RAPTOR potential shown.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAPTOR potential shown.
Ok, possibly better than my Canon 70-300 ml zoom then.
BBC NEWS | UK | Camera boosts RAF's Afghan crews
At least mine does colour though.
BBC NEWS | UK | Camera boosts RAF's Afghan crews
At least mine does colour though.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite an old photo if I'm not mistaken, impressive nonetheless!!
RAPTOR is, and always has been an amazing piece of kit, and it's fantastic to see it finally being fully used operationally. Having been involved in the RAPTOR trials and development, there is still much more to be impressed by, by this awesome piece of equipment
Flipflopman
RAPTOR is, and always has been an amazing piece of kit, and it's fantastic to see it finally being fully used operationally. Having been involved in the RAPTOR trials and development, there is still much more to be impressed by, by this awesome piece of equipment
Flipflopman
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red-eye remover
It probably does, a permanent one known as a l@ser - unless they've bypassed that and gone straight for other particle weapons !
With a price tag like that, and having read elsewhere of such kit ( in a way ) for the JSF, I'd not sign for it unless the defensive shields and photon torpedos were all working - fortunately for everyone below, I'm not even a pilot, and have more chance of pulling Bo Derek than getting near a Raptor.
With a price tag like that, and having read elsewhere of such kit ( in a way ) for the JSF, I'd not sign for it unless the defensive shields and photon torpedos were all working - fortunately for everyone below, I'm not even a pilot, and have more chance of pulling Bo Derek than getting near a Raptor.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And with respect Double Zero, that's exactly why company photographers are employed to take nice photographs, and not make judgements on the effectiveness of modern weaponry
Flipflopman
Flipflopman
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now here's a thought....
Is there any reason this clever bit of kit couldn't be strapped to a larger platform, or does it have to be a Tonka (I know the clue is in the name but why do we insist on procuring kit that is only capable of being fitted to one type)?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRONG !
Flipflop,
To reply with all the respect due...
A, I was being a little flippant, a low form of wit I agree, but there is some basis to what I alluded to. In a way I hope you are not as I suspect the obnoxious Sea Harrier pilot I once met, the only aircrew I ever fell out with, and showed a spectacular knack of getting the worst out of all around.
B, There are various types of ' company photographers '; my role at Dunsfold 1979-93 was to photograph installations for designers, cockpit layouts for pilots, anything to assist production or operation, and to look after cine cameras and Pilot Display Recorders for aircraft and / or stores trials at ranges.
I dealt with remote cameras on FRS1 & 2 ( before FA2 ), various Hawks, and the 2 devlopment GR5's, ZD318 & more usually 319, could carry 16 external cameras + PDR - I happened to develop a partial but largely effective cure for the cold at altitude, which the ( purpose built ) cameras we were presented with could not handle.
I did get to take the odd ' nice picture ' for various uses, but generally that side of things was grabbed by the P.R. photographers from Kingston.
Possibly because I trained initially as a fitter, more likely my upbringing by my aircraft engineer ( Seafires WWII to crew chief on GR5 trials ) father, I enjoyed and felt priveleged to assist in any way I could; other Kingston types were not interested.
So please don't tar all photographers with the same brush; I can think of a couple of occasions when I happened to be near accidents of various kinds, and the first thing I dropped was my camera, regarding helping as a rather higher priority - no doubt the type of photographers you're thinking of might have stood back and shot away for a golden opportunity.
Also, I happened to work with L@ser designators, future projects etc among other things.
So, may I suggest you ask before you leap into insults and show your ignorance.
DZ
To reply with all the respect due...
A, I was being a little flippant, a low form of wit I agree, but there is some basis to what I alluded to. In a way I hope you are not as I suspect the obnoxious Sea Harrier pilot I once met, the only aircrew I ever fell out with, and showed a spectacular knack of getting the worst out of all around.
B, There are various types of ' company photographers '; my role at Dunsfold 1979-93 was to photograph installations for designers, cockpit layouts for pilots, anything to assist production or operation, and to look after cine cameras and Pilot Display Recorders for aircraft and / or stores trials at ranges.
I dealt with remote cameras on FRS1 & 2 ( before FA2 ), various Hawks, and the 2 devlopment GR5's, ZD318 & more usually 319, could carry 16 external cameras + PDR - I happened to develop a partial but largely effective cure for the cold at altitude, which the ( purpose built ) cameras we were presented with could not handle.
I did get to take the odd ' nice picture ' for various uses, but generally that side of things was grabbed by the P.R. photographers from Kingston.
Possibly because I trained initially as a fitter, more likely my upbringing by my aircraft engineer ( Seafires WWII to crew chief on GR5 trials ) father, I enjoyed and felt priveleged to assist in any way I could; other Kingston types were not interested.
So please don't tar all photographers with the same brush; I can think of a couple of occasions when I happened to be near accidents of various kinds, and the first thing I dropped was my camera, regarding helping as a rather higher priority - no doubt the type of photographers you're thinking of might have stood back and shot away for a golden opportunity.
Also, I happened to work with L@ser designators, future projects etc among other things.
So, may I suggest you ask before you leap into insults and show your ignorance.
DZ
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Is there any reason this clever bit of kit couldn't be strapped to a larger platform, or does it have to be a Tonka
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: devon
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you can't strap to anything else - the acronym wouldn't work! Who's ever heard of a RAPTYP? Or a RAPHAR? Honestly,can we have some standards?!
PS Wasn't the picture of Big Ben mentioned in the article taken by a Canberra from further away? That's progress! Praps they were actually retired because no-one had heard of a RAPCAN?
PS Wasn't the picture of Big Ben mentioned in the article taken by a Canberra from further away? That's progress! Praps they were actually retired because no-one had heard of a RAPCAN?
Fantastic news!
Does that mean I can take the nasal spray out of my flying suit pocket now?
I happened to develop a partial but largely effective cure for the cold at altitude
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A similar system to Raptor was used on a flight over Southampton, during which the jet's camera was able to zoom in on the Big Ben clock tower in London.
"And yes, the clock face was visible and readable," sais an RAF spokesperson
"And yes, the clock face was visible and readable," sais an RAF spokesperson
Is there any reason this clever bit of kit couldn't be strapped to a larger platform
On the other hand, fitting it to a UAV definitely would have some plus points: and it's already been trialled (see here). Don't know what the latest state of play is, but I'm sure someone out there does...
Or alternatively, a much smaller and cheaper platform being flown from a small room in Nevada for real cost effectiveness - or have we just re-invented the pilot operated UAV?
On the other hand, fitting it to a UAV definitely would have some plus points: and it's already been trialled (see here). Don't know what the latest state of play is, but I'm sure someone out there does...
What is the latest state of play? It's still on the table as far as I am aware but the UK needs to commit to more MQ-9s to make it worth pursuing. The capability is waiting to be fielded, if the money is coughed up - same old story as many other programs I guess
LJ
Champagne anyone...?
Why on earth would you want to do that? A larger platform would take up more ramp space, need more logistic support, take up more crew berths in the accommodation, be slower to complete the collection... if you're trying to find another job for MR2, it wouldn't be able to carry out a supplementary CAS role either...
As for the "supplementary" CAS role - just much ordnance will be carried when that centreline skip is bolted on too? Look at what the USMC are doing with their C130Js and the Harvest Hawk project. 4 Hellfires or 16 laser guided 70mm rockets plus a 30mm cannon stuck out the side door? You could easily mod the raptor pod to replace the other main external tank if required. With AAR and augmented crew it probably would only give you about 24 hours of loiter time so I can see why this sort of thing doesn't interest the UK MoD....
StopStart,
You could quite easily have a palletised capability - the USANG have already done it with their Scathe View platform which is just that, albeit with a few other FLIR type turrets.
However, whilst a 24 hr loiter capability would be cracking, the only problem comes when you have to analyse the data. Do you either link it to a ground station, analyse on board or just wait until land. Whatever you choose, Imagery Analysts are a pinchpoint trade; Defence as a whole doesn't have enough to go round its current capabilities let alone adding further collection capability to the equation.
Plus, any airborne palletised system providing 24 hr battlefield coverage would be liable to end up in an Army / RAF bunfight as ASTOR did in the early days. Given the likely nature of the tasking, the Army would probably try to muscle in on the airborne elements as they have with ASTOR, creating yet another political minefield.
You could quite easily have a palletised capability - the USANG have already done it with their Scathe View platform which is just that, albeit with a few other FLIR type turrets.
However, whilst a 24 hr loiter capability would be cracking, the only problem comes when you have to analyse the data. Do you either link it to a ground station, analyse on board or just wait until land. Whatever you choose, Imagery Analysts are a pinchpoint trade; Defence as a whole doesn't have enough to go round its current capabilities let alone adding further collection capability to the equation.
Plus, any airborne palletised system providing 24 hr battlefield coverage would be liable to end up in an Army / RAF bunfight as ASTOR did in the early days. Given the likely nature of the tasking, the Army would probably try to muscle in on the airborne elements as they have with ASTOR, creating yet another political minefield.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cold ( Temperature not virus ) cure
Plasticabdriver,
I will happily pass on the technical details of my wonder cure for cine cameras operating at -40 C ( which the built in 100W heaters were no match for)...
However you may be a tad conspicuous strolling around with hot gel-packs and insulation speed-taped to your nose.
We used to activate the gel packs just before take-off for trials - they were in liquid form in a strong plastic covering, then when activated went hot and solid.
One day a flight test engineer ( not known as the sharpest toolin the box at any time ) suggested we did not activate one of the six outboard camera packs, to see if it made any difference.
We ( Photographic and Flight Test ) already knew that it did, as of the 3 cameras mounted on adapted CBLS200 pods, before the heat packs the most exposed aft cameras always failed first - cine film gets very brittle when cold.
I voiced my concern that if unactivated, the pack would be non-rigid rendering the securing speed tape ineffective - but no, off it went.
Unsurprisingly, the aircraft returned with one less heat pack; I've often wondered about some farmer finding a mystery silver object, which when he tweaked the red bit suddenly became hot - probably deep in some UFO ' X File ' right now !
I will happily pass on the technical details of my wonder cure for cine cameras operating at -40 C ( which the built in 100W heaters were no match for)...
However you may be a tad conspicuous strolling around with hot gel-packs and insulation speed-taped to your nose.
We used to activate the gel packs just before take-off for trials - they were in liquid form in a strong plastic covering, then when activated went hot and solid.
One day a flight test engineer ( not known as the sharpest toolin the box at any time ) suggested we did not activate one of the six outboard camera packs, to see if it made any difference.
We ( Photographic and Flight Test ) already knew that it did, as of the 3 cameras mounted on adapted CBLS200 pods, before the heat packs the most exposed aft cameras always failed first - cine film gets very brittle when cold.
I voiced my concern that if unactivated, the pack would be non-rigid rendering the securing speed tape ineffective - but no, off it went.
Unsurprisingly, the aircraft returned with one less heat pack; I've often wondered about some farmer finding a mystery silver object, which when he tweaked the red bit suddenly became hot - probably deep in some UFO ' X File ' right now !