Reaper Replacement
Gentleman Aviator
As 'Avenger' is the (inappropriate) name of the Beech King Air in use for FAA Observer training, perhaps not.
..... but perhaps not (again)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Angels 20 and climbing
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More details on the 'Protector' here...
Based on NATO airworthiness standard certified Predator B it seems...
Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | RAeS helps set the drone agenda
Based on NATO airworthiness standard certified Predator B it seems...
Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | RAeS helps set the drone agenda
Join Date: May 2007
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drones!
So the RAeS refers to UAV/UCAV/RPAV as drones. A very lazy term, which immediately tells me that whoever is opining doesn't really understand the significance of these systems.
Agreed, this verbal erosion of specific terminology adopted for good reason regarding the "Unmanned/Uninhabited" family over the years will lead to traps for the unwary.
Note also that tethered aerostats are now merely often called "aerostats", in sublime ignorance of what the "stat" part of the term actually refers to.
To be honest it all started with the nonsensical term " airplane" , in ignorance of the etymological origination of the correct "aeroplane".
And when was the redefinition of "Strike" ordained?
Note also that tethered aerostats are now merely often called "aerostats", in sublime ignorance of what the "stat" part of the term actually refers to.
To be honest it all started with the nonsensical term " airplane" , in ignorance of the etymological origination of the correct "aeroplane".
And when was the redefinition of "Strike" ordained?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terminology
Agreed, this verbal erosion of specific terminology adopted for good reason regarding the "Unmanned/Uninhabited" family over the years will lead to traps for the unwary.
Note also that tethered aerostats are now merely often called "aerostats", in sublime ignorance of what the "stat" part of the term actually refers to.
To be honest it all started with the nonsensical term " airplane" , in ignorance of the etymological origination of the correct "aeroplane".
And when was the redefinition of "Strike" ordained?
Note also that tethered aerostats are now merely often called "aerostats", in sublime ignorance of what the "stat" part of the term actually refers to.
To be honest it all started with the nonsensical term " airplane" , in ignorance of the etymological origination of the correct "aeroplane".
And when was the redefinition of "Strike" ordained?
I heard that the PM detests the names 'Reaper' and 'Scavenger' and personally directed that both the programme and whatever platform gets selected be named 'Protector'. Something about being on-message....
Must admit that I hadn't heard about any prime ministerial directives relating to Airseeker / Rivet Joint nomenclature, as suggested at the RAeS link. Seems to me as if most have settled on the latter.
As regards 'drones', there comes a point when we have to accept that the term has become so widely adopted that instead of doggedly persisting with unmanned / remotely-piloted / uninhabited (and changing our mind over that every few months), we roll with it. Public and journalistic eyes glaze over when the military is perceived as descending into jargon, whether fairly or not (witness all the recent fuss over 'deconfliction'). We've tried for long enough to embed the precise terminology; it hasn't worked so we should concentrate on getting over the key points that we really want the press and public to understand. Which are, in my view:
1) There is nothing unethical about using a platform which takes the operator away from the point of danger. Drones are simply the latest step in the search for a technological advantage, a process which has given us the spear, the sling (think David and Goliath), the longbow (think Agincourt), the rifle, the howitzer, the cruise missile. Warfare is not a duel; unfair does not mean unethical.
2) There is a person in the loop for all weapon aiming and release. Our drones are not autonomous killers.
Our political masters know how to get the public onside to their arguments. We should follow their example: key messages. Not a boring debate over terminology.
Must admit that I hadn't heard about any prime ministerial directives relating to Airseeker / Rivet Joint nomenclature, as suggested at the RAeS link. Seems to me as if most have settled on the latter.
As regards 'drones', there comes a point when we have to accept that the term has become so widely adopted that instead of doggedly persisting with unmanned / remotely-piloted / uninhabited (and changing our mind over that every few months), we roll with it. Public and journalistic eyes glaze over when the military is perceived as descending into jargon, whether fairly or not (witness all the recent fuss over 'deconfliction'). We've tried for long enough to embed the precise terminology; it hasn't worked so we should concentrate on getting over the key points that we really want the press and public to understand. Which are, in my view:
1) There is nothing unethical about using a platform which takes the operator away from the point of danger. Drones are simply the latest step in the search for a technological advantage, a process which has given us the spear, the sling (think David and Goliath), the longbow (think Agincourt), the rifle, the howitzer, the cruise missile. Warfare is not a duel; unfair does not mean unethical.
2) There is a person in the loop for all weapon aiming and release. Our drones are not autonomous killers.
Our political masters know how to get the public onside to their arguments. We should follow their example: key messages. Not a boring debate over terminology.
Last edited by Easy Street; 10th Oct 2015 at 01:47.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I heard that the PM detests the names 'Reaper' and 'Scavenger' and personally directed that both the programme and whatever platform gets selected both be named 'Protector'. Something about being on-message....
. Why isn't the more recent "aerostat" a better description than "tethered aerostat"? The latter phrase seems tautologous.
"Aerostat" is by no means a recent term, only its incorrect adoption.
You have to look at the family of aircraft, which, by convention, is broadly divided into two main classes: " aerodynes" and "aerostats".
Aerodynes are heavier-than-air craft that need to maintain themselves airborne in the atmosphere by self-generated aerodynamic force (i.e. sourced from a power plant). This category includes aeroplanes ( fixed wing) and rotorplanes (including helicopters and gyroplanes) .
In contrast, aerostats are lighter-than-air craft which are normally buoyant in the atmosphere. These can also be broadly divided into two classes. Those that lack a propulsion system ( "balloons") and those that are capable of being guided or steered," dirigibles" or airships. All these "blimps", "Zeppelins" et al are still also correctly defined as aerostats.
The "stat" part of aerostat therefore does not refer to it being static over the ground because it is on a tether. The confusion arises when other forms of aerostat need to be compared or contrasted. For example, free-flying balloons have been used in fairly recent times for reconnaissance and even long range bombing. Dirigible aerostats are still being built or proposed for a number of purposes, from surveillance to air transport.
Thus I do not consider it being pedantic to continue to try to use these definitions correctly.
Last edited by Haraka; 10th Oct 2015 at 12:54.
There is a person in the loop for all weapon aiming and release. Our drones are not autonomous killers.
The evolved established distinction between a "drone" and a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System was to clearly underline the dissimilar operational concepts, and thus possible implications and consequences of employment, of these significantly different categories of UAV.
The Royal Artillery operated the USD 501 "Midge" in a "Drone Troop" . This was a totally autonomous vehicle which, once launched, was on it own. The flight profile was conducted internally on a system of mechanical air logs and heading changes, with no further external involvement until just before recovery.
Because of the implications of the lack of human in-flight control or input, particularly regarding a weapon system, the conceptual differentiation between a "drone" and a "Remotely Piloted Vehicle" has been deliberately stressed in the past, for good reasons.
By now tacitly accepting the blurring of these definitions, popular misunderstandings (particularly those purveyed in the open press), have arisen; if not actually being encouraged and fostered by interests promoting particular agendas.
Had these misapprehensions been effectively countered, by correction and education in the first place, then defensive statements such as that above about "our drones" not being "autonomous killers" would have been rendered largely unnecessary.
Last edited by Haraka; 10th Oct 2015 at 08:20.
Haraka,
FWIW I totally understand and agree with your point. The trouble is we've been trying for so long to explain this, and with so little apparent success, that the time has come to accept defeat. Others were taking control of the debate while we talked technicalities; I agree that it's suboptimal that we are forced to use our opponents' language but it is still a debate we can win. Embracing the word 'drone' and turning it into a word that is understood in a way that suits us is a perfectly valid approach.
FWIW I totally understand and agree with your point. The trouble is we've been trying for so long to explain this, and with so little apparent success, that the time has come to accept defeat. Others were taking control of the debate while we talked technicalities; I agree that it's suboptimal that we are forced to use our opponents' language but it is still a debate we can win. Embracing the word 'drone' and turning it into a word that is understood in a way that suits us is a perfectly valid approach.
Easy Street
Indeed. Instead of going from definition to definition: "Unmanned/Uninhabited, Air vehicle/Air system" etc. and spewing acronyms, the basic concepts should have been better elucidated in a consistent manner.
As you know the term "drone" was used by many in the past to mean unmanned target, even though these systems were frequently ground ( or air) controlled.
The usage of the term has thus been in confusion for 80 years plus, however in the early 70's it seemed to be getting sorted. Then popular usage smothered the distinction with RPV, and thus we are fighting an uphill battle to address a nation largely getting its opinions on the subject from so called Hollywood SF movies, a seemingly left-wing public broadcaster and the tabloid press.
I agree its pointless barking like a dog after a departing bus, but at least we can still air our unfettered opinions in some fora, such as this, and get some audience exposure.
Indeed. Instead of going from definition to definition: "Unmanned/Uninhabited, Air vehicle/Air system" etc. and spewing acronyms, the basic concepts should have been better elucidated in a consistent manner.
As you know the term "drone" was used by many in the past to mean unmanned target, even though these systems were frequently ground ( or air) controlled.
The usage of the term has thus been in confusion for 80 years plus, however in the early 70's it seemed to be getting sorted. Then popular usage smothered the distinction with RPV, and thus we are fighting an uphill battle to address a nation largely getting its opinions on the subject from so called Hollywood SF movies, a seemingly left-wing public broadcaster and the tabloid press.
I agree its pointless barking like a dog after a departing bus, but at least we can still air our unfettered opinions in some fora, such as this, and get some audience exposure.
Last edited by Haraka; 10th Oct 2015 at 13:01. Reason: Typos
