Tornado - Future GR4 questions
Thread Starter
Tornado - Future GR4 questions
Whatever happened to these lovely projects - which were being widely written about a year or two ago, but which seem to have been kicked into the long grass?:
1) TARDIS
"The GR 4 is to have a further cockpit upgrade consisting of a new Astronautics pilot's multifunction display and the BAE Systems TARDIS (Tornado advanced radar display and information system). The upgrade will enter service in 2009. As of late 2006, the GR4 fleet is being fitted with a new 12.8-inch Multi-function display in the rear cockpit to replace the circular Combined Radar and Projected Map Display (CRPMD): The BAE Systems Tornado Advanced Radar Display Information System (TARDIS) is an Active-matrix liquid crystal display.[11][12] TARDIS is currently being fitted to aircraft of the Fast Jet and Weapons Operational Evaluation Unit (No. 41 Squadron RAF), before being fitted to all GR4 aircraft."
2) REFORGER
"Qinetiq is working on an AESA upgrade for the Tornado GR4 called Reforger, with a hoped-for ISD of soon after 2010."
3) ARTS and TREV
"Hence the recent announcement of this QinetiQ-led Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) project. ARTS will explore the use of AESA and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in an air-to-surface role, including real-time target imaging, with a view to replacing the 1970s-era Decca Doppler Type 72 mechanically-scanned terrain following/ ground mapping radar system. The program represents the first use of the Tornado Research Exploitation Vehicle (TREV) concept, which is intended to support MoD’s aspiration to achieve faster exploitation of research by the front-line.
A combination of AESA multi-mode radar, SAR surface-looking radar and improved computing power for integration of sensor data should be able to radically improve the Tornado GR4’s situational awareness of both ground and air spaces around it. Range and target resolution should improve substantially, as should reliability figures; meanwhile, maintenance costs could be expected to drop sharply. When coupled with new weapons like the Storm Shadow stealth cruise missile, Meteor long-range air-air missile and the Brimstone anti-armor missile, an upgraded GR4 could earn a new lease on life over low-intensity and high-intensity battlefields alike.
QinetiQ has teamed on ARTS with SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems and BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support."
and
"The QinetiQ release notes that the Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) contract was:
”...placed by the Defence Procurement Agency’s (DPA’s) Sensors, Avionics, Navigation and Air Electronic Warfare Integrated Project Team (SANS & Air EW IPT) on behalf of MoD’s Research Acquisition Organisation (RAO) as part of the Output 6 Research Programme sponsored by the DPA’s Future Business Group (FBG). ARTS will also be supported by the Defence Logistic Organisation’s (DLO’s) Tornado IPT. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) will provide MoD with independent technical advice on the programme.”
Simple, really. Oh, and:
“ARTS will run in parallel to the multi-national Advanced Multi-Mode Solid-State Airborne Radar (AMSAR) programmes and will focus on specific areas of capability development (SAR and Automatic Target Recognition (ATR)). ARTS will also focus on platform integration and aims to raise System Readiness Levels (SRLs). It is anticipated that AMSAR will continue to provide a programme through which to raise Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and explore the potential for AESA to contribute to other capability areas.”
Recall that AMSAR is the R&D project associated with the Eurofighter’s future AESA. So to sum up:
QinetiQ, BAE & SELEX are partnered on ARTS to make AESA and SAR work on GR4s in NCW. SANS & Air EW IPT placed this TREV contract on behalf of MoD’s RAO, as part of DPA’s FBG Output 6. DLO’s Tornado IPT and DSTL will also assist, and ARTS will run in parallel with AMSAR to raise SRLs.
All clear?"
"24 February 06
MOD awards contract to QinetiQ primed team to demonstrate Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) on a Tornado GR4A
The Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to QinetiQ to demonstrate the advanced targeting capability offered by Electronically Scanned (E-Scan) radar technology. QinetiQ has teamed with SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems and BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support to integrate an Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) on a Tornado GR4A for assessment by the RAF in 2007.
With growing interest in extending the in-service life of the GR4, the project will explore the use of Active E-Scan Array (AESA) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in an air-to-surface role, including real-time target imaging, with a view to replacing the installed mechanically-scanned terrain following/ground mapping radar system originally designed in the 1970s.
"We anticipate that ARTS will offer considerable improvements in performance and significantly help reduce maintenance cost when compared with the current in-service solution," explained Andrew Sleigh, MD of QinetiQ's defence business. "By replacing the mechanically scanned antenna with an array made using discrete transmit/receive (T/R) modules we can achieve greater range and target resolution whilst at the same time benefiting from an inherently more robust design."
ARTS benefits from a range of Ministry of Defence and UK industry funded research programmes in the fields of AESA and SAR technologies, and will provide a continuing route for the rapid exploitation of future research and development. The programme also represents the first use of the Tornado Research Exploitation Vehicle (TREV) concept that will support MoD's aspiration to achieve faster exploitation of research by the front-line.
The contract was placed by the Defence Procurement Agency's (DPA's) Sensors, Avionics, Navigation and Air Electronic Warfare Integrated Project Team (SANS & Air EW IPT) on behalf of MoD's Research Acquisition Organisation (RAO) as part of the Output 6 Research Programme sponsored by the DPA's Future Business Group (FBG). ARTS will also be supported by the Defence Logistic Organisation's (DLO's) Tornado IPT. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) will provide MoD with independent technical advice on the programme.
ARTS will run in parallel to the multi-national Advanced Multi-Mode Solid-State Airborne Radar (AMSAR) programmes and will focus on specific areas of capability development (SAR and Automatic Target Recognition (ATR)). ARTS will also focus on platform integration and aims to raise System Readiness Levels (SRLs). It is anticipated that AMSAR will continue to provide a programme through which to raise Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and explore the potential for AESA to contribute to other capability areas.
Press Officer: Douglas Millard"
and
"U.K. AESA Heads to U.S. For Trials
Aviation Week & Space Technology
10/08/2007, page 30
The British Royal Air Force plans to test a Tornado fitted with an AESA radar using U.S. ranges following successful flight trials in the U.K.
Tests flights of an active electronically scanned array radar on a Tornado GR4A aircraft were carried out from the Boscombe Down center during the summer. The program, dubbed the Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS), is being led by Qinetiq in collaboration with Selex. BAE Systems is also involved in providing some of the radar?s software.
The ARTS program remains sensitive, with the Defense Ministry reluctant to discuss the project in any detail. Unlike the multinational effort examining an AESA for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which similarly involves Selex, the ARTS program has so far been U.K.-only. ARTS, however, will also feed into U.K. aspirations to provide an AESA for the Typhoon. Initial flight trials of a Typhoon fitted with an electronically-scanned array ?variant? of its Captor radar were carried out earlier this year in Germany.
The AESA radar would form a key element of ministry interest in a further upgrade of the Tornado GR4A, known as Reforger. This would replace the aircraft?s aging Texas Instruments? terrain-following and ground-mapping systems. Reforger would be part of the ministry?s revised joint maintenance and capability enhancement program for the Tornado.
The proposed program may be limited to the GR4A, rather than the wider GR4 fleet, most likely on cost grounds. The air force has two squadrons of the GR4A operating in the tactical reconnaissance role.
The Tornado GR4 is due to be withdrawn from service in 2025. The air force faces the challenge of how to sustain the aircraft?s strike capability up until this date, and possibly beyond."
1) TARDIS
"The GR 4 is to have a further cockpit upgrade consisting of a new Astronautics pilot's multifunction display and the BAE Systems TARDIS (Tornado advanced radar display and information system). The upgrade will enter service in 2009. As of late 2006, the GR4 fleet is being fitted with a new 12.8-inch Multi-function display in the rear cockpit to replace the circular Combined Radar and Projected Map Display (CRPMD): The BAE Systems Tornado Advanced Radar Display Information System (TARDIS) is an Active-matrix liquid crystal display.[11][12] TARDIS is currently being fitted to aircraft of the Fast Jet and Weapons Operational Evaluation Unit (No. 41 Squadron RAF), before being fitted to all GR4 aircraft."
2) REFORGER
"Qinetiq is working on an AESA upgrade for the Tornado GR4 called Reforger, with a hoped-for ISD of soon after 2010."
3) ARTS and TREV
"Hence the recent announcement of this QinetiQ-led Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) project. ARTS will explore the use of AESA and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in an air-to-surface role, including real-time target imaging, with a view to replacing the 1970s-era Decca Doppler Type 72 mechanically-scanned terrain following/ ground mapping radar system. The program represents the first use of the Tornado Research Exploitation Vehicle (TREV) concept, which is intended to support MoD’s aspiration to achieve faster exploitation of research by the front-line.
A combination of AESA multi-mode radar, SAR surface-looking radar and improved computing power for integration of sensor data should be able to radically improve the Tornado GR4’s situational awareness of both ground and air spaces around it. Range and target resolution should improve substantially, as should reliability figures; meanwhile, maintenance costs could be expected to drop sharply. When coupled with new weapons like the Storm Shadow stealth cruise missile, Meteor long-range air-air missile and the Brimstone anti-armor missile, an upgraded GR4 could earn a new lease on life over low-intensity and high-intensity battlefields alike.
QinetiQ has teamed on ARTS with SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems and BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support."
and
"The QinetiQ release notes that the Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) contract was:
”...placed by the Defence Procurement Agency’s (DPA’s) Sensors, Avionics, Navigation and Air Electronic Warfare Integrated Project Team (SANS & Air EW IPT) on behalf of MoD’s Research Acquisition Organisation (RAO) as part of the Output 6 Research Programme sponsored by the DPA’s Future Business Group (FBG). ARTS will also be supported by the Defence Logistic Organisation’s (DLO’s) Tornado IPT. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) will provide MoD with independent technical advice on the programme.”
Simple, really. Oh, and:
“ARTS will run in parallel to the multi-national Advanced Multi-Mode Solid-State Airborne Radar (AMSAR) programmes and will focus on specific areas of capability development (SAR and Automatic Target Recognition (ATR)). ARTS will also focus on platform integration and aims to raise System Readiness Levels (SRLs). It is anticipated that AMSAR will continue to provide a programme through which to raise Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and explore the potential for AESA to contribute to other capability areas.”
Recall that AMSAR is the R&D project associated with the Eurofighter’s future AESA. So to sum up:
QinetiQ, BAE & SELEX are partnered on ARTS to make AESA and SAR work on GR4s in NCW. SANS & Air EW IPT placed this TREV contract on behalf of MoD’s RAO, as part of DPA’s FBG Output 6. DLO’s Tornado IPT and DSTL will also assist, and ARTS will run in parallel with AMSAR to raise SRLs.
All clear?"
"24 February 06
MOD awards contract to QinetiQ primed team to demonstrate Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) on a Tornado GR4A
The Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to QinetiQ to demonstrate the advanced targeting capability offered by Electronically Scanned (E-Scan) radar technology. QinetiQ has teamed with SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems and BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support to integrate an Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) on a Tornado GR4A for assessment by the RAF in 2007.
With growing interest in extending the in-service life of the GR4, the project will explore the use of Active E-Scan Array (AESA) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in an air-to-surface role, including real-time target imaging, with a view to replacing the installed mechanically-scanned terrain following/ground mapping radar system originally designed in the 1970s.
"We anticipate that ARTS will offer considerable improvements in performance and significantly help reduce maintenance cost when compared with the current in-service solution," explained Andrew Sleigh, MD of QinetiQ's defence business. "By replacing the mechanically scanned antenna with an array made using discrete transmit/receive (T/R) modules we can achieve greater range and target resolution whilst at the same time benefiting from an inherently more robust design."
ARTS benefits from a range of Ministry of Defence and UK industry funded research programmes in the fields of AESA and SAR technologies, and will provide a continuing route for the rapid exploitation of future research and development. The programme also represents the first use of the Tornado Research Exploitation Vehicle (TREV) concept that will support MoD's aspiration to achieve faster exploitation of research by the front-line.
The contract was placed by the Defence Procurement Agency's (DPA's) Sensors, Avionics, Navigation and Air Electronic Warfare Integrated Project Team (SANS & Air EW IPT) on behalf of MoD's Research Acquisition Organisation (RAO) as part of the Output 6 Research Programme sponsored by the DPA's Future Business Group (FBG). ARTS will also be supported by the Defence Logistic Organisation's (DLO's) Tornado IPT. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) will provide MoD with independent technical advice on the programme.
ARTS will run in parallel to the multi-national Advanced Multi-Mode Solid-State Airborne Radar (AMSAR) programmes and will focus on specific areas of capability development (SAR and Automatic Target Recognition (ATR)). ARTS will also focus on platform integration and aims to raise System Readiness Levels (SRLs). It is anticipated that AMSAR will continue to provide a programme through which to raise Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and explore the potential for AESA to contribute to other capability areas.
Press Officer: Douglas Millard"
and
"U.K. AESA Heads to U.S. For Trials
Aviation Week & Space Technology
10/08/2007, page 30
The British Royal Air Force plans to test a Tornado fitted with an AESA radar using U.S. ranges following successful flight trials in the U.K.
Tests flights of an active electronically scanned array radar on a Tornado GR4A aircraft were carried out from the Boscombe Down center during the summer. The program, dubbed the Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS), is being led by Qinetiq in collaboration with Selex. BAE Systems is also involved in providing some of the radar?s software.
The ARTS program remains sensitive, with the Defense Ministry reluctant to discuss the project in any detail. Unlike the multinational effort examining an AESA for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which similarly involves Selex, the ARTS program has so far been U.K.-only. ARTS, however, will also feed into U.K. aspirations to provide an AESA for the Typhoon. Initial flight trials of a Typhoon fitted with an electronically-scanned array ?variant? of its Captor radar were carried out earlier this year in Germany.
The AESA radar would form a key element of ministry interest in a further upgrade of the Tornado GR4A, known as Reforger. This would replace the aircraft?s aging Texas Instruments? terrain-following and ground-mapping systems. Reforger would be part of the ministry?s revised joint maintenance and capability enhancement program for the Tornado.
The proposed program may be limited to the GR4A, rather than the wider GR4 fleet, most likely on cost grounds. The air force has two squadrons of the GR4A operating in the tactical reconnaissance role.
The Tornado GR4 is due to be withdrawn from service in 2025. The air force faces the challenge of how to sustain the aircraft?s strike capability up until this date, and possibly beyond."
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aberystwyth
Age: 38
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that TARDIS was slowly being fitted to the fleet - seem to recall the hardware/software design was frozen a while back back and it was just a case of having it tested fully. 41sqn definitely have/had jets with it 
Not sure on the others...
Not sure on the others...
Thread Starter
I get slightly fed up with that as a glib response.
I already know more than I need to.
As a journo, I don't need to know. I'm asking the question because I'm mildly interested and slightly curious.
As a taxpayer, it could be legitimately argued that I do need to know, or that I have some vague right to know whether my money has been wasted - or whether these programmes, that my money has funded, will ever bear fruit, and if not, why not.
I already know more than I need to.
As a journo, I don't need to know. I'm asking the question because I'm mildly interested and slightly curious.
As a taxpayer, it could be legitimately argued that I do need to know, or that I have some vague right to know whether my money has been wasted - or whether these programmes, that my money has funded, will ever bear fruit, and if not, why not.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 18th Jul 2009 at 10:16.
"If you needed to know, you probably would."
Halfwitted Ar$e! Are we now living in a dictatorship where we must blindly follow your mind numbing mantra? Or are we citizens living in a reasonable approximation to a fair and just democracy? Should the National Audit Office, Defence Select Committee and Freedom of Information Act all be abolished on the basis that "If you needed to know, you probably would"?
Or are you trying to convince yourself that even Trolls should be allowed to boost their tiny self esteem?
Halfwitted Ar$e! Are we now living in a dictatorship where we must blindly follow your mind numbing mantra? Or are we citizens living in a reasonable approximation to a fair and just democracy? Should the National Audit Office, Defence Select Committee and Freedom of Information Act all be abolished on the basis that "If you needed to know, you probably would"?
Or are you trying to convince yourself that even Trolls should be allowed to boost their tiny self esteem?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Since when has the fitting of equipment already subjest to press releases been "Need to Know". Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are one of those people that are so full of their own self worth that they forget that they are not the centre of the universe. 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a journalist does not entitle you to short cut the Freedom of Information Act. If you want to know, use the appropriate avenues of information.
They are most definately out there 
...is a perfectly reasonable response and gets my vote. Taxpayer or not, you do not need to know 'specific' policy, strategy, or equipment details.
one of those people that are so full of their own self worth that they forget that they are not the centre of the universe.
If you needed to know, you probably would.
"Should the National Audit Office, Defence Select Committee and Freedom of Information Act all be abolished on the basis that 'If you needed to know, you probably would?' "
erm....no....they certainly have a right to know and inform their public. It's you that doesn't need to know. This highlights my point very well.
What are you all suggesting? We ignore all those and replace them with an anonymous internet forum that becomes a free for all, with no controls?
Why openly broadcast as much as you are able? Ask yourself WolvoWill and others, whose side are you on and what purpose might the revealing of information serve?
Ever heard of Op Sec?
Where does Jackonicko publish? I'd like to see what is being fed.
erm....no....they certainly have a right to know and inform their public. It's you that doesn't need to know. This highlights my point very well.
What are you all suggesting? We ignore all those and replace them with an anonymous internet forum that becomes a free for all, with no controls?
Why openly broadcast as much as you are able? Ask yourself WolvoWill and others, whose side are you on and what purpose might the revealing of information serve?
Ever heard of Op Sec?
Where does Jackonicko publish? I'd like to see what is being fed.
Last edited by Aeronut; 18th Jul 2009 at 14:50.
If you needed to know, you probably would.
Wouldn't that reply be more suited to aarse.
Erm.........but the thread is here on Pprune! Besides, isn't that some army thing? This thread started off about Tornado.
Wouldn't that reply be more suited to aarse.
Erm.........but the thread is here on Pprune! Besides, isn't that some army thing? This thread started off about Tornado.
Last edited by Aeronut; 18th Jul 2009 at 14:52.
Thread Starter
FoIA is seldom of much use to me - its wheels grind very slowly (often far too slowly for me to meet deadlines), and I have to admit that it goes against the grain to deliberately tie up scarce resources, by imposing a long and bureaucratic process on people who have better things to do.
In this case, a FoIA request would involve Main Building civil servants, the IPT, and probably 41(R) is unnecessary paperwork to answer what is in essence a trivial question.
Were I asking about parametrics, tactics or for detailed information about the kind of capabilities that underpin these programmes (those things that might come under the heading of 'legitimate military security) then the 'need to know' reaction would be appropriate, and I'd be a clot if I didn't go through 'proper channels', and I would not want to 'push the boundaries'.
But the bare fact as to whether or not an announced programme, whose contract award was marked by the usual press releases, has been kicked into the long grass is not a military secret, and the only reason for hiding it would be to prevent political embarrassment. Since I'm not a civil servant nor a serviceman, I don't care about the latter.
In the case of TARDIS, my question has been answered by PMs, and in one reply my attention was drawn to a piece of openly released and publicly available information (that my efforts had hitherto failed to uncover) which answered that part of the query.
TARDIS is currently being rolled out fleet wide.
My question on PPRuNe prompted someone to draw my attention to a public source answer. No rules or regs have been breached, and a journo has learned that a good news story is still good news. Not only that, but we've saved hours of time and a small hillock of paperwork. That's money saved from the defence budget, too, so it's win-win!
In the case of TREV and ARTS, I still don't know the current status, but my suspicions seem to be widely shared.
In this case, a FoIA request would involve Main Building civil servants, the IPT, and probably 41(R) is unnecessary paperwork to answer what is in essence a trivial question.
Were I asking about parametrics, tactics or for detailed information about the kind of capabilities that underpin these programmes (those things that might come under the heading of 'legitimate military security) then the 'need to know' reaction would be appropriate, and I'd be a clot if I didn't go through 'proper channels', and I would not want to 'push the boundaries'.
But the bare fact as to whether or not an announced programme, whose contract award was marked by the usual press releases, has been kicked into the long grass is not a military secret, and the only reason for hiding it would be to prevent political embarrassment. Since I'm not a civil servant nor a serviceman, I don't care about the latter.
In the case of TARDIS, my question has been answered by PMs, and in one reply my attention was drawn to a piece of openly released and publicly available information (that my efforts had hitherto failed to uncover) which answered that part of the query.
TARDIS is currently being rolled out fleet wide.
My question on PPRuNe prompted someone to draw my attention to a public source answer. No rules or regs have been breached, and a journo has learned that a good news story is still good news. Not only that, but we've saved hours of time and a small hillock of paperwork. That's money saved from the defence budget, too, so it's win-win!
In the case of TREV and ARTS, I still don't know the current status, but my suspicions seem to be widely shared.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aberystwyth
Age: 38
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask yourself WolvoWill and others, whose side are you on and what purpose might the revealing of information serve?
OPSEC is fine, and were I to know anything that would compromise it, I'd naturally keep my trap shut (not as someone who is serving with HM Forces but someone who knows where his loyalties lie), but a common sense approach to what can be discussed seems far more reasonable to me than trying to prevent questions being asked around the introduction of systems that have been discussed quite openly in the aviation press for months!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko - some people on the forum don't recognise how essential guys like you are in helping the military in times of crisis, such as now. Also, the fact that we all have all interest in military aviation is what brings us all here, journos included. Ignore them buddy, if I could give you the answers I would. I appreciate your input but have been off the Tornado now for too long to be helpful, sorry - keep posting, I enjoy your comments.
Thread Starter
"Feel free to support who you wish, including unknowns on an open internet forum.
Just be careful eh?
Journos rarely help."
I commend your vigilance and warning, but would want to reassure you that in this case it's misplaced.
Those who have been here more than five minutes may not view me as an unknown, and many know full well who I am. They will also be well aware that this journo (indeed like most of the regular PPRuNeing journos) does usually aim to help the RAF, the UK Armed Forces, and UK plc - in that order of priority.
This does also seem to be an odd battle to fight. The questions asked were innocuous, and any answer would be harmless.
Just be careful eh?
Journos rarely help."
I commend your vigilance and warning, but would want to reassure you that in this case it's misplaced.
Those who have been here more than five minutes may not view me as an unknown, and many know full well who I am. They will also be well aware that this journo (indeed like most of the regular PPRuNeing journos) does usually aim to help the RAF, the UK Armed Forces, and UK plc - in that order of priority.
This does also seem to be an odd battle to fight. The questions asked were innocuous, and any answer would be harmless.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 18th Jul 2009 at 23:26.
"The questions asked were innocuous, and any answer would be harmless."
That's where you and I disagree.
The level of embodiment of various programmes should not be discussed however harmless you believe it to be in this case. I would dissuade the revealing of sqn (eg by WolvoWill) or potentially even tail numbers and the levels of equipment which may or may not be fitted to particular types of military aircraft from being openly discussed.
If it is information already in the open, go find it. What was probably hoped for though was the extra detail from individuals close to the projects which are not readily available. Keen to demonstrate what they know, much is revealed from which greater conclusions concerning availability and capability of assets can be drawn.
Some projects are not simple and setbacks can befall them. Sensationalist journalism can undermine efforts to overcome these difficulties. Those working the projects end up distracted by endlessly counter briefing instead of working the important issues.
No matter how well meaning your intentions might be, your reasurances count for little, as this forum is public. What about all the other Journos tuning in?
(Don't tell me........I know.....you're different from all the rest?)
You don't wish to reveal what you want the information for and MOD personnel should not provide it.
My experience has been that journalists are generally not at all helpful, concerning aircraft sustainment/improvement programmes, whether they know it or not.
Not an odd battle in my view but a very worthy one.
That's where you and I disagree.
The level of embodiment of various programmes should not be discussed however harmless you believe it to be in this case. I would dissuade the revealing of sqn (eg by WolvoWill) or potentially even tail numbers and the levels of equipment which may or may not be fitted to particular types of military aircraft from being openly discussed.
If it is information already in the open, go find it. What was probably hoped for though was the extra detail from individuals close to the projects which are not readily available. Keen to demonstrate what they know, much is revealed from which greater conclusions concerning availability and capability of assets can be drawn.
Some projects are not simple and setbacks can befall them. Sensationalist journalism can undermine efforts to overcome these difficulties. Those working the projects end up distracted by endlessly counter briefing instead of working the important issues.
No matter how well meaning your intentions might be, your reasurances count for little, as this forum is public. What about all the other Journos tuning in?
(Don't tell me........I know.....you're different from all the rest?)
You don't wish to reveal what you want the information for and MOD personnel should not provide it.
My experience has been that journalists are generally not at all helpful, concerning aircraft sustainment/improvement programmes, whether they know it or not.
Not an odd battle in my view but a very worthy one.
Thread Starter
“Not an odd battle in my view but a very worthy one.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but if you think this is worth getting aereated about, I’d suggest that you should perhaps get out more!
I was not asking for “The level of embodiment of various programmes”, only a “dead/not dead” status report.
You also make unjustified assumptions about my motives. I did not hope for “the extra detail from individuals close to the projects which are not readily available”, and while I appreciate that many servicemen have a problem with journos, you really do need to avoid empty and offensive accusations of ‘sensationalist journalism’.
Wolvo Will did not reveal a squadron, he confirmed a piece of information he knew to be in the public domain (as illustrated in the release quoted in the second para of my first post, and in the recent 41 Squadron article in the June 2009 issue of Air International).
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but if you think this is worth getting aereated about, I’d suggest that you should perhaps get out more!
I was not asking for “The level of embodiment of various programmes”, only a “dead/not dead” status report.
You also make unjustified assumptions about my motives. I did not hope for “the extra detail from individuals close to the projects which are not readily available”, and while I appreciate that many servicemen have a problem with journos, you really do need to avoid empty and offensive accusations of ‘sensationalist journalism’.
Wolvo Will did not reveal a squadron, he confirmed a piece of information he knew to be in the public domain (as illustrated in the release quoted in the second para of my first post, and in the recent 41 Squadron article in the June 2009 issue of Air International).
Thanks for entitling me to an opinion!
Your opinion is that they should tell all on here, mine is that they really shouldn't.
Your attempts to quell that are almost aereating.
Going out now, Cheers!
Your opinion is that they should tell all on here, mine is that they really shouldn't.
Your attempts to quell that are almost aereating.
Going out now, Cheers!