UK MQ-9 Reaper Designation?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/re...ies/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.
http://www.maa.mod.uk/linkedfiles/re...ies/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.
Last edited by Lynxman; 17th Oct 2014 at 16:13. Reason: Addition
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
It's in QR's
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
to XIII and 39.
How about Reaper B(I).1 We'll need to put an "R" in there too.
to XIII and 39.
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.
I don't see any need to give drones any specific designation - neither is there any precedent.
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.
LJ
Totally different role and capability, old fruit.
LJ
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't fall for the media clowns that seem to think that unmanned systems are just glorified model aircraft - because they ain't!
LJ
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.
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.
Don't fall for the media clowns that seem to think that unmanned systems are just glorified model aircraft - because they ain't!
LJ
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.
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...
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...
Mil-26Man, I couldn't have put it better myself!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
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!......"
(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!......"
Last edited by Haraka; 19th Oct 2014 at 12:05.
