Phantom Phil, in this list that you (presumably) have compiled, what do the bracketed C and N indicate?

Also, why have you noted them as FG.1 and FGR.2 in the wording, yet FG1 and FGR2 in the list? Which should it be?

It looks like the Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/reconnaissancepod.cfm

TJ

Nope, it is a LOROP pod

There are currently 10 Hawk T2s at Brough.

Five that have yet to be flown (as you mentioned) and five more previously delivered ones which have subsequently been returned here by road for upgrades.

This is the only story i’ve seen so far that actually indicates that the 2 Chinooks shot down last month are actually being replaced with new airframes and not just replaced from existing stocks.

Same for a new batch of Chinooks.

Anyone else seen any information on this?

If it’s right, lets hope it doesn;t turn into the last Chinook procurement again.

What story are you referring to? You have just written some statement. Any sources or quotes?

Bell 47 G-ASOL

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/HistoricalMaterial/G-ASOL.pdf

Really?

G-ASOL is a Bell 47 D-1. That pod desn’t look anything like a D-1 variant. It has the curved lower aft door opening more typical of a later model, and is in a dark scheme more like an AAC Sioux.

Anyone know any more?

Certainly. It was 162068

Cheers…

.

Thank you

A couple of things.

You all appear to have fallen into the common trap by associating the MoD (or almost any government department) with the words “standards” and “logic”. 😉

Also, if you use the shorthand mark designation, there is no need for the dot to separate the letter from the number. I have seen (and filled in) copious official documents and have never included the dot (full stop).

It should be Gnat T Mark 1
OR
Gnat T Mk.1
OR
Gnat T1

The dot is only used when you abbreviate the word “Mark” to “Mk.”

I don’t know where the predeliction for adding this dot in came from, but I suspect it was from the enthusiast community, not officialdom.

Game, set, match 😉