Image clearly shows personal GPS presumably being carried by aircrew. Probably had to buy it himself. I think I would want to do the same if there was a possibility of going down in that kind of territory.
Lot of presumption there! As far as I can tell, all the photo shows is a gloved hand in a helicopter holding a garmin GPS. There is nothing to suggest that the GPS belongs to the aircrew; that the helicopter is in the gulf or even that the helicopter is a military one.
News websites like to put pictures in their stories but they very often don't have any that are particularly relevent, in which case they just trawl their libraries until they find one that just about matches. Don't assume that this is any different.
Ah, not cheapo at all, as purchased by Ministry of Defence, see?
Specifications for tender
E-Bidding
Supplier selection and approval
Prototypes
Qualification testing
AQAP100 approval
Pre Production units
Orders for at least, well 50 units
Garmin wins MOD contract worth £3bn to supply state of the art NRSDs (Navigational Reference and Survival Devices)
Looks similar to the ones in Milletts? Really? No, couldnt be, not at that price!
[ QUOTE ]
Lot of presumption there! As far as I can tell, all the photo shows is a gloved hand in a helicopter holding a garmin GPS. There is nothing to suggest that the GPS belongs to the aircrew; that the helicopter is in the gulf or even that the helicopter is a military one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Look at the caption for the pic in question. It says: Picture shows GPS location of the incident, as seen from a Royal Navy helicopter (Copyright: MoD).
My comment about having bought it him/herself is merely a cynical reflection on the known situation of military personnel sourcing kit for themselves rather than relying on the powers that be.
Ah yes Sir, the GPS72OG or the GPS72BG NRSD? These special camo versions are available after extensive consulatation and field testing. The boffs are revising the spec and drawings, should be along by 2012.
Oh, its changing to Galileo by then (hahahaha)? Well, I am sure we will be able to accommodate with some extensive non reversible changes to the current tooling. Say £3.2bn for the Upgrade to service?
Not really. Look at the caption for the pic in question. It says: Picture shows GPS location of the incident, as seen from a Royal Navy helicopter (Copyright: MoD).
[/ QUOTE ]
Well spotted; I missed that bit! Nevertheless, it still doesn't mean that the unit belongs to the aircrew, and even if it did, it wouldn't mean that they had to buy it out of neccessity. Still, that's just a guess on my part; perhaps you know better?
[ QUOTE ]
the known situation of military personnel sourcing kit for themselves rather than relying on the powers that be.
[/ QUOTE ] Well, personally, I'd prefer to buy my own underpants. And if I, personally, would like a different piece of kit compared to one issued, I'd like the freedom to buy and use it. Yes, that's a known situation (thank heavens).
The cynical assumption that any 'kit' must be self provided is another matter.
Strikes me that it would be more reliable as a rebuttal to Iranian claims to publish an AIS plot, given the boat being searched is required to have it.
That's what happens when you give aircrew something they don't understand - he's trying to get it to dial out...... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Sorry aitch, didn't mean to jump down your throat. I'd just been involved in a rather heavy arbitration which involved someone's rights to publish what could best be described as 'conspiracy theory' material, which in turn caused considerable agony to third party.
The thread was simmering along the edge of conspiracy theory - some assumptions about idiocy in high places - so I was just ready to blow off. I shouldn't have taken it seriously . . .
Jim, no problem. Re-reading what I wrote I can see where it might have appeared to have been heading.
I am not one for conspiracy theories but I am v. concerned for our service men and women operating in such difficult circs. They deserve better than they get a lot of the time.