ARmy Rumour SErvice

MM.

A well considered post but a short response:

Firstly as i said above, lets not confuse the utility of Air and Avn assets with the wider utility of the RAF, and its limitations and associated cost. I'm fully aware of RAPTOR in the ISR spectrum, i also know from experience of the limitations.

My point is, as always, define the capability and then prove the analysis with the solution currently offered. RAPTOR has its place in the ISR spectrum, but it wasn't procured for this war and has become the RAF's basturd child made to fit hybrid ops after the RAF lost the UAV battle.

It was hugely expensive to procure, adapt, integrate, and is even more expensive to run - ultimately what does it offer that 3rd & 4th gen UAVs don't; lets not lose sight that this sensor has been mounted on a hugely expensive fighting platform - but by doing so and locking it into this war it has secured aircrew, analysts and ground crews jobs...lets face it, if i was a senior air force officer i would have done exactly the same to secure the future of my organisation.

Now, i'm no techie, but in this war, why can't the same capability of a standoff ISR capability be integrated into a static platform with out the associated manning liabilities and complex A4 chain. That ultimately is my point: RAF protectionism at its best, coupled with a PR machine that even used the hunt for Raoul Moat to its advantage! The all in cost, which will be impossible to capture, would have been far better used to fgen more close combat companies, even from outside of the infantry. PS. i'm not an infantryman, but i see the bigger picture and the writing on the wall with where the ME needs to be for the next few years. ASTOR anybody?

Out of interest, how would the presence of RAF air have stopped the Lynx from 847NAS from being shot down in 2005

Isn't it a Mauser Cannon and not a machine gun?
I assume the MoD and RAF News know best though

Originally Posted by the_boy_syrup

Isn't it a Mauser Cannon and not a machine gun?
I assume the MoD and RAF News know best though

Because 1. Those who write the pish have no real military knowledge and 2. Despite the main audience being internal they still write as tho they were addressing my gran.

Originally Posted by Danny_Dravot
but the real issue is RAPTOR can't differentiate between a Talib with a rifle and a Farmer with a scythe.

Originally Posted by Magic_Mushroom

Oh believe me it can and a lot more.

So no repeats of the Kosovan Serb "tank" debacle then ?

Danny,

Originally Posted by Danny_Dravot

I'm fully aware of RAPTOR in the ISR spectrum, i also know from experience of the limitations.

If you are genuinely familiar with RAPTOR and wider UK imagery exploitation work then I apologise. However, from your earlier comments it certainly didn’t appear as if you were.

Originally Posted by Danny_Dravot

My point is, as always, define the capability and then prove the analysis with the solution currently offered. RAPTOR has its place in the ISR spectrum, but it wasn't procured for this war and has become the RAF's basturd child made to fit hybrid ops after the RAF lost the UAV battle.

How much of the UK’s or for that matter the Coalition’s kit is designed for ‘this’ war?

RAPTOR was designed to provide wide area, very high resolution EO/IR still imagery which could potentially be delivered at stand off ranges. That is exactly what it’s doing in Afghanistan. It matters little if that’s being conducted in ‘hybrid’, conventional or nuclear war.

Additionally, exactly how has the RAF lost the ‘UAV battle’? In fact, what is the ‘UAV battle’?

There is a place for organic UAS such as DH3, H450 and in due course WK. Likewise, there is a place for wider capabilities such as that offered by our Reapers.

Originally Posted by Danny_Dravot

…ultimately what does [RAPTOR] offer that 3rd & 4th gen UAVs don't…

Where to start? Far higher National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale (NIIRS) still imagery over a far wider area with collection able to be conducted at stand-off ranges. However, I acknowledge that an equivalent pod could be mounted on a UAS, so let’s consider a fast jet type alongside a Reaper class UAS both with identical pods in a purely Afghan scenario in the following examples:

1. Far greater coverage and versatility. UAS are slow moving and with the best will in the world are only able to support a single RC per mission without sacrificing significant mission time on transit. In contrast, fast air routinely supports 2, 3, 4 or even 5 RCs in a single mission. Therefore, in terms of imagery collection, they can potentially do the work of large numbers of UAS in a far shorter time.

2. Support of kinetic and non-kinetic effects. Whilst some UAS can carry weapons, their slow transit speed does not make them ideal for distant TiCs. Nor are they much use for shows of force (SoF). A fast jet tac recce asset is able to carry weapons as well as the pod and conduct a effective SoF if required, dashing large distances in relatively short periods of time on a time sensitive task (see below).

3. Speed of response. Fast air can and does provide very rapid response to short notice imagery requests. If a UAS and fast jet are providing ISR down in RC(SW) and an immediate request for imagery is made iso RC(E), guess which one will get there first? In comparison, guess which one may not be able to get there at all because of line of sight or weather issues?

4. Availability. Go check out the weather limitations of typical UAS in comparison to manned assets.

5. Cost/manning/infra. Do you really suggest unmanned is superior? The ‘tail’ associated with ‘unmanned’ is not quite as lean or as simple as many may believe. Likewise, try and 'FOB' a UAS for short periods or at short notice. A tad challenging I suggest!

6. Influence. Go to IJC and ask the collection managers how much influence assets such as RAPTOR bring. That assures the UK access to disproportionate support from US assets. Same goes for types such as Nimrod R1, SKASaC and Sentinel (none of which were designed for 'this' war either).

This forum means that I’m limited to present generic, unclassified examples. Clearly there are numerous other classified examples and vignettes that are not suitable for here. UAS have their benefits (eg persistence). However, in many cases they are not nirvana.

Originally Posted by Danny_Dravot

…[RAPTOR] has secured aircrew, analysts and ground crews jobs...lets face it, if i was a senior air force officer i would have done exactly the same to secure the future of my organisation.

You’re quite right Danny. We all sit around stroking white cats plotting world domination!

Incidentally, some of the analysts supporting RAPTOR are not RAF!

Originally Posted by Danny_Dravot

…why can't the same capability of a standoff ISR capability be integrated into a static platform with out the associated manning liabilities and complex A4 chain.

Static (eg CORTEZ and Aerostats), organic (eg WK), theatre (eg GR4/RAPTOR) and space (in the case of our allies) ISR are complimentary and all have their place.

However, think about what you’ve just asked Danny.

From a typical operating altitude, a RAPTOR can provide an enormous swathe of product in a single sortie. That imagery will potentially stretch many miles into the distance and be able to meet the requirements of multiple RCs and colection requests.

Unless you have a VERY high tower or a VERY long cable for your aerostat how on earth can a static system achieve anything like the same effect? Equally, a RAPTOR sortie may not even be noticed by the locals whereas a nice fat white aerostat reminds the locals, good and bad, that ISAF is there. As I said, complimentary effect.

I’ve had this ‘discussion’ several times with Army chaps, many of whom say ‘we don’t need air ISR we have capabilities a,b and c replicated on the ground’. Well, yes you do in many cases and the nature of those ground systems will often assure greater permanence. However, I also get the same circuit breaker pop from Land brains when I then present a simple scenario where the very static nature of those fixed systems precludes delivery of effect.

Originally Posted by saladin

So no repeats of the Kosovan Serb "tank" debacle then ?

Saladin old chap. You may wish to research a tad prior to rolling in on arguments.

RAPTOR wasn’t even in service in 1999.

If you’re trying to make a generic point about the lack of direct attrition inflicted on VJ/MUP armour during ALLIED FORCE in Kosovo than that is a fine illustration of my point regarding how no one component operates in isolation…ever.

In that case, Mssrs Clinton and Blair had stated unequivocally that there would not be a ground assault. RESULT: the Serbs were allowed the luxury of being able to hide their vehicles in forests, caves, bunkers, hospitals, schools etc. Thus, even though the Air Component was the ‘supported’ one and there was no ground ops conducted by NATO forces in the main shooting war, the Land Component remained essential. Once the politicians stated that a ground assault was on the cards, the Serbs had to start deploying their assets which exposed them to more severe attrition in the final week.

Thankfully, by that stage, Milosovic had already been forced to accept NATO and UN terms due to the wider strikes on his interests and military in rump Serbia.

Similarly, in GW1 – often held by the most ardent Air Power proponents to be the exemplar for their assets – Land deployments effectively forced the Iraqis hand by fixing or forcing the exposure of some units. This at times greatly eased the Air Component’s task.

As mentioned, no one component should ever be arrogant enough to claim primacy and the ‘supported/supporting’ concept is, in my humble view, operationally facile.

Regards,
MM

Meridian, re-read my post. The point was not about RAF air perhaps preventing the shoot-down. It was about what happens to people when you take air sp out of the equation. In this case, no avn moves in daylight meant convoys in daylight instead, which meant IED strikes on those convoys, which would have been avoided if the troops had moved by air. The IED threat was far greater than the manpad threat but a poor reaction to the loss of the Lynx's crew and pax actually put more lives at risk.
Do keep up.