Three predators!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Three predators!!!!
How are we expected to make much of a difference with that?
It's utterly pathetic, there are thousands of hours being spent risked in the air by alot of people because we can't spend the cash and buy a decent ammount of UAV's to do the job! Much of the work done out in the gulf is bread and butter to a Predator but instead we will continue to use a platform that isn't ideal, cost's tonnes more and put's peoples lives at risk!
Really clever that Mr Brown and Torpey
It's utterly pathetic, there are thousands of hours being spent risked in the air by alot of people because we can't spend the cash and buy a decent ammount of UAV's to do the job! Much of the work done out in the gulf is bread and butter to a Predator but instead we will continue to use a platform that isn't ideal, cost's tonnes more and put's peoples lives at risk!
Really clever that Mr Brown and Torpey
It is an embarrassing reflection on today’s Air Force that such a big deal is made out of buying three UAV’s. I would much prefer not to have to wait 6 months on a pair of replacement boots.
NEVER check ALWAYS assume
NEVER check ALWAYS assume
So toddbabe - using your vast knowledge of the Air Force (can't even get the spelling of your Chief of Air Staff correct) and the way the Treasury works where exactly is the money going to come from to buy this "decent amount of UAVs" from? Typhoon budget - nope, moneys already been spent. Red Arrows - nope, too much PR for UK plc. Jaguar - nope, saved peanuts. MRA4 - nope, money has been spent (even though we don't have the airframe yet). Education? Could always make everybody pay for schooling. Heatlth? Scrap the NHS? Social Security? Get rid of the dole? Defence? We could always get rid, overnight, of another aircraft type (and the people after all for a an aircraft in service they tend to be the biggest cost) GR4? GR7? F3? MR2? What effect would that have on the broader defence aims rather than one specific fleet?
And where exactly will the UAVs come from? Do you think the US have a "UAV Supermarket" where you go with your cheque book and buy them, literally, off the shelf. Why do you think its taken so long to get 2, let alone 3? No manufacturer is going to build UAVs (or aircraft) for the military market on the off chance someone may want them.
As you appear, from this and other threads, seem to be full of good ideas why don't you get your ar5e posted into MOD and sort it out from there instead of making naive comments on t'internet.
Be grateful we got the UAVs we have got. With the MODs hands tied by wondeful legislation as theDefence Industrial Strategy and the like its amazing we are allowed to procure, even by UOR, anything that isn't made by Westlands or BAe Systems.
Rant off!
And where exactly will the UAVs come from? Do you think the US have a "UAV Supermarket" where you go with your cheque book and buy them, literally, off the shelf. Why do you think its taken so long to get 2, let alone 3? No manufacturer is going to build UAVs (or aircraft) for the military market on the off chance someone may want them.
As you appear, from this and other threads, seem to be full of good ideas why don't you get your ar5e posted into MOD and sort it out from there instead of making naive comments on t'internet.
Be grateful we got the UAVs we have got. With the MODs hands tied by wondeful legislation as theDefence Industrial Strategy and the like its amazing we are allowed to procure, even by UOR, anything that isn't made by Westlands or BAe Systems.
Rant off!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk,
For those of us who will be replaced by the UAV, whether this one or another, the ins and outs of procurement mean precious little. The sooner they arrive in meaningful numbers the sooner other platforms can get back to more direct support to those on the ground!
CB
For those of us who will be replaced by the UAV, whether this one or another, the ins and outs of procurement mean precious little. The sooner they arrive in meaningful numbers the sooner other platforms can get back to more direct support to those on the ground!
CB
Guest
Posts: n/a
The worth of proof reading
Wrathmonk...
I am NOT taking sides.
It does make me chuckle though, that you pull toddbabe to bits for spelling mistakes when there are a slack handful in your own 'rant'.
I'm off to Ladbroke's to try and raise some money for the Kipper Fleet.
I am NOT taking sides.
It does make me chuckle though, that you pull toddbabe to bits for spelling mistakes when there are a slack handful in your own 'rant'.
I'm off to Ladbroke's to try and raise some money for the Kipper Fleet.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Shefford, Beds, UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk - agreed.
Toddbabe:
Agreed and have been arguing the case for UAVs for the past 18 years!
However, the utility is not in the number of airframes (although it's directly related to the amount of support) it is in the support personnel - particularly analysts where the greatest effect will come from. To keep a Pred B airborne for 24 hours requires 3 gusting 4 'drivers', with a similar number of sensor operators, but also three shifts of up to 15 analysts.
Bearing in mind the fact that you're not going to have 8 on 16 off shifts that are effective for very long, this will require at least 2 teams of analysts, circa 90 personnel. Where are they going to come from? Our airships may have missed the point, but the ever diminishing budgets of our primary imagery analysis units have meant an ever decreasing number of analysts - we would be very hard pushed to support more than 3 aircraft.
Toddbabe:
Agreed and have been arguing the case for UAVs for the past 18 years!
However, the utility is not in the number of airframes (although it's directly related to the amount of support) it is in the support personnel - particularly analysts where the greatest effect will come from. To keep a Pred B airborne for 24 hours requires 3 gusting 4 'drivers', with a similar number of sensor operators, but also three shifts of up to 15 analysts.
Bearing in mind the fact that you're not going to have 8 on 16 off shifts that are effective for very long, this will require at least 2 teams of analysts, circa 90 personnel. Where are they going to come from? Our airships may have missed the point, but the ever diminishing budgets of our primary imagery analysis units have meant an ever decreasing number of analysts - we would be very hard pushed to support more than 3 aircraft.
Xfer
That's the trouble when I rant - my mind works far quicker than my two thumbs can type! Or sadly, sometimes, before I control my voicebox!
So sorry toddbabe - no offence meant. Wonder if thats why the BBC misspelt Marshal throughout the Nimrod programme on Monday ....
Chimp Boy
Don't disagree but sadly the state of the defence budget is such that I would bet more UAVs (in the short term) = loss of (Air) capability else where (so don't think you would necessarily get back to directly supporting those on the ground - more likely to be grounded to pay for the UAVs. I jest not...). So, as asked before, where do you suggest we lose this capability to pay for the sexy new toys? Procurement decisions, apart from UORs, take years for the political reasons already stated. Typhoon, for example, was planned for a task when the Cold War was still very cold - every change to the work spec means mega bucks to the manufacturer. Who is to say that the Future Carrier, FSTA, A400M, Type 45, FRES etc will be what we want at their expected in-service dates in the next 10-15 years? Wars may be fought in space and people will be asking why we didn't invest more in that area (who would have thought 10-15 years ago we would all be surfing the internet on a Saturday night rather than getting pi55ed in the pub!). The reality is there is no cash for the here and now and when pitched against Education (which clearly I need more of given my spolling errors), Health and Social Services, Defence will always lose out. Fact. Defence is not sexy to Joe Public and our 200000 votes (plus relatives etc) are spread throughout the country so even voting against the Government in the next election would not have as much of an impact as BAe or Westlands shutting down a factory has in a single constituency (take the Hawk 128 example and Brough....). And when someone can correctly forecast the future I want to meet them first - if for no other reason than to get next weeks lottery numbers (I've missed this week!).
Don't get me wrong I don't deny we need these new toys and sooner rather than later but you need to balance this with a huge dose of reality.
Come down to MOD. The water is warm mainly caused by the staff officers who are trying their level best to swim against the political tide!
I'm sure I've made plenty of spelling mistakes .... no need ot point them out. I promise I won't in future!
That's the trouble when I rant - my mind works far quicker than my two thumbs can type! Or sadly, sometimes, before I control my voicebox!
So sorry toddbabe - no offence meant. Wonder if thats why the BBC misspelt Marshal throughout the Nimrod programme on Monday ....Chimp Boy
Don't disagree but sadly the state of the defence budget is such that I would bet more UAVs (in the short term) = loss of (Air) capability else where (so don't think you would necessarily get back to directly supporting those on the ground - more likely to be grounded to pay for the UAVs. I jest not...). So, as asked before, where do you suggest we lose this capability to pay for the sexy new toys? Procurement decisions, apart from UORs, take years for the political reasons already stated. Typhoon, for example, was planned for a task when the Cold War was still very cold - every change to the work spec means mega bucks to the manufacturer. Who is to say that the Future Carrier, FSTA, A400M, Type 45, FRES etc will be what we want at their expected in-service dates in the next 10-15 years? Wars may be fought in space and people will be asking why we didn't invest more in that area (who would have thought 10-15 years ago we would all be surfing the internet on a Saturday night rather than getting pi55ed in the pub!). The reality is there is no cash for the here and now and when pitched against Education (which clearly I need more of given my spolling errors), Health and Social Services, Defence will always lose out. Fact. Defence is not sexy to Joe Public and our 200000 votes (plus relatives etc) are spread throughout the country so even voting against the Government in the next election would not have as much of an impact as BAe or Westlands shutting down a factory has in a single constituency (take the Hawk 128 example and Brough....). And when someone can correctly forecast the future I want to meet them first - if for no other reason than to get next weeks lottery numbers (I've missed this week!).
Don't get me wrong I don't deny we need these new toys and sooner rather than later but you need to balance this with a huge dose of reality.
Come down to MOD. The water is warm mainly caused by the staff officers who are trying their level best to swim against the political tide!
I'm sure I've made plenty of spelling mistakes .... no need ot point them out. I promise I won't in future!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest UAV losses:-
The UK's combat and peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since
earlier this decade have resulted in the loss of almost 50 unmanned air
vehicles and irreparable damage to almost 40 more, secretary of state for
defence Des Browne has revealed.
"Since 2003, 33 UAVs have been lost in Iraq", says Browne, adding that a
further 38 were damaged beyond repair. The Ministry of Defence has not
released details of the air vehicle types involved, but at least 23 of the
British Army's BAE Systems Phoenix UAVs are known to have been lost or
written off during the combat phase of Iraqi operations. Other unmanned
systems believed to have been used in the country by British forces include
Mission Technologies Buster and Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk mini UAVs and US Air Force-owned General Atomics MQ-1 Predators.
Browne has also revealed that 15 Desert Hawks were destroyed and another
damaged beyond repair during operations in Afghanistan until 24 April.
The UK's combat and peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since
earlier this decade have resulted in the loss of almost 50 unmanned air
vehicles and irreparable damage to almost 40 more, secretary of state for
defence Des Browne has revealed.
"Since 2003, 33 UAVs have been lost in Iraq", says Browne, adding that a
further 38 were damaged beyond repair. The Ministry of Defence has not
released details of the air vehicle types involved, but at least 23 of the
British Army's BAE Systems Phoenix UAVs are known to have been lost or
written off during the combat phase of Iraqi operations. Other unmanned
systems believed to have been used in the country by British forces include
Mission Technologies Buster and Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk mini UAVs and US Air Force-owned General Atomics MQ-1 Predators.
Browne has also revealed that 15 Desert Hawks were destroyed and another
damaged beyond repair during operations in Afghanistan until 24 April.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest UAV losses:-
The UK's combat and peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since
earlier this decade have resulted in the loss of almost 50 unmanned air
vehicles and irreparable damage to almost 40 more, secretary of state for
defence Des Browne has revealed.
"Since 2003, 33 UAVs have been lost in Iraq", says Browne, adding that a
further 38 were damaged beyond repair. The Ministry of Defence has not
released details of the air vehicle types involved, but at least 23 of the
British Army's BAE Systems Phoenix UAVs are known to have been lost or
written off during the combat phase of Iraqi operations. Other unmanned
systems believed to have been used in the country by British forces include
Mission Technologies Buster and Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk mini UAVs and US Air Force-owned General Atomics MQ-1 Predators.
Browne has also revealed that 15 Desert Hawks were destroyed and another
damaged beyond repair during operations in Afghanistan until 24 April.
The UK's combat and peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since
earlier this decade have resulted in the loss of almost 50 unmanned air
vehicles and irreparable damage to almost 40 more, secretary of state for
defence Des Browne has revealed.
"Since 2003, 33 UAVs have been lost in Iraq", says Browne, adding that a
further 38 were damaged beyond repair. The Ministry of Defence has not
released details of the air vehicle types involved, but at least 23 of the
British Army's BAE Systems Phoenix UAVs are known to have been lost or
written off during the combat phase of Iraqi operations. Other unmanned
systems believed to have been used in the country by British forces include
Mission Technologies Buster and Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk mini UAVs and US Air Force-owned General Atomics MQ-1 Predators.
Browne has also revealed that 15 Desert Hawks were destroyed and another
damaged beyond repair during operations in Afghanistan until 24 April.
The newer generations of UAVs need professional pilots to operate them properly. Stop giving them to artillery gunners and you might see those figures come down somewhat...
As for cost.....well, the annual legal aid bill for failed asylum seekers would buy us another 20 Predator B's, pay for the crew training, and still leave us enough change left to build a decent Sqn bar...nuff said!
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would much prefer not to have to wait 6 months on a pair of replacement boots.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought General Atomics were selling the British MoD some MQ-9 REAPERS, and that because the demand was so high for them and production could not increase, so therefore the 'Option' to get 10? more on top of the 3 currently at the factory would simply take time. The better performing MQ-9 is a bigger aircraft than the Preadator A, and being more powerful, robust expensive etc, would possibly enjoy a less 'dramatic' attrition rate.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/index.cfm...A652558CB5FE71
I also thought that you might be planning to replace other surveillance aircraft when the MQ-9 becomes mission ready, as its ability to stay airborne for long hours (hence 3 aircraft on day one).
Does anyone know when you will get them?
How many crews do you have in the US? Are General Atomics planning to launch and maintain them. I beleive they fly the NASA aircraft. - But stand to be corrected
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/index.cfm...A652558CB5FE71
I also thought that you might be planning to replace other surveillance aircraft when the MQ-9 becomes mission ready, as its ability to stay airborne for long hours (hence 3 aircraft on day one).
Does anyone know when you will get them?
How many crews do you have in the US? Are General Atomics planning to launch and maintain them. I beleive they fly the NASA aircraft. - But stand to be corrected
Wrathmonk
Playing Devils advocate here...... go with one of your suggestions, scrap the F3 fleet!
Accept the 'capability gap' until the Typhoon is fully established (Typhoon doing it's first Q soon I believe). The F3 is already planned for retirement. The precident of 'capability gaps' is set, and are we expecting massed bomber raids on the UK in the next two years? Just a thought....
On another issue I would have thought the Americans are getting through Predators at such a rate that there is an annual buy. Tacking a UK order within/onto that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.
Playing Devils advocate here...... go with one of your suggestions, scrap the F3 fleet!
Accept the 'capability gap' until the Typhoon is fully established (Typhoon doing it's first Q soon I believe). The F3 is already planned for retirement. The precident of 'capability gaps' is set, and are we expecting massed bomber raids on the UK in the next two years? Just a thought....
On another issue I would have thought the Americans are getting through Predators at such a rate that there is an annual buy. Tacking a UK order within/onto that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We Have Only Bought The Lolly Not The Stick
Unfortunately, we have only bought the air vehicle and the sensors (to be paid for later from other project's money) and not the infrastructure to support the capability.
We are totally relient on the US and if we attempt to pay for the other LoD, particularly the communications links etc, the MoD will have to find another shed load of cash. If we do not do this and the US deny us the use of the links we end up with a fleet of expensive model ac.
I hope the introduction of UAVs will allow the Nim guys a chance to regroup and gets some home time.
We are totally relient on the US and if we attempt to pay for the other LoD, particularly the communications links etc, the MoD will have to find another shed load of cash. If we do not do this and the US deny us the use of the links we end up with a fleet of expensive model ac.
I hope the introduction of UAVs will allow the Nim guys a chance to regroup and gets some home time.
Roland...
If you announced the retirement of the F3 fleet tomorrow it would take 6 months for them all to go. If the current number of Typhoons can't provide sufficient 'cover' to cater for the rogue airliner threat, let alone 6 months downstream, then there is something seriuosly wrong.......
The phrase I used was "massed" bomber threat, I didn't say there was no need for some fighter cover within the UK ADR!!
If you announced the retirement of the F3 fleet tomorrow it would take 6 months for them all to go. If the current number of Typhoons can't provide sufficient 'cover' to cater for the rogue airliner threat, let alone 6 months downstream, then there is something seriuosly wrong.......
The phrase I used was "massed" bomber threat, I didn't say there was no need for some fighter cover within the UK ADR!!
