Just this once.
No, I wouldn't expect an all out SF attack, but that is what the airfield should be able to deter.
I would on the other hand expect an attack from other groups. Again with hindsight the unarmed snowdrop was appropriate. Would he or she have been much use against lee Rigby's murderers.
Other questions perhaps to consider are:
Does the hippy in the above pic look any more dangerous than the white widow or any of the Chechen ladies who occupied the Beslan school number one?
Did it take SF to destroy the USMC harriers at camp leatherneck, or just some determined folks who were very aware of lapse security at a point of the camp perimeter?
RAF airfields are easy prey for attackers, and used to only have low wooden fences. Whether attacks are made by military forces, protesters, the former PIRA or criminal gangs (a criminal attack on a base recently happened) the RAF could do a lot more to secure perimeters.
Very sadly there are a whole bunch of UK nationals who are very anti British, and who support AQ and the Taliban. Give that this station supports UAVs to fight these groups then it should be anticipated that they have already been studied or will be studied for attack.
Extra security does not always require more manning, but simply better measures. Things like the Israeli innofence have been around for over two decades, as have many other modern security systems.
Last edited by barnstormer1968; 15th Oct 2013 at 05:33.