UAVs in the RAF?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAVs in the RAF?
I know that with BWoS and their current rapport with servicemen being remarkably high, we had some " clever" boffs from them visiting us not so long ago, looking at things to improve on our aircraft for later procurement in about 300 years.
This just makes me wonder if these guys are for real, and if there are such programmes as UAVs for the UK etc? And if not are we going to buy ( or lease ) USA again?????
Minzastella
cheers
X- hatched
This just makes me wonder if these guys are for real, and if there are such programmes as UAVs for the UK etc? And if not are we going to buy ( or lease ) USA again?????
Minzastella
cheers
X- hatched
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have had UAVs around in the UK for a fair few years with Phoenix in service with the Royal Artillery, procured as an artillery spooting UAV. More recently it has been used for intelligence gathering in Bosnia etc. There are currently plans for the UK military to obtain UAVs but as to what type i believe no decision has been made. As to entering service in the RAF, i hear that the Army Air Corps are going to become resposible for all UAVs, including Phoenix.
The 'Watchkeeper' UAV programme is nearing the selection phase (some time in the next couple of months, I believe). That's a purchase AIUI.
Flight International reports that we are leasing/borrowing some Predators from the US for monitoring pipelines, etc, in Iraq.
Not sure about the ownership of these platforms.
Flight International reports that we are leasing/borrowing some Predators from the US for monitoring pipelines, etc, in Iraq.
Not sure about the ownership of these platforms.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's be brutal here....UAVs in the RAF? UAVs will be the RAF.
The AAC is only starting to realise this now and is playing catchup. The RAF has grabbed a good piece of the UAV and ISTAR turf and is doing well.
Phoenix was a token effort. How many crashed ? And I don't mean that performance that is supposed to see it come home but it has been used on operational tasks and so should be considered an operationally deployed piece of kit.
The next few years in this field are going to be very interesting.
G
The AAC is only starting to realise this now and is playing catchup. The RAF has grabbed a good piece of the UAV and ISTAR turf and is doing well.
Phoenix was a token effort. How many crashed ? And I don't mean that performance that is supposed to see it come home but it has been used on operational tasks and so should be considered an operationally deployed piece of kit.
The next few years in this field are going to be very interesting.
G
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to say it but it is the RAF that has been behind the drag curve on the UAV front. The Watchkeeper IPT (now re-named the 'Tac UAV IPT') is almost entirely green-suited, and there is not a single RAF representative in the organisation. When you consider that the UAV candidates in the fly-off can operate in middle- to upper- airspace, this should be more than slightly worrying for those who operate faster, more pointy aircraft in the same altitude blocks. 'See and avoid', anyone?
Phoenix is operated by the Royal Artillery who, in the main, are looking for target location and fall of shot, but there exists within the upper echelons a desire to gain a more strategic level of reach, which could be fulfillled by UAVs in the predator class.
If the RAF steals a march (pun intended) on the Army in the fashion described by Flight International, expect much gnashing of teeth in the ranks of our green-suited brethren!
Remember - for 'Joint' read 'Army'!!!
Joking aside, what is really frustrating is that the Army gets so hung up on who own/operates the platform, and continually wants to have its own toys to play with in whatever manner it sees fit. The public-issue Op TELIC post-op report criticised the Army at length for this issue, pointing out that the Phoenix imagery went nowhere outside of the Bde/Div HQs - a lot less than satisfactory in today's supposedly 'connected' environment. We cannot afford to operate this way, although all the signs are that nothing will change with 'son of Pheonix' either!
CV (ducks to avoid the incoming barrage...)
Phoenix is operated by the Royal Artillery who, in the main, are looking for target location and fall of shot, but there exists within the upper echelons a desire to gain a more strategic level of reach, which could be fulfillled by UAVs in the predator class.
If the RAF steals a march (pun intended) on the Army in the fashion described by Flight International, expect much gnashing of teeth in the ranks of our green-suited brethren!
Remember - for 'Joint' read 'Army'!!!
Joking aside, what is really frustrating is that the Army gets so hung up on who own/operates the platform, and continually wants to have its own toys to play with in whatever manner it sees fit. The public-issue Op TELIC post-op report criticised the Army at length for this issue, pointing out that the Phoenix imagery went nowhere outside of the Bde/Div HQs - a lot less than satisfactory in today's supposedly 'connected' environment. We cannot afford to operate this way, although all the signs are that nothing will change with 'son of Pheonix' either!
CV (ducks to avoid the incoming barrage...)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
didn't some MP or other not forecast the end of Manned military flight back in the 1960's. That lead to TSR2's cancelation.
I can see a role for UAV in some roles but at times i think having a mk 2 brain in the cockpit makes more sense.
The canberra is probably going to have a UAV replacing it.
would it be possible to replace Nimrod MPA/ R with UAV or would the band width for the Data transfare be prohibitive?
I can see a role for UAV in some roles but at times i think having a mk 2 brain in the cockpit makes more sense.
The canberra is probably going to have a UAV replacing it.
would it be possible to replace Nimrod MPA/ R with UAV or would the band width for the Data transfare be prohibitive?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gilligans Island
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the mid 90s I applied for a job on the Tornado replacement's project team. They were working on a project called FOA (Future Offensive Aircraft), in the depths of some place or other which escapes me right now. Not long after I became ineligible for the job, the name changed to FOAS - Future Offensive Airborne System. The change came about because some forward thinking geezer realised that the Mighty Fin's replacement didn't necessarily have to be a manned aircraft.
It is due in service round about 2020, so you fast jet pukes are all probably safe until roughly 2035, after that be prepared to ask the nice customer if he would like fries with that!
It is due in service round about 2020, so you fast jet pukes are all probably safe until roughly 2035, after that be prepared to ask the nice customer if he would like fries with that!
didn't some MP or other not forecast the end of Manned military flight back in the 1960's. That lead to TSR2's cancelation (sic)
It was Duncan Sandys who was the advocate of 'push button warfare' and his ridiculous ideas led to the infamous 1957 Defence White Paper which started the spiral descent into oblivion of today's piddling little air farce..
It resulted in the end of any lead the UK had in ac technology, no UK manned fighter was built after the Lightning (apart form a few mud moving things) apart from international programmes such as Jaguar, Tornado and TypHoon.... The manned strategic bomber (Avro 730) died; we thus didn't get a Vulcan replacement.
Should the RAF ever become the Royal Aeromodel Force reliant on UCAVs, truly there will be no hope. The bean counting politicians would love the idea, of course - no aircrew to pay, just kids brought up on computer games like MS flight simulator!
It was Duncan Sandys who was the advocate of 'push button warfare' and his ridiculous ideas led to the infamous 1957 Defence White Paper which started the spiral descent into oblivion of today's piddling little air farce..
It resulted in the end of any lead the UK had in ac technology, no UK manned fighter was built after the Lightning (apart form a few mud moving things) apart from international programmes such as Jaguar, Tornado and TypHoon.... The manned strategic bomber (Avro 730) died; we thus didn't get a Vulcan replacement.
Should the RAF ever become the Royal Aeromodel Force reliant on UCAVs, truly there will be no hope. The bean counting politicians would love the idea, of course - no aircrew to pay, just kids brought up on computer games like MS flight simulator!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, BEagle - '''Fings ain't Wot they Useda Be", right?
The thing about UAVs - or one of the things, anyway - is that they do strange things to Force Structure. Phoenix was supposed to go with MLRS. Giving the Gunners a weapon with a longer-than-they-were-used-to range meant that they needed their own asset to determine where the target was and whether they were hitting it. So they got Phoenix.
But since MLRS in the sort of Out-of-Area-Conflict now in vogue isn't a real asset, Phoenix didn't have a job - until it was realised that live IR pictures of the gorund were quite useful for other things. So the Gunners found they had An Assett that didn't go bang. And everyone wanted their data. So they were popular -which wasn't what they were used to. So now the lines of communication had to change: Gunners weren't an Intel sink - they'd become a source. Force Structure change.
Now, the next step. I wonder if I could make a UAV deliver a worthwhile weapon? Mmmm...lets call it a Cruise Missile. (And btw: why on earth has the B2 got people in it? Seems like an ideal remotely controlled operation, at least in its current usage. And none of America's Finest are put in danger, which has major economic benefits, if that's your yardstick.)
So let's get further out of the box: could a UAV shoot down another UAV? We'd get an Unmanned Combat Airvehicle, right? And Boeing and LM are working hard with the US Taxpayers Dollars on that right now. But what are the current smartest G-to-A or A-to-A missiles if not UCAVs with very small RoA or Time-on-Station? Making them 'real' UCAVs is just a scaling issue, that's all.
And a Force Structure issue...which is where I came in. To whom do they belong? Who uses them? Where do they get their data from - and where do they send it to?
Seems the distinction between land, sea and air is increasingly old fashioned. What's needed is a distinction in function, not the medium in which it's peformed.
'Fings Change - adapt or die.
GrazingI
The thing about UAVs - or one of the things, anyway - is that they do strange things to Force Structure. Phoenix was supposed to go with MLRS. Giving the Gunners a weapon with a longer-than-they-were-used-to range meant that they needed their own asset to determine where the target was and whether they were hitting it. So they got Phoenix.
But since MLRS in the sort of Out-of-Area-Conflict now in vogue isn't a real asset, Phoenix didn't have a job - until it was realised that live IR pictures of the gorund were quite useful for other things. So the Gunners found they had An Assett that didn't go bang. And everyone wanted their data. So they were popular -which wasn't what they were used to. So now the lines of communication had to change: Gunners weren't an Intel sink - they'd become a source. Force Structure change.
Now, the next step. I wonder if I could make a UAV deliver a worthwhile weapon? Mmmm...lets call it a Cruise Missile. (And btw: why on earth has the B2 got people in it? Seems like an ideal remotely controlled operation, at least in its current usage. And none of America's Finest are put in danger, which has major economic benefits, if that's your yardstick.)
So let's get further out of the box: could a UAV shoot down another UAV? We'd get an Unmanned Combat Airvehicle, right? And Boeing and LM are working hard with the US Taxpayers Dollars on that right now. But what are the current smartest G-to-A or A-to-A missiles if not UCAVs with very small RoA or Time-on-Station? Making them 'real' UCAVs is just a scaling issue, that's all.
And a Force Structure issue...which is where I came in. To whom do they belong? Who uses them? Where do they get their data from - and where do they send it to?
Seems the distinction between land, sea and air is increasingly old fashioned. What's needed is a distinction in function, not the medium in which it's peformed.
'Fings Change - adapt or die.
GrazingI
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems the distinction between land, sea and air is increasingly old fashioned. What's needed is a distinction in function, not the medium in which it's peformed.
We are moving to an age where we will be capability centric not platform centric (IMHO).
Nein. It voss someone else!
NERD ALERT!!
"We are moving to an age where we will be capability centric not platform centric"
Yes - but will it make little boys in short trousers run to the window and long to be up there where the air is rare and only the chosen can dare?
Thought not
Air Parr yuckspeak....
And yet once it was just the marsh warblers swooping about mother's undercroft which made me think "Will man ever spout such cr@p as 'capability centric' - or will we just hoot and roar in jet fighters having fun?"
NERD ALERT!!
"We are moving to an age where we will be capability centric not platform centric"
Yes - but will it make little boys in short trousers run to the window and long to be up there where the air is rare and only the chosen can dare?
Thought not
Air Parr yuckspeak.... And yet once it was just the marsh warblers swooping about mother's undercroft which made me think "Will man ever spout such cr@p as 'capability centric' - or will we just hoot and roar in jet fighters having fun?"
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Mar 2004 at 01:12.
Beagle,
"You're absolutely right - and those horrible smelly mechanical contraptions will never replace the might of the horse, eh? Now if we all work together in the upcoming attack I'm sure we can move my drinks cabinet 6 inches nearer to Berlin...
BAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
On the other hand, it's just possible that GI has a point and our profession IS actually about the implementation of Air Power, small boys' wishes notwithstanding.
"You're absolutely right - and those horrible smelly mechanical contraptions will never replace the might of the horse, eh? Now if we all work together in the upcoming attack I'm sure we can move my drinks cabinet 6 inches nearer to Berlin...
BAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
On the other hand, it's just possible that GI has a point and our profession IS actually about the implementation of Air Power, small boys' wishes notwithstanding.
A long time ago....
See this thread from 2002 on this subject...
I heard the other day that a UAV costs more than a manned aircraft to do the same mission. Hmmm...
And then there is infrastruture, the command, control and comms - which won't be cheap. As this suggests:
Here
I heard the other day that a UAV costs more than a manned aircraft to do the same mission. Hmmm...
And then there is infrastruture, the command, control and comms - which won't be cheap. As this suggests:
Here
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but which would you rather do sit in a cramped cockpit for hours in uncomfortable kit or sit in the comfort of an office in shirt sleeves with a cup of coffee etc and do the same job with out the Gee or if you get it wrong becoming part of the scenary?
