OOOps Reaper UAV down
 

Found this thought it might be of interest.
http://www.modoracle.com/news/RAF-De...l?category=all
Is this the most expensive loss to date??
Odd that they sent SBS to remove the important bits, then used a Harrier to destroy the evidence. Would it not have been better for the SBS to set charges and be 100% certain it was destroyed?
Be lucky
David

You are assuming that the men in black had their demolitions kit with them. Seems like they weren't planning to use it, and so didn't have it in their Bergens.

Not much call for it when fighting Terry, perhaps, as he tends to do quite well without first-world infrastructure.

Why couldn't they just chopper it out for repair? They only weigh about LB 10k at mtow, so with the fuel and payload gone surely it could have been retrieved??

Am fairly certain that a Chinook or MH53 could have done the job.

Quote:

---

The six-month-old Reaper, flown by a remote pilot

---

Whatever happened to everyone all mucking in and having a laugh?

"A team of SBS men was dropped in to the crash site by helicopter to salvage top secret gear ..... "

maybe it was a Lynx?

You can bet the wreck would attract Terry T like flies. Best to get the Clever Bits in your webbing quickly and then tw@t the rest with a bomb. Also, Terry might be a bit wary of getting too close with a GR lurking overhead - gives you time to exfil smartish. We don't know but it might have come down in Terry's back yard; you wouldn't want to f@rt about lifting it out in that situation. Blast the bits and then scarper.

If it was basically still in one piece, I would guess that it would make a very dodgy underslung load as that big, low-speed wing would "fly".

Very true, but a droque 'chute could possibly control that. It is more likely that it was never considered before, but I dare say that JATE are onto it now :E

Ah Yes.:)

"Bloggs, where are the three Reapers I bought?"

"Erm, yes, well Your Airship, one hasn't been delivered just yet, we, erm, blew one up and the other was sort of pickled off a Chinook on trials with JATE Sire".

Making Sense...?
 

Okay, let's see if I've got this one right:

UAVs are good because they don't hazard our people, and replace more expensive manned aircraft.

So.... when one gets shot down, we have to send a helicopter (expensive) to deliver special forces personnel (expensive) to the crash site (dangerous) to recover kit we don't want bad guys to get while being covered by a Harrier (really expensive) which then uses a PGB (ungodly expensive) to blow the thing up (dangerous).

Is it just me, or is there a flaw in the military thinking here?

It might seem a bit extreme, but perhaps we could have solved more problems than we raised, if we'd left it a day or so, pulled our mates back and then done the job with Trident! :E

Advo

Who picked it up...
 

Just a point of accuracy... it was not the boys in Black. :=

It was in fact the boys in Blue (well deserts actually, but with a blue beret) :D flown there by the boys and girls in blue.

and no doubt protected by the boys in green, flying shotgun as usual

I suppose the downside of being a remote pilot is that you can't see the ice building up on the wings!!!!! So in true procurement style in fixing the problem after the fact, lets start recruiting dwarves. A Top Gun Mini-ME!

g (9.81),

Do you know something we don't ?? Has the BOI announced it's findings yet??

G :confused:

gijoe,

I know naating ( spanish accent ), just idle speculation, rumour and conjecture - but it is a fact that you can't see any ice build up on the wings for that matter !!!!

No it is not.

You are talking hoop.

If the ice detectors go off you just spin the ball to look at the wings. Rocket Science

Jeeves, just watch this a mo whilst I go for a pee..............................................bugger:*

Is this the same Reaper referred to in the comments section of this "exclusive" from the Lincolnshire Echo (second only to The Sun for the accuracy of its reports): here.

Interesting, but decidedly disjointed, video may be worth a look.

Do they really sound like they are dragging tin cans behind them?

ODD It would appear to be in full U.S. colour scheme. Sounds like my old Jawa 49cc moped. All the support crew are in scruffy civvies. Does it really get that dark that quick out there or does it actually take that long to prepare for a flight?
Anyone recognise the unit badges on the "pilots" uniform don't look RAF to me.
Be lucky
David

It's not a "British" Reaper, but an American one assigned to the 42nd Attack Squadron (that could be jointly operated by UK personnel but not the case here). The only Brit involvement looks like the Flight Sergeant at the end working as the sensor operator.

There is a better article here.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2025624/posts

Is it correct that the 39 Sqn lost a 2nd Reaper recently?

Havequick, open source or fishing exped?

"It's not a "British" Reaper, but an American one assigned to the 42nd Attack Squadron (that could be jointly operated by UK personnel but not the case here). The only Brit involvement looks like the Flight Sergeant at the end working as the sensor operator."

Not that there have been any rumours that due to differences in ROE, it's not unknown for command of some of the more pro-active UAVs to be quietly transferred between Jeeves and Chuck just in time to squeeze one off before the original model aircraft controller slips back into the seat. Or if there are any such rumours, they definitely haven't reached me.

R

Would a remote pilot be eligible for a remote AFC if he/she saves a stricken Reaper by executing a brilliant forced landing within reach of friendly forces?

PN wrote "Havequick, open source or fishing exped?"

Neither. Just idly enquiring after hearing something along theose lines this weekend.

Ok, fishing then :)

SLF

"It's not a "British" Reaper, but an American one assigned to the 42nd Attack Squadron (that could be jointly operated by UK personnel but not the case here). The only Brit involvement looks like the Flight Sergeant at the end working as the sensor operator."

Not that there have been any rumours that due to differences in ROE, it's not unknown for command of some of the more pro-active UAVs to be quietly transferred between Jeeves and Chuck just in time to squeeze one off before the original model aircraft controller slips back into the seat. Or if there are any such rumours, they definitely haven't reached me.

That post lost me

Is the RAF alone in the Loss?
 

Haven't the USAF and others (Border Patrol etc) lost a few MQ-9s also.?...landing hickups, lost link, rack swap etc....

DRONE WARRIORS - British, U.S. Reaper operators fly joint Afghanistan mission


Do the operators really need to wear flying suits ? After all they do not leave the ground.
In these days of 'blue rules' could they not be smartly dressed in their working blues.

Just a thought.

Phil, it is a comfort thing, like a comfort blanket.

We used to have the option of doing simulators in uniform or flying suits. In a uniform everything is in the wrong place. No knee pads to scribble notes on, no leg pockets for aide memoires etc.

It would be possible to set your briefcase down and arrange your paperwork a la office, and it is true that Ops Room staff on a ship do not have such comfort blankets so I guess it is what you are trained to use.

It may be a bit like guys flying with lucky charms etc but my flying suit was home to my chinagraphs, pencils, pens etc and they always stayed there, ready to use.

Wader2

Thanks for that. I do see your point.

Yeah, must be a real bugger having nowhere to put all those pens in a bloody great portakabin!!!

Fair dues, if you can do a better job because you feel more at home, why the hell not?

You might be surprised with General Atomics design of the "bloody great portakabin!!!" how much room there is for anything....!

ERgonomics is not one of their forte's

Ergonomics....
 

Is that the USAF version or did the UK ask for a unique modified ergonomic disaster zone to make the RAF nosegunners feel more at home?

Touche...or words to that effect