When the Army stops thinking that "Joint" is spelled "A.R.M.Y.", is when the RAF will start giving them latitude in the FW pissing-contest. Single-service politics goes both ways, gentlemen.

wg13dummy,

They already have, I'm just introducing some damage limitation.

Yes it will. mutleyfour raised the point about it not being about pilots or aircraft and basing was a key driver in the program. This leads to the next debate about tasking and capability because they actually drive the basing issue in this case. The fact there is already opsec sensitive stuff on this thread means your self-policing policy has already failed! Oh and by the way, this is not about me and you should know better.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Therefore, it is in essence another forum. It has not been approved by the MOD and, as such, this information in particular is most definitely not in the official public domain. In fact, if you Google this topic you will only find reference to this thread, so lets start acting mature and sensible. There is nothing wrong with the airframe debate but I can see where it is going if you can't.

Happy for lively debate, not happy I'm being referred to as a self-licking lollipop!

h

H

I agree that we all need to be aware of Comsec but I also agree with Wg that so far nothing dodgy has been said.

With regard to my personal comment about basing I need to point out that it is applicable to all aircraft and ground components in support of air and not just Kingair. Every Station Commander is fighting to build the portfolio of their base as much as possible and hence the twoing and fro-in.

Of course this is just my own personal view on the subject and does not represent the views of the UK MoD. :} :ok:

wg13, mutley,

I agree with helidriver on this. Too much has been implied already that is not on Wiki.

Regards,
MM

opsec or comsec, or any other military words being given away!
 

I agree that there are things being given away or implied here, that are not on Wikipedia.

It was implied that one poster was very important in his own NAAFI break. I for one can find no reference to this on wikipedia.
So my question is: Is that a rumour (on a rumour network!), or does it breach a secret (I wont re-mention any military type words, in case they give anything away too).

I too didn't want to bite here, but I've just bitten the tongue firmly embedded in my cheek:E

Barnstormer1968

Some examples:

(i) mention of a Squadron/airframe whose use is not confirmed on any official MOD site
(ii) mention of a location which has not been confirmed by the MOD

The only official confirmation of the Beech aircraft was from the MOD in April

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...veillance.html