Unwelcome visitors

[Blue Bottle]

With this punishment as a deterrent, can we expect a few more ‘Visitors’ jumping our fences ?
Anti-drones protesters' lenient sentence is 'invitation' to activists | UK news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2013/oct/11/anti-drones-protesters-raf-waddington)

[Just This Once...]

So 6 people cut through a fence at an RAF base and are ordered to pay the RAF £10 in compensation!?!?!

Will the judge explain what he considers good crime and what he considers bad crime?

Breaking in to any government facility that requires live-armed guards should not be treated so lightly. We need a way to separate the 'good people' and the 'bad people' and the fence line helps to delineate that. The courts should urgently consider the risk they are now exposing people to when they indicate through judgements such as this that the fence now means nothing.

Anyway, I'm off to park my car at Heathrow, just by the aircraft on the stand. It will save me loads of time and the fine is a hell of a lot less than the normal parking fees.

[Roland Pulfrew]

When I read the article (and a previous one that reported the conviction but not the sentence) I thought that perhaps the CPS/MOD should appeal and go after the judge as being unduly lenient. My personal opinion of a large section of the UK's judiciary has been decreasing over recent years and I'm sure I'm not alone. When you start to think that your judiciary are an irrelevance then that is a slippery slope for the whole moral fabric of the nation. This one needs to keep his personal opinions out of the courtroom.

[Martin the Martian]

The comments get me. Are all Guardian readers as naive?

[superq7]

I'm not mil but if the soap dodgers had tried that when I worked for the Yanks at Upper Heyford (f1-11 s) they would have been shot.

[melmothtw]

I'm not mil but if the soap dodgers had tried that when I worked for the Yanks at Upper Heyford (f1-11 s) they would have been shot.


Well, they didn't get shot breaking into RAF Fairford (B-52s)

Protesters break into RAF base | UK news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/mar/14/politics.antiwar)

[4ROCK]

Personally I don't know what all the fuss is about - hardly a crack team of Spetznaz is it...?!!

How many other nations use drones in this manner? Is it just us and US?

[Wrathmonk]

walked around inside for 45-60 minutes, handing out leaflets

Handing out leaflets would suggest they were 'engaging' with people inside the wire. Why were they allowed to persist for 45-60 minutes? Do people no longer challenge trespassers or is it all a case of "not me chief, I'm engines/admin/medical/aircrew etc (delete as appropriate) ???

[Just This Once...]

They were spotted immediately and challenged in accordance with current procedures. When the cuts through the fence were identified the civilian police were called as this was regarded as criminal damage. The civilian police arrested them and drove them away. Only in fantasy land were they wondering around giving leaflets to random service people.

[barnstormer1968]

I think some RAF heads should roll here. Security was clearly poor, as there is a known protest at this base, so this should have been foreseen. Only a naive person would think that 'baddies' do not get involved in protests anymore. If I were a terrorist I'd be 'glamming up' in my best tree hugger baggy jumper.......
With enough room under it for an AK or some explosives.


Of course, I can't claim to have invented this idea. Some nasty fellows have already done something like this at a weakly secured part of a base, but that cost the USMC rather more than just embarrassment.

[Herod]

The answer is a loaded gun. Years ago, I had to divert a Wessex into a USAF base because of a snowstorm (engine icing). I was met by a very large, very black American MP. When the storm cleared I was about to set off again. However, the remark "you're going nowhere Bub", and a hand resting on a very large pistol changed my mind. It took a couple of hours to sort everything out.

"Peace and reconciliation" sounds fine, if we can get the Taliban and al Quada to sign up for it. :*

[melmothtw]

very black American MP

??!!??!!!!??

[Trim Stab]

I don't condone what these people have done - but I am sympathetic to their protest. I think that the use of armed drones undermines the status and virtues of military service. If I read about a successful UK manned operation I always feel a sense of admiration for those involved, and a sense of pride that I was once part of that service. Whenever I read about a successful drone operation, I feel no sense of pride or admiration at all - indeed the contrary. I fear that over use of armed drones will in the long term erode the public's regard for our military services.

This is worth a read:

The end of courage? How drones are undermining military virtue ? Opinion ? ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/24/3744693.htm)

[Just This Once...]

I think some RAF heads should roll here. Security was clearly poor, as there is a known protest at this base, so this should have been foreseen.

How did you get to this conclusion? The intruders were spotted and arrested so how do you improve on this - arrest them before a crime is committed?

Security is not the issue here, only the judicial response after the security, police and CPS did their bit.

[4mastacker]

4rock wrote:

Personally I don't know what all the fuss is about - hardly a crack team of Spetznaz is it...?!!

Perhaps you could tell us what a crack team of Spetnaz looks like. Do they look like a murderer/child molester/drug dealer/TV license dodger/french onion seller....? If, as your nom-de-pprune suggests, you are a member/ex-member of TG8, you will have surely heard of recces/dry runs/sleepers?

[TEEEJ]

Superq7,
Would they have been shot?

Title: Unauthorized Entry/Vandalism to an F-111E at RAF Upper Heyford, UK

5. Observation: At approximately 0330 hours, 21 March 1990, two British males illegally entered RAF Upper Heyford and damaged an F-111E aircraft (approximately $550,000) which was parked on a hardstand inside a restricted area. These members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) approached the base perimeter, cut a hole in the perimeter fence at a remote location, and surreptitiously entered the restricted area. They ran up to an F-111E parked in front of Hardened Aircraft Shelter (HAS) 39, where one of the subjects climbed into the cockpit and with a hammer in each hand, began striking the inside of the cockpit. The individual on the ground attached antiwar signs to the aircraft. This individual then produced a hammer and began striking the wingtip fuel tank. The alarm response team (ART), located approximately 150 meters away, responded to the scene, challenged the two subjects, and placed them under apprehension. The two subjects were turned over to Ministry of Defense (MOD) police. This was a marked departure from previous nonviolent Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) activities

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/secupperheyford.pdf

[Rosevidney1]

I think we know what would have happened if these peaceniks tried the same stunt in Russia or North Korea. :eek:

[Wensleydale]

How many other nations use drones in this manner? Is it just us and US?

I think that the use of armed drones undermines the status and virtues of military service.

There is a huge void of public awareness of the role and method of use of the RPAS in the RAF. There is a big difference between the manner of our use and that of the USA. For example, unlike the CIA, we do not use the RPAS for political assassination.

We are our own worse enemies when it comes to publicising these systems. The word "Drone" has connotations and why on earth did we stick with the American name of "Reaper" which implies that it is there to assassinate! We also readily show on TV the steady pictures as a manned aircraft launches a LGB without showing the difficulties of the crew who have to make very fast judgement decisions about release (unlike the RPAS where every man and his dog can see and assess the picture before weapon release) and of course, our latest manned ground attack aircraft is single seat! Everyone remembers John Peters and John Nichol from the GW - sadly, in this conflict the pictures would be of the public beheadings on Al Jazirah TV.

The RPAs is basically a flying CCTV camera with its own police enforcement attached. It has long loiter and can be placed into harms way as an adjunct to putting our own troops into an area. By saving weight and size by being remotely piloted (no seats/emergency kit/oxygen/toilets/galley etc) it can carry out a much more successful anti-insurgent mission. At the end of the day, the important issue is to make the area safe for our ground troops - the RPAS method is an excellent method of achieving this.

[Lima Juliet]

Trim Stab

I think that the use of armed drones undermines the status and virtues of military service. If I read about a successful UK manned operation I always feel a sense of admiration for those involved, and a sense of pride that I was once part of that service. Whenever I read about a successful drone operation, I feel no sense of pride or admiration at all - indeed the contrary.

OK, I'll bite. Having been in several campaigns in the air and one on the ground, there is no virtue in having to do your country's dirty work - manned or unmanned. You Sir, need to go back to reading your Warlord comic or Battle weekly! :=

LJ

PS. Wensleydale, well said. :D

[TEEEJ]

Wrathmonk wrote

Handing out leaflets would suggest they were 'engaging' with people inside the wire.

I think that the journalist got the story incorrect in regards to the leaflets? The protesters were attaching leaflets to buildings.

Some of the images were posted on social media

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/waddo1.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/waddo2.jpg

[uffington sb]

At least they were wearing Hi-Vis vests. They didn't want to get into trouble with the 'elf n safety mob.

[OutlawPete]

Peaceful protest is one thing but there is no excuse for criminal damage and the punishment in no way fitted the crime.

There is, however a growing number that question the ethics of drones. I'm all for making the job our military do safer but for once I can see the argument the protesters have. Don't agree with the methods in this case though.

[barnstormer1968]

Just this once.

Security IS the issue here.
You are of course telling me what happened with the benefit of hindsight.
I carried out several tests and mock raids, and to be honest if I could get onto MOD land this easily I could do all kinds of nasty stuff.

Let's say they were part of the bad lads club, and had done more damage (waiting for the civil police would have been a waste of time) or had started copying the radicals who murdered lee Rigby, just how useful would it have been to stop them AFTER they had cut the fence and done whatever they wanted.
The idea of security is to make it very hard for intruders to get in (bearing in mind the base should be able to deter special forces with: automatic weapons; support weapons and anti armour weapons in time of war)and to stop them in the act of trying.

This wasn't rocket science, but was poor security, monitoring and response (to the fence cutting) in a base that is being protested at and in huge news.

Fairford was mentioned earlier, and the break in there. The protesters contained a majority of anti war types, but also baddies and Brit and U.S. Baddy spotters dressed as hippies. This worked more effectively that the event the thread is about.

[Easy Street]

barnstormer

Let's say that, in theory, the RAFP had assessed the available intelligence on the protest groups and decided that, on balance, their intent did not expand to widespread damage or wanton murder. Would it then not be a criminal waste of taxpayer's money (and a dwindling defence budget) to spend it on personnel to defend the base to a standard that would resist a wartime special forces assault? Even at the height of the Cold War that kind of defence was limited to certain small areas of certain bases, and even then only for a certain period of time while a certain kind of support was rustled up from a certain location. Even today, the really sensitive operational bits of most bases have more security than just the outer fence. The photos looked to me like they'd stuck their posters on the DF antenna building or some other not-quite-critical-to-current-ops installation out on the airfield, rather than a satellite link transmitting messages of death to Afghanistan (which is almost certainly surrounded by razor wire and on top of a very high thing watched by cameras and movement sensors).

All that said, the punishment is entirely inappropriate. Our society is built upon the expectation that citizens will obey the law, but they will generally not be forced to do so by preventative policing. So when people purposefully break the law, they are breaking their 'contract' as citizens and deserve appropriate punishment. This punishment could almost be seen as offering 'open season' and expecting law enforcers to prevent further breaches. Which is not how I thought our justice system operated.

[Just This Once...]

barnstomer,

If you are suggesting that our bases in peacetime are not configured to defend against an out-of-the-blue SF attack then I guess you would be correct.

Do we think that is a current and credible threat that we have to be armed to the teeth to defend against at all times?

This situation was diffused by unarmed RAFP and the local plod; nobody seemed to feel the need to deploy all the guard force with weapons drawn. Proportionality is still a major factor in everything we do with weapons but I also wonder how a Kenyan style attack would play-out in the UK.

[500N]

"I also wonder how a Kenyan style attack would play-out in the UK."

Badly. The police would take a while to get there, surround the perimeter
and contain but not enter, deliberate over what to do, argue over which agency
would do it, wait for the Gov't to authorize the use of the military etc etc

Re an out of the blue SF attack, unless you ring the base with people 24 /7,
any good SF troops will find the weak spot and plan and prepare enough
force to get in. As to what happens from then on, ..................

[4ROCK]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/waddo1.jpg

4Mastacker

Doesn't look too much like one of those Spetnatz/Taliban types to me.....most definitely a 'sleeper' though - probably after a hot chocolate for elevenses and a couple of chapters of 'People's Friend' !!:ok:

Keep reading your 'Boys' Own old boy....!

[Always a Sapper]

ES

Looking at the Pictures and the signs, then at least one of them would most certainly have the potential to cause more than a headache for an hour or two to the whole site.

Lights? what lights, pass the torch please may become the statement of the day/night/week...

Barnstormer is right, Security is THE question here, they should not have been able to get in, much less wander about for a period of time without challenge. Security is not just the job of the barrier operator on the gate, it is the responsibility of EVERYONE on base and that includes both Service and Civi, if it looks out of place either challenge (service people get to do this) or report, either way don't ignor.

[barnstormer1968]

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.

[500N]

"then it should be anticipated that they have already been studied
or will be studied for attack."

The attack on Bastion showed the level of intel and training skills
these guys have got so a very wise assumption.

[moggiee]

Look on the bright side - their names and addresses are now "in the system" and Reaper can find them!

[ShotOne]

It's interesting most responses here have been from the legal side, I.e. protestors not sentenced strongly enough, but ignoring the legal point that they were making. Now I don't necessarily agree with their point but there is a certainly a case to debate.

US drones, if not ours, are killing people on a daily basis in Pakistan although, they aren't at war. Would you walk up to someone, terror suspect or not, and shoot them in the head with no legal process and expect that to be the end of it? Why is it different if a drone rather than a pistol is used? How would we feel if the Pakistan Air Force was killing people this way in the UK.?

[Just This Once...]

ShotOne - just not relevant to this thread. We operate Reaper just like any manned platform and I cannot imagine we would ever use any aircraft for ex-judicial killings of any suspect. Re-home them and give them legal aid yes; kill them err no.

[4ROCK]

Now the UK citizenship has a firmly cynical mind-set courtesy of Tony Blair I'm afraid the prospect of our military being involved in Reaper missions is never going to be popular. Execution style killings with inevitable collateral damage may be seen as a necessity by some but is a pretty poor form of warfare. Gallant it is not. However I'm sure it won't be long before we see our first DFC's - unless it's happened already?!

The fact that the Judge in this case (who I know to be a 'normal' bloke outside of working hours!) took a lenient view in his punishment should be indicative enough of the strength of feeling against the use of drones. You only have to 'read between the lines' of a lot of posters on here to assess where even those who have served queen and country feel about it!!

[melmothtw]

Gallant it is not.
Neither was flying passenger airliners into office blocks etc etc. 'Gallantry' doesn't come into it.

And there's nothing inevitable about collateral damage with Reaper strikes, indeed the opposite is true. UAVs operate with the same stringent ROE as manned aircraft, they have low-yeild munitions, and their endurance allows the operator to build up a picture of the battlespace that might not necessarily be available to the pilot of a fast jet who's busy flying his aircraft in a tactical fashion, managing his fuel, and trying not to get shot down, etc.

[ShotOne]

I disagree about the relevance, just this once; you can't wave the legal cudgel with one hand while insisting the legal issues on drone strikes are above discussion. I'm not against drones, or in favour of criminal trespass for that matter but it's a necessary debate, not just for "soap dodgers" but those of us who have served in uniform too.

ROE's same as for manned aircraft?? For ours, I will take your word that's the case but it's manifestly not the case for the US ops in Pakistan.

[melmothtw]

ROE's same as for manned aircraft?? For ours, I will take your word that's the case but it's manifestly not the case for the US ops in Pakistan.


Yes, for ours, the USAF and other militaries. I can't speak for the CIA.

[Just This Once...]

I'm not waving any legal cudgel nor am I suggesting the legality of US strikes is not up for debate - feel free to start a thread on the subject. But this thread is about an incursion on a UK base, triggered by UK Reaper operations operated under UK law. It has nothing to do with weapons released by US aircraft elsewhere in the world. For that the protestors would need to challenge a US base!

[Wensleydale]

The fact that the Judge in this case (who I know to be a 'normal' bloke outside of working hours!) took a lenient view in his punishment should be indicative enough of the strength of feeling against the use of drones. You only have to 'read between the lines' of a lot of posters on here to assess where even those who have served queen and country feel about it!!

What it actually shows is that most people (and I include some in the military) have very little idea of RPAS operations and how these aircraft are used by the British. Attacks by US operated RPAS systems in the assassination role (usually by the CIA) are often reported in the British media and the vast majority of the public incorrectly assume that the RAF uses the platforms in the same way. This misconception is enforced further by the impressively inaccurate propaganda that is put out by the so called "peace activists" who liken the RPAS to a WW2 V1 that is deliberately targeted against women and children. (Perhaps a similar argument could be made that the white stick carried by the visually impaired demonstrator who was one of the six people arrested could be used to beat babies to death and therefore should be banned?) The sooner that the RAF educates the population about the correct use and benefits of the RPAS then the better!

[parabellum]

Submarines were considered 'unfair' at one time but people got used to them, as they will to RPAS.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (ABC) are not a reliable source of information at all. The ABC is a hard left organisation who manufacture and manipulate the news to suit their agenda.

[clicker]

Further to 500N's reply.

Several years when I worked for a southern UK police force we had a series of training sessions after the India shootings. As emergency call takers we were trained to recognise what then called an active shooter incident. We were also left in no doubt of that it would take some time for a proper response to be arranged for our county.

The nearest base for any of the armed forces is at least 70 mins drive and outside of our policing area. This does not including the time for callouts and getting the required kit etc.

The police would not have enough firearms officers to contain a shopping mall to any great effect and then it would take a while to get them to the scene as their would be in different parts of the county. You can't have all the eggs in one basket as their often cover any incidents. ie man holding wife hostage with a knife after a domestic.

In fact I would be bold enough to suggest that some countries that have a regular armed police with an army used to controlling their own subjects would be better prepared, at least in manpower, than the UK is.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The fact that the Judge in this case (who I know to be a 'normal' bloke outside of working hours!) took a lenient view in his punishment should be indicative enough of the strength of feeling against the use of drones.

It's really good to know that you think that. This bloke, though, wasn't outside working hours and do we pay Judges to make political statements or pander to what's perceived to be "popular opinion"?

The Guardian

On Monday Lincoln magistrates ordered the activists to pay £10 to the RAF in compensation, £75 in costs and a £15 victim surcharge. Judge John Stobart said he was handing down his sentence "with a very heavy heart" and told the protesters they were "dutiful people" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/anti-drones-protesters-raf-judge).


The £10 wouldn't even pay for the Contractor to answer the "mend my fence" telephone call. He has also signalled to all so called "dutiful people" that they can trespass and damage whatever they want if the believe it's their duty.

Here's a thought; if some dutiful people rocked up to Buck House and painted some anti British/Military/Foreign Policy words on it or one of the garden-side buildings, would Mr Stobart's ultimate boss thank him for his publicly political views? That's the same boss that owns RAF Station Waddington.

I think that is the salient point and all weeping and wailing over Regiment/RAFP security standards is understandable but largely irrelevant.

[melmothtw]

Whilst I disagree with the protestors arguments vis-a-vis drones, I'm not sure their lenient sentencing nor the judges comments will send the message that it's open season on UK military installations.

As demonstrated by the link I posted earlier about the Fairford B-52 protesters, and the Indonesian Hawk protesters before them ( pounds 1.5m Hawk attack women freed - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pounds-15m-hawk-attack-women-freed-1331285.html) ), direct action of this sort has always been something of a British tradition (as has the subsequent lenient sentencing).

It didn't open the flood gates then, and I don't suppose it will now.

[Hangarshuffle]

I used to find these stories disturbing because they can and probably will on day end so badly. Im not against ligit protest per se at all, in fact Im probably all for it. I fully understand these people are saddened and fully against the drone wars, indeed all the wars. Who isnt?
Busting into MOD bases in the UK is potentially really easy-everyone knows this. Yeovilton was the easiest base to get into by a mile and still is. Followed by Culdrose. I never got over how you could jump into VL via the number 2/3/4 crash gate and all that lay between yourself and all the entire frontline SHAR fleet was a single dodgy wooden hangar access door (possibly left unlocked by the duty squadron kid) round the back and facing the river/fields. MOD cops were half a mile away, the hangar building was unalarmed and un sentried. A set police security routine was easy to learn and easier to avoid.
My point-I havent got one really other than if security does come across these bints are they likely to challenge them-if spotted yes. Ever likely to mis ID them as something worse than what they are?? Is possible. Shoot them? (as some on here would like I guess)-unlikely because you and I know what a hammering you would get in court by the QCs if you did. Look how the police catch it in court every time they knock off a gang banger/nice boy really.
Presently fortune and court room favours the tresspasser always in the Uk in these events, and never the defender.
All this said I would never try to bust into a Yankee base for the exact reason you would be blasted by gunfire if spotted, simple as. Yanks willl never ever give up one of their own men no matter how low a ranker in those circumastances.
Would MOD do the same=doubt it (see past times).
In the UK you get a ticking off for tresspass, every time.
We will get caught out one day over this mark my words.
And as for those who think I am slack for bubbling on about security at MOD Navy bases, well...sorry but maybe blabbing now will help someone pay attention and buck up a bit.

[Roadster280]

Softies!

The perimeter fence of an installation conducting operations in Afghanistan was breached.

1. Fire the SWO & OC RAFP. Replace with competent pers.
2. Position fire truck inside perimeter facing the troublemakers. If they attempt a breach, repel with water.
3. If they evade the water, apprehend.
4. Sling them in the cells.
5. Strip search and remove clothing. Issue coveralls. Break their dignity.

When satisfied that no further threat to the station exists, call CivPol to remove them. Once they cut the fence and enter, it is a service matter until the Stn Cdr is satisfied that the threat has been dealt with.

The fact that it is some silly old bag in the photo is neither here nor there.

[ShotOne]

Ok roadster but if you strip someone for that reason in any civilised country it's you who will end up behind bars and rightly so. Are you a serviceman? If so perhaps you'd fit in better somewhere totalitarian like North Korea or Syria.

Can we really dismiss the legal issues as irrelevant when they were the raison d'être for the protest which is the subject of this thread? I accept ours aren't being used for assassinations but you can't blame people suffering post-Blair cynism and making that link. RPAS are rapidly becoming more widely available. If we dismiss the legalities of their use now it may bite us hard in years to come.

[Roadster280]

I used to be a serviceman.

How does one know if the old bag making a pain in the ass of herself is the extent of the problem, and a sharp word at the WI will cure it, or whether she/they are a diversion for something more serious?

One doesn't know. Maybe strip-searching is a little too far, but assuming that it was a relatively innocent protest is a pretty big assumption to have made when it has all gone tits up.

[4mastacker]

Roadster...:ok::ok:

I was trying to make a similar point in an earlier post but was met by a sarcastic response. The questions I asked were the very same that was asked of us when we were doing our annual waste-of-two-good-days aka GDT. It was the Rocks who asked the question and their answer was always "Could be anyone".

[Whenurhappy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is nothing stopping the MOD seeking civil recovery action against the protestors. Sue them!

[Just This Once...]

I'm sure the MoD could find a tenner, so can we not go and break into their property?

[Trim Stab]

Leon,

OK, I'll bite. Having been in several campaigns in the air and one on the ground, there is no virtue in having to do your country's dirty work - manned or unmanned. You Sir, need to go back to reading your Warlord comic or Battle weekly!

So why did you join the military? Was it to carry out your country's "dirty work"? Or was it to uphold and protect the values of your country? i joined up for the latter.

I'm all for using drones for reconnaissance - but not for remote killing.

Personally, I felt a great deal of pride and virtue in putting my own life on line to defend a way of life that I valued during my time in the services. I have huge admiration for our current armed forces. However, I am repulsed by the concept of using robotic drones to fight wars. It is the modern equivalent of mustard gas in WW1.

Leon, am I correct in remembering you as the pilot who thinks it cool to scare cats by low level flying? May explain a lot...

[500N]

Trim

"I'm all for using drones for reconnaissance - but not for remote killing."


Genuine question.

What is the difference between a Predator loitering in the sky above some Taliba and after they pick up firearms and fire at our troops firing a Hellfire missile at them as opposed to calling in B2 bomber to drop a GPS guided bomb from 10kms away ?

The same objective is achieved, but the B2 crew don't see the target whereas the UAV crew do.

[Trim Stab]

The same objective is achieved, but the B2 crew don't see the target whereas the UAV crew do.

The B2 crew have at least put themselves in some sort of endangered position. Not much, I agree, but at least they have accepted some risk to carry out their mission.

Throughout the history of warfare, valour has been applauded and celebrated. Once there is no more valour in warfare, where would it end? We already deride "terrorists" for their "cowardly" use of IEDs and bombs - so if we also retaliate without risk to ourselves how will we ever win?

[4ROCK]

We will never know the 'head count' from UK Reaper ops for obvious reasons - but the fact that we are sending armed drones into a war zone (and Pakistan one presumes?!) really does not square up to people's assertions that the UK Reapers are purely for reconnaissance missions.

Unless of course they have missiles for self defence?!

Interesting comparison to Subs that someone made - but as far as I'm aware they normally have blokes (and women now?!) on board who have to push a button to fire the unmanned bit....a bit more sporting than the old Grim Reaper!

[500N]

Trim Stab

What about if someone deemed the use of ship launch Tomahawk Missiles as an example.

Interesting discussion.

[beerdrinker]

On the news tonight an article which shows how our Russian friends deal with protesting trespassers.

3 weeks ago a Greenpeace group were captured by balaclava wearing operatives trying to board a Russian Oil Rig in the Arctic. They were in court in Murmansk today seeking bail. The judge refused bail to all defendants so they are back in the nick.

[Trim Stab]

What about if someone deemed the use of ship launch Tomahawk Missiles as an example.

Interesting discussion.

I would argue that they too have signed up with the anticipation that they could expect to show valour in direct combat, with a risk to their own lives.

I am uncomfortable that our technological prowess over most of those whom we consider to be "enemy" allows our combatants to extinguish enemy life without any challenge to their valour.

[Red Line Entry]

Hmmm. So we have to be exposed to a certain level of risk for our warfighting to be deemed acceptable?

What level of risk is that then? Should we ban body armour and helmets? Should we get rid of those wimpy liferafts attached to ejection seats? Maybe the rot set in when we started giving our aircrew parachutes in the first place!

Patton had it right - it's about getting the other poor bastard to die for his!

[Lima Juliet]

Trim

If I recall correctly, you are ex TA? If I am correct, then I'll put it in Army speak for you:

http://www.spacewar.com/images/missiles-gmlrs-bg.jpg

You could fire this piece of kit within the safe borders of your country against the bad boys in another country (OK, about 25 miles away). The guys inside the GMLRS are not in danger, they cannot see their enemy, so what is the difference?

You don't have to stand toe-to-toe with a gladius in hand to fight it out these days! You can still exercise courageous restraint from a RPAS/UAS and also you have better SA than most on the battlefield even though you may be some 4000 miles away.

LJ

[Old Ned]

Many years ago, in the days of the white Valiant (543 Sqn, RAF Wyton), the great unwashed were threatening a break in, flush with their success at Fylingdales.

The airmen were given a pick axe handle each and told "None Shall Pass", but they weren't to touch any of the "peaceful" protesters. One young man was v v pi**ed off at being made to wander about on a lovely summer's day (it was a Sunday). One of the yobs, accompanied by the local press, climbed the fence and shouted to the airman that he wanted to come in. The airman told him to f*** off!

The next day the local paper reported that after a request for admittance, an RAF spokesman said that it was not possible! :O

plus ça change

[parabellum]

Ok roadster but if you strip someone for that reason in any civilised country it's you who will end up behind bars and rightly so.

It is not done like that, you don't strip them. First they are given a very thorough dousing with water cannon or fire trucks, then put in cells, when they have had a few moments to appreciate their position they are offered dry, warm overalls to replace their wet and possibly soiled clothing, as well as the bin liner for their own clothes, very few refuse.

If the argument against drones is taken to its logical conclusion we will be back at pikes and swords within months!;)

[ShotOne]

Very clever. Soaking and humiliating old ladies makes our country safer, PB?

Let's be clear, no one is asking or expecting RPAS to be un-invented. On the contrary. Clearly you are OK with the current mission of UK and US drones; would you still feel the same if a foreign government was using the to kill people in this country?

[Roadster280]

I think you are missing the point ShotOne.

It is as simple as this: the security of a military establishment has been compromised, while that establishment is engaged in operations. Who did it, and what their motivations were, are irrelevant.

Just like when Cpl X orders SAC Y to carry out a duty and he fails to do so. It's a breach of discipline.

In both cases, it cannot be allowed to stand, or be subject to justification, nor a debating point.

Secure the camp and charge SAC Y. Once that's done, you can talk all you like. It's not the Girl Guides.

[parabellum]

Very clever. Soaking and humiliating old ladies makes our country safer, PB?

If it stops a breach of security then YES.

They are not all little old ladies either, remember Greenham Common?

As far as the UK or Australia being threatened by drones, I would like to think that the respective air defences will have taken care of the drones long before they are in a position to fire - as an airborne weapons system they are unlikely to be very effective against a sophisticated enemy.

Roadster280:ok:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Hello 4ROCK, I thought I set you a reasonably sensible "question" earlier http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/525572-unwelcome-visitors-3.html#post8100025 but either you are too clever to bother or I'm too thick too have noticed. Yer man's really an OK bloke?

[ShotOne]

Its you who's missing the point. If it were to secure the station that may be justified but that wasn't the situation given. I would maintain the Waddington case was handled in an appropriate and effective way. If we're dealing with a serious terror or SF attack it becomes silly as well as illegal since they are hardly going to be neutralised by a sprinkling.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Well I think I understood most of that so that answers the question then; I'm too thick to have noticed.

So Judges who make political statements in the course of their job "rule OK". Glad we've cleared that up.

[Roland Pulfrew]

So Judges who make political statements in the course of their job "rule OK". Glad we've cleared that up.

GBZ

I'm with you. IMHO, this judge should face censure for his political comments and his lenient sentencing.

[4mastacker]

The judge is reported as saying:

I find, and not without some hesitation, that the lack of proximity or relationship between the defendants and those in Afghanistan who may be either targeted or hit accidentally by these drones is insufficient. I therefore, with a very heavy heart, find all the defendants guilty."

I'm not a lawyer, but is the judge saying that if any of the defendants had said they were related in some way to Afghan nationals currently living in that country, then their actions would have been justified and they would have been found not guilty?

If so, that opens one great big door.

[Lonewolf_50]

How many other nations use drones in this manner? Is it just us and US?
Nope. Drone usage has been proliferating for about the past decade. Sales are up, needless to say, and R & D is alive and well.

For example, Turkey ...
The number of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) development projects continues to increase. Turkey is already working on the Anka Medium-Altitude, Long-Endurance (MALE) system, but also wants to develop a more capable UAV. Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization is encouraging the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) to develop a draft requirement for a new unmanned aircraft similar in capability to the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk, reports the Zaman, a Turkish daily newspaper. Turkey is looking for a new UAV capable of remaining on station for an extended period and carrying a payload weighing as much as 500 kilograms. The Global Hawk can fly for up to 35 hours and carry payloads up to 1,360 kilograms.
The Anka MALE UAV project has been underway since 2004. This UAV can carry a payload of 200-plus kilograms.
Source = Forecast International 25 September 2013

[Lonewolf_50]

Trim

"I'm all for using drones for reconnaissance - but not for remote
killing."
Right. No rifles. Got it. :rolleyes:

Brown Bess wept.

[melmothtw]

I think 4Rock is asking if we are the only country that uses drones as strike assets, as opposed to just developing and fieldiing them. If so, then yes, the UK, the US, and Israel are the only countries that employ UAVs in this way.

[gr4techie]

At least they were wearing Hi-Vis vests.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/waddo1.jpg

If you wear a hi-vis vest, a hard hat and carry a clip board you can pull anything off.

I once saw a tv documentary where crooks drove up to somebodies driveway in a low loader truck, got out in hi-vis vests and towed some guys expensive sports car away. All his neighbours thought it was legit. I've heard high-vis vest wearing crooks have done the same thing walking into Dixons / Curry's with a trolly and walked out carrying a television.

It amazes me when I've gone to sporting events, as soon as the marshals put on the hi-vis vest, you can see their power trip. There was no hazard for them to wear a hi-viz vest, it just makes the marshal feel important and think they are Robocop.

[Basil]

RPAS is a perfectly acceptable and accurate weapon of war.

"no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. " Yes, I know Patton didn't say that but he should have!

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
"You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked."
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

[5 Forward 6 Back]

There's nothing cowardly about operating RPAS; it's a matter of efficiency, nothing to do with protecting the crew.

Your entire force is deployable every day for every mission, while still living at home. No-one needs IPDT, operational kitting, flying to theatre etc etc. The hassle of rolling in a new GR4 squadron every 4 months is certainly large; but the entire Reaper fleet is available for HERRICK ops every single day.

Plus, if the crew get tired, you replace them. If they need a toilet break, you can let them have one. If a mission becomes more difficult, you can put in a more experienced crew. It's all about effectiveness, not hiding from the Taliban's advanced IADS!

People also need to stop confusing US and UK drone use. What the CIA may do with RPAS in Pakistan is one thing, but the UK purely uses Reapers in the same roles as something like a GR4; just a more efficient GR4 with a better weapons fit (in some cases), a better camera, and more SA.

[Always a Sapper]

Points...

They broke in, simple as. It really doesnt matter if it was Granny and the local Wi Commando or some teatowel wearing wannabe from one of our own inner city Bagdads....

They are ALL as capable as each other of pinning up a poster, sticking a ban the naughty nasty plane sticker on a door or leaving a nice surprise with a mercury switch and a mobile phone/parkway timer in the initiation train and a few kilo of bang at the end of it. Physically, if granny can hump a bag of potato's from the co-op to home then she can hump a device onto a base. The only question really is one of desire.

Monday morning when it goes bang is not the time to find out they werent just putting up posters.

How do we deal with it? Easy, robustly, very. Armed sentries on an irregular patrol plot with an army guard dog tagging along (not a nancy RAFP mutt) and working to a robust ROE. A firm, clear loud challenge and if they don't comply let the dog go or if appropriate rounds (or both). We did it during the 'troubles' so can do it again.

When caught, they go to court, get jail time and then dragged through the civil courts for damages until bankrupt.

As for operating RPAS in an offensive role, I'm all for it. If someone wants to do bad on us (the UK) to the extent that they willing to kill UK citizens then I for one would prefer them neutralised first. How they end up in that condition I really don't mind but would prefer it if the means does not put any more UK lives at risk than necessary.

And breath......

[parabellum]

If people are going to get upset about the use of drones to kill what are they going to think of the F22 and F35, aircraft that don't have to see their target to hit it and are never seen by their target?

[ShotOne]

I agree, PB and feel the debate has gone down a blind alley by focusing on the vulnerability or otherwise of the operator. An archer would have appeared unchivalrous, cowardly even, to a swordsman.

The issue isn't the weapon but what it's used for. Would anyone travel to Pakistan to kill someone, terror suspect or not, with a gun -or a spear come to that -and expect it not to raise legal issues?

[gr4techie]

A while back I was listening to a debate about RPAS / drones on the radio, the journalist made an interesting question...

If country U can use drones in country P to target individuals living there. Then where do we legally stand to stop others doing it to our nation? What happens if you were driving down the M1 motorway and as you passed Milton Keynes the car in front blows up because its being targeted by a RPAS flown from another country?

[Pontius Navigator]

. . . robustly, very. Armed sentries on an irregular patrol plot with an army guard dog tagging along (not a nancy RAFP mutt) and working to a robust ROE. A firm, clear loud challenge and if they don't comply let the dog go or if appropriate rounds (or both). We did it during the 'troubles' so can do it again.

1972 IIRC, Parachute Regiment barrack in Shropshire (?) armed guards challenged and fired upon two intruders running away.

Apart from missing I don't know if there were any repercussions.

[Toadstool]

A while back I was listening to a debate about RPAS / drones on the radio, the journalist made an interesting question...

Quote:
If country U can use drones in country P to target individuals living there. Then where do we legally stand to stop others doing it to our nation? What happens if you were driving down the M1 motorway and as you passed Milton Keynes the car in front blows up because its being targeted by a RPAS flown from another country?


Legally this would never be an issue as, for a country to use an RPAS to blow up a car near Milton Keynes, we would have to be at war with this country and this country would have to have air supremacy in order to fly said RPAS with impunity over Milton Keynes. This is therefor not an issue.

[Just This Once...]

Are we at war with AFG and is the US at war with any of the countries that they conduct the ex-judicial killings?

One would hope the US would not be tempted to use an F-15E against any suspects that we are giving legal aid to, even if they are in Milton Keynes.

[gr4techie]

Toadstool,

I think what the radio show was saying is, if the other nation decides to blatantly ignore your code of conduct and target people here anyway. What can we legally do about it? For is the RPAS operator under our law or their law?

[pax britanica]

is it not justa question of the usual parsimonious attitude to these things in UK-ie no one will spend the money or can be bothered to provide effective deterent security at MOD sites.

When I returned to UK from a long spell abroad in the early 90s I had to take my mother in law to a clinic at Aldershot garrison ( the local hospital at the time and the garrison shared facilities for some medical conditions.
Driving up to the gate and high fence of the garrison (which about ten years earlier had been the target of a terrible IRA attack ) we were greeted by a the sole security guy who had the most pronounced Irish accent I have ever heard.

I am a very liberal minded person but see no harm or threat in having proper security and deterrence at the locations where we necessarily have to store and maintain assorted nasty but necessary expensive warlike machines .

pb

[Lionel Lion]

Ahhh just realised why she broke into Waddington - defo Flt Engs bird and it's the last place with them

:E

[Toadstool]

JTO, no of course we are not at war with Afghanistan, but we are fighting the Taliban and we do have air supremacy which is why RPAS works a treat. As for the US and the CIA, and what they do in Pakistan, that is their business. For you and GRtechie, as for the US using any weapon system in the UK against terrorists, this would absolutely not happen.

[Wrathmonk]

as for the US using any weapon system in the UK against terrorists, this would absolutely not happen

May not have been the US but other sovereign states have (allegedly) eliminated its opponents in the UK (such opponents could easily be labelled as "terrorists" by the belligerent/alleged nation - after all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter). May not have been by RPAS but who knows what "weapons systems" will be used in the future.... :

Georgi Markov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov)

Alexander Litvinenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko)

[teeteringhead]

May not have been by RPAS but who knows what "weapons systems" will be used in the future.... :
... what a shame we lost Tom Clancy - sounds like a great premise for a novel!

But probably on the Beltway rather than the M1 at MK......

.... on second thoughts, the Beltway is probably better defended than MK....

[500N]

Wrath

And they are the one's we know about !

Just look at Israel and the ops that have become public ?
How many haven't ?

[ShotOne]

Some ppruners are guilty of a wilful lack of imagination by ignoring how this issue could backfire on us. How does the effectiveness of our air defence affect the legality? In any case it is by no means far fetched that before long, small drones may be deployed without achieving air superiority as we understand it now. Indeed they would make a fantastic terrorist weapon...still all fair and legal then?

[Whenurhappy]

Been done - if you regard the Tamil Tigers as terrorists or insurgents...can't find the link, but the Tamil Tigers used a RPA to hit a Sri lanken Army barracks during an international cricket test match. A handful killed. Can't be bothered to find a link...

[AR1]

You'll be telling us Terrorists will be using guns next...

I don't for one moment believe that us playing nice will stop the game from changing as such technology becomes available to those who wish to inflict their views on our society.

[melmothtw]

Say what you like about the LTTE, the Air Tigers had cajones - Air Tigers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tigers)

[Archimedes]

Not sure that the Tamil Tigers used UAVs - they certainly employed Zlin 143s for air operations, including an attack on Colombo during the 2007 Cricket World Cup final (Sri Lanka lost to Australia in that match). Hezbollah, on the other hand, do have their own UAV fleet, a couple of which have been shot down by Israeli F-16s in recent years.

[barnstormer1968]

I love the idea that army dogs are less nancy than RAF dogs :)
There is no debate or argument when faced with a red cap and dog.
Neither one can read, and either one is likely to bite you!

I found Leon's 'army speak' explanation of MLRS crews not being in danger quite funny.
Kind of makes me wonder why their tactic is known as shoot and scoot, in which they get the hell out rapidly after firing in order not to be blown up themselves. The MLRS leaves a huge signature and every man and his dog can see them and often return fire whether from fixed or rotary wing, RPAS or anti battery fire directed by locating device.

[Always a Sapper]

Early 80's, Ammo Compound near Neinburg. They had this mutt on the guard dog team, a long haired, bad tempered Alsation with a well chewed ear and just generally resembling the doggy version of a tramp that had been dragged thru a hedge sideways a few times... big thing too. You get the picture...

The only handler that could get anywhere near it was a old Polish WWII vet unable to go home from the last big game. And even he sometimes got chewed when the dog had a bad day (which was most days tbh). Even feeding time was dodgy, they used to just slide the bowl under the kennel door, pushing it in with a broom handle and then retrieve what was left of the bowl when the dog was out working.

It hated vehicles and would try and chew any passing truck, land rover etc, the old boy would wrestle the dog to the ground and sit on it, in an attempt to stop it chasing after the rover and dragging him along for the ride. Mean time the dogs going berserk and trying to bite anything in reach...

One day it got away from him... And once it had finished trying to chew the landrover went ferral for about 3 days giving the wild deer in the compound a right hard time. The place was shut while they worked out how to deal with it. They got it in the end, but sadly it was 'retired' in the process. Ammo drops/pickups were never the same after

I always think of this beast when seeing the dogs walking their RAFP handlers.

[500N]

One of the best lessons I ever taught was escape and evasion and how to get rid of dogs.

I was a bit scared of dogs like German Shephards, Rotty's etc until i taught the lesson with a real live attack dog and had to demo it following scent, attacking me (arm in pad) and then how to dispatch it by turning it over.

Not sure I'd like to have to do it for real though but it is nice to know how.

[Toadstool]

In reply to my wilful lack of imagination, I have a couple of points.

The question was If country U can use drones in country P to target individuals living there. Then where do we legally stand to stop others doing it to our nation?.

AFAIK, there are only three countries that use drones to target individuals . The USA does it in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Yemen, the UK does it in Afghanistan and Israel has done it in Egypt and the Gaza strip.

Both the USA and the UK say they are legally allowed to do it in Afghanistan. There is currently action being taken to challenge the legality of the USA conducting strikes using RPAS in Pakistan and the Yemen. The USA insists it is legal. Israel has conducted at least one strike in the Sinai with the approval of the Egyptian govt. Israel refuses to confirm or deny that it has used weaponised RPAS in the Gaza strip but there are numerous reports which indicate that this has happened. Is this legal? I doubt it, but who is going to challenge Israel? Until anyone does and is successful, then as far as Israel is concerned it is legal.

Now, before going onto the UK scenario of a car being targeted on the M1, how can one country use RPAS with impunity in or against another. In the case of Israel with the Sinai it is because it got permission from Egypt. If they had not, then this would have been illegal. Egypt, with its radar, GBAD and Airforce could have quite easily shot down the RPAS had they not given permission. In the case of the Gaza strip, it is because Israel can act without fear of legal reprisals and the fact that Gaza has no Air Defence meaning the RPAS can't be shot down.

The fact that the US uses RPAS to target individuals in both the Yemen and Pakistan would indicate that there is some sort of tacit approval by those countries. There are many reports indicating that while politically Pakistan condemns these attacks, they do in fact approve of them while taking monetary aid. In fact, Pakistan has warned the USA that it can and will destroy any RPAS. Again, this points to tacit approval as to date it has never shot down, AFAIK, a US RPAS.

Now, where do we legally stand to stop others doing it to our nation?. In times of peace this is absolutely illegal. There is a diplomatic and legal process in place. Say for example there is a terrorist wanted by the USA or France and this terrorist is driving near Milton Keynes on the M1. Would the USA send a RPAS from a UK base into the air to blow them up, or France send one across the Channel to do the same? Absolutely not. The process in place is such that this information would be sent to whichever department in the UK and the UK would deal with said terrorist. Again, this process and procedure has been carried out on numerous occasions.

Ah, but what if these countries wanted to do this covertly without following due process and against the laws of either country? At present, any RPAS large enough to carry weapons would, in this scenario, have to file a flight plan somewhere. If no flight plan was filed and an unidentified aircraft was in UK airspace, we have the means to identify and intercept any unidentified aircraft. Again, this is something that has been time and time again. The embarrassment and diplomatic and legal fallout for any country to do such a thing, given the due processes in place, means that for now the use of a foreign RPAS to strike targets in the UK is not an option.

This goes out of the window if war is declared. Any country could fly RPAS over our country should they wish, obviously bearing in mind that they would have to have air supremacy otherwise the RPAS would be destroyed.

I take the points about Markov and Litvinenko. Both of these were indeed illegal and murder and the legal process has been followed.

[500N]

"I doubt it, but who is going to challenge Israel? Until anyone does and is successful, then as far as Israel is concerned it is legal."

As though Israel GAF, BUT, if they have the opportunity to do it with permission and of course which removes any possible problems with others attacking it, then they will.

But if not, IMHO they would find a way to do it anyway.

Just like targeted assassinations and / or extractions of people back to Israel.

[Lima Juliet]

Armed unmanned aircraft? Best you add Iran to the list with the Karrar fitted with a 500lb bomb...

http://defense-update.com/images_large3/karrar.jpg

Oh, and their Shahed 129...

http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130928-105818.jpg

:eek:

[Lima Juliet]

China's Wing Loong is also armed and suposedly operational...

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/11/Wing-Loong-2.jpg

So apart from the US, UK, Israel, Iran, China and a whole host of countries seeking to get armed unmanned persistant ISTAR - who does have them? :ugh:

Welcome to the 21st Century!

[Toadstool]

LJ, I am not disputing that. I am disputing some other country just flying a RPAS over the M1 and targeting a car. The question was whether it was legal. The answer is no. I also tried to explain why other countries are able to do this in other parts of the world and get away with it. Again, it would be extremely difficult nigh impossible to do it over the UK without creating the mother of diplomatic incidents.

As for China, Iran, Russia or any other country actually using RPAS for targeting purposes, we haven't seen any reports. Again, if Russian were to use RPAS in Chechnya, Dagestan etc then it would be up to them to explain the legalities. In fact, it wouldnt surprise me if they had already done so.

I am trying to answer a specific post by someone on this forum regarding a specific question aired in the media. The fact that other countries have unmanned, armed and persistent ISTAR is not in dispute.:ugh:

[Al R]

Deja vu.

BBC News - RAF Waddington drone protest: Four arrested (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-30679979)

[PeregrineW]

Two of those arrested were amongst those convicted of the 2013 incident.

[Haraka]

The UK/US community no longer assuredly has effective dominance concerning radar and other (e.g. optical) stealth technology , nor on the control of off-the-shelf system components for RPAS construction.
The MoD , since 2009, has distanced itself from investigation of UAP ( Unexplained Aerial Phenomena) reports for justifiable reasoning at that time.
I would suggest that, since then, the "no threat " argument about the presence of possibly unexplained objects in our airspace seems to be increasingly complacent .
Specifically, I am thinking in the light of such recent events as possible "quad-copters" reported over 12 French Nuclear associated sites, conceivably associated with malevolent intent.
Perhaps the U.K should follow the French example and consider putting in place a formal structure for handling and evaluating such reports?
I am thinking particularly in instances when they may be opportunistically captured on still or FMV imagery and also not necessarily implying their investigation solely from within MoD resources.
( In France this arena is primarily the responsibility of the Gendarmerie, with CNES also maintaining a study group, with some additional indirect funding from Airbus).

[SPIT]

I would love to see what would have happened to them when the Vulcans were there at the SS Area ??? :{:{

[chopper2004]

Ah so they've kicked off the new year by droning on again :{

Funnily enough just finished reading Fiat Jusita, A History of Royal Air Force Police, by Stephen R Davies.

On the bit about Greenham Common adventures , 3/4 way through the book, the SNCO mentions how saw his colleagues stood by to as three women breaking in by cutting the section of the perimeter fence. He asked why no one was reacting and the other RAFP SNCO said they would have to ask the MoDP as they had their hands tied. Luckily that all changed and the first SNCO said it was quite clear that the breaking the law of the land was taking place so he ordered the two corporals to follow him over the barbed wire and promptly arrested the ladies!

Cheers

[Haraka]

Had a laugh with Plod years ago at Greenham , about getting the screaming harridans away from clutching the wire.
All to do with making a fist and sawing across the back of the clutching hand with the knuckles ........




Not that I was there of course..........


:)

[Danny42C]

Around '62, whenI had the subsidiary job of Fire Officer at Linton, my firemen told me that a "pre-mix" of foam agent and water, sprayed on these pests without air-injection into foam, would render them unapproachable by even their nearest and dearest for quite some time (and many baths) - for they stank to high heaven. :ok:

Don't know if it was true, and if so where it was tried.

D.

[Lonewolf_50]

and why on earth did we stick with the American name of "Reaper" which implies that it is there to assassinate!
Really?
How do you arrive at that conclusion, other than your own assumptions with biases noted in the rest of your post.

Ever heard of the Grim Reaper? He is the image of death.
That version of the Predator is a machine of war. In war, things get killed. Assassination is a very small subset of the general category "killing other people." Your rhetoric and overstatement is noted.

We are on the Military Aircrew sub forum, right?

(In an "on your side" point I can see why the Brits might wish to use their own name for their own birds. Call it whatever you like, it need not be Reaper if that sound doesn't fit right to the British ear ... )

[Pontius Navigator]

Ah, Lone star, a whole new thread :)

Certainly we had a tradition of naming or renaming for instance P40 Kittihawk or our Tomahawk. Though we mixed the C130/F4/E3 with Hercules/Phantom/Sentry we kept your name but used the designated too. With the CH47 we tend to use the name. Modern usage suggests we keep your naming.

MQ9A doesn't roll off the tongue.

[Archimedes]

[:8]'Reaper' has a longer British heritage as a name....

Gloster used it for the F9/37, and then again for the G-7-1 ground attack version of the Meteor, famously 'cartwheeled' by Jan Zurakowski.[/:8]

[Davef68]

Predator and Reaper always sounded like they were chosen by a marketing man (especially as the original version of the former was unarmed).

[5 Forward 6 Back]

The Grim Reaper maybe a symbol of death, but "reaping" is just gathering or receiving. Think of it as gathering intelligence, that's what some RAF spokesman said once on social media somewhere.

[Lonewolf_50]

Dave, thanks for that insight. I suspect you have nailed it. The F-16 Falcon, official name, is called the Viper by the pilots. (I think that goes back to a pop culture reference from the 1970's, a TV show called Battlestar Galactica with Lorne Green. Memory may not serve me there).

When Reaper arrived operationally, one of its advantages over Predator was the ability to carry/deploy significantly more robust munitions: going from a Hellfire missile to a GBU-12 (500 lb LGB) offers the ground commander calling for aerial attack more options/more firepower from on high.

I feel like we are in a play "What's in a name?" :E An armed RPV by any other name can still deliver firepower.

[KenV]

I don't condone what these people have done - but I am sympathetic to their protest. I think that the use of armed drones undermines the status and virtues of military service.


Oh my.

So anyone who does not agree with the "virtue" of any government entity should be free to engage in illegal activities to protest that entity? Really?

And separately, I've done LOTS of things while in military service. Some were virtuous, most were not. The military can be used for humanitarian operations which could reasonably be called a "virtuous" use of the military, but I would like to point out that the military is specifically designed and equipped to deliver rather extreme violence on people and their property, to include releasing weapons capable of laying waste to an entire city. Please explain the "virtue" in such actions.

[pr00ne]

I really struggle to see quite why these devices attract such vitriol?

The only difference between a Reaper and a Typhoon is the location of the pilot, though BEagle seems to get rather foamy at the mouth about them.

SPIT,

In the 50's and 60's the V-Force bases were regular destinations for really huge ban the bomb marches, many illegal entries were made, they were treated then exactly as they are treated now.

[thing]

Deja vu.

BBC News - RAF Waddington drone protest: Four arrested (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-30679979)

I think it's rather sweet that they cut the fence and what have you. To paraphrase Dennis Healey it's like being savaged to death by a dead sheep.

They are just a few well meaning folk (residents of Waddington will know of the old lady in the caravan) who are making a protest, while not strictly legal, in the good old fashioned Brit way. Nothing to see here, move on.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

thing, that's broadly true. However, there's a particular naivety which is worrying. The last incursion involved people wanting to plant a "peace garden" somewhere on the base. This is being described as well-meaning peaceful protestors wanting to stage an entirely non-violent demonstration within the base.

However, it happened at a time of high tension. The terrorism alert state is SEVERE (https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels.html). News outlets are talking about the "greatest terror threat in history (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11065167/Britain-facing-greatest-terrorist-threat-in-history.html)," and commenting that attacks are "inevitable (http://rt.com/uk/203943-terror-attack-imminent-uk/)."

With the security situation like that, it's understandable that there's a very fine line between someone sneaking through a hole in the fence with flowers in their hair, high-vis vests and a banner, and someone sneaking through with a suicide vest or a weapon.

If they'd done it under cover of twilight and were spotted by the guard force, there's a decent chance (bearing in mind the alert state) that they could have been shot. And with any trespasser being a potential terrorist with murder on their mind, I hope they're given a severe punishment to dissuade others from protests like this.

I'm all for peaceful protest and I think we absolutely should engage with people who have a dislike for UAVs and educate them a little. Comments like:

war has been rehabilitated and accepted as virtually normal by those who see little or nothing of the impact on the ground thousands of miles away."

... show that they simply don't understand. Anyone who's flown a Harrier or Tornado over Afghanistan and has then seen the same sort of sorties from a Reaper will know that if anything, you're MORE engaged and involved in the action when viewing it day in day out on a large screen that you ever were sat staring at the horizon in a jet cockpit.

So I don't see it as innocent and sweet, and I don't even see it as informed and correct. If only to make folks at Waddington feel more secure and show that breaking onto a military base during a time of increased terrorism alertness isn't on, I hope they all go to jail.

[cockney steve]

DISCLAIMER! I have never been in the Military,nor employed by HMG (other than as an unpaid VAT , income tax and NI collector)

I grew up with the concept that the Law was to be obeyed and MOD property was sacrosanct. What went wrong?
Re-education is a priority....just as the thickest thicko understands that climbing over the Railway fence is liable to be detrimental to life, so they should understand that trespass on property occupied by the Nation's Defence forces,is likely to be , at best, extremely painful and at worst, Terminal.

Not hard to educate every schoolkid and send it home with a Very Important leaflet (was tempted to say, "flyer":p ) The Dole queue and deadbeats can similarly be targetted by their Benefits department....then there's the idiot-lantern for the ones that miss.....after 6 months, there is no reason that any man, woman or child, living in the UK, should not be aware that trespass on MOD property invites quick, violent retribution.

I.m sure that after a couple of well-publicised shootings of terrorists, the risks will be seen to be disproportionately high, for the returns.
Of course, that won't deter the fanatical Terrorist, but if the likes of the Glasgow Airport firebombers is anything to go by, they aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.

Respect for our defences needs to be restored PDQ educate and inform, then enforce!

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Following on from my last post, tragic events in Paris today show the risks of terrorism against the west right now.

In an environment where masked gunmen can murder a dozen people in the middle of a city, including police officers, any moron who decides to break into a military base deserves the harshest possible punishment.

I hope whoever deals with them in court thinks similarly, and throws the book at them.

Our security patrols will struggle if they see interlopers on the base but can't defend themselves in case they're idiotic protestors. But what if they're not, and are armed, trained people, intent on killing?

[GreenKnight121]

Simple - place anti-personnel minefields inside the fence-line. Put up warning signs every 10 meters, and publicise it widely.

No one has to decide if they are protesters or terrorists - by their illegal intrusion onto the base, and their damaging of the fence, they bear 100% of the responsibility for what happens next.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Perhaps you could tell us what a crack team of Spetnaz looks like.

Black leather jackets, black plastic slipons from shoe express and nvg goggles (1st gen).

[KenV]

Simple - place anti-personnel minefields inside the fence-line. Put up warning signs every 10 meters, and publicise it widely


IIRC, the UK is a signatory of the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel mines. So no can do.

And besides, a death sentence for trespassing would certainly be viewed as being extreme.

[melmothtw]

Quote:
Simple - place anti-personnel minefields inside the fence-line. Put up warning signs every 10 meters, and publicise it widely

IIRC, the UK is a signatory of the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel mines. So no can do.

Also, it's a bl00dy stupid idea. Imagine the reaction the first time a kid breaks through to retrieve his/her football or Frisbee, or a deer or some other wildlife decides to take a wander along the fence line.

All it needs is some common sense, which the guards appear to be applying.

[KenV]

All it needs is some common sense, which the guards appear to be applying.


Agreed. Although I hafta wonder about the "common sense" of the judge who sentenced these folks.

[Danny42C]

A few more good Guard Doggies might help.

D.

[Pontius Navigator]

What rule requires mines to be laid behind a mines warning notice?

A mine field with no mines is the ideal: deters without endangering anyone.