UAVs and King Airs for Army & RAF.
juliet,
"Im well aware of what democracy means, Ive spent years defending your right to have it."
NO you haven't! Nobody has threatened "our" right to have democracy since 1945. All you have done, and are doing if you are still serving, is assist implement Government policy, both foreign and domestic.
"Im well aware of what democracy means, Ive spent years defending your right to have it."
NO you haven't! Nobody has threatened "our" right to have democracy since 1945. All you have done, and are doing if you are still serving, is assist implement Government policy, both foreign and domestic.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... also do not believe in a blanket ban, I believe in going through the appropriate channels to find out information. If it is reasonable to discuss that information then it will be disclosed, if not then it wont be released.
How do you do decide what is innocent questioning by the way, without knowing all the facts about the topic you are going into. If you have questions by all means ask the ..., if you get given a brush off then perhaps you should take it as meaning you have no need to know.
You have the right to ask, not always the right to know. ...
Translated from Russian?
How do you do decide what is innocent questioning by the way, without knowing all the facts about the topic you are going into. If you have questions by all means ask the ..., if you get given a brush off then perhaps you should take it as meaning you have no need to know.
You have the right to ask, not always the right to know. ...
Translated from Russian?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"NO you haven't! Nobody has threatened "our" right to have democracy since 1945. All you have done, and are doing if you are still serving, is assist implement Government policy, both foreign and domestic."
Gosh, I suppose that whole Cold War business was just a lot of fuss about nothing then. Hmm, you wouldn't be just a little youthful in your perspective would you pr00ne?
Gosh, I suppose that whole Cold War business was just a lot of fuss about nothing then. Hmm, you wouldn't be just a little youthful in your perspective would you pr00ne?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN, good morning
_____________
Juliet noted:
What starts out as innocent questioning leads to more innocent questioning that starts to bring up some not so innocent questions.
Leading statements posed on here such as "the role is obvious from the fit" are used cleverly to get a response from someone.
_____________
This is spot on. If the role is so obvious, pls explain to the clueless like me and assembled masses how you divide the role from operational information that could be of assistance to the opposition.
JN, I would gently suggest that if you're so interested, you should send an FOI request to the MOD and they will tell you everything that can be released. You may well complain that the PR system is broken, but FOI is not: however, an FOI may not tell you anything. If so, as has been said, if you don't need to know something, then the chances are, you ought not. It's not all a huge conspiracy aimed at Journos / Enthusiasts / Spotters.
S41
_____________
Juliet noted:
What starts out as innocent questioning leads to more innocent questioning that starts to bring up some not so innocent questions.
Leading statements posed on here such as "the role is obvious from the fit" are used cleverly to get a response from someone.
_____________
This is spot on. If the role is so obvious, pls explain to the clueless like me and assembled masses how you divide the role from operational information that could be of assistance to the opposition.
JN, I would gently suggest that if you're so interested, you should send an FOI request to the MOD and they will tell you everything that can be released. You may well complain that the PR system is broken, but FOI is not: however, an FOI may not tell you anything. If so, as has been said, if you don't need to know something, then the chances are, you ought not. It's not all a huge conspiracy aimed at Journos / Enthusiasts / Spotters.
S41
Squirrel,
Good morning to you, too.
It's officially confirmed that the Nimrod R.Mk 1 is operated by No.51 Squadron, RAF, based at RAF Waddington, and operating in the Signals Intelligence role.
That's two more pieces of information (squadron number and role) than is being asked about the King Airs.
And none of it is "operational information that could be of assistance to the opposition."
I'll submit a FOIA (that will take the best part of a month to answer) when I have something worthwhile to ask. Every FOIA request generates work for over-pressed blue-suiters and civil servants on the IPTs and elsewhere, and firing them off in large numbers is poor form, in my view.
And when all one is asking is "RAF or Army?" It seems lunacy to waste people's time. Especially when you have a fair old idea that you know the answer, and are merely seeking confirmation.
(Probable A: A new Flight of No.5 (AC) Squadron at Waddington (except when deployed), commanded by an RAF Squadron leader, but manned by tri-service personnel, and with No.56 acting as the OEU).
Good morning to you, too.
It's officially confirmed that the Nimrod R.Mk 1 is operated by No.51 Squadron, RAF, based at RAF Waddington, and operating in the Signals Intelligence role.
That's two more pieces of information (squadron number and role) than is being asked about the King Airs.
And none of it is "operational information that could be of assistance to the opposition."
I'll submit a FOIA (that will take the best part of a month to answer) when I have something worthwhile to ask. Every FOIA request generates work for over-pressed blue-suiters and civil servants on the IPTs and elsewhere, and firing them off in large numbers is poor form, in my view.
And when all one is asking is "RAF or Army?" It seems lunacy to waste people's time. Especially when you have a fair old idea that you know the answer, and are merely seeking confirmation.
(Probable A: A new Flight of No.5 (AC) Squadron at Waddington (except when deployed), commanded by an RAF Squadron leader, but manned by tri-service personnel, and with No.56 acting as the OEU).
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN,
Firstly, how nice to have a civilised exchange! I agree that Sqn designation and ownership seems like small beer - and it may be, for all I know - but if I were to re-phrase your question as:
"What is the seniority of the individual commanding this organisation, who is it subordinated to for C2 purposes, and where do the personnel of this unit live and work"
Which is not a million miles from what you've proposed, then perhaps you'll agree to the sensitivity. And 51 was for a long time not as open as you suggest.
Finally, in a former life, I've been on the answering end of FOIA requests (although not at the MoD), and it's not a big deal. It'll get you the official answer and may well be more than you expect. It's only 30 days, and may be quicker - it should also be more illuminating than the PR line.
Cheers,
S41
Firstly, how nice to have a civilised exchange! I agree that Sqn designation and ownership seems like small beer - and it may be, for all I know - but if I were to re-phrase your question as:
"What is the seniority of the individual commanding this organisation, who is it subordinated to for C2 purposes, and where do the personnel of this unit live and work"
Which is not a million miles from what you've proposed, then perhaps you'll agree to the sensitivity. And 51 was for a long time not as open as you suggest.
Finally, in a former life, I've been on the answering end of FOIA requests (although not at the MoD), and it's not a big deal. It'll get you the official answer and may well be more than you expect. It's only 30 days, and may be quicker - it should also be more illuminating than the PR line.
Cheers,
S41
"What is the seniority of the individual commanding this organisation, who is it subordinated to for C2 purposes, and where do the personnel of this unit live and work"
But that's not what I'm asking. Nor would a simple answer to what I am asking actually answer those questions.
I didn't ask the seniority of the CO, nor did I ask anything about reporting or chain of command, only whose the aircraft would be and where they would notionally be based. The "where do the personnel of this unit live and work" would apply to any unit whose base is revealed. Should we therefore keep all squadron locations secret? Making the fact that 28 are at Benson, for example, a state secret. The sensible compromise is surely to obscure in-theatre operating bases.
51's role was obscure, officially, throughout the Canberra/Comet era, but since the late 70s, the Sigint role has been acknowledged.
But that's not what I'm asking. Nor would a simple answer to what I am asking actually answer those questions.
I didn't ask the seniority of the CO, nor did I ask anything about reporting or chain of command, only whose the aircraft would be and where they would notionally be based. The "where do the personnel of this unit live and work" would apply to any unit whose base is revealed. Should we therefore keep all squadron locations secret? Making the fact that 28 are at Benson, for example, a state secret. The sensible compromise is surely to obscure in-theatre operating bases.
51's role was obscure, officially, throughout the Canberra/Comet era, but since the late 70s, the Sigint role has been acknowledged.
On the topic of 'less well-known roles', Jacko, have you still got the slides I loaned you some time ago?
Did you ever get that article printed?
Did you ever get that article printed?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN,
My point is that the hypothetical question I proposed is closer to yours than you might like to think. You may not agree, but unit numbers, home locations, "ownership" and role can be sensitive, and if I were in the MOD, I would probably sit on the information.
I am all for openness - the public are footing the bill for all of this with their money, and accountability is important. But this happens through your MPs and Parliament: there is no "right to know" this stuff - and "need to know" is not the same as "want to know". As you point out, 51 were for many years in the shadows; whoever this lot are, if their role requires it, they are entitled to the same protection.
Therefore, I'm afraid we simply don't agree. These aircraft are presumably (ie, what do I know? what do I need to know?) going to be deployed on sensitive operations, and until such time as they need to be / are able to be publicised, they should not be if it adds any risk to their operations for the sake of military aviation enthusiasts' hobby. Indeed, I suspect that virtually all UK military aviation enthusiasts would be see it the same way - and for those who don't, I've only got contempt, I'm afraid.
As a result, whilst it might be interesting for all of us to know which aircraft they are, which Sqn they are, and where they're based, we don't need to know. Consequently, FOIA is your friend, it'll tell you all you need to know.
Cheers,
S41
My point is that the hypothetical question I proposed is closer to yours than you might like to think. You may not agree, but unit numbers, home locations, "ownership" and role can be sensitive, and if I were in the MOD, I would probably sit on the information.
I am all for openness - the public are footing the bill for all of this with their money, and accountability is important. But this happens through your MPs and Parliament: there is no "right to know" this stuff - and "need to know" is not the same as "want to know". As you point out, 51 were for many years in the shadows; whoever this lot are, if their role requires it, they are entitled to the same protection.
Therefore, I'm afraid we simply don't agree. These aircraft are presumably (ie, what do I know? what do I need to know?) going to be deployed on sensitive operations, and until such time as they need to be / are able to be publicised, they should not be if it adds any risk to their operations for the sake of military aviation enthusiasts' hobby. Indeed, I suspect that virtually all UK military aviation enthusiasts would be see it the same way - and for those who don't, I've only got contempt, I'm afraid.
As a result, whilst it might be interesting for all of us to know which aircraft they are, which Sqn they are, and where they're based, we don't need to know. Consequently, FOIA is your friend, it'll tell you all you need to know.
Cheers,
S41
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone,
I have served diligently, no more or less than any other person in the services.
I have trained and worked and been available so that the MoD can use me and my fellow service personnel whenever they feel they need to. I and all others in the service have been willing to put our lives on the line for the defense of the UK, her allies, and democracy.
You have no idea what service I have given. To doubt that any service personnel has served for anything other than the continuation of democracy disgusts me.
I am proud of my service, and I know that I HAVE helped to uphold democratic values by the very fact that I am willing to give my life for those values and ideals.
I have served diligently, no more or less than any other person in the services.
I have trained and worked and been available so that the MoD can use me and my fellow service personnel whenever they feel they need to. I and all others in the service have been willing to put our lives on the line for the defense of the UK, her allies, and democracy.
You have no idea what service I have given. To doubt that any service personnel has served for anything other than the continuation of democracy disgusts me.
I am proud of my service, and I know that I HAVE helped to uphold democratic values by the very fact that I am willing to give my life for those values and ideals.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the Austrian registration, it does look the same as the first two, complete with de-chromed spinners and additional antenna under the nose (UHF?). Perhaps they've decided to skip the temporary UK registration and put them directly on the military register once they go operational.
It's go the older Thielert engines too, so presumably one that was built at least a year ago, then converted.
Who's the slacker flying it though? He's not on the taxi-line.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose because they were bought as bog standard B300Cs as a UOR in 2007 directly from the manufacturer and were registered with the CAA by a well-known UK-based US company and converted into Hank Marvins (350ER King Airs) before being handed over. Same thing with the Twin Diamonds.