Afghan ABM changeover!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NATO capability/equivalent to 1ACC is still some way off yet. Trust me on that, I'm reasonably close to the project. As for what fate awaits 1ACC back in UK, considering how diluted UKAD has become over the last 5-10 years along with the known lack of leadership and empire consolidation machinations propagated by those of 2* and above, I wouldn't be surprised to see it chopped, however short sighted such a decision may seem to the rest of us.
From a C2/C3 perspective, this has been a running sore in ISAF for quite a while, not just from an air point of view either. Until the arrival of OVERTASK a couple of years ago, there was a lot of noise about individual contributing nations bringing their own C2 systems with them and being constrained by their own national Eyes Only security rules, which dont tend to help if you have "foreign" nationals in key positions who need access to the same info as you do in order for the international effort to succeed. Overtask has gone a considerable way towards addressing that, but doesnt (as far as I am aware) have a dedicated AirC2 component, although it can (I think) have access to the joint picture from all the normal sources. Not something you'd want to control aircraft on, (as from what I recall, I dont think its real-time), but
adequate for higher formations.
Incidentally, wasn't there supposed to be at least one, possibly two of the 8 Sqn E3D's being mothballed?
Have a feeling that Helicopter Bob mentioning an air traffic requirement is probably because he doesn't understand the differences - and conversely, similarities - between FC and ATC. As we all know, an E3 isnt a glorified flying ATC platform. If the E3's have been requested, it will be for a specific reason, which as others have pointed out, is one that perhaps this forum is not the place to discuss.
From a C2/C3 perspective, this has been a running sore in ISAF for quite a while, not just from an air point of view either. Until the arrival of OVERTASK a couple of years ago, there was a lot of noise about individual contributing nations bringing their own C2 systems with them and being constrained by their own national Eyes Only security rules, which dont tend to help if you have "foreign" nationals in key positions who need access to the same info as you do in order for the international effort to succeed. Overtask has gone a considerable way towards addressing that, but doesnt (as far as I am aware) have a dedicated AirC2 component, although it can (I think) have access to the joint picture from all the normal sources. Not something you'd want to control aircraft on, (as from what I recall, I dont think its real-time), but
adequate for higher formations.
Incidentally, wasn't there supposed to be at least one, possibly two of the 8 Sqn E3D's being mothballed?
Have a feeling that Helicopter Bob mentioning an air traffic requirement is probably because he doesn't understand the differences - and conversely, similarities - between FC and ATC. As we all know, an E3 isnt a glorified flying ATC platform. If the E3's have been requested, it will be for a specific reason, which as others have pointed out, is one that perhaps this forum is not the place to discuss.
