluate what has been produced / happened and then adjust their COAs or plans accordingly, feeding back into the next iteration of the cycle.

So where is the evaluation process in a linear system such as 'end-to-end ISTAR'? Does it all just drop off the edge when you have taken out your target, gathered your information? Surely ISTAR should become I-STAR to denote the 2 separate processes: One - the I, being a cyclical J2 based process that is reviewed and adjusted on a constant basis, feeding into the other - the STAR, a linear J3-orientated process.

Or have I just missed the point completely and go climb back into my basha?

andyy
7th Aug 2008, 16:23
Melchett, you understand things far too well, you'll never be a Senior Officer. ISTAR as an end to end process seems to belong to J3. To paraphrase an old cliche, "we have ISTAR successes and Int failures"

In Tor Wot
7th Aug 2008, 17:44
AA
What process are you referring to?

Sorry if it was a little ambiguous, I was referring to the procurement process not the ISTAR process as a whole.

I agree with your statement about corporate knowledge being diluted, however, it has little to do with inter-Service rivalry and more to do with the departure from the Services of those with the expertise.

One other significant difference between NI days and current ops is one of sheer scale (both geographic and technical) and dislocation of asset, analyst, and decision maker and the fragile link between them all (particularly the last two).

Occasional Aviator
8th Aug 2008, 10:08
Actually Mr Grim,

if you are imaginative with your use of ISTAR assets you can use them to affect things on the ground. It may not be the 'low-fly through' firing flares, but if you overtly demonstrate that you're looking at an area (or an individual) it is possible to change their behaviour.

Rocket Chucker
8th Aug 2008, 21:59
The Rocks could fly it!!

Coat, hat, door & gone

L J R
9th Aug 2008, 04:47
Occasional Av - you said:

Quote:

"if you are imaginative with your use of ISTAR assets you can use them to affect things on the ground."


...What don't you get about 2 GBU-12s and 4 Hellfires (or four GBU-12s if you really need)..