British Army’s most senior officer: UAV's over JSF?

[groundfloor]

Red jackets against mausers..

Japan is no threat and their aircraft are 2nd rate...

The War to end all wars..

Peace in our time...

TSR2..

Missiles will replace manned aircraft..

[Melchett01]

Quote:
both CGS and 1SL are agreed

That they should scrap the RAF and let their respective services deal with their air power needs......

And that's the problem. Half the time they don't know or more importantly understand what they want. They just think that they can stamp their feet, have a huff about not getting adequate support and all of a sudden either everything will be ok and they will suddenly have every asset in theatre assigned to them, or the RAF will be disbanded and given over to the Army.

It's not politic to say it, but I'm going to anyway. CGS and the rest of the brown jobs need to wake up and realise that Helmand is one small part of one American campaign. The RAF will do its utmost to provide all the support that is needed, above and beyond all personal considerations, in most cases. But at the end of the day, the Army is dealing with Helmand. Most if not all RAF assets in theatre are declared to supporting ALL of RC(S) and in some cases beyond those boundaries.

The sooner CGS et al actually understand air power and the RAF rather than just paying lip service and treating us less like a manservant and more like an equal, then we can start having an informed and constructive discussion. Until then, I'm afraid it's going to be little more than dealing with a small child who wants every toy in the shop and wants it now.

[Tom Laxey]

Arguments between service chiefs

Yes, it's mad when an Army chief says something like this

Generally the MOD works in quite a 'purple' way, with lots of interaction between the 3 service and civilian staff; 3 separate services is not neccesarily the best way to organise the various functions e.g. there is overlap between land and ship-based aviation, or air support to the battlefield. However the 3 distinct services have a strong history & ethos, and so the system persists, despite its costs.

Now, when these turf wars erupt, it undermines the coherency of the whole system. It is patently absurd to criticise the RAF for buying Typhoons - the RAF would have down-sized or substantially altered its Typhoon procurement plans years ago if it could have done; today it is nearly a done deal (they'll all have been made soon!), and the best thing the Army & RAF can do is work-out how best to use it, rather than whinging.

The problems will come in future; the MOD does plan for future conflicts, which means maintaining the base of technology and programmes that will support the RAF of the future. That will need many, many millions of pounds to be spent on aircraft more advanced than Typhoon, in order to ensure that when UK does need to replace Tornado, Typhoon etc, it has something useful to contribute.

Discussions about Tucanos simply show how bad things have got in MB.

[pr00ne]

Tom Laxey,

You said;

"in order to ensure that when UK does need to replace Tornado, Typhoon etc, it has something useful to contribute."


It has long been stated, and as recently as last month, that the RAF will have a two type fast jet fleet in future, Typhoon and F-35. The UK is heavily involved in both.

After that what else will there be other than UAV's of one sort or another?

[Tom Laxey]

The future

In general, the future is still there even if the RAF has made its choices of fast jets.

The prototype Eurofighter flew, I think, in 1997 (and EAP in 1986). The X-35 flew in 2001. The US are looking at several things following these classes of aircraft. Yes, as you say, mostly unmanned, but that makes little difference to their technology level etc.

It may be true that having bought ~300 new fastjets in 10years, the RAF can't afford 'the future' - as explained here
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/workinggrou...misc/costs.pdf

That doesn't mean the future won't happen, nor does it mean that Typhoon and F35B will be as potent in 2025 as they are (or would be) today.

If X-47B or another US UCAV program comes to fruition, I can't see the MOD being content to say 'we can't afford that' - even though it will be very pricey - which makes such a nonsense of talk of Tucanos and such like.

[Boslandew]

Could we approach this from the other end?

The war in Afghanistan is here and now. I think most informed opinion would accept that it would have a much greater chance of success and save lives if there were more troops, more vehicles better equipped against mines, more helicopters and increased surveillance ability.

Any future conflict is at least as likely to require Afghan style forces as they would be for forces to fight a conventional (21st Century) land, sea or air war. We could not conceivably arm for all possible types of future warfare. Is it better to spend finite resources on actual current needs or save them for unknown future needs? Should we have had fewer fighters in 1940 and lost the Battle of Britain so as to save more money to buy Lancasters later on?

Would it be acceptable to lose this war because we were saving resources to fight future unknown wars?

[Tom Laxey]

@Boslandew, yes that's right, of course.

However I think it is true that when thoroughly questioned, casual statements about Tucanos do not add much.

The MOD knows abour surveillance, that's why it already has UAV programmes such as Watchkeeper, Predator and Mantis. Unfortunately the full capability is not currently available (i.e. Watchkeeper is ?? too small?, Predator is £££, and Mantis is a new UK product, but is immature). I don't think Tucanos fit into this mix well, because in reality I'm not sure they offer much? What is needed is the '24hr' capability but this is v.£££.

The point about the validity of the spending on high-end systems is that once an MOD withdraws from these areas, it is unlikely to return. Nontheless, assuming that the US would provide the RAF with 'high-end' fighter cover for aerial combat, and long-range stealthy bombers early doors, may well be a reasonable assumption that would save the UK money.

[The B Word]

Tom

Two points...

We don't have any Predators - only MQ-9 REAPERs (big difference). Also, the more capable (I emphasize again) REAPERs (not Predators) are approximately 50% cheaper than projected costs for Mantis in 2015+. I know that the uber-expensive Mantis is supposed to be better than Reaper but is it going to be twice as good??? So I refute your claim that "Predator is £££".

So what's my other point I'm driving towards?

If we had considered not spending all our cash on high-tech solutions such as the uber-expensive Typhoons, GR9s and F-35s then we might have got a couple of squadrons of CAS/COIN aircraft to service the Pongo's need in THIS war (not THE war) that could have replaced the "cheap-as-chips" Jag. Something like the Italians are doing with the AMX (see below) in Afghanistan.



"Balanced forces" has to be the way to go - not "all our eggs in 1 basket"!!!

[Ivan Rogov]

B Word, do your Reaper/Pred costs reflect total cost including Sats, ground terminals, comms links, sending 200 staff and families to live in the USofA , using 2 man crews (Inc fully trained stick monkey) to constantly fly, borrowing an airbase, piggy backing an OCU (may have changed now)?

Granted it is definitely the right platform right now, but I could see the cousins:
A. Getting fed up of us constantly borrowing stuff and not giving it back.
B. Only be willing to let us use 'our toy' when they say so, stopping any independent Ops.
C. Wanting more space in the system to generate more of their lines.

Isn't Mantis looking to be a bit more advanced with greater autonomy and performance in weather etc? You never know, statistically sooner or later BAe will screw up and build something that does what it's supposed to and arrives on time

[strek]

Ivan

You never know, statistically sooner or later BAe will screw up and build something that does what it's supposed to and arrives on time

Thank you for cheering up a particularly dull morning in the land of acquisition, that is lots of poeple managing and businessing and few doing.

I wonder if the great Somerset Helicopter Company could beat them to it?

Off to find a statistician.

Strek

[mick2088]

Uber-expensive Mantis? Up to £12 million for three air vehicles, a ground control station and spares, according to a BAE Systems employee interviewed by an Indian newspaper at Aero India last year. Reaper you'll get two air vehicles, a couple of ground control stations and spares for about £50 million. Unless the cost difference ends up being huge and the BAE Systems chap badly underestimated what a production model will cost (and admittedly BAE has form there), you'll still end up with a twin-engined, longer-ranged Mantis capable of carrying 20%+ more payload than the Reaper and you'll be able to stick any payload in it that you want, maintain and upgrade it yourself without all the annoyance of going through US defence export rules.

[The B Word]

Ivan and Mick

Your data on Mantis being cheaper is incorrect - the figures for your 3 air vehicles, GCS and spares that you quote is about that for a single item from what I have heard! Don't forget that unit price always reflects the size of your order so companies usually don't give out figures without knowing this fact first.

There is no evidence that Mantis will deliver the 4x PWIV and 6x DMB for 24hrs vaunted at Farnborough 2008 from the recent technology demonstration - have a look at the YouTube footage of the first flight and see the take-off run where it used a lot of Woomera's 7800ft runway. That would indicate that it is rather underpowered in its early days and would therefore be difficult to deliver the original performance estimate.

Here is a link YouTube - Mantis Test Flight

From the runway markings it looks like a 5-6000ft take off run - and it was not carrying anything!

So, I would offer that Mantis has a lot more work to done before it offers the performance that you both seem to believe is a given (IMHO).

Mantis might offer something that we might want at the end of this decade, but for now, Reaper delivers exactly want we want, right now. It is also far, far, cheaper than any core equipment program - if you know anyone in DE&S see if you can ask to see their figures.

Finally, when it comes to "upgrading yourself" take a look at Falcon Prowl

This was a UK led initiative.

So in short, I do not agree with your stand point (you may have guessed that).

The B Word

[Tourist]

Boslandew

"Would it be acceptable to lose this war because we were saving resources to fight future unknown wars?"

I don't really think that you have thought about this question.
Perhaps if I rephrase it slightly the answer will become clear.

Would it be acceptable to lose this war that doesn't really matter to the continued survival of our country, and that we are not really sure why we are in apart from to support our buddies, who themselves are a bit ambivalent about it and we could pull out of tomorrow with no more damage and loss of life to our troops other than a bit of pride, because we were saving resources to fight future unknown wars which might actually affect the lives of our nearest and dearest?

[Tom Laxey]

Tourist, that is pretty much the thinking behind my point. I also think that aligns well with what actually happens.

If there is a serious conflict, with a serious country, extra soldiers, armoured lorries and UAV 'drones' won't be much use. The 'cutting edge' always has to be sharp.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that letting that edge blunt even a little has a big effect. In other words, the 150 Typhoons & 60 (or whatever!) JSFs that the UK would call its cutting edge won't stay potent for ever. However most of this stuff is so blinkin' expensive, that a few clever tweaks to the avionics should keep that fleet 'ticking over' for a while.

That may lead to a trap though - there is only so much benefit to be gained from strapping-on ever more capable pods, and sooner or later the UK would need to 'cut metal' on a new designs of planes - it's known that that's very, very expensive, but also that it takes skills, tools and facilities to do it - which require ongoing investment, even in the lean times we're in.

[mick2088]

The B Word, sorry it probably was a misquoted price that would cover a single UAV only and I don't believe it anyway, but you can't really call it an uber-expensive UAV yet as we don't know what it will cost. The payload figure that I gave though refers to that planned by BAE Systems that might actually be more (or less) on the production model which won't be available until 2015 to enter service anyway if developed. I wasn't actually talking about the here and now - hence why I refer to a "production model" as opposed to the demonstrator that flew last year, which is immature and is not up to full specs. I'd assume if the green light was given to Mantis' full development then a production-type test model would follow that would be completely different anyway. They haven't even decided on what the final engines might be yet, let alone the eventual payload.

At this present moment at time, yes, Reaper is the only choice - it is the only armed UAV in its class available - but over the longer term and in a relatively short period of time there might be better alternatives to Reaper (by which time even the US might also have a replacement in development) so the choice boils down to buying more Reapers now specifically for Afghanistan that won't be delivered until 2011 or 2012, funding and ordering a production Mantis in 2011 to be delivered from 2015 and hope that it meets expectations, or seeing what else comes along in the same period. And yes, Reaper was trialled with a LOROP sensor, supplied by an American company and conducted in conjunction with the Americans using a USAF Reaper and American satellite link. Hardly an autonomous demonstration. But if you wanted to strap any other sensors onto Reaper though you'd have to ask the US for permission first, work with General Atomics to integrate them and use US suppliers like Raytheon for the sensors, something you won't have to do if you have developed the UAV yourself.

[Caspian237]

Tom and Tourist, I agree with your sentiments however need that mean a complete withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan? As I mentioned in another post, if British troop levels were halved in Afghanistan then we would still have more troops there than the next largest contributor Germany. Does having twice the force level in Afghanistan make Britain twice as safe from terrorism as Germany?

Secondly you say that the reasons for being in the conflict are fairly confused. I would put to you that this is the continuation of a 60 or so year obsession of British governments in ensuring American engagement with Europe and to stop them becoming isolationist. The USA is our real insurance in the event of a "serious war" until other arrangements are made with our neighbours, which frankly does not look like anytime soon. If we want to use the Americans as a shield then sometimes they will want to use us as a sword.

[Boslandew]

Tourist

I’m not sure why you should assume I haven’t really thought about the question just because I haven’t reached the conclusion that you have. I’m glad that you have ‘the’ answer but a few facts to support that claim might not come amiss.

In fact, my article was a question, seeking opinion. I’ve always thought it worthwhile to look at both sides of any argument.

However, if we are to take refuge in the purely cynical answer then I don’t know that I have much more to contribute. I am no more gullible than the next man but I do not accept that twenty odd nations, of varying political hues, including the militarily cautious modern Germans, would engage in, and persist with, a military campaign far from home for no reason at all

[Boslandew]

Airpolice

I have no idea about German support - I must ask my german brother-in-law.

With respect, no major public support for the war is not the same thing as there being no reason for fighting it. It is claimed that it is being fought to prevent terrorism on our streets (German/French/Danish streets.) As I said I'm no more gullible than the next man and long ago learnt not to accept government statements at face value. However, I am increasingly suspicious of todays cyniclsm and answers with often nothing to back them up. If the reason given is not true, what proof is there that it isn't?

Why are all those nations there, against the wishes of the population, (let us accept your suggestion that it applies to all countries), if there is no reason?

Incidentally, I'm not out to score points, I'm genuinely looking for the reason why.

[Tourist]

Boslandew

I think you misunderstand me.

I have nothing against the war in Afghanistan, and believe it is very damaging to pull out of a war without winning it.
However, it is all a question of priorities. In the grand scheme of things it is a very piffling little affair (no disrespect to those who have given their lives there-but compare it using any measures you wish versus WW1 and WW2) and our military has to be ready for the next big war or we may lose it. In 200yrs I suspect that schoolchildren will not be hearing about Afghanistan 2000 onwards any more than individual episodes of the Great Game are known to our children today.
What should happen is that we are funded correctly for both, but I suspect that we will never be.

[Tom Laxey]

Fighting different kinds of war

The UK should be able to fight a war in Afghanistan and have its fast jets.

It is undoubtedly narrow-minded to suggest that UK should cancel fast jet programmes to pay for 'stop gap' solutions for current conflicts. The war in Afghanistan began with precision air strikes, and moved into bunker busting etc. Both Gulf wars began with heavy air strikes, and the RAF maintained no fly zones from the air for years. Therefore all these fast jets would be expected to be well-used, in time. It is just that today COIN is causing all the pain, and Typhoons and JSFs don't look all that much use.

I think it is more accurate to say that UK has the men & equipment for Afghanistan - the armoured vehicles, and UAV drones, but not quite the right stuff, or enough of it. If it is simply a matter of having enough - well, that must be as much the fault of the UKs 'partners' absence, as much as any shortcomings from UK. The MOD knew battlefield airborne surveillance was an issue before Afghanistan (they would have been equally useful in NI), it's just that strategically, the MOD has been slow to spend money on getting UK suppliers to respond. Hence the non-ideal mix of solutions currently trying to do the job. One reason for this is that UAV 'drone' technologies are not that difficult and UK has invested in 'higher end' UAV technologies, which unfortunately would be wasted in Afghan.