China recruits former British military pilots
I suggested that it might be better if they turned the blue lights off on the escorts when moving the weapons!!
Tee hee!
Mog
The following users liked this post:
That's me "the interestin' NavAv tidbitter" 
with Naval Aviation News Jan-Feb 1988 top of page 6 LSO School training furriners: https://www.history.navy.mil/content...0/pdf/jf88.pdf
with Naval Aviation News Jan-Feb 1988 top of page 6 LSO School training furriners: https://www.history.navy.mil/content...0/pdf/jf88.pdf
https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland...195396848.html
Article about Bundeswehr pilots training the Chinese on Qiqihar airbase in Heilongjiang province. This supposedly started in 2013 when a certain Alexander H. ( normal German practice just to give initial only ) retired at the age of 41 moved to China. He is working with Lode-Tech, a company owned by Su Bin, who had previously run an aerospace company in Canada. He was arrested in 2014 and confessed that he had been spying for China for six years, collecting aerospace information ( strangely there is no report of any punishment )
There is no German law preventing this, but a parliamentary sub-committee is now reviewing the situation.
Article about Bundeswehr pilots training the Chinese on Qiqihar airbase in Heilongjiang province. This supposedly started in 2013 when a certain Alexander H. ( normal German practice just to give initial only ) retired at the age of 41 moved to China. He is working with Lode-Tech, a company owned by Su Bin, who had previously run an aerospace company in Canada. He was arrested in 2014 and confessed that he had been spying for China for six years, collecting aerospace information ( strangely there is no report of any punishment )
There is no German law preventing this, but a parliamentary sub-committee is now reviewing the situation.
It is unlawful to disclose military secrets they might have been sworn in before. So there IS a law preventing this. This is why Bundeswehr's "MAD" military investigation service is said to be already probing the case.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...e-prosecution/
Ex-RAF officers face prosecution if they train Chinese pilots
RAF veterans training the Chinese military will face prosecution for sharing tactics with a foreign power, the Ministry of Defence (MoD)has said.
Former service personnel who train the militaries of UK competitors will be pursued and brought to justice, Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, said.
Last October, the MoD issued a rare security alert after it emerged that a number of former RAF, Royal Navy and Army pilots had been training the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army Air Force.
The pilots were contracted through a South African company after being offered salaries of around Ł250,000. It was reported that about 30 had moved to China to provide the training.
The revelation prompted fears that former British pilots were helping the Chinese to understand Western tactics, potentially equipping the Peoples Liberation Army with knowledge about shooting down the planes of Britain and its allies.
The MoD has now said former Armed Forces personnel who train foreign militaries can expect to be prosecuted under new offences within the National Security Act, which became law in July.
Specifically, the act includes an offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information and defines information as including tactics, techniques and procedures.
The MoD said if pilots were suspected of sharing sensitive information with foreign powers it would pass the details to the police to investigate.
Mr Shapps said: Anyone found to be acting against the UKs interests by training our competitors militaries can now expect to be pursued and brought to justice.
The Government has acted decisively following the identification of this threat, and has made rapid changes to legislation to help shut it down.
The MoD said it believed that the adverse publicity from its security alert was effective in persuading the pilots to reconsider their work and to discourage other former troops from taking part. .
Ex-RAF officers face prosecution if they train Chinese pilots
RAF veterans training the Chinese military will face prosecution for sharing tactics with a foreign power, the Ministry of Defence (MoD)has said.
Former service personnel who train the militaries of UK competitors will be pursued and brought to justice, Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, said.
Last October, the MoD issued a rare security alert after it emerged that a number of former RAF, Royal Navy and Army pilots had been training the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army Air Force.
The pilots were contracted through a South African company after being offered salaries of around Ł250,000. It was reported that about 30 had moved to China to provide the training.
The revelation prompted fears that former British pilots were helping the Chinese to understand Western tactics, potentially equipping the Peoples Liberation Army with knowledge about shooting down the planes of Britain and its allies.
The MoD has now said former Armed Forces personnel who train foreign militaries can expect to be prosecuted under new offences within the National Security Act, which became law in July.
Specifically, the act includes an offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information and defines information as including tactics, techniques and procedures.
The MoD said if pilots were suspected of sharing sensitive information with foreign powers it would pass the details to the police to investigate.
Mr Shapps said: Anyone found to be acting against the UKs interests by training our competitors militaries can now expect to be pursued and brought to justice.
The Government has acted decisively following the identification of this threat, and has made rapid changes to legislation to help shut it down.
The MoD said it believed that the adverse publicity from its security alert was effective in persuading the pilots to reconsider their work and to discourage other former troops from taking part. .
The following users liked this post:
A National Security Act sounds like a bit of a catch all piece of legislation a government could use against anyone doing anything that displaced the then administration. Don’t Russia, China, Iran et al already use something similar to silence opponents?
Personally, I am glad to see the UK taking this seriously. I speak as one who, as a recent civvy, introduced pilots of a former Soviet-ruled state to the NATO way of operating - with approval from UK Gov. I was amazed at how bad and sclerotic the Soviet air defence tactics were when I started working with them. For instance, they couldn’t see the point of having a wingman in a fight because they got in the way! It took me beating their CO in 1v1 doggers to make them take me seriously. Luckily, he managed to recover from the spin by only 3000’ below base-height!
Admittedly things will have moved on a bit from there but I am still quite sure that our oriental friends are decades behind modern Western thinking, when it comes to employing air power - and I believe that we should endeavour to keep it that way.
Mog
Admittedly things will have moved on a bit from there but I am still quite sure that our oriental friends are decades behind modern Western thinking, when it comes to employing air power - and I believe that we should endeavour to keep it that way.
Mog
The following 2 users liked this post by Mogwi:
who needs a National Security Act?
that bleeding hearted Liberal Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd always said he'd be happy to scrap the whole of S Africa's security legislation if he could get the UK Official Secrets Act and the Defence of the Realm Act.
that bleeding hearted Liberal Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd always said he'd be happy to scrap the whole of S Africa's security legislation if he could get the UK Official Secrets Act and the Defence of the Realm Act.
I think section 2 of the OSA 1989 covers it (and to save anyone else the bother, our signatures were obtained as a reminder but the acts apply with or without one)
Defence.
(1)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.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks or leads to loss of life or injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces; or
(b)otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or
(c)it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
(1)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.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks or leads to loss of life or injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces; or
(b)otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or
(c)it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
Australia is bringing legislation, former military or defence public servants will need permission if outside of the 5 eyes. Up to 20 year sentence if found guilty
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...13-p5e4d3.html
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...13-p5e4d3.html
There is a problem with draconian sentencing for security offences tho'. If you're not in a hot war or its been years since one you find re authorities use the laws to on relatively small fry and often on minor offences to avoid some political embarrassment.
After a while the juries cotton on and people are let go even tho the evidence is pretty clear- unfortunately it occasionally means that those who should be inside escape.
After a while the juries cotton on and people are let go even tho the evidence is pretty clear- unfortunately it occasionally means that those who should be inside escape.
