No one talking about the "attack" on the RAF refueling aircraft?

ebilcake said:
How they got in, I don't really care. Lucky they were not spotted earlier and potentially shot.

Should be charged with Treason, life in prison, imo. :)
Click to expand...


Apparently in UK guards are not allowed to shoot trespassers, someone who is a guard mentioned this in the thread few pages back
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
Yup it will. But that wasn’t the point, the point is the MOD hasn’t got the budget to do all the things.

In any case they could just fly a drone over and do it anyway at which point the CCTV was useless.


Better ask the treasury for the 7 figure investment needed to do it.

Ah wait it’s empty and has been for 15 years….

I swear we are just going round in circles.
Click to expand...

The mod easily has the budget for some cameras, it's only expensive if you go down your convulated way of doing so. I've literally been on gaurd watching cctv, they weren't as expensive as your making out to be.

We are, because you seem to think basic security is a complex matter. Again a fence isn't expensive.
 
Begbie said:
The mod easily has the budget for some cameras, it's only expensive if you go down your convulated way of doing so. I've literally been on gaurd watching cctv, they weren't as expensive as your making out to be.

We are, because you seem to think basic security is a complex matter. Again a fence isn't expensive.
Click to expand...
How many times do I need to repeat the same thing, there is already a fence…

Even then, several kilometres of fencing has a material cost. Particularly when you require the installer of said fencing to be security cleared and supervised at all times. You can’t go and get a bloke from your local traveler site to come and erect it for you.

In what way have I said something which is convoluted?

CCTV just doesn’t magically appear next to a perimeter fence around an airfield. You need the structured cabling to support it. You also need several kilometers of ducts for said cabling.

You are not going to be able to tell the difference between a rabbit or a person on a CCTV camera 100’s of meters away when there is no light. IR only gets you 10’s of meters. You are going to need a lot of cameras for such an installation, particularly if you want to rely on AI detections.

You can’t use a wireless back haul because it can be easily blocked by £30 of kit from aliexpress or worse, intercepted. Even if you did use wireless, you’d still need power which needs ducts installing to run it through.

How much do you think it would cost to install, maintain and operate CCTV around several kilometres of perimeter fence?
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
How many times do I need to repeat the same thing, there is already a fence…

Even then, several kilometres of fencing has a material cost. Particularly when you require the installer of said fencing to be security cleared and supervised at all times. You can’t go and get a bloke from your local traveler site to come and erect it for you.

In what way have I said something which is convoluted?

CCTV just doesn’t magically appear next to a perimeter fence around an airfield. You need the structured cabling to support it. You also need several kilometers of ducts for said cabling.

You are not going to be able to tell the difference between a rabbit or a person on a CCTV camera 100’s of meters away when there is no light. IR only gets you 10’s of meters. You are going to need a lot of cameras for such an installation, particularly if you want to rely on AI detections.

You can’t use a wireless back haul because it can be easily blocked by £30 of kit from aliexpress or worse, intercepted. Even if you did use wireless, you’d still need power which needs ducts installing to run it through.

How much do you think it would cost to install, maintain and operate CCTV around several kilometres of perimeter fence?
Click to expand...

I assume you've not seen the photos of said fence?

Or looked at how they entered the base?

Yes I'm aware, I've used them. I've been on cctv gaurd, they were more than adequate when positioned correctly.
 
esmozz said:
Well, since we're all floating solutions to this.

Guard geese?

Vicious brutes, let me tell you. I've still got a scar on my hand from when I was 8 and tried to sneak into a scrap yard....
Click to expand...
We live in a world where they are not allowed to hurt anyone that breaks in...
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
You are not going to be able to tell the difference between a rabbit or a person on a CCTV camera 100’s of meters away when there is no light. IR only gets you 10’s of meters. You are going to need a lot of cameras for such an installation, particularly if you want to rely on AI detections.
Click to expand...

Had a quick look into it - there are military grade CCTV cameras (sure they cost £10+K each) that can detect a person at up to 5.5km during the day and up to 2km at night, and vehicles up to 30km.

This one claims high detail 6km day / 3km night https://www.bit-cctv.com/products/bit-rc20100w-long-range-laser-night-vision-ptz-camera/ (the 4km/2km variant has a video) - though that is with a lot of zooming so for passive detection at night you are probably more in the range of 100s of meters for these cameras.
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Apparently in UK guards are not allowed to shoot trespassers, someone who is a guard mentioned this in the thread few pages back
Click to expand...

It used to be the case for bases with three perimeter fences. I am not sure we have any three fence bases any more. I do know that some weapons research bases still operate on the three zone system.

But, yes, these people went a step too far. And, what on earth did they think would happen? Idiots.

I find it staggering that we are so unprepared for conflict. Is no one watching Ukraine? Never mind drones, some random member of the public manages to defeat airport security. You know, if there was a war, I could see all our planes being wiped out in one night.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Had a quick look into it - there are military grade CCTV cameras (sure they cost £10+K each) that can detect a person at up to 5.5km during the day and up to 2km at night, and vehicles up to 30km.

This one claims high detail 6km day / 3km night https://www.bit-cctv.com/products/bit-rc20100w-long-range-laser-night-vision-ptz-camera/ (the 4km/2km variant has a video) - though that is with a lot of zooming so for passive detection at night you are probably more in the range of 100s of meters for these cameras.
Click to expand...

That is great, but the sites are under contract, and that will involve a whole requirements process that will be scrutinised from a policy/regulation and financial point of view. A lot of this infra expenditure comes down to "value for money"

And, the contractor has to take on the asset for maintenance etc. So it's never just the cost of the item in the shop.

In the grand scheme of things, a fancy CCTV system is peanuts, but it may not be value for money, and it may not even be a requirement. This incident may shape thinking when it comes to spending on the estate from the security view.
 
SpellowHouse said:
I find it staggering that we are so unprepared for conflict. Is no one watching Ukraine? Never mind drones, some random member of the public manages to defeat airport security. You know, if there was a war, I could see all our planes being wiped out in one night.
Click to expand...

It isn’t a top secret fact that our entire air transport and refuelling fleet is based in one place which has a single runway.
 
Werewolf said:
Remind me again of the last time someone tried to plant a bomb on a military aircraft in the UK. You don't risk doing millions of pounds of damage, or critically damaging an aircraft* (not to mention hitting someone hundreds of meters away) with a missed shot, or shooting someone who may actually be allowed on site but is not where you expected them to be, just because of some fantasy situation in peace time.

Also gaining external access to an aircraft is not the same as being able to actually do much, and every pilot and aircrew will do inspections of the aircraft (be it military or civilian) as part of their pre-flight and should spot anything external as the whole point of the standard pre-flight walkaround and inspection is to make sure the aircraft is externally as it should be, and what are often quite small things are set up as they need to be.

It is also worth noting this is peace time, if we were at war then rules of engagement for security would be different, and there would likely be both far more security and more people in general.


*A bullet hole is much harder to spot than trying to plant some imaginary bomb, and can cause a lot of damage that can't be seen without completely stripping the affected part of the aircraft down and tracing every fragment of the round.
Click to expand...
I grew up during the troubles, I've seen bombs go off a few hundred feet away
 
Rroff said:
Had a quick look into it - there are military grade CCTV cameras (sure they cost £10+K each) that can detect a person at up to 5.5km during the day and up to 2km at night, and vehicles up to 30km.

This one claims high detail 6km day / 3km night https://www.bit-cctv.com/products/bit-rc20100w-long-range-laser-night-vision-ptz-camera/ (the 4km/2km variant has a video) - though that is with a lot of zooming so for passive detection at night you are probably more in the range of 100s of meters for these cameras.
Click to expand...
You've just hit the nail on the head with your own logic. To see things from a long way away you need to zoom in, if you zoom in you can only see that tiny point in space you are looking at.

That is great for a PTZ camera if you want to focus on a specific area, the main pitfall of a PTZ is that if its focused in on one area, its not looking at anything else in the same area it is meant to be covering when zoomed out and you create a massive hole in your coverage as a result.

That's not so great if you need to maintain coverage of a massive perimeter fence. So in reality you are going to need hundreds of relatively wide camera fixed position cameras covering the whole perimeter to identify targets for your PTZ's to look at if you want PTZ's.

If you've got full coverage with fixed position cameras, you don't really need PTZ's anyway. PTZ's can be a security risk in their own right as they can be moved by an operator (who will probably be a low paid civilian) to literally 'look the other way'.

In any case, I never even said its the cameras that are the expensive part, because they aren't. All I said was it's not cheap and likely to run into 7 figures for a single base. Scale that up across the MOD estate and all of a sudden you have a rather large number.

The expensive parts are all the bits a human has to touch such as installing all the infrastructure needed for said cameras, the maintenance and the ongoing monitoring. Just having a single person monitoring all the cameras 24/7 gets you to 7 figures over a 7 year period anyway, as in practice, having a single person on watch 24/7, 365 means you need to employ at least 5 people to cover it full time and even then 5 isn't really viable as you have zero redundancy. So really you are probably talking about 7 figures in 5 years, just to have a single person sit there and watch the cameras.

The whole conversation is elementary anyway because there isn't any guarantee that CCTV would have even prevented it int he first place. Even if they were spotted you still need a patrol to get there and intercept them before they make it to a plane, it's kind of redundant if they don't make it to the target before they, you might catch them but the damage is done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom