A Cracking Article in The Thunderer

[Finnpog]

A good article here by a journo about her sister who is a Sqdn Ldr, QWI on Tonkas in Afghan. Well played!!:ok:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6968245.ece

[kokpit]

First part of the narrative: 'I’m on the phone to Nikki, my little sister, and we’re gossiping away about the usual stuff, boys, shoes, bombs. Yes, bombs. Squadron Leader Nikki Thomas is a fast-jet navigator serving in Afghanistan.'

Picture caption: 'Squadron Leader Nikki Thomas (L), a pilot with 31 Squadron from Royal Air Force Marham....'

I would have thought a journalist, writing an article about her sister, would have ensured it was adequately proof read. :ugh:

[Stuff]

Blame the picture editor. I doubt the writer had any control over the caption. There's a slightly more fundamental problem with that picture than just getting the pilot/nav roles the right way round.

[c130jbloke]

Sorry to say this, but what fool allowed those two women to be showcased like this !!!

But FFS, what about their OPSEC and their right to stay out of the public eye ?

Not a personal pop at the players concerned, but there has to be some top level direction regarding the exposure of PTC personnel to the media - ie none whatsoever.

[ORAC]

And their family, the sister should have known better as a journalist. Especially after what happened in Mexico (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-mexico-revenge-attack23-2009dec23,0,2159235.story) last week. You think there aren't those supporting the Taleban as ruthless?

[Wrathmonk]

The article would not have happened without the two involved agreeing to it. IIRC they are not the all first female crew to fly Tonkas in an op theatre - the other crews involved ticked the 'no publicity' box.;)

As for the

there has to be some top level direction regarding the exposure of PTC personnel to the media - ie none whatsoever.

where do you draw the line? As an example, by definition, all infantry are PTC. Does that mean that all gallantry awards made to them should be classified as they are for SF? And best we all go back to no uniform in public, driving to work covered up etc etc.

[P6 Driver]

Surprised it took three posts before someone shouted OPSEC on their behalf!

Better not view the RAF website news section.

[Two's in]

I would tend to side with Wrathmonk's approach on this. By all means be diligent and cautious in what goes on around you, but hiding under a rock is exactly the result that the bad guys want. Some of you may not remember the almost routine shootings, car bombs and mortar attacks perpetrated by the friends of Gerry Adams MP and Martin McGuinness MP, on the Forces in West Germany in the eighties and nineties. This included the murder of Corporal Maheshumer Islania of the Royal Air Force and his 6 month old daughter Nivruti in Wildenwrath (a story pushed to the back of the popular press by the resignation of Nigel Lawson).

Despite the shock and revulsion of these cowardly and murderous acts, the reaction was to carry on daily life as normal as possible (albeit with a greater awareness of the security risk) to prove the point that acts of terror only work if they terrorise the victims.

That period of IRA terrorism made it clear that there were no days off or exceptions to being targeted, be it serving personnel or their families, but that resilience was seen as part of the opposition to those who would try to terrorise the innocent. So be careful and know the threat, but if you don't want to face up to the reality that you may one day become a target, life in the forces may not be for you

[c130jbloke]

You have not considered the effect of the internet allowing access of useful information to a potential interrogator ( the "proper" div 1 nations we may fight one day do have them, and they are probably very good :uhoh:). Therefore, the act of putting your face ( granted, attractive in both cases ) onto a news site and saying that you drop bombs for a living is not a bad way for said individual to start your "chat" . Guarantee that the SERE school would agree with my position.

Better not view the RAF website news section.


Too right as I cannot do so without :ugh:

I also well remember BFG in the 80s and the whole "dropping" of the keys by your car to take a quick look before you turned the ignition.:eek:

My point is by all means go with normal - what they did was not. So remove the option of choice.

[Wrathmonk]

c130jbloke

Don't get me wrong - having done the 'long course' at what is now the SERE School, a few years before RTI/CAC trg became "a popular break for all from the rigours of the day-to-day job;)", I have spent many a wasted hour briefing people not to divulge too much in the public forum - and always lost the battle with sqn cdrs who felt there is no such thing as bad publicity. Lots of column inches / tv hours showing how good / important their squadrons were would out them above thier peer group. Bottom line is the current 'enemy' won't play by the rules and even the Premier league opposition, who have supposedly signed up to the Geneva Convention, won't either. The only 'gentlemen' it seems are us - we are prepared to give a terrorist, acting against our forces in a third part country, the protection of European Human Rights but they can happily slot us in the most horrific ways imaginable.

Our lords and masters will never ban publicity as they need it to feed off - no publicity means Joe Public doesn't know what's going on and so can't understand why Defence needs £36Bn a year when there are so many unable to buy 40 fags and a bottle of White Lightning a day on their meagre benefits! You are right that the internet causes a lot of problems but can we ever ban serving personnel from posting on Facebook, My Space, Friends Reunited etc? Or this site?? I've seen links on this site to a Puma loadies (I think) private photo collection with lots of photos of both his his wife and his job, and to a Herc co-pilots flickr page with lots of photos both in and out of cockpit from lots of locations around the world (some of which involve tents, hesco and sand!).

The only answer is to ensure individuals understand that any 'look at me' self induced publicity (including charity, grip and grin for 1000/2000 hrs etc etc) may have a counter-productive reaction if you are unlucky enough to find yourselves in the wrong hands. And to ensure that any individual who does not wish to participate in the media circus should not be forced to - and not subsequently be penalised for such a decision (he says bitterly!). The last thing we need is the RUC situation whereby you couldn't tell your neighbours what you did, hang your uniform outside to dry after washing etc. Trouble is 'ops' is so routine we have become lazy at some of the more basic things.

End of the day it is should be an individuals choice as to whether they want to be a media "sell out" or not (not my first choice of words....). And as ever they would suffer the consequences of their chosen actions. Bit of a bitch if you are in a multi-crew aircraft mind :sad:

[P6 Driver]

Some thought provoking stuff early on in this thread. A question though - how much is too much in terms of the release of information. A balance must be struck in all cases. If no information is ever released, the following two pedantically hypothetical examples could occur;

"The Royal Air Force has decided not to announce the Red Arrows team for 20XX. Nine pilots of indeterminate gender and ages will fly a full season of displays but their names, background and previous aircraft types flown will not be available to the public for operational and personal security reasons. The same applies for their groundcrew. The brochure for the 20XX season will be understandable thin".

"The Ministry of Defence has announced the award of the Victoria Cross to an un-named individual of the British Armed Forces. The individuals name and unit will not be released, and they will not be allowed to wear the decoration or ribbon, as their personal security could be compromised in the future".

The above are not intended to be facetious, or to have a pop at anyone who has posted, but are intended to illustrate that a balance must be found. If the public know that a Reds pilot has flown operationally, is the pilot or his/her family in danger now or in the future for instance? The same pilot may well fly operationally after the Reds tour. When the RAF publicity machine swings into action, we usually get to know various names and brief background details for a number of display aircrew.

I would not want a total release of details and information in all cases, and fully acknowledge that operational and personal security should not be taken lightly. I would equally not want a world where crews don black SF style masking tape or put a bag on their heads to avoid photographs - so, how much is too much, and who decides?

RD

[Mr C Hinecap]

If anyone 'bangs out sausage-side' then they are going to have a pretty grim time of it if Mr T Taliban gets hold of them. Given their own use of the media over the years, knowing who your friends and pet dog are won't make a jot of difference.

[barnstormer1968]

I read through this thread up until Mr Hinecap's post, before reading the article
(or at least reading partly through it).
So, the lady's missions are normally secret, but she still tells of what she does! Are they secret or not?, if they are, she is not at liberty to divulge anything.
As for the comment that a jet at one hundred feet is pretty terrifying, what a load of rubbish! should we be thanking a crew for exposing their aircraft, and then allowing the ENEMY to live another day, after planning to kill us?
I will admit to being a dinosaur, but would have felt very re assured if an enemy of mine used such murderous tactics as only flying over my head (in fact as a bit of a spotter, it would have been quite nice!). Of course, I would have been scared, of other countries, who would have been strafing(sp) me, or dropping bombs on me at the same time (so I could not return another day).

Sorry if this post is not in the spirit of Christmas or 'spin', but many folks, including myself have often thought that aircrew (USMC and army pilots excepted) really have no idea of what ground troops really need or are going through. That is not a dig at any aircrews (nor their bravery in support of troops), and is to be expected, as aircrew are not normally infanteers. Similarly, infantry/ground troops will know nothing of air combat tactics.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, no matter how little the taliban would know about your family (or whether you are from an air force that only tries to scare your enemy, rather than kill them), they will not be very nice hosts if they get a hold of you!, and so it seems a crime IMHO to send out aircrews with ROE that are not as lethal to an enemy as legally possible.

[LateArmLive]

Barnstormer.

Stick to what you know please. If you read the article properly, you would know that it was a suspected rocket team. I'm assuming you are not current with HERRICK ROE and SPINS? What about LOAC? Proportionate response and mimimum force?
You cannot just go dropping bombs on people that you see out in the open who look suspicious. I am not going to go into details here for obvious reasons, but I would have thought it was pretty clear why not.

If I had dropped on everyone I saw out there who looked suspicious to me then there wouldn't have been much of Afghanistan left by now :rolleyes:

[c130jbloke]

Wrathmonk,

Your post at #10 is one of the best I have ever read on Pprune - I cannot fault it :D.

I know what you mean, I have before had to work pretty hard to dodge the cameras on an op :eek:.

As for the post about the 9 reds, don't get me started :(

C130JB

[orca]

Barnstormer

I completely agree about aircrew not knowing what ground troops need. I have long campaigned for UHF radios to be fitted on every (yes - every) aeroplane, and for some of the troops to carry them too. That way the pilots could explain what ordnance and systems they had, in return the troops could explain the pickle that they were in and the assistance required.

This 'symbiosis' would, in an ideal world, money no object, be practiced in training as well as wartime. It could even be backed up by briefing and de-briefing, but we have to accept that resources are slim.

Obviously a much simpler way of dealing with the problem would be to ensure that no-one went into combat without a pilot's brevet, a red or green lid, and a bridge watchkeeping certificate. Or they could go, but only if they'd done it before.

This 'no need for jointery because we can all do everything' approach would prevent the quite ridiculous notion of someone doing an unbriefed show of terrification purely on a personal whim. These aircrew need sending to a warzone, that'll wake them up.

[Airbrake]

A 30 second search on Facebook reveals plenty. The RAF news provides the names and pictures the individuals provide the rest. Lots of people sat in aircraft with full names of friends provided.

It was only a few years ago that there was a plan to kidnap a member of the army in the UK to star in their own video nasty. Anybody on facebook who has a picture of themselves sat in a jet for all to see is nuts.

[vecvechookattack]

Anybody on facebook who has a picture of themselves sat in a jet for all to see is nuts.

Why? Surely anybody would be proud to put a picture of themselves in a jet on Facebook

[mick2088]

I thought that the PR purpose of these kind of articles was to show that women have been integrated into the armed forces, that there is no gender inequality and they can serve in most roles even on the shiny pointy things. So someone tell me what is the point of promoting an all-female crew on the Tornado, and previously that one with the Chinook crew, which was even more daft. Reminded me of reading about the WW2 Tuskegee Airmen when I was younger. All you need next is an all-female squadron to complete the illusion.

[P6 Driver]

C130JB

As for the post about the 9 reds, don't get me started http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Lets get you started. As you obviously have opinions on the subject, I refer to my original question. Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it? A I wrote, it's not meant in a facetious manner, so what's the solution?

RD

[barnstormer1968]

LateArmLive.
Thanks for for comment. Now, if you read what I typed, then you will see I made no mention of the suspected (yes, I obviously read it) team in the article, but was actually referring to a show of force and not the suspected team (it's all there in type for you to see).
Yes I do mention ROE's, but am referring to them not being the most lethal they can be (although I do not know you, it does seem you may have not been on the planet for long, if you are not aware of how the U.S. commanders have slated Brit ROE in recent times).
What we do agree on, is me sticking to what I know. So as I alluded to above, if an enemy jet only passes over me at low level (no guns/rockets) then I would just carry on as normal (SOP's regarding effective enemy fire-as I am sure you will know).
On the other hand, if the team in the article were only suspected (as YOU mentioned them), then assuming they were innocent, the low fly by could be a really good way to alienate the locals:ugh:

*if you have grasped hold of the single word 'enemy' I am sure you already know these blighters can be anywhere, and thus very low flying will expose the aircraft to their nasty deeds.

[muttywhitedog]

I got bored when the journo talked about her sister being "in charge" of an aircraft. She's only a passenger!

[LateArmLive]

On the other hand, if the team in the article were only suspected (as YOU mentioned them), then assuming they were innocent, the low fly by could be a really good way to alienate the locals

Whereas if they'd actually engaged the team, the locals would have really been upset. Not really sure where you're coming from old man. :confused:

[c130jbloke]

Lets get you started. As you obviously have opinions on the subject,

I have an opinion on just about everything :bored:

My point is covered on the "reds to go" thread as I don’t see the rationale for retaining 9 + 1 ac when we now have a force of less than 40 000 ( FYI when I joined it was 110 000). If you want the whole story then read the thread.

As for their OPSEC - they obviously want the red suit more than obscurity which is their choice and I respect that. I understand from an ex reds mate that the publicity vs. OPSEC ( ie long gone and you could become prime media fodder) aspect is discussed during selection which is as good as you could wish for I suppose - I am just somebody who has no desire to be in the media for any reason whatsoever.

As for the solution - I like the Israeli way of doing business but I concede that its impossible in the above case.

[P6 Driver]

C130JB

Thanks for that. I'm definitely with you on whether or not personal information should be allowed into the public domain, and have always been careful of my own details for similar reasons.

It does surprise me that certain information comes out on occasion, and I certainly wonder whether or not the individuals have thought things through.

RD

[c130jbloke]

and I certainly wonder whether or not the individuals have thought things through

:ok::ok:

And therein lies the snake in the grass just waiting to bite your @ss......:eek:

[barnstormer1968]

LateArmLive.
I can see you are not sure where I am coming from now:)

Originally by LAL
Whereas if they'd actually engaged the team, the locals would have really been
upset. Not really sure where you're coming from old man. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Ok. First off. If the crew had attacked they would not have gone in so low
perhaps (especially if bombs were used:eek:).
If they were not going to attack, then do not bother with a show of force fly by,
as you may find this does not deter forces who are believers in fate, and believe
their day of death is already mapped out and is un alterable (we don't need to
dwell on this as you are probably very aware of this problem, from ground troops
whom face the taliban daily at only a few hundred metres or less).

If the diggers were actually taliban, then we can still not say whether the locals
would be upset or not, as we would not know whom they sided with!
But of course, yes, if the locals were innocent, and we kill them or do a fly by,
then yes they well be alienated (as you pointed out).
So, was a show of force the best way to find out the intent of the diggers?

Either way, keep safe. And have a good new year:ok:

[LateArmLive]

The SOF would have been called for by the ground commander, not the aircrew. It does work well at times in order to diffuse a potentially hostile situation, although I am only too aware that sometimes a SOF does nothing (although I wish I could have seen their faces when the KRET came off.....:eek:)
I wasn't there on the day of the incident, but I believe the SOF was the best solution at the time. The way I see it there are 2 possible alternatives:
1. Wait and see what happens. This is potentially risky as by the time someone gets a PID on the "rocket team" then it could be too late and you would be looking at an attack on KAF.

2. Hit them first. This should never happen unless there is a PID (ideally from a ground callsign) of EF. Very difficult to achieve at night from the air. If there was a ground callsign in the area then they would have been able to investigate the diggers and that would have been the best solution, but I bet there was none available at the time.

So, the SOF was carried out at the time and "The guys ran for their trucks and careered off. There were no rocket attacks that evening.”

That, to me, says that the SOF was the best option.

We'll probably go around this one over and over, but that's just my opinion on the situation. Have a good New Year too :)

[Melchett01]

and I certainly wonder whether or not the individuals have thought things through



And therein lies the snake in the grass just waiting to bite your @ss......

They will have plenty of time to think things over next time they are doing their SERE courses - the DS will have a field day with them.

All it will take is a quick Google / FB search down the list of students to see exactly who they have in through the doors that week.

Wonder if they will be so keen for those exploits to be made public? I would hope so, it will be a very good lesson in OPSEC and PERSEC to all concerned.

[Diablo Rouge]

There may be a bigger picture (pardon the pun) here. If you Google "UN objective afghanistan" you will come across a UN document..
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/documents/ga63/AFGHANIS.pdf
..in which the equality of woman in Afghan society is seen as a primary objective. Therefore it may be that our own Govt is promoting the 'liberation forces' as being one of gender equality and that these particular individuals are simply pawns in that game.

As an aside, the reason why I came across this document is to try and establish what exactly it is that we are doing in Afghanistan that justifies the 244 UK lives lost so far. The seed that sowed the curiosity was more statements in the Press that now seem born of SOP Press Statement post death then actual heart felt realities of a life lost. Have the military come to accept loss of life as "Yup; **** happens".

[Wrathmonk]

the DS will have a field day with them

As they did in the days before Google, Facebook, MySpace etc (God, I'm starting to sound like BEags!). The example we were given was from a simple wedding announcement in the Daily Torygraph. The DS managed to nail down addresses of family and friends (best man), work places, photographs (in uniform from local press showing wings [and all the sword party with wings/brevet]) just through using resources in the local public library (notably the phone book!). In under an hour!