Nimrod R1 on a rescue
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod R1 on a rescue
Waddo launched an R1 this morning in search of a spanish trawler after the storms in the north. MR2s at Kinloss were unable to take off due to the high winds.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not unusual for the duty SAR MR2 to deploy to another base if the ISK weather is forecast unflyable...
It is also highly unlikely that an R1 would be used for SAR - the crews are not trained and the ac does not carry the dinghy kit. Neither is it fitted with the radios, etc that the MR2 has for SAR work.
It is also highly unlikely that an R1 would be used for SAR - the crews are not trained and the ac does not carry the dinghy kit. Neither is it fitted with the radios, etc that the MR2 has for SAR work.
Stable doors and horses, chaps. The crew complement of the Nimrod R1 has been widely published, and the 23 operators positions have even been broken down to detail who does roughly what at which console. There has even been a cutaway drawing published, from which I can see that the Navs on 51 have further to walk for a pee than their maritime brethren!
The article I've just dug out (from Air International in 2001) tells us that:
"Later in 1980, the aircraft underwent a major modification. Internally the navigation station was redesigned for single navigator operation. The radar navigator was rendered surplus to requirements when the ASV21 ASW radars were removed and replaced by Ecko 290 radars, which had displays inside the cockpit."
Let's keep it in proportion. No-one's talking about the role, the mission equipment, tactics, doctrine or recent employment, and no-one is staring through the window to extract anything.....
The article I've just dug out (from Air International in 2001) tells us that:
"Later in 1980, the aircraft underwent a major modification. Internally the navigation station was redesigned for single navigator operation. The radar navigator was rendered surplus to requirements when the ASV21 ASW radars were removed and replaced by Ecko 290 radars, which had displays inside the cockpit."
Let's keep it in proportion. No-one's talking about the role, the mission equipment, tactics, doctrine or recent employment, and no-one is staring through the window to extract anything.....
Since this seems to have turned into a thread about the R1, I thought it might be amusing to pass on something I happened to overhear a few weeks ago. Some of our ATC cadets were looking at a poster we'd just put up in their crew-room showing contemporary RAF aircraft. One said to his mate, with a completely straight face "That's the Nimrod R1. It can re-programme your SIM card from forty thousand feet and disconnect any house from the electricity mains instantly". His wide-eyed oppo said "Wow! Can it really?".
John
John
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think we should be discussing what an R1 can or can't do on here, or its crew composition. Do you?
I am all in favour of security and its sensible application, and have lived with it long enough to understand the reasons for it, but we do ourselves few favours by being QUITE so anally retentive over information which has been in the public domain for such a long time. In fact, quite the reverse - a harmless comment about navigators would have drawn no attention had not the security implications of its asking been questioned.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray, of course you're absolutley right. BUT, we should be making it as hard as possible for these people to find out this kind of stuff, even if it has been released into the Public Domain. How many times do we see Journos and other people purporting to be serious posters "phishing" for info?
Take the recent Iraq Airfield Approach Tactics thread for example - if anyone had genuinely answered the guy, they could have shot someone right in the foot.
This is a Military forum, those people answering the questions should have a responsibility to withold such information. In cases such as this, where things may or may not be cutting close to the bone, it needs someone to step in and say "Stop" before things go too far. In my (humble) opinion, SpotterFC is the man - he's had the balls to stand up and say "Stop".
Need more like it, I reckon.
Take the recent Iraq Airfield Approach Tactics thread for example - if anyone had genuinely answered the guy, they could have shot someone right in the foot.
This is a Military forum, those people answering the questions should have a responsibility to withold such information. In cases such as this, where things may or may not be cutting close to the bone, it needs someone to step in and say "Stop" before things go too far. In my (humble) opinion, SpotterFC is the man - he's had the balls to stand up and say "Stop".
Need more like it, I reckon.
Olly,
No-one should talk about current tactics. No-one should talk about parametrics or weapons effectiveness. No-one should talk about current deployments. Obviously.
During the Cold War, the 'better safe than sorry' blanket security covering nuclear weapons was erring on the side of caution, and that was absolutely right.
No-one needs to know details of No.51's tasking, nor of its current ops.
Most of us are all for legitimate military security, and only get angry when it's misused to cover up procurement cock-ups and to save politicians or senior officers from embarrassment.
But if Forces folk get too 'Stalinist' and too secretive, they do risk shooting themselves in the foot. Most journos start off from a position of accepting that those who are serving know better than we do what should and should not be discussed.
That applies except when information has already been released, and is already in the public domain, or where secrecy runs against the wider public interest. Start getting secretive about that, and the journos and FOI supporters will lose any respect they had for the ability of service officers to make sensible, balanced and proportional decisions about what can and can't be released. Don't tell me that anything published in Flight or JDW is somehow to be given the same protection as Restricted or Secret information, because it will just make me cranky and contrary.
You aver that: "We should be making it as hard as possible for these people to find out this kind of stuff, even if it has been released into the Public Domain." Why? The press don't have to be the enemy, but making their jobs harder than they need to be will not dispose them to taking your concerns seriously, and will not help in promoting sensible debate or preventing inaccuracy. The press can do good as well as harm - and have done on Deepcut and the Chinook crash, in fighting cuts, and in other areas. Moreover, if you don't have some of the press onside, you risk losing much of the public too, and in peacetime particularly, defence spending is dependent on public support and consent.
And we're getting exercised about people talking about the fact that the Nimrod R1 went from two Navs to one 25 years ago. Is it really something to get quite so uptight about?
I'm not arguing for openness, just for the most basic level of common sense.
No-one should talk about current tactics. No-one should talk about parametrics or weapons effectiveness. No-one should talk about current deployments. Obviously.
During the Cold War, the 'better safe than sorry' blanket security covering nuclear weapons was erring on the side of caution, and that was absolutely right.
No-one needs to know details of No.51's tasking, nor of its current ops.
Most of us are all for legitimate military security, and only get angry when it's misused to cover up procurement cock-ups and to save politicians or senior officers from embarrassment.
But if Forces folk get too 'Stalinist' and too secretive, they do risk shooting themselves in the foot. Most journos start off from a position of accepting that those who are serving know better than we do what should and should not be discussed.
That applies except when information has already been released, and is already in the public domain, or where secrecy runs against the wider public interest. Start getting secretive about that, and the journos and FOI supporters will lose any respect they had for the ability of service officers to make sensible, balanced and proportional decisions about what can and can't be released. Don't tell me that anything published in Flight or JDW is somehow to be given the same protection as Restricted or Secret information, because it will just make me cranky and contrary.
You aver that: "We should be making it as hard as possible for these people to find out this kind of stuff, even if it has been released into the Public Domain." Why? The press don't have to be the enemy, but making their jobs harder than they need to be will not dispose them to taking your concerns seriously, and will not help in promoting sensible debate or preventing inaccuracy. The press can do good as well as harm - and have done on Deepcut and the Chinook crash, in fighting cuts, and in other areas. Moreover, if you don't have some of the press onside, you risk losing much of the public too, and in peacetime particularly, defence spending is dependent on public support and consent.
And we're getting exercised about people talking about the fact that the Nimrod R1 went from two Navs to one 25 years ago. Is it really something to get quite so uptight about?
I'm not arguing for openness, just for the most basic level of common sense.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gentlemen,
I'm sure that someone will correct me but my understanding of the OSA is that it is non- negotiable.
One's personal opinion as to whether something is or is not already in the public domain is irrelevant. Even if the "information" can be obtained from other sources, it cannot and should not be corroborated by a signatory one way or the other.
As for the FOI act, and historically sensitive information, the authorities can release whatever material they feel appropriate but it does not alter an individuals binding under the act. You sign for life.
Actually I prefer to think that most of what is published/Released is "blown" disinformation anyway, for consumption by journo's.
ImageGear
I'm sure that someone will correct me but my understanding of the OSA is that it is non- negotiable.
One's personal opinion as to whether something is or is not already in the public domain is irrelevant. Even if the "information" can be obtained from other sources, it cannot and should not be corroborated by a signatory one way or the other.
As for the FOI act, and historically sensitive information, the authorities can release whatever material they feel appropriate but it does not alter an individuals binding under the act. You sign for life.
Actually I prefer to think that most of what is published/Released is "blown" disinformation anyway, for consumption by journo's.
ImageGear
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OSA 1989 is available at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989...90006_en_2.htm
Section 2 (which is the most relevant in this general context and those individuals to whom section 1 applies will know who they are) states:
A disclosure of information already legally in the public domain would not be damaging and therefore would not be an offence under section 2.
Section 2 (which is the most relevant in this general context and those individuals to whom section 1 applies will know who they are) states:
A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to defence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Sorry guys I've just stopped laughing and had to get my sides souchered back up.
What is it about the Crabs and security? Y'all seem to make a big deal of it yet seem to be the worst at controlling it. (anyone remember tha Wing Co that left his briefcase in the back of his wagon for 5 mins and came back to find it stolen? - Pre GW1 I think) I did a crypto course in 5T block at Locking in '88. The Staff there were so strict it was unreal.
The Comcen door though had such a stupidly simple combination that it could be observed very easily Us students wern't supposed to know it, but some 2 striper wasn't too clever at covering the lock when entering the code (Iwont say what the code was as I have real fears that it may be still in use 
) ...anyway it took the staff 3 weeks to figure out why no one was ringing the doorbell to get in!