What happened to the NCAGS mobilisation thread?

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
The original question had been answered and the discussion was wandering onto potentially classified ground.

That is not to say that the existence of the system is classified - its a bit hard to disguise and the deployment has been widely reported in the defence press - JDW to name but one.

Does that help?

Edited to add - there is no issue with the discussion concerning the mobilisation or otherwise, but lets keep out of the details as to how it works.....
 

TF110

Lantern Swinger
#5
Having worked on this subject in some detail, I was struggling to see anything there that had not been reported before. considering this, I think this was a total overreaction by people.
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
Which is what I've just said - I think. Where we stand into danger is when people go into technical details, comparisons between systems etc and their professional knowledge/experience manifests itself in inappropriate posts.

As I also said - should you wish to resurrect the mobilisation issue, the original topic, then feel free....

Does this help now?
 
#7
Without wishing to start an argument, why on earth was it deleted then? There were no posts regarding technical details, comparisons or explicit discussion of the capability. I think it was a touch over-zealous to be honest....
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#9
alfred_the_great said:
Without wishing to start an argument, why on earth was it deleted then? There were no posts regarding technical details, comparisons or explicit discussion of the capability. I think it was a touch over-zealous to be honest....
There was at least one post which contained the number of systems we possess, like it or not that is an OPSEC issue. Whilst subjects like this may be out there on t'internet and will inevitably be discussed just think about the details which are posted. Need to know and all that!
 
#11
this smacks of over-zealousness; if it's in Janes, then it's a) in the public domain, and b) acknowledged by the MoD. This is a prime way of telling the world that the RN is engaged in IQ and actively protecting the troops - hushing it up is an example of the "silent service" at its very worse.....

If we wish to demonstrate we are modern, capable and relevant, people need to be told. Like it or not, RR is a good way of telling Joe Public of what we do. I am all for OPSEC, and am quite happy to see details of ship's programmes or specific details of kit to be removed; but if CINC-AIR tells the world then we need to pass that message on.
 
#12
I deleted the thread as it was in danger of moving into rather dubious ground.

Whilst this information may be available in other areas it may be considered inadvisable to do people's research for them.

So no apologies for it's disappearance. On the other hand I do apologise for the delay in removing it, I was offline for personal reasons.

M(R)
 
#13
Oh dear. What a wishy washy excuse - if we ignore it on RR, then it won't really happen. With the added bonus of denying the fact that we have guys, full-time and part-time, involved in the protection of our troops. Oh well, the Silent Service marches on.....
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#14
alfred_the_great said:
Oh dear. What a wishy washy excuse - if we ignore it on RR, then it won't really happen. With the added bonus of denying the fact that we have guys, full-time and part-time, involved in the protection of our troops. Oh well, the Silent Service marches on.....
Oh well, at least you didn't want an argument!

A post in that thread stated how many systems we have, who mans them and where that manpower has come from. Whilst the MoD or their authorised representative may choose to put that information in open source (I can't find it!) I am sure you wouldn't want it inadvertantly released, we call that Operational Security, I don't think the vids and other info was the problem, more the way it was going.
 

noemis

Lantern Swinger
#15
Why was the thread deleted and not just locked? I'm affraid it's censorship that Seadog would be proud off!

When I left the thread last night there was nothing that was OPSEC there, just published material and a couple of YOUTUBE links that I put up. Unless it got considerably juicier in the small hours, this was deffinately OTT!

On a more serious note, I'm looking forward to my next medal and deleting threads isn't helping!!!
 
#16
I give up, I really do. If it's in the public, by official sources, then we should be singing it to the heavens, OPSEC does not come into it. Do we want to deny the fact that RNR personnel are in AFG? It comes under the same argument - the number of people, where they are based and who is providing them....
 
#17
I asked for it to be deleted as I dont really think its good to advertise where RNR personnel may or may not be deployed. For all sorts of common sense reasons. I imagine that makes sense doesnt it .
The kit discussed, is in the public domain, but the ratings or speculation whether or where they may or may not be mobilised isnt IMHO

And it wasnt an NCAGS mobiisation at all, a little information can be very dangerous


Loose Lips etc.
 
#19
Oh dear me, and when people ask what WE are doing to help the Army in IQ and AFG, we best keep our mouths shut - common sense and all. Oh well, it's not like we provided the majority of personnel in AFG earlier this year....
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#20
alfred_the_great said:
Oh dear me, and when people ask what WE are doing to help the Army in IQ and AFG, we best keep our mouths shut - common sense and all. Oh well, it's not like we provided the majority of personnel in AFG earlier this year....
Eh! I thought you gave up?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top