FighterControl

U4272/20 - FAIRFORD MIL ATZ ACTIVE, AD, RWY 27/09 OPEN. 17 SEP 07:00 2020 UNTIL 17 SEP 22:00
2020. CREATED: 17 SEP 06:04 2020

Black01 taxying for t/o r/w 09

Black01 up and going to 127.25

*****01 cleared to fl600

Black01 to 252.875

The squadron have repeatedly asked for mission callsigns to not be published until the jet returns...

Ahh - sorry - did not know that. Will stop.

jigsaw wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:26 am

The squadron have repeatedly asked for mission callsigns to not be published until the jet returns...

Correct, this forum has made it easy for a certain country to confirm a certain type of aircraft is heading in a certain direction at a certain time.

Excellent OTT from Droitwich, 0934 BST; visible for good 5 minutes.

Heard it come over Bewdley,time I got outside it had gone

Cranberry wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:30 am

jigsaw wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:26 am

The squadron have repeatedly asked for mission callsigns to not be published until the jet returns...

Correct, this forum has made it easy for a certain country to confirm a certain type of aircraft is heading in a certain direction at a certain time.

Oh come on guys, this is the fourth day in a row they’ve used BLACK 01 as their callsign, it’s clearly a new standard and it’s not exactly hard to make out over RT.

SamP wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:51 am

Cranberry wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:30 am

jigsaw wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:26 am

The squadron have repeatedly asked for mission callsigns to not be published until the jet returns...

Correct, this forum has made it easy for a certain country to confirm a certain type of aircraft is heading in a certain direction at a certain time.

Oh come on guys, this is the fourth day in a row they’ve used BLACK 01 as their callsign, it’s clearly a new standard and it’s not exactly hard to make out over RT.

Im just reiterating what the squadron have asked all the groups and pages to do.

Yes and I helped to enforce that when the callsigns were on a daily rotation, but common sense prevails when things change. They’ve got nothing to hide now with a callsign used more than once and on consecutive days.

I won't get involved in the yes/no/should we/shouldn't we.

I'll just mention that sometimes the threat changes causing the USAF to become concerned for the safety of its airmen and worried about the security of its operations. Maybe, just maybe that's happened recently which is why there's new requests being made. If reducing what I post on here helps reduce the concerns the USAF has then I'm cool with that and I'd always encourage others to do the same. If that means I'm not welcome here any more then that's cool too.

surely posting both callsign and the type would be the issue? the Country in question probably already knows more about the type and its missions than the 9thRW, to be honest though why are a bunch of plane spotters even think they have the right to question a request made by the USAF for very good operational reasons?

rva65 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:05 am

surely posting both callsign and the type would be the issue? the Country in question probably already knows more about the type and its missions than the 9thRW!

But our role should be to support the USAF not hinder it? Providing the other side with a live stream of known to be accurate updates on the arrival of a U-2 into an area that's about to be monitored isn't helping the USAF is it? Gone are the days of the other side needing a real time radio watch of UK air band transmissions. Now they just fire up fighter control and start covering up their goodies so they've out of sight when the U-2 arrives.

At the very least there will be listeners inside the Russian Embassy who know the various airband freqs used daily for these flights - they may well have a source closer to the base itself. They may have a source within the European wide air traffic community.

Mission flights could depart with minimal almost zero comms if required.

At the moment there seems to be a lot of NATO surveillance flights up close to the borders around the Black Sea/Crimea, the Baltic/Kalingrad and the Murnansk areas - lets hope no one on either side makes a blunder.

Yammer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:09 am

At the very least there will be listeners inside the Russian Embassy who know the various airband freqs used daily for these flights - they may well have a source closer to the base itself. They may have a source within the European wide air traffic community.

Mission flights could depart with minimal almost zero comms if required.

Exactly.

page_verify wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:08 am

rva65 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:05 am

surely posting both callsign and the type would be the issue? the Country in question probably already knows more about the type and its missions than the 9thRW!

But our role should be to support the USAF not hinder it? Providing the other side with a live stream of known to be accurate updates on the arrival of a U-2 into an area that's about to be monitored isn't helping the USAF is it? Gone are the days of the other side needing a real time radio watch of UK air band transmissions. Now they just fire up fighter control and start covering up their goodies so they've out of sight when the U-2 arrives.

Absolutely, any request for internet security by the USAF Sqn’s stationed in the UK, or from the RAF even, should be treated with respect, and adhered to, they aren’t operating from here for fun!

"".....Now they just fire up fighter control and start covering up their goodies so they've out of sight when the U-2 arrives. ""

I can't imagine the any nation would rely on FC for their intel.

Covering up goodies - in addition to flyable aircraft there are dozens of intel related satellites up there watching things of interest criss crossing the skies day in day out. Orbits can be changed. The U-2 will hoover up a ton of SIGNIT/ELINT too in addition to any imagery.

Bear in mind also that the USA announced a few weeks back that they were withdrawing from the Open Skies program - I can't understand why they'd do this and lose the opportunity to fly at short notice over other members nations. I can only assume they are absolutely confident they can get the same intel from sources if not by "asking" other Open Skies members to share a copy of gathered intel.