UK loses 50% of its Tactical UAV force
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK loses 50% of its Tactical UAV force
Well ok, the headlines a bit over the top considering we only have two, but according to the following report the RAF have lost one of their two Reaper UAV's which were only recently deployed in Afghanistan.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...41&c=MID&s=AIR
Got to love the last line, "Britain's only other tactical UAV, the Phoenix, was pensioned off last month."
Better watch out or the MoD will be pulled up for breaching the troops' human rights again.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...41&c=MID&s=AIR
Got to love the last line, "Britain's only other tactical UAV, the Phoenix, was pensioned off last month."
Better watch out or the MoD will be pulled up for breaching the troops' human rights again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah you could be right there but I was thinking more that the liability lies in the reduced surveillance / intelligence information being sent to the guys on the ground.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has highlighted a feature of UAVs that is not often discussed - their loss rates due to failure and enemy action.
Looking at UAV programmes over the years, there has been a remarkable reluctance by makers and users to admit to very high losses and the consequent costs. Global Hawk is a good example, Predator another.
Reasons? Some down to design - poor landing gear, difficult handling characteristics, unreliable electronics. The proponents of UAVs often argue that not having a pilot on board reduces cost and improves performance because you don't have to meet all those pesky safety and airworthiness requirements. Unfortunately, in some cases the resulting UAVs also don't meet our usual reliability (loss of vehicle) targets.
Once you get on operations, the military balance for these vulnerable devices is interesting. Flying a relatively slow and noisy aircraft over enemy areas means that they'll get shot down eventually. Bad guy fires off lots of AK-74 rounds (basically free) and we eventually lose a valuable ISTAR asset.
The U in UAVs is just that - 'Uninhabited' - it's not E for 'Expendable'. Things like Reaper are far too expensive to be that. It would be interesting to see the attrition assumptions being used in the MoD...
Looking at UAV programmes over the years, there has been a remarkable reluctance by makers and users to admit to very high losses and the consequent costs. Global Hawk is a good example, Predator another.
Reasons? Some down to design - poor landing gear, difficult handling characteristics, unreliable electronics. The proponents of UAVs often argue that not having a pilot on board reduces cost and improves performance because you don't have to meet all those pesky safety and airworthiness requirements. Unfortunately, in some cases the resulting UAVs also don't meet our usual reliability (loss of vehicle) targets.
Once you get on operations, the military balance for these vulnerable devices is interesting. Flying a relatively slow and noisy aircraft over enemy areas means that they'll get shot down eventually. Bad guy fires off lots of AK-74 rounds (basically free) and we eventually lose a valuable ISTAR asset.
The U in UAVs is just that - 'Uninhabited' - it's not E for 'Expendable'. Things like Reaper are far too expensive to be that. It would be interesting to see the attrition assumptions being used in the MoD...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was interesting to read in Patrick Bishop's book 3 Para that at least one of the battlegroup's fatalities was during a mission to recover a downed UAV (a Phoenix?) in Helmand Province. It struck me as I read it that this defeated the whole point of UAVs and seemed a terribly unjustified waste of life. It would seem just typical of the UK's penny-pinching approach to warfare.
I don't seem to remember it getting much press coverage at the time - certainly more newsworthy than the William story, but that's verging on thread creep...
I don't seem to remember it getting much press coverage at the time - certainly more newsworthy than the William story, but that's verging on thread creep...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Llanbedr Jindivigs were hardly an ISTAR asset being flown on ops now were they? Although I have to say that they were an impressive capability nonetheless that slipped my mind in the scramble to take a cheap shot.
I agree that 3 Preds gives no margin for error at all. But you'll also find that MOD MB cares nothing for Abbey Wood's predictions of attrition as it takes everything "at risk" these days.
The point with an unmanned asset is that, even if they cost £10m a throw, it would make them prohibitively expensive to develop the same levels of reliability and redundancy that a manned aircraft has - something that seemed to be lost on DFlying some years ago (2004) when he demanded that they should have an order of magnitude greater! level of safety than manned aircraft.
yeah right.
Mind you, on the subject of Pred/Reaper, one has to ask why the RAF plumped for something that needed a pilot to actually remote-fly it rather than one that flew itself within parameters set by the operator. Wouldn't be old-style service protectionist thinking by any chance?
I agree that 3 Preds gives no margin for error at all. But you'll also find that MOD MB cares nothing for Abbey Wood's predictions of attrition as it takes everything "at risk" these days.
The point with an unmanned asset is that, even if they cost £10m a throw, it would make them prohibitively expensive to develop the same levels of reliability and redundancy that a manned aircraft has - something that seemed to be lost on DFlying some years ago (2004) when he demanded that they should have an order of magnitude greater! level of safety than manned aircraft.
yeah right.
Mind you, on the subject of Pred/Reaper, one has to ask why the RAF plumped for something that needed a pilot to actually remote-fly it rather than one that flew itself within parameters set by the operator. Wouldn't be old-style service protectionist thinking by any chance?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LFA6
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAV loss rates
Losing UAVs is no surprise:
"The mishap rate is defined as the number of mishaps a type of aircraft has for every 100,000 flight hours it accumulates, as an example the F-16 has a mishap rate of 3 per 100,000 flight hours. However, the mishap rates for UAVs tend to be much higher; the rate for the Hunter system is 55, Pioneer is a whopping 334, and even the relatively advanced Predator, at 32 per 100,000 flight hours, has a mishap rate 10 times that of the F-16. These numbers are somewhat deceiving though, especially those for the Predator aircraft. This aircraft has much less than 100,000 total flight hours, so there has been less of an opportunity to fix flaws in the aircraft design. Defense Science Board, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicles, February 2004."
Based on these stats, we could lose a Pred-UAV every 1 every 3,300 fg hrs = 1 every 4.5 months. Therefore, within 13 months, stats would indicate that the RAF could have lost all 3 Reaper UAVs. I know stats can be interpreted many ways, but HMT may wish to reconsider paying for extra Reaper UAVs.
Just a thought.......let the debate begin.
DH
"The mishap rate is defined as the number of mishaps a type of aircraft has for every 100,000 flight hours it accumulates, as an example the F-16 has a mishap rate of 3 per 100,000 flight hours. However, the mishap rates for UAVs tend to be much higher; the rate for the Hunter system is 55, Pioneer is a whopping 334, and even the relatively advanced Predator, at 32 per 100,000 flight hours, has a mishap rate 10 times that of the F-16. These numbers are somewhat deceiving though, especially those for the Predator aircraft. This aircraft has much less than 100,000 total flight hours, so there has been less of an opportunity to fix flaws in the aircraft design. Defense Science Board, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicles, February 2004."
Based on these stats, we could lose a Pred-UAV every 1 every 3,300 fg hrs = 1 every 4.5 months. Therefore, within 13 months, stats would indicate that the RAF could have lost all 3 Reaper UAVs. I know stats can be interpreted many ways, but HMT may wish to reconsider paying for extra Reaper UAVs.
Just a thought.......let the debate begin.
DH
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DH,
Good info and not at all a surprise to me. These are very high loss rates and could soon eat up any cost advantages offered for UAVs in some roles.
Backing up an earlier post, I know that the US Predator ops in Bosnia required the US Army to maintain a substantial standing force of Blackhawks and other aircraft to get to crash sites and retrieve sensitive technology before the Serbs got to them and sold it to the Russians. That tasking was the largest element of the helo force's work, and drove significant costs and effort.
I also spoke with US Army guys who were not at all keen on Predators - because every time one turned up to support them, it told the nearby Serbs that something was going off.
I freely admit to being a bit of a UAV sceptic. In my view, there has been a definite 'sexiness' to some UAV procurement over the last few years that merits some examination. We have all-volunteer forces, and we appear ready, as a nation, to tolerate loss of some of our people. So just how strong IS the case for taking people out of harm's way by giving tasks to UAVs?
Now, if we are looking at an ability to develop vehicles that can do things manned aircraft absolutely can't, I'm with the UAV folk. Comms relay is one area that UAVs would be great for - the 'dull' end of the task spectrum. But at the 'dirty' end of the job list, if we are spending scarce cash to buy a capability that one could do with a Piper Cub fitted with a FLIR and a few A-10 located at a FARP - that could do plenty of other stuff as well - perhaps we need to think it through.
Thoughts or comments?
Good info and not at all a surprise to me. These are very high loss rates and could soon eat up any cost advantages offered for UAVs in some roles.
Backing up an earlier post, I know that the US Predator ops in Bosnia required the US Army to maintain a substantial standing force of Blackhawks and other aircraft to get to crash sites and retrieve sensitive technology before the Serbs got to them and sold it to the Russians. That tasking was the largest element of the helo force's work, and drove significant costs and effort.
I also spoke with US Army guys who were not at all keen on Predators - because every time one turned up to support them, it told the nearby Serbs that something was going off.
I freely admit to being a bit of a UAV sceptic. In my view, there has been a definite 'sexiness' to some UAV procurement over the last few years that merits some examination. We have all-volunteer forces, and we appear ready, as a nation, to tolerate loss of some of our people. So just how strong IS the case for taking people out of harm's way by giving tasks to UAVs?
Now, if we are looking at an ability to develop vehicles that can do things manned aircraft absolutely can't, I'm with the UAV folk. Comms relay is one area that UAVs would be great for - the 'dull' end of the task spectrum. But at the 'dirty' end of the job list, if we are spending scarce cash to buy a capability that one could do with a Piper Cub fitted with a FLIR and a few A-10 located at a FARP - that could do plenty of other stuff as well - perhaps we need to think it through.
Thoughts or comments?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion is that UAV's are an excellent addition to US/Uk forces. However they should be treated as an additional, complementary capability rather than a substitute for manned missions except in very dangerous high threat situations.
We don't know what sort of counter measures (electronic or otherwise) could be used in future high intensity situations that may render UAV's useless.
We don't know what sort of counter measures (electronic or otherwise) could be used in future high intensity situations that may render UAV's useless.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAE (now called QinetiQ btw) is still heavily involved in the flying of many different types of UAV including Mirach, Banshee and Falconet. The experience and skill set from Llanbedr was captured and a lot of the North Wales contingent are still very heavily involved with UAV work.Under test and development are other UAVs more applicable to tactical use, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. The U in UAV makes them attractive but the cost, when compared to a tactical jet, also compares favourably. It may be worth noting that "Dave" is expected to be the last manned tactical fighter that the US procures.I am now lowering my head quickly below the parapet to await incoming......
