Aircraft needed in Afghanistan [Archive]

Melchett01

1st Jul 2006, 18:14

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13647004/

Is it just me, or does anybody else think we are being sucked into something we really don't want to be getting involved in.

Right the way back to Alexander the Great, Darius III and the Mongols, history shows that Afghanistan has been a nightmare, with invading armies either trying and failing to dominate the region, or having dominated it for a short while, getting kicked out in the next invasion.

Apparently the fact that we fought and lost 3 Anglo-Afghan Wars between 1839 and 1919, the fact the Soviets couldn't cope, the fact that the country was destroyed by a civil war lasting almost a decade, has all been ignored by Bliar and his mob in favour of a token deployment to make this awful government look good to the rest of the world.

No one has managed to sort Afghanistan out in over 2000 years, may be that should have been a hint

Si Clik

1st Jul 2006, 18:21

We do of course have other helo assets - just not green ones!
I'm of course more interested exactly who the 'sources' are here. Are these trusted, unusual or reliable or just a Col/Gp Capt/Capt Smith who has got to the end of his tether [having now read the Times bit I see it was 'just' a Lt Gen]
Clearly investment required from some quarter and in the very short term too.
More Op Tours anyone? But a really fine tightrope balance between requirement/capability and morale.

I am sure our NATO colleagues will help!!!!!!!!!!!!
Si

ZH875

1st Jul 2006, 18:22

More here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2251664,00.html

Question is, where do we get the reinforcements from? Well it is not likely to be from our MPs or thier families is it?.

Maybe Harry Windsor may get his frontline tour earlier than he thought....

JessTheDog

1st Jul 2006, 19:27

The Commons Defence Committee raised precisely these concerns back in April.

MPs fearful over Afghan mission
British troops preparing to deploy to Afghanistan face "fundamental tension" over their mission, MPs have warned.
The Commons Defence Committee said attempts to crack down on drug lords in the area, one of the troops' missions, could result in increased violence.

The MPs also expressed concern that the 3,300-strong force lacked close air support and transport helicopters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4881824.stm

The compulsive liar and former alcoholic communist John Reid claimed that

it was "absolutely and completely untrue" that he had received requests from Army commanders for 600 more troops.

"Just in case there had been a request from any quarter which I had not yet received, I clarified the position this morning with the commander of British forces here."

He said the role of the British forces in Helmand was fundamentally different to that of the US forces elsewhere in Afghanistan.

He said: "We are in the south to help and protect the Afghan people construct their own democracy.

"We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4935532.stm

After Friday, there will be no opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny of this Op until October. There are a lot of days and nights between then and now, and the liars in government will do their best to pretend all is well, regardless of human cost.

Smoketoomuch

1st Jul 2006, 20:18

JtheD, well done for digging out the appropriate quotes from various ministers, "not firing a shot"? Hmmm.

Is there a public statement from any government minister explaining exactly what the UK mission in Afghanistan is? I've followed this fairly closely, but I must admit I'm still in the dark about what UK forces are expected to achieve.

Tigs2

1st Jul 2006, 21:04

I know that on this forum we are different to other groups of people in society. But are we so different??? Why Why Why did we vote Bliar and his croonies back in. Dont give me the 'There was no realistic alternative party c**p'. I would rather have voted for Lord Such of the Monster raving looney party than Bliar, Two punches prescott and Gorblimey Brown Nose (its just Lord Such pegged out on us!). I am sure that there are many people in the states with the same feelings.Is the rest of the population Fecking blind and deaf?? My girlie is in Afghanistan medevacing the troops out. You only hear about the small(but to many)number of poor troops that have been killed. There are MASSES of guys being expatriated that are wounded. Funny that Bliar has never been to vist a single one of them in hospital(or convalecsence sp? for that matter) from either Afghanistan or Iraq. He is a spinless liar that lacks any amount of moral courage, fortitude, leadership, blah blah blah. I dont have the energy to go on. He will kill hundreds of british servicemen and women, but he will get his slot in the european parliment and have a house in an acre or two of camp david or where ever the hell George Bushe's place is.

So bloody mad for all the dead and injured:mad: :mad: :mad:

Perhaps he could start off Veterans Day by visiting all the wounded who are missing limbs, confined to wheelchairs, Psyhcologically wrecked for life etc etc.

Please forgive all spelling mistakes as i am on a thirteen hour flight back to blighty trying out the new 'on-board internet' with probably too many G+T's. But hes still a Git whatever.

Rant Over

lukeylad

1st Jul 2006, 22:55

couldn't the fleet air arm send some sea kings ?

Gainesy

2nd Jul 2006, 06:51

Another two troops killed overnight.:(

StopStart

2nd Jul 2006, 08:16

Very "interesting" article in the Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2252723_1,00.html) here.

Good reporting and a demonstration of the need for more "air".

:uhoh:

BEagle

2nd Jul 2006, 08:59

But whence the 'air'?

Compressorstall

2nd Jul 2006, 09:01

So can anyone now tell me why the US didn't really do anything in Helmand since entering the country in late 2001?

Of course we need more assets as right now it's like trying to fight with all the situational awareness conferred by looking down a drinking straw (and it's not even one of the bendy ones). It isn't like Malaya where you could move the relatively ill-informed villagers into your specially made villages, this is the 21st Century where all the tribal links are supported by mobiles and the internet and although we are a 'force for good', no-one has told the Taliban that...:ugh:

dallas

2nd Jul 2006, 09:10

But whence the 'air'?

I imagine all the spare is booked-up with airshows this summer. We could certainly free up a C130 if there was the will to commit to ops above, say, the Falcons.

StopStart

2nd Jul 2006, 09:36

Gainesy

2nd Jul 2006, 09:45

It appears that they need more CAS and SH more than anything else at this point. A slack handful of Apache and Harrier to cover a province about the size of Wales is stretching it.

mbga9pgf

2nd Jul 2006, 09:53

Dallas, that is not strictly true.
Whilst not wishing to discuss aircraft availability on here there would need to be some significant money spending before the C130 fleet could be used to it's maximum potential.
And that's not going to happen now is it?
:rolleyes:

Interesting comment from the times article

The day before I had learnt that a private like him earns just over £1,000 a month, and that the British Army is the only one in the world whose soldiers pay tax while overseas.

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Jul 2006, 10:03

Two questions

1. Could the Jaguars that are awaiting disposal be used for CAS, Tac Reece etc?

2. Could support helos be sent there from other, less dangerous, theatres eg the Balkans?

The Helpful Stacker

2nd Jul 2006, 10:17

Two questions
1. Could the Jaguars that are awaiting disposal be used for CAS, Tac Reece etc?

Now thats just crazy talk. Are you trying to say there is actually a job that an aircraft which is being 'got rid of' could be doing?

Who'd have thunk it eh? The Jag being binned whilst the hanger queen that is the Tornado soliders on (though not in Afganistan).

StopStart

2nd Jul 2006, 10:57

We're pissing money away keeping the Jags going for another year or so for no other reason, it seems, than to keep the pilots current prior to moving to Typhoon (?). Might as well as use them for something useful!

Gainesy

2nd Jul 2006, 11:20

Hot & High and Jags?:uhoh:

serf

2nd Jul 2006, 11:40

could typhoon not be used?

BEagle

2nd Jul 2006, 11:57

And how, precisely would the futile EuropHoon be used?

Close Air Support (or whatever the Waddington college-of-knowledge calls it these days) requires air-to-ground weaponry.

Such as a gun that works...

Or bombs, rockets etc? Most EuropHoon work seems to be air-to-air, so not much use in Afghanistan, one would think.

Suppose they could always scare the Taliban back beyond even their present mediaeval era by flying a few displays and screwing up as per last year's RIAT?

Even a few Sea Harriers might have helped - just as they did in 1982 though without any need for a carrier. But, of course, the idiot government threw them away.

Bliar and his lying cronies are simply not prepared to back their political aspirations and Bush bum-licking with adequate assets.

Next thing we'll hear is that they'll be sending Valley and Leeming Hawks out to do some air-to-sand work. Good job they've got lots of fatigue left.

nigegilb

2nd Jul 2006, 12:16

I wrote to the Defence Committee in March and told them that I thought the Afghanistan Deployment had all the hallmarks of a badly thought through operation at a time of severe overstretch in the Armed Forces. Ingram reassured the Committee that it had been meticulously planned over many months. Well, it appears that General Richards is already asking for more men, rotary and fixed wing assets and he hasn't even taken control yet. You couldn't make it up..... This was the response from the Govt when asked about the situation deteriorating.

HCDC:
We are concerned that, should the security situation in the South prove worse than anticipated, the UK will be called on to provide additional forces. The UK has already committed significant numbers of troops and assets to ISAF stage 3. NATO should call on the military assets of other countries before approaching the UK for further contributions. (Paragraph 34)

MoD:
9. The UK has made a substantial commitment to Afghanistan, and we believe the force package we are sending is sufficient to match the threat as currently assessed. We keep the size and make-up of our commitment under constant review, and will adapt our planning if necessary.

10. Should a need for additional troops or equipment for the South arise, the UK will work with NATO and other Allies to identify the most effective and appropriate solution. We aim to ensure that NATO and other troop contributing nations take on their share of the burden, and work to encourage appropriate force contributions from our Allies through the NATO Force Generation process.

There is little doubt that force protection has not been thought through and that there simply aren't enough troops to do the job. Interestingly the US never had the intention of nation building in Afg. The time to have done it was just after the war, I believe we have left it too late. Standby for more British troops to be sent out there because the useless European nations are not prepared to pull their weight. Welcome to our very own Vietnam.

mutleyfour

2nd Jul 2006, 12:19

Please forgive all spelling mistakes as i am on a thirteen hour flight back to blighty trying out the new 'on-board internet' with probably too many G+T's. But hes still a Git whatever.
Rant Over

Not on a service aircraft surely? Aplogies for calling you Shirley!

harrogate

2nd Jul 2006, 12:33

Send in the Jags.

Everyone associated closely with the squadron knows they've had their shelf-life extended already and that they aren't actually being binned next year (although the motivation isn't based on concerns over capability - it's based on concerns over keeping pilots busy), so cut out the whispering and beaurocratic bull****, come clean about the revised bin date and use them for the reason they were built in the first bloody place.

Two's in

2nd Jul 2006, 13:13

Sending more aircraft is analogous to trying to replace the tiles on the roof of a house whose foundations are disappearing into quicksand. The entire enterprise is fatally (literally for many of our colleagues) flawed, and the call for additional assets is indicative of the dawning realization that the mission is beyond repair before it even starts.

The multi-Government agency approach from the UK, coupled with International Committees on Pontification, are exactly the kind of "whose in charge here then?" approach that made Bosnia and the Balkans the stunning Military success it was.

It's much easier to kill the enemy if you know who they are, and they remain the enemy for the duration of the conflict. The combatants in Helmand are able to migrate from being Hostile Warlords/Taliban to Partisan Supporters of Democracy (with an Opium habit) at the stroke of a pen in Washington, an action that is slavishly followed in London of course.

In their desire to prevent public knowledge of the fact that all military action in Afghanistan since 2002 has been effectively nugatory, the US/UK Governments will continue to live the lie that; (1) when we withdraw, the Taliban will not simply take up where they left off, (2) We are not facilitating the growing and shipment of the world's supply of Heroin, we are controlling it.

So before we rush to send in more "assets", why don't we ask someone to give the poor bloody Military an objective that can be achieved, not one that is purely political in nature. Let's fix the foundations before we start on the roof.

:ugh:

nigegilb

2nd Jul 2006, 13:34

What the hell were the Chiefs of Staff thinking about when they accepted this task? I have just read the piece in ST by Christina Lamb. I remember her being interviewed back in January. She predicted this was going to happen and she criticised the West for ignoring Afg for the past four years. We have sent our boys out there with a mission aim that has been lost before it even started. Blair, Reid, Browne and the Chiefs of Staff have displayed unbelievable naivity.

MightyGem

2nd Jul 2006, 13:51

Very "interesting" article in the Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2252723_1,00.html) here.

Further one from last Tursday's Daily Mail, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=393106&in_page_id=1770)possibly refering to the Sangin incident in the above article.

FJJP

2nd Jul 2006, 13:57

If we had enough CAS assets in theatre we could do what the Americans do - have airborne patrols capping to await the call. Then there would be none of the 'keep fighting until they become available' scenario.

We need to flood the area with ground and air assets if there is to be any hope of success in the mission [whatever that is].

Otherwise, we are going to pussyfoot around, picking off one or two taliban here and there at what cost?

We cannot continue to put assests on three theatres simultaneously. It's about time that the powers that be cut the cloth according to the available assets, rather than stretch our Forces to breaking point - which is the way we are heading, which will be at the expense of the men on the ground.

dallas

2nd Jul 2006, 14:08

We cannot continue to put assests on three theatres simultaneously. It's about time that the powers that be cut the cloth according to the available assets, rather than stretch our Forces to breaking point - which is the way we are heading, which will be at the expense of the men on the ground.

Problem is nobody is telling the politicos that we're at breaking point and it won't become a public issue until there aren't any a/c for flybys or guards outside Buckingham Palace. Besides, what does breaking point mean? Deaths? Defeat?

HM Government won't listen and HM Forces can't say no, so we're on a collision course for a hiding. Stories such as "Have You Ever Used a Pistol?" show clearly we're not coping - CAS should have been instantaneous - and shows the very pinnacle of our forces are now suffering.

Independent review anyone?

serf

2nd Jul 2006, 15:19

BEagle, just to response that I hoped to get...............ta

SASless

2nd Jul 2006, 15:39

If we had enough CAS assets in theatre we could do what the Americans do - have airborne patrols capping to await the call. Then there would be none of the 'keep fighting until they become available' scenario.

What was it....two months ago....when the British Apaches were dispatched to Afghanistan....some of you suggested there was no need...they had never been needed before so why now?

Should we dig that thread up and begin to remind some of the posters of the true genius they spoke then?

It is a very lonely feeling being in need of some serious help and there is no help about. I have been there and done that.

We owe it to our troops on the ground to provide them with every resource they need....and do so in a most timely manner.

nigegilb

2nd Jul 2006, 15:40

I think Beags has a very good point. CAS is proud of Typhoon and all the benefits it brings to British Industry. Fat lot of good it is for the paras on the ground in Afg. We are not equipped to fight these wars. The fastjet centric air force blunders on. Special Forces wanted Herc gunships in 2001. No problems with endurance and a howitzer down the back. It looks as though the so called "Top Brass" are having some heavy meetings this weekend. So they should, it is disgusting that these guys were denied air cover for so long. If it was not for some heavy pressure by HCDC, RAF Harriers would be home now, The Treasury, headed up Gordon Brown did not want to pay for the detachment any longer. The MoD initially decided that our guys didn't need that much air cover. 90 years ago we endured the tragedy of the Somme and the phrase lions led by donkeys was coined. I am starting to wonder the same about the decision makers at the highest level of the military.

BEagle

2nd Jul 2006, 15:54

Well, the Sentinels will provide real time recce and the guys on the ground can call up on Link 16 ERV, their PPLIs being instantly linked to a cab rank of EuropHoons supported by A330K tankers with full-up DASS. The EuropHoons will then snap to the precise area and prosecute some serious air-to-sand with smart weaponry updated by over-the-air re-targetting.

Meanwhile a flight of A400Ms will insert some additional troops to clean up the Taleban.

Just don't tell Bliar or Des 'strangely' Brownie - they probably think the RAF already has that capability today.

Well, it should have by now, of course. And just think of the capabilities we had in 1976 compared with 2006.....

Tigs2

2nd Jul 2006, 16:14

Mutleyfour

Back now, no it was definitly not a service aircraft.

Shirley

nigegilb

2nd Jul 2006, 16:25

Govt response to HCDC fifth report

HCDC:
We note MOD’s assurance that the total close air support package is robust and that the US commitment of close air support will remain following the withdrawal of US Forces from the Southern provinces. We will continue to monitor closely whether experience bears out MOD’s confidence about the continued availability of air assets to the UK deployment. (Paragraph 62)

MOD:
24. We believe that sufficient close air support is available to ISAF forces in the South, including the six Harrier GR7 aircraft based at Kandahar. We note the Committee’s intention to monitor this situation.

HCDC:
The availability of close air support providing sufficient mobility and fire power will be absolutely essential to the success of the Helmand deployment. We recommend, if no equivalent force can be provided by the NATO force generation process, that the Harrier GR7 squadron based at Kandahar should remain beyond June 2006 and for as long as necessary. (Paragraph 64)

MOD:
25. As the Committee will be aware, the Government decided, following requests from NATO and other Allies, to extend the Harrier GR7 detachment until March 2007. This is in addition to the eight F16s offered by the Netherlands, although these latter will continue to be based in Kabul while repair work at Kandahar Airfield continues.

microlight AV8R

2nd Jul 2006, 16:32

I was aware of the deployment of 16 Airmobile long before it went 'public domain' and was immediately concerned when I heard the public story about reconstruction support. I was told by 'the troops' that they were being sent in to get the Taliban ! Ah yes, the fog of war! I recall wondering what the air support situation would be, then I remembered being told by 'anon' from Wattisham that the Apache was to be deployed 'next year' , that was at a BBQ last year. But the Apache fleet has its problems which I wont mention here as I'm unsure as to how much might be in the public domain.

So here we are and the ill-conceived mess is unravelling before our eyes. I think that our political masters have got too gung-ho and our forces 'can do' approach to every challenge may have finally found its limit. The top brass seem to be out of touch with reality and you chaps at the sharp end have my sympathy.

Perhaps we could make a start by selling the tranche 3 Euro-wot-nots at a bargain price and maybe invest in some affordable kit which could be effective in these 'frontier wars' ( I believe we called it the North West Frontier and patrolled it with the venerable Westland Wapiti).

So, here's what's needed...

Hercules: Proper protection 'nuf said on that.
Jaguar: Keep them as long as they work properly and they have a use.
Helicopters. Why don't we buy some basic support helicopters off the shelf
like the AB212 or similar? They seem to work well enough in
Brunei, Belize and Cyprus.
In theatre transport: Oh how we must miss the Andover. Modern equivelant?

(While we're at it, perhaps some decent wheeled armoured patrol vehicles for the squaddies and a radio system that works.)

Last but not least. My proposal for our 'Future Fighter'.... Single seat Hawks with radar etc would seem to be a robust aircraft which could be maintained easily in such exotic locations. Who knows, others might notice and decide to buy a few like they bought Hunters once before. Methinks the brass hats will be mortified at the thought, but if the opposition has no air assets who needs anything more exotic?

So there you have it. Please note the subtitle of this submission before flaming me :O The bottom line is that I am angry to see that our people are being called on to undertake tasks without adequate equipment or numbers despite the rantings of HMG ministers saying that our slimmer armed forces would be better quipped as a result of the reductions in numbers. Perhaps Nigel sould find the ministers words on Hansard and hold El Presidente Bliar responsible for the debacle that has ensued.

Message ends.

Edit two corerect spellnig

AFTERTHOUGHT: The mind boggles at what the real aim of this mission is, any friendships gained with the natives should be considered transient at best... Those fellahs will change sides at the drop of a hat.
Perhaps we should take a strategic view? and (bearing in mind who's really in charge) take a look at a map. Look at the other country we are occupying with Uncle Sam then look at Afghanistan. Behold; look which country is between them!

Melchett01

2nd Jul 2006, 17:04

An interesting view on the current deployment - even if it is from the Conservative opposition benches, but one with a damn site more credability than any of the current Noo Labour lovies:

Patrick Mercer, Conservative security spokesman and a former infantry officer, told BBC Radio 4 the government had not committed enough combat force to the mission.

He said only 600 infantrymen and a battery of guns, with some helicopters, had been pledged to the region.

"When I was instructing at the staff college, if a student had presented me with this plan for Afghanistan, I would have failed him, and failed him comprehensively," he said.

Interesting thoughts about Tranche 3 there Microlight. As a non-Typhoon type, it looks like a cracking jet, but potentially not ideal for the sort of hostile field ops we are seeing in Afghanistan. As a non-Typhoon type, I would however, be interested in finding out the costs of Tranche 3, and how many Hawk 200s or even upgraded A-10s we could get for the same price. Simple platforms, easy to operate and probably much more suited to ops in Afghanistan against a determined and effective but not exactly technologically advanced enemy.

I'm guessing we could probably get at least 2, probably more OTS 200s / A-10s for the same price as a Typhoon. And can you imagine the uproar if you did send a Typhoon and a cheap as chips rocket takes it out on the pan as happened with the Harriers?

nigegilb

2nd Jul 2006, 17:11

I am on the case. I think MPs were misled about this deployment all along. You don't deploy 16 Air Assault to hand out lolipops to kids. Op Mountain Thrust was planned a long time back. I assume we were always going there to take part in this op and kill Talibs. The subsequent hearts and minds job is going to be a near impossibility. MPs were under the impression that this was a peace and reconstruction job. Nice one.

nigegilb

2nd Jul 2006, 17:11

microlight AV8R

2nd Jul 2006, 17:21

Alistair Kayim

2nd Jul 2006, 18:50

Never mind buying new Hawk 200 ac, who needs a radar/EW suite vs the taliban. A TMk1 with 120 30mm HE rounds, and 2x540/CBUs, combined with very quick reaction times, and perhaps most importantly at low cost!

Sounds like our troops out there need some more support, we should be prepared to use whatever we have to assist these brave soldiers....

airborne_artist

2nd Jul 2006, 19:55

What about some A10s - pretty close to their line of work? Or Pucaras?

ralphmalph

2nd Jul 2006, 19:59

Beagle,
Your vision of future air power sounds as though it has come straight out of a doctrine paper!.
I have no dissagreement with the suggested use of airframes and technology....but what will happen if:

more than one battalion of troops requires support!!!

we are active in more than one theatre around the world!.

with an ever shrinking Army Navy and RAF the onus is on asymetric warfare, possibly in multiple locations at a cost that is agreeable to the Govt and taxpayer. Expensive and elaborate weapon systems do not provide that when fighting against your man in the mountains with an AK-47. Unless you are happy with a £100000 an man kill cost!.

With a bit more common and less thrusting we may one day get what we require to do the job and not what sounds good as a sound bite or doctrinal purity.

BEagle

2nd Jul 2006, 20:06

Now, now - that's quite enough of that consci' talk....

Asymmetric warfare does not buy your senior wheels their BWoS directorships....

Sell some more pointless EuropHoons to the Saudis - that's more like it!

Now cut along and polish your buttons, there's a good chap!

Compressorstall

2nd Jul 2006, 21:28

Isn't the point that we have bought into a warfighting deployment? This is when we realise that the government likes talking tough, but to fight war, you commit enough assets to ensure dominance of your enemy. The article in the Sunday Times today shows the quality of the troops deployed but it also shows the lack of support available to them. Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted...didn't a well-known Army guy say that?:ugh:

Navaleye

2nd Jul 2006, 23:56

I am very concerned about the situation in Helmand province. We do not have enough boots on the ground to be able to take the fight to enemy. The Paras need to be backed up by at least 5,000 combat troops, otherwise a cunning enemy will be able to inflict considerable damage upon them. Why do we only have six Harriers in theatre? Why only six Apache? That provides the capability to defend/prosecute just one contact point over any extended period. Something has to be done. I hate to say it but if we had not diluted our Harrier strength recently, then more would be possible.

MarkD

3rd Jul 2006, 02:46

Canadian Forces should be able to supply some Chinooks, ETA 2010 (the year not the time) - and we're only committed to 2009 anyway :uhoh:

In the meantime there might be some 40 year old SKs if they're serious about that troop carrier refit :eek:

As for the RAF Jags - even if they ended up trashed by the opposition on the ground it would be a better end than the scrapper's torch you would think...

Wee Weasley Welshman

3rd Jul 2006, 07:33

You do have to despair sometimes. Here we are in 2006 with still not an operational Eurofighter in service fighting an ancient war in Afghanistan that we can't win and don't have the kit for. What a shambles. The saddest part is that Joe Public have tuned out now, don't understand what the military are doing, don't care and don't think of the military as a public service like the NHS or Education.

For £5.1m each we could buy a very tidy couple of squadrons of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB-314_Super_Tucano that would cost the same as maybe two Typhoons. Now 6 of those on station prowling the skies of Helmand 24/7 available anywhere with 5 mins notice and elsewise tasked on a target of opportunity brief might be a real asset.

WWW

Navaleye

3rd Jul 2006, 09:04

More troops and and aircraft for Afghanistan according to Sky News, but it does not say which.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13530966,00.html

The Gorilla

3rd Jul 2006, 09:10

Not according to the MOD via the BBC!

Edited because during the morning it went from a no to a maybe to only if they ask for it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5139644.stm
:mad:

BigBusDriver

3rd Jul 2006, 13:51

As someone with no military background I cant add much here, but as a somewhat-related comment I would like to wonder aloud why the US news media insist on referring to UK/Canadian, etc troops as "US led coalition foces"?

As an englishman living in George W.'s land of Fantasy and Wonder, it is somewhat annoying to hear my country's armed forces referred to only as "US led coalition forces".

SASless

3rd Jul 2006, 15:04

BBD,

At least things seem to be improving over time....used to be we considered you the enemy in our grand land. I guess since you learned you can't beat us...you decided to join us.;)

LateArmLive

3rd Jul 2006, 15:18

Navaleye

What do you mean by "diluted our Harrier strength recently"? How would more be possible?

LAL

NURSE

3rd Jul 2006, 15:51

Well Jaguar was ment to be dual CAS and Recce so why not send out some Jags there is plenty of spare airframes is there not?

FFP

3rd Jul 2006, 15:54

Hot and high........hot and high.........

Navaleye

3rd Jul 2006, 16:13

Late,

We seem to have a smaller pool of aircraft performing the same or larger number of tasks.

LateArmLive

3rd Jul 2006, 16:17

We've got the same number of aircraft, but I completely agree with you about doing more tasks than before. But then again, who isn't these days?

Nurse.
As has been said before the Jag wouldn't get airborne out there.

FrogPrince

3rd Jul 2006, 16:23

Can't we pull some second hand, low hour UH-60's and CH-47's out of AMARC and return them to use for very little cost ?

HMG should be able to get a discount, being as we are the 'staunchest US coalition ally... deh, dah, deh, dah...'.

:rolleyes:

Navy_Adversary

3rd Jul 2006, 16:59

Surely the 'Hogs' at Spang are not overworked, I bet they'd love to go and kick some Taliban aas. After all, we're all in this together, aren't we???

SASless

3rd Jul 2006, 18:46

Is this what we are down to....8,000 troops in Iraq, 5,000 in Afghanistan, 10,000 in Northern Ireland...and a demostrated inability to provide AT and CAS to the guys in combat operations.

If that is true...perhaps the folks in big black furry hats might beseech Aunt Betty next time the Guard changes. It is her military after all, perhaps the Royal Family could do a whip round and fund a HouseHold Air Force.:uhoh:

ralphmalph

3rd Jul 2006, 18:55

Not that many in NI anymore!. Will be down to 5,000 by next August.....and even then there is not far to go to meet that target!.

NURSE

3rd Jul 2006, 21:36

And th NI bns supply the Falklands Garrison company now and thats looking interesting. So more overstretch

Gainesy

5th Jul 2006, 16:25

Sadly, BBC is reporting another British Soldier killed in Afghanistan this afternoon.
RIP.

Vim_Fuego

5th Jul 2006, 19:02

Managed to catch PM's question time today and one comment from Blair really miffed me...

Over a question from, I think, a Liberal MP where he was asking the same old 'Why are we in Afganistan' poser Tony gave just the one reason today....
(This is not a quote but just the gist)

'Was the house aware that girls were now going to school in Afganistan again'

If I was the wife or child of one of these (so far) six brave soldiers who have now perished I would not, to be perfectly honest, give a sh*t about that fact... I would want my husband/dad back...

Maybe it's this sultry weather thats made me short fused at the moment but I just thought what utter rubbish...

Mr-AEO

6th Jul 2006, 12:28

What's happening with the Afghan Mi-24's that are being re-furbed, are they likely to be able to help out in the HP? Further, did the ruskies have this hot and high problem when they fought the long and extended war? they always seemed to have loads in the air, from documentary footage etc, and I think I read that loads got shot down by US funded Stingers, so they must have had quite a few capable of operating in this environment.

Why can't we lease some of them?

South Bound

6th Jul 2006, 12:32

'Was the house aware that girls were now going to school in Afganistan again'

Was the house aware that the teachers are being murdered if they get caught teaching the girls...

Razordome

6th Jul 2006, 17:19

couldn't the fleet air arm send some sea kings ?

How, all the Mk4's are in ANOTHER hot bed and working flat out.

Now, why not put DAS on the SK Mk7. Can't take troops or indeed engage anything, but it will find enemy movement, enemy moving to towns for ambush etc... And no, the terrain is not a big issue. This would certainly help save lives out there, but who pays for DAS, Navy or Army??

Razordome

6th Jul 2006, 17:23

could typhoon not be used?
Far to valuable to risk in a war.

Tourist

6th Jul 2006, 17:32

Navaleye

6th Jul 2006, 17:56

Hey, there might still be two Wessex 5s on Fortuna Glacier, South Georgia they can send to Kabul.

Compressorstall

6th Jul 2006, 18:06

This deployment isn't far off warfighting and the thing about wars is that they are a great big meat grinder that you have to keep feeding. Our Battlefield Helicopters are in short supply and are tired. We have seen numerous projects come and go without any additional lift capability rendered (with the exception of the SK Mk6c) and now the lack of investment is really going to bite. If we send more BH, where do they come from and how do we sustain it? They also need to be BH that can lift more than a couple of blokes in the height of summer. Now where did I put my magic wand..?:ugh:

Razordome

6th Jul 2006, 18:32

A bagger cab trying to lift the weight of DAS in afghanistan wouldnt carry enough fuel to cross the airfield boundry.
I also don't think I am giving away too many State secrets if I say that it's radar is currently incapable of spotting Talibanis carrying an RPG.
Apart from those though, great idea

Get rid of orange cr&p ESM and we have a solution.

Not see men on ground, but can see vehicles.......generally not the civvies.

My arguement is getting weaker !! Good. Will stay at home with the kids and wait for FRI

oik

6th Jul 2006, 19:10

I joined to DEFEND (the 'D' in MOD) my Country and those in it (albeit during the Cold War). I knew when I joined, and still know, that I must do whatever foreign policy dictates. I will carry out my duty to the best of my ability, whenever, wherever and whatever ordered. I always have.
But I feel sick. I do not think it is reasonable for ANY member of HM Forces to have their life pissed away by our Government. Do they not have a duty to put us in harm's way only when absolutely necessary?
My grandfather (WWII Lancaster aircrew) must feel desperately sad. I am embarrassed to speak to him about 'our' current operations, and he is clearly not willing to speak to me about it.
Good luck everybody. We will need it.
Oik. :yuk:

Compressorstall

6th Jul 2006, 19:18

Oik

Lives are lost in our line of work, be thankful you are not being asked to walk very slowly towards the enemy across no-man's land with nothing more than a swagger stick and your Webley for protection - that might have been seen to be p***ing lives away.

CS

nigegilb

6th Jul 2006, 19:21

Aargh, yes, lions led by donkeys. No similarities there then.....

oik

6th Jul 2006, 19:37

CS.
I know what I signed for, and I know that I may lose my life in the course of my duties. However, I question the judgement that has numbed the Great British Public to another death in theatre, and another one, and another one.
Should we be grateful that we are not victims of the Somme? I think not. Others may disagree.
Surely we have learned from history?
Regards.
Oik.

Compressorstall

6th Jul 2006, 21:24

Oik

It just seems that people aren't saying they are sorry people have died in the line of duty

CS

Almost_done

6th Jul 2006, 21:55

Oik
It just seems that people (Tony BLair and cronies) aren't saying they are sorry people have died in the line of duty
CS
Or visting relatives or survivors of combat to express condolences etc...

SASless

6th Jul 2006, 22:07

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/bush-jogs-with-wounded-soldier/20060628004509990004

Several wounded Soldiers and Marines have jogged with the President.

One cannot but admire their strength of character and plain old grit when you see photos like these.

vecvechookattack

6th Jul 2006, 22:20

What is happening with the Mi 17's that are in theatre? Why don't the RAF flythose ?

aviationdoc

7th Jul 2006, 04:57

A little background reading for this is contained in a recent book called "Lions led by Donkeys".
This covers several other fiascos inprocurement.

Tigs2

7th Jul 2006, 11:52

SASless
I wish i knew how to post that link to the PM's office. I am utterly staggered that neither Tony Bliar or any of his other cronies that sent our troops to war have been able to muster the small amount of moral courage needed to visit our wounded and say 'Thank you'. Or to visit the families of our dead and offer personal condolences. I dont have a lot of time for George Dubya, but at least he has had the backbone to visit his troops, respect for that.:D

Jacko, can't you just get one journo to ask Bliar on camera why he has never been to visit the troops or the families. I would love to see him try and squirm out of that one

vecvechookattack

7th Jul 2006, 12:40

Thats because he is the head of state and Tony Blair isn't. Has our head of state every visited the sick and injured? Has our head of state every publically thanked her Armed Forces?

Tigs2

7th Jul 2006, 12:45

VV

I dont know, and it is right that she should visit, but it wasn't our head of state that sent these young guys and girls to their deaths. It was Bush and Bliar.

vecvechookattack

7th Jul 2006, 12:50

No it wasn't. HM Q is our head of state and we work for her. Tony Blair also works for her...he is the head of HER government. He goes to see her every Tuesday and reports what has been upto. SHE sends HER troops into battle....Her Head of Government just does the dirty work.

HM has on many, many occasions visited her troops (although never in an operational theatre). She has also publically thanked her troops as well as privately thanking her troops. I know, she has privately thanked me for putting myself in harms way.

What you need to remember that in the US, GWB is the Numer 1 whilst in the UK, HM is the number 1 and TB is the Numer 2 (Quite apt really)

lukeylad

7th Jul 2006, 12:55

Has the c130 that crashed a month or so back been replacedi.e has another c130 been deployed ?

South Bound

7th Jul 2006, 13:04

lol - you are kidding right? Once it's gone it's gone!

Tigs2

7th Jul 2006, 13:31

VV
Do you really believe that? HM is head of state on paper and does quiz the PM every week, but the last time a monarch disagreed with the Government was the 17th Century. Blair sent our guys to war, not HM. I truely wish the decision had been left with her, we might not be missing 130 troops now. The government runs this country, not the monarchy.

SASless

7th Jul 2006, 14:13

Tigs,

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the various Chiefs, and the Chairman all take the time to visit with wounded soldiers and the families of both the wounded and killed. They do so out of a sense of duty I would think and do not make them publicity stunts. The jogging runs usually start by a soldier telling Bush that he intends to get back on his feet and run and then Bush will tell him that when the soldier or Marine is ready to run...Bush will run with them. I don't know about you but that shows a lot of goodness and a way to encourage those young men during their recuperation.

South Bound

7th Jul 2006, 14:22

Yep, for all his faults, at least he seems to give a s:mad: t about the boys when they get hurt

Tigs2

7th Jul 2006, 14:50

SASless
i couldnt agree more. There seems to be very little sense of duty within the british politicians. All very embarrasing really, not all Brits are like that.

vecvechookattack

7th Jul 2006, 18:48

[email protected]

7th Jul 2006, 19:11

Youre quite right of course but the point I was trying to make is that it is incorrect to compare GWB with TB. Its unfair to state that GWB visits his Sick and Injured whilst TB doesn't. GWB is the head of state and TB isn't.

Yes, but TB and GWB are both the ones sending the boys and girls into the danger zone, not HM. Ergo TB, as the one who puts our people in the face of danger, is responsible for taking the flak when they get hurt.

microlight AV8R

7th Jul 2006, 22:54

I assume that there aren't too many excess Hawk airframes about these days, bearing in mind the aquisition of a bundle of Alpha-Jets. So, perhaps it would be damn good PR to say nine or ten (one reserve aircraft) Hawks together with a like number of highly skilled and motivated pilots and deploy them to Afghanistan to provide counter-insurgency type support to our troops. I'm sure it would be great for morale on the ground out there and would also be a good oppoprtunity to represent Gt Britain PLC in a slightly different way to that normally employed. My final thought.. The present colour scheme is a little conspicious. Perhaps we could tone it down by a temporary over spray of sand in place of the red and grey in place of the white stripe?? Or shall we really go to town and do them in a nice grey and sand wrap around tactical scheme??

Upon their return I feel sure that the public would look on these 'Few' as being true heroes and a triumphant UK display tour would seem to be in order.

Shall I get my coat :cool:

harrogate

7th Jul 2006, 23:10

If only we had some Canberras. They were a good plane. Even 2 or 3 would be useful.

Navaleye

7th Jul 2006, 23:24

People at bitching and moaning about the loss of the Jaguar - why not send a squadron to Afghanistan?

MarkD

7th Jul 2006, 23:35

Navaleye - come on on the tail end of the conversation did we?

Here's a thought - send all the Jags to Mount Pleasant (not hot and not very high either) and recall the F3s. Once the Jags go end of life create a scrapping business for the locals. By that time maybe all of the oil fields will be surveyed and/or sucked dry and the island can be left for the Argies...

just a thought :} :ok: :p

Whizzwheel

8th Jul 2006, 06:04

A10s doing very well, Harriers not so well:cool: . Send a squadon of twin-tailed CAS machines - made for the role.

Double Zero

8th Jul 2006, 21:30

microlight AV8R,

Love the idea of sending the Reds - seriously think you're right, would be great PR etc and I suspect they would love it - contrary to popular belief, a lot of pilots hate doing it but it's a good career move.

They already have at least one kill to their credit - while testing the smoke at Dunsfold we managed to dye a local woman's entire washing bright green. Apparently it was just what she'd always wanted - at least I think that's what she said.

Snag is you'd have to remove the smoke pods & fit guns, I rather suspect despite the vaunted 'war role' they would need a fair bit of plumbing & wiring, for pylons, tanks, rocket pods etc...still not beyond the capabilities if the will is there.

The RAF is desperately short on Hawks, hence Boscome using Alpha's -( which went down like the proverbial cold bucket of...) .

Now here's a thought - how about putting a gun on the Harrier !!!
Yes, Navaleye, a gun like the seajet has, and GRwhatever number you like does not...

Saw the fiasco of the 25mm Aden, so the U.S. GAU-12 gatling as used by the marines would be the real answer, or buy off the shelf gun pods.

I'm damn sure we could manage more than 6 Harriers to help our guys -
Oik, if you're reading this, your efforts ( and predicament ) ARE appreciated, and not just by military types, Joe Public has more brains than Bliar would like to think.

Jaguar001

8th Jul 2006, 21:53

In the earlier part of this thread there was lot of talk of using the Jaguar jet to increase the air cover. I was just wondering, what has happened to all the stinger missles supplied by USA to the mujahadeen during the soviet invasion? Are these manpads still in circulation?

Tigs2

8th Jul 2006, 22:07

Jag
surely they could not have supplied them with Stinger, as we would have seen Russian aircraft being shot out of the skies all over the place. All the documentaries i saw were of them trying to use S7s with failing battery packs. If they have stinger (or will re-find/aquire them) our boys are in trouble.

Double Zero

8th Jul 2006, 22:46

Tigs2,

I assume & hope that was tongue in cheek!

Even schoolboys know about the liberal hand-out of Stingers ( whose bright idea was that, & where is he now ?! ).

However I do remember seeing a quote from a Russian pilot, who reckoned they could counter it quite easily.

Snag is, the Russians had a lot of helo's & crew, & didn't mind much if they lost a few. In fact rather a lot.

Then again there was a mention of a Mujahadeen type saying " the only thing they have that scares me is their gunship helicopters".

Possibly also the way they were used, which I doubt was constrained by niceties such as ROE.

Remember the pics of Mig's colliding at displays & the pilots ejecting then walking calmly away? - so what, just another day...

Probably a different mind-set is required; with these bastards, as previously mentioned, they'll change sides at the drop of a hat, so it's all or nothing. Seeing as 'all' is unlikely, let's get our guys out.

Navaleye

8th Jul 2006, 23:06

MarkD, just thinking out loud. The Harrier team seem to me to be grossly over stretched. I thought the Jags had new more powerful engines and all new avionics at the last update. Strange question, but I'll ask it... if we can't use them where we most need them, what use are they?

Tigs2

8th Jul 2006, 23:18

Doublezero
I am definitly sat down eating several large portions of humble pie chum. Back to school. I was definitly not aware that Uncle Sam handed out Stinger to them. Ah well every day is a school day, but i've got to be honest. Why didn't my Sqn Into ever tell me this in the briefings?? I definitly listened:confused:

Tigs2

8th Jul 2006, 23:41

Double Zero
Well i guess you cant know everything:O Just done my homework. A useful link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

It would seem to suggest though with the number of Ruskies shot down and with the associated number of failures that they do not have many if any left (unless the 'other sources are reliable), Have the US made the accurate numbers of missiles the CIA gave them available ( a yes is as good as anything on this forum). Apologies for ignorance.
Tigs

p.s look under 'cost'?? Why did the swiss buy 2500 stinger at $126 000 dollars each?? (thought they were Neutral)??

Double Zero

9th Jul 2006, 01:41

Tigs2,

I am not in your exhaulted position ( unfortunately for me, I actually mean it !)

but if I were in that situation I would disregard any figures about numbers of weapons ( stingers or anything else ) given out; what would be of more interest is how long do the things last, as you say re. SA-7 batterys etc.

It seems the RPG 7 etc is pretty deadly, having a shaped charge, if the aimer gets lucky - and that doesn't need any signature to grab on to except visual.

I have always thought, if the Tornado had been used in WW2 it would have been shot down in droves; can't countermeasure a bullet.

SASless

9th Jul 2006, 01:57

Tigs,

Perhaps this article will be of some use to you. Stingers will certainly ruin your day. However of late it seems that RPG's have downed far more aircraft than Manpads.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011002-attack03.htm

Every neighbors son seems to have a launcher and a couple of dozen of projectiles for the things thus they can be very effective against helicopters.

Time fuzes....or volley fire or simply direct fire seem to be the favorite tactics.

Becoming predictable or picking an LZ within reach of the things without suppressive fires from Gunships, Arty, or CAS sets one up for a bad day.

Read the book "Roberts Ridge" by Malcolm McDonald to see how past disasters have occurred in Afghanistan. He tells a very vivid and detailed account of the fight that resulted in several downed Chinooks. That account makes you appreciate the kind of fight the troops are involved in.

For you Wokka crew....read the book and imagine yourself in the first aircraft hit by RPG's, machinegun, and AK fire at night and lose electrics and flight control hydraulics......and survive.

It is an amazing story of exemplry work by an aircrew.

Reach

9th Jul 2006, 02:59

Not a Good Day to Die by Sean Naylor is another good read for anyone planning on flying helos in Afghanistan.

Dr Jekyll

9th Jul 2006, 09:21

Don't the US have any old A10 Thunderbolts in storage that we could lease? Or even something older but still capable like A4 Skyhawks? Or would bringing another aircraft type into the inventory be too complicated?

Double Zero

9th Jul 2006, 10:51

I love the idea of using A-10's, a great plane for the job, but we know it ain't gonna happen unless the U.S. should happen to bring their own.

If I was in Tigs2's position I would A; smartly walk round to alleged intel officer and give him customer feedback via fist/nose interface,

B, start reading up quickly on how the Russians learned how to counter Stingers; they managed it with some success; - and the baddies are resourceful - they can probably recharge batteries by a few clips connected to goats !

Seriously even things like nitrogen cooling are in everyone's reach now, if I was flying out there - especially in a 2 seater - I'd have the chap in the back primarily looking for RPG's, but with Stingers & similar Manpads firmly in mind.

They also no doubt have night vision, which while making life a bit more difficult doesn't mean they won't try it.

They might be nutters, but the unpleasant resourceful type.

" He is that most dangerous of animals, a clever sheep".

In Tor Wot

9th Jul 2006, 11:04

Having read the thread and the articles it merely confirms my opinion that the politicians will manipulate anything they are given to suit their rhetoric (dodgy dossier anyone?). I fail to believe that our seniors did not tell them of the risks of sending 3300 lightly armed troops into an area three times the size of Wales with minimum air cover and immobile artillery (due to air/road lift not lack of wheels!). However, sent they were and in the guano they have landed.

Some of the suggestions on here have been slightly off-piste though. Jaguars - have a look at the stats, Khandahar is the only airfield available, 3300amsl and +40-50c on an 8500ft runway . . . just not enough curvature there.

Hawks - excellent idea, but they're declared under the CFE treaty as 'training' and cannot be operationally deployed (tried to during Sierra Leone and told it would be too difficult to re-negotiate CFE!)

Tornado - not a chance. Airfield is ropey as hell (operating surfaces) and Tornado would act as a very effective FOD sweeper, but only once!

Air show princess (aka Typhoon). No, see Tornado and double the cost.

The only alternative (within the realms or reality i.e. not a new buy) is an increase in Harriers and AH. However, as neither are in plentiful supply (or working) we're kind of stuck with what we've got - 6 Harriers, 6 AH, 3300 troops to try to look after an area 3 times the size of Wales inhabited by people who have never been conquered, guarding a lifestyle that we are trying to destroy. All in all, not a recipe for success, but then again, you get what you’re willing to pay for. This and previous Governments aren’t willing to pay for it (tail to teeth, options for change, peace dividend ring any bells?) and no amount of running around now will rectify the situation in the short or medium term. :*

BTW, when you look at the numbers (as the treasury does) how can the Army be overstretched with an total of 106000, and only 12000 deployed, even on 6 month tours that means that each unit should only be deploying once every 3-4 years? RAF numbers similar: 44000 total, 3800 deployed.
Just before the spears turn me into the first human-sized model porcupine, I know what the issues are, and that the same people are deploying, and that there is critical overstretch in certain trades and functions, but the bean counters can only cope with simple numbers and they don’t let reality interfere with a good submission. :ugh:

Jaguar001

9th Jul 2006, 11:06

Why not send the Tornado GR.4s, according to the RAF website, it is "latest version of the RAF's primary attack aircraft. Capable of supersonic speeds and flight at low-level, the aircraft is one of the most potent in the world today." If not, is it because the GR.4 is notsuited for the hot and high conditions in Afganistan?

Stumpy1000

9th Jul 2006, 14:44

What is all this doing for retention in the Army? Anyone know

SASless

9th Jul 2006, 14:54

Arizona has loads of A-4's, A-7's, A-10's, F-4's, stashed around the place in long term storage. What it would take to get them back into service and properly equipped for the task is another question. The A-4 Scooter would be a magic aircraft for CAS and probably second only to the A-10. Night CAS is completely different to that in the day time and thus I doubt the old birds would be as useful in that role.

FFP

9th Jul 2006, 14:56

I thought the Jags had new more powerful engines and all new avionics at the last update. Strange question, but I'll ask it... if we can't use them where we most need them, what use are they?

Heard somewhere that is 5% more power or something . . .. .

But then 5% of eff all is still eff all :E

As for what use are they, I've got a good idea .. . .

Let's fade the jet out of service !?!?!

Jaguar001

9th Jul 2006, 15:07

Just out of interest, has the british army deployed any apache attack helicopters in Afganistan. They surely can provide CAS (correct me it I am mistaken).

MarkD

9th Jul 2006, 18:46

Could always make a call to NZ for their A-4s... whoops, too late...

Navaleye - only tweaking ya :D

Navaleye

10th Jul 2006, 15:48

Des Browne: contributing an additional C-130 to Afghan ops, plus additional (unspecified) support helicopters. Some modest reserve call up in specialist trades.

PS: He's about the most boring Defense Secretary since John Nott.

Compressorstall

10th Jul 2006, 16:16

Are we going to be dusting off the war reserve Wessex?? It will be interesting to see if this is a surge or an increment to the force levels.

RonO

10th Jul 2006, 18:48

Not fishing but I find Browne's comment puzzling - makes it sound like a Treasury/MoD imposed pitch count. War by checkbook I guess.

"We have already increased the flying hours available for attack and support helicopters, as requested by commanders

Melchett01

10th Jul 2006, 20:19

Interesting to see that Strangely Browne said that 1 ACC are going out as well. All I can assume is that would be in a fairly basic air traffic role - no AF fighters to play with and what do they need an air picture for unless the Telly Tubbies have suddenly acquired an air capability. Empire building or is there a genuine use for them out there?

Tombstone

10th Jul 2006, 21:41

Melchett1,

Having used 1ACC services on Fast Mover & our Opeval at St Mawgan last year, I think they will provide a great deal more than basic ATC for the CAS guys out there along with the rotary & multi guys.

They may not offer the level of service that the E3 FCs however, they do provide a very good back up & I'm sure the Harrier mates out there will appreciate them being in town as will the ground Cdrs.

Melchett01

10th Jul 2006, 21:52

Tomstone,

I'm not saying that they won't do a good job, but not having used their services, I just can't see what sort of C2 function they can provide in an environment like AF where the only air of any substance is coalition other than coordination between various packages.

If we had lots of fixed wing with tanking and required the services of a Fighter Marshall, I could understand that, but couldn't tac ATC provide elements of control at a fraction of the cost of putting 1 ACC into theatre? Or am I just missing the point completely?

Tombstone

10th Jul 2006, 22:04

check your PMs Melchett.

Melchett01

10th Jul 2006, 22:22

Cheers Tomstone. Lightbulb now on!

airborne_artist

11th Jul 2006, 09:13

From The Telegraph today:

"There is also an urgent need for more helicopters in Afghanistan, where Taliban ambushes have made travel by road perilous. MoD sources said they would "tease helicopters out of other places", which means taking machines from the Balkans, Northern Ireland or the Falklands."

Which means either that these deployments have spare assets that should not have been there in the first place, or as is more likely, that the deployments will be forced to run with the remaining assets being worked substantially above plan.

And we are being told it is "sustainable" What bollo:mad: ks

South Bound

11th Jul 2006, 09:25

AA - too right. 'We are currently breaking harmony guidelines, blah, but it is sustainable, blah...'

I thought the harmony guidelines told you what was sustainable. But then I might be talking out of my A:mad: e - perhaps I should be a politician!

As for the aircraft, let us see how well industry copes with the need to surge to provide additional spares and depth maintenance activity, let us see how long it takes before they bleat about not being able to do it and blame the poorly worded contract. A challenge to the contractors out there - get the aircraft out on time, get them back to the boys that need them because this government will press on regardless and leave the troops exposed if needs be...

We shall see how sustainable it is in 6 months time...

nigegilb

11th Jul 2006, 13:00

Anyone know anything about the Treasury limiting Harrier sorties in Afg?

"James Arbuthnot, the Conservative chairman of the defence select committee, said the troops were being deployed "on a shoestring" and protested at Treasury attempts to limit the expense of Harrier jets being used to support ground forces."

SASless

11th Jul 2006, 13:46

The USMC has removed seven CH-53E's from long-term storage in Arizona and are refurbishing them to active service at a cost of Five Million USD each. New aircraft cost Twenty Seven Million USD. They had been in storage for ten years.

South Bound

11th Jul 2006, 14:00

Without going into too much detail, ALL flying is capped by Treasury on Operations. I understand that it sets an upper limit for the cost of the Op (it clearly cannot be open-ended without bankrupting the treas) and that costs are broken down by aircraft/combat unit/support type within that. Flying is very expensive, and normally expressed as a cost per flying hour. Each aircraft type will have its own smaller budget that can be expressed in terms of flying hours per month.

Sounds barking, but without it the IPTs (the people that have to pay for the spares and servicings at industry) would go broke paying for extra flying hours (hence extra spares and maintenance) that they could not claim back from the treasury Operation fund.

nigegilb

11th Jul 2006, 14:17

SB, forget the c**p about the runway repairs at Kandahar, I understood the real reason for wanting to withdraw the Harrier in June was Treasury driven and entirely related to cost. HCDC worked hard to get that decision changed. The current plan is to withdraw the Harrier in March. I would imagine that is now getting looked at as well. Do you think the cap is affecting the ability of the Harrier force to provide CAS? If it is, this is a serious situation. Mr Arbuthnot is very careful with the way he chooses his words, I was rather taken aback by what he had to say about the Treasury.

SASless

11th Jul 2006, 14:28

Southbound,

The way I read your post....I can just hear this exchange between troops calling for CAS to get the Taliban off their backs.

"Delta 6 requesting an immediate air strike, enemy infantry and automatic weapons, grid XT12345678, am under intense fire and have seriously wounded needing medavac. Over"

"Delta 6, this is Southern Command, please stand by until next Monday. The new month starts then and we will then have sufficient hours in budget to respond. Out!":ugh:

South Bound

11th Jul 2006, 14:34

Nige - that is the real question - does the cap mean that an aircraft could be on the ground when support is needed. Suppose the answer to that lies with the theatre commanders - are they prepared to suspend operations that could possibly require air support because that aircraft is out of funding for the month? Unlikely IMO, but the real question is will the funding to be put in place to provide sufficient air cover for all the extra operations that will happen with another 900 troops. Can't say I know the answer, but that cover is going to be spread pretty thinly....

nigegilb

11th Jul 2006, 14:35

SASless, is spot on. Moreover both Desperate Des and Blair have been telling us that World security would be put at risk if the Talibs were to take control of Afg. If that is the case, someone should tell the Scottish man at the Treasury. It would appear that the funding of a handful of Harriers is beyond them. Oh dear, what a mess.

SB I have only just written to HCDC, but it would appear that this is a pressing question. Telegraph has a story on it today. Telegraph are saying the Treasury wanted the deployment to be cost neutral! That is very different to what you are saying. Might be worth sitting back for a few days and watch the politicians argue. I am not reassured by the Chiefs of Staff. The good news is that several members of HCDC visited Afg last week. I would encourage the guys and girls on the frontline to tell it how it is, don't hold back.

link to Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/11/nafg211.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/11/ixuknews.html

Lord_Flashheart

11th Jul 2006, 15:41

What on earth is a cost neutral Harrier deployment?????:confused:

Do the Treasury expect that the Harrier mates will have be running some kind of central Asian airmail service to pay for plinking the Taleban with PGMs?

Or will they be starting up a airtaxi service with a twin-seater?

Or perhaps offering to dig drainage ditches for the local farmers with Paveways?

Or are they now frantically looking for some sort of corporate sponsorship? "Operation Carry on up the Kyber - sponsored by Tescos Finest range"...

Between this and the report in the Sunday Times of Afghans being shown 'The Blue Planet' to convince them to stop being naughty, 'Carry on up the Kyber' seems to be not too far off.....

nigegilb

11th Jul 2006, 15:47

For the benefit of the more youthful ppruners a plot summary;

Carry On... Up the Khyber (1968) (Syd James)

Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond looks after the British outpost near the Khybar pass. Protected by the kilted Third Foot and Mouth regiment, you would think they were safe. But the Khazi of Kalabar has other ideas. He wants all the British dead! But his troops fear the "skirted-devils"; they are rumoured not to wear anything underneath. Then one is caught with his pants on...

South Bound

11th Jul 2006, 15:57

nigegilb

11th Jul 2006, 16:12

SB has this cap got something to do with the fact that we only have a few Apaches in theatre?

HCDC Report:
Future cost of operations in Afghanistan
18. MoD has stated that the estimated cost of the UK’s deployments to Afghanistan will be £1 billion over the five years 2005–06 to 2009–10
.21 We asked for a breakdown of this cost by financial year and by purpose.
MoD responded as follows:
expenditure on operations varies depending on troop numbers, activities and force protection requirements. As a consequence, we cannot currently provide a breakdown of the estimate that is accurate in detail to the standards which we would normally place before Parliament.

22 We fully appreciate that the costs of operations are uncertain, but that is not a reason to deny Parliament any information at all. Telling Parliament that the costs of the deployment to Afghanistan is “around a billion” is just not good enough. This is a very large amount of public money, and the public deserve better information on how it is going to be spent. We will be pursuing this further in our inquiry into the UK deployment to Afghanistan.

JessTheDog

11th Jul 2006, 16:48

Cost neutral operations, I never thought I would live to see the day. :mad:

"Callsign requesting close air support at grid reference...." (lots of bangs and shouting audible in the background)

"Sorry callsign, do you have a UIN for this mission. We're supposed to be cost neutral you know!"

Browne, Brown and Blair should be kidnapped and given to the Taliban tomorrow. The sight of their heads on an Afghan polo pitch would be a massive morale boost...for UK forces.

nigegilb

11th Jul 2006, 16:54

I am thinking about asking the BBC to show Carry on up the Khyber. Certainly makes more sense than listening to Des Browne at the depatch box telling us that the reason for the reinforcement was due to the unexpected success of the mission.

JessTheDog

11th Jul 2006, 16:56

SAS - no suggestion of that matey, but if the aircraft are U/S because the spares have been used up too early because the aircraft are being flown harder than the funding is provided for, then air support MAY be less available. As always, the boys will do what they can with what they have - I was just explaining the funding thing, which does limit the number of aircraft in theatre; hence the numbers of troops in contact one could support...

Nonsense.

Provide enough aircraft and enough spares otherwise lives will be lost due to criminal negligence.

Bliar's attempt at a top UN job is not worth risking sweat or blood for.

I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. That is other people's blood, toil, tears and sweat and not mine, and within the bounds of cost neutrality. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.

You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War within the limits of cost neutrality and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. Within the bounds of cost neutrality.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival. As long as it is cost neutral.

SASless

11th Jul 2006, 17:02

If one considers six Apaches and six Harriers along with four ( is it?) Hercs ample support for the troops in the hills....I would suggest taking a little walk in Mo's turf! I bet it gets awfully lonesome way out there....knowing your CAS is in the mess, writing reports, having a Kip when the call goes out. The best efforts at responding still means a very long wait when you are up to your ass in Jihadi's intent upon marytrdom.

It takes long enough when you have CAS birds in airborne in a cab rank waiting for the call.

Compressorstall

11th Jul 2006, 18:00

If we want more aircraft, perhaps then we should stop carping on about Network Enabled Capability and enhanced technology meaning that we can do more with less. One swing role jet may be able to do recce and CAS whilst delivering the mail and calibrating the PAR, but it's not much use if it goes u/s on taxi is it now?

What's next? Call Centres for CAS? "Press One is you require a Show of Force, 2 if you require Strafe, 3 for Kinetic Effect or 4 if you wish to speak to an attendant...your call is important to us, you are number 24 in the queue..."

RonO

11th Jul 2006, 19:40

Presumably waging the Afghan op to a fixed budget was the price of Broon's cabinet vote. Fixed price wars, now there's a new idea. Why didn't we think of that earlier? The man's a freakin' genius.

Reach

11th Jul 2006, 19:42

Fixed price wars, now there's a new idea. Why didn't we think of that earlier?

Do we get to go home once the budget has been spent?

Smoketoomuch

11th Jul 2006, 19:43

Did I hear right? ITN News reckons we can chalk another one up for the UK Apache;

Errr..... A Chinook:sad:

Edit to add; The report said that a Chinook developed a fault whilst picking up troops in a hostile area. Another was sent and a decision was made to destroy the grounded machine.

South Bound

12th Jul 2006, 07:06

Guys, not condoning the level of airpower in theatre, but we all need to understand how the funding works. The IPTs are given a wedge of cash to support a number of aircraft flying a certain number of hours leading to a certain requirement for spares and Primary/P*/Minor etc servicings. That cash is normally scaled against day-to-day flying and when a new op comes along there is another pot of cash to supplement what they have - it is this pot that is capped by treasury. When it is gone, it is gone and cries for anything more would be unsustainable unless the wavy-haired Scotsman backs down and increases the budget (I guess that is happening at the moment).

No one doubts that we could use a whole lot more air out in theatre, but someone has to pay - the MoD is broke and the Treasury has set a limit. That gentlemen is the way of the World

nigegilb

12th Jul 2006, 07:16

SB, begs the question should we have gone in the first place? Blair said last week that Brig Butler can have anything he asks for. Sure makes that promise seems hollow. I think there is more to harrier funding than meets the eye. Believe me, Arbuthnot would not have said what he did unless the Treasury were getting their fingers in the pie. If there is not enough CAS then we will end up guarding our own fortifications whilst the Taleban get on with the job of running the country. Cake and arrse.

Compressorstall

12th Jul 2006, 09:30

Any update on the comments by Smoketoomuch?

MReyn24050

12th Jul 2006, 10:12

The IPTs are given a wedge of cash to support a number of aircraft flying a certain number of hours leading to a certain requirement for spares and Primary/P*/Minor etc servicings.

I thought Primary/P*/Minor servicings went out of the window when Lean and Pulse-line maintenance came in. For example this quote from BAe Systems Virtual News Room indicates:-

"Harrier Pulse-Line maintenance successfully moves Harrier GR7 aircraft in a 10-day ’pulse,’ through packaged maintenance activities, similar to industrial car plant manufacturing processes. Under this approach essential maintenance will be combined with upgrading the aircraft to the GR9 standard, which will result in the Harrier remaining in service until the arrival of the Future Joint Combat Aircraft in the next decade."

Almost_done

12th Jul 2006, 10:15

I thought Primary/P*/Minor servicings went out of the window when Lean and Pulse-line maintenance came in. For example this quote from BAe Systems Virtual News Room indicates:-
"Harrier Pulse-Line maintenance successfully moves Harrier GR7 aircraft in a 10-day ’pulse,’ through packaged maintenance activities, similar to industrial car plant manufacturing processes. Under this approach essential maintenance will be combined with upgrading the aircraft to the GR9 standard, which will result in the Harrier remaining in service until the arrival of the Future Joint Combat Aircraft in the next decade."

We do have other A/C in theatre and possibly others that still operate on the 'old' un PLUSE/LEAN system.

South Bound

12th Jul 2006, 10:43

Pulse is just a way of doing a servicing. The P/P*/M/M*/Mj all remain the same at the same frequencies - this policy is set by the IPT in conjunction with the aircraft DA. Pulse is intended to break these down into discreet packages that have a logical start and end, the advantage being that the processes during each stage are easier to manage and one aircraft found dead midway thorugh a servicing does not delay the whole line, just one small 'pulse' team.

This method is very traditional (the way we have always done it!), but people are starting to acknowledge that we over-maintain our aircraft and we can be more flexible. For instance, C17 has 6 (IIRC) Home Station Checks (HSCs, each taking between 5-14 wkg days) over a 2 year period that swallow up everything that needs to be done. There is no 'Major' equivalent, except that every now and then Boeing grab one of the fleet leaders and tear it down for an analytical critical inspection (ACI). The results of the ACI determine the content of the HSCs. This is a flexible policy that means we don't start tearing down brand new aircraft for in-depth inspection just to build in a maintenance stagger - this is one of the failures of the old system (has the first Typhoon had a minor yet?).

MReyn24050

12th Jul 2006, 12:28

South Bound

Thank you for that. I know that the Merlin schedules were being revised to meet Pulse and thought perhaps other Platforms were doing likewise.

Mel

South Bound

12th Jul 2006, 12:41

I think most IPTs are looking into it. Like it or loath it, Pulse presents an opportunity to break the work down into smaller chunks and rethink how best to make the whole thing efficient. It is my understanding that the IPTs are only just starting to think about reviewing the work that needs to be done as part of servicing packages, and much of the changes being considered are being directed from the front line. If it is barking mad, highlight it and get it sorted!

aviationdoc

12th Jul 2006, 15:00

An extra Chinook will certainly make all the difference.
We certainly seem to be at the bottom of the barrel as regards helicopter assetts.
The year in year out cuts in Defence and wasteful spending are having their effects

RonO

12th Jul 2006, 20:35

I'm guessing it wasn't the way of the world for Falklands & isn't for other countries in theater... what sane system sends in troops with one arm tied behind their backs by artificially limiting already very limited air support. Barking doesnt even start to cover it.

Mind also still reeling at Des's claim that all elements of the original plan are behaving exactly as expected except the one element totally under brit control - the brit forces themselves. They're to blame for the need for re-enforcements by being too aggressive. No doubt their paychecks will be deducted accordingly.

Sure makes Flashman's pals look a whole lot smarter than they did last week.

nigegilb

12th Jul 2006, 20:54

Rono is this exerpt from Des's little speech what you are referring to?

"The original intent was to tackle the challenges incrementally, spreading security and reconstruction from the centre of Helmand out. But commanders on the ground grasped an early opportunity. They saw the chance to reinforce the position of the local Governor and the Afghan army and police by going into Northern Helmand, and challenging the impunity of the Taleban there. In doing this, we moved faster towards achieving our ultimate objectives, but extended ourselves. This is a development we must respond to. But it is our actions that have brought about this development, our decisions and our determination to grasp the challenge. It is not, as some suggest, a failure to anticipate a violent response to our arrival. Yes the violence has increased, but that was inevitable. We are challenging the power of the Taleban and other enemies of the Afghan government, and they are reacting. But despite their efforts, we are spreading security."

I take it the inevitable violence he refers to was not so inevitable when John Reid, his predecessor, stated that it might even be possible for our troops never to fire a shot in the 3 yr deployment.

Melchett01

12th Jul 2006, 20:57

....the brit forces themselves. They're to blame for the need for re-enforcements by being too aggressive

I really can't work out whether you are taking the p*ss here. So patrolling in floppy hats and berets and having a set of ROE that allow you to give the enemy a good stiff talking to is being overly aggressive?

Looking at your location, if that's what you really think, I suggest sir, that you may have been out in the sun too long or had one pina collada too many.

On_The_Top_Bunk

12th Jul 2006, 21:18

Interesting little article from therecord.com

http://www.therecord.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=record/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1152654617258&call_pageid=1024322168441&col=1024322596091

Nothing new but gets the point across.

RonO

12th Jul 2006, 21:19

Just pointing out how absurd Des' explanation sounds - that the UK forces are a victim of their own success rather than any faulty pre-op planning. Like who would have thunk the taleban would resent the intrusion into their backyard and who would have thunk the para's would respond the way they have.

Didn't most commentators and the HCDC predict exactly that and fault the original force structure accordingly?

Being a cynical old fart, excuse me for suspecting the planning was based on what could be done for the money rather than what's needed to do the job. Folks can warble on as much as they like about prudent budgeting but that's not the best recipe for success in any project.

PS thanks for the offer, mine's a mai tai.

NURSE

12th Jul 2006, 21:32

nigegilb

12th Jul 2006, 21:33

Someone else described Des's explanation as ingenious, either way he did not seem to have much support from his own benches. Forgive me but the governors residence was almost overrun by Talibs on previous nights. The paras were probably the only people who could hold it. It is telling that the commander in the field requested reinforcements and Des could come up with very little. Talib strategy appears to be to target soldiers but also equipment. I wonder what attrition rate has been built in to this op. The comments by John Reid do not suggest that the planners were on their game. The above article suggests the end of the world will not be nigh if the Talibs reassert their influence. The dreadful slothlike reaction from our european nato allies suggests the same. What exactly was Blair thinking about when he ordered his chiefs to take on this committment at such a time?

JessTheDog

12th Jul 2006, 21:42

Both Reid and Browne have twisted reality to suit their version of events. The nastiness of the Taliban is not without precedent (it suited us in the 1980s) and there is no way that 900 infantry can fight and destroy many thousands of Taliban in an area the size of Scotland.

To be successful, battle groups need to take and hold ground and destroy the enemy's fighting power by seizing the initiative, dominating the battlefield, killing enemy fighters and denying them the ability to reinforce, reorganise or replenish.

This cannot be achieved by 900 soldiers who will turn up, fight (albeit with peerless ethos, tradition, training and courage...if not equipment) and go away again until the next time, perhaps somewhere else. We relinquished our ability to fight such wars in the 1990s.

rudekid

12th Jul 2006, 22:01

Nige

Shooting from the hip a little as I haven't got facts to hand...

Think that this was always the plan, as a long-term commitment to the regeneration of Afghanistan. From memory these timetables were thrashed out as long ago as the Bonn summit. UK lead of this particular element (Phase 4?) has been set up from the start, so it shouldn't be a surprise to us.

Has the planning been properly conducted by ourselves (I mean very senior serving personnel) or is this a pig's ear because of politicos and MOD? I think the answer is both...This was always going to happen, SO1/SO2 planners have been screaming at various higher level agencies for ages. Sadly standard bul:mad: it filtering means it's difficult to assess where the fault lies. Higher echelon command blames it on MOD, MOD blames it on lack of guidance from below. 'T was ever thus!

Another question. Is Task Force Butler helping the situation on the ground? Who knows...

Roland Pulfrew

13th Jul 2006, 09:56

To get this thread slightly back to topic.....
The merits of the Hawk various have been debated and there is some merit, but surely what we need here is something that can operate from rough/poorly prepared surfaces, can sustain significant battle damage and still complete the misssion - so therefore probably twin engined, has significant firepower, capable of significant bomb load, a long loiter time/range at reasonable speed, quick reaction time, cheap and easy to repair if damaged...............................................

DH 98 FB VI anyone? :E :E http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/gallery/105mosquitoiv1024.jpg :ok:

ORAC

13th Jul 2006, 10:13

If you need anything, you need the aircraft designed exactly for the theatre and the threat but with modern weapons and avionics - The SU-25KM Scorpion (http://www.defense-update.com/news/su25KM.htm) :hmm:

Compressorstall

14th Jul 2006, 21:30

What we actually need is for the MOD to be honest and make some decisions. The honesty and decisions would drive the need for more kit. All we have proved so far is that the Taliban like a good scrap and that they really aren't grabbed by the 'Blue Planet' series.

dallas

15th Jul 2006, 11:58

What we actually need is for the MOD to be honest and make some decisions.

Hmmm. This would have to come from the same firm who are claiming the NHS is having its best year ever. NHS customers just have to wait - lets hope the Taleban and Al Qaeda soon grasp the concept of a queue too. :hmm:

Jeep

16th Jul 2006, 10:06

Well done to the crew:

A Dutch Apache helicopter made a precautionary landing in Afghanistan on Sunday (9 July?) after it was damaged by ground fire, the Ministry of Defence said on Friday.

The helicopter was fired on with a small calibre weapon and suffered damage to its hydraulic system and tail section. The two-man crew returned safely to the Dutch base at Tarin Kowt.

Dutch F-16 jets were called in on Wednesday to support troops who were attacked by suspected Taliban fighters at Musah Qa'leh in Helmand Province. The planes did not open fire but their presence helped end the confrontation, a ministry spokesperson said.

movadinkampa747

16th Jul 2006, 12:11

Forget Afghanistan................. With lots of people getting upset this weekend we should start a new thread called Aircraft needed in Fairford We could start it by saying...........................

High ranking British spotters in Fairford say they need more air power to assist spotters and airshow goers, who are facing a lack of tail numbers to collect and photograph for the 100th time.
The calls come after a day of intense clashes on pprune in the southern province of England.

Sources have told the BBC that more transport and attack helicopters and sentinal planes are needed.

The British public has about 100,000 spotters at Fairford. They are part of a UK Airshow led taskforce.:cool: