|
Quote: Originally Posted by langleybaston [Incidentally the army appear to get maximum credit, and the Regiment will be criticised if matters go tits up again.] I was under the impression it was 14th Sigs that were deployed to Gatwick...? Don't blame the American Media.....Journalism school is for those who cannot qualify for any other degree. |
It is as if there is a news blackout over the "crisis".
Either that or there is nothing to report .......... no progress by plod. As days go by the lack of evidence except eyewitnesses [reliable or unreliable] must surely lead us to deploy Occam's Razor and the dictum of Sherlock Holmes. |
http://www.gov.uk/government/news/ds...st-hostile-uas
I guess 3 1/2 years isn't long enough for the trial results to bear fruit, in terms of procurement? Pm |
Oh it's long enough - the problem is finding the cash to do anything about any recommendations - so the report stays "pending" until someone figures out what weasel words can be used to avoid actually doing anything................
|
This thread reveals the extent of the Crabs inferiority complex and that they still believe that Pprune Mil Aviation is all about them. |
Originally Posted by Clockwork Mouse
(Post 10353475)
This thread reveals the extent of the Crabs inferiority complex and that they still believe that Pprune Mil Aviation is all about them. Which unit? |
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 10352890)
It is as if there is a news blackout over the "crisis".
Either that or there is nothing to report .......... no progress by plod. As days go by the lack of evidence except eyewitnesses [reliable or unreliable] must surely lead us to deploy Occam's Razor and the dictum of Sherlock Holmes. |
If the Government as whole, MOD Dept of transport and branches of the military along with the owners of LHR and LGW all behaved in a tardy and inefficient manner then it surely will result in a mass cover up as they all back each other up. It is however very much an example of UL 2018/9 that people do not do the bleedin' obvious usually because some accountant has ruled theres no business case for it or it doesnt 'drive incremental revenues' (and therefore my bonus as CEO where spending a few million is a cost and that negatively affects my businesses as CEO. In fact it probably a certainty that neither CEO has 'keep airport operating in all reasonable circumstances as an objective anyway' . Protection from drones is certainly within today's world of reasonable circumstances.
I do not blame the military that much though, they do what they are asked and if no one asked them to prepare for this threat it is not their fault but it does show a stunning degree of unpreparedness for something thats been discussed on here -just one example-for years. |
A56, don’t forget that the first recommendation of any DSTL research is...... more research. My understanding is that the aim of Bristow 15 was not to find a specific solution (there isn’t one to fit all scenarios) but to understand the technology of what is being pushed by industry. More importantly, with many ‘snake oil’ salesmen and women out there, there is a lot of work required to understand what the glossy mags say kit can do versus the reality of what the tech actually delivers. (Recall Mine detectors that were actually devices for finding golf balls.) Bristow 15 and the more recent 18, plus a myriad of other trials have gone a long way to understanding what the necessary requirements for a counter-UAS solution should be and ultimately make MoD an intelligent customer (shocker!). Now many would think that the solution for a capability to identify and disable a ‘drone’ would be relatively simple, you would have expected companies who produce complex platforms such as the QEC or F35 or even companies that produce the various DAS components would have generated a robust fix already - they haven’t. However, various agencies inc the Regt are considerably further down the road in understanding what can be fielded, it is just a question of $€£ to keep the project(s) going. Again my understanding is that multiple agencies, OGDs and FLCs have all supported activity to address the risks associated with drones of all catergories, at a tactical level there has been some superb cooperation but as one of the posts alludes too, this is not a quick fix and the money and continuity of personnel required to see the various strands of R&D through to a conclusion is just not there! Maybe for 2019, post ‘Gatwick-Gate’, a small amount of money may now be forthcoming and allow the work done to date to be full exploited. Or B, the cheque is in the post......... |
Originally Posted by pax britanica
(Post 10353495)
If the Government as whole, MOD Dept of transport and branches of the military along with the owners of LHR and LGW all behaved in a tardy and inefficient manner then it surely will result in a mass cover up as they all back each other up. It is however very much an example of UL 2018/9 that people do not do the bleedin' obvious usually because some accountant has ruled theres no business case for it or it doesnt 'drive incremental revenues' (and therefore my bonus as CEO where spending a few million is a cost and that negatively affects my businesses as CEO. In fact it probably a certainty that neither CEO has 'keep airport operating in all reasonable circumstances as an objective anyway' . Protection from drones is certainly within today's world of reasonable circumstances.
I do not blame the military that much though, they do what they are asked and if no one asked them to prepare for this threat it is not their fault but it does show a stunning degree of unpreparedness for something thats been discussed on here -just one example-for years. |
t is as if there is a news blackout over the "crisis". Either that or there is nothing to report .......... no progress by plod. |
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 10351067)
I gather that the "army" protecting Gatwick were Regiment. [There's a surprise!]
Originally Posted by parabellum
(Post 10351253)
The SAS have an on going role in aviation security, including hi jacks etc. they have had since the seventies to my knowledge.
Originally Posted by airsound
(Post 10351903)
I
MoD did confirm to me that it was indeed the Rocks involved (not the Pongoes). |
“...won the battle of Gatwick“. So this was a victory??
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10353204)
Oh it's long enough - the problem is finding the cash to do anything about any recommendations - so the report stays "pending" until someone figures out what weasel words can be used to avoid actually doing anything................
|
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 10353480)
So it was the army that won the Battle of Gatwick 2018 was it?
Which unit? Will the Middle Ginger Stepchild of the UK Armed Forces - sorry - 2 Armed Forces and and Part-time Civvy Detachment ever get over itself? |
Originally Posted by Clockwork Mouse
(Post 10353475)
This thread reveals the extent of the Crabs inferiority complex and that they still believe that Pprune Mil Aviation is all about them. gijoe - Happy New Year to you too. |
Seems clear, RAF Regiment: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46741687 |
Doesn't really matter does it? The Military responded to a request for help, did a good job and left in time for Christmas. Good effort by those involved, regardless of the colour of their uniforms.
|
Well said handle. Shall we start a campaign for inter service civility? |
I'm sorry Timelord, but you should have waited almost four months to post that.....!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.