UKMFTS, what's the point?
Thread Starter
UKMFTS, what's the point?
With this technology now a front line reality, what is the point of committing £12B of taxpayers money over the next 25 years in order to train aircrew to put in manned aircraft to put in harms way?
.
The answer? Well it's obvious,isn't it? The self-preservation of the RAF as we currently know it.
.
The result? An expensive error of monumental proportions that will have to be unpicked in the not too distant future.
.
With this technology available, the next of kin of our future aviation heros will have some justification to be aggrieved when our lords and masters neglect their duty of care.
This whole issue needs a serious rethink, and I don't believe it's too late (apart from the Hawk 128 procurement that is).
.
The answer? Well it's obvious,isn't it? The self-preservation of the RAF as we currently know it.
.
The result? An expensive error of monumental proportions that will have to be unpicked in the not too distant future.
.
With this technology available, the next of kin of our future aviation heros will have some justification to be aggrieved when our lords and masters neglect their duty of care.
This whole issue needs a serious rethink, and I don't believe it's too late (apart from the Hawk 128 procurement that is).
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An anonymous Post on Network World;
At five tons gross weight, the Reaper is four times heavier than the Predator. Its size - 36 feet long, with a 66-foot wingspan - is comparable to the profile of the Air Force's workhorse A-10 attack plane. It can fly twice as fast and twice as high - 25,000ft compared to 50,000ft - as the Predator.
6Z3 Said:With this technology now a front line reality, what is the point of committing £12B of taxpayers money over the next 25 years in order to train aircrew to put in manned aircraft to put in harms way?
Predator can't do a show of force (see the last couple of RAF Pravda News)
However if the question was: "Do we need MFTS in its current planned form?" then that would be different.
Rather more point to properly funded military run flying training than wasting bi££ions on little grey flat-topped boats taking Jolly Jack Tars to CockersPs around the world, eh 6Z3?
Not MFTS though. That truly is an utter crock!
Not MFTS though. That truly is an utter crock!
Predator on the air-to-air front did have a crack at an Iraqi MiG-25 during 2002. The Predator launched its Stinger, but the Iraqi AAM hit the Predator first. This took place in the SNFZ.
Footage of the Stinger launch can be found from around 20 secs in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8
Footage of the Stinger launch can be found from around 20 secs in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8
Thread Starter
Guys. My point was to challenge the wisdom of committing £12B of MoD resources to a 25 year UKMFTS partnership with lead companies that have a vested interest in projects not necessarily aligned with the needs of the Armed Forces.
.
My link was to an article identifying the arrival on the Front Line today of "Reaper", big brother of Predator - 4 times heavier, twice as fast, flying twice as high (50,000') and carrying 7 times as many missiles - as the Predator.
.
These fighting vehicles have only been developed seriously for perhaps 10 years to get to the current level of sophistication. Where will we be in the next 10 years. Bearing in mind UKMFTS hasn't stood up yet, so the clock hasn't started ticking on its 25 year partnering arrangement, I believe its concept is out of date almost before its started.
.
I am not saying we won't need military aircrew, or a Military flying training system. I'm saying that we'd be stupid to commit ourselves to a 25 year contractual partnership arrangement based on the 19 streams of aircrew that we currently need and in the numbers we currently need, only to find that we'd have to pay through the nose to significantly change any of the arrangements.
.
And as an aside, I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the committment to a major element of the Flying training system (H128) without any consideration of the alternatives, or how it will 'fit' into the future structure of the FTS.
.
My link was to an article identifying the arrival on the Front Line today of "Reaper", big brother of Predator - 4 times heavier, twice as fast, flying twice as high (50,000') and carrying 7 times as many missiles - as the Predator.
.
These fighting vehicles have only been developed seriously for perhaps 10 years to get to the current level of sophistication. Where will we be in the next 10 years. Bearing in mind UKMFTS hasn't stood up yet, so the clock hasn't started ticking on its 25 year partnering arrangement, I believe its concept is out of date almost before its started.
.
I am not saying we won't need military aircrew, or a Military flying training system. I'm saying that we'd be stupid to commit ourselves to a 25 year contractual partnership arrangement based on the 19 streams of aircrew that we currently need and in the numbers we currently need, only to find that we'd have to pay through the nose to significantly change any of the arrangements.
.
And as an aside, I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the committment to a major element of the Flying training system (H128) without any consideration of the alternatives, or how it will 'fit' into the future structure of the FTS.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK, m o s t l y
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6Z3,
I suggest you read some of the future doctirine (FASOC specifically) and conceptual pieces (some of which are on the intranet) and then start winding your neck in.
Oh and don't forget the UKMFTS includes all military flying training, not just fast jet. So not all of the £12B training costs are able to be replaced by UAVs and nor is all the money being spent on the RAF!!
I suggest you read some of the future doctirine (FASOC specifically) and conceptual pieces (some of which are on the intranet) and then start winding your neck in.
Oh and don't forget the UKMFTS includes all military flying training, not just fast jet. So not all of the £12B training costs are able to be replaced by UAVs and nor is all the money being spent on the RAF!!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improvin...3-2/a1-05.html
Last edited by XV277; 19th Jul 2007 at 11:45.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK, m o s t l y
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And your better, more navalised idea is??
How about we stick all our money in an untried, untested future policy? If you actually pull your head out of your bottom you'll find that UK PLC is procuring 'some' UAVs for exactly the reason you harp on about. Trying however to not face too much of the development costs. However the US (they're the people we're in on this with) don't think that they could put an
entirely automated fleet out for at least (key here being AT LEAST) 35 years. Looks like it kinda fits in with a bit of a training policy that's been mentioned at some point. The FASOC is out there in public domain and it's been given the nod by green, dark and light blue.
Or perhaps you'd prefer a more Navalised version - as that is where most of the anti terrorist/anti guerilla/asymmetric warfare is going isn't it?
The MFTS fits in with the tri service FUTURE training requirements, now and for the next foreseeable years - we've all had an input. So how about your pipe down. You know where I fit in with the training system (like nowhere!) and you?? Trying to save you're own job perhaps?
How about we stick all our money in an untried, untested future policy? If you actually pull your head out of your bottom you'll find that UK PLC is procuring 'some' UAVs for exactly the reason you harp on about. Trying however to not face too much of the development costs. However the US (they're the people we're in on this with) don't think that they could put an
entirely automated fleet out for at least (key here being AT LEAST) 35 years. Looks like it kinda fits in with a bit of a training policy that's been mentioned at some point. The FASOC is out there in public domain and it's been given the nod by green, dark and light blue.
Or perhaps you'd prefer a more Navalised version - as that is where most of the anti terrorist/anti guerilla/asymmetric warfare is going isn't it?
The MFTS fits in with the tri service FUTURE training requirements, now and for the next foreseeable years - we've all had an input. So how about your pipe down. You know where I fit in with the training system (like nowhere!) and you?? Trying to save you're own job perhaps?