Space commandos - should be the Navy in charge. Spaceships are like submarines - small enclosed space etc.
RAF Air Command to take on UK military space ops
The Royal Air Force (RAF) is to take on command and control of UK military space operations, including a possible UK-based alternative to the EU's Galileo satellite constellation. The Defence Space Strategy (DSS), which remains somewhat light on detail until it is published in full over the summer, will bump numbers working in …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 21st May 2018 19:33 GMT handleoclast
Trying to use survivability of naval/air crew in the event of accidents as a proxy for determining which service should take command of space ops is a little strange.
Indeed. The deciding factors are whether or not you live aboard the vessel for extended periods of time, and degree of autonomy of the vessel commander. The second of those is an anachronism based on the fact that, prior to the invention of radio, ships at sea would be out of contact for long periods of time and therefore had to make local decisions on matters which, in other branches, would be passed up the chain of command.
Once we have travel to other stellar systems, a Navy model will be required (unless we also invented FTL radio). At the moment, the Air Force model should suffice.
-
Monday 21st May 2018 22:35 GMT John Brown (no body)
"Indeed. The deciding factors are whether or not you live aboard the vessel for extended periods of time, and degree of autonomy of the vessel commander."
The odds of any UK armed services having any form of crewed space going vessel in the near future are so close to zero it's really not worth arguing about at this stage. The nearest we have is Reaction Engines and they are looking at unmanned only and may be some years away anyway.
-
-
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 02:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Disagree. I'm fairly odd in the US Navy having served in three of the four communities: submarine, surface, and air. I was slated to go into the special operations community as engineering support when I was forced out on physical disability after the First Gulf War. Given a Mom that fed me as many Sci-Fi novels that I could eat, I've got at least a modicum of intelligence in who I want around me if the shit hits the fan in space. Forgot to mention, nuclear navy experience in reactor operation.
I want the same people as serve in submarines around me. Everyone, not just an aircraft pilot, navigator, etc. is cross-trained to a fare-the-well just in case one person just happens to be standing there, not just with their thumb up their butt waiting for an expert.
I don't see any of this happening though with a Ministry of Defense with a huge hole in their budget wondering how their going to use that taxpayer credit card. That's pretty damned bad since the Royal Military is considered by everyone I've ever met with experience with them likes the Hell out of working with them. My experience is with the Australian and Japanese Navies and they're pretty fantastic, too.
-
-
-
-
Monday 21st May 2018 17:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Based on how many crew it used to take for the RN to keep a plane flying in a warzone, and the number of crew the RAF required to keep exactly the same type of aircraft flying in exactly the same warzone;
Be afraid, be VERY afraid.
600 crew is barely enough to get a pot of RAF tea going.
Hoping they will change the name to "Space Group Command", and have someone called "O'Neil" in command of the lead team.
Alien?? I think this guy rode past me on his bike last week.
-
-
Monday 21st May 2018 13:39 GMT WonkoTheSane
Not really Dan Dare territory.
More like Warren Ellis' "Ministry of Space" - It even has a suitable variation on the RAF Roundel for them to use.
-
Monday 21st May 2018 13:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Why would airstrip one need a different GPS
The sole rationale of a non-aligned GPS is to be able to operate it if the "owner" decided to put it offline for you.
That sort-a makes sense for the "core" of Eu" which is regularly getting annoyed about USA ordering it about. The most recent example is: "You will not buy Russian gas, you will buy American gas. If you do not comply you will have tariffs applied on all your goods". Add to that the regular shakedowns for NATO money, the overall grumbling about the F35 shakedown programme, etc.
I do not see the rationale of non-aligned GPS for UK which diligently holds the baboon's hand like enamoured teenagers should, buys American toys to the expense of its own industry and joins the cheerleading performances and cruise missile bukakes immediately when asked to.
As far as the Space Missile command itself... Would that be financed also out of the 300 million by any chance? Curious minds want to know...
-
Monday 21st May 2018 15:16 GMT Peter2
Re: Why would airstrip one need a different GPS
Mmm, not that simple. Gas, is one of Russia's major foreign policy influencers. One of the reasons that Russia is putting in new pipelines is so they can bypass the Ukraine to their major customers and so can take further action in Ukraine (remember that country that Russia annexed the Crimera part of recently? Yeah, that one) without worrying about holes appearing in gas pipelines, leading to Russia collapsing economically since that's basically their only trade internationally.
Since the completion of this pipeline is going to lead immediately to an attack on Ukraine in either economic or military terms, one need not be a genius to see why the USA would prefer to put the completion date back...?
Further to that, the "shakedown" for NATO money is caused by the German military failing to spend the NATO target of 2% of GDP on it's forces. Everything is in theory supposed to be combat ready. Germany is spending 1.2% of GDP, largely on wages. This has led to a situation where their military which is supposed to be leading a deterent force in NATO's eastern countries is more likely to invite a strike to demonstrate how toothless they are.
https://www.thelocal.de/20180215/germany-not-very-ready-to-take-over-natos-very-ready-task-force
In addition, both their Airforce and Navy are well known to be basically inoperable (https://www.thelocal.de/20180502/german-luftwaffe-only-has-four-operation-ready-eurofighter-jets-report) which is why they are getting a lot of stick about being freeloaders from NATO, relying on other poorer countries to spend more on defence in both GDP and absolute terms.
The rationale of Britains own GPS system would be like much like of Britains military equipment; to provide something unique and higher quality than anybody else has to be a more useful ally even if we are deploying smaller amounts of it. In our case, we'd probably be trying to sell access to the privilaged military system in it to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan in financial terms and more quietly to certain middle eastern kings/princes who are friendly towards Britain for political gains like a guarenteed steady supply of gas and good future relations.
-
Monday 21st May 2018 16:06 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: Why would airstrip one need a different GPS
One of the reasons that Russia is putting in new pipelines is so they can bypass the Ukraine to their major customers and so can take further action in Ukraine
Correct. You just missed the REAL further action in Ukraine.
This is about money. Ukraine cumulative debt to Russia for gas supplies alone is in excess of 30Bn which Ukraine is refusing to pay (*). If you add other debts you are looking at >40Bn.
As long as Ukraine holds the rest of Europe hostage it can afford not to pay it and it has been doing this for 20 years.
As someone who has assets and relatives in one of the countries which suffers every time they use Europe as a hostage, my point of view is the same as the German, Bulgarian, Greek, Austrian and the rest of Europe. Enough is enough they can f*ck off. Similarly the US which is mandating the Ukraine's right to hold Eu as a hostage can f*ck off too.
The international interconnects and bypasses will be built. In fact they are coming online at a rate of 2-3 per year since 2014-ish and this train has already left the station so Ukraine has to find another way to avoid paying its debts.
(*)Most of it is from the period when Gasprom gave them 60%+ discount for transiting gas by the way - before the Eu agreed with Gasprom the removal of the tiered pricing upon Eu insistence.
-
-
Monday 21st May 2018 16:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Why would airstrip one need a different GPS
Not just gas - look at America's new sanctions on Iran imposed because Tehran was sticking to an international treaty. They have the power to cripple European countries who continue to trade with Iran even though their governments have no problems with the nuclear treaty.
Actions like that strengthen the voices of those who would seek to weak ties with America, make new alliances with other, less democratic, countries, and who want their own shiny satellite programmes.
-
Monday 21st May 2018 17:31 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: Why would airstrip one need a different GPS
make new alliances with other, less democratic,
Excuse me for being blunt, the key factor in an alliance, treaty or any relationship between countries is "will the other guy renege on the deal". Is the other guy democratic or not is an important factor, but it is somewhat secondary.
This is is especially the case for long term things like trading pacts or surprise, surprise Space Programs. The average time for a satellite to get from the drawing board to up there is quite often the better part of a decade.
So the issue here is simply - can you rely on the other side to keep its side of the bargain for a decade or more.
With America it is a definitive no. With Europe it is sort-a, but usually yes. With Russians, funnily enough, you can rely that they will stick to what has been agreed down to the exact letter (doubly so after Putin make "sticking to the bargain" a propaganda quintessentially Russian item).
So where does that put UK and its "potential" space program by comparison?
The current lot in charge of UK is trying to prove that Americans are the pinnacle of reliability and dependability. So any ideas that they can establish a partnership for a new "take back control" space program are frankly on the delusional side. Doubly so if it is of military value. And as far as doing it alone, I do not think that you can xerox those 300 million enough times for that.
-
-
Saturday 18th August 2018 00:20 GMT Bliar003
Re: Why would airstrip one need a different GPS
Because the USA can't order anyone about much less the UK.
No GPS is "aligned" you idiot, no operator has the ability to turn it off and somehow keep using it themselves.
" joins the cheerleading performances and cruise missile bukakes immediately when asked to."
You do realise the Brits are in charge and their former colony isn't right?
"I do not see the rationale of non-aligned GPS for UK"
It already has one...
-
-
Monday 21st May 2018 14:34 GMT ArrZarr
Re: Lets join with the Aussies
And when we withdraw from the Commonwealth because those filthy colonials have impinged on Her Glorious Majesty's IP rights by printing her face on their worthless money*, we find it was part of condition that it was funded by the commonwealth, we can start all over once again.
FTFY
*Makes about as much sense as leaving the EU
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 09:11 GMT Sanguma
Re: Snatched back
There is every indication that many of the Brexiters' sacred cows will have to be sacrificed to satisfy the negotiating demands of future non-EU trading partners.
No more roast beef? The Froggies will need to think up a new nickname, won't they, since rosbifs won't apply any longer.
-
-
-
-
Monday 21st May 2018 16:03 GMT steelpillow
Sigh
Now that the opportunity for the UK to participate in some hypothetical European Defence Force has been totally lost, I can see little point in trying to wrest our F-35 super-jets from the (OMG!) potentially hostile control of GPS. I mean, that must be the least of the ways the Yanks could stuff the things if they so chose. Not that they need much help, from the sound of things...
-
Monday 21st May 2018 17:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Dan Dare on Radio Luxembourg was the first spin-off branding I remember.
There was the multiple colour moulded plastic logo badge when you joined the "Dan Dare" club. Probably involved cryptography too. The classic "space communicator" was of the same era - a plastic version of two tin cans joined by string with the bonus of a whistle in the handle. A "space gun" launched a plastic projectile that was a spinning three bladed "helicopter" rotor. I remember the day in a park when the wind-up spring in mine broke the plastic mechanism of the gun.
A small bottle of "Dan Dare Cherryade" was a rare treat as it was premium priced - probably @ 6d.
I had The Eagle" comic and Christmas Annual hand-me downs from my
spoilaffluent cousin - it cost 1/-. Most of my pals had to settle for sharing each others "Beano" and "Dandy" at 2d each. -
Monday 21st May 2018 18:31 GMT amanfromMars 1
Mega Beta AIMeta Data Space Mission Proposal for Immediate Application and AIRocket Launch
Hi Richard,
Is there a where with a virtual point of leading contact re COSMIC AId Delivery of an AlMighty Futures Project ....... with Almighty Future Programmes to Populate with Earth's Assets ....... to Create a Future See and Views Free of the Past .... with New Quantum Memory Installs without Conflict and Confusion, Bad Madness and Chronic Mayhem Permitted to Play?
Who gets to choose which Programs Royal Air Force Air Command Controls?
There is at least one El Reger would like a SMARTR AI Chat if Game Changer Choices, which Impinge upon Every Shared Master AI Pilot Control Centres, are so infrequent as to be thought rare .... :-) which they will be in any Vital NEUKlearer Air Space Command with Almighty Universal Control Leverage.
Think Per Ardua ad SuperNovae for a Flavour of Destinations' Flight Paths.
-
Monday 21st May 2018 19:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Royal Space Command or British Space Command ?
Would this be the first space service to serve a hereditary ruler (unless Kim Jong-un weaponises his missiles first) ?
Our monarchy agreed to raise no standing army, but are permitted everything else (Navy, Air Force and Marines). Perhaps we should reconsider the reason for this?
Currently non-nuclear/WMD space weapons are permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England#Revolution_settlement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarisation_of_space#Space_Preservation_Treaty
-
-
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 08:24 GMT GruntyMcPugh
Re: If, as the title says, the RAF are to take on UK Military Space Ops...
Pretty sure it was the RAF,.... but probably with some mid level policy wonks from the Home Office. IIRC it was 'JERAC' (ish, it's been a while) and was based at RAF High Wycombe?
A chap I used to know who was in the surveillance business for the USA, and used to collaborate with them, and he was suitably vague about what he did,... hence my vagueness.
-