RAF Reaper Drones to be controlled from the UK

[GalleyTeapot]

BBC News - RAF Reaper drones to be remotely controlled from UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13392373)

For those that don't yet know.

[iRaven]

13 and 39 recce squadrons again...

13 May 2011

News articles by date

RAF Announces New Reaper Squadron

The Chief of the Air Staff announced today that a new Reaper Squadron will form at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, which will mean the aircraft over Afghanistan will be controlled from the UK for the first time.

Speaking at the disbandment of Number XIII Tornado Squadron at RAF Marham, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton announced that the Squadron number will transfer to a second Reaper Squadron next year. The remotely piloted aircraft will continue to be based in Afghanistan.

With its array of high tech sensors and precision guided weapons, Reaper can carry out a wide range of missions that are currently controlled by 39 Squadron crews on the other side of the world at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. Reaper can use its sensors day and night to spy on insurgent activity for hours at a time and at a range where they are undetectable from the ground.



Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, said:

“The Royal Air Force is today delivering air power operations in Afghanistan, Libya and the Falkland Islands and, as XIII Squadron’s Tornados have shown, making a fantastic contribution to the very positive progress in the military campaigns in all these locations. I am confident that XIII Squadron’s reputation and distinguished history will be carried forward as it transitions to be a part of our Remotely Piloted Force employing the Reaper over Afghanistan.

He added:

“This transition will see us bring Reaper mission control to the UK, make more efficient and effective use of our resources in exploiting this growing capability and enable the operation of significantly more Combat Intelligence Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance aircraft over Afghanistan 24 hours a day.”

Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox, said:

“Reaper aircraft are providing valuable support to our front-line troops in Afghanistan. We are committed to providing the best available equipment to our Armed Forces. The formation of this new Squadron follows our doubling of the Reaper capability to ten aircraft, which represents an increased investment of £135M. This extra Squadron will help us get the best out of this valuable armed reconnaissance aircraft.”



XIII Squadron was formed in 1915 and has continued its long and distinguished record through both world wars and Operations over Iraq and Afghanistan. Notably, in 2009 XIII Squadron conducted the last Tornado sortie over Iraq in support of Operation TELIC. In the summer of 2010, XIII Squadron deployed on Operation HERRICK in Afghanistan providing Close Air Support and Combat Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance during a very busy fighting season. Finally, just a few weeks from disbandment, XIII Squadron were at the very fore of Operations over Libya, delivering deep strike with the RAF’s Stormshadow missile.

[Lyneham Lad]

A bit late (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/451503-raf-reaper-drones-controlled-uk.html) on the scene....

Merge the threads?

[The B Word]

XIII and 39 Sqn together again? How about RAF Luqa next?

http://www.asisbiz.com/images/0-RAF-Station-Luqa-Malta-Crest-0S.jpg

:ok:

[Corporal Clott]

http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq247/ColinS-K/19660323_XH137_Canberra_PR9_13Sq-1.jpg

http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq247/ColinS-K/19660325_XH170_Canberra_PR9_39Sqdn_.jpg

Fantastic news and a great Photo Recce (PR) heritage too - also both armed recce too :D

Cpl Clott

[jamesdevice]

may be controlled from the UK, but whose satellite bandwidth will they be using? Last time I looked we didn't have a lot of domestic military satellite comms capability

[Corporal Clott]

I think you'll find that about 80% of the US military SATCOM is commercially sourced plus the UK MOD use Paradigm under a PFI for Skynet (which is used to pipe the UK's picture - see link Skynet 5 | PPP Forum (http://www.pppforum.com/case-studies/skynet-5-0) ).

So what's your point? I'd rather be a hidden signal amongst a bunch of commercial transponders than being beamed from a military satellite that stands out like a dog's doo-dah!

So please, do tell us your concerns...

Cpl Clott

[jamesdevice]

simple: lack of control, lack of bandwidth. The fact we're having to send King Airs into Afghanistan to do the job of the drones due to lack of satellite bandwidth should be enough to make you ask questions

[whowhenwhy]

Good God, when did we put PW and Hellfire on a King Air?:E

[jamesdevice]

dunno if they're armed or not, but there are four of them (at least) used in place of the drones for surveillance This gives the background - and a photo of a USA one US, UK deploy manned unmanned aircraft to save bandwidth ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/20/manned_unmanned/)
In UK parlance an FLKA = Shadow R1
Hawker Beechcraft advert for them at Hawker Beechcraft Military and Special Mission: Surveillance (http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/military_and_special_mission/isr_surveillance.aspx)

Theres more background in relation to todays news report at
UK's Reaper flying hunter-killer fleet 'to double' ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/05/uk_reaper_fleet_to_double/) Seems the RAF is to double its number reapers from five to ten.

[Corporal Clott]

James

So what bandwidth would that be then? The KAs use different bandwidth, but bandwidth all the same. And the UK didn't buy modified KA350s to save bandwidth, they bought them at the same time as Reaper as they didn't know how effective either would be to replace the Nimrod in an overland ISR role.

Nice bit of fact fishing by you though...;)

Cpl Clott

PS You're link to the Hawker Beechcraft site shows a dual SATCOM datalink function on the aircraft anyway :ugh:

[The B Word]

James

You're so called "background info" has a picture of an RC12 GUARDRAIL which is a SIGINT bird only - hence the enormous amount of antennae!

As Corporal Clott says - you're obviously fishing :=

The B Word

[iRaven]

Fishing and King Airs aren't unusual in Canada, eh?

http://www.provincialaerospace.com/Portals/0/canada_header.jpg

Fisheries and Ocean Patrol is done by 4 modified special mission King Airs...

:ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Great news - :ok::ok::ok:

[Mr Grim]

Excellent news (even if most of it is pretty old).

James, if you take your military info / thought processes from the register you have some serious issues. Has it occured to you that they a. Have a pretty clear agenda and b. Have a habit of not worrying too much about facts on their website? By all means read it, but read other stuff as well and think for yourself, especially before posting here where at least some posters know what they are talking about (not many mind, don't trust them either!)

Wonder how many crews are going to stay on the Sqn???!!!???

[Siggie]

And if those Crews would rather be at Creech or Waddo?:rolleyes:

[jamesdevice]

thanks for the kudos of accusing me of fishing, but I'm sure that if my intentions were that oriented I would have asked some questions!.

To answer some of the points aimed at me
1) I'm sure the picture was just a convenient stock "funny looking King Air" which happened to be available
2) Of course the King Airs will have a satellite uplink: its a data backup in case they get shot down. BUT its a backup - its not a realtime data processing link
3) Satellite bandwidth is satellite bandwidth. Frequency / polarisation / waveband / location are all irrelevant. All that matters is the data transmission rate available on the bird, and the ability of the groundstation to talk to it. And if you are timesharing on a commercial platform (as Corporall Clott implied) then you're **** out of luck if the commercial needs outweigh the meagre spending ability of the military

[Corporal Clott]

James

Of course the King Airs will have a satellite uplink: its a data backup in case they get shot down. BUT its a backup - its not a realtime data processing link

A datalink in case they get shot down - what a load of hoop! Some of the King Airs datalink real time FMV in the same way as Predator/Reaper/Global Hawk at anywhere between 1-3 megabits per second - try googling Project Liberty. Other King Airs are line of sight only but still use frequency spectrum to reach back their picture in the same way as Hermes450/RQ-7 Shadow/Scan Eagle/Desert Hawk.

The only difference is that unmanned systems need a control datalink at somewhere between 100-200 kilobits per second. So here is the comparison to disrobe your argument:

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.

In other words for every dissemination link you can have 10-20 control links for unmanned systems. Thus the bandwidth argument is as true for manned as it is for unmanned - the reachback of the picture is the problem.

I hope that helps you get around the untruths spread by ill informed pieces like The Register.

Cpl Clott :ok:

[P6 Driver]

Perhaps slightly off topic, but do the controlling crews qualify for "1000 Hour" type patches?

[The B Word]

1000hr patch?

Yes and its logged in a flying log book as normal - the Ground Control Station for Reaper has a conventional stick, throttle, rudder pedals and HoTAS for things like flaps/weapons/engine kill switch plus a gear lowering lever. The pilot is flying "fly by wire", it's just that the wire is 8000 miles long!!! That is why they are called Remotely Piloted Air Systems - not drones or robots or UAVs, because they're flown by humans with pilot skills.

Nuff said...

[The B Word]

Sorry, a re-attack. Here's a picture of a GCS

http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/p/2007/PredatorGCS02-550x361.jpg

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

[High_Expect]

So a FJ OCU take 2 months of flying?? Perhaps someone should tell me last OCU that!

[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.

[BEagle]

Bluster all you like and invent as many silly abbreviations as you wish, The B Word, those things are still drones, not aeroplanes.

[Lima Juliet]

BEagle

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

Sounds like an aeroplane to me :ok:

[Jig Peter]

Surely they're aircraft, wherever their drivers sit ...

[Whenurhappy]

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

[Pontius Navigator]

WUH, I thought for a moment that that was a quote from our erudite reporter. :)

[iRaven]

I wonder how long it is before we see FSTA in a museum - have a read of this...:eek:

Northrop Grumman demonstrates Unmanned Aerial Vehicle air-to-air refueling | Defence Aviation (http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011/03/northrop-grumman-demonstrates-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-air-to-air-refueling.html)

The video at the bottom demonstrates the idea.

Standing by for BEagle's splutter from his times on the Vickers Funbus!

iRaven

[jamesdevice]

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

[Robert Cooper]

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? :confused:

Bob C

[iRaven]

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-services/docoutput.aspx?id=1238

As someone else said, let's do our homework properly. :ok:

iRaven

[Flap62]

Enough of the Kbps/Mbps blah!!

Beyond tedious.

[ORAC]

And will we follow suit?

U.S. Air Force Adds Undergrad UAV Training, Makes Drone Pilot a Full-Fledged Career Choice (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-06/us-air-force-adds-undergrad-uav-training-makes-drone-pilot-career-choice)

First US Air Force non-Pilot UAV Class Underway (http://christianfighterpilot.com/blog/2011/02/24/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.

[Geehovah]

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.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

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.

[Geehovah]

I tried it once and it was remarkably scary!!!!

[BEagle]

Presumably the RAF's straight-through non-aviator drone operators won't be entitled to wear the RAF Flying Badge? Nor receive Flying Pay?

:confused:

[Corporal Clott]

The USAF already have pilot wings for RPA pilots

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionImages/Magazine%20Article%20Images/2010/July%202010/Drones03.jpg

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

[Rigga]

...but these won't really need flying jackets or aircrew socks!

[P6 Driver]

"...but these won't really need flying jackets or aircrew socks!"

But you can bet your bottom dollar that they will have them, and wear badge adorned grow-bags rather than blues. ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

But they will be clean grow bags without hydraulic oil or grubby knees. The flying gloves will not have real dirt on them.

Do they have to go SCRE and learn R2I techniques in case they get cornered in a bar in Vegas or Lincoln?

[Lima Juliet]

http://www.uasvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/RAF_Reaper.jpg

Reaper crews still have to walkrounds and so get "hydraulic oil and grubby knees" - alright not in Lincoln, but in Theatre. There is a fire risk in a ground control station that is rammed full of high voltage electrics/electronics and man made fibres/plastics - also the ankle pockets in flying suits come in useful for documents whilst sitting "in the chair". Loose articles can be as big a problem as in an aeroplane - things can get jammed in a ground control station's controls just as easily as they can in aeroplane and also possibly cause a short that leads to a fire. Also, flying suits are far more comfortable to sit in for hours on end (OK, crews don't sit "in the chair" for the whole 14hr flight, but 2 spells of 4hrs a day is quite possible). Finally, getting in and out of "the chair" needs a garment that won't snag on the controls and snap them off - belt loops are bad for this.

So what RPAS crews need is a flame retardant, comfortable garment with zip pockets and pen holders - now we could get RPAS suits or is there something "off the peg" in the uniform inventory? Oh, yes, a flying suit! :ugh:

Funny how the USAF came to the same conclusion too!

LJ

[jamesdevice]

or cotton dungarees - with buttons (no zips) of course to reduce static

[Lima Juliet]

Perfect! :ok:
http://vthumb.ak.fbcdn.net/vthumb-ak-ash1/v2673/201/14/549728592/b549728592_153055698592_783.jpg

Can I have LJ on mine?

:p

[Pontius Navigator]

Reaper crews still have to walkrounds and so get "hydraulic oil and grubby knees" - alright not in Lincoln, but in Theatre.

Aorcrews?

There is a fire risk in a ground control station that is rammed full of high voltage electrics/electronics and man made fibres/plastics - also the ankle pockets in flying suits come in useful for documents whilst sitting "in the chair". Loose articles can be as big a problem as in an aeroplane - things can get jammed in a ground control station's controls just as easily as they can in aeroplane and also possibly cause a short that leads to a fire. Also, flying suits are far more comfortable to sit in for hours on end (OK, crews don't sit "in the chair" for the whole 14hr flight, but 2 spells of 4hrs a day is quite possible). Finally, getting in and out of "the chair" needs a garment that won't snag on the controls and snap them off - belt loops are bad for this.

Actually life preservers aircrew were also pretty good snagging items and not that comfortable either.

On the fire point, that presumably is why the E3 Mission Sim staff and software teams wear flying suits (not) :)

The only valid argument for flying suits is comfort and convenience. The latter as a convenient place to stow chinagraphs and notebooks.

So what RPAS crews need is a flame retardant, comfortable garment with zip pockets and pen holders - now we could get RPAS suits or is there something "off the peg" in the uniform inventory? Oh, yes, a flying suit! :ugh:

True, with fire retardance as a virtue not a necessity.

Funny how the USAF came to the same conclusion too!

Nah, just cheap and lazy. Ever been to Geilenkirchen? Even the guards on the gate wear flight suits.

[Lima Juliet]

PN

On the fire point, that presumably is why the E3 Mission Sim staff and software teams wear flying suits (not)

Last time I looked the E3 mission sim wasn't crammed into an ISO container with 2 aircrew at one end, the electronics in the middle, a narrow passageway and a single door at the other!

The 3rd person in the control station is the Mission Coord (MiC) who is normally in CS95 and sits next to the door and has no controls to snag or worry about loose articles.

Ah, GK and the push back from a "golden hamster" - now that brings back memories!

LJ:ok:

[rathebelucky]

Fantastic, we are having the 'why do they wear flying suits?' discussion again. I like this one.

[Rigga]

Nobody has yet justified Flying Jackets or Socks? ....apart from the Badge storeage facility that is...(not on the Socks though)

[BEagle]

Loose articles can be as big a problem as in an aeroplane...

Inverted flight checks must be a bit of a bugger though....:rolleyes:

Those drone operators remind me of the weird looking 'Brains'-type people you used to see in the Command Crew SAC-comic of the 1970s who sat in front of Minuteman consoles all dressed up in shiny flying suits and cravats (or 'ascots' in spam-speak). Scintillating prose would reveal that 1Lt Dooby had been awarded the 'Missileer of the Month' citation for running the checklist to overcome the air conditioning outage in some dank hole in South Dakota....:suspect:

[fade to grey]

So will tornado crews be tranferring to a small room full of electronics to fly that thing ?

Not really what you dream of when you think of becoming an air force pilot is it ?

[Pontius Navigator]

Do they strap in? Do they experience seat rumble and strap tightening as in the early Vulcan flight sim?

PS, this is a semi-serious question. My co gave me a demo of the Vulcan sim at Waddo with its simulated movement. He sat casually in the driver's seat, in civvies, and not strapped in.

The power came up, brakes off and there is no other way to describe it but we careered down the runways with a slight zig-zag and a startled look on his face. Had he been properly dressed and strapped in things would have been different.

[L J R]

Although the banter aimed at RPAS crews is humorous on forums such as this - and in the crew-room at Creech and elsewhere - and their own social network accounts; they do a tiring, relentless, high pressure, vital and deadly serious job. Their minds are focussed, their routine awful. They are very aware of the world 'below' them, and the very nature of the messaging from the JTAC on the radio brings a serious, sobering side to their long hours in the wee hours. The routine is fatiguing, the schedule on-going, but despite the apparent glitz of the Nevada lifestyle to an outside observer, each and every one of them look forward to the few days off with family and friends, whilst hiding the scars of their working life 50 miles north.

There is no glamour to the vision they endure, there is little public acknowledgement of their work, and their commitment to duty. Their knowledge of ROE, critical to the success of their weapon system, is precise, and the awareness of themselves as effective war-fighters remains within themselves.

Feel free to continue to knock the MQ-9 team, and their US bretheren on the MQ-1 and 9 (and other things) but I will raise a glass to each and every one of them, their MCs, Ops Staff, Int crews, comms techs, and other agencies that participate within their front line secure compound, and other yet largely unknown organisations that support, assist and co-operate with them. Their un-acknowledged sacrifice, and (typically 3+ years) of duty is a simply awesome task. - well done lads.....and ladies....:ok:

[Hacker15e]

The fact we're having to send King Airs into Afghanistan to do the job of the drones due to lack of satellite bandwidth should be enough to make you ask questions

That is NOT the reason why there are King Airs and other manned ISR platforms in theater.

It turns out that having "eyes on target" that are physically located at the same place the FMV ball is looking actually has quite a lot of value to the boots on the ground.

[Pontius Navigator]

The future is RPAVs. The Sentinel will have no role post AFG.

What will the RPAV sqns do post-AFG assuming there is a severe outbreak of peace in the world?

[Geehovah]

Although the banter aimed at RPAS crews is humorous on forums such as this - and in the crew-room at Creech and elsewhere - and their own social network accounts; they do a tiring, relentless, high pressure, vital and deadly serious job. Their minds are focussed, their routine awful. They are very aware of the world 'below' them, and the very nature of the messaging from the JTAC on the radio brings a serious, sobering side to their long hours in the wee hours. The routine is fatiguing, the schedule on-going, but despite the apparent glitz of the Nevada lifestyle to an outside observer, each and every one of them look forward to the few days off with family and friends, whilst hiding the scars of their working life 50 miles north.

There is no glamour to the vision they endure, there is little public acknowledgement of their work, and their commitment to duty. Their knowledge of ROE, critical to the success of their weapon system, is precise, and the awareness of themselves as effective war-fighters remains within themselves.

Feel free to continue to knock the MQ-9 team, and their US bretheren on the MQ-1 and 9 (and other things) but I will raise a glass to each and every one of them, their MCs, Ops Staff, Int crews, comms techs, and other agencies that participate within their front line secure compound, and other yet largely unknown organisations that support, assist and co-operate with them. Their un-acknowledged sacrifice, and (typically 3+ years) of duty is a simply awesome task. - well done lads.....and ladies....:ok:

Well said LJR:ok:

But PN makes a point. UAVs do a good job in a static environment. When life gets a tad more stretched and flexible, having reach is a good thing.

[FFP]

Spot on LJR. It's worthy of note that the RPA crews aren't the one's here bickering about wearing flying suits, being awarded medals etc etc, but are quietly going about their work that has more effect than most people will ever know.

[Pontius Navigator]

I was not referring to flexibility or reach but what of flying training. As there is no real feel the whole process could presumably be done in a simulator. Would the 'drones' be simply stacked in stores* ready to be wheeled out in the future?

*I am thinking Swiss Air Force Hunters that used to be suspended from the roofs of their shelters rather than occupy floor space.

[Proletarian]

Firstly, I have nothing but admiration for the work of the guys/gals that operate the Predator/ Reaper at Creech - they do a difficult, demanding job and deserve the respect of everyone else in the armed services.

However, it's worth remembering that the MQ-1C Grey Eagle (a smaller version of the Reaper) is currently operated by the US Army. The MQ-1C Grey Eagle weighs 1.5 tons, carries 136 kg/300 pounds of sensors internally, and up to 227 kg/500 pounds of sensors or weapons externally. It has an endurance of up to 36 hours and a top speed of 270 kilometers an hour. Grey Eagle has a wingspan 18 meters/56 feet and is 9 meters/28 feet long. The Grey Eagle can land and take off automatically, and carry four Hellfire missiles (compared to two on the Predator), or a dozen smaller 70mm guided missiles. The Grey Eagle is operated by non-aircrew rated enlisted personnel.

Both the Grey Eagle and the US Air Force Global Hawk are flown by the operater making various mouse inputs on a computer screen. Therefore, since the US Air Force could have opted for a similar control system for the Reaper, I suspect the current 'pilot' system was selected more to appease aircrew and ensure there was less resistance to the introduction of RPAS than any other reason.

Proletarian

[Lima Juliet]

Is this Grey Eagle like the MQ-1C Gray Eagle?

Just wondering? :p

[Rigga]

PN said "What will the RPAV sqns do post-AFG assuming there is a severe outbreak of peace in the world? "

IMHO, they'll either be chasing joyriders around the M25 or patrolling the dark wastes of UK forestry, moorland and mountain areas practising looking for anyone dressed in green, and calling-in yellow AW139s for those in peril.

[hval]

@ PN

The future is RPAVs

Rice Paddy Assault Vehicles? :E

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Hey Guys,

Nobody seems to note, that if 'Detected', these 'Drones' would be pretty easy meat for even the oldest of fighters?

I Guess it's where you choose to play? :D

Anybody think of that?

Advo

[Lima Juliet]

AD

Nobody is advocating replacing Tornado or Typhoon with Reaper, they should be a part of a force mix. If you want persistant eyes-on and the ability to strike a target then Reaper is the weapon of choice - fast jets will give you about 1hr in most target areas before heading back to the Texaco. However, if you're in airspace without air superiority then a fast jet may be your choice over Reaper. If you are trying to support many tasks or friendlies over a wide area then again fast jets may be your weapon of choice because of their speed. If you want to support an op like we saw in Sierra Leone then Reaper might be your weapon of choice.

The US lost an armed Predator trying to exchange shots with an Iraqi MiG in the closing days of Southern Watch - the Hellfire is quite a slow missile so the MiG timed out first (there's footage of this on YouTube). This was the early days of Predator, and if fitted with a decent missile like ASRAAM, then something like Reaper would be in a good position to protect itself. The Reaper has Link 16 so can get a 3rd party Recognised Air Picture from AWACS or a ground radar to help cue from 'big to small'.

The shoot down of a Georgian Hermes 450 by a Russian MiG29 shows why we should use aircrew rather than operators to fly RPAS. The operators watched the MiG position itself and then tracked the missile all the way to impact on itself - no manoeuvre, no attempt to throttle back to cool the IR signature (it looks like an Archer AAM shot) and no attempt to find a cloud to go hide in. The first rule of air combat for any aviator is 'never, ever, give up'; these Georgian operators were obviously not aviators! You can also find this footage on YouTube.

Finally, the USAF are operating Predators over Libya with enemy mobile SAMs lurking about. However, what do you think a Libyan SAM operator's priority is going to be? A slow speed small $4M Predator or one of those fast and pointy $40-80M Typhoon/Rafale/F15/F16/etc...? What would have bigger media impact? A pile of bits of plastic or a downed Coalition Aviator?

These are the things to consider and have been by those that have made the decision to use RPAS as part of the UKs force mix - a decision that I believe they have got right.

LJ:ok:

[Corporal Clott]

Good reply, Leon. BTW it doesn't have to be ASRAAM, look...

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/Reaper.jpg

[iRaven]

I prefer the A-Team version - we'll be OK with Reaper as long as the enemy doesn't have tanks on parachutes!

YouTube - the A- team clip shooting down drone

[jamesdevice]

US Navy seems to think it can be done with mouse clicks, if you believe Fox News (yes I know - never believe the gutter press...
The Navy's X-47B Will Be So Autonomous, You Can Steer It With Mouse Clicks - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/12/navys-x-47b-autonomous-steer-mouse-clicks/)

'Speaking to reporters at the Sea Air Space convention near Washington, reps from both Northrop Grumman (maker of the X-47B) and the Navy said the X-47B would be piloted not by human handlers in some steel box in Nevada, but by 3.4 million lines of software code. The rest of its functions will be able to be handled by non-pilot personnel (or your average child), as they will only require clicks of the mouse; a click to turn on the engines, a click to taxi, a click to initiate takeoff, etc.'

[Pontius Navigator]

only require clicks of the mouse; a click to turn on the engines, a click to taxi, a click to initiate takeoff, etc.'

And 3 key presses to reboot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Incidentally my car needed rebooting last week. The engine decided it was going to shut down and shut down it did.

[BEagle]

Nobody seems to note, that if 'Detected', these 'Drones' would be pretty easy meat for even the oldest of fighters?

Indeed! I've been saying for ages that, although drones clearly have their uses, an enemy armed with something more threatening than kiwi fruit and guava halves, or even AKs / RPGs, should be able to indulge in a spot of drone-swatting with an old MiG or few....

[hval]

BEagle

although drones clearly have their uses, an enemy armed with something more threatening than kiwi fruit and guava halves, or even AKs / RPGs, should be able to indulge in a spot of drone-swatting with an old MiG or few....

You are totally correct. By the same token, someone with more and better aircraft than ours, and/ or with better ground to air defences is able to destroy our manned aviation assets. Following your logic, the best solution would be nuclear ICBMs.

In my opinion unmanned reconnaissance, communications, intel. and attack aircraft are a positive asset that can and should be used alongside manned aviation assets. I see these "Drones", or whatever you might wish to call them, as an extremely positive tool. I also believe that with ongoing development these drones will only become better.

I have much admiration for the persons who operate the drones. For some people it must be extremely difficult going home after a shift after having seen and done what they have to do, day in and day out.

[L J R]

HVAL:

For some people it must be extremely difficult going home after a shift after having seen and done what they have to do, day in and day out.


...correct....!

[timex]

HVAL:


Quote:
For some people it must be extremely difficult going home after a shift after having seen and done what they have to do, day in and day out.

...correct....!

Unlike the rest of the guys on Ops who don't go home after every patrol or sortie, instead its back to the patrol base or Airbase....

[hval]

Timex,

Unlike the rest of the guys on Ops who don't go home after every patrol or sortie, instead its back to the patrol base or Airbase....

I have admiration for all those people as well. maybe I should have been more clear in what I wrote. I do apologise for my lack of clarity.

Those aircrew who operate in Libya may currently be located in Italy. Those operating in Afghanistan may be located in Afghanistan. It is generally easier to get in to the mind set of being at work and not thinking too often about home. You are generally mixing with people in the same situation who are able to provide the necessary mental support (shared situation and that). For those that go home every night after being in a combat situation it is generally difficult switching from combat mode to "wife and children" mode. For "drone" crew this is a situation they face day in and day out. They may not physically be in a combat situation, but everything they do, see, hear, is to do with combat - whether releasing weapons, seeing people killed, hearing intel, etc. At the end of their shift they then have to change from combat mode, try and forget what they have seen and done (somewhat impossible) and act in a totally different manner. Drone personnel do this all the time. Many others only do it at the end of a tour. I know I find it difficult coming back to the real world. Imagine having to do that every day.

Hopefully the above paragraph clarifies matters. Basically all military personnel deserve admiration (well, generally). I do however believe that the teams involved with drones are disparaged unnecessarily. My postings on this thread about drone personnel are to be taken in that context.

NB: - I know I have called the unmanned aircraft drones; I prefer UAV's. I do realize however that every six months or so they are called something different.

PS.
If I have not clarified matters sufficiently please let me know, and I shall make further attempts.

Hval

[Wander00]

Is there an "OC Counselling Flight"? Seriously though, these guys and girls are in an unusual position, and there should be some sort of support sytem in place for them.

[L J R]

Is there an "OC Counselling Flight"?

...We wish....but the so called counsellors I am aware of don't seem to understand the situation...well that is what I believe when a friend had a chat with someone who was supposed to counsel him - when he approached him...

......a day in life commences (again)

Drive to work. See bad guy. Look for good guy. See bad guy's family (bad guy is at home). Sunrise - Go home.

Sleep - can't sleep, next door neighbour's afternoon lawn-mowing commences.

Doze, wake with Dog barking across road, playing with local kids....doze..

Wake with alarm - and own family now going to bed. Drive to work (dodge Saturday midnight Vegas traffic). A lonely 45 minutes up the I-95, a VERY lonely 45 minutes...

Midnight, arrive at work, alertness questionable - day 517 of the tour (days 1 to 516 blurr into a ground-hog moment).

...see bad guy (again). Look for good guy. Chat with good guy. - reassure good guy. Lose Bad Guy - Sh1t...bugga...sh1t......find bad guy.....pfheww! - don't relax....bad guy has something.....Get 9 line. (the rest I will leave to your imagination).

Sunrise - Drive home - mix with morning church going traffic on way to a quiet beer with fellow crewman. Church goers pray for things. I do not. I just want a quiet beer. Arrive at 'local' watering hole - same old crowd from Sat night - mostly incomprehendible. Chat with fellow 'RPA dude' over the cold beer. Quetly chat about what they did tonight. Have breakfast with beer. - Day 516 over.

Leave Bar - someone has paid for beer and breakfast (they remain anonymous). Get home. - Quietly, as family still in bed, it is Sunday morning, and the 7th birthday party is tonight.

Doze for a while until children's party. Dream about that live shot < 7 hours ago. Wake up and wrap present. Enjoy party. Kiss children, wife and dog, get into flying suit and go back to work.

Another lonely drive - this time with a slight tear in the eye. - miss his family already.

......see good guy, look for bad guy. No bad guy today - just a funeral.


Day 517, and the tour is half way over.

[hval]

LJR,

Well done. A very good, brief article. Thank you.

[FFP]

You forgot "Fill out manual HTD claim" LJR.......; )

[Mr Grim]

Not quite sure how an AK, RPG or even an AH is going to shoot down a Reaper at 25k. Detect is your first problem!

Of course what some fail to appreciate is that the aircraft is equipped for the current conflict. If there was a need it could be equipped for another conflict, putting a simple DAS on plus Aim9x/ASRAAM wouldn't exactly be difficult and if at the end of the day the worst happens it is only £10 million down the drain, not £80+ million and a life or 2.

And yes, lots of people have thought of this!

Like the A team clip (now where did we put that Reaper gun pod, must be in those isos out back!)

[Lima Juliet]

Ah, the good old "mouse click" control argument. All well and good until you get a Danger Close where an amount of finessing is required, or you are given a standby as you roll in on attack heading, or there is a pop up ROZ that's not in the kit, or there is weather obscuring parts of the target area, or etc...

I always liken mouse clicking to driving a BMW with cruise control - fine for motorway cruising (read first night pre-planned strike) but rubbish for driving accross London in rush hour (read COIN CAS). X-47 isn't designed with armed-ISR or CAS in mind, it's a first night high-tec low-observable strike weapon; you couldn't get much different from Reaper (like comparing an A-10 to a B-2!!!).

I know there are RPAS out there with mouse clicking interfaces (such as Watchkeeper, RQ-7 Shadow and Gray Eagle), but they do not offer the same amount of flexibility that you can exhibit with standard flying controls as fitted to Predator and Reaper. If the use of a mouse was so great for aircraft control then the pilot would have one in Typhoon, F22, Airbus A330/380 and B777! :ugh:

LJ

[PFMG]

putting a simple DAS on wouldn't exactly be difficult


Sorry Mr Grim but at the risk of sounding a total tw@t, you clearly have not worked in the domain of EW or Defensive Aids

[iRaven]

PFMG

I have worked and do work in EW and Defensive Aids, and I can see no issue with Mr Grim's aspiration for a "simple DAS".

A simple automated MWS linked to flares or a DIRCM would be reasonably simple - pretty much a switch on and leave running like it is on many helos and AT aircraft.

An automated Towed Radar Decoy that is controlled by the operator for the scenario - simple but probably expensive.

A RHWR that reports back identified threats, frequency, PRF, bearing a recieved strength via the beyond line of sight SATCOM - yet again simple as most modern RHWRs have digital outputs to link to other systems in manned aircraft; you just need to feed this output through SATCOM to the operator and display it.

Would you care to explain your reservations? :confused:

iRaven

[iRaven]

Enjoyed the A-Team clip, but what about this one from Eagle Eye? I still haven't worked out how it doesn't go lost link in the tunnel!!!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YyUnASJJdQ

[Hacker15e]

I suspect the current 'pilot' system was selected more to appease aircrew and ensure there was less resistance to the introduction of RPAS than any other reason.

Or, alternately, having assessed how the Global Hawk's system has worked in operational implementation (and how the GH is primarily a straight-and-level type of platform way up in the Bozosphere), they decided that actual controls like an aircraft allowed them the mission flexibility they needed in an aircraft that was going to be operating lower and delivering ordnance.

[Willard Whyte]

Doze for a while until children's party. Dream about that live shot < 7 hours ago. Wake up and wrap present. Enjoy party. Kiss children, wife and dog, get into flying suit and go back to work.

Another lonely drive - this time with a slight tear in the eye. - miss his family already.

Could always put in leave for the kids birthday - it's not as though the date is going to change year on year.

[sirsaltyhelmet]

Leave.... Cant wait to see the responses!

[Unchecked]

LJR,

Heard about the problems you've listed a lot over the last fee years, so what is being done about it?

The obvious solution for me would be to put you guys on a 4 month operational 'det'. For that period you are flying missions, but going to the mess to live after work. No leave, no leaving the base. All the usual welfare trappings of being on ops. This might sound crass and thats not the intention, but the wife and kids can do without you for 4 months, same as the rest of the armed forces. Surely that would stop the crew- duty rest and emotional issues you boys and girls are experiencing.

I'm not having a go, you don't make the rules and I've seen firsthand on the ground the awesome job you guys do, I just think the problems have been evident for too long and could be easily fixed.

[Willard Whyte]

Leave.... Cant wait to see the responses!


Silly me. I forgot, given the operational tempo and the threat of sackings, leave is cancelled until, as usual, morale improves.

[L J R]

Thanks Unchecked - The 'average' crew in an RPAS Sqn DOES spend 4 months in their tour to Nevada 'In Theatre' - as the Launch Crew.....So most are very aware of all the things that you offer as a remedy.


...and as many of them are previous FJ, they too have done many dets to various places in the Gulf (and elsewhere) PRIOR to going to Creech. Most of them have done some 'years' total away from family....


.....all of which does NOT prepare for the onslaught of fighting a war amongst the family.


.....as for 'Leave' - I won't comment - but thanks.

[Unchecked]

Sorry mate, didn't realise that. I can fully imagine the leave issues you guys face too!

My main point is finding a way to stop you from going home after a shift. Believe me, I think you understand too, that I'm not having a dig at this way of life - if there was an option for us to do it I'd be at it like a shot ! It just seems that going home to the family after a day of your work seems to be a problem and a solution to that would be to completely separate the two.

[hanoijane]

LJR, I'm amazed by your comments and by some of the responses too. Different cultures I guess.

[roush]

The obvious solution for me would be to put you guys on a 4 month operational 'det'. For that period you are flying missions, but going to the mess to live after work. No leave, no leaving the base. All the usual welfare trappings of being on ops. This might sound crass and thats not the intention, but the wife and kids can do without you for 4 months, same as the rest of the armed forces. Surely that would stop the crew- duty rest and emotional issues you boys and girls are experiencing.

Not enough crews for this option either. All the RPA crews are working up to their monthly flying limits already. The USAF Sqns are currently working a 7 on - 1 off shift and that includes swapping from days to nights. Brit crews are not at that level yet, but not far behind. As soon as one person goes sick then a leave ban kicks in.

All that said...the job is fantastic! The aircraft is amazing. Thats why most experienced aircrew are reluctant to return to manned platforms. The operational effectiveness they experience and the feedback from the guys on they support on the ground far outweighs the constant attempted belittling by the Why are you wearing flying suits crowd. All the guys on 39 Sqn are experienced so the've all been there on previous tours. The RPA crews are working very hard, they are saving lives, they don't complain and they are every bit as focused, determined and in the fight as any other platform.

[Unchecked]

I guessed manning would be the issue. Cheers.

Having seen what the Reaper brings to theatre, yeah, wearing a flying suit is neither here nor there. You could all rock up in clown suits, as long the awesome job you're doing remains so, that's all that matters. :ok:

[muppetofthenorth]

The shoot down of a Georgian Hermes 450 by a Russian MiG29 shows why we should use aircrew rather than operators to fly RPAS. The operators watched the MiG position itself and then tracked the missile all the way to impact on itself - no manoeuvre, no attempt to throttle back to cool the IR signature (it looks like an Archer AAM shot) and no attempt to find a cloud to go hide in. The first rule of air combat for any aviator is 'never, ever, give up'; these Georgian operators were obviously not aviators! You can also find this footage on YouTube.

How does that reflect the need to have 'aviators' behind the controls, rather than just better training?

How many people when they first sit in a seat of a Tutor instinctively know how to defeat an AAM being shot at them? None, I'd wager. They learn how to through training.

Why can't the people sitting behind the controls of a UCAV/UAV/UAS/whatever we're calling them this week be given the same training and advice that would be given to anyone flying in a manned asset?

The only thing that anecdote gives real evidence for is rubbish training.

[Tourist]

But then again, look at how much trouble the Yank had shooting down the (Iranian?) UAV.
Took a lot of attempts, and he nearly flew into the thing a couple of times!

[PFMG]

A simple automated MWS linked to flares or a DIRCM would be reasonably simple - pretty much a switch on and leave running like it is on many helos and AT aircraft.

An automated Towed Radar Decoy that is controlled by the operator for the scenario - simple but probably expensive.

A RHWR that reports back identified threats, frequency, PRF, bearing a recieved strength via the beyond line of sight SATCOM - yet again simple as most modern RHWRs have digital outputs to link to other systems in manned aircraft; you just need to feed this output through SATCOM to the operator and display it.

Would you care to explain your reservations


Sure -

MWS not cheap. the current system of choice is AAR 57 which is not currently a DIRCM system. Real estate for IRCM turrets? Software loads stabilised nav feeds. Testing? Hopefull none of that is required because personally I wasn't thinking IR threats anyway bearing in mind the conops for a RPAS.

RF threats?

RWR - antenna placement - real estate again.
Off the shelf or new system? If new - training from programmers, PFMG, validation rig, post mission replay for MDD improvements. TG and TRD programming. Countermeasures hot rig. Testing again. RCS measurements. The list goes on.

I'm not saying it can't be done but anyone who says it's cheap or quick to impliment is living in dream world and clearly hasn't read the AWC policy on such things.

[iRaven]

PFMG

Firstly, "AWC policy", are you having a laugh! :}

Secondly, please take a look at

http://www.teledynedefence.co.uk/pdf/whitepapers/Light_Weight.pdf

LR-100 RWR/ESM/ELINT Receiver System (http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/lr100ew/)

For self-defense, the Global Hawk is equipped with an AN/ALR-69 radar warning receiver and AN/ALE-50 towed decoys

Best you tell the AWC to get their policy squared away then...

iRaven :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Muppet

How does that reflect the need to have 'aviators' behind the controls, rather than just better training?

I couldn't agree more, none of us are born as aviators and all have been trained to become an aviator (unless of course you believe Harrier mates!). The only problem is that if you train UAS/RPAS "operators" for all the skills they need then they will become as expensive to train as aviators (with a lengthier timescale to become productive) and by all but name become de-facto aviators.

Why can't the people sitting behind the controls of a UCAV/UAV/UAS/whatever we're calling them this week be given the same training and advice that would be given to anyone flying in a manned asset?


I agree and we could call them pilots and WSO/WSOps and give them brevets and flying pay to retain them because of their expensive training (and the likely lure from the civvy world when they start doing Police/Customs surveillance, pipeline/power line inspections, etc...).

I believe, we are in violent agreement.

LJ :ok:

[PFMG]

iRaven.

Blah Blah sales blurb blah.

These are new systems to the UK and I stand by all I said about support costs. Buying the kit is less the 1/3 the overall cost to the MoD.

Re ALE-50....ahh that'll be the TRD that worked a treat on MRA4 and does a great job on Sentinel. No issues there then. I bow to your superior knowledge and step back from the debate before my DV becomes fragile.

[Mr Grim]

PFMG I think that I may have confused matters by using the TLA "DAS". This conjures up an all singing, all dancing integrated system that tries to do everything. The whole philosophy around aircraft like Reaper is, despite what the tabloids say, Keep It Simple Stupid (although the whole satellite thing is quite clever!)

So you match capability to threat as required. At the moment, no threat so no self defence. If there is a little threat then maybe no self defence as the expense isn't worth it, but if you want to embarass a low SA MiG-29 pilot some strap on chaff/flares might be handy (I would see chaff as easy, flares a little more difficult) and maybe 9X/ASRAAM (more cost, may be worth it, may not). Next step up is a simple RWR but as you say that starts to get a little more tricky, difficult and therefore expensive. A simple active jammer may be relatively straightforward but not if you want to integrate it with other stuff such as a RWR. TRD I would say is going a little far but unintegrated may be worth it.

Bottom line is that you don't do what we try to do with the FJs and have an all singing all dancing (ASAD) solution to everything, you take the 80% solution at 20% cost and you can do that with a UAV because noone dies. Of course, as you say, you would have to get this past the AWC Ivory Tower. Already there are signs that for the next generation people want the ASAD solution then complain when it comes out at nearly the same price as a manned aircraft.

Finally on "DAS" if you take Reaper into a full spectrum war (China, say) then it will be useless because it will get blown up, so don't.

On the manning det v permanent point, you could do it that way but it would be far more expensive on manpower. One of the big advantages of Reaper is the extremely small manpower requirements compared to any other aircraft - a footprint of 2 in theatre and far less crew back "at home". About 2 operational hours flown per week for every single person on Reaper including support, training etc etc. Not even the FAA could claim that (where is Tourist?)

[iRaven]

iRaven.

Blah Blah sales blurb blah.

These are new systems to the UK and I stand by all I said about support costs. Buying the kit is less the 1/3 the overall cost to the MoD.

Re ALE-50....ahh that'll be the TRD that worked a treat on MRA4 and does a great job on Sentinel. No issues there then. I bow to your superior knowledge and step back from the debate before my DV becomes fragile.

Rant on

A compelling argument from you then? How an earth would your DV "become fragile"? What a load of bolleaux...

...and while your at it I watched ALE-50 work very nicely on F-16 over Iraq (whilst the RAF had similar on F3 that was first fielded over Bosnia) and it is fitted successfully to B1-B and F-18E/F. Just because we have so-called superior experts (like yourself, so it would seem) that cannot integrate it on anything British properly, doesn't mean it's sh!te. What's the common denominator for your argument? - a company beginning with B and ending in Systems!

Best you get back to your "AWC policy" whilst the real operators on the Front Line and real policy makers in MoD get on with proper business. I haven't seen anything useful come out of the AWC in years, the UTM is a joke, it took over 12 months to get Athene on DII, the PFMs are a mess because all the good people have left and most of the OA could be written by a frontline operator in 30 minutes flat - self licking lollipop comes to mind. No wonder your notional support costs are so high when the AWC has over 1,000 people mostly shining their @rses doing diddly squat for the Front Line effort.

Rant off

Good night

iRaven

[Corporal Clott]

A little aggressive iRaven but good points none the less. We could also rename the Thompson Building to this...

The Lollipop House (http://www.the-lollipop-house.com/)

:ok:

[Whitehall]

Will Reaper attain an RAF core capability post cessation of AFG Ops 2014/15 - given it's current limitations for flight and the new Anglo/French announcement for a joint MALE UAS project?

Britain, France Treaty Has Borne 'First Fruits' - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?c=LAN&s=TOP&i=5975267)

If not, and it is seen as short term in the big scheme of things, then where is the cost effectiveness/value for money of spending the millions upon millions of pounds needed to increase capability, relocate the whole Reaper piece and continually finance the support contracts that will be put in place? Why not "borrow/rent" the additional capability from the USAF with the option to hand back when no longer required, use the savings to develop our own long term capabilities to bring to the coalition platform and move away from the expense of foreign military acquisitions.

Undoubtedly, Reaper has proven it's worth as a vital asset to current Ops and will continue to do so. Their value for money/increase in capability is not the concern its the financial implications of relocation given the constraints of the UK military budget.

[Prop Fwd]

And here I am thinking that all the hard work my colleagues and I have put in, over the last couple of months, was important. Well, I shall just have to go on extended leave and let the "experts'"on the front line write all their own PFMs and countermeasures MDFs.

[Megaton]

It's a little while since I left the EW world but the people at the AWC work incredibly hard to give the front line the best possible service but are frequently limited by limited funds, lack of skilled/experienced manpower and poor understanding of the limitations of the kit by senior management. I recall some incredibly naive suggestions from the front line so rather than belittle the work done at the AWC, if you don't like/don't understand/think you can do better, why don't you engage with them for everyone's benefit?

[PFMG]

iRaven

My DV would be fragile if I actually told you the capabilities, strengths and weaknesses and any issues (none implied) affecting the TG & TRD as fitted to MRA4 as was and Sentinel as is on an open forum. Meanwhile thanks for your kind reply.

[The B Word]

I haven't seen anything useful come out of the AWC in years, the UTM is a joke, it took over 12 months to get Athene on DII, the PFMs are a mess because all the good people have left and most of the OA could be written by a frontline operator in 30 minutes flat - self licking lollipop comes to mind.

I also agree with this. The output of the AWC has been pretty poor of late, have you seen the UTM section on Reaper (which this thread is all about, after all)? I was asked by an Army colleague a couple of questions on Reaper and I told him that the official reference was the UTM. He went away and then came back and said he could only find 2 documents in the whole Reaper section; I double checked and he was right! Now seeing as the Reaper has been in service for nearly 4 years and that the AWC's UTM is supposed to be the Joint Service "single source" of information, WTF over!!! Some other platforms that are long in service are not much better served. Bring back the CTTO all is forgiven! :ugh: At least you knew there was always a copy of the CTTO manual in the SquIntO's can that you could get a look at!

I also believe that the OA (Operational Analysis) that comes out is often well wide of the mark and is indicative of the break up of DERA/DRE and other research establishments (that became QinetiQ and DSTL) has left the front line military much poorer for decent advice.

Finally, the PFM generation capability that was once the envy of the world has suffered from 10 years of neglect and underinvestment following succesive ground campaigns in sandy places. Is this a fault of the individuals in the AWC? No, but it means it is just another area of this tri-service organisation that fails to deliver what we should have. :{

As Corporal Clott says, though, iRaven your venom may be a little strong towards PFMG. Although, again I agree that PFMG's points about not putting defensive aids on RPAS are misguided.

The B Word

[iRaven]

PFMG

Cpl Clott and B Word are right and I let my anger get the better of me. For my rudeness I apologise.

I do stand by my opinion of the AWC in recent years though. Not a criticism of a particular individual, but more of the organisation that has "empire built" for far too long with diminishing returns. Just an opinion that would seem to accord with some on here.

iRaven

[Pontius Navigator]

Would it be appropriate to discuss a comparison between AWC and CTTO and the organisation before that like CFE and BCDU?

The latter were of course quite separate organisation with probably little or no cross-fertilisation between them. AFAIK CTTO was an attempt to both cut costs and bring tactics and trials under a central body where ideas could cross between roles. Maybe that goal was not wholly successful given that CTTO had many field offices and may not have been central enough. That said, they were colocated with front line units.

How, if it can be said, does AWC compare? Does it work in discrete cells all operating in splendid isolation?

[PFMG]

AWC is a collection of many different sub organisations. I am as frustrated as the rest of you by the UTM but that is a TT wing product. OA, trials and the like are done by the TESs. EW Ops Wg produce PFMs. Yes they have suffered from underinvestment mostly due to PTs who don't see the value in EW. I think my point which has been taken so badly out of context is that DAS on RPAS would be no better; in fact because the air vehicle is unmanned would probably be a lot worse.

So if I can get everyone on side without a AWC versus the world pi55ing contest my point is that PTs rarely put enough money into DAS procurement and RPAS would probably be worse still. Well being although misguiding comments like "It must be cheap and simple" do not help educate the budget holders who screw us over at every turn.

Lets start by telling people the truth. It's complicated, difficult to get right, will probably cost double what you think it should and will take an incredibly long time to field a credible system.

[iRaven]

PFMG

Fair points. There is an alternative by buying military off the shelf that reduces the costs. Here's some examples to show what I'm talking about:

English Electric built 329 Lightnings, mostly sold to RAF, with just 51 to export via Saudi and Kuwait.

McDonnel Douglas built and sold over 5,000 F4 Phantoms

Vickers built 54 VC10s (civ and mil).

Boeing built over 1,000 707 variants.

Beech/Piper built 1000s of Barons and Senecas whilst Beagle (not BEagle!) built 79 Bassets - the Bassets are way better than the US counterparts but too expensive.

The Dutch/Belgians/Norwegians bought F16s with defensive aids and SPJs for nearly half what we paid for Tornado or Typhoon in equivalent numbers.

Put quite simply, we can no longer afford to support a "sovereign" capability - anyway, the use of "sovereign" is misleading when parts of our military aircraft are sourced from outside the UK anyway (and subject to ITAR, etc...). Examples of this are IFF transponders, EGI navigation units, GPS modules, tyres (although Dunlop still produce some aircraft tyres in Birmingham, they are actively looking to send their manufacture overseas), radios, datalinks, etc, etc...

If we can tap into the US equipment's economy of scale but program it with data collect through our own means (don't forget that we get our RIVET JOINTs in 2013/14), then surely this becomes affordable?

Global Hawk has DAS, Reaper will have when the US need to fit it (no requirement for Afg at present) and I'm pretty sure X-47 will have some sexy DAS on it.

iRaven

[PFMG]

iRaven,

Absolutely spot on and proves my point exactly.

AN/ALR 56 is on hundreds if not thousands of F-16s and a whole bunch of C-130s; US and Canada have hundreds alone.

We put it on the C-130K Mk3a. Should have been a total no brainer to get it to work properly.

Integration onto the frame by Marshall's - reasonably straight forward.

Herc IPT didn't fund the support system properly though and programmers were left in the dark re training etc. Also OFP was off the shelf from USAF (Warner Robbins). Throw in some nav feed issues for good measure.

Outcome....Well I'll let someone from Lyneham comment.

[DITYIWAHP]

iRaven and The B Word,

You miss the point of the hard work carried out by so many in the AWC in your earlier anti-AWC posts. The test and evaluation of newly delivered and shiny hardware is important; if this was not the case then everyone in the AWC would already be redundant as a result of SDSR. So, please ask yourselves: what is the point of testing and developing new kit, why not just buy off the shelf and plug it in – why all this faffing about when the Americans can do it?


Perhaps the reason why we have learned to carry out systems and flight test is because of bitter past experience discovering that the glossy brochures should not be taken as truth. There are plenty of shocking examples of inaccurate product-tin-descriptions, none of which are for this forum. Sometimes the promises made by a hardware manufacturer don’t always meet the capability requirement and the front line operators don’t need to discover at the critical moment that their new off the shelf capability sometimes sh*ts the bed. So, test and evaluation will always take place while we live in a world full of manufacturers who deliver products to make a profit. If it is discovered that something doesn’t meet spec then work has to take place to make it good enough – and usually just good enough is all you can hope for.


I am trying to resist the temptation to turn this ‘defence of test and evaluation’ into a boring diatribe about the contract writers, the variable direction of some of the PTs and the MOD’s hard to justify need to relentlessly buy British. I share your pain about some of what we have to work with and the delay in getting that limited capability. However, IMHO – this really is the fault of our procurement process and those who write the crazy pro-manufacturer contracts. PFMG – spot on.

[StopStart]

Spot on and this just highlights why the RAF is destined to just vanish up its own arse. Just a dreadful arrogance that basically assumes that the Brits can better any system in the world and that the RAF is then entitled to have that system, regardless of cost. The result 90% of the time is a system that is 5 years late, 3 times more expensive, unintegrateable and fails to meet any of the stated requirements.

I for one would rather have a system off the shelf that is deemed good enough for some minor operator like, say, AFSOC instead of dicking about trying to procure some fictional, unbuildable uber system that promises to be able to defeat the Death Star for a mere 10 times the price before cancelling it and deciding we can probably get by with nothing at all instead.

On the plus side, we do provide a continual source of amusement to every other operator in the world.

[500N]

StopStart

The UK is not the only one who suffers this, I think the Australian ADF suffers from that very good description you posted a shown in the Aust Helo thread on this forum.

.