Watchkeeper UAV
Thread Starter
Watchkeeper UAV
Silly question.
HM Government have announced on their public web site that the new Watchkeeper UAV will come into service to replace Phoenix.
The question I have, is why are UAVs in HM Armed Forces "flown" by 32 Rgt RA, and not for instance by the Army Air Corps, if their primary role is battlefield surveillance?
I do NOT want to start an inter-service argument about why the RAF or even FAA do not operate UAVs.
HM Government have announced on their public web site that the new Watchkeeper UAV will come into service to replace Phoenix.
The question I have, is why are UAVs in HM Armed Forces "flown" by 32 Rgt RA, and not for instance by the Army Air Corps, if their primary role is battlefield surveillance?
I do NOT want to start an inter-service argument about why the RAF or even FAA do not operate UAVs.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Home Counties
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do 32 Rgt RA operate Phoenix?
The reason that 32 Rgt RA operate the Phoenix UAV is that it was originally acquired to spot targets for the RA own MLRS. It therefore made sense for the RA to operate Phoenix to keep everything within the same organisation. However, since then Phoenix has actually been used more for general reconnaissance duties than the task for which it was originally purchased.
Phoenix is a fairly crude, underpowered, poorly equipped 1st generation UAV that struggled in the heat of Iraq and was only used because that was the only UAV available to support UK Forces. Thankfully the situation has now changed and Predator and other more up to date UAVs are now supporting UK forces.
As an Army asset, I assume that the Watchkeeper UAV will presumably be flown by the AAC, but I think that has still to be confirmed. Incidently, a recent USAF report suggested that employing front-line military pilots to fly UAVs was a waste of their expensive training. The writer suggested that employing 'ground' personnel who possessed a PPL was far more cost effective - an interesting suggestion that will probably gather considerable support and who knows could even migrate across the atlantic eventually.
More details on UK UAVs in Iraq can be found at www.spyflight.co.uk
Heimdall
Phoenix is a fairly crude, underpowered, poorly equipped 1st generation UAV that struggled in the heat of Iraq and was only used because that was the only UAV available to support UK Forces. Thankfully the situation has now changed and Predator and other more up to date UAVs are now supporting UK forces.
As an Army asset, I assume that the Watchkeeper UAV will presumably be flown by the AAC, but I think that has still to be confirmed. Incidently, a recent USAF report suggested that employing front-line military pilots to fly UAVs was a waste of their expensive training. The writer suggested that employing 'ground' personnel who possessed a PPL was far more cost effective - an interesting suggestion that will probably gather considerable support and who knows could even migrate across the atlantic eventually.
More details on UK UAVs in Iraq can be found at www.spyflight.co.uk
Heimdall
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the skillset required by UAV pilots and system operators very much depends on the intended role. In a purely ISR mission, you will not need experience in CAS or weaponeering, for example. However, as capability advances are made and a greater array of A-G weapons fitted, then I believe that at least one person in the UAV crew should be drawn from the front-line (but it depends also on your definition of front-line
). This will continue to be the case as the UAVs diverge into SEAD, CSAR and other roles.
Without wishing to start an inter-service argument, when you consider that the Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAVs operate in the middle/upper airspace, I would want to ensure that it wasn't being operated by Gunner Bloggs who may have had no airspace/aircrew training! I believe that for the Army, the AAC would be better placed to operate the system but as I understand it, the RA plan to keep Watchkeeper under their command.
Interesting that Thales, JUEP and the RN recently carried out an experiment in controlling UAVs from aboard a T45 frigate.
Link http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_002597.php
Regards
SBG
). This will continue to be the case as the UAVs diverge into SEAD, CSAR and other roles.Without wishing to start an inter-service argument, when you consider that the Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAVs operate in the middle/upper airspace, I would want to ensure that it wasn't being operated by Gunner Bloggs who may have had no airspace/aircrew training! I believe that for the Army, the AAC would be better placed to operate the system but as I understand it, the RA plan to keep Watchkeeper under their command.
Interesting that Thales, JUEP and the RN recently carried out an experiment in controlling UAVs from aboard a T45 frigate.
Link http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_002597.php
Regards
SBG
Thread Starter
Many thanks for the informed replies.
The history of Phoenix explains the RA connection.
The MoD website did say 32 Rgt would operate Watchkeeper, but also said the ISTAR role would grow.
As for other uses of UAV, I understand the RAF have aircrew trialing systems in the USA. Recent article in RAF News.
The history of Phoenix explains the RA connection.
The MoD website did say 32 Rgt would operate Watchkeeper, but also said the ISTAR role would grow.
As for other uses of UAV, I understand the RAF have aircrew trialing systems in the USA. Recent article in RAF News.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OLD RED DAMASK
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lancashire born. In Cebu now
Age: 70
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would want to ensure that it wasn't being operated by Gunner Bloggs who may have had no airspace/aircrew training!
I know who I'd like to operate my UAV thanks.Also don't forget the R.A. have been doing this type of surveillance since the late '60s early 70s with the Mk 1 drone.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does Gunner blogs need a knowledge of airspace or aircrew training? He is just controlling a machine.
There is no requirement to train blogs in airspace or aircrew training.
The T45 is hardly years away. HMS Daring will be at sea in 15 Months.
There is no requirement to train blogs in airspace or aircrew training.
The T45 is hardly years away. HMS Daring will be at sea in 15 Months.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Why does Gunner blogs need a knowledge of airspace or aircrew training? He is just controlling a machine. There is no requirement to train blogs in airspace or aircrew training.
JAA UAV Task Force Final Report
For anything over 150Kg the same rules apply as for aircraft. Must be a fully qualified pilot with type rating.
JAA UAV Task Force Final Report
For anything over 150Kg the same rules apply as for aircraft. Must be a fully qualified pilot with type rating.
ORAC
That document deals with CIVIL use of UAVs, not Military. I am sure that when their Airships are presented with the capitation rates of a Pilot versus Gunner Bloggs.....Gunner Bloggs will come out on top!
That document deals with CIVIL use of UAVs, not Military. I am sure that when their Airships are presented with the capitation rates of a Pilot versus Gunner Bloggs.....Gunner Bloggs will come out on top!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
CAP 722 UAV Operations in UK airspace. Applies to the military. Refers to the JAA recommendations. You can expect them to be binding. UAVs under the control of a non-pilot are and will be restricted to an active danger area. OK for a short range or low flying UAV. But as soon as you go medium range or height you need a pilot.
Chapter 12:
.....The UAV Commander therefore assumes the same operational and safety responsibilities as those of the captain or pilot-in-command of a piloted aircraft performing a similar mission in similar airspace.... For all flights in Groups 3-5, the UAV Commander must be licensed and appropriately rated according to airspace classification and meteorological conditions/flight rules. This may mean an instrument rating appropriately endorsed 'UAV'
Group 1
Those intended to be flown in permanent or temporarily segregated airspace (normally a Danger Area) over an unpopulated surface (normally the sea following 'clear range' procedure).
Group 2
Those intended to be flown in permanent or temporarily segregated airspace (normally a Danger Area) over a surface that may be permanently or temporarily inhabited by humans.
Group 3
Those intended to be flown outside Controlled Airspace (Class F&G) in the United Kingdom Flight Information Region (UK FIR).
Group 4
Those intended to be flown inside Controlled Airspace (Class A-E) in the United Kingdom Flight Information Region and United Kingdom Upper Information Region (UK FIR and UK UIR).
Group 5
Those intended to be flown in all airspace classifications.
Chapter 12:
.....The UAV Commander therefore assumes the same operational and safety responsibilities as those of the captain or pilot-in-command of a piloted aircraft performing a similar mission in similar airspace.... For all flights in Groups 3-5, the UAV Commander must be licensed and appropriately rated according to airspace classification and meteorological conditions/flight rules. This may mean an instrument rating appropriately endorsed 'UAV'
Group 1
Those intended to be flown in permanent or temporarily segregated airspace (normally a Danger Area) over an unpopulated surface (normally the sea following 'clear range' procedure).
Group 2
Those intended to be flown in permanent or temporarily segregated airspace (normally a Danger Area) over a surface that may be permanently or temporarily inhabited by humans.
Group 3
Those intended to be flown outside Controlled Airspace (Class F&G) in the United Kingdom Flight Information Region (UK FIR).
Group 4
Those intended to be flown inside Controlled Airspace (Class A-E) in the United Kingdom Flight Information Region and United Kingdom Upper Information Region (UK FIR and UK UIR).
Group 5
Those intended to be flown in all airspace classifications.
ORAC
Yeah OK, but what is going to happen in years to come when most military aircraft are non-pilot. You are not going to train a pilot (with all the associated costs) when the letter of the reg states "
You could train a whole host of "cheaper" people to conduct this task. ASACs, WCs, ATC, FACs etc to conduct these tasks. The financial costs of capitation for "aircrew" will always lose the argument!
Yeah OK, but what is going to happen in years to come when most military aircraft are non-pilot. You are not going to train a pilot (with all the associated costs) when the letter of the reg states "
assumes the same operational and safety responsibilities as those of the captain or pilot-in-command of a piloted aircraft performing a similar mission in similar airspace
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is going to be a glut of surplus-to-requirement AAC Pilots very soon (Too many pilots, not enough Aircraft or hours). It would make sense to me to employ said redundant pilots to fly the UAVs. The question is..........Would they get flying pay and be able to wear a growbag??????
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so I read T45 in the article and the old grey matter was a bit slow.....
To take up the point of who should operate these aircraft, I'm sure that the 'airships' are unikely to focus on capitation as their primary means of branch selection. You have to look at the size, capability and likely operating areas/altitudes of the UAV and consider what else might be flying in the same airspace.
It is probably OK for low altitude, short range systems to be operated - say below 2 or 3 thousand feet - by personnel with no airspace or aircrew training. However, the larger of the two UAVs selected to be part of the Watchkeeper set is based on the Hermes 450.
The Hermes 450, by UAV standards is a sizeable beast although other systems such as the Predator and Global Hawk are larger. We can discount GH in this discussion as there aren't too many manned aircraft operating at those FLs. A quick google search turned up the following link:
Hermes 450
Note the max operating altitude: 18K'
Now would you want something weighing 450Kg with a 35' wingspan operating in your airspace whilst under the control of someone who had no training? I for one would not. Picture the scene at any deployed airfield when the 450 wanders through the approach or into the overhead unannounced and unaware....
The Playstation argument is always trotted when discussing this issue; I think you;'ll find hand-eye co-ordination doesn't much come into play during a persistent surveillance mission.
SBG
To take up the point of who should operate these aircraft, I'm sure that the 'airships' are unikely to focus on capitation as their primary means of branch selection. You have to look at the size, capability and likely operating areas/altitudes of the UAV and consider what else might be flying in the same airspace.
It is probably OK for low altitude, short range systems to be operated - say below 2 or 3 thousand feet - by personnel with no airspace or aircrew training. However, the larger of the two UAVs selected to be part of the Watchkeeper set is based on the Hermes 450.
The Hermes 450, by UAV standards is a sizeable beast although other systems such as the Predator and Global Hawk are larger. We can discount GH in this discussion as there aren't too many manned aircraft operating at those FLs. A quick google search turned up the following link:
Hermes 450
Note the max operating altitude: 18K'
Now would you want something weighing 450Kg with a 35' wingspan operating in your airspace whilst under the control of someone who had no training? I for one would not. Picture the scene at any deployed airfield when the 450 wanders through the approach or into the overhead unannounced and unaware....
The Playstation argument is always trotted when discussing this issue; I think you;'ll find hand-eye co-ordination doesn't much come into play during a persistent surveillance mission.
SBG
Last edited by Spotting Bad Guys; 22nd Jul 2005 at 20:00.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A safety case is currently being written on a set of rules that will allow full, unsegregated, access to all open airspace. One of the requirements will be the ability of the UAV 'Pilot' to differentiate between IFR and VFR. Separation standards between manned and unmanned are due to be set at 500ft. Personally I think I'd like a trained pilot in charge of these things.
