The RAF’s Shadow R1 surveillance aircraft are among older ISR platforms to be retired under the Defence Investment Plan, with the MoD planning to hand much of the role to uncrewed systems over time.
The Royal Air Force’s Shadow surveillance aircraft are to be retired under the Defence Investment Plan, with the Ministry of Defence saying that uncrewed systems will increasingly take on the intelligence and reconnaissance work currently done by crewed planes, officials said.
Officials setting out the plan said the department would withdraw some of its older surveillance platforms and named the Shadow Mark 1 as the principal type to go, adding that it would look to autonomy to perform functions presently carried out by crewed aircraft, and they described the change as one that would be phased in over time as part of a wider investment in uncrewed systems meant to deliver intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance more cheaply and without exposing crews to the same risk. Launching the plan, Sir Keir Starmer said the forces would gain “a new fleet of surveillance drones, collecting intelligence and finding targets,” which is much the work the Shadow and platforms like it have carried out from the air for years.
The Shadow R1, a militarised King Air turboprop packed with sensors, has flown intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions for the RAF for more than a decade, including over operations in the Middle East and Africa, and its withdrawal fits a pattern running right through the plan in which manned roles are handed to drones wherever the department judges that autonomous platforms can shoulder the job, a shift officials returned to repeatedly and tied each time to the lessons of recent conflicts.
The handover is rather less straightforward than the headline decision makes it sound, because a crewed aircraft of the Shadow’s kind carries a substantial sensor payload along with a trained crew able to read and interpret what they are seeing in real time, and replacing all of that with uncrewed systems will depend on those drones being available in sufficient numbers, capable enough for the task and properly woven into the wider intelligence network before the manned aircraft actually leave.
Officials said the broader investment in autonomy was intended to cover precisely that work and that ISR was one of the areas where uncrewed platforms could increasingly stand in for crewed craft, while accepting that the transition would take time, and the Shadow’s withdrawal comes in company with the retirement of other ageing platforms as the department deliberately concentrates its spending on the capabilities it regards as most important against the threat.
In principal this is obviously a good candidate for automation. However, there is a great deal more to surveillance than sticking a camera on the front of a drone. Whether they can get all the kit into a reasonably priced drone to make it worthwhile remains to be see.
in other words cut
Sensible move retiring the R1 and the Wildcats for the army. Neither will be survivable outside of colonial policing tasks and their roles can be done far better by drones.
You do realise that commanding officers/staff officers etc have to move around rather quickly between HQs/Units etc very quickly don’t you? A helicopter is the only tool that can ensure this,Simply saying that can be done by drones is pure nonsense! A Brigadier for example would usually have one on call to move him and his staff about the battlefield/areas.
No no, thats “colonial”
They can walk…..
The man can move by land instead then. They are not battlefield taxis…
Of course they are used for just that purpose as well as other duties😂it’s called liaison flights!
The flight between his brigade and corp/div HQ could take 15mins compared to the hours it would take on the ground as am example.
No requirement now as we could never field now either a division or corps. And with modern comms and data links why the need for travel. Interested in what exactly is liaison?
Well that’s it then cancel all briefings,meetings that require face to face contact at all levels including with other NATO commanders you have it sorted👍
I’ll let you check out ‘ Liaison’ you can use your modern comma.
Sorry old friend but they are going. Perhaps time to get rid of the AAC too and move helos left to full RAF control.
Ah now you are seeing crab airs plan all along,they have never agreed with the Army flying anything!
Funnily enough Jonty, we now have a Corps again, it’s ARRC. Most of the Army’s combat power has been placed in it. The Army is training again for larger than Bde manoeuvre, Corps and Divisional level HQ exercises, and so on.
A liaison aircraft, that could hang about in the rear and also carry LMM and have a radar put on it, to act as depth CUAS asset.
Just as they’re doing in Cyprus.
Any increase of orders for MQ-9Bs to take up this aircraft’s role… or no.
It’s not a defence investment plan it’s cost cutting, drones and these planes are doing different jobs and have different capabilities, we need both. We need to scrap millibrains net zero catastrophe, the entire overseas aid budget, cut the civil service by ninety percent, tax corporations in their income in the UK not profit after they have shipped profit to tax free Cayman islands etc. and tax the rich (anyone over a million) properly, so anything over a million at 150 percent and any wealth over a million by 50 percent a year
I wouldn’t put much faith in any “plans” announced by Sir Keir. I doubt they will survive contact with the enemy (Burnham).
No doubt this plan is already well out of date regardless having taken years to publish.
Are you suggesting President elect Burnham Bounce will screw it all up???
Perhaps DIP ‘Options for Change’, or ‘Front Line First’
I have hear whispers that hes considering scrapping all the military bands and replacing the lot with the Stone Roses.
Beyond stupid. Why retire a proven platform for an unproven one.
Can we at least get these things in service first.
Replaced by what exactly? Anyone know?
Or is it the old “replaced” by already in service Protector, so in effect a cut as two assets become one?
That trick was accomplished with Hercules, Defender, Islander, and Sea King HC4.
Those who say it’s a good move to convert to drones may think again when an adversary is far more likely to down a drone than any manned aircraft in a lead-up to a war. Whereas a manned aircraft can give feedback on a building situation, a drone dunked from behind just goes dark. We should retire the older aircraft when their time is up. But the difference to those on the ground who rely on the intelligence between talking to eyes in the sky against a voice four thousand or so miles away is great.
It’s a cut in capability no matter how you look at it. If you want drones fine. Make it an as well as.
Sick of saying idiots by now – T45, Navy Wildcat, Army Wildcat and again here.
.
.
No one seems to understand what manned platforms bring to any domain, while spruiking unmanned platforms can replace all – Not arguing they can be force multipliers, like any weapons system – manned or not is – Further noting they (the weapon system) needs to exist and be proven to make such claims! .
.
I call idiot for anyone thinking this is a good decision too.
.
.
…waiting for unmanned No. 10 😅 and MoD – not joking with the later 🤡🤡
Sick of saying idiots by now – T45, Navy Wildcat, Army Wildcat and again here.
.
.
No one seems to understand what manned platforms bring to any domain, while spruiking unmanned platforms can replace all – Not arguing they can be force multipliers, like any weapons system – manned or not is – Further noting they (the weapon system) needs to exist and be proven to make such claims! .
I call idiot for anyone thinking this is a good decision too.
.
.
…waiting for unmanned No. 10 😅 and MoD – not joking with the later 🤡🤡
..Apologies for double post – camping