Watchkeeper
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a mere engineer, I read with great amusement the general chit chat regarding the UK industry's lack of forward thinking with respect to UAV development posted on this web site.
Whilst not directly involved in any UAV programme I have chatted/been talked at about the future of UAV's by a AV chap on several occasions, having worked on several UAV projects I feel he is well placed to have an opinion. One thing came to be discussed on every occasion and that was the RAF's lack of interest in anything beyond Reaper, the sole reason given for this was that we (the RAF) are an aircrew led force and quite clearly they (the aircrew leaders) are never going to give up traditional fixed wing assets for UAV's, in fact lets be honest this is demonstrated by the renaming of UAV's to Remotely Piloted Aircraft this to me show their complete fear that one day they will be out on their ear! His comments however were aimed solely at the RAF as from his experience the Army and Navy were far more receptive to UAV development, presumably because the decision making was not carried out by aviators!
Whilst we may not be leading the world on UAV tech I cannot help but think we are only just behind the leaders what with the launch of BAE Taranis or does this not count as it is planned to be autonomous and will not require any significant aircrew input.
Still engineers will be required to fix them as they will still break!!!
Whilst not directly involved in any UAV programme I have chatted/been talked at about the future of UAV's by a AV chap on several occasions, having worked on several UAV projects I feel he is well placed to have an opinion. One thing came to be discussed on every occasion and that was the RAF's lack of interest in anything beyond Reaper, the sole reason given for this was that we (the RAF) are an aircrew led force and quite clearly they (the aircrew leaders) are never going to give up traditional fixed wing assets for UAV's, in fact lets be honest this is demonstrated by the renaming of UAV's to Remotely Piloted Aircraft this to me show their complete fear that one day they will be out on their ear! His comments however were aimed solely at the RAF as from his experience the Army and Navy were far more receptive to UAV development, presumably because the decision making was not carried out by aviators!
Whilst we may not be leading the world on UAV tech I cannot help but think we are only just behind the leaders what with the launch of BAE Taranis or does this not count as it is planned to be autonomous and will not require any significant aircrew input.
Still engineers will be required to fix them as they will still break!!!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South West
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not as if the idea is a new one
Westland "Wideeye" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
Westland "Wideeye" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the RA use it for spotting targets/fall of shot? And more importantly the AAC pilots are clearly not as insecure as RAF pilots so are happy for the UAV to be operated by the people who will use it the most and get the best use from it?
Re: TARANIS
The US are well ahead with X-45 and X-47. The EADS Barracuda was also flying long ago at Goose Bay. The NeuroN is at the same stage as TARANIS, but it has multi-national funding and backing - if TARANIS makes it past testing on a pole I will be gobsmacked. Already the excuses are coming out of Warton about "we're not sure we can keep the fuel cool"
As for autonomous ops, that's the problem with eggheads, they can't see how unpalatable an autonomous killing machine would be on the battlefield. ROE and LOAC would not allow it, plus also non-proliferation treaties like MTCR (which stops proliferation of cruise missiles, etc...)
I stand by my comments. Our products are inferior and we need to de-couple our technology breakthroughs from the fatcat shareholders at Warton - they are strangling us!
iRaven
The US are well ahead with X-45 and X-47. The EADS Barracuda was also flying long ago at Goose Bay. The NeuroN is at the same stage as TARANIS, but it has multi-national funding and backing - if TARANIS makes it past testing on a pole I will be gobsmacked. Already the excuses are coming out of Warton about "we're not sure we can keep the fuel cool"
As for autonomous ops, that's the problem with eggheads, they can't see how unpalatable an autonomous killing machine would be on the battlefield. ROE and LOAC would not allow it, plus also non-proliferation treaties like MTCR (which stops proliferation of cruise missiles, etc...)
I stand by my comments. Our products are inferior and we need to de-couple our technology breakthroughs from the fatcat shareholders at Warton - they are strangling us!
iRaven
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk, I would have thought so yes, my point was more to suggest that that AAC aviators are clearly less insecure and allow other branches to operate aviation assets.
iRaven, as an engineer on Tornado I'm well aware of the limitations of the great BAE, which is why I made the point that we are not the leaders in the field. As above my point was not about accuracy of statement more about the general situation and the fact that the RAF has been held back by its own leadership's poor thinking and not by industry (in this case). I believe that the UAV IPT was made up at least until recently with older generation Sqn Ldr aircrew and this alone is enough to result in failure. Until we realise that the UAV or whatever it is been called this week to justify aircrew jobs, is here to stay then we are doomed to fail in any UK development.
iRaven, as an engineer on Tornado I'm well aware of the limitations of the great BAE, which is why I made the point that we are not the leaders in the field. As above my point was not about accuracy of statement more about the general situation and the fact that the RAF has been held back by its own leadership's poor thinking and not by industry (in this case). I believe that the UAV IPT was made up at least until recently with older generation Sqn Ldr aircrew and this alone is enough to result in failure. Until we realise that the UAV or whatever it is been called this week to justify aircrew jobs, is here to stay then we are doomed to fail in any UK development.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sturb, it would be difficult to find a more wrong post than your last 2. The RAF have had a plan to replace Reaper for quite some time now. The timeline has slipped due to aircraft issues / the end of Afg ops and political changes, particularly a realignment to France. The RN by comparison are only just starting to realise that some sort of large UAV off a carrier would be a good thing and are considering their options.
Meanwhile the RAF are doubling their Reaper fleet at a time when whole capabilities are being scrapped - an unprecedented move I would suggest. I would agree that many in the RAF still don't understand the full capabilities of Reaper, but with that there has to be an understanding of the limitations as well. Those limitations are often not the issues the ill-informed majority often spout, but other issues. Good article in the Guardian last week, for general interest. RAF tackles Taliban in Afghanistan
Lastly I have to say that your reference to the "UAV IPT" was pretty insulting. The guys involved in Reaper are extremely pro active and capable and should take a good deal of credit for fielding such a capability in a ridiculously short time and the guys involved in Scavenger can't be held responsible for changing governments and industry's products. And no, I'm not in the IPT.
I know this is a rumour network, but these "I was chatting to a bloke at the bar" stories are getting silly.
Meanwhile the RAF are doubling their Reaper fleet at a time when whole capabilities are being scrapped - an unprecedented move I would suggest. I would agree that many in the RAF still don't understand the full capabilities of Reaper, but with that there has to be an understanding of the limitations as well. Those limitations are often not the issues the ill-informed majority often spout, but other issues. Good article in the Guardian last week, for general interest. RAF tackles Taliban in Afghanistan
Lastly I have to say that your reference to the "UAV IPT" was pretty insulting. The guys involved in Reaper are extremely pro active and capable and should take a good deal of credit for fielding such a capability in a ridiculously short time and the guys involved in Scavenger can't be held responsible for changing governments and industry's products. And no, I'm not in the IPT.
I know this is a rumour network, but these "I was chatting to a bloke at the bar" stories are getting silly.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South West
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different question, if a UAV ends up a certain size, weight and cost due to its requirements for mission avionics then perhaps it ends up missing the point as you may as well have a proper aircraft which can do other things than pure ISTAR and doesn't have a UAVs operating limitations?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NJHr, ignoring the proper aircraft jab, UAVs are multi mission platforms doing far more than simple EO/IR ISTAR. The more you do the more you save as the ever growing crew can all operate from home base, thus avoiding the additional manning burden and training/ops costs. Of course this has to be balanced against satellite bandwidth costs, but given that you are already sending full colour FMV anything additional tends to be minor. One of the reasons Pred and Reaper are so successful is that everything as actually very simple and proven from airframe and engines to weapons and avionics (except the sat link).
UAVs can't do everything, though - there are times that manned aircraft are better, but generally speaking long loiter surveillance is perfect for UAVs and these days strike missions require long loiter more and more, hence the additional utility of Reaper in Afg.
As an aside I saw somewhere recently (can't remember where but it was open source) that the Watchkeeper buy was costing £37 mil per aircraft including systems, support/running costs etc and at about the same time the 5 additional Reapers worked out at £27 mil per aircraft with the same factors included. Of course you have to be very careful with these numbers as I am sure the contracts weren't anywhere near identical, but it makes you think!
UAVs can't do everything, though - there are times that manned aircraft are better, but generally speaking long loiter surveillance is perfect for UAVs and these days strike missions require long loiter more and more, hence the additional utility of Reaper in Afg.
As an aside I saw somewhere recently (can't remember where but it was open source) that the Watchkeeper buy was costing £37 mil per aircraft including systems, support/running costs etc and at about the same time the 5 additional Reapers worked out at £27 mil per aircraft with the same factors included. Of course you have to be very careful with these numbers as I am sure the contracts weren't anywhere near identical, but it makes you think!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Grim,
We are all entitled to our own opinions, for what it's worth I have been honest and upfront about my position in the RAF and my opinion is based on what I see at a FJ station with an awful lot of FJ aircrew around. The guy who's thoughts and opinions I had mentioned is a close work mate (who has spent an awful lot of time working in the UAV community) and the conversations were far from mere bar chat. In the end it all makes very little difference to me as I will still be working away fixing the damn things should they have a pilot sat in them or not!
You clearly seem very informed, but are not in the IPT? So does that mean your opinions are formed from bar chit chat too?
We are all entitled to our own opinions, for what it's worth I have been honest and upfront about my position in the RAF and my opinion is based on what I see at a FJ station with an awful lot of FJ aircrew around. The guy who's thoughts and opinions I had mentioned is a close work mate (who has spent an awful lot of time working in the UAV community) and the conversations were far from mere bar chat. In the end it all makes very little difference to me as I will still be working away fixing the damn things should they have a pilot sat in them or not!
You clearly seem very informed, but are not in the IPT? So does that mean your opinions are formed from bar chit chat too?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sturb
I take your point about being entitled to opinions, but the problem is someone else here or a journo will pick it up as "fact". I try not to let it worry me, this is a rumour network after all!
As for me the clue is in the name (and the location, but that is a little cryptic).
I take your point about being entitled to opinions, but the problem is someone else here or a journo will pick it up as "fact". I try not to let it worry me, this is a rumour network after all!
As for me the clue is in the name (and the location, but that is a little cryptic).
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RA flying Watchkeeper
Looks likes history reversing itself. AAC was initally formed by the mergerof the RA AOP flights and the Glider Pilot Regiment (c1957?). Fits in with the old mans history as he initally joined the RA and left a few years latter via 656 Sqdn AAC
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Grim
All very fair points and I for one do not wish to stir in any way. As a member of the TGRF I have also had to bite the tongue with respect to comments on here during the Herrick handover from GR9!!!!
May your xbox gaming continue for a long time to come
All very fair points and I for one do not wish to stir in any way. As a member of the TGRF I have also had to bite the tongue with respect to comments on here during the Herrick handover from GR9!!!!
May your xbox gaming continue for a long time to come
Sturbs
Another misconception. My daughter is an absolute dab hand on Star Wars Lego on the Playstation, but she would be absolutely pants at flying armed-ISR within a complex ATO/ACO whilst providing on call CAS with a 10ton aircraft armed with Hellfire and GBU-12.
Maybe we should leave you to your Haynes Manual?
For what its worth there is only one RAF SO2 on the UAS PT (note it is not an IPT) and he is a very good requirements manager as the only RAF man in the team. So your friend "in the know" is telling you porkies, my friend. In fact the UAS PT is very small when you consider how many aircraft they have to look after - another saving over the manpower budget compared to manned assets.
When it comes to bandwidth costs for a typical 3-5 megabit Ku link, this typically is roughly £100k per megabit per second per year (commercial rates). Therefore, a single predator orbit would be of the order of £500k per year. The capitation cost (ie. Full cost of a serviceman) of a Sgt is about £70k per year and for a Flt Lt about £90k. Therefore, for the price of 4 crews (4x Flt Lts and 4x Sgts) is the same as the Ku bandwidth for a year. Now to run a single 24hr orbit would take 12 crews on Ku band satcom - to run it from within theatre would take 3 times that amount ( so there's the monetary saving of about £1M per year).
Finally, the US have been looking at the next generation of UAS that may have automated ground refuelling and rectification from robotic servicing (similar to the robots that conduct car manufacture) - so I wouldn't be too complacent about your job being safe in the next 10-20 years! The Holy Grail would be to reduce the manpower footprint in the forward area (ie. Ground crew and aircrew).
LJ
Xbox...
Maybe we should leave you to your Haynes Manual?
For what its worth there is only one RAF SO2 on the UAS PT (note it is not an IPT) and he is a very good requirements manager as the only RAF man in the team. So your friend "in the know" is telling you porkies, my friend. In fact the UAS PT is very small when you consider how many aircraft they have to look after - another saving over the manpower budget compared to manned assets.
When it comes to bandwidth costs for a typical 3-5 megabit Ku link, this typically is roughly £100k per megabit per second per year (commercial rates). Therefore, a single predator orbit would be of the order of £500k per year. The capitation cost (ie. Full cost of a serviceman) of a Sgt is about £70k per year and for a Flt Lt about £90k. Therefore, for the price of 4 crews (4x Flt Lts and 4x Sgts) is the same as the Ku bandwidth for a year. Now to run a single 24hr orbit would take 12 crews on Ku band satcom - to run it from within theatre would take 3 times that amount ( so there's the monetary saving of about £1M per year).
Finally, the US have been looking at the next generation of UAS that may have automated ground refuelling and rectification from robotic servicing (similar to the robots that conduct car manufacture) - so I wouldn't be too complacent about your job being safe in the next 10-20 years! The Holy Grail would be to reduce the manpower footprint in the forward area (ie. Ground crew and aircrew).
LJ