I'm about the right size to fit into a Predator but why would I want to? Col Brunt clearly has no concept of how UAVs are designed or his argument is just taken to ridiculous extremes to suggest we're not moving with the times. UAVs/UCAVs should compliment the battlefield, not be the only weapon platform.

Another single service has-been without any knowledge; at least I bothered to do a few foot patrols with the guys in Umm Qasr before taking the mick. Maybe Col Brunt could be offered a flight in a FJ to show him what we can really do; you know, links with the community and all that jazz.

I think you will find Heighington in Col Brunts letter is in fact on Waddo's approach.

502246E 369959N
53° 13.013'N 30 28.213'W
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=53.21...18.5&r=0&src=2

Beware collateral damage 'cos the silly sod lives right next to a railway!!

Yep, you are missing something. 2 links - one for Warren's first letter and one for Blunt's letter of "support". Warren lives in Berkhamsted (appropriately) and Brunt lives near Waddo. However both are listed on BT.com:E :E :E :suspect:

Low Flying Complainers
 

One of the most vociferous complainers near a not very secret base in Rutland is an ex-RAF Air rank pilot! Has a name that rhymes with that of a well known, low achieving, British racing driver!

Col Brunt appears on the 4th, for those getting a link to the 5th try this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...lit/dt0401.xml

Roland - thank you.

Low Flier - that will do nicely!:E

It's a shame he hasn't painted Pi$$ off Biggles on his roof.....:}

We are now well into page 2 of this threead and not yet is there 1 argument to counter his claims.... all post so far are making fun of him, pointing out where he lives....but not one post is countering his argument.... Is that because he is correct and we are too ashamed to admit it ?

I refer to my post of this time last night.

I would add the further detail that CAS may be delivered using LGB/GPS guidance from high level but there are difficulties. If the guidance fails the weapon can miss by miles, literally. If the troops as danger-close you cannot take the risk that the coordinates may be inaccurate or weapons unserviceable.

A big bomb may not deliver the weapons effect that you want. HE or KE cannon or rocket may well be less dangerous to own troops and apply the correct level of force to the target.

To deliver HE or KE rounds involves getting down in to the weeds. Rolling in from 45 degrees and at high speed does not avoid the delivery aircraft getting down in the weeds. A high approach may be safe but a low departure may be needed. Either way low flying skills are needed.

AD aircraft also need to practise low level intercepts against the whole range of aircraft types for obvious reasons - Mathius Rust for example.

How's that?

I think it's more because it's such utter tosh that it's hardly worth trying to rebut, vecvec, although I note that PN, twonston and Stuff have all commented on why he's talking rubbish.

The letter is either a fishing expedition or (more worryingly), he genuinely thinks he's right.

The Torygraph will have printed it largely because it is nasty about the Typhoon, which the Torygraph hates with a passion, largely because of the word 'Euro' in the manufacturer's name.

They will not, however, have bothered to ask why, if Lt Col Brunt (rtd) is correct 1115 Flight was set up by the UAV-hating RAF hierarchy; or why the RAF, if so anti-UAV, is trying to persuade that nice Mr Brown (no 'e') to part with the cash for a couple more Predators. The possibility of finding out whether there are any operations where low flying (particularly by SH) might benefit from LL training will not have been investigated. And that's just the simple stuff they've missed.

Brunt hasn't asked those questions, and wouldn't want to even if he thought about it. Unless he was in full banter mode, his letter suggests that he probably lacks the flexibility of mind to bother to find out whether his assumptions are correct, since it might challenge the comfy little stereotypes he holds so dear.

This of course, presupposes that this isn't another of those massively entertaing fake letters by some sad walt with a onanistic techno-geek fixation with UAVs that the letters editor has failed to check out properly (I think it was the Times that fell victim to the last one where a Sea Cadet wrote in claiming to be a Lt Cdr??).

VVHA

I think the final link on my original post (which may not work now) answered the points more than satisfactorily. In case you didn't read it, it was about Chinook ops in Afg. When Chinny crews are getting routinely hit by small arms fire then the lower you can fly the safer you are. QED Low flying skills remain a vital part of training. Furthermore oven if the 3 Para Major didn't like the support he was getting from GR7s he did think A10 CAS was excellent. Excellent because it is delivered at low level and with lots of bullet bombs and rockets. Still requires low level practice. Both of these letter writers are exceptionally naive, and obviously out to promote their own agendas. Mr Warren doesn't like low level flying and Lt Col Blunt doesn't like the fact he bought a house under the approach to one of the largest RAF airfields in the country.:E

Unfortunately there will always be short-sighted bumbling old fools like Blunt who have little better to do than think of different ways to complain as they no longer have poor soldiers to shout and bawl at!!

It doesn;t matter where you are there are always this sort of individuals that know what happens at a given location, then buys a house right next to it and then complains loudly (with there full retired title on display) and makes themselves look like complete idiots. A very good csae in point - a retired Army officer bought a house very close to Porton Down, and specifically the exercise area. Now I don't know how many people are aware of this but there is a part of the exercise area called the battle run. The purpose of this part of the area is to enable platoon level tactics in a simulated NBC environment - this entails the large scale use of CS gas, from canisters, baton round/grenade launchers and the like (plus batsims). The run is only used on a very few number of days a year and the odd weekend for certain TA units. Guess what? Yes, first phone call of the morning or even on the day of the training within minutes of the first canister goes "pop", there is Colonel Blimp complaining loudly about the cloud drifting over his property!!! I am sure there are loads more examples similar to this.

Maybe part of the resettlement brief should be to remind retirees is that just because you retire from proffessional life you don't retire from the world of common sense or reason.:ugh:

If you want to avoid SA fire then surely you should fly higher?


I Couldn't agree more.... But LL Practice in Berkshire? Why ?

Why don't we return to the procedures for LL training we had in the 70's and 80's ?

Exactly, So bin the UKLFS as it is and produce a LF System which has a training benefit to our crews. Train our crews properly and we may see the bend of letters from Colonel Blunt.

Am I missing something here... would the person with the remote control for the UAV still not need to practice flying it low anyway?

Fly higher become a manpads target. Stay low avoid both!!:ugh:

BErkshire is not routinely used for low flying except by helos. See above!!:ugh: :ugh:

I'm not sure I want to see the bend of letters from Colonel Blunt.

Dear God, not the Low Flying thread again. It has been covered ad nauseam and the bottom line is that low flying must be practiced. By way of justifying my dismissal of Brunts' ridiculous letter, anyone who claims that the RAF is trying to install seats in UAVs, must have graduated from the same Staff College as General Melchett and is best ignored. Baaaaaaaaaaahh!

Did you write a letter of complaint about misrepresentation? And did they publish it?

Or was it the usual never let the truth get in the way of a good story?