RAPTOR potential shown.

[Al R]

Ok, possibly better than my Canon 70-300 ml zoom then.

BBC NEWS | UK | Camera boosts RAF's Afghan crews (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8295387.stm)

At least mine does colour though. :cool:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46507000/jpg/_46507449_raptor-gatwick.jpg

[soddim]

The article indicates that the pilot does all the work with this sensor - is that true? Surely this is best done by the GIB?

[Occasional Aviator]

I can't believe that a body as renowned for its service knowledge as the BBC might refer to all aircrew as 'pilots'....

[Pontius Navigator]

Couldn't be a Nimrod left of centre could it?

[Al R]

.. the one just by where Brian and Tony are standing?

Mmm. Not sure.

[flipflopman RB199]

Quite an old photo if I'm not mistaken, impressive nonetheless!!

RAPTOR is, and always has been an amazing piece of kit, and it's fantastic to see it finally being fully used operationally. Having been involved in the RAPTOR trials and development, there is still much more to be impressed by, by this awesome piece of equipment :ok:


Flipflopman

[Buster Hyman]

Does it come with a red eye remover?

[Double Zero]

It probably does, a permanent one known as a l@ser - unless they've bypassed that and gone straight for other particle weapons !

With a price tag like that, and having read elsewhere of such kit ( in a way ) for the JSF, I'd not sign for it unless the defensive shields and photon torpedos were all working - fortunately for everyone below, I'm not even a pilot, and have more chance of pulling Bo Derek than getting near a Raptor.

[flipflopman RB199]

And with respect Double Zero, that's exactly why company photographers are employed to take nice photographs, and not make judgements on the effectiveness of modern weaponry :ok:


Flipflopman

[ShortFatOne]

Is there any reason this clever bit of kit couldn't be strapped to a larger platform, or does it have to be a Tonka (I know the clue is in the name but why do we insist on procuring kit that is only capable of being fitted to one type)?

[Double Zero]

Flipflop,

To reply with all the respect due...

A, I was being a little flippant, a low form of wit I agree, but there is some basis to what I alluded to. In a way I hope you are not as I suspect the obnoxious Sea Harrier pilot I once met, the only aircrew I ever fell out with, and showed a spectacular knack of getting the worst out of all around.

B, There are various types of ' company photographers '; my role at Dunsfold 1979-93 was to photograph installations for designers, cockpit layouts for pilots, anything to assist production or operation, and to look after cine cameras and Pilot Display Recorders for aircraft and / or stores trials at ranges.

I dealt with remote cameras on FRS1 & 2 ( before FA2 ), various Hawks, and the 2 devlopment GR5's, ZD318 & more usually 319, could carry 16 external cameras + PDR - I happened to develop a partial but largely effective cure for the cold at altitude, which the ( purpose built ) cameras we were presented with could not handle.

I did get to take the odd ' nice picture ' for various uses, but generally that side of things was grabbed by the P.R. photographers from Kingston.

Possibly because I trained initially as a fitter, more likely my upbringing by my aircraft engineer ( Seafires WWII to crew chief on GR5 trials ) father, I enjoyed and felt priveleged to assist in any way I could; other Kingston types were not interested.

So please don't tar all photographers with the same brush; I can think of a couple of occasions when I happened to be near accidents of various kinds, and the first thing I dropped was my camera, regarding helping as a rather higher priority - no doubt the type of photographers you're thinking of might have stood back and shot away for a golden opportunity.

Also, I happened to work with L@ser designators, future projects etc among other things.

So, may I suggest you ask before you leap into insults and show your ignorance.

DZ

[Two's in]

Is there any reason this clever bit of kit couldn't be strapped to a larger platform, or does it have to be a Tonka

Or alternatively, a much smaller and cheaper platform being flown from a small room in Nevada for real cost effectiveness - or have we just re-invented the pilot operated UAV?

[arandcee]

But you can't strap to anything else - the acronym wouldn't work! Who's ever heard of a RAPTYP? Or a RAPHAR? Honestly,can we have some standards?!

PS Wasn't the picture of Big Ben mentioned in the article taken by a Canberra from further away? That's progress! Praps they were actually retired because no-one had heard of a RAPCAN? ;)

[PlasticCabDriver]

Fantastic news!

I happened to develop a partial but largely effective cure for the cold at altitude

Does that mean I can take the nasal spray out of my flying suit pocket now?

[CirrusF]

A similar system to Raptor was used on a flight over Southampton, during which the jet's camera was able to zoom in on the Big Ben clock tower in London.
"And yes, the clock face was visible and readable," sais an RAF spokesperson


Wouldn't it be easier just to give the pilot a watch?

[Easy Street]

Is there any reason this clever bit of kit couldn't be strapped to a larger platform

Why on earth would you want to do that? A larger platform would take up more ramp space, need more logistic support, take up more crew berths in the accommodation, be slower to complete the collection... if you're trying to find another job for MR2, it wouldn't be able to carry out a supplementary CAS role either...

On the other hand, fitting it to a UAV definitely would have some plus points: and it's already been trialled (see here (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/falcon%20prowl.htm)). Don't know what the latest state of play is, but I'm sure someone out there does...

[Lima Juliet]

Or alternatively, a much smaller and cheaper platform being flown from a small room in Nevada for real cost effectiveness - or have we just re-invented the pilot operated UAV?

On the other hand, fitting it to a UAV definitely would have some plus points: and it's already been trialled (see here). Don't know what the latest state of play is, but I'm sure someone out there does...

Yes, it does work. The big problem that we have is that we have too few UAVs to do this additional role and also all the other roles associated with the MQ-9. Remember that the MQ-9 was procured by the UK military to provide full-motion-video to the ground forces with a secondary armed overwatch role. If you start doing the RAPTOR type work then the troops don't get the armed overwatch that they're so desperate for at present.

What is the latest state of play? It's still on the table as far as I am aware but the UK needs to commit to more MQ-9s to make it worth pursuing. The capability is waiting to be fielded, if the money is coughed up - same old story as many other programs I guess :(

LJ

[StopStart]

Why on earth would you want to do that? A larger platform would take up more ramp space, need more logistic support, take up more crew berths in the accommodation, be slower to complete the collection... if you're trying to find another job for MR2, it wouldn't be able to carry out a supplementary CAS role either...

You only have to look at what the yanks do with, say, their C130s to know that all of the above is tosh. If the RAF had a) any nous, b) the ability to see beyond just a pallet in a freight bay, c) the balls to spend money on anything that isn't pointy and d) any money full stop then they could be getting huge effect from simple ro-ro fits and mods to a few hercs.

As for the "supplementary" CAS role - just much ordnance will be carried when that centreline skip is bolted on too? Look at what the USMC are doing with their C130Js and the Harvest Hawk (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Harvest-Hawk-Aims-to-Arm-USMCs-KC-130J-Aerial-Tankers-05409/) project. 4 Hellfires or 16 laser guided 70mm rockets plus a 30mm cannon stuck out the side door? You could easily mod the raptor pod to replace the other main external tank if required. With AAR and augmented crew it probably would only give you about 24 hours of loiter time so I can see why this sort of thing doesn't interest the UK MoD.... :hmm:

[Melchett01]

StopStart,

You could quite easily have a palletised capability - the USANG have already done it with their Scathe View platform which is just that, albeit with a few other FLIR type turrets.

However, whilst a 24 hr loiter capability would be cracking, the only problem comes when you have to analyse the data. Do you either link it to a ground station, analyse on board or just wait until land. Whatever you choose, Imagery Analysts are a pinchpoint trade; Defence as a whole doesn't have enough to go round its current capabilities let alone adding further collection capability to the equation.

Plus, any airborne palletised system providing 24 hr battlefield coverage would be liable to end up in an Army / RAF bunfight as ASTOR did in the early days. Given the likely nature of the tasking, the Army would probably try to muscle in on the airborne elements as they have with ASTOR, creating yet another political minefield.

[Double Zero]

Plasticabdriver,

I will happily pass on the technical details of my wonder cure for cine cameras operating at -40 C ( which the built in 100W heaters were no match for)...

However you may be a tad conspicuous strolling around with hot gel-packs and insulation speed-taped to your nose.

We used to activate the gel packs just before take-off for trials - they were in liquid form in a strong plastic covering, then when activated went hot and solid.

One day a flight test engineer ( not known as the sharpest toolin the box at any time ) suggested we did not activate one of the six outboard camera packs, to see if it made any difference.

We ( Photographic and Flight Test ) already knew that it did, as of the 3 cameras mounted on adapted CBLS200 pods, before the heat packs the most exposed aft cameras always failed first - cine film gets very brittle when cold.

I voiced my concern that if unactivated, the pack would be non-rigid rendering the securing speed tape ineffective - but no, off it went.

Unsurprisingly, the aircraft returned with one less heat pack; I've often wondered about some farmer finding a mystery silver object, which when he tweaked the red bit suddenly became hot - probably deep in some UFO ' X File ' right now !

[StopStart]

Melchett01 - I appreciate that there are pinch points with what you do with the data and that teddies would get hurled from prams over who would get to play - that would just be for the adults to sort out and shouldn't be a reason to reject common sense options.

I suspect anyway there wouldn't be a requirement for a 24hr stream of data from an airborne camera - I'm merely highlighting the potential offered by platforms other than the pointy ones. Couple that camera with what is effectively a mini gunship, comms platform, pertol station, cargo and or people dropper and extractor and you get a very versatile and capable system without having to splurge loads of cash developing new platforms.

But, as I said previously, this sort of thing isn't attractive to our introspective little jet-centric airforce so we'll just carry on flailing about in our own, hilarious little way :hmm:

[ShortFatOne]

Two's In and Easy Street,

thanks for your responses. I find it disappointing that you appear to have missed the wider issues of concentrating ever reducing resources on pursuing single type/role assets. Surely, if we are to remain agile and adaptable, then better to have role-fit sensor packages that can be fitted to a wide variety of platforms, than having to wait until there's a spare UAV to blag?

[VinRouge]

Stoppers, The feed is nothing they couldnt sort out with a Satcomm aerial attached to the crew escape hatch, or the addition of link 16 aerials.

[Out Of Trim]

Couldn't be a Nimrod left of centre could it?


Close! It was actually an Ex Dan Air Comet 4. It was owned by Gatwick Handling and used for Tow Training and Airbridge training duties and had clipped wings.

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb224/1JJH/Scanned%20photos/Comets.jpg

This is quite an old photo and the aircraft is no longer with us. That central area now has the newer Pier 6 complex served by the passenger bridge across the taxiway from the North Terminal.

[Double Zero]

I've seen ' clipped wing ' Spitfires, but that Comet must have had RATO and a landing speed to frighten the most hairy-arsed Lightning / Starfighter pilot, with rate of roll to match !:}

[coldbuffer]

How can you learn about wing sweep with the wings clipped :ugh: