Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.
Davejb
Thanks for the link, but even at 256kbps (256000) then if digitally multiplexed you could get 12 sonobuoys back to a ground station within existing architecture for a single aircraft. Also, I notice that this is the maximum data rate in the article so I'm surmising that if a string of 50 or so is dropped not every buoy would be tx'g at 256kpbs (don't know...).
For the rest of you SOBs, what don't you understand by...
Unlike "Dave" on Sky, PPrune really is "the home of witty banter", eh? 
iRaven
Thanks for the link, but even at 256kbps (256000) then if digitally multiplexed you could get 12 sonobuoys back to a ground station within existing architecture for a single aircraft. Also, I notice that this is the maximum data rate in the article so I'm surmising that if a string of 50 or so is dropped not every buoy would be tx'g at 256kpbs (don't know...).
For the rest of you SOBs, what don't you understand by...
OK, I'm no sonobuoy expert
iRaven
Grimweasel
Got to be a "Waaagh!" as the French use one of Breguet's finest, the Atlantique. Or are you saying "no thanks" and want to fly P3s down-under on a transfer instead?
iRaven
we will be using the French MPA resources - P3 Orion anyone?
iRaven
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Ability to fly over 240KTAS - CHECK
Endurance over 30hrs - CHECK
External Payload of 1361kgs (100 odd sonobuoys or 4x Stingray Torpedo) - CHECK
Multimode Maritime RADAR vice Lynx SAR/GMTI - CHECK
Comms Relay - CHECK
Over 3 mega bits per second Beyond Line Of Sight Datalink - CHECK
22" EO/IR turret (vice 15" MX15 on MR2) - CHECK
Range over 3,000nm - CHECK
Endurance over 30hrs - CHECK
External Payload of 1361kgs (100 odd sonobuoys or 4x Stingray Torpedo) - CHECK
Multimode Maritime RADAR vice Lynx SAR/GMTI - CHECK
Comms Relay - CHECK
Over 3 mega bits per second Beyond Line Of Sight Datalink - CHECK
22" EO/IR turret (vice 15" MX15 on MR2) - CHECK
Range over 3,000nm - CHECK
Tracking a submarine with expendable air dropped sonobouys, as opposed to a dipping sonor, requires a number of bouys to be dropped around the submarine. As the submarine moves so more sonobouys must dropped around the submarine. Now I am well out of date on detection ability (just as well) but in the past we would need a minimum of 6 buoys per hour but against a quiet submarine in poor conditions this was at least 10 per hour. If the submarine was sneakier than many some of these 10 would be malplaced so more would need to be dropped raising the consumption to 15 per hour.
On the Mk 1 with 63 buoys we frequently dropped a full load in 5-6 hours.
With a 30 hours endurance, say 20 hours on task, a load of 200-300 buoys would be needed. Put another way, if you can't increase the load to match the endurance then you would need many more UAV.
Then there is the balance between Art and Science. The equipment used in ASW and SSW is incredibility advanced but it is employed by humans. Humans can do unpredictable things (as far as the machine is concerned) but can be predicted by experienced opponents. To double guess one's opponent is the art.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And with more than 1 UAV you hold the ability to drop multiple sonoboys in patterns, simultaneously, with hight accuracy based on software.
The "wets" could still be in the loop; they just would be away from the aircraft.
The "wets" could still be in the loop; they just would be away from the aircraft.
SFO
It depends on your frequency of your satellite transponder up/downlink. Ku band can suffer from "rain fade" when precipitation approaches >4 inches per hour. However, Sky are too tight to turn the power output from their transponders to correct for this effect. Also, the lower end of Ku is less affected compared to the upper end. Finally, if you use X-band then the effect is even less but sadly your dish has to get bigger!
So if you aren't doing everything on the cheap like Sky (cheap dishes and LNBs as well) then you cannot compare your satellite TV experiences to RPAS flying; apart from the physics of the techniques involved.
iRaven
Does this Satelitte uplink/downlink thingy drop out as frequently as my Sky does everytime a dirty big cloud sits over ma hoose?
So if you aren't doing everything on the cheap like Sky (cheap dishes and LNBs as well) then you cannot compare your satellite TV experiences to RPAS flying; apart from the physics of the techniques involved.
iRaven
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The estimated cost is $1.071 billion.”
Wrong, the estimated cost is the figure quoted + the wasted £3.6 Bn by cancelling MRA4 + the cancellation and disposal costs + the additional, as yet unquantified, cost of another manned platform (+ training costs + support costs).
Why do you think the USA have gone for a twin pronged approach? The study the DOD commissioned on replacement of the P3 concluded that, whilst RPAS platforms could bring something to the party, you still needed a manned platform (just not so many).
So either Uncle Sam has got it wrong, or we know better.
Wanna take any bets?
Why do you think the USA have gone for a twin pronged approach? The study the DOD commissioned on replacement of the P3 concluded that, whilst RPAS platforms could bring something to the party, you still needed a manned platform (just not so many).
So either Uncle Sam has got it wrong, or we know better.
Wanna take any bets?
StratoQ
Well, there's BAMS to start:
And they're just starting on the finer detail now:
We can dwell on the past manned programs or catch the wave that is building fast for an ASW RPAS...the time is now.
LJ
If ASW was easy from a UAV why aren't the Americans doing it?
Northrop Grumman "Lays the Keel" for U.S. Navy's First BAMS UAS Fuselage
MOSS POINT, Miss., Sept. 1, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and U.S. Navy officials celebrated the start of the first MQ-4 Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) fuselage at the company's Moss Point, Miss. manufacturing facility today.
Construction of the first BAMS UAS aircraft introduces another variant of Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 Global Hawk High Altitude, Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft system platform.
"We are no longer a paper tiger as we begin construction on the jig load today," said Capt. Bob Dishman, BAMS UAS program manager, during the event. "As we continue with the airframe critical design review, we will be focusing on the production of this hardware. Our goal is to continue making early design decisions that will allow us to maintain schedule and deliver this capability to the warfighter as quickly as possible."
"With the start of this first BAMS UAS fuselage, Northrop Grumman renews its ongoing commitment to the U.S. Navy to provide our sailors with an unprecedented capability to deliver world-wide, wide-area, persistent, maritime ISR data in real-time," said Steve Enewold, Northrop Grumman vice president for BAMS UAS.
"The strong relationship we've enjoyed with the Navy on this program has been instrumental in its successes," said Enewold. "Facing our challenges openly as a team continues to be critical as we move the program forward."
The Northrop Grumman BAMS UAS is a multi-mission maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system that will support a variety of missions while operating independently or in direct collaboration with fleet assets. The BAMS UAS will be able to provide a continuous on-station presence while conducting open-ocean and littoral surveillance of targets. When operational, BAMS will play a key role in providing commanders with a persistent, reliable picture of surface threats, covering vast areas of open-ocean and littoral regions, minimizing the need to utilize other manned assets to execute surveillance and reconnaissance tasks.
The BAMS UAS program is managed by the U.S. Navy's Program Executive Office, Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons' (PEO U&W) Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program Office (PMA-262), located at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.
BAMS UAS is the latest addition to a growing family of unmanned systems developed by Northrop Grumman. The BAMS UAS system builds on the company's extensive experience with autonomous flight control that includes thousands of flight hours by the combat-proven RQ-4 Global Hawk, the MQ-5B Hunter, the MQ-8 Fire Scout vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tactical unmanned system ─ the first completely autonomous VTOL aircraft to land aboard a Navy vessel underway ─ and the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System, the first unmanned air vehicle scheduled to perform carrier landings.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit Northrop Grumman Corporation - A Leader in Global Security for more information.
CONTACT: Jim Stratford
Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
(321) 726-7526
[email protected]
MOSS POINT, Miss., Sept. 1, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and U.S. Navy officials celebrated the start of the first MQ-4 Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) fuselage at the company's Moss Point, Miss. manufacturing facility today.
Construction of the first BAMS UAS aircraft introduces another variant of Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 Global Hawk High Altitude, Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft system platform.
"We are no longer a paper tiger as we begin construction on the jig load today," said Capt. Bob Dishman, BAMS UAS program manager, during the event. "As we continue with the airframe critical design review, we will be focusing on the production of this hardware. Our goal is to continue making early design decisions that will allow us to maintain schedule and deliver this capability to the warfighter as quickly as possible."
"With the start of this first BAMS UAS fuselage, Northrop Grumman renews its ongoing commitment to the U.S. Navy to provide our sailors with an unprecedented capability to deliver world-wide, wide-area, persistent, maritime ISR data in real-time," said Steve Enewold, Northrop Grumman vice president for BAMS UAS.
"The strong relationship we've enjoyed with the Navy on this program has been instrumental in its successes," said Enewold. "Facing our challenges openly as a team continues to be critical as we move the program forward."
The Northrop Grumman BAMS UAS is a multi-mission maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system that will support a variety of missions while operating independently or in direct collaboration with fleet assets. The BAMS UAS will be able to provide a continuous on-station presence while conducting open-ocean and littoral surveillance of targets. When operational, BAMS will play a key role in providing commanders with a persistent, reliable picture of surface threats, covering vast areas of open-ocean and littoral regions, minimizing the need to utilize other manned assets to execute surveillance and reconnaissance tasks.
The BAMS UAS program is managed by the U.S. Navy's Program Executive Office, Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons' (PEO U&W) Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program Office (PMA-262), located at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.
BAMS UAS is the latest addition to a growing family of unmanned systems developed by Northrop Grumman. The BAMS UAS system builds on the company's extensive experience with autonomous flight control that includes thousands of flight hours by the combat-proven RQ-4 Global Hawk, the MQ-5B Hunter, the MQ-8 Fire Scout vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tactical unmanned system ─ the first completely autonomous VTOL aircraft to land aboard a Navy vessel underway ─ and the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System, the first unmanned air vehicle scheduled to perform carrier landings.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit Northrop Grumman Corporation - A Leader in Global Security for more information.
CONTACT: Jim Stratford
Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
(321) 726-7526
[email protected]
UAV For ASW
Oct 7, 2010
Posted by John Keller
LAKEHURST NAS, N.J., 7 Oct. 2010. Unmanned aircraft specialist AAI Corp. in Hunt Valley, Md., will design airborne sensor technology that may enable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to detect and attack submerged enemy submarines and surface warships, as well as attack ground targets and participate in electronic warfare operations, as part of a $30.2 million U.S. Navy research contract awarded Wednesday.
For these kinds of missions, AAI Corp. researchers are seeking to improve acoustic, electro-optical, radar, magnetics, and other sensors primarily for manned and unmanned aircraft, but which also could be applicable to ground, surface, and undersea deployable uses, as well as to anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Awarding the contract are officials of the Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Lakehurst Naval Air Station, Md.
AAI will develop sensor technology to support Navy undersea warfare, airborne strike, air warfare, counter-air warfare, close-air support and interdiction, defense suppression, electronic attack, naval warfare and amphibious, strike, and anti-surface warfare as part of the Navy research contract.
AAI Corp. specializes in unmanned aircraft and ground-control technologies; high-fidelity training and simulation systems; automated aerospace test and maintenance equipment; armament systems; and logistical support, and is an operating unit of Textron Systems in Providence, R.I. In recent years AAI has enhanced its capabilities in electronic warfare of ESL Defence Limited of the United Kingdom.
Oct 7, 2010
Posted by John Keller
LAKEHURST NAS, N.J., 7 Oct. 2010. Unmanned aircraft specialist AAI Corp. in Hunt Valley, Md., will design airborne sensor technology that may enable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to detect and attack submerged enemy submarines and surface warships, as well as attack ground targets and participate in electronic warfare operations, as part of a $30.2 million U.S. Navy research contract awarded Wednesday.
For these kinds of missions, AAI Corp. researchers are seeking to improve acoustic, electro-optical, radar, magnetics, and other sensors primarily for manned and unmanned aircraft, but which also could be applicable to ground, surface, and undersea deployable uses, as well as to anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Awarding the contract are officials of the Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Lakehurst Naval Air Station, Md.
AAI will develop sensor technology to support Navy undersea warfare, airborne strike, air warfare, counter-air warfare, close-air support and interdiction, defense suppression, electronic attack, naval warfare and amphibious, strike, and anti-surface warfare as part of the Navy research contract.
AAI Corp. specializes in unmanned aircraft and ground-control technologies; high-fidelity training and simulation systems; automated aerospace test and maintenance equipment; armament systems; and logistical support, and is an operating unit of Textron Systems in Providence, R.I. In recent years AAI has enhanced its capabilities in electronic warfare of ESL Defence Limited of the United Kingdom.
LJ
SFO
If you're still at Preston/Warton then get a visit to the hangars/buildings on the south side and ask them whether they think it is possible. The study you talk about for P3 replacement happened a few years back and things are advancing fast since then. Have a chat with the UAS team and I'm sure you'll see a different perspective.
LJ
Why do you think the USA have gone for a twin pronged approach? The study the DOD commissioned on replacement of the P3 concluded that, whilst RPAS platforms could bring something to the party, you still needed a manned platform (just not so many).
So either Uncle Sam has got it wrong, or we know better.
So either Uncle Sam has got it wrong, or we know better.
LJ
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iRaven
Thanks for the informative response. What I am driving at is that, by definition, a LRMPA tends to spend a lot of its time flying around in some pretty grotty weather, in the North Atlantic, in the middle of winter.
The potential RPAS solution will need to be able to cope with cloud depths of 20000ft or greater, hostile weather conditions including turbulence and icing, amongst other things.
We would also have to work out new methods of setting buoys electronically (currently done manually by a crew member), not insurmounatble I guess but adds to the cost.
Finally, on the back of LJ's obvious enthusiasm to spend his RAF career sitting in a tin box playing with his joystick
, MRA4 with a full rack fit could carry in excess of 200 buoys, plus additional buoys boxed up if required. I could do that and carry 9 torpedoes in the Bomb-bay and I haven't even used the 4 wing hard points yet.
The potential RPAS solution will need to be able to cope with cloud depths of 20000ft or greater, hostile weather conditions including turbulence and icing, amongst other things.
We would also have to work out new methods of setting buoys electronically (currently done manually by a crew member), not insurmounatble I guess but adds to the cost.
Finally, on the back of LJ's obvious enthusiasm to spend his RAF career sitting in a tin box playing with his joystick
, MRA4 with a full rack fit could carry in excess of 200 buoys, plus additional buoys boxed up if required. I could do that and carry 9 torpedoes in the Bomb-bay and I haven't even used the 4 wing hard points yet.
SFO
Mate, the days of "drivers airframe" in aircraft will slowly get limited and load carrying by RPAS/UAS are getting bigger and bigger. Here's one you might see if you go "southside":
And if you're really hung up about having a bomb-bay then there's this that will even operate of a carrier:
Times are changing, take a look at SDSR and the direction towards RPAS/UAS is clear.
LJ
Mate, the days of "drivers airframe" in aircraft will slowly get limited and load carrying by RPAS/UAS are getting bigger and bigger. Here's one you might see if you go "southside":
And if you're really hung up about having a bomb-bay then there's this that will even operate of a carrier:
Times are changing, take a look at SDSR and the direction towards RPAS/UAS is clear.
LJ
ShortFatOne
Yup, it's all possible.
Source: Guardian leads Predator B modernisation push
The potential RPAS solution will need to be able to cope with cloud depths of 20000ft or greater, hostile weather conditions including turbulence and icing, amongst other things.
As part of the technology demonstration phase of the programme, the services put a Predator B in the environmental testing chambers at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida for one month in March 2008 to detemine the effects of humdity, moisture, ice and snow on the aircraft. Upgrades to the aircraft as a result of testing include gaps and seals for the airframe. To handle the power needs for the de-icing system, General Atomics will upgrade the aircaft's 10kV alternator to 45kV.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ -
I take it you are up to speed with maritime procedures and have spent many years on the MR2/4 or equivalent.
If the answer is yes, could you confirm that operating one of your new fangled UAV's is basically the same as being in the sim? I take it we would just replicate the MRA4 (go with me here) mission system and just make sure that all the sensors had the appropriate inputs. That would be brill! I take it you know what i mean? Its all very well operating a UAV at medium/high altitude doing orbits and then targeting a benign environment to one which is hostile (weather, sea state) at low level and takes multiple sensor inputs/human inputs to search, track and prosecute an enemy submarine.
A pred B uses a camera (whooooooo), radios (whooooo) some form of targeting, a weapon system and thats about it. UK Reaper consists of what 3 operators per crew? (yes i am sure there are all sorts of sneaky beaky sensor pods but this is unclass)
I know that some day this will be possible. But is that the right solution today? You quote google/BAE etc but I don't really feel you understand the human aspect of maritime operations and lack the knowledge to back up your persistence that it was a) right to cancel MRA4 and b) we have the capability now and soon to replace it. (my views on the project put to one side)
I take it you are up to speed with maritime procedures and have spent many years on the MR2/4 or equivalent.
If the answer is yes, could you confirm that operating one of your new fangled UAV's is basically the same as being in the sim? I take it we would just replicate the MRA4 (go with me here) mission system and just make sure that all the sensors had the appropriate inputs. That would be brill! I take it you know what i mean? Its all very well operating a UAV at medium/high altitude doing orbits and then targeting a benign environment to one which is hostile (weather, sea state) at low level and takes multiple sensor inputs/human inputs to search, track and prosecute an enemy submarine.
A pred B uses a camera (whooooooo), radios (whooooo) some form of targeting, a weapon system and thats about it. UK Reaper consists of what 3 operators per crew? (yes i am sure there are all sorts of sneaky beaky sensor pods but this is unclass)
I know that some day this will be possible. But is that the right solution today? You quote google/BAE etc but I don't really feel you understand the human aspect of maritime operations and lack the knowledge to back up your persistence that it was a) right to cancel MRA4 and b) we have the capability now and soon to replace it. (my views on the project put to one side)
Grousehunter
No, I am not current or ex-Kipper, but the arguments being thrown back seem a little on the weak side to me. To be quite honest they are they same type (save for the actual capability) as those thrown up by the FJ community and other manned ISTAR assets. I agree that a force mix of manned and unmanned is what we need to field for now for the more dynamic tasks. But let's face it, if the MPA mission involved dynamic manoeuvring then we wouldn't have chosen a converted Comet airliner to do it, would we? Flying a Beyond Line Of Sight RPAS at low-level is simples because the satellite signal reaches down to sea level anywhere within the transponder's very big footprint. Why do we fly them at medium altitude right now in Afghanistan - simples, so the bad men with big beards can't hear us watching them!
You have to stop thinking about 1x RPAS servicing a single sub; you could use 10x RPAS and all the support for the cost of single MRA4 targetting that same sub. How's that for coverage? You have to stop thinking about how we operate MALE UAS in Afghanistan versus how we would operate in a MPA UAS role. Also, there are way more than 3 crew operating a single RPAS when you consider all the exploit task done on the SAR/GMTI and EO/IR (keeping it unclass) - all you do is swap out the IAs for "wet and dry" men.
Ever heard of General Ludd or the George Corrie Society? Try Google and see what it means to progress. Plus remember that "One person’s technological outrage is another’s miraculous salvation".
LJ
PS. Pontius, I'm not ignoring you but VinRouge answered your point for me!
No, I am not current or ex-Kipper, but the arguments being thrown back seem a little on the weak side to me. To be quite honest they are they same type (save for the actual capability) as those thrown up by the FJ community and other manned ISTAR assets. I agree that a force mix of manned and unmanned is what we need to field for now for the more dynamic tasks. But let's face it, if the MPA mission involved dynamic manoeuvring then we wouldn't have chosen a converted Comet airliner to do it, would we? Flying a Beyond Line Of Sight RPAS at low-level is simples because the satellite signal reaches down to sea level anywhere within the transponder's very big footprint. Why do we fly them at medium altitude right now in Afghanistan - simples, so the bad men with big beards can't hear us watching them!
You have to stop thinking about 1x RPAS servicing a single sub; you could use 10x RPAS and all the support for the cost of single MRA4 targetting that same sub. How's that for coverage? You have to stop thinking about how we operate MALE UAS in Afghanistan versus how we would operate in a MPA UAS role. Also, there are way more than 3 crew operating a single RPAS when you consider all the exploit task done on the SAR/GMTI and EO/IR (keeping it unclass) - all you do is swap out the IAs for "wet and dry" men.
Ever heard of General Ludd or the George Corrie Society? Try Google and see what it means to progress. Plus remember that "One person’s technological outrage is another’s miraculous salvation".
LJ
PS. Pontius, I'm not ignoring you but VinRouge answered your point for me!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad Rag
That was a near-earth orbit ASAT shot (865km away), the Ku sats are in geo-stationary (35,000km away). To shoot down a geo-stationary you would need to perform a Hohmann Transfer Orbit - that would give the defending satellite about 1/2 a days' notice that it's coming. You then just manoeuvre the satellite after the ASAT missile is on its way and it misses by miles.
By the way, most ASAT missions will commit fraticide of one's own capability as well. Also, if you go for an exo-atmospheric nuke then it would probably quickly escalate to about 20-30 minutes of "exchanges" and then the Cockroaches would inherit the Earth.
ASAT against anything above LEO just isn't a viable tactic in my opinion without risking all-out war.
The B Word
That was a near-earth orbit ASAT shot (865km away), the Ku sats are in geo-stationary (35,000km away). To shoot down a geo-stationary you would need to perform a Hohmann Transfer Orbit - that would give the defending satellite about 1/2 a days' notice that it's coming. You then just manoeuvre the satellite after the ASAT missile is on its way and it misses by miles.
By the way, most ASAT missions will commit fraticide of one's own capability as well. Also, if you go for an exo-atmospheric nuke then it would probably quickly escalate to about 20-30 minutes of "exchanges" and then the Cockroaches would inherit the Earth.
ASAT against anything above LEO just isn't a viable tactic in my opinion without risking all-out war.
The B Word
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon, iRaven
Are you both aware that the 8 MRA4 aircraft have already been paid for by you and I??
I fail to understand why you are so hell bent on just throwing away the thick end of £3 billion and starting a fresh with UAVs.
I can perhaps see a role for the UAV in future ASW/MAROPS perhaps, but we don't have them yet, we don't have any money to buy them yet, however we do have 8 MRA4's ready to go now.
As for all this about You have to stop thinking about 1x RPAS servicing a single sub; you could use 10x RPAS and all the support for the cost of single MRA4 targetting that same sub What are we going to do when we have more than a single sub to prosecute Leon?? call up more RPAS?
WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO BUY RPAS, don't you get it? What we do have are a bunch of MPAs that are probably going to be scrapped, at a ridiculous cost to us all. It is stupidity beyond belief, and all of your drum-banging about RPAS is great, but we can't afford them now.
Are you both aware that the 8 MRA4 aircraft have already been paid for by you and I??
I fail to understand why you are so hell bent on just throwing away the thick end of £3 billion and starting a fresh with UAVs.
I can perhaps see a role for the UAV in future ASW/MAROPS perhaps, but we don't have them yet, we don't have any money to buy them yet, however we do have 8 MRA4's ready to go now.
As for all this about You have to stop thinking about 1x RPAS servicing a single sub; you could use 10x RPAS and all the support for the cost of single MRA4 targetting that same sub What are we going to do when we have more than a single sub to prosecute Leon?? call up more RPAS?
WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO BUY RPAS, don't you get it? What we do have are a bunch of MPAs that are probably going to be scrapped, at a ridiculous cost to us all. It is stupidity beyond belief, and all of your drum-banging about RPAS is great, but we can't afford them now.
