RAF Reaper Drones to be controlled from the UK
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
A little aggressive iRaven but good points none the less. We could also rename the Thompson Building to this...
The Lollipop House
The Lollipop House
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Reaper attain an RAF core capability post cessation of AFG Ops 2014/15 - given it's current limitations for flight and the new Anglo/French announcement for a joint MALE UAS project?
Britain, France Treaty Has Borne 'First Fruits' - Defense News
If not, and it is seen as short term in the big scheme of things, then where is the cost effectiveness/value for money of spending the millions upon millions of pounds needed to increase capability, relocate the whole Reaper piece and continually finance the support contracts that will be put in place? Why not "borrow/rent" the additional capability from the USAF with the option to hand back when no longer required, use the savings to develop our own long term capabilities to bring to the coalition platform and move away from the expense of foreign military acquisitions.
Undoubtedly, Reaper has proven it's worth as a vital asset to current Ops and will continue to do so. Their value for money/increase in capability is not the concern its the financial implications of relocation given the constraints of the UK military budget.
Britain, France Treaty Has Borne 'First Fruits' - Defense News
If not, and it is seen as short term in the big scheme of things, then where is the cost effectiveness/value for money of spending the millions upon millions of pounds needed to increase capability, relocate the whole Reaper piece and continually finance the support contracts that will be put in place? Why not "borrow/rent" the additional capability from the USAF with the option to hand back when no longer required, use the savings to develop our own long term capabilities to bring to the coalition platform and move away from the expense of foreign military acquisitions.
Undoubtedly, Reaper has proven it's worth as a vital asset to current Ops and will continue to do so. Their value for money/increase in capability is not the concern its the financial implications of relocation given the constraints of the UK military budget.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scopwick
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here I am thinking that all the hard work my colleagues and I have put in, over the last couple of months, was important. Well, I shall just have to go on extended leave and let the "experts'"on the front line write all their own PFMs and countermeasures MDFs.
It's a little while since I left the EW world but the people at the AWC work incredibly hard to give the front line the best possible service but are frequently limited by limited funds, lack of skilled/experienced manpower and poor understanding of the limitations of the kit by senior management. I recall some incredibly naive suggestions from the front line so rather than belittle the work done at the AWC, if you don't like/don't understand/think you can do better, why don't you engage with them for everyone's benefit?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: lincs
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iRaven
My DV would be fragile if I actually told you the capabilities, strengths and weaknesses and any issues (none implied) affecting the TG & TRD as fitted to MRA4 as was and Sentinel as is on an open forum. Meanwhile thanks for your kind reply.
My DV would be fragile if I actually told you the capabilities, strengths and weaknesses and any issues (none implied) affecting the TG & TRD as fitted to MRA4 as was and Sentinel as is on an open forum. Meanwhile thanks for your kind reply.
I haven't seen anything useful come out of the AWC in years, the UTM is a joke, it took over 12 months to get Athene on DII, the PFMs are a mess because all the good people have left and most of the OA could be written by a frontline operator in 30 minutes flat - self licking lollipop comes to mind.
At least you knew there was always a copy of the CTTO manual in the SquIntO's can that you could get a look at!I also believe that the OA (Operational Analysis) that comes out is often well wide of the mark and is indicative of the break up of DERA/DRE and other research establishments (that became QinetiQ and DSTL) has left the front line military much poorer for decent advice.
Finally, the PFM generation capability that was once the envy of the world has suffered from 10 years of neglect and underinvestment following succesive ground campaigns in sandy places. Is this a fault of the individuals in the AWC? No, but it means it is just another area of this tri-service organisation that fails to deliver what we should have.
As Corporal Clott says, though, iRaven your venom may be a little strong towards PFMG. Although, again I agree that PFMG's points about not putting defensive aids on RPAS are misguided.
The B Word
PFMG
Cpl Clott and B Word are right and I let my anger get the better of me. For my rudeness I apologise.
I do stand by my opinion of the AWC in recent years though. Not a criticism of a particular individual, but more of the organisation that has "empire built" for far too long with diminishing returns. Just an opinion that would seem to accord with some on here.
iRaven
Cpl Clott and B Word are right and I let my anger get the better of me. For my rudeness I apologise.
I do stand by my opinion of the AWC in recent years though. Not a criticism of a particular individual, but more of the organisation that has "empire built" for far too long with diminishing returns. Just an opinion that would seem to accord with some on here.
iRaven
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Would it be appropriate to discuss a comparison between AWC and CTTO and the organisation before that like CFE and BCDU?
The latter were of course quite separate organisation with probably little or no cross-fertilisation between them. AFAIK CTTO was an attempt to both cut costs and bring tactics and trials under a central body where ideas could cross between roles. Maybe that goal was not wholly successful given that CTTO had many field offices and may not have been central enough. That said, they were colocated with front line units.
How, if it can be said, does AWC compare? Does it work in discrete cells all operating in splendid isolation?
The latter were of course quite separate organisation with probably little or no cross-fertilisation between them. AFAIK CTTO was an attempt to both cut costs and bring tactics and trials under a central body where ideas could cross between roles. Maybe that goal was not wholly successful given that CTTO had many field offices and may not have been central enough. That said, they were colocated with front line units.
How, if it can be said, does AWC compare? Does it work in discrete cells all operating in splendid isolation?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: lincs
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWC is a collection of many different sub organisations. I am as frustrated as the rest of you by the UTM but that is a TT wing product. OA, trials and the like are done by the TESs. EW Ops Wg produce PFMs. Yes they have suffered from underinvestment mostly due to PTs who don't see the value in EW. I think my point which has been taken so badly out of context is that DAS on RPAS would be no better; in fact because the air vehicle is unmanned would probably be a lot worse.
So if I can get everyone on side without a AWC versus the world pi55ing contest my point is that PTs rarely put enough money into DAS procurement and RPAS would probably be worse still. Well being although misguiding comments like "It must be cheap and simple" do not help educate the budget holders who screw us over at every turn.
Lets start by telling people the truth. It's complicated, difficult to get right, will probably cost double what you think it should and will take an incredibly long time to field a credible system.
So if I can get everyone on side without a AWC versus the world pi55ing contest my point is that PTs rarely put enough money into DAS procurement and RPAS would probably be worse still. Well being although misguiding comments like "It must be cheap and simple" do not help educate the budget holders who screw us over at every turn.
Lets start by telling people the truth. It's complicated, difficult to get right, will probably cost double what you think it should and will take an incredibly long time to field a credible system.
PFMG
Fair points. There is an alternative by buying military off the shelf that reduces the costs. Here's some examples to show what I'm talking about:
English Electric built 329 Lightnings, mostly sold to RAF, with just 51 to export via Saudi and Kuwait.
McDonnel Douglas built and sold over 5,000 F4 Phantoms
Vickers built 54 VC10s (civ and mil).
Boeing built over 1,000 707 variants.
Beech/Piper built 1000s of Barons and Senecas whilst Beagle (not BEagle!) built 79 Bassets - the Bassets are way better than the US counterparts but too expensive.
The Dutch/Belgians/Norwegians bought F16s with defensive aids and SPJs for nearly half what we paid for Tornado or Typhoon in equivalent numbers.
Put quite simply, we can no longer afford to support a "sovereign" capability - anyway, the use of "sovereign" is misleading when parts of our military aircraft are sourced from outside the UK anyway (and subject to ITAR, etc...). Examples of this are IFF transponders, EGI navigation units, GPS modules, tyres (although Dunlop still produce some aircraft tyres in Birmingham, they are actively looking to send their manufacture overseas), radios, datalinks, etc, etc...
If we can tap into the US equipment's economy of scale but program it with data collect through our own means (don't forget that we get our RIVET JOINTs in 2013/14), then surely this becomes affordable?
Global Hawk has DAS, Reaper will have when the US need to fit it (no requirement for Afg at present) and I'm pretty sure X-47 will have some sexy DAS on it.
iRaven
Fair points. There is an alternative by buying military off the shelf that reduces the costs. Here's some examples to show what I'm talking about:
English Electric built 329 Lightnings, mostly sold to RAF, with just 51 to export via Saudi and Kuwait.
McDonnel Douglas built and sold over 5,000 F4 Phantoms
Vickers built 54 VC10s (civ and mil).
Boeing built over 1,000 707 variants.
Beech/Piper built 1000s of Barons and Senecas whilst Beagle (not BEagle!) built 79 Bassets - the Bassets are way better than the US counterparts but too expensive.
The Dutch/Belgians/Norwegians bought F16s with defensive aids and SPJs for nearly half what we paid for Tornado or Typhoon in equivalent numbers.
Put quite simply, we can no longer afford to support a "sovereign" capability - anyway, the use of "sovereign" is misleading when parts of our military aircraft are sourced from outside the UK anyway (and subject to ITAR, etc...). Examples of this are IFF transponders, EGI navigation units, GPS modules, tyres (although Dunlop still produce some aircraft tyres in Birmingham, they are actively looking to send their manufacture overseas), radios, datalinks, etc, etc...
If we can tap into the US equipment's economy of scale but program it with data collect through our own means (don't forget that we get our RIVET JOINTs in 2013/14), then surely this becomes affordable?
Global Hawk has DAS, Reaper will have when the US need to fit it (no requirement for Afg at present) and I'm pretty sure X-47 will have some sexy DAS on it.
iRaven
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: lincs
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iRaven,
Absolutely spot on and proves my point exactly.
AN/ALR 56 is on hundreds if not thousands of F-16s and a whole bunch of C-130s; US and Canada have hundreds alone.
We put it on the C-130K Mk3a. Should have been a total no brainer to get it to work properly.
Integration onto the frame by Marshall's - reasonably straight forward.
Herc IPT didn't fund the support system properly though and programmers were left in the dark re training etc. Also OFP was off the shelf from USAF (Warner Robbins). Throw in some nav feed issues for good measure.
Outcome....Well I'll let someone from Lyneham comment.
Absolutely spot on and proves my point exactly.
AN/ALR 56 is on hundreds if not thousands of F-16s and a whole bunch of C-130s; US and Canada have hundreds alone.
We put it on the C-130K Mk3a. Should have been a total no brainer to get it to work properly.
Integration onto the frame by Marshall's - reasonably straight forward.
Herc IPT didn't fund the support system properly though and programmers were left in the dark re training etc. Also OFP was off the shelf from USAF (Warner Robbins). Throw in some nav feed issues for good measure.
Outcome....Well I'll let someone from Lyneham comment.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Did I Tell You I Was A Harrier Pilot
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
iRaven and The B Word,
You miss the point of the hard work carried out by so many in the AWC in your earlier anti-AWC posts. The test and evaluation of newly delivered and shiny hardware is important; if this was not the case then everyone in the AWC would already be redundant as a result of SDSR. So, please ask yourselves: what is the point of testing and developing new kit, why not just buy off the shelf and plug it in – why all this faffing about when the Americans can do it?
Perhaps the reason why we have learned to carry out systems and flight test is because of bitter past experience discovering that the glossy brochures should not be taken as truth. There are plenty of shocking examples of inaccurate product-tin-descriptions, none of which are for this forum. Sometimes the promises made by a hardware manufacturer don’t always meet the capability requirement and the front line operators don’t need to discover at the critical moment that their new off the shelf capability sometimes sh*ts the bed. So, test and evaluation will always take place while we live in a world full of manufacturers who deliver products to make a profit. If it is discovered that something doesn’t meet spec then work has to take place to make it good enough – and usually just good enough is all you can hope for.
I am trying to resist the temptation to turn this ‘defence of test and evaluation’ into a boring diatribe about the contract writers, the variable direction of some of the PTs and the MOD’s hard to justify need to relentlessly buy British. I share your pain about some of what we have to work with and the delay in getting that limited capability. However, IMHO – this really is the fault of our procurement process and those who write the crazy pro-manufacturer contracts. PFMG – spot on.
You miss the point of the hard work carried out by so many in the AWC in your earlier anti-AWC posts. The test and evaluation of newly delivered and shiny hardware is important; if this was not the case then everyone in the AWC would already be redundant as a result of SDSR. So, please ask yourselves: what is the point of testing and developing new kit, why not just buy off the shelf and plug it in – why all this faffing about when the Americans can do it?
Perhaps the reason why we have learned to carry out systems and flight test is because of bitter past experience discovering that the glossy brochures should not be taken as truth. There are plenty of shocking examples of inaccurate product-tin-descriptions, none of which are for this forum. Sometimes the promises made by a hardware manufacturer don’t always meet the capability requirement and the front line operators don’t need to discover at the critical moment that their new off the shelf capability sometimes sh*ts the bed. So, test and evaluation will always take place while we live in a world full of manufacturers who deliver products to make a profit. If it is discovered that something doesn’t meet spec then work has to take place to make it good enough – and usually just good enough is all you can hope for.
I am trying to resist the temptation to turn this ‘defence of test and evaluation’ into a boring diatribe about the contract writers, the variable direction of some of the PTs and the MOD’s hard to justify need to relentlessly buy British. I share your pain about some of what we have to work with and the delay in getting that limited capability. However, IMHO – this really is the fault of our procurement process and those who write the crazy pro-manufacturer contracts. PFMG – spot on.
Champagne anyone...?
Spot on and this just highlights why the RAF is destined to just vanish up its own arse. Just a dreadful arrogance that basically assumes that the Brits can better any system in the world and that the RAF is then entitled to have that system, regardless of cost. The result 90% of the time is a system that is 5 years late, 3 times more expensive, unintegrateable and fails to meet any of the stated requirements.
I for one would rather have a system off the shelf that is deemed good enough for some minor operator like, say, AFSOC instead of dicking about trying to procure some fictional, unbuildable uber system that promises to be able to defeat the Death Star for a mere 10 times the price before cancelling it and deciding we can probably get by with nothing at all instead.
On the plus side, we do provide a continual source of amusement to every other operator in the world.
I for one would rather have a system off the shelf that is deemed good enough for some minor operator like, say, AFSOC instead of dicking about trying to procure some fictional, unbuildable uber system that promises to be able to defeat the Death Star for a mere 10 times the price before cancelling it and deciding we can probably get by with nothing at all instead.
On the plus side, we do provide a continual source of amusement to every other operator in the world.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart
The UK is not the only one who suffers this, I think the Australian ADF suffers from that very good description you posted a shown in the Aust Helo thread on this forum.
.
The UK is not the only one who suffers this, I think the Australian ADF suffers from that very good description you posted a shown in the Aust Helo thread on this forum.
.
