View Full Version : UKMFTS, what's the point?
With this (http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/17560) technology now a front line reality, what is the point of committing £12B of taxpayers money over the next 25 years in order to train aircrew to put in manned aircraft to put in harms way?
.
The answer? Well it's obvious,isn't it? The self-preservation of the RAF as we currently know it.
.
The result? An expensive error of monumental proportions that will have to be unpicked in the not too distant future.
.
With this technology available, the next of kin of our future aviation heros will have some justification to be aggrieved when our lords and masters neglect their duty of care.
This whole issue needs a serious rethink, and I don't believe it's too late (apart from the Hawk 128 procurement that is).
http://www.myfishingpictures.com/img/041425.gif
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
18th Jul 2007, 08:42
An anonymous Post on Network World; At five tons gross weight, the Reaper is four times heavier than the Predator. Its size - 36 feet long, with a 66-foot wingspan - is comparable to the profile of the Air Force's workhorse A-10 attack plane. It can fly twice as fast and twice as high - 25,000ft compared to 50,000ft - as the Predator.
Could someone explain that improvement in ceiling or are we talking submarines (perhaps pronounced ****e?) here?
diginagain
18th Jul 2007, 08:51
Actually, PTT, I preferred the photo. We could have had a bit of caption-banter without offending anyone.
What, like fishing in muddy water? I'd agree with that!
Roland Pulfrew
18th Jul 2007, 10:33
6Z3 Said:With this technology now a front line reality, what is the point of committing £12B of taxpayers money over the next 25 years in order to train aircrew to put in manned aircraft to put in harms way?
Well that's all fine, but Predator doesn't do air defence. Predator doesn't do AT, AAR, AEW, SH, MP, SAR, WSO, WSOp, Elint etc etc etc. :ugh:
Predator can't do a show of force (see the last couple of RAF Pravda News)
However if the question was: "Do we need MFTS in its current planned form?" then that would be different.
BEagle
18th Jul 2007, 10:42
Rather more point to properly funded military run flying training than wasting bi££ions on little grey flat-topped boats taking Jolly Jack Tars to CockersPs around the world, eh 6Z3?
Not MFTS though. That truly is an utter crock!
TEEEJ
18th Jul 2007, 12:42
Predator on the air-to-air front did have a crack at an Iraqi MiG-25 during 2002. The Predator launched its Stinger, but the Iraqi AAM hit the Predator first. This took place in the SNFZ.
Footage of the Stinger launch can be found from around 20 secs in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8
Widger
18th Jul 2007, 12:51
The day the machines took control!
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mdi/images/bckgrd/bckgrd_big/terminator_004.jpg
Da, da daaaaa, da da daaaa, bum, bum, bi bbum
Would have left it Diginagain, but I thought it was a bit large - don't want to use up bandwidth I don't need to :)
teeteringhead
18th Jul 2007, 13:54
6Z3 ... you ain't no kin to Duncan Sandys are youse????;)
green granite
18th Jul 2007, 14:20
Even greater chance for blue on blue. :hmm:
Guys. My point was to challenge the wisdom of committing £12B of MoD resources to a 25 year UKMFTS partnership with lead companies that have a vested interest in projects not necessarily aligned with the needs of the Armed Forces.
.
My link was to an article identifying the arrival on the Front Line today of "Reaper", big brother of Predator - 4 times heavier, twice as fast, flying twice as high (50,000') and carrying 7 times as many missiles - as the Predator.
.
These fighting vehicles have only been developed seriously for perhaps 10 years to get to the current level of sophistication. Where will we be in the next 10 years. Bearing in mind UKMFTS hasn't stood up yet, so the clock hasn't started ticking on its 25 year partnering arrangement, I believe its concept is out of date almost before its started.
.
I am not saying we won't need military aircrew, or a Military flying training system. I'm saying that we'd be stupid to commit ourselves to a 25 year contractual partnership arrangement based on the 19 streams of aircrew that we currently need and in the numbers we currently need, only to find that we'd have to pay through the nose to significantly change any of the arrangements.
.
And as an aside, I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the committment to a major element of the Flying training system (H128) without any consideration of the alternatives, or how it will 'fit' into the future structure of the FTS.
Two's in
19th Jul 2007, 01:28
Even greater chance for blue on blue
GG,
Unlike this thread, which is more Dark Blue on Light Blue, again.
6Z3,
I suggest you read some of the future doctirine (FASOC specifically) and conceptual pieces (some of which are on the intranet) and then start winding your neck in.
Oh and don't forget the UKMFTS includes all military flying training, not just fast jet. So not all of the £12B training costs are able to be replaced by UAVs and nor is all the money being spent on the RAF!!
XV277
19th Jul 2007, 11:02
And as an aside, I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the committment to a major element of the Flying training system (H128) without any consideration of the alternatives, or how it will 'fit' into the future structure of the FTS.
Alternatives were considered. They just didn't secure jobs in the UK or export orders. Oops, did I say that?
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_services/selected_cases/AOI/aoi0503-2/a1-05.html
Neck-winding advice on future airpower concepts? ........ from a Puma veteran? :confused:
Yup you got it. Have done things other than driving Percy Puma in my career. And I'll think you'll find it's Future Air & Space Operational Concepts old chap.
And it seems you're content with the direction in which UKMFTS has gone and is going..... young man.
And your better, more navalised idea is??
How about we stick all our money in an untried, untested future policy? If you actually pull your head out of your bottom you'll find that UK PLC is procuring 'some' UAVs for exactly the reason you harp on about. Trying however to not face too much of the development costs. However the US (they're the people we're in on this with) don't think that they could put an
entirely automated fleet out for at least (key here being AT LEAST) 35 years. Looks like it kinda fits in with a bit of a training policy that's been mentioned at some point. The FASOC is out there in public domain and it's been given the nod by green, dark and light blue.
Or perhaps you'd prefer a more Navalised version - as that is where most of the anti terrorist/anti guerilla/asymmetric warfare is going isn't it? :confused:
The MFTS fits in with the tri service FUTURE training requirements, now and for the next foreseeable years - we've all had an input. So how about your pipe down. You know where I fit in with the training system (like nowhere!) and you?? Trying to save you're own job perhaps?
You're really not a very nice man are you? For your information, UKMFTS does not need navalising as you put it, it already is joint, though together with the Army we did have to put our foot down a few times. That does not make its concept - a 25 year mortgage, with no house at the end - any more pallatable in my view.
.
You keep carping on about FASOC, its pertinence (ie what's the point of UKMFTS), and its availability in the public domain (your not J.R.Hartley by any chance?). So I thought I'd take your bait.
.
Found it in the RAF's yellow pages under miscellaneous downloads (http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/miscellaneous.cfm).
.
Cracking read :rolleyes:, and I can understand why the other Services gave it the nod :zzz: , but I found the other miscellaneous download somewhat more useful and no less relevant. But thanks for the diversion JR.
.
Now is there anyone else out there with a legitimate 'future flying training' rod with which to beat me, pipe me down, wind my neck in or put me back in my box, jack?