Three predators!!!!

[toddbabe]

How are we expected to make much of a difference with that?
It's utterly pathetic, there are thousands of hours being spent risked in the air by alot of people because we can't spend the cash and buy a decent ammount of UAV's to do the job! Much of the work done out in the gulf is bread and butter to a Predator but instead we will continue to use a platform that isn't ideal, cost's tonnes more and put's peoples lives at risk!
Really clever that Mr Brown and Torpey:ugh::mad:

[brakedwell]

They could have bought two!

[splitbrain]

Yeah, two would be no good.

You need at least two spares to rob for parts to keep one serviceable :E

[akula]

It is an embarrassing reflection on today’s Air Force that such a big deal is made out of buying three UAV’s. I would much prefer not to have to wait 6 months on a pair of replacement boots.

NEVER check ALWAYS assume

[Wrathmonk]

So toddbabe - using your vast knowledge of the Air Force (can't even get the spelling of your Chief of Air Staff correct) and the way the Treasury works where exactly is the money going to come from to buy this "decent amount of UAVs" from? Typhoon budget - nope, moneys already been spent. Red Arrows - nope, too much PR for UK plc. Jaguar - nope, saved peanuts. MRA4 - nope, money has been spent (even though we don't have the airframe yet). Education? Could always make everybody pay for schooling. Heatlth? Scrap the NHS? Social Security? Get rid of the dole? Defence? We could always get rid, overnight, of another aircraft type (and the people after all for a an aircraft in service they tend to be the biggest cost) GR4? GR7? F3? MR2? What effect would that have on the broader defence aims rather than one specific fleet?

And where exactly will the UAVs come from? Do you think the US have a "UAV Supermarket" where you go with your cheque book and buy them, literally, off the shelf. Why do you think its taken so long to get 2, let alone 3? No manufacturer is going to build UAVs (or aircraft) for the military market on the off chance someone may want them.

As you appear, from this and other threads, seem to be full of good ideas why don't you get your ar5e posted into MOD and sort it out from there instead of making naive comments on t'internet.

Be grateful we got the UAVs we have got. With the MODs hands tied by wondeful legislation as theDefence Industrial Strategy and the like its amazing we are allowed to procure, even by UOR, anything that isn't made by Westlands or BAe Systems.

Rant off!:)

[Chimp Boy]

Wrathmonk,

For those of us who will be replaced by the UAV, whether this one or another, the ins and outs of procurement mean precious little. The sooner they arrive in meaningful numbers the sooner other platforms can get back to more direct support to those on the ground!

CB

[XferSymbol]

Wrathmonk...

I am NOT taking sides.

It does make me chuckle though, that you pull toddbabe to bits for spelling mistakes when there are a slack handful in your own 'rant'.

I'm off to Ladbroke's to try and raise some money for the Kipper Fleet.

:}

[In Tor Wot]

Wrathmonk - agreed.

Toddbabe:
Agreed and have been arguing the case for UAVs for the past 18 years!
However, the utility is not in the number of airframes (although it's directly related to the amount of support) it is in the support personnel - particularly analysts where the greatest effect will come from. To keep a Pred B airborne for 24 hours requires 3 gusting 4 'drivers', with a similar number of sensor operators, but also three shifts of up to 15 analysts.

Bearing in mind the fact that you're not going to have 8 on 16 off shifts that are effective for very long, this will require at least 2 teams of analysts, circa 90 personnel. Where are they going to come from? Our airships may have missed the point, but the ever diminishing budgets of our primary imagery analysis units have meant an ever decreasing number of analysts - we would be very hard pushed to support more than 3 aircraft. :ugh:

[Wrathmonk]

Xfer

That's the trouble when I rant - my mind works far quicker than my two thumbs can type! Or sadly, sometimes, before I control my voicebox! :E So sorry toddbabe - no offence meant. Wonder if thats why the BBC misspelt Marshal throughout the Nimrod programme on Monday ....

Chimp Boy

Don't disagree but sadly the state of the defence budget is such that I would bet more UAVs (in the short term) = loss of (Air) capability else where (so don't think you would necessarily get back to directly supporting those on the ground - more likely to be grounded to pay for the UAVs. I jest not...). So, as asked before, where do you suggest we lose this capability to pay for the sexy new toys? Procurement decisions, apart from UORs, take years for the political reasons already stated. Typhoon, for example, was planned for a task when the Cold War was still very cold - every change to the work spec means mega bucks to the manufacturer. Who is to say that the Future Carrier, FSTA, A400M, Type 45, FRES etc will be what we want at their expected in-service dates in the next 10-15 years? Wars may be fought in space and people will be asking why we didn't invest more in that area (who would have thought 10-15 years ago we would all be surfing the internet on a Saturday night rather than getting pi55ed in the pub!). The reality is there is no cash for the here and now and when pitched against Education (which clearly I need more of given my spolling errors), Health and Social Services, Defence will always lose out. Fact. Defence is not sexy to Joe Public and our 200000 votes (plus relatives etc) are spread throughout the country so even voting against the Government in the next election would not have as much of an impact as BAe or Westlands shutting down a factory has in a single constituency (take the Hawk 128 example and Brough....). And when someone can correctly forecast the future I want to meet them first - if for no other reason than to get next weeks lottery numbers (I've missed this week!).:ok:

Don't get me wrong I don't deny we need these new toys and sooner rather than later but you need to balance this with a huge dose of reality.

Come down to MOD. The water is warm mainly caused by the staff officers who are trying their level best to swim against the political tide!

I'm sure I've made plenty of spelling mistakes .... no need ot point them out. I promise I won't in future!

[Razor61]

The latest UAV losses:-

The UK's combat and peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since
earlier this decade have resulted in the loss of almost 50 unmanned air
vehicles and irreparable damage to almost 40 more, secretary of state for
defence Des Browne has revealed.
"Since 2003, 33 UAVs have been lost in Iraq", says Browne, adding that a
further 38 were damaged beyond repair. The Ministry of Defence has not
released details of the air vehicle types involved, but at least 23 of the
British Army's BAE Systems Phoenix UAVs are known to have been lost or
written off during the combat phase of Iraqi operations. Other unmanned
systems believed to have been used in the country by British forces include
Mission Technologies Buster and Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk mini UAVs and US Air Force-owned General Atomics MQ-1 Predators.
Browne has also revealed that 15 Desert Hawks were destroyed and another
damaged beyond repair during operations in Afghanistan until 24 April.

[brakedwell]

They can have this for a couple of hundred quid. Fully serviceable, ready to go!
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c32/sedgwickjames/Scale%20Model%20Aircraft/FieslerStorch2.jpg

[TheInquisitor]

The latest UAV losses:-
The UK's combat and peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since
earlier this decade have resulted in the loss of almost 50 unmanned air
vehicles and irreparable damage to almost 40 more, secretary of state for
defence Des Browne has revealed.
"Since 2003, 33 UAVs have been lost in Iraq", says Browne, adding that a
further 38 were damaged beyond repair. The Ministry of Defence has not
released details of the air vehicle types involved, but at least 23 of the
British Army's BAE Systems Phoenix UAVs are known to have been lost or
written off during the combat phase of Iraqi operations. Other unmanned
systems believed to have been used in the country by British forces include
Mission Technologies Buster and Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk mini UAVs and US Air Force-owned General Atomics MQ-1 Predators.
Browne has also revealed that 15 Desert Hawks were destroyed and another
damaged beyond repair during operations in Afghanistan until 24 April.
What do you expect when you let the Army 'fly' them?
The newer generations of UAVs need professional pilots to operate them properly. Stop giving them to artillery gunners and you might see those figures come down somewhat...

As for cost.....well, the annual legal aid bill for failed asylum seekers would buy us another 20 Predator B's, pay for the crew training, and still leave us enough change left to build a decent Sqn bar...nuff said!

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

I would much prefer not to have to wait 6 months on a pair of replacement boots.in fairness you only have to wait three months until the arrival of the first boot :=

[Dan Winterland]

The attrition rate of the Predator in USAF service has been quite high. three won't last long.

[L J R]

I thought General Atomics were selling the British MoD some MQ-9 REAPERS, and that because the demand was so high for them and production could not increase, so therefore the 'Option' to get 10? more on top of the 3 currently at the factory would simply take time. The better performing MQ-9 is a bigger aircraft than the Preadator A, and being more powerful, robust expensive etc, would possibly enjoy a less 'dramatic' attrition rate.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/index.cfm?storyid=596EB01B-1143-EC82-2EA652558CB5FE71

I also thought that you might be planning to replace other surveillance aircraft when the MQ-9 becomes mission ready, as its ability to stay airborne for long hours (hence 3 aircraft on day one).

Does anyone know when you will get them?

How many crews do you have in the US? Are General Atomics planning to launch and maintain them. I beleive they fly the NASA aircraft. - But stand to be corrected

[Biggus]

Wrathmonk

Playing Devils advocate here...... go with one of your suggestions, scrap the F3 fleet!

Accept the 'capability gap' until the Typhoon is fully established (Typhoon doing it's first Q soon I believe). The F3 is already planned for retirement. The precident of 'capability gaps' is set, and are we expecting massed bomber raids on the UK in the next two years? Just a thought....

On another issue I would have thought the Americans are getting through Predators at such a rate that there is an annual buy. Tacking a UK order within/onto that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.

[Roland Pulfrew]

The precident of 'capability gaps' is set, and are we expecting massed bomber raids on the UK in the next two years? Just a thought....

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/9-11%20%203.jpg

Just a thought....

[Phoney Tony]

Unfortunately, we have only bought the air vehicle and the sensors (to be paid for later from other project's money) and not the infrastructure to support the capability.

We are totally relient on the US and if we attempt to pay for the other LoD, particularly the communications links etc, the MoD will have to find another shed load of cash. If we do not do this and the US deny us the use of the links we end up with a fleet of expensive model ac.

I hope the introduction of UAVs will allow the Nim guys a chance to regroup and gets some home time.

[Biggus]

Roland...
If you announced the retirement of the F3 fleet tomorrow it would take 6 months for them all to go. If the current number of Typhoons can't provide sufficient 'cover' to cater for the rogue airliner threat, let alone 6 months downstream, then there is something seriuosly wrong.......

The phrase I used was "massed" bomber threat, I didn't say there was no need for some fighter cover within the UK ADR!!

[Lima Juliet]

Go and talk to your Int Officer, Biggus, you might get a surprise that things don't only happen in sandy places...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_enl_1178814276/img/1.jpg

[Biggus]

RTFQ
Massed, massed, massed, massed bomber threat.

If you bothered to read my first post on this thread I said I thought Typhoon was about to do it's first Q stint. The implication being I am aware of Q, and the reason for it, without going to see my non existant Int officer - but I guess I need to use words of one sylable.

I believe we currently have 1.5 Sqns of Typhoon, and I said it would take at least 6 months to fold the F3 fleet if we started tomorrow, allowing for growth in Typhoon assets.

If 1.5 Sqns of Typhoons can't cover the Q commitment for the occassional Russian intrusion, and the rogue airliner threat, (vs the current 5 AD Sqns for the entire WWIII scenario I believe?) there is something seriously wrong. It might be a bit of a strain for a while, but considering what some fleets are going through.....

I know the first Typhoon Sqn is working up in the AG role, but that is only so CAS can get some good publicility for his new toy......

I have repeatedly acknowledged that there is a need for AD in the UK.

By the way...... if you bothered to read my first post I also said I was playing Devils Advocate (thinking outside the box) .....

Words like "breath" "waste" "bother" "why" spring to mind....

[I've_got a traveller]

"Go and talk to your Int Officer"

Leon, if they are anything like our int officers they are too busy thieving oxygen! You're best off asking the cleaning lady!!!

;)

[Lima Juliet]

Biggus

Crikey mate, calm down!

Don't forget that there is also Q up North and down South plus the Falkland Islands. Your 1.5 Sqns won't go far... Also CAS wants Typhoon to go Afghanistan soonest - with a ground attack capability. The F3 is apparently going to be doing some of the test firing for BVRAAM "Meteor" because Typhoon is being advanced for air-to-ground trials at a faster pace.
It might be the RAF's new wonderjet but it can't be everywhere at once!

Believe me, the old landshark is going to the great scrapyard in the sky sooner or later (not before time, as well - she was only supposed to be a 15year stop-gap for EFA); but it would be a bit silly to get rid of her before the Eurofrightener can take over. We would look a right bunch of tw@ts getting caught with our pants down having already got rid of the SHAR recently.

IGAT

You're best off asking the cleaning lady!!!


Yes, mate, I was little optamistic :\ ! They'd probably tell you that you don't have right clearances to know the info anyway - clucking anchors :8 !

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

PS. Biggus do you really think that 3 front-line (soon to be 2) Tornado F3 Sqns are going to save the UK from your
Massed, massed, massed, massed bomber threat???

Sorry, outside of the 3 second rule, but it just occured to me. :ok:

LJ

[Thetruth]

This is a first.

Does anyone know what they are talking about - or is this just another load of b------s?

Are there any true air defenders on this thread?

Is there anyone who knows what the f--- they are talking about when it comes to UASs or UCASs? If so, I'll f--- off, and won't bore you again. if not, you'll be hearing from me!

[In Tor Wot]

Back to the thread - Phoney Tony, You are spot on, there is no support for the aircraft outside of what we can scrounge/borrow off of the Americans. Just as well they're not too busy, otherwise we wouldn't be able to get access to the kit when we needed it . . . . oh, no, wait a minute. . . . :ugh:

Still, never mind, at least we've got another squadron crest back onto the wall of hot Air Command . . . . :rolleyes:

[TheInquisitor]

I'd be very surprised if we didn't end up buying more Reapers (apparently the name is now official). Notwithstanding the lack of organic 'back room' support in the deal, I can envisage the MQ-9 making a significant contribution to the UK slice of current ops (and I'm not just saying that 'cos I may be going out there to fly them in the near future......)
The sensors will feed into the overall picture in the same way any other 'sensor' does nowadays - the NEC concept and the nature of joint ops means we can 'do our bit' without our own private CAOC to feed the picture. Bear in mind that Reaper carries about 1/3 of a Harrier weapon load, but has over 10 times the endurance...I think we'll find them SO useful we'll be falling over ourselves in 2-3 yrs time to aquire a whole bunch of them - although we will most definitely have to retain some current assets (or aquire replacements) for certain types of tasking.
Incidentally, they also have a (theoretical) air-air capability....the end for ALL fast jets? :E Discuss. (note the :E !)

[Razor61]

There is quite a lot of difference regarding the two types of Predator (Predator A and Predator B).
The Predator A has been lost in theatre mainly due to i should think to it's low cruise speed and low-medium level altitude, possibly the pilots (hick) maybe flying much lower than needed also....
Predator B (Reaper) seems to enjoy a much higher cruising speed and an altitude comparible to a biz jet!
Pred A Cruise Speed - 70kts +
Pred B Cruise Speed - 220kts +
Pred A Ceiling Altitude - 25,000ft
Pred B Ceiling Altitude - 50,000ft

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Actually, many of the Pred A air vehicle losses have been due to accidents in the approach to land phase (it's a pig near the ground, especially in gusty conditions), engine-related incidents (there's no fire detection/warning system, for example), poor weather conditions i.e. heavy precip/snow/icing, CBs and a few were ascribed to surface-to-air fire during the Op SW days.

Interestingly, human factors and the HMI have been listed as causal and/or contributary factors in many of the accidents.

possibly the pilots (hick) maybe flying much lower than needed also....

It would be extremely rare to find a Pred in this flight condition!

Cheers

SBG

[Confucius]

Red Arrows - nope, too much PR for UK plc.

Hmm, UAVs in diamond 9, now there's a thought...

[In Tor Wot]

Inquisitor - the bid for additional 'Reapers' (we will rue the day that became the name!) is going through now, but they take time to build and we're in the queue.

You're absolutely correct in the idea of passing all information into a central hub to provide information to whoever needs it, but it has nothing to do with a CAOC. These are the imagery analysts required to interpret the various types of data coming off the system (FMV/EO/IR/SAR & MTI) that we're in very short supply off. Likewise there is no provision to purchase the equipment on which to do the analysis. Once again we've bought the shiney toy but forgotten the need to support it :ugh:

Also, in order to have NEC we need a network - not a series of barely linked stove pipes.

[TheWizard]

Hmm, UAVs in diamond 9, now there's a thought...
Something like this perhaps?
http://www.ifma-austin.org/img/ThunderD.jpg

[Chimp Boy]

I think we are essentially arguing the same point from different ends. I understand that there is only a limited pot of cash to pay for everything, but the frustration of half measures is ever growing. You talk about long term ideas and poss solutions, I agree that if that was done well it would be worth a short term capability deficit. Whilst I am aware of a capability deficit I don't know how long/short that term will be or if there are solutions in place to make it worthwhile.

I assume your comment about reality at MOD was a gag, if not, and with all due respect you can poke it up your hoop. I would claim that over a year in Telic seeing lives lost as a direct result of capability deficit in delayed UORs is reality enough.

Regards

CB