UAVs and King Airs for Army & RAF.

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2815881&C=europe) British MoD Gives Elbit/Thales Effort $110M Deal for Hermes

Israel’s Elbit Systems has confirmed that the British Ministry of Defence has awarded a $110 million deal to an unmanned air vehicle joint venture company they operate in Britain with Thales UK to supply Hermes 450 platforms. The deal will plug a gap in British army intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The purchase of the Hermes 450 under Britain’s urgent operational requirements procurement process has been known about for several weeks, but this is the first time the purchase has been officially confirmed. In a statement released June 7, the company said the UAV Tactical Systems (U-Tacs) joint venture will immediately commence work on a program providing the Hermes 450, training of British personnel in the use and maintenance of the system and the provision of contractor logistic support.

Leicester-based U-Tacs, which is 51 percent owned by Elbit, is already contracted to supply the Hermes 450 as part of the British army’s 700 million-pound Watchkeeper tactical ISTAR UAV program. Deliveries of Watchkeeper vehicles are not due to start until at least the end of 2010, leaving a gap in British ISTAR capabilities in such hot spots as Afghanistan and Iraq.

The few Phoenix UAVs still available to the British army do not work in hot and high conditions causing capability shortfalls that are only now being addressed.

The original Watchkeeper program required a stopgap solution to be available by the end of 2006 until the full system could be deployed. That was ditched by the MoD for budgetary reasons.

Aside from the Hermes, the British army is also soon to begin operations of a handful of Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350ER equipped for ISTAR operations. The aircraft will provide significantly better performance than the Britten-Norman Islander, the other fixed-wing aircraft in the Army Air Corps fleet.

Three General Atomics Predator B UAVs have also been purchased for Royal Air Force use under the urgent operational requirements process paid for by the Treasury rather than the MoD.

[XV277]

Interesting.

[Lima Juliet]

Aside from the Hermes, the British army is also soon to begin operations of a handful of Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350ER equipped for ISTAR operations. The aircraft will provide significantly better performance than the Britten-Norman Islander, the other fixed-wing aircraft in the Army Air Corps fleet.

Currently, they are not toted to be AAC assets...;)

LJ

[MLT]

More info on the King Air buy here:

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2768983&C=airwar

[R 21]

Rumour has it,

AAC and RAF where both bidding to run the King Airs. AAC Sqn (borrowing several RAF pilots) and the RAF's bid with a slighty larger Sqn. AAC won the bid (with the smaller number of pilots) but then had to ask the RAF for more pilots who promply said no chance.

So the AAC won the right to have the Squadron but they wont have enough pilots as they sold themselves short!!!

Or so the rumour has it !!!!!!:\:\

[The Helpful Stacker]

Isn't that a similar story to how Teeny Weenie Airways got their mitts on the Apache, except comparing amount of techies needed to service them rather than pilots to fly them?

[R 21]

Possibly

sounds like a bit of a theme or is desperation to keep them going. Apart from Apache which is doing a great job, they need something to keep the Corps going.

[Wrathmonk]

How about a joint asset ....

RAF train them

AAC pay for them

and the Fleet Air Arm fly them.

That way the FAA maintains another fixed wing capability for when WEBF gets enough support to get the SHAR reintroduced into service :p

[Two's in]

Same old nonsense as ever, when the senior leadership of the AAC is a single one star to go up against the other service Chiefs, is anyone surprised when they only get the consolation prizes? How many one stars and above does the Air Force currently have on the books?

[Archimedes]

Two's in - True, but have a look at CGS's chest next time he's scaring Swiss Des by appearing on the telly, and note with whom he spent part of his service...

One rumour (note 'rumour', no idea if it's true) has it that CGS was far from uninvolved in the process of ensuring that the King Airs went to the AAC. Although whether or not he's going to be doing some refresher training so that the things have enough pilots isn't clear...:\

[Lima Juliet]

One rumour (note 'rumour', no idea if it's true) has it that CGS was far from uninvolved in the process of ensuring that the King Airs went to the AAC. Although whether or not he's going to be doing some refresher training so that the things have enough pilots isn't clear...

Read my lips...they are not going to be AAC assets. They are expecting to go to an RAF Sqn with an RAF Boss, flown by RAF pilots and based at an RAF Station...'nuff said, sorry teenie-weenies! How do I know this - they have started pulling individuals from the light-blue ME Cadre in the past few months - they have been told which Sqn they are going to, where and when. I don't believe that we are scrapping Defenders to be replaced by the King Air 350ER aircraft, so I guess that capability will remain with the AAC.

On another aside. Does anyone know whether they are the same as the US Forces' "Guardrail" aircraft?

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/rc-12d.jpg

LJ

[MLT]

The RC-12 (Guardrail) is a Beechcraft B200.

Here are the details for Raytheons Special Mission Beechcraft 350ER:

http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/special_mission/ground_surveillance/king_air_350/

[Lima Juliet]

Thanks for that. It looks kind of similar - just a few more aerials (almost like spot the difference :ok:).

LJ

[ORAC]

So I guess aerodynamics are an optional extra then.......

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/rc-12d.jpg

That'd be a GREAT aircraft for skydiving. Look at all that **** you can hang on to during a mass exit :ok:

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

I wonder why the starboard engine is so much further forward than the l/h one :confused:

[samuraimatt]

I wonder why the starboard engine is so much further forward than the l/h one :confused:

I bet you will find that the funny cigar thinghy on the left wing is also further back than the cigar thinghy on the right wing.

[wazz'n'zoom]

Reckon it's gonna be a hybrid set up as opposed to sole Pongo or Crabair organistion. A chopped CFS(H) QHI NCO is doing the conversion to fly this line no and PMA can't spare anyone to command/man it anyway.

[MLT]

The Iraqi air force has also order a number of the King air 350ER's:

Raytheon has developed a new extended range special mission variant, the King Air 350ER. The 350ER has additional nacelle fuel tanks, heavy-weight landing gear and a maximum take-off weight increased to 7,480kg (16,500lbs). This gives the aircraft an extended range of 4,260km (2,300nm) and eight-hour endurance. Full certification of the new model is expected at the end of 2006.


In September 2006, the Government of Iraq requested the Foreign Military Sale (FMS) of 24 King Air 350ER special mission aircraft for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The aircraft are to be fitted with the L3 Wescam MX-15 electro-optic / infrared system, a Synthetic Aperture Radar / Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR/ISAR), AN/AAR-47 missile warning system and AN/ALE-47 countermeasures dispensing systemhttp://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/beach_king_air350/

This was a 350ER at an MOD exhibition at Oxford Airport in 2005:

http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/overview/gallery/gallery_73.html

[Lima Juliet]

Interestingly, the RAF are woefully short of ME pilots too

Here's a solution WITH A LARGE TONGUE IN CHEEK...

Get all the RAF Flying Club ME/PPL holders and offer them a type conversion at Bristol Flight Centre:

The BFC King Air TRTO offers a 7 day Ground school and Aircraft based training course.

Ground studies consist of a 3 days technical course conducted at Bristol International Airport Followed by a 4 day Flight Training and Testing Phase.

Full Course (ground school and flight training) £12,750 (includes VAT)

Minimum pre-entry requirements


Current CAA/JAA pilot licence and medical certificate

Current MEPL (if first type rating) SPA Instrument Rating (if flown IFR)

Minimum 70 hrs logged as PIC



As an Aircraft Based (not Simulator) course we offer (subject to availability) a current model King Air B200 (G-ORJA) fitted with EFIS-FMS-MFD which adds an extra dimension to the course content.

Flight Training includes a revision of Instrument Approach Procedures including Instrument Rating Renewal-Revalidation if required.

Bristol Flying Centre has been in the Professional flight training and AOC market for many years and look forward to working with both Individuals and fellow Operators looking for outsourced training or type-rated recruits.

Back to the cloud near cuckoo-land for me...

LJ

[timex]

Strange how the AAC have guys already training then...



Shaun

[MLT]

Unless you are commenting on information in the public domain. I think conjecture on this subject should be kept to a minimum. The MOD have refused to comment, and probably for a very good reason.

Sorry for being a killjoy.

MLT

[airborne_artist]

What is the OPSEC issue as regards the cap badge(s) of the guys who operate these?

Equipment fit, mission capability, fair enough, but since it can only be RAF or Army there's not much to be gained by knowing which one :=

[Tourist]

Airborne artist.
Why can't the RN get involved?
Apart from the fact that we aren't stupid, of course.

[Controversial Tim]

Why can't the RN get involved?'Cos soon you won't have any carriers and it won't fit on a helideck?

[Gnd]

MLT you are right so deleted all my comments for Leon Jabachjabicz

[angelorange]

Looks like 45 SQN will have it's work cut out then!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1053607/L

[Chris Kebab]

..is that registration for real!

[ORAC]

Got to wonder if the close proximity of the two orders is a coincidence, or a common specification and production line...

Iraqi Air Force orders King Air sensors (http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2825068)
June 11, 2007

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) was awarded a contract to provide an initial lot of five integrated ISR sensor suites for Beechcraft King Air 350ER twin turboprop aircraft ordered by the new Iraqi Air Force.

The contract, which could be worth as much as $53 million, will see five aircraft equipped with GA-ASI Lynx IIE SAR/GMTI radar, an L-3 Communications/Wescam MX-15i electro-optical/infrared camera system, and CLAW sensor control and analysis software provided by Exclusive Charter Services of San Diego, Calif.

Linden Blue, president of GA-ASI’s reconnaissance systems unit, said the equipment integrates the sensors with an operator console station able to collect, format and display information. Imagery and other intelligence products can then be sent via airborne data link to ground stations.

Working through the U.S. Air Force’s Aeronautical Systems center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, Iraq’s nascent defense ministry ordered six new King Air 350ERs — five for ISR and one for light transport — in March. Completion of the aircraft is slated for April 2008.

[gsa]

It will be interesting who actually gets these. In the early eighties there was serious discussions for the AAC to be given some Canberras with Battlefield Radar but the politics wouldn't allow it.

[The Helpful Stacker]

What are the politics of it?

The Army should operate on the land, the Royal Navy at sea and the Royal Air Force control the air element.

[gsa]

The Army should operate on the land, the Royal Navy at sea and the Royal Air Force control the air element.

Exactly the attitude why it didn't get further!!

[The Helpful Stacker]

And what is wrong with that attitude?

[timex]

And what is wrong with that attitude?

You've not done a Det at Sea have you?


Shaun

[The Helpful Stacker]

You've not done a Det at Sea have you?


Unfortunately yes I have, on more than one occassion.

Actually to be fair the RN were fantastic hosts and seem to really know what they are doing with their boats.:ok:

It just seems strange that some in the Army and RN have been bleating about disbanding the RAF for years after cherry picking the bits they want yet I've never heard of anyone in the RAF wanting a fleet of ships of our own or tanks to rumble around in.

[airborne_artist]

RAF wanting a fleet of ships of our own or tanks to rumble around in

You don't have to go far back to find that the RAF had light tanks (Scimitar) in the RAFR, and a bit further back the RAF operated some decent sized boats in the SAR role.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Indeed the RAF did, but it no longer does.

The light armoured RAF Regiment squadrons were binned during Options For Change I believe as they duplicated a task already carried out by the British Army and the RAF motor launches at RAF Mount Batten were superseeded by SAR helicopters in their rescue role and RN assets for their target towing role.

[Chicken Leg]

The Army should operate on the land, the Royal Navy at sea and the Royal Air Force control the air element.

Mmmm. Where does that leave the RAF Regt in general. not just the CVR(T)'s (tanks as you call them. :rolleyes:)

[The Helpful Stacker]

Mmmm. Where does that leave the RAF Regt in general. not just the CVR(T)'s (tanks as you call them. )

The RAF Regt hasn't operated CVR(T)'s for quite a few years now. When I said 'tanks' I meant it in the MBT sense(:rolleyes: back atcha).

As an ex-Rifleman myself I too am baffled by the continuing exsistance of the RAF Regt.

[parabellum]

Anyone else remember that lovely Black and White film, "The Sea Shall Not Have Them"?

Ronald Shiner, I think, about ASR during the war in the Channel.

[Gnd]

It is blatantly obvious that all 3 forces operate in the air, numerically quite interesting ironic there, but, it seems there is a little less Joinery in the specific roles.

One force is air and ground
One force is air and sea
One force is air and, umm air and, well anyway.... we are specialists in umm, well anyway........

I can see why some might get a little defencive when they have a lot less flexibility, must be quite worrying?:hmm:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Gnd,

You could also re spin that to state

One force is a teeny weeny bit of air and ground
One force is a teeny weeny but oh so slightly bigger bit of air and water
One force is air and slowly but surely and quite successfully taking the air from the other two and a bit of ground and water

"I can see why some might get a little defencive when they have a lot less flexibility, must be quite worrying?:hmm:"

Correct, if you're green or dark blue of course :p

[Gnd]

That is quite true but I don't think a bit of clever spin will get anyone too convinced their not in trouble? Me - I am not affected, so knock yourselves out.:8
Just to confirm -
One force covers 75 % of the worlds surface area and the air
One force covers 25% of the worlds Surface area and the air

How is this 'teeny-weeny' again??????

And confirm you are measuring success by the PVR rates as I can see nothing else the RAF is excelling at?

[Rheinstorff]

'As an ex-Rifleman myself I too am baffled by the continuing exsistance of the RAF Regt.'

Mike, sorry, HS.

How many aircraft do we need to lose on the ground to enemy action, when non-specialists are defending them, before your bafflement goes away? Surely, even you appreciate that as our aircraft fleet becomes smaller and the platforms become more effective, the loss of a single aircraft has an increased effect on the ability to prosecute campaigns from the air.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Couldn't the current role that the RAF Regiment under-take be performed by a similar unit within the Army?

Oh and just how specialist do you have to be to guard an airbase when the British Army in Iraq often has 'blunt' trades going out on the ground on infantry tasks?

[Gnd]

Steady - numerically their a bonus. If they are there use them, we need all the help we can.:eek:

[The Helpful Stacker]

Then perhaps rather than eyeing up aircraft that the Army would like to get their mitts on they should stick with what they do best and subsume the RAF Regt into the British Army.

No loss of bodies on the ground and the Army will have control of something it understands.

[Gnd]

Good idea HS but I think you added the word 'Regt' by mistake?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Gnd,

I think you forgot to add,

One force fly's the other two forces over 100% of the earths surface, which neither of the other two could could manage without, and operates on the ground

As regards "teeny weeny" surely you can work that one out :rolleyes:

This could go on and on so lets quit while I'm ahead :E

[Gnd]

Soz, mate I thought virgin were going to do that?
I think you can have the AT fleet as they are always getting in trouble, a good venture capitalist would strip that very quickly!!! You have it and enjoy them.
PS - I am not sure the Navy want all the fast noisy things but I hear they have to put people in the new one to cover the short fall?

[Arthur's Wizard]

One force fly's the other two forces over 100% of the earths surface

Do you mean Excel Air or Omni Air. Or was it the Ukranian heavy lift force you were refering to? ;)

[Tourist]

The Fleet Air Arm invented the tank, so we should get some.

[Gnd]

Were not talking about fish tanks!!!!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Not sure if the Excel or Omni etc contract includes dropping 16 tons of much needed kit/food/ammo etc onto a front line DZ, to mention but one thing the light blue do but hey if it does I know plenty of guys that would be happy to leave them to it :rolleyes:

[Magic Mushroom]

Oh FFS,

This has to be the most utterly purile inter service willy waving I've ever seen on PPRUNE.

We need an independant RAF, and I hope the other 2 services maintain their own airborne capabilities as well. Perhaps if we focused on fighting the real enemy (ie the Treasury) rather than each other, we'd be in a lot better state.

In the meantime, you lot need to grow up.:rolleyes:

MM

[althenick]

The Fleet Air Arm invented the tank, so we should get some.
... No they didn't - they invented the armoured car - its different :bored:
Magic Mushroom - Save wear on your keyboard mate, it's really not worth it:ok:
AL

[claude liardet]

Kandahar (in an area nominally protected by the army):

Before RAF Regt arrival: multiple daily rocket attacks, 1 GR7 destroyed.

After RAF Regt arrival: weekly or monthly rocket attacks.

Perhaps that is the reason?

[Zoom]

On aeroplanes again........... I like the big, obvious winding key at the back of the 350. Just right for pongo techies, then.

[Widger]

Point of order Mr Chairman,

One force is a lot of water, quite a bit of air and a lot of ground as well.

Up until March 07, 50% ofthe UK force in Afghanistan was Dark Blue!

50% (supposed to be) of UK GR7/A/9 forces are Dark Blue.
TLAM is Dark Blue
Mk7 ASACS which did so well in Iraq is Dark Blue
The Royal Marines are Dark Blue with a green lid
Most of the Tanks and heavy equipment is transported by Ships, dark blue or red duster.
A huge amount of Light Blue Merlin is flown by Dark Blue Pilots.
All the Green Seakings in the Middle East are Dark Blue.
4.5 inch gun which delivers highly accurate fire support for ground troops and bombarded the Argentine positions in 1982 on a daily basis is Dark Blue.


and a lot of other items that cannot be mentioned here.

A truly versatile force with worldwide capability, operating regularly without host nation support.

With CVF that reach will be even further. With CVF, the UK would be able to support operations within Afghanistan from the sea.

Not discounting the contribution of our light blue brethren. They provide a huge amount of CAS, large SH and transport, but they are not as fluid (scuse the pun) a force as the dark blue.

Oh, and they have possibly the best air display team in the world!!

[mutleyfour]

The only real difference between us Army and you Air Force chaps doing anything is that we can generally support an aircraft with a handful of staff whereas it takes half of bloody Lincolnshire to support an Air Force frame.

As a footnote to all those budding RAF Kingair types whom may find themselves in an auto-piloted racetrack pattern somewhere less tolerant than Cranwell whilst having your downtime in a grubby room with no air con your welcome to it.

[Door Slider]

"The only real difference between us Army and you Air Force chaps doing anything is that we can generally support an aircraft with a handful of staff whereas it takes half of bloody Lincolnshire to support an Air Force frame."



You dont need many staff to look after all those U/S aircraft when they rarely fly!! Other than the Apache there is not much for the AAC to boast about. A couple of Lynx here and there that are extremely limited does not compare to the operational footprint of SH and the Jungly fleet

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Standing by for standard Army witty reposte with regards to RAF Crewmen :rolleyes:

[The Hook Hacker]

To save everyone re-reading the last 6 years worth of the RAF V Army same same message can we skip back to the B350 topic.

What fills the gap between now and next year? Continue with the current asset(s) the plural is in case we get another one. The UAV forum is a worrying combat indicator that upstairs hope no one sees the actual state of things untill all the new toys are up and running, mid - late next year

It really doesn't matter who operates them though; add it to the fleet where the current low level version comes from, that outfit seem to cope with a mixture of races and ego's ok.

[R 21]

Door Slider

come on now you need a fair few techies for all those blade strikes on flag poles !!!!:eek:

[effects]

"The only real difference between us Army and you Air Force chaps doing anything is that we can generally support an aircraft with a handful of staff whereas it takes half of bloody Lincolnshire to support an Air Force frame."

The RAF would only take a handful of people if our fleet was as technical as a balsa glider!

[The Helpful Stacker]

effects - The Apache is a pretty technical piece of kit, as TWA are finding out the hard way.

BTW, how many RAF techies do you know of who took up the offer to transfer across to the REME as 'instant Sgts' when they were bringing the Apache into service?

[parabellum]

Now here are a couple of questionable posts:

effects said - "The RAF would only take a handful of people if our fleet was as technical as a balsa glider!"

That is just plain silly, rotary have always been more technically demanding that fixed wing if only for the number of moving parts - nice wind up though effects!:ok:

Notso Helpful Stacker the fact remains that the Army are coping and name for me any new aircraft introduced to service that hasn't had problems? As for the transfer of RAF techies to 'instant' REME sergeants, apart from a very obvious step up in life, why would someone in a black shoes and overalls environment want to go out and live among the muck and bullets?;)

[effects]

"That is just plain silly, rotary have always been more technically demanding that fixed wing if only for the number of moving parts "

That is why in the Army they have glorified motor mechanics working on them!

Any RAF FJ is more 'technically demanding' than rotary and yes before you ask I have worked on both.:)

[RIDIM]

That is just plain silly, rotary have always been more technically demanding that fixed wing if only for the number of moving parts

I think you are confusing something thats looks complicated but has simple mechanical properties with more the sophisticated systems that are used in modern fixed wing aircraft that require 'real' technical ability to maintain.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"why would someone in a black shoes and overalls environment want to go out and live among the muck and bullets?;)"

eeerrrr.........because of the obvious step DOWN in life possibly :p

[Gnd]

Just a point - how is changing black boxes at all hard??

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

It's not, trust me I did it for a few years. What is hard is knowing which black box to change :ok:

[k3k3]

...and knowing what to do after you've changed all the black boxes and the fault is still there.

[Gnd]

So, following that logic, isn't it the same for fixed and rotary?

and if that is true, is it not the case that the techs are all the same?

Is this not another non-argument we're in again?

[BRASSEMUP]

Door slider....................... Do you just slide the door and peer underneath or do you have a real job like us poor SNCO PILOTS!!!!!!!!! in the AAC !hmmmmm! blah blah blah boringggggggggggggggggggg!:ugh:

[RichardIC]

Air International reporting four King Airs to be operated by AAC, but initially out of Waddington. Delivery expected aroundabout.. now

[The Hook Hacker]

I think they are confused with the Nav trainers because the 350s are still flying around a parts bin in Kansas, and will be for several months at least.

But who ends up flying them is currently in the light blue corner.... once TWA have gone through the teething for us! (Cheers easy)

At the rate we are going through the Alberts in Theatre we better prepare the King Airs for freight ops as well!

THH - busy reading my 350 P.O.H. in anticipation.....

[Jackonicko]

http://www.hawardenspotters.info/JENC_5e.jpg

Quoted as Beech 300C, rather than 350. Typo? Mistake?

Any news on who will operate them?

[XV277]

Reported by at least one press source as 5 Squadron at Waddington, under designation Shadow R1.

Those who DO know aint' saying!!!

[LowObservable]

The Shadow Knows.

[Green Flash]

The Shadow? - you mean, Hank Marvin?:}

[barnstormer1968]

I must say I do enjoy reading all the inter service willy waving. But here is a warning. Get in as much as you can right now, as due to soon to happen defence cuts, there will soon be no point in continuing.

Noo Labour are going to scrap everyone's kit, and replace it all with just ONE hovercraft (land,sea, air use). After that, each of the services will get to use it for ten days at a time in rotation.:}

Although, knowing UK procurement, it will no doubt be delayed for several years, while the powers that be argue over whether it needs air brakes, an anchor or disc brakes!

Going back to King Airs briefly. I would also like to know as much about them as many other PPRUNERS, but then I am not in a need to know position, so will just have to wait.

[L J R]

Looks to me that BAE forgot that the 'U' in UCAV stands for UNMANNED!

[Gaz ED]

It actually stands for Uninhabited - you sexist pig!:ok:

[chopper2004]

Without prejudice, :) quickie question how come the AAC didnt invest in the RC-12s or their equivalents like their US counterparts say 2 decades ago? Funding or slight rivalries between who should fly something above a certain weight and stance?

Slightly deviating the topic, the US DoD is putting more money and effort into the RC-12 fleet for the Army as well as the USAF for Afghanistan under Project Liberty. As they would be better served in that low intensity conflict. :\

[contactin]

The RN are involved with both Pilot and NCO Sensor operator.

[Jackonicko]

So who will operate them?

An expanded 5 Squadron?

A new RAF-badged, tri-service manned squadron notionally based at Waddington?

A new AAC-badged, tri-service manned squadron notionally based where?

A new AAC Squadron?

A new RN Squadron?

[PumpCockMixMags]

If you dont know who's gonna operate them and your not a 100% of the exact role they are to be used in then you probably dont need to know. Be careful, this thread is starting to mention things it maybe should not. Remember 'loose lips sink ships'...:mad:

[juliet]

Wise words Pump, but there are always those that want to be the one to sound important and give out a little bit of info. And there are always those that will urge them on, saying that it is all public info anyway, waiting for the non public info to come out.

The amount of info given out on this site is ridiculous.

[Jackonicko]

I'm 200% behind legitimate military security - and it pains me when security concerns are instead used to protect what is merely politically embarrassing, or when people quote security concerns when the question being asked is entirely innocuous. Not everything is, or needs to be, secret.

The role is obvious from the fit, and the requirement.

No-one's asking about tactics, parametrics, capabilities, equipment nor even operational basing.

Just which branch of the services will own and operate these aircraft - bought and paid for with taxpayers money.

Do you think for one moment that this is unknown because it's militarily sensitive, and won't be released when the squadron stands up?

What possible problem does this level of information pose?

[Heimdall]

Personally I'm with Jackonicko on this one. If you have read the usual aviation magazines recently you'll have noticed that there's already quite a lot of information about these aircraft in the public domain, no doubt thanks to various individuals in the MOD. :=
I think asking who will operate them and where they will be based is hardly likely to breach national security - anyway in a few months time they'll be operational anyway, so what possible 'damage' can this information actually do?
I'm all for operational security, but it needs to be applied correctly and for the right reasons, otherwise it just loses credibility.

Heimdall

[XV277]

Do you think for one moment that this is unknown because it's militarily sensitive, and won't be released when the squadron stands up?


Whilst agreeing with you in principal, Has the MOD ever released or confirmed details of the AAC unit that uses the Defender?

[Lurking123]

Am I the only one who is heartened by the obvious push to acquire ISTAR assets without the usual long-winded, unnecessary procurement process? I don't really care about what the King Airs or DA42s are called or who operates them. To me I am just pleased that the movers and shakers in MOD are actually moving and shaking.

[mick2088]

Whilst agreeing with you in principal, Has the MOD ever released or confirmed details of the AAC unit that uses the Defender? Or that further Defenders were recently bought to expand the fleet. And then there is this "civilian" Eurocopter Dauphin. You didn't see it... right.

Just a civvie Dauphin... (http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3419)

[Occasional Aviator]

Am I the only one who is heartened by the obvious push to acquire ISTAR assets without the usual long-winded, unnecessary procurement process?

Actually, I'm not. All this hasty purchasing of ISTAR assets overlooks the big issue of what we do with the information. All that ownership battles and willy-waving do is reinforce the situation where we have plenty of COLLECT assets, but a confused DIRECT function and barriers to PROCESS and DISSEMINATE. I've even heard of some in the RA asking D J6 CBM to make sure that the TUAV downlink was bespoke because "we don't want other people using it"!

We need to get over the issue of who owns or operates the assets, and get on with making sure that the operators have the DATA (not kit) they need - and no, that doesn't automatically mean FMV!

[the_flying_cop]

i know the answers, but i aint telling.

its a good story, but i agree that it should not be plastered all over these pages.

if you need to know, you will know, if you dont, then you should not be asking. but then you all knew that already, and dont need my 2 bobsworth

TFC

[MightyGem]

Has the MOD ever released or confirmed details of the AAC unit that uses the Defender?
Maybe not, but the info is out there:
Britten-Norman BN-2 Defender AL2, ZG997, Army Air Corps (http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1133784/)
(after a quick google).

[juliet]

As usual people come out fighting, declaring that they are not posing a problem, asking what harm could possibly come from finding out this and that.

What starts out as innocent questioning leads to more innocent questioning that starts to bring up some not so innocent questions.

Leading statements posed on here such as "the role is obvious from the fit" are used cleverly to get a response from someone.

Quite simply if the info is given out by the MoD then it is fair game, if it isnt then leave it alone. Im guessing the only reason these questions are even asked on here is that originally the question was posed to the MoD who responded with "bugger off, there is no need for you to know right now".

It seems that these days very few military people take their oaths seriously. It also seems that those that are not military have lost any respect they may have once had for the military through their demand to have all their questions answered.

Im sure there is very little info on this subject that has been released by MoD, not because it is fun to do so, but because eventually that ability to keep quiet will save lives.

Of course Im sure this will be outweighed by some journo/plane spotters right to know everything...................

[Jackonicko]

Juliet,

With respect.....

"I'm guessing the only reason these questions are even asked on here is that originally the question was posed to the MoD who responded with "bugger off, there is no need for you to know right now."

Is way off base. The reason that questions are asked here is because asking the MoD takes weeks to get an answer - not through rigorous examination of the security case, but because the PR machine is institutionally inefficient, and close to broken.

This is innocent questioning, and no leading questions have been asked. There are clear, stated limits on what is being asked "Whose and where" and clear indications that details of equipment/operational basing/tactics and parametrics should not be asked about. Certainly no one is demanding to have all their questions answered.

In a democracy (look it up) taxpayers have a right to know what their money is being spent on, but perhaps not exactly how those assets are used.

There is a line to be drawn, but this is not Stalin's Russia, and a blanket ban on any and all information won't fly.

XV277,

Yes, the MOD has released and confirmed details of the AAC unit that uses the Defender.

See:

http://www2.army.mod.uk/linkedfiles/soldierwelfare/supportagencies/aws/communityguides/swf_sa_aws_cg_w/raf_odiham_2008/raf_odiham_section_1.pdf

for example.

This says that: "Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing (JSFAW)
The JSFAW was formed on 2 Apr 01, bringing together 657 Squadron Army Air Corps (AAC) and 7 Squadron RAF into a single unit to provide Lynx and Chinook in support of United Kingdom Special Forces. The Wing is under peacetime command of the Station Commander of RAF Odiham, but the Single-Services retain Full Command of their respective personnel. In 2006, the wing incorporated 651 Squadron Army Air Corps and its Defender aircraft."

Elsewhere, it has officially been revealed that: "5 Regiment Army Air Corps will continue to operate from Aldergrove. 665 Squadron operate Gazelle helicopters that provide a communications facility and have a surveillance role. They may provide assistance to the PSNI in accordance with the ‘Patten Provisions’. 651 Squadron operate Brittan Norman Islander and Defender 4000 fixed wing aircraft, again in the surveillance role. The PSNI will continue to operate a Eurocopter EC-135 helicopter and a Brittain Norman Islander fixed wing aircraft in the surveillance roles."

I've seen official references to where 651 is operationally deployed, but see no purpose in repeating that here, or linking to it.

And it was officially revealed that 651 "officially moved to RAF Aldergrove on 4 August 2008 from RAF Odiham."

The statement that "651 Squadron operate Brittan Norman Islander and Defender 4000 fixed wing aircraft" would seem to infer that No.1 Flight and 651 had merged. I don't know whether that's the case, but rather suspect not.

[juliet]

JN,

Im well aware of what democracy means, Ive spent years defending your right to have it.

I also do not believe in a blanket ban, I believe in going through the appropriate channels to find out information. If it is reasonable to discuss that information then it will be disclosed, if not then it wont be released.

How do you do decide what is innocent questioning by the way, without knowing all the facts about the topic you are going into. If you have questions by all means ask the MoD, if you get given a brush off then perhaps you should take it as meaning you have no need to know.

You have the right to ask, not always the right to know.

[pr00ne]

juliet,

"Im well aware of what democracy means, Ive spent years defending your right to have it."

NO you haven't! Nobody has threatened "our" right to have democracy since 1945. All you have done, and are doing if you are still serving, is assist implement Government policy, both foreign and domestic.

[Modern Elmo]

... also do not believe in a blanket ban, I believe in going through the appropriate channels to find out information. If it is reasonable to discuss that information then it will be disclosed, if not then it wont be released.

How do you do decide what is innocent questioning by the way, without knowing all the facts about the topic you are going into. If you have questions by all means ask the ..., if you get given a brush off then perhaps you should take it as meaning you have no need to know.

You have the right to ask, not always the right to know. ...

Translated from Russian?

[maximo ping]

"NO you haven't! Nobody has threatened "our" right to have democracy since 1945. All you have done, and are doing if you are still serving, is assist implement Government policy, both foreign and domestic."


Gosh, I suppose that whole Cold War business was just a lot of fuss about nothing then. Hmm, you wouldn't be just a little youthful in your perspective would you pr00ne?

[Squirrel 41]

JN, good morning
_____________

Juliet noted:

What starts out as innocent questioning leads to more innocent questioning that starts to bring up some not so innocent questions.

Leading statements posed on here such as "the role is obvious from the fit" are used cleverly to get a response from someone.
_____________

This is spot on. If the role is so obvious, pls explain to the clueless like me and assembled masses how you divide the role from operational information that could be of assistance to the opposition.

JN, I would gently suggest that if you're so interested, you should send an FOI request to the MOD and they will tell you everything that can be released. You may well complain that the PR system is broken, but FOI is not: however, an FOI may not tell you anything. If so, as has been said, if you don't need to know something, then the chances are, you ought not. It's not all a huge conspiracy aimed at Journos / Enthusiasts / Spotters.

S41

[Jackonicko]

Squirrel,

Good morning to you, too.

It's officially confirmed that the Nimrod R.Mk 1 is operated by No.51 Squadron, RAF, based at RAF Waddington, and operating in the Signals Intelligence role.

That's two more pieces of information (squadron number and role) than is being asked about the King Airs.

And none of it is "operational information that could be of assistance to the opposition."

I'll submit a FOIA (that will take the best part of a month to answer) when I have something worthwhile to ask. Every FOIA request generates work for over-pressed blue-suiters and civil servants on the IPTs and elsewhere, and firing them off in large numbers is poor form, in my view.

And when all one is asking is "RAF or Army?" It seems lunacy to waste people's time. Especially when you have a fair old idea that you know the answer, and are merely seeking confirmation.

(Probable A: A new Flight of No.5 (AC) Squadron at Waddington (except when deployed), commanded by an RAF Squadron leader, but manned by tri-service personnel, and with No.56 acting as the OEU).

[Squirrel 41]

JN,

Firstly, how nice to have a civilised exchange! I agree that Sqn designation and ownership seems like small beer - and it may be, for all I know - but if I were to re-phrase your question as:

"What is the seniority of the individual commanding this organisation, who is it subordinated to for C2 purposes, and where do the personnel of this unit live and work"

Which is not a million miles from what you've proposed, then perhaps you'll agree to the sensitivity. And 51 was for a long time not as open as you suggest.

Finally, in a former life, I've been on the answering end of FOIA requests (although not at the MoD), and it's not a big deal. It'll get you the official answer and may well be more than you expect. It's only 30 days, and may be quicker - it should also be more illuminating than the PR line.

Cheers,

S41

[Jackonicko]

"What is the seniority of the individual commanding this organisation, who is it subordinated to for C2 purposes, and where do the personnel of this unit live and work"

But that's not what I'm asking. Nor would a simple answer to what I am asking actually answer those questions.

I didn't ask the seniority of the CO, nor did I ask anything about reporting or chain of command, only whose the aircraft would be and where they would notionally be based. The "where do the personnel of this unit live and work" would apply to any unit whose base is revealed. Should we therefore keep all squadron locations secret? Making the fact that 28 are at Benson, for example, a state secret. The sensible compromise is surely to obscure in-theatre operating bases.

51's role was obscure, officially, throughout the Canberra/Comet era, but since the late 70s, the Sigint role has been acknowledged.

[BEagle]

On the topic of 'less well-known roles', Jacko, have you still got the slides I loaned you some time ago?

Did you ever get that article printed?

[Jackonicko]

They're with AFM, BEags. I've been paid for the article (long since), but it hasn't appeared. I'll chase the beggars.

[Squirrel 41]

JN,

My point is that the hypothetical question I proposed is closer to yours than you might like to think. You may not agree, but unit numbers, home locations, "ownership" and role can be sensitive, and if I were in the MOD, I would probably sit on the information.

I am all for openness - the public are footing the bill for all of this with their money, and accountability is important. But this happens through your MPs and Parliament: there is no "right to know" this stuff - and "need to know" is not the same as "want to know". As you point out, 51 were for many years in the shadows; whoever this lot are, if their role requires it, they are entitled to the same protection.

Therefore, I'm afraid we simply don't agree. These aircraft are presumably (ie, what do I know? what do I need to know?) going to be deployed on sensitive operations, and until such time as they need to be / are able to be publicised, they should not be if it adds any risk to their operations for the sake of military aviation enthusiasts' hobby. Indeed, I suspect that virtually all UK military aviation enthusiasts would be see it the same way - and for those who don't, I've only got contempt, I'm afraid.

As a result, whilst it might be interesting for all of us to know which aircraft they are, which Sqn they are, and where they're based, we don't need to know. Consequently, FOIA is your friend, it'll tell you all you need to know.

Cheers,

S41

[juliet]

Proone,

I have served diligently, no more or less than any other person in the services.

I have trained and worked and been available so that the MoD can use me and my fellow service personnel whenever they feel they need to. I and all others in the service have been willing to put our lives on the line for the defense of the UK, her allies, and democracy.

You have no idea what service I have given. To doubt that any service personnel has served for anything other than the continuation of democracy disgusts me.

I am proud of my service, and I know that I HAVE helped to uphold democratic values by the very fact that I am willing to give my life for those values and ideals.

[Lurking123]

Another one?

Photos: Diamond DA-42 Twin Star MPP Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Diamond%20DA-42%20Twin%20Star%20MPP/1428792/L/&width=1024&height=780&sok=&sort=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=)

[Jackonicko]

http://www.igniter.org.uk/avpics/fl/wdn08/58.jpg

Reposted from another board. At least they've painted it, now!

[mick2088]

At RAF Waddington I take it where it will be based when not wherever it will or might not eventually go. That about confirms your earlier questions then.

[TEEEJ]

G-JENC was out and about yesterday. Circuits at RAF Coningsby.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/004f1647.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/a19dd5a9.jpg

TJ

[CirrusF]

Another one?

Photos: Diamond DA-42 Twin Star MPP Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Diamond%20DA-42%20Twin%20Star%20MPP/1428792/L/&width=1024&height=780&sok=&sort=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=)
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4562278)


Apart from the Austrian registration, it does look the same as the first two, complete with de-chromed spinners and additional antenna under the nose (UHF?). Perhaps they've decided to skip the temporary UK registration and put them directly on the military register once they go operational.

It's go the older Thielert engines too, so presumably one that was built at least a year ago, then converted.

Who's the slacker flying it though? He's not on the taxi-line.

[CirrusF]

Why have they put the King Air on the civvy register?

[mick2088]

I suppose because they were bought as bog standard B300Cs as a UOR in 2007 directly from the manufacturer and were registered with the CAA by a well-known UK-based US company and converted into Hank Marvins (350ER King Airs) before being handed over. Same thing with the Twin Diamonds.

[XV277]

I like the nickname!

[CirrusF]

Anyone care to invent an official nickname for the RAF DA42s?

[mick2088]

Erm... diamond geezer?

[Jackonicko]

JSF = Dave
Shadow = Hank
DA42 = Neil

[CirrusF]

"neil" is not bad at all.

or maybe "robin", as they have three wheels and are made of plastic.

[XV277]

JSF = Dave
Shadow = Hank
DA42 = Neil

So does it mean that the Sentinels should be called Cliffs ?(as in Richards)

Given time, I could come up with a funny rationale for that one!!

[ACW599]

>Why have they put the King Air on the civvy register?<

Starting anorak mode
Anorak mode ON

According to my SBS-1 log it's ZZ416 although its ADS-B callsign is GJENC.

Anorak mode OFF
Stopping anorak mode

[CirrusF]

From what I can make out from open-source on the internet, the first two Neils have already gone south to work with the TFB Desmonds, replacing a couple of the Betty's which will get redeployed somewhere else. I can't even begin to guess where...

That's just what the internet says! I know nothing.

[RichardIC]

... and Shadow R1 it is... (or at least "it is believed")

Scene around the UK (http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/scene.htm)

[Jackonicko]

I'm told that JDW, which I haven't yet seen, reveals exactly who will operate these.

Thanks, sir!

[KeepItTidy]

Nimrod MR2 as always will save lives , in order to do that it just needs one thing , removal of arses that try to make it fly when its not needed.

:ok:

[BEagle]

JSF = Dave
Shadow = Hank
DA42 = Neil

Not more stupid spotter nicknames please :mad:

'Dave' is stupid enough :rolleyes: - don't encourage spotters to come up with more garbage. Years ago, one 'wannabe' military aviation rag kept banging on about the 'Brick' (their nickname for the Buccaneer - and only theirs!) and 'Phantom F3' for the F4J(UK) - let's not have more of this silliness.

[Gainesy]

And anyway, JSF should be known as the Sea Noff.

[Wrathmonk]

But referring to the "StrikeMouse", "Vickers FunBus" and "TypHoon" is acceptable hey BEags! Surely now you've retired you're not much more than a spotter yourself (in terms of Mil Aircraft)...! :E