• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

50% losses reported _UK Reaper in Afgan

#2
any ex womens ballon corps want to Volunteer for the hot air ballon

(and claiming your ears go pop) does not rule you out for this lucrative role
 
#3
Somebody who should know a lot better displayed blinding ignorance by saying "Well, UAVs are designed to be expendable and are only there to fill a gap."

Hm. Maybe some of the older or smaller ones, matey, but not something with a 20m wingspan, tipping the scales at 4500Kg, packed with things that you would rather not lose and costing gazillions.

Suppose that buggers the No Claims Bonus
 
#4
Why the bloody hell do we need so many different types of UAV? The gunners have shit loads of the things (of different types) and now the Crabs have them, but obviously of different types, why not find one that works and then issue it to all services.

Is that too simple a solution?
 
#5
A single Reaper crashed.

Because it is one of two in AFG the thread title is factually correct whilst terribly misleading.
 
#6
It's not that misleading, Sven - we've only signed up for three of the things so far, one's not been delivered, and of the two in service, one has crashed...

Where the article is misleading is in the apparent suggestion that Reaper is the only platform in use with 39 Sqn, when it has a number of Predators in use as well.

In answer to your question, Ted, the different UAVs offer different capabilities, ranging from being genuinely expendable to rather too expensive to send off into the ether and to be completely unconcerned if they don't come back. One size wouldn't quite fit all.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
It's actually only 33% recurring losses as the third unit hasn't been delivered yet. ;-)
 
#9
Ted1911 said:
Why the bloody hell do we need so many different types of UAV? The gunners have s*** loads of the things (of different types) and now the Crabs have them, but obviously of different types, why not find one that works and then issue it to all services.

Is that too simple a solution?
Thats a very good point, Watchkeeper and Reaper, whats the difference?
 
#10
meridian said:
Ted1911 said:
Why the bloody hell do we need so many different types of UAV? The gunners have s*** loads of the things (of different types) and now the Crabs have them, but obviously of different types, why not find one that works and then issue it to all services.

Is that too simple a solution?
Thats a very good point, Watchkeeper and Reaper, whats the difference?
IIRC Reaper's got bombs and all kinds of horrible things on it? I think Watchkeeper just watches...

T C
 
#11
The adoption of REAPER by the RAF is them wanting to get in on the whole UAV thing. The RA UAV boys are using HERMES 450 out in The Stan. It works OK.
 
#12
meridian said:
Ted1911 said:
Why the bloody hell do we need so many different types of UAV? The gunners have s*** loads of the things (of different types) and now the Crabs have them, but obviously of different types, why not find one that works and then issue it to all services.

Is that too simple a solution?
Thats a very good point, Watchkeeper and Reaper, whats the difference?
Info here: http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=reaper

msr
 
#13
You have to view the whole UAV thing as being a bit like the early days of aviation, where no-one really knew the rules and what the machines or the human limitations were.

In some respects UAV's are very similar, they haven't been flying that long and a few early losses are to be expected, especially in a hostile environment, but now they also have the limits of computers and remote communications to consider as well. They are still writing the rulebook and will probably be doing so for another decade so high initial losses are a given.
 
#14
Sven said:
A single Reaper crashed.

Because it is one of two in AFG the thread title is factually correct whilst terribly misleading.
Its not misleading. Facts have been stated, its for others to make up their own mind on those facts.
 
#16
#17
Going back to Reaper, it appears from reports in Janes that the third one on order will arrive in theatre within the next couple of weeks, at about the same time that they'll start flying armed with GBU-12 and Hellfire.
 
#18
How complicated are these UAVs to design and build? I wouldn't have thought it would have been that hard, the Phoenix model notwithstanding, to farm out the design work to some of our smaller and high tech aeronautics domestic companies to do as opposed to the usual suspects like Big And Expensive. Hell, it looks like something that a number of the top flight university engineering departments could try. Or am I massively underestimating the complexity of these things?
 
#19
Brick said:
How complicated are these UAVs to design and build? I wouldn't have thought it would have been that hard, the Phoenix model notwithstanding, to farm out the design work to some of our smaller and high tech aeronautics domestic companies to do as opposed to the usual suspects like Big And Expensive. Hell, it looks like something that a number of the top flight university engineering departments could try. Or am I massively underestimating the complexity of these things?
Reaper and the predator UAV it was spun off from, are pretty complex machines, not something you could really knock up in a garden shed. :)
 
#20
I know it's got to be fairly high tech but come on, is Phoenix really the best we can do for a domestic effort? 'Cause that's just embarrassing. :)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top