RAF buys spy planes to monitor enemies from the sky

[Lurking123]

I'm just wondering where the assumption comes from regarding hot & high.

[BEagle]

I shall ignore the fatuous comments made by others.

FW ISTAR clearly requires suitable platforms, not those driven by cost. Whereas the Diamond aeroplane is eminently suitable for certain operations, the aircraft I looked around at ILA seemed rather 'delicate' and I'm not convinced that it would stand up to the rigours of military use without substantial modification. It didn't seem adequately 'soldier proof' - that is NOT a derogatory term, it merely means that it must be tough enough to stand up to high usage by military users, no matter of which hue their uniform, rather than civilian owners. In the same way that the O-2 was rather more robust than the Cessna 337 on which it was based.

Who will fly it? Does that matter? The more important point being that whoever flies and works in it must, as has been said, have a full and sympathetic understanding of the needs of the operational end-user. And be in a suitable condition to do so after extended airborne periods.

Lurking123, my thoughts as well......

[Gainesy]

More likely big lazy orbits over Brum, Bradford etc.

[andyy]

I wonder if the US have any OV-10 Broncos that they could resurrect and sell us?

As an aside, I have also seen that the "Bug Eyed" Optica observation aircraft is supposed to be back in production soon.

[Chris P Bacon]

If you Google "BAE Mantis" you will see the project that is getting the most impetus to replace the Reaper.

[mick2088]

There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks (perhaps someone who knows a bit more will explain why), hence why the UK is shifting to a manned platform like the DA42 as well as continued use of Reapers, etc. The US is also looking to boost its manned ISR capabilities for Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment (requirement for 21 aircraft) with reports suggesting that aircraft like the Seabird SB7L-360 Seeker (as already operated by the Iraqi Air Force) and the Schweizer RU-38 are possible in addition to buying 30 C-12 aircraft.

DefenseLink News Article: More Intel, Surveillance, Recon Assets Set for Central Command

[Gainesy]

There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks

CAA don't want them in UK airspace.

[Tiger_mate]

Quote:
There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks

CAA don't want them in UK airspace.

They must be afraid of the future of Civil Aviation. I would imagine that within the lifetime of many, the potential for robotic airliners flying GPS routes to an ILS or similar landing must be feasable. In fact within the ability of todays technology and that the future will simply enhance safety and accuracy of such devices. Emergencies could be an issue but from what I have seen there is very little that todays airliner pilot can do anyway due to redundancy of systems already included in the designs of aircraft.

Technology will do to pilots what Garmin did to navigators.

[Gainesy]

I agree Tigermate, but we're talking of today rather than some time in the future.

[mick2088]

CAA don't want them in UK airspace.

I pointed to that in an previous thread on the Mi-17 when the DA42s appearing on the military register was discussed before this article was published, stating that the DA42 would be able to fly anywhere over the UK, whereas a UAV cannot. But that would base the assumption that these were purely for use for a bit of "recreational" flying over downtown Bradford or where ever, rather than overseas. My first assumption was yep these are for use over the UK or even for testing purposes (maybe as part of work to integrate UAVs over British airspace or something like that), but seeing as the Americans are even looking at manned ISR aircraft similar to the DA42 specifically for Afghanistan and Iraq, it becomes obvious that there has been a sudden shift back towards fairly inexpensive manned ISR air assets whereas in recent months/years there was a gradual move towards UAVs in this role.

[Backwards PLT]

Cirrus F - You obviously have close links to the manufacturer as well as absolutely no idea about military aircraft operations, particularly ISTAR. Flying in Afghanistan is not like a flying club in the UK.

Lets start with some basics - the glossy brochure and website are very pretty but very vague and have some dubious claims. Alarm bells ringing (I've read lots of similar BAE brochures). What actually is the endurance with the UK operational fit, including payload/sensors, DAS etc, operating from Kandahar with an acceptable fuel reserve. I assume it does have DAS because flying around at 10,000'-15000' AMSL in Afghanistan is a very bad idea without one. I assume it can fit the extended range tanks as well as the full mission kit/crew, whilst giving satisfactory performance. How noisy is it? Twin props not good for this.

Manufacturer quoted running costs are a world away from real UK MOD running costs, even if the MOD started a flying club in Middle Wallop. Add lots more if you are in Afghanistan, with some avionics involved, so be careful with the Islander comparisons.

Intrigued by the sat link - as there is no room for a dish (unless you removed the crew) it must be very limited, certainly not FMV. Also, if it isn't sensitive where does the EO/IR system come from?

There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks (perhaps someone who knows a bit more will explain why), hence why the UK is shifting to a manned platform like the DA42 as well as continued use of Reapers, etc

I think the real answer is that commanders want ISR now (or at least in the next 12 months) and don't care where it comes from. So anyone who pushes a "cheap" and instant solution gets a contract - UAV manufacturers are already working flat out. I think manned aircraft will be doing ISTAR for a good while yet.

if the operator is himself a soldier, maybe even from the same unit as the ground-patrol, then you're going to have a more flexible and more closely integrated unit

I don't think that anyone would suggest taking a squaddie from a ground unit and putting him in this role for a few months (or do you mean for that day?) whilst his regiment are on the ground. You need specifically trained personnel, if you want them to be any good. Or do you want to take 10 guys from every regiment in the country and train them and keep them trained? Secondly it would produce a very inflexible system, with personnel focused solely on their unit. Of course if the aircraft is only a company level asset then it might be ok (see desert hawk) - but it then becomes an extremely expensive and inflexible piece of kit for the JFC. How about an aircraft operated by people from all services so that each can apply their expertise to the situation where required? What a weird idea, it'll never catch on.

And I think the 1930s view of RAF Aircrew that some have pushed are actually pretty hilarious. Grow up, or better, go talk to the Harrier guys and tell them your views to their face if you ever visit Afghanistan.

[L J R]

Quote:

I'd hazard a guess that a ground-patrol could use that video more effectively in real-time if they can coordinate with an operator directly overhead who has his eyes scanning the ground as well as the video-images, rather than trying to coordinate with an operator in Arizona who can only see the video-images.


I thought that Arizona (Read NEVADA),crews and mission cells flying MQ-1/9 see video and talk directly to the lads in the field (who are seeing the SAME picture - ROVER) - AND also talk to the OPs Dept of the soldiers Headquarters (who are also seeing the pictures) AND can talk to London, Doha, Washington, Langley, (insert any Agency) - AND they too see the video......

Why do all these external agencies need to see the video? - they do not neceissarily, but when they need to , the curent infrastructure copes, or so a friend in the community tells me (where is my Omega!)..

....regardless, I also thought that the UAV flown remotely DOES talk to the soldier just like ANY other aircraft does... and I also thought that the air vehicles DO have 'Normal' radios (AND Qualified Service Pilots).

[TheInquisitor]

LJR,

Correct, on many counts. There is alot of bollocks-spouting going on in here from people who don't know what they are talking about.

[TheInquisitor]

Forget asking RAF orficers to fly them. Recruit pilots from the ranks, preferably from blokes who have done ground tours in the desert already, and who understand the operational requirement. Train them ab-initio to fly DA42 - 100 hours should be enough. There will be no shortage of volunteers.

Idiotic statement. Ask the guys out there on the ground now who they prefer working with and who they are all asking for. Having properly trained, qualified and professional aircrew (from any service) manning a system DOES make a difference.

Reapers are very expensive bits of kit - the cost of replacing the one that crashed recently would pay for a fleet of DA42s.

No they are not. The vast majority of a Reaper AV's cost is in the sensor suite - hence your plastic-pig twin isn't going to offer you much savings - unless you want a crap sensor. Oh, and it doesn't carry weapons, either - so not much good in a TST situation, then.

I'd hazard a guess that a ground-patrol could use that video more effectively in real-time if they can coordinate with an operator directly overhead who has his eyes scanning the ground as well as the video-images, rather than trying to coordinate with an operator in Arizona who can only see the video-images. Also, if the operator is himself a soldier, maybe even from the same unit as the ground-patrol, then you're going to have a more flexible and more closely integrated unit than would be the case with a UAV flown by some RAF chappy sipping a gin and tonic in his slippers in a bunker.

Utter twaddle, I'm afraid. You clearly have no idea about how this all works. What on earth makes you think that just because we are light-blue, and aircrew, we have no idea what the guys on the ground want? Besides, as has already been pointed out, Reapers are operated by crews from ALL 3 services. The advantage of a remotely operated system is that you can drag whoever you want into the 'cockpit'. Or phone them. Or email / IM them. Try doing THAT in your plastic pig. Crews can swap out at will during the mission, so in general should always be rested and alert. And they're not getting shot at....1 less thing to worry about, more capacity to devote to the mission. Also, smaller theatre footprint (personnel-wise), near-zero risk to human life, etc etc.....

LJR - the point I was making, perhaps a bit clumsily, is that if the observer is able see the bigger picture on the ground below, as well as the close up video pictures on a screen in front of him, he may be able to make more of a contribution to the guys on the ground than somebody who can only see through a video link. At 10000ft with the naked eye you can scan and pick out and interpret detail over a broad area, zoom in where necessary and bring to the attention potentially hostile vehicles, detail of the lie of the land, potential ambush sites etc, more pro-actively than you perhaps can when just monitoring video. I've never seen video footage where it is really possible to judge the lie of the land, pick out dead ground etc as well as you can with the old eyeball though I have not seen the latest stuff you guys are evidently using if you can now do this.

You can select whatever zoom level you require. You can zoom right out to get exactly the same FOV as you would have with the naked eye - except you have the advantage of being able to look around 360 deg, and directly below - and with a number of different sensors. Virtually all UAV sensors have this capability - it is clear you have little or no knowledge of UAV capabilities.

And frankly, ANYONE considering operating an aircraft like this in a hot, high, threat environment wants their head examining. Small, slow, low, no DAS, no air con......

[airborne_artist]

Having spent most of my military time training for and operating on the wrong side of the FEBA, I'm in full agreement with Inquistor. Put up this kind of aircraft and they'll need the services of CSAR far too often, IMHO. UAVs are the way forward.

Some things don't change - you get what you pay for in this world is one of them.

[airborne_artist]

And if they are so crap why have the MOD just bought two of them, with apparently more on order. Obviously somebody higher up in the MOD than you agrees with me.

The MoD buying them does not make them good, by default though. It just means that someone thought they were good. They've not actually been tried and tested in a true operational environment. Buying two with options for more, at that price, is small change, even in the cash-strapped MoD.

[airborne_artist]

I well remember someone I knew well who had an MoD procurement budget. Every late Feb/early March he'd be looking around for things to buy, so he could use all his budget. He knew only too well that any underspend would result in a lower figure for the following FY.

The MoD spends money for lots of reasons, and sometimes they happen to get something the sailors/soldiers/airmen actually need.

I expect that the person who bought the Mk3 Chinooks thought he knew a lot about the requirement, too, don't you? And then there's FRES, and then there's..

[knowitall]

"Obviously somebody higher up in the MOD than you agrees with me."

somebody at the MOD bought Bowman

[airborne_artist]

Bowman

Better off with Nokia and Map.

'Broken' £2.4bn radio put troops' lives in danger - Telegraph

"An infantry commander in Helmand described the system, the second most expensive piece of equipment in British military history after the RAF's Eurofighter, as "astonishingly bad".

The radio's coverage sometimes does not extend from one side of a base to the other, while a shortage of batteries means soldiers are being ordered to turn off radios until they come under attack.

The Bowman communication system was supposed to revolutionise command and control in the Army. Its encryption software allowed commanders to talk securely for the first time without the need to encode messages. But in Afghanistan Bowman has been written off as a failure by many senior officers.

Lt Col Nick Borton, the commanding officer of the 5th battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (5 Scots) told Gen Sir David Richards, the Army's second most senior officer, that Bowman "was a broken system"."

[knowitall]

"The MOD wouldn't have gambled even a small amount of money if they didn't think there was a pretty good chance of succeeding."

ROTFPMSL!

Nimrod AEW3