ACMI and rangeless ACMI systems - your views?

[Steve Davies]

I am currently researching ACMI and rangeless ACMI systems for a forthcoming magazine article, and wondered if any fast jet aircrew here had views on either type of system based on their own experiences.

By rangeless systems, I mean GPS/IMU based pods that transmit direct to eachother and do not need to operate within a pre-defined, ground instrumented, range such as that over the North Sea.

How much of a benefit do rangless pod features such as Real Time Kill Notification and no-drop bomb scoring provide? In addition, does having to book range time and operate within a constrained geographical area with traditional ACMI pods have disadvantages, in your opinion? Have you used a rangelss system, and do you believe that there is a time and place for both systems? My understanding is that whilst rangeless systems offer some advanced functionality(such as RTKN), they also sacrafice some of the more sophisticated de-briefing functions. What are your views?

Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you would rather discuss off-forum, but all help and views much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[force_ale]

Reopen Deci! I haven't eaten a decent piece of donkey since it closed.

[Roymac]

Deci - oh the Deci Red - beers in the Pig-and-tape - but I digress! In my opinion the range ACMI system has long gone past it's sell by date. I have extensive first hand experience of both types and RAIDS (or equal) wins everytime. The ability to load via solid state bricks, overlay replays on LFCs or ERCs and the inter-operability with unco-ordinated formations (i.e. unbriefed affili - TOO etc) makes it a far better training tool. Which is precisely why we are still waiting for it! The RAF didn't get where it is today by paying attention to the coalface and buying what they need.......

[Chris Kebab]

Roymac - good point on the whereabouts of a rangeless pod. The OEUs flew the GEC RAIDS pods a couple of years back and were suddenly told that GEC were out of the frame (GEC then sadly got taken over by Wasto). This was despite having what seemed a good solution. We then find out that the contract has gone to some division of Wasto who didn't even have a design. Complete lunacy.

Never understood it all. Would someone in the know care to reveal why the GEC RAIDS pod was dropped and when the front line are ever going to see the mythical winning competitor. Will it still be called RAIDS.

Then again do we really want it? - I always enjoy a good bunfight at the de-brief. And Deci, I'm coming over all sentimental, did we really get barred from Forte village, oh cringe!

[ORAC]

As I understand it, it came down to security. The pods transmit unencrypted data which could allow the calculation of launch range and other permitted data. The US came down like a ton of bricks and the system was ditched as unacceptable.

This was discussed in another thread a while back.

[messybeast]

Chris Kebab

[Never understood it all. Would someone in the know care to reveal why the GEC RAIDS pod was dropped and when the front line are ever going to see the mythical winning competitor. Will it still be called RAIDS.]

Simple answer Chris - Price! GEC RAIDS was proven & integrated on all the target aircraft except Shar but cost more than the "paper" Matra BAE Dynamics one.

ORAC

[As I understand it, it came down to security. The pods transmit unencrypted data which could allow the calculation of launch range and other permitted data. The US came down like a ton of bricks and the system was ditched as unacceptable.]

Not true. Both systems had the same problem, because they used the same Israeli datalink. GEC knew the problem was going to happen, had a fix and even offered a fully US cleared datalink but MoD said security wouldn't be a problem. They were wrong The US did as you said after the contract was placed with MBD.

All history now. Shame the system isn't in service, it was a good idea and could still work well.

Not prepared to go any further either on or off forum.

[Steve Davies]

Roymac,

Thanks for your views. If I may ask one final question? Were there *any* advantages to a tethered ACMI system in your view?

Cheers

[Roymac]

As Chris Keebab commented, the face-to-face element of the mission is always good value (and entertaiment sometimes!). If the mission brief is done face-to-face, the training objectives have a better chance of being achieved. While the debrief being done together means that learning points are not missed and everyone generally gets a better understanding of the why/when/what happened. Then there is the pub afterwards.... But a co-located situation requires a detachment to be planned, approved and executed; something which is becoming increasingly difficult in these days of reducing resouces (hardware and human). As an aside, the quickest way to start an argument in our crewroom is to ask when was the last time the Sqn sent crews and jets to TLP!!

[SixOfTheBest]

messybeast,

You're wrong. The Raids solution was just too feasible. After all, the halls of power (read that as Abbey Wood.........Mmmmmm) couldn't possibly go for something that was low risk, could they? and besides, people kept banging their heads on the sharp fins....ouchy ouch! Never mind though, the WOS solution is awesome. It can communicate with its own arse, has a range of over 2000 micrometres and comes with special adapters that only BAe sell. In addition, it is compatible with all other pods that BAe sell (well 50% of them anyway). As an aside, and on a more serious note, I was the Proj Pilot for Raids for the AWC buy (7 of them left at the last count......F3's.......Ouchy ouch). Funny that OR/Abbey/God never approached any of the OEU's for feedback..........

[tu chan go]

The only problem with the TLP system is that is does not transmit anything from the pods, it simply records all the flight parameters of the jet carrying it. After landing, the pods are all loaded into the computer and the replay can take place. Any non-trackers or aircraft that cannot carry the pod (mainly the French!) can be placed on the magnetic display board at the critical moments.

The main disadvantage of this system is that there is NO possibility of Real Time Kill Notification or Removal. Each engagement has to be assessed by the pilot during the playback as the active missile firers frequently do not have their target on their radar screens at the moment of impact.

In addition, each nation uses different criteria when assessing the performance of their individual systems. Thus RTKN is not possible.

[Chris Kebab]

Thanks Six. That sounds a bit more like it. Good reality check there.

So can we assume that having lost two years the Matra BAe design now has a fully secure datalink? Has it actually flown yet? And will it still be called RAIDS? Are we ever going to see it?

The TLP pod is neat as far as it goes but shows it limitations these days (and it's not that old!).

[gaylord]

The person to blame is 'Mr Smith' and his merry bunch at the IPT at Abbey Wood. I've never worked with such a sad bunch of un-informed, six-covering idiots in my life.

It is scandalous that a NATO-wide RAID System with 'real-time' kill removal plus all the other safety features is not yet in service.

[Steve Davies]

Pardon my ignorance, but why does the RAF not simply source an off-the-shelf solution from the US? URITS for example, is used by the USAFE and has RTKN, NDBS and DL capability. It is also exceptionally reliable and cost effective.

[Roymac]

The concept of "smart procurement" is something that has easily eluded the combined talents of MoD Main Building and Abbey Wood since the begining of time.

[Steve Davies]

So is the RAF still training exclusively at the tethered ACMI range over the North Sea? Do you not have any rangeless systems in use?

[tu chan go]

Steve

Yes we are

and no we don't!!!!

[gaylord]

Steve,

The reasons URITS was not chosen are:

a. It wasn't offered because it did not exist at the time.
b. It uses a data-link protocol that is incompatable with the other Euro-NATO RAIDS.

The European data-link protocol, USAFE included, should all be compatable as agreed at the NATO ACMI WG. Unfortunately, USAFE - for reasons of their own - chose a system that will never be compatable with the rest of Europe.

As to why the NATO ACMI WG allowed this to happen ? Well.......

Lastly, URITS is not a 'well proven & reliable' system. As of 12 months ago no 'real-time' weapon fly-outs had been performed and no data was available for data-link blanking at realistic BVR ranges. Another problem was that any piece of the equipment that had been hung on a USAFE F-15C/E became 'US Eyes Only'.

[Steve Davies]

Thanks for the replies. I really appreciate your help.

Am I correct in surmising then, that NATO have already defined a standard architecture/specification for a rangeless ACMI pod? I have trawled though the major ACMI players' web sites, but have found no reference to any such standard.

I understood that URITS had not demonstrated RTKN because the USAFE have yet to give it the final go ahead. Is someone pulling the wool over my eyes?

How important is it, and how how much benefit would be derived from using compatible ACMI systems to fight opponents from foreign nations? With the secrecy surrounding the WEZ and DLZ figures for various missiles, would the RTKN feature really be of that much use in this particular scenario?

Sorry to drone on about the subject, but I would like to make sure that I am getting the right end of the stick.

Thanks in advance.

[gaylord]

Steve,

Hope this clarifies things for you;

There is/was no STANAG for the data-link protocol for RAIDS. It was agreed by the NATO ACMI WG that a STANAG would be based on the first system that was ordered by member nations. Unfortunately, USAFE said that the RAF's buy of 7 pods for trial purposes didnot count as a firm order and that their system should be the basis for a STANAG. It was all down hill from there with lots of finger pointing and name calling. The result is that there is now no 'standard' for ACMI data-links, and industry is not helping.

If I was you I would ask the URITS team to look at some hard test results before believing them - best of luck!!

On the security issue; the initial RAF solution was to have a 'buffer' between secure aircraft systems and RAIDS together with a 'sanitized' data-link. If the data-link becomes encrypted most of the flight safety aspects of the system are lost.

The missile fly-outs (LSZs etc) can be built around generic, agreed parameters. The arbiter of good taste would be somebody like TLP. As there is no way to 'instantly rebirth' with these systems or imput 'pilot called kills' full aircraft integration together with agreed missile models is quite an important factor for realistic and valid traininig.

Good job this is a 'rumour' net!!!

[Steve Davies]

Gaylod, many thanks for clarifying things!

Thanks to all who replied.

Cheers