FighterControl

Hi

tricky conditions tonight but worth the trip to try and get a few shots of RAF Fairfords new resident.
as far as im aware this is the first time an RPAS has taken of from Fairford (happy to be corrected if im wrong!)
not my greatest work but hopefully there are of some interest

1
_DX28492 by Jonathan Warner, on Flickr

2
_DX28483 by Jonathan Warner, on Flickr

3
_DX28482 by Jonathan Warner, on Flickr

The beginning of a new Era, some might say 'beginning of the end' of our interest?
Good effort to go down to Fairford & get these shots of of the inaugural mission!

Well done !

Every now and then we see an iconic image which captures that moment in time perfectly.....for me image three does just that. Brilliant !

Awesome job ,well done and thanks for sharing
It was really interesting listening last night
The sign of things to come
It was really cool seeing her on Thursday night arrival .
P.s I agree with ZG ,pic three and first one is spot on .

Nice efforts, it could be the first RPAS to fly from Fairford’s runway. ScanEagle launched from a catapult and landed in a net and the MQ-9B only landed and never flew out again.

If I'm correct the GF on the tail is Grand Forks? Which if this is the case it belongs to the 348RS/319RW. I remember the nostalgia of seeing Grand Forkes KC135s at Mildenhall on a fairly regular basis. Nice shots by the way

Thanks for sharing those pictures, they are very good.
Personally, I am struggling to decide whether to start following UAS, the larger machines like this are of some interest I suppose, and it does make a great photo. But then UAS can be so small too, and thus of much less interest, doubtless many may also be single use.
(Who recalls the 'carrier-bag' hot air balloons?)
I agree with Supra's thoughts above, perhaps we are getting towards end of an era.
But then again, in the late 50's didn't people talk about the end of manned aircraft.
Hence the personal struggle!

For me it isn't an issue. They are "serialised asssets" so I will record them. In the same way that the "carrier bag" or toy balloons were registered on the UK Civil Register and, if I had seen any, would have logged them too. That aspect of course depends on whether you note/collect registraions/serials or not.

Whilst I don't personally 'do numbers' I do like to know what I've seen. This means that the commenced introduction of anonymous airframes (see KC-46 examples?) by the USAF
may ultimately prevent the meaningful pursuit of 'Spotting'? I'm surprised these RQ-4's have serials & tailcodes in place.

Excellent shots, really difficult conditions to shoot but you got great pics

CRIKEY!
Absolute gem captures and I totally agree with ZG in that you've captured this historic moment brilliantly.
May I respectfully submit that #3 is worthy of a competition entry
Thank you so much for taking the time, making the effort and sharing your superb captures

Those are awesome shots.

Supra wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:07 am

The beginning of a new Era, some might say 'beginning of the end' of our interest?

Tis the future methinks

Supra wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 26, 2024 7:28 am

Whilst I don't personally 'do numbers' I do like to know what I've seen. This means that the commenced introduction of anonymous airframes (see KC-46 examples?) by the USAF
may ultimately prevent the meaningful pursuit of 'Spotting'? I'm surprised these RQ-4's have serials & tailcodes in place.

I could be entirely wrong here and happy to be corected by those who have far greater knowledge, but I believe that their anonymous airframes (at least externally) breaks international agreements on air navigation so I'm not sure how they are doing this, however it was also interesting to note that all the tankers involved with the F-22 deployment to the Middle East that stopped at Lakenheath did carry external serial numbers.

As far as I undertand it, flying in US airspace is fine wthout carrying an external serial and I guess they have agreements in place with Eurocontrol and Swanick to operate in the same manor but beyond that I don't think they can.

Like I say, I'm happy to be corrected!

Supra wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:07 am

The beginning of a new Era, some might say 'beginning of the end' of our interest?
Good effort to go down to Fairford & get these shots of of the inaugural mission!

Does the aircraft have to be "crewed" by a human then to be of interest to you? If you're a serial collector how would that work with aircraft converetd to drones etc. that we're once piloted by humans but are now remote control? Does that mean that you wouldn't log them once convereted even if you still needed them? I'm just interested, not saying anyone is right or wrong in how they go about this!

Amp wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 25, 2024 7:07 pm

But then again, in the late 50's didn't people talk about the end of manned aircraft.
Hence the personal struggle!

So hypothetically in the future if say A330s, KC-46s or C-17s can be converted to operate entirely crewless BUT still carry passengers you would have no interest in them?

Why does a human need to be involved for an aircraft to be of interest?

Individual personal "rules" - for which there is no book. Each to their own without need of justification.

For the RQ-4's departure from Fairford, would that have been 'piloted' from Creech AFB.?

Bilvo wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2024 2:05 pm

Amp wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 25, 2024 7:07 pm

But then again, in the late 50's didn't people talk about the end of manned aircraft.
Hence the personal struggle!

So hypothetically in the future if say A330s, KC-46s or C-17s can be converted to operate entirely crewless BUT still carry passengers you would have no interest in them?

Why does a human need to be involved for an aircraft to be of interest?

I was thinking more of the size to be honest.
As UAS get smaller and smaller they may be allocated serials of some sort, but when they are, for example, basically one-way weapons I doubt the serial would be applied.
It is an area for thought and of course, everyone can make their own decisions, in this game there is no specific right or wrong.

International law also requires military aircraft carry some form of national recognition symbol (roundels, stars and bar etc) That went out the window with the SR71 over 30 years ago.
Back in 1956, the then Defence Minister (Duncan Sandys) said the RAF would be 'unlikely' to require fighters after the Lightning. Well, after the Phantom, Tornado and now the Typhoon, with, hopefully eventually the Tempest to come, maybe that idea is unlikely to mature.

Nighthawke wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2024 2:14 pm

Individual personal "rules" - for which there is no book. Each to their own without need of justification.

Sure 100% agree, thanks for reply. Like I said I was just curious