The Shadow? - you mean, Hank Marvin?:}

RE: willy waving
 

I must say I do enjoy reading all the inter service willy waving. But here is a warning. Get in as much as you can right now, as due to soon to happen defence cuts, there will soon be no point in continuing.

Noo Labour are going to scrap everyone's kit, and replace it all with just ONE hovercraft (land,sea, air use). After that, each of the services will get to use it for ten days at a time in rotation.:}

Although, knowing UK procurement, it will no doubt be delayed for several years, while the powers that be argue over whether it needs air brakes, an anchor or disc brakes!

Going back to King Airs briefly. I would also like to know as much about them as many other PPRUNERS, but then I am not in a need to know position, so will just have to wait.

Looks to me that BAE forgot that the 'U' in UCAV stands for UNMANNED!

It actually stands for Uninhabited - you sexist pig!:ok:

Without prejudice, :) quickie question how come the AAC didnt invest in the RC-12s or their equivalents like their US counterparts say 2 decades ago? Funding or slight rivalries between who should fly something above a certain weight and stance?

Slightly deviating the topic, the US DoD is putting more money and effort into the RC-12 fleet for the Army as well as the USAF for Afghanistan under Project Liberty. As they would be better served in that low intensity conflict. :\

The RN are involved with both Pilot and NCO Sensor operator.

So who will operate them?

An expanded 5 Squadron?

A new RAF-badged, tri-service manned squadron notionally based at Waddington?

A new AAC-badged, tri-service manned squadron notionally based where?

A new AAC Squadron?

A new RN Squadron?

If you dont know who's gonna operate them and your not a 100% of the exact role they are to be used in then you probably dont need to know. Be careful, this thread is starting to mention things it maybe should not. Remember 'loose lips sink ships'...:mad:

Wise words Pump, but there are always those that want to be the one to sound important and give out a little bit of info. And there are always those that will urge them on, saying that it is all public info anyway, waiting for the non public info to come out.

The amount of info given out on this site is ridiculous.

I'm 200% behind legitimate military security - and it pains me when security concerns are instead used to protect what is merely politically embarrassing, or when people quote security concerns when the question being asked is entirely innocuous. Not everything is, or needs to be, secret.

The role is obvious from the fit, and the requirement.

No-one's asking about tactics, parametrics, capabilities, equipment nor even operational basing.

Just which branch of the services will own and operate these aircraft - bought and paid for with taxpayers money.

Do you think for one moment that this is unknown because it's militarily sensitive, and won't be released when the squadron stands up?

What possible problem does this level of information pose?

Beech 350s
 

Personally I'm with Jackonicko on this one. If you have read the usual aviation magazines recently you'll have noticed that there's already quite a lot of information about these aircraft in the public domain, no doubt thanks to various individuals in the MOD. :=
I think asking who will operate them and where they will be based is hardly likely to breach national security - anyway in a few months time they'll be operational anyway, so what possible 'damage' can this information actually do?
I'm all for operational security, but it needs to be applied correctly and for the right reasons, otherwise it just loses credibility.

Heimdall

Whilst agreeing with you in principal, Has the MOD ever released or confirmed details of the AAC unit that uses the Defender?

Am I the only one who is heartened by the obvious push to acquire ISTAR assets without the usual long-winded, unnecessary procurement process? I don't really care about what the King Airs or DA42s are called or who operates them. To me I am just pleased that the movers and shakers in MOD are actually moving and shaking.

Or that further Defenders were recently bought to expand the fleet. And then there is this "civilian" Eurocopter Dauphin. You didn't see it... right.

Just a civvie Dauphin...

Actually, I'm not. All this hasty purchasing of ISTAR assets overlooks the big issue of what we do with the information. All that ownership battles and willy-waving do is reinforce the situation where we have plenty of COLLECT assets, but a confused DIRECT function and barriers to PROCESS and DISSEMINATE. I've even heard of some in the RA asking D J6 CBM to make sure that the TUAV downlink was bespoke because "we don't want other people using it"!

We need to get over the issue of who owns or operates the assets, and get on with making sure that the operators have the DATA (not kit) they need - and no, that doesn't automatically mean FMV!

i know the answers, but i aint telling.

its a good story, but i agree that it should not be plastered all over these pages.

if you need to know, you will know, if you dont, then you should not be asking. but then you all knew that already, and dont need my 2 bobsworth

TFC

Maybe not, but the info is out there:
Britten-Norman BN-2 Defender AL2, ZG997, Army Air Corps
(after a quick google).

As usual people come out fighting, declaring that they are not posing a problem, asking what harm could possibly come from finding out this and that.

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.

Quite simply if the info is given out by the MoD then it is fair game, if it isnt then leave it alone. Im guessing the only reason these questions are even asked on here is that originally the question was posed to the MoD who responded with "bugger off, there is no need for you to know right now".

It seems that these days very few military people take their oaths seriously. It also seems that those that are not military have lost any respect they may have once had for the military through their demand to have all their questions answered.

Im sure there is very little info on this subject that has been released by MoD, not because it is fun to do so, but because eventually that ability to keep quiet will save lives.

Of course Im sure this will be outweighed by some journo/plane spotters right to know everything...................

Juliet,

With respect.....

"I'm guessing the only reason these questions are even asked on here is that originally the question was posed to the MoD who responded with "bugger off, there is no need for you to know right now."

Is way off base. The reason that questions are asked here is because asking the MoD takes weeks to get an answer - not through rigorous examination of the security case, but because the PR machine is institutionally inefficient, and close to broken.

This is innocent questioning, and no leading questions have been asked. There are clear, stated limits on what is being asked "Whose and where" and clear indications that details of equipment/operational basing/tactics and parametrics should not be asked about. Certainly no one is demanding to have all their questions answered.

In a democracy (look it up) taxpayers have a right to know what their money is being spent on, but perhaps not exactly how those assets are used.

There is a line to be drawn, but this is not Stalin's Russia, and a blanket ban on any and all information won't fly.

XV277,

Yes, the MOD has released and confirmed details of the AAC unit that uses the Defender.

See:

http://www2.army.mod.uk/linkedfiles/..._section_1.pdf

for example.

This says that: "Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing (JSFAW)
The JSFAW was formed on 2 Apr 01, bringing together 657 Squadron Army Air Corps (AAC) and 7 Squadron RAF into a single unit to provide Lynx and Chinook in support of United Kingdom Special Forces. The Wing is under peacetime command of the Station Commander of RAF Odiham, but the Single-Services retain Full Command of their respective personnel. In 2006, the wing incorporated 651 Squadron Army Air Corps and its Defender aircraft."

Elsewhere, it has officially been revealed that: "5 Regiment Army Air Corps will continue to operate from Aldergrove. 665 Squadron operate Gazelle helicopters that provide a communications facility and have a surveillance role. They may provide assistance to the PSNI in accordance with the ‘Patten Provisions’. 651 Squadron operate Brittan Norman Islander and Defender 4000 fixed wing aircraft, again in the surveillance role. The PSNI will continue to operate a Eurocopter EC-135 helicopter and a Brittain Norman Islander fixed wing aircraft in the surveillance roles."

I've seen official references to where 651 is operationally deployed, but see no purpose in repeating that here, or linking to it.

And it was officially revealed that 651 "officially moved to RAF Aldergrove on 4 August 2008 from RAF Odiham."

The statement that "651 Squadron operate Brittan Norman Islander and Defender 4000 fixed wing aircraft" would seem to infer that No.1 Flight and 651 had merged. I don't know whether that's the case, but rather suspect not.

JN,

Im well aware of what democracy means, Ive spent years defending your right to have it.

I 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 MoD, 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.

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.

... 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?

"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?

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

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).

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

"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.

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?

They're with AFM, BEags. I've been paid for the article (long since), but it hasn't appeared. I'll chase the beggars.

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

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.

Another one?

Photos: Diamond DA-42 Twin Star MPP Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

http://www.igniter.org.uk/avpics/fl/wdn08/58.jpg

Reposted from another board. At least they've painted it, now!

At RAF Waddington I take it where it will be based when not wherever it will or might not eventually go. That about confirms your earlier questions then.

G-JENC was out and about yesterday. Circuits at RAF Coningsby.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...O/004f1647.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...O/a19dd5a9.jpg

TJ

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.

Why have they put the King Air on the civvy register?

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.

I like the nickname!

Anyone care to invent an official nickname for the RAF DA42s?