RAF Reaper Drones to be controlled from the UK
Sorry, a re-attack. Here's a picture of a GCS
The left hand side is the Pilots position (just like the left hand seat is the captain on most aircraft), you can just see the rudder pedals, the throttle is on the left and the right hand stick is used to control the aircraft attitude and command weapons etc...
The OCU takes about 3 months including 1 month of groundschool, which is about the same as any Fast Jet OCU.
The B Word
The left hand side is the Pilots position (just like the left hand seat is the captain on most aircraft), you can just see the rudder pedals, the throttle is on the left and the right hand stick is used to control the aircraft attitude and command weapons etc...
The OCU takes about 3 months including 1 month of groundschool, which is about the same as any Fast Jet OCU.
The B Word
Depends on your experience - IIRC a F3 Short Course was about 2-3 months but an ab-initio F3 Long Course was the best part of 6 months. Don't forget that the majority of Reaper drivers are experienced operators from other fleet types (F16, B1B, F15, Tornado, Harrier, Apache, Nimrod, etc...). The first few ab-initio (or UPT as the US call them) have taken a little extra training to bring up to speed.
Bluster all you like and invent as many silly abbreviations as you wish, The B Word, those things are still drones, not aeroplanes.
BEagle
Are you sure old fruit...
Sounds like an aeroplane to me 
Are you sure old fruit...
aeroplane [ˈɛərəˌpleɪn] US and Canadian, airplane [ˈɛəˌpleɪn]
n
(Engineering / Aeronautics) a heavier-than-air powered flying vehicle with fixed wings
[from French aéroplane, from aero- + Greek -planos wandering, related to planet]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
n
(Engineering / Aeronautics) a heavier-than-air powered flying vehicle with fixed wings
[from French aéroplane, from aero- + Greek -planos wandering, related to planet]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Lewis Page - an excuse for a journalist
I've just looked at that Register article on UA 'written' by Mr L Page Lt RN (Retd). What a load of hoop.
'Robot wars' indeed. Clearly he hasn't done anything more than a cursory search of head-line grabbing articles popping up on Google.
Truely autonomous systems (that make machine-driven 'value' judgements) are a long, long way off from being deployed operationally. Moreover, the standard of 'behaviour' of an autonomous system that can deliver lethal effect is considerably higher than an operator-controlled system, in order to minimise 'runaway' effects; in other words and autonomous FFF system is more likely to default to 'weapons tight' than a conventional system because of the consequences of machine-driven weapons release. There are a lot of open-source reports (not news articles) from reputable orgnaisations which argue these points. A read of JDN 2/11 would be a start - but that didn't stop the Telegraph sensationalsing the JDN, referring to 'Terminator-like' robots.
WP
'Robot wars' indeed. Clearly he hasn't done anything more than a cursory search of head-line grabbing articles popping up on Google.
Truely autonomous systems (that make machine-driven 'value' judgements) are a long, long way off from being deployed operationally. Moreover, the standard of 'behaviour' of an autonomous system that can deliver lethal effect is considerably higher than an operator-controlled system, in order to minimise 'runaway' effects; in other words and autonomous FFF system is more likely to default to 'weapons tight' than a conventional system because of the consequences of machine-driven weapons release. There are a lot of open-source reports (not news articles) from reputable orgnaisations which argue these points. A read of JDN 2/11 would be a start - but that didn't stop the Telegraph sensationalsing the JDN, referring to 'Terminator-like' robots.
WP
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
WUH, I thought for a moment that that was a quote from our erudite reporter. 
I wonder how long it is before we see FSTA in a museum - have a read of this...
Northrop Grumman demonstrates Unmanned Aerial Vehicle air-to-air refueling | Defence Aviation
The video at the bottom demonstrates the idea.
Standing by for BEagle's splutter from his times on the Vickers Funbus!
iRaven
Northrop Grumman demonstrates Unmanned Aerial Vehicle air-to-air refueling | Defence Aviation
The video at the bottom demonstrates the idea.
Standing by for BEagle's splutter from his times on the Vickers Funbus!
iRaven
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Cpl Clott: A. Datalink for manned/unmanned systems to reachback their picture is 1-3,000,000 bits per second.
B. Datalink to control unmanned system is 100-200,000 bits per second.
I'm not in a position to argue the figures, but they do look incredibly slow. 1-3Mbit/sec is slower than the average broadband line and I would have thought you'd be hard pushed to move all the sensor data through it. It just reinforces the point that a data analyst / mission specialist in the aircraft can sift teh data take and reduce it to more handleable levels. Presumably a large proportion of the data "take" is irrelevant and can be disposed of at the earliest possible point: i.e. BEFORE its beamed out by datatlink.
PS its interesting to note that the "optionally manned" Northrop Grumman Firebird appears not to have a satellite uplink dish fitted
B. Datalink to control unmanned system is 100-200,000 bits per second.
I'm not in a position to argue the figures, but they do look incredibly slow. 1-3Mbit/sec is slower than the average broadband line and I would have thought you'd be hard pushed to move all the sensor data through it. It just reinforces the point that a data analyst / mission specialist in the aircraft can sift teh data take and reduce it to more handleable levels. Presumably a large proportion of the data "take" is irrelevant and can be disposed of at the earliest possible point: i.e. BEFORE its beamed out by datatlink.
PS its interesting to note that the "optionally manned" Northrop Grumman Firebird appears not to have a satellite uplink dish fitted
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joint Doctrine Note 2/11, The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, dated 30 March 2011 raises some interesting legal and ethical issues.
For instance:
Is the Reaper operator walking the streets of his home town after a shift a legitimate target as a combatant? Would an attack by an enemy sympathiser or agent be an act of war under international law or murder under the statutes of the home state? Does a person who has the right to kill as a combatant while in the safety of a control cabin thousands of miles away cease to be a combatant that evening on his way home?
Bob C
For instance:
Is the Reaper operator walking the streets of his home town after a shift a legitimate target as a combatant? Would an attack by an enemy sympathiser or agent be an act of war under international law or murder under the statutes of the home state? Does a person who has the right to kill as a combatant while in the safety of a control cabin thousands of miles away cease to be a combatant that evening on his way home?
Bob C
L-3 Com website says that the MQ-1 Predator Ku band forward link is 200kbps and 3200kbps for the return link. That would be 200kbps for the command link and 3mbps for the picture.
See here http://www.l-3com.com/products-servi...t.aspx?id=1238
As someone else said, let's do our homework properly.
iRaven
See here http://www.l-3com.com/products-servi...t.aspx?id=1238
As someone else said, let's do our homework properly.
iRaven
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And will we follow suit?
U.S. Air Force Adds Undergrad UAV Training, Makes Drone Pilot a Full-Fledged Career Choice
First US Air Force non-Pilot UAV Class Underway
Though it has been done under “beta” conditions in the past, the US Air Force is now conducting its first actual training class of UAV pilots who were not previously aviators.
The training is not short. The new Lieutenants have already completed flight screening, must conduct a significant amount of T-6 simulator training, RPA basic training, and then finally to the basic qualfiication course for UAVs. The “pipeline” is programmed as about a year.
U.S. Air Force Adds Undergrad UAV Training, Makes Drone Pilot a Full-Fledged Career Choice
First US Air Force non-Pilot UAV Class Underway
Though it has been done under “beta” conditions in the past, the US Air Force is now conducting its first actual training class of UAV pilots who were not previously aviators.
The training is not short. The new Lieutenants have already completed flight screening, must conduct a significant amount of T-6 simulator training, RPA basic training, and then finally to the basic qualfiication course for UAVs. The “pipeline” is programmed as about a year.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an independent arbiter, having never flown the UAVs but been closely associated, trust me, the problems and skills are closely related to "real world". Like it or not, these things are the future and they are very effective. Some of the problems of flying "virtual" real operations are way more complex than any that we grunting fighter types ever experienced.
Cut the guys some slack. They provide a massive capability. Just because they live in Vegas doesn't mean its glitzy.
Cut the guys some slack. They provide a massive capability. Just because they live in Vegas doesn't mean its glitzy.
I think BEagle was making the point that, like Air Tragic, if they screw up badly they can have a cup of coffee before the bollocking, rather than being spread all over a hillside.
UAVs do take skill to fly, and they are the future (I'm dabbling in mini-UAVs myself now), but it's not the same as real flying.
UAVs do take skill to fly, and they are the future (I'm dabbling in mini-UAVs myself now), but it's not the same as real flying.
Presumably the RAF's straight-through non-aviator drone operators won't be entitled to wear the RAF Flying Badge? Nor receive Flying Pay?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
The USAF already have pilot wings for RPA pilots
I see no reason why we won't do the same. The straight through aviators that the UK recently trained have done 35 odd hours on the Grob, another 60 odd in the Tucano Sim (to get an IRT), a few hours in the Tucano, a fundamentals course for RPA pilots that includes some synthetic training and then an OCU for type conversion and live flying. All in all they have about the same amount of flying as a graduate from 45(R) Sqn and we give them wings, so why not? There was an article in Flight last month all about this and a trial that 22 Group conducted very successfuly.
When it comes to flying pay, it is after all retention pay. So when the National Police Aviation Service, HM Coastguard, the electricity/gas companies start using RPAS or UAS for their work, we will need to retain our pilots. Again I can see no reason why not.
On the subject of the RAF flying badge, why should a RPA pilot wear anything different? The RAF does not distinguish between a helicopter, fast jet, transport, air-air refuelling and ISTAR pilot - a pilot is a pilot and the RPA pilots will have gone solo and have about 200hrs of hands on time (live and synthetic).
Of course, resistance to change is a natural human trait for the outspoken minority.
Cpl Clott
I see no reason why we won't do the same. The straight through aviators that the UK recently trained have done 35 odd hours on the Grob, another 60 odd in the Tucano Sim (to get an IRT), a few hours in the Tucano, a fundamentals course for RPA pilots that includes some synthetic training and then an OCU for type conversion and live flying. All in all they have about the same amount of flying as a graduate from 45(R) Sqn and we give them wings, so why not? There was an article in Flight last month all about this and a trial that 22 Group conducted very successfuly.
When it comes to flying pay, it is after all retention pay. So when the National Police Aviation Service, HM Coastguard, the electricity/gas companies start using RPAS or UAS for their work, we will need to retain our pilots. Again I can see no reason why not.
On the subject of the RAF flying badge, why should a RPA pilot wear anything different? The RAF does not distinguish between a helicopter, fast jet, transport, air-air refuelling and ISTAR pilot - a pilot is a pilot and the RPA pilots will have gone solo and have about 200hrs of hands on time (live and synthetic).
Of course, resistance to change is a natural human trait for the outspoken minority.
Cpl Clott