UK MQ-9 Reaper Designation?

[NickPilot]

Dear Royal Air Warriors,

As a Civvie pilot it just struck me tonight reading the news report of the imminent Reaper deployment to Iraq that I have never seen a "Role.Mark" designation attached to the Reaper in RAF service (such as GR.4 or F.4). Is it officially designated any other way than the "Reaper" in the UK? Is there a UK designation to signify a Remotely Piloted Aircraft?

Just curious.

[jayc530]

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/reaper.cfm

[Could be the last?]

I thought that along with various other capabilties (Sentinel - Shadow etc) that Reaper was still a UOR platform and had not been taken into Core. If that is still the case, are they not operating outside of the UOR mandate for procurement?

[jayc530]

Google is a wonderful thing.

[Davef68]

I thought that along with various other capabilties (Sentinel - Shadow etc) that Reaper was still a UOR platform

Sentinel was never UOR

RAF - Sentinel R1 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/sentinelr1.cfm)

[Willard Whyte]

I still recall the confusion of a military chap in an embassy when confronted with dip clear requests for Nimrod R1, Sentinel R1, and Shadow R1.

Never liked the raf way of designating stuff, the Americans have always done it so much better.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Never liked the raf way of designating stuff, the Americans have always done it so much better.

Really? They have their way and we have ours. They have an EC-135, a KC-135, an RC-135 and a WC-135. On top of that there is a KC-135A, KC-135B, KC-135D, KC-135E etc etc. I've never had a problem with "our" way; its not exactly confusing - Sentinel, Shadow and Nimrod all being different aircraft. Thank God the embassy bloke wasn't around when we had Valiant B2, Victor B2, Canberra B2 and Vulcan B2 all around together! :rolleyes:

[XR219]

RAF - Reaper MQ9A RPAS (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/reaper.cfm)

Sadly, the RAF website doesn't even get the US designation right, it should be "MQ-9A Reaper", not "Reaper MQ9A".

In theory the British designation might be "Reaper D1", if anyone had cared to give it one.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

D1? Why not GR1, considering it does ground attack and reconnaissance as its primary roles....?

[Roland Pulfrew]

In theory the British designation might be "Reaper D1", if anyone had cared to give it one.

Would it not be Reaper DGR Mk 1?

[Wensleydale]

"In theory the British designation might be "Reaper D1", if anyone had cared to give it one".


Surely the designation should be Reaper DGR1? (Unmanned Air vehicle, Ground Attack, Reconnaissance).

[XR219]

D1? Why not GR1, considering it does ground attack and reconnaissance as its primary roles....?

"D" is the existing prefix for "drones", although, admittedly, previous examples of its usage have all been target drones, AFAIK, so whoever is responsible for this kind of thing at the MoD could, of course, use or indeed invent a different prefix for the role the Reaper performs if they so desired...

[Wensleydale]

D of course, is "pilotless aircraft" which Reaper certainly is, so DGR seems most appropriate.

[Roland Pulfrew]

"pilotless aircraft" which Reaper certainly is

The last CAS may disagree with you on that; Reaper is not "pilotless", but "remotely piloted" :E

[Davef68]

Time to bring back the former 'U' designation? UK designation letters only ever have the meaning that applies to that one particular aircraft anyway. (How many different uses for 'A' for example?).

As far as I know the C-17 has never received a UK mark designation either.

[Roland Pulfrew]

How many different uses for 'A' for example?).



Only 1 (according to Wiki):

A Airborne (paratroop transport) Halifax A.VII

[P6 Driver]

Never liked the raf way of designating stuff, the Americans have always done it so much better.

Yes, always - until they reached the F-117!

[NickPilot]

Yes Google is a wonderful thing, and since a Google search did not reveal any UK format designation, only the US "MQ-9A" and the name "Reaper" I thought I'd ask somewhere where people might actually come into contact with the thing. My apologies for thinking I could get an answer from this forum that didnt involve a condescending a$$hole or two chiming in.

I hope none of you ever have a question about the airline business. :ugh:

To the other responders, thank you.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Nick

I would also guess that as the MQ-9 was bought as an urgent operational requirement (UOR) for Afghanistan that is why it hasn't got a UK Mil designator. Similarly as the C-17 was (originally) only a lease then we probably decided not to call it the Globemaster C Mk 1. Not sure what happened in the case of the Shadow R Mk 1 though. :uhoh:

[P6 Driver]

Don't apologise son, you're fitting in just fine...
:ugh:

[Lynxman]

All UK military registered aircraft irrespective of whether they are a UOR or not are supposed to have a name, a mark number and a role prefix letter/letters.

http://www.maa.mod.uk/linkedfiles/regulation/5000_series/ra5307.pdf

It's supposed to be mandatory! It bugs me: as mentioned there's Globemaster, Airseeker, Watchkeeper and Reaper. Atlas has one but only published in the RTS so far.

[Rossian]

........howzabout Ground attack Reconnaisance Interim Mod - GRIM reaper?

OK I'll let myself out.

The Ancient Mariner

[Davef68]

Only 1 (according to Wiki):

A Airborne (paratroop transport) Halifax A.VII

I was thinking more of how we combine letters with others - HAS, HAR, AH, etc.

[Rosevidney1]

I can see the problem, but it can't (or won't) be solved by employing common sense, logic or reason as it will be handled by an anonymous bureaucrat on an elevated pay scale!

[Saintsman]

I remember when I had a Sea King 'Q' and someone from Innsworth thinking that I'd worked on Harriers, because it was for the Sea King HAR Mk3.

[HAS59]

Well it was in QR's last time I looked.
And it was never just GR.1 or F.3
It said in the great book of rules
Aircraft Name : 'Harrier'
Type : GR
Mark number : Mark 1
Harrier GR Mark 1

of course the military love to abbreviate things to the point of being meaningless at times.
I recall a 'driver of Tornadoes' telling me that he flew 'GR 1's'
to which I asked if he meant Jaguars or Harriers? (I was making a point)
The poor soul just stared at me and repeated "GR.1's" as if the multi-nation wonder-bomber was the only creation to thus named.

I fear as the service has shrunk, so has its collective sense of history, tradition and even understanding of who we actually are.

And with it our ability to apply QR's to the naming convention of our aircraft.

[GreenKnight121]

Roland Pulfrew[/B]"] Quote:
Never liked the raf way of designating stuff, the Americans have always done it so much better.
Really? They have their way and we have ours. They have an EC-135, a KC-135, an RC-135 and a WC-135. On top of that there is a KC-135A, KC-135B, KC-135D, KC-135E etc etc. I've never had a problem with "our" way; its not exactly confusing - Sentinel, Shadow and Nimrod all being different aircraft. Thank God the embassy bloke wasn't around when we had Valiant B2, Victor B2, Canberra B2 and Vulcan B2 all around together! :rolleyes:


All of those C-135s are the same base airframe (the prefix indicates modified mission - a very clear description) - while all of your R1s, GR1s, and B1/B2s are all very different airframes with the same designation.

[Finnpog]

As traditionalists, surely an echo to history is called for.

How about Reaper B(I).1 We'll need to put an "R" in there too.

:ok: to XIII and 39.

[BEagle]

Earlier drones which were conversions from real aeroplanes, such as the Firefly, Meteor and Sea Vixen, had either 'U' (e.g. Firefly U.8) or 'D' (e.g. Sea Vixen D.3) designations. Whereas purpose built drones such as the Jindivik did not.

I don't see any need to give drones any specific designation - neither is there any precedent.

[Lima Juliet]

Ah, but BEagle, these are Remotely Piloted Air Systems for Armed Combat ISTAR. Whereas your examples of 'drones' were for target towing; which is where the term originated with the DH Queen Bee.

Totally different role and capability, old fruit. :ok:

LJ

[Roland Pulfrew]

GK:
All of those C-135s are the same base airframe (the prefix indicates modified mission - a very clear description) - while all of your R1s, GR1s, and B1/B2s are all very different airframes with the same designation.

I know, but that is simply because we name our aircraft rather than just using a designator. Most people refer to the KF-135 as the KC-135 not as a "Stratotanker" (or whatever its proper name is). We refer to our aircraft (usually) by the name so a Reaper is a Reaper not an "MQ-9". Our B2s are not really "B2"s but Canberras, Victors, Vulcans etc. The mark number and designator just indicate role and version. Horses for courses but that is the UK "tradition" and it isn't difficult to understand. :ok:

[MAINJAFAD]

Beagle is correct to some extent, The Jindervik never had the D or U designation, nor did the AQM-37 based Stiletto. However there are numerous serial blocks throughout the British Military register that have drones like the Northrop Shelduck (MQM-57A), Northrop Chukar (MQM-74C) and Shorts Skeet that all picked up the 'D' designation sometime in their service. Could be something to do with the fact that the RAF's only drones before Reaper and alike were the 1930/40's Queen Bee (The Army and Navy, plus the RAE (and QinetiQ) have been the main users of drones in the British military throughout the 50's to the modern era).

Leon

The Queen Bee was the target and it was a purpose built drone (it wasn't a standard Tiger Moth modified for unmanned flight, but a mix of DH60 and DH82 airframes with the manned capability for ferry flights and alike). Jindervik's target towing facility was something that was tacked on after it had been in service a few years.

[HAS59]

Nice on Mr B,

I saw the cast ...
waited for it
then enjoyed the hook, and wriggle as it played and landed itself.

And listened to the distant drone as the long summer days come to an end.

[Lima Juliet]

Mainjafad

A drone is an unmanned aircraft for towing targets or being a target to shoot at. Reaper is Combat ISTAR; a very big difference. What you've just said above about the "RAF's only drones before Reaper and alike" is like saying a Tanker is Fighter or a Helicopter is Strategic Airlift!

Towing/Being a target in a range for target facilitation is completely different to providing long-range Armed Intelligence, Surveillance, Target-Acquisition and Recconaissance able to operate on or ahead of forward line of our own troops. :ugh:

Don't fall for the media clowns that seem to think that unmanned systems are just glorified model aircraft - because they ain't!

LJ :ok:

PS. The other thing about the Queen Bee was that it was optionally manned - I know because I've flown one of the last ones at RAF Henlow. It is basically a wooden Tiger Moth.

[Mil-26Man]

Don't fall for the media clowns that seem to think that unmanned systems are just glorified model aircraft - because they ain't!


I get that's it's technically more accurate to refer to 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicles' or 'Remotely Piloted Aircraft', or whatever the politically neutral name of choice is this week, but the term 'drone' to refer to unmanned aircraft of any and all descriptions is one that is in the popular vernacular and one that is here to stay - like it or not I'm afraid. To rage against it is to p1ss into the wind...

[Lima Juliet]

But I like getting my feet wet - it keeps my toes warm! :ok:

[Mechta]

I get that's it's technically more accurate to refer to 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicles' or 'Remotely Piloted Aircraft', or whatever the politically neutral name of choice is this week, but the term 'drone' to refer to unmanned aircraft of any and all descriptions is one that is in the popular vernacular and one that is here to stay - like it or not I'm afraid. To rage against it is to p1ss into the wind...:ok::ok::ok: Mil-26Man, I couldn't have put it better myself!

[dragartist]

Professor Hayward from the RAeS kept referring to drones throughout his hour long presentation at Cambridge University the other week. looks like the term Drones will be with us for at least another generation of aviation spectators. I do agree that the ends of the spectrum are poles apart Reaper at one end, radio controlled models at the other. I think we did the man in the loop killing people argument in another thread a while back. With the small number of platforms we now have in the UK we could probably give each a nickname anyway. Just like they did the 8 Sqn Shacks.

[Davef68]

of course the military love to abbreviate things to the point of being meaningless at times.
I recall a 'driver of Tornadoes' telling me that he flew 'GR 1's'
to which I asked if he meant Jaguars or Harriers? (I was making a point)
The poor soul just stared at me and repeated "GR.1's" as if the multi-nation wonder-bomber was the only creation to thus named.


I wonder if he was the person who decided the F-4J (UK) would not get the Fmk3 designation to avoid confusion with the Tornado of that mark....

[Haraka]

Rightly or wrongly as far as Aerial Reconnaissance was concerned, the RAF teaching in the 70's was that an RPV was subject to external control in flight, whilst a drone was autonomous .
(Thinking back to the Cl-89 "Midge" drone a.k.a USD 501 IIRC)
But certainly the term was used for remotely controlled aerial targets and target towers from at least the late 30's. ( Queen Bee , Queen Wasp et al.)
Then there was the "Larynx....... and well before that the "Aerial Target" which was a British V1 predecessor .





"NUUURSE!, the screens!......"

[HAS59]

So where do we go from here?

With the designations I mean ...

Taranis B Mark 1 ?

Do QR's still provide the answer ...?

I don't have a copy to hand

[Lynxman]

The regs are in the MRP, not QRs. See my post #21 for the link. There is no current guidance on what role prefixes are permitted.

[HAS59]

PM'd you mate:)

[BEagle]

At the recent EASA Annual Safety Conference, even the 'RPAS' (other acronyms are available) group admitted defeat and used the noun drone rather than some jumble of politically correct initialisation.

[HAS59]

I am indebted to Lynxman for his guidance with regards to current regulations ...

Oh how I wished I hadn't bothered. Life was so much more simple when we had rules.

Now we have 'guidance' and things that 'should' be done (not must be done)

If I have got this right ... we now have

Military Aviation Authority

Part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the MAA is an independent and autonomous organization responsible for the regulation, surveillance, inspection and assurance of the Defence Air operating and technical domains. It ensures the safe design and use of military air systems.

Military Aviation Authority Regulation 5307 (Identification of Materiel)

5307(1) A military aircraft shall beidentified by:

a. Name or designation.
b. A letter or group of letters to indicate the operational role(s).
c. Mark number.

5307(2) Mark or Model Numbers

A major change of design which affects the operational or functional value of materiel, or its interchangeability, shall be identified by the introduction of a new mark or model and NATO number.

Aircraft : Proposals for changes in role letters or mark numbers of Service aircraft should be submitted with full supporting details to the PTL.
(Project Team Leaders)


So we have a body which is 'independent ' but still a part of the MOD ... aye right.

We still have no authoritative list as to what things are supposed to be called. It looks as these guidelines are there in part to ensure NATO nations know their AN- designations are still in use.

Maybe we should invite the Joint Services Recognition Journal to come back and actually tell us all what things are called.

(I would still like someone to have a peek at QR's in the morning though)

[XR219]

I was thinking more of how we combine letters with others - HAS, HAR, AH, etc.
Unlike the US system, individual letters in the role prefix have no meaning of their own, only the prefix as a whole does. But occasionally that meaning does change - eg. Sunderland GR.III vs. Tornado GR.1.

[BBadanov]

"Earlier drones which were conversions from real aeroplanes, such as the Firefly, Meteor and Sea Vixen, had either 'U' (e.g. Firefly U.8) or 'D' (e.g. Sea Vixen D.3) designations. Whereas purpose built drones such as the Jindivik did not."

Ahhh, aircraft designators. Could talk about them till the cows come home. OK, one day I will get a life.

The UK designators are a good system, when properly used. As stated, the US system is different, but is also a joint designation system, simplified since 1962 to bring USN aircraft designation into the air force style in a joint system. However, there have been some strange deviations - such as "P-3C Update II" instead of going to P-3D, or P-3E, or the next available simple designation. Also the correct C-27B designator is rarely used, giving way to the marketing "C-27J" hype. Similarly, jumping from F-23 to F-35 bastardises a perfectly good working system.

The US tend, in the main, to refer to their aircraft by the designator, and not the nickname. Therefore, they will talk "F-16", "B-1", etc. But ironically, if a WIWOL talks of "the Lightning", to a Yank this will be the P-38, or its latest use as the F-35. And if a GR.4 mate talks about Tornado, perhaps a Yank might think "Goddam, I didn't know the limeys had B-45s" - and actually the RAF did at one stage!

The F-4J (UK) example is a good discussion point. With F-4K being the FG.1, and F-4M being the FGR.2, then logically the 74 Sqn F-4J should have become a Mark 3 of some type - perhaps FGR.3, or maybe more correctly the F.3, but of course that would have caused confusion with the ADV F.3.

Actually, Jindivik did have mark numbers, but not UK style designators.
Jindivik Mk 2 deliveries to UK were Mk 2BL and Mk 102BL - perhaps the "L" standing for Llanbedr?
Jindivik Mk 3A aircraft were Mk 203A for the RAN, Mk 303A for the USN, and Mk 103A for UK. Later Mk 3B Jindis for UK were Mk 103B, and were referred by their serial ranges as "600-series" aircraft (with A92-610/A92-674 serials).
UK Mk 103B aircraft were 700-series aircraft (A92-701/A92-740).
The Mk 4A for UK became the Mk 104AL (A92-802/A92-816), and improved UK Mk 104ALs were 900-series aircraft (A92-901/A92-918).
So adoption of the approved UK designation system of Jindivik U.2/U.3/U.4 would have been far simpler.
Incidently, in Oz the flare trailed by Jin was called "Tonic" - G&T, get it? Strange but true.

Back to the OP, MQ-9 Reaper GR.1 would seem reasonable. And I see no reason why not to adopt C-17A Globemaster C.1. Who knows, perhaps P-8B Poseidon MR.1 ?

When our USAF exchange guys came to Buccs and flew the Hunter, they loved regaling about flying the F.6 (but not necessarily the T.7 or T.8) - I always imagined they missed the subtleties of the UK designators and were referring to an "F-6" as designated by the US system, and therefore older than the F-16 !!