Bombing Missions from the UK

[tomahawk_pa38]

I may be straying into sensitive areas so might not get an answer which I'll understand, but when we’ve been to war in recent years (bombing Bosnia for example or when the US bombed Libya from Upper Heyford) when the bombers leave Britain on a mission, who provides ATC for the aircraft when they are in controlled airspace ? What happens when they fly over a country which may not support the war we’re in and what happens out over the Atlantic etc (like when the Vulcans re-deployed to Ascension for Black Buck) or are other countries obliged to provide a radar service.

[chevvron]

I don't think this sort of thing should be discussed on a public forum.

[blissbak]

They need a diplomatic clearance to overfly such territories ; Here were I am every ACC has got a military unit handling this kind of traffic in strict coordination with the civil sector-s

[BOAC]

I seem to recall that due to - how shall I put it - 'diplomatic difficulties', the F-111s routed west clear of mainland Europe over the Og and into the Med over Gib, but which, if any ground based unit, was 'controlling' over the Atlantic I have no idea.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

There's a principle called "The need to know" and I'm sorry you don't qualify.:oh:

[Daermon ATC]

There is something like providing a general information which hasn't any practical implications instead of being plain rude :ugh:

In Spain, ACCs do have a military unit which takes control of those traffics and ensures their separation with a) other military traffics b) civilian traffics.
The latter is done either using specific military corridors / areas or by direct coordination with the civilian atcos in the same room.

This is probably (just my guess) preceded by a coordination at diplomatic level (in order to see if a country B does allow military traffic from country A to cross their airspace in order to bomb country C... as you may think this is not usually seen kindly by said country C). If this is accepted then the military coordination would have to handle with the "when" and "where" of that operation.

So, and now pleas let me know in which way I have provided actionable intelligence? :E

[Vercingetorix]

The ICAO convention rules are not applicable to military flights although the military, as a politeness and also dependent upon the countries involved, adhere to ICAO standards otherwise they fly Due Regard.
In the case of a country like France they would request Diplomatic Clearance and if this request was refused they would fly outside of French airpace, i.e. remaining 12 NM off shore, hence the F111s flight path.

[Minesthechevy]

All this info is freely available on the net - I cannot understand why some folks are being so huffy about a truly non-sensitive subject.

[Vercingetorix]

Minesthechevy

Most likely because they know not a lot about either military procedures or the IC(Civil) AO convention.

[mad_jock]

The guy is a ppl and it does actually come up in PPL training quite abit how this thing goes on.

My completely clueless reply while being a instructor was.

The Mil have certain sets of rules inside other countries national airspace for certain things. If a high up person agrees with another high up person they can fly through it if they want to do certain sensative things.

Outside this airspace they operate with due regard and basically ignore controlled airspace they maybe talking to someone they maybe not. This is what the russians do coming across and ignoring controlled airspace and restricted areas in the Northsea which they have been doing for years. They would hardly be speaking to Scottish Info now would they. Although if they did I am sure they would get a cracking service.

The giving it the need to know doesn't actually answer the question and just makes a bigger fuss than it actually is.

Vercingetorix answer is the only reply thats required doesn't give anything away and answers the question without making out that the whole thing is some super sneaky operation and usually stops the interest from then on.

To be honest a load of bombers armed going off to do a job is a relatively easy one compared to the questions about rendition flights. Which my answer has always been I don't have a sodding clue and don't particularly want to know either.

[Piltdown Man]

Chevron: This is exactly what should be discussed on a public forum. If we supply support for any military action (including unlawful international kidnapping aka "rendition"), we pay the price. Furthermore, I'll not have anything else done "in my name" and then not be told what's happened. Historically, our government has been far too secret and has withheld far too much information - yet are pretty damn quick in supplying me with the bill. Recently, Blair's cheating, lying, duplicitous policies have cost this country respect, decency and security but more importantly, the lives of far too many of our Service personnel and tens of thousands of innocent civilians. We must make it so that scumbags like Blair can never hide the past and become fully accountable for what they did.

We must be open, honest and above all have integrity. With this we will have a better fighting force, properly equipped with a clear vision. Such principles might also help close the Forces' funding gap by having a more honest approach to defence procurement. But there again, there might also be fairies at the bottom of our garden...

PM

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The ones I was involved with flew civil airways with civil ATC. They even had slot times.

[055166k]

Oh well done....that's Heathrow and The Area Control Centre on the list then!

[Minesthechevy]

055166K - dinna be soft, I'm sure that any hostile reaction would have taken place long ago.

...and try as I might, I cannot remember an occasion when there was a mass departure of F-111s from Heathrow, destination XXXX SEE FIELD 11.

[Vercingetorix]

HD

The ICAO convention rules are not applicable to military flights although the military, as a politeness and also dependent upon the countries involved, adhere to ICAO standards otherwise they fly Due Regard.

The Military are not signatures to the ICAO convention. In essence, so long as they remain over international waters, i.e. 12+ NMs offshore, they can fly where and when they like but with countries that have some political clout they don't, they adhere to the ICAO rules.
An example would be in the Gulf States where there is much military flying. They, the Military, would often fly in the approach lanes to Dubai International at any height that suited their operation up to 12 NM offshore. When questioned as the the lack of safety involved in such practice they would say that they are flying Due Regard and are over International waters. They are correct much to the chagrin of both the UAE ACC and OMDB APP controllers.
The fact that the Military behaves itself in Europe is that most European countries have access to the corridors of power and have corresponding gentlemen's agreements. That is why it doesn't happen in the Thames Estuary!

[tomahawk_pa38]

Thanks guys for the answers I surely did not want anyone to reveal something tha might get them into trouble so the details I got from most of you was just what I was asking.

Vercingetorix - I think you may have alluded to the question I was really asking but probably worded it badly. When you say 'outside territorial waters (over 12 miles) does this mean that no one really has authority over the Atlantic once you get more than 12 miles out then ?

[mad_jock]

Mate there is a raft of stuff about territorial waters and the like to go have a look at on the internet.

There are all sorts of issues from mineral rights to fishing rights and the like.

And your only thinking about stuff you can see above the surface of the water apparently there are all sorts of fun and games going on under it as well with submarines getting a bit to close for comfort. Not un heard of for people hill walking to see a black fin sitting in a scottish sea loch with a load of lads putting plywood over a bit of it and painting it black.

[Vercingetorix]

tomahawk_pa38

Correct, but not just over the Atlantic but all countries territorial waters.
Once off shore by 12 NMs+ the Mil has complete autonomy. It is only subrogated by direct inter government agreement and nothing to do with ICAO.
Not something that pops up too much in a UK scenario as we abide by their rules and they by ours, i.e. UK & USA.
In effect the major player (USA), should it so decide, walks all over the minor player (Pakistan) while playing diplomatic courtesy as in saying Wham Bam Thank you Mam.
The basic rule is that while Diplomatic courtesies are being extended it is impolite to trangress into another countries airspace! The Russians did it with the UK, The USA does it with other countries, i.e. U2 flights, etc.
On a more prosaic note as per Mad Jock's comments re PPL this may well be what is required for exam purposes but is best filed as worthwhile reference materiel.
So, good luck and best wishes.

Cheers.

:cool:

[mad_jock]

There not required to know it for PPL. Its just that alot of them find it interesting how the system works. It usually comes up when looking at intercept procedures.

The question of how a fast jet is going to intercept a 90knt spam can is usually the topic. BTW I said to the students if you get something fast like that coming near you more than once select 121.5 and give a MAYDAY, callsign and position and say you believe you are being intercepted standing by for instructions in UK airspace.

Apparently how they do that is need to know as well, unfortunately the pilots that might be intercepted are deemed not needing to know.

[LEGAL TENDER]

The guy's been shot down in flames but after 190 tedious messages about the old Heathrow tower I actually thought this was an interesting subject ;)

[bingofuel]

I did hear a story that during the Suez crisis, Egyptian radar actually provided a radar service to the inbound bombers totally unaware they were about to be on the receiving end.

[Minesthechevy]

Legal Tender - tedious, eh? I take it you never worked there then....

Well I did, well I at least 'attended', for 22 years or thereabouts, ie a major part of my working life, and nearly half of my entire life, so I found it far from 'tedious'.

You must have had a different kind of lobotomy to me, because I retained the ability to ignore threads I don't want to be part of..... or is that too obvious?

[Vercingetorix]

Mad Jock
Re MAYDAY and intercept.
I recall the Red Arrows being on a training run in East Anglia where they popped up low level and actually caused a 'Clockwork Mouse' to flip over.
The 'Mouse' had four high profile jockeys on board on the way to a meet up north. The pilot managed to get control back but it made the national papers.
Good advice to call MAYDAY.

Cheers:ok:

[BDiONU]

I used to be one of the controllers taking the B1 bombers out (and back) from Fairford to conduct attacks near the former Yugoslavia. In UK it was standard use of military controllers in the civilian Ops room (LJAO, London Joint Area Operations) to get these guys through/across the airways system and hand them off to French Military.

[chevvron]

bingofuel: don't know about radar, but I was told they called Port Said for QDMs then bombed it!

[Dg800]

When you say 'outside territorial waters (over 12 miles) does this mean that no one really has authority over the Atlantic once you get more than 12 miles out then ? It's actually a bit more complicated than that. Extra-territorial waters while not actually being under direct control of any government are not the be thought of as no-man's land. There are international treaties dealing with what happens beyond the 12-mile limit. A prime example is the case of the two Italian Navy officers who are currently standing trial for having allegedly shot at an Indian merchant vessel killing some Indian seamen. Although this clearly happened in extra-territorial water and they are members of a foreign military force, they will still stand trial in India because a court has decided that the event falls under their jurisdiction.
And then there are the rogue countries like North Korea that have decided to set their own (much wider) boundary and to deal accordingly with "intruding" foreign vessels. In that case if engaged there is nothing you can do, short of returning fire, to escape capture. The North Koreans are not known for being particularly reasonable people. :}

[blissbak]

@Heathrow Director
I hope you are talking about GAT military flights, because I've never seen any fighter jet inbound a theater of war subject to a flow regulation

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The B1s sometimes routed LYD-WOD under civil ATC. As it was quiet at 2am they were often cleared to descend to an altitude and promptly fell out of the sky, resulting in them passing over our house with deafening noise at a few thousand feet!

[DaveReidUK]

@Heathrow Director
I hope you are talking about GAT military flights, because I've never seen any fighter jet inbound a theater of war subject to a flow regulationHD was probably off duty on all the occasions that the UK has been attacked by hostile fighters. :O

[Agaricus bisporus]

You could equally ask the same question of how the Reds get to Akrotiri and back each year. I'm sure its just the same military "secret".

The earnest sanctimoniousness over the most trivial of (often very ancient) military details on this forum is sometimes nothing but hilarious. One wonders whether those prone to such outbursts actually know anything at all of the matters involved or are just feigning Protection of Protected Knowledge. One can guess.
Thanks for providing a good chuckle!

[bingofuel]

Chevvron,

That sounds a bit more likely than the story I was told, or maybe my memory is somewhat confused.

Thanks

[On the beach]

HD was probably off duty on all the occasions that the UK has been attacked by hostile fighters.

And DaveReidUK probably knows this as he allegedly works for MI7. :ugh:

[jcr737]

Like this:

Cessna pilot flew into dogfight with RAAF - National - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cessna-pilot-flew-into-dogfight-with-raaf/2007/09/09/1189276546264.html)

Go the 337. :O

[Lon More]

From the UK, eastbound with Eastern , hand off to Dutch Mil, then Lippe , making a dog leg round Belgium and back to DIK, then with Reims towards DJL. Flight plan cancelled somewhere over the Med.
At night, slightly shorter, Dutch Mil transferred it to MUAC, then dct DJL, straight through Belgium. I suppose Glons was asleep.

[DaveReidUK]

And DaveReidUK probably knows this as he allegedly works for MI7.I could tell you, but then I'd have to ...

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

First:
To Tomahawk PA 38: Apologies for appearing rude in response for your understandable curiosity. However, shortage of time and my ability to use a mobile device in a less than conducive situation for tapping out a response digit by slow digit, obviously detracted from what I hoped was a pithy, light-hearted, but well-intentioned remark on a subject that, despite the protestations of some here, can have unintended consequences.

Second:
To Vercingetorix: I’ll have you know I did over 25 years at the military coal face as an ATCO and as Unit Security Officer at 3 locations and Communications Security Officer at 2. Later I was employed on HQ duties with responsibility for dealing with just these issues. Therefore, you ‘picked the wrong one’ to have go at, as I suspect I know a sight more about “military procedures or the IC(Civil) AO convention” on operating with Due Regard than you suspect - or know yourself. Moreover, if you did any time at all in the military the Security and Comsec training you received was obviously completely wasted. If you weren’t in the military then I suspect that is you and not me that is speaking from a position of disadvantage.

Third:
To Piltdown Man: Whereas I concur the thrust of your post with respect to our elected leaders, especially Blair (whom you describe so eloquently), it is not the likes of that scumbag (to use your phrase) that ends up carrying the can when ‘the guns begin to shoot’; it’s the poor s*ds in the airframes that take the risk. Matters of operational detail are – most decidedly - exactly what should NOT be discussed on a public forum as chevvron quite rightly responded. By all means, call our elected leaders (after all, they are supposed to work for us) to account for THEIR actions and demand that clear and honest answers are given to extremely pertinent questions that you raise (good luck with that!), but don’t put the Tommies at risk in doing so. As an aside, it was his election that decided me to leave the Service I loved so much as his credentials were plain for all to see.

Fourth: The OP was clearly not about how the military conduct their day-to-day operations viz OAT/GAT or DAT which is unclassified and freely available; it was plainly seeking information on operational procedures and methods ie live bombing operations – look at the thread title. Although an ‘interesting subject’* and worthy of an answer there are some things that should not be gratuitously talked about. Anyone who has ‘done time’ in the military knows that intelligence is built up over a period-of-time – the jigsaw metaphor is frequently used. This thread has/d the potential for someone to ‘gob off’ and perhaps impart another piece of something that could, when added to other pieces, start forming – or confirm - a whole. It is a fascinating, immensely absorbing, skill and relies heavily on gobsh1tes trying to look impressive to their peers - or a forum audience. To see how intelligence can be garnered and pieced together, I recommend RV Jones’ Most Secret War as an introductory title.

Finally: I do recall that when one became a UK ATCO, you were ‘invited’ to sign the OSA. It may be different now; but a reminder of ones responsibility to others that go in harm’s way on your behalf may be appropriate.

*another ‘interesting subject’ was why Argentinean bombs were not detonating aboard ships of the Grey Funnel line in 1982, to which the media promptly provided the answer.