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.