RAF "Utterly, Utterly, Useless" in Afghanistan

[ImageGear]

Typical sky spin on the headlines

A leaked email states that the RAF is "Utterly, Utterly, Useless" in Afghanistan

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13543583,00.html

Well it would appear they are not infinitely well resourced at the moment due to:

Add your own reasons here:

Imagegear :confused:

[South Bound]

Clearly true then if it is from an anomymous email.

Let's not get dragged into this.

Everyone out there is doing a great job. Whether or not we have enough assets to do the job we were sent to do is another matter.

[airborne_artist]

in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BCC2M2KM3A5NVQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/09/22/nbattle22.xml).

"Chinook helicopters were able to make sure the troops were regularly resupplied with ammunition but were unable to deliver enough food - a familiar complaint for British troops sent to front-line positions in Afghanistan."

"British Harriers sometimes flew so low over their positions on strafing runs that the soldiers mistook the sudden explosive roar of their engines 60 feet overhead for the explosion of incoming mortar rounds."

[PompeySailor]

The trouble is that the meeja is unable to distinguish between the RAF (in this case) as an entity, and the people that are there. Lazy reporting means that it comes across that the RAF as we understand it (the people) are not a worthwhile addition to the forces in Stan. What they actually mean, but don't get across very well, is that with the current resources and constraints placed upon them, the RAF as an entity is not able to perform to it's full potential.

It's like us saying "SkyTV is ****e" - when what we mean is that in certain areas such as lazy-arsed journo stuff, they are placing themselves somewhere below the Stun. However, if we actually looked at the people doing their individual jobs and the constraints and party-lines that they are having to toe, individually they are doing OK.

We know that the meeja fail to get it right on many occasions, we know that your average techie working for the meeja is on top of his job, and we know that the face in front the camera would shag his own granny and film it if he thought it would get him an anchor position on the 10 o'clock, and his lords and masters would order him to do it to gain an extra 0.000005% of the viewing figures.

We also know that individuals in the Forces do the job they are proud to do, within the constraints imposed upon them by the Whitehall and Cabinet Office warriors, but it gets a bit annoying when the lazy reporting makes it seem like we don't.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Well if there aren't enough resources to deliver ammo AND food and I was being mortared/shot at, then know which one I would rather have (hint... NOT FOOD!).
A booty friend of mine has just returned from SF duties in Afghanistan and had nothing but praise for the Chinook and Harrier guys - it took me back somewhat as I was expecting a stream of verbal abuse and banter to the contrary! Make of that what you will, but I know which source I would rely on.

[oldbeefer]

I doubt a Harrier boss would be awarded the DSO after 12 months and 103 missions there if the boys wern't doing a good job!:D (RAF News Sep 15)

[The Helpful Stacker]

British Harriers sometimes flew so low over their positions on strafing runs that the soldiers mistook the sudden explosive roar of their engines 60 feet overhead for the explosion of incoming mortar rounds.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.:ugh: I suppose they could lay off the CAS and leave the squaddies to their own devices.

As for the Chinooks, yes they are quite stretched over there but its better than nowt or trying to drive supplies in.

As has been mentioned, many of the rank and file infantry, booties etc have nothing but praise for RAF Chinnys and Harriers, as well as TWA's Apaches. I'd suggest that the author of the email is going all political himself, either in an anti-Government way or more likely anti-RAF.

[BellEndBob]

Still does not disguise the fact that we seem to be able to put precious few resources into the front line yet we seem to have an endless supply of 1, 2 & 3 stars to 'administrate' it all.
The very same people who are telling the politicians that we are doing OK.:ugh:

[Lazer-Hound]

Still does not disguise the fact that we seem to be able to put precious few resources into the front line yet we seem to have an endless supply of 1, 2 & 3 stars to 'administrate' it all.
The very same people who are telling the politicians that we are doing OK.:ugh:

And it takes the SoS to announce the deployment of A SINGLE AIRCRAFT to AFG. :sad:

[cockneyrock]

It is good to see that the RAF are getting the support from our Army brethren on ARRSE as well:
http://www.arrse.com/cpgn2/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=47187#860083
Just goes to show "blood's thicker than water". (also goes to show how cr@p Sky News reporting is).

[I.P Stop]

At times like this when people say such stupid things, you damn skippy the "Army Brethren" will support you. I deploy soon in AH and the true story should read anything but "Utterly, utterly*******.
Do you think they do it for a bite?:ugh:

[South Bound]

Not fishing, just frustrated (forgiveable) or full of self-importance (need fragging).

[Pontius Navigator]

And from AARSE:

I've read the e-mails, and understand that Chief of the Air Staff has done likewise - hence the crackdown. They need to be read in the context in which they were written, which is very much at the pointy, bloody end and thus they might appear parochial to some. The author is no idiot and these were personal e-mails which appear to have escaped their intended audience. I hope that another decent guy doesn't get hung out to dry for expressing a personal opinion while doing a damned difficult job.

If anyone gets hold of the originals, please DON'T post them on the net.
_________________

[Yeller_Gait]

Just heard on the radio that the comments can be attributed to an Army Major somewhere in Helmand, saying that he would rather call in A-10's rather than the RAF.

Y_G

[Jackonicko]

What one individual junior Army officer has to say about air support is interesting, but hardly conclusive. He's not a FAC, and some of his comments indicate a surprising and real lack of awareness about air support generally, and even specifically about CAS in Afghanistan.

If Sky are guilty of blowing anything out of proportion, I'd suggest that it's only because they repeat his slightly hysterical and inaccurate accusations.

If only they had people with real knowledge, perhaps they'd have been able to make a better stab at interpreting and contextualising what was undeniably a personal e-mail, not intended for this kind of distribution and discussion.

There is a story, I believe, but this ain't it.

And so if anyone wants to tell me how well things are working, then do so by PM!

[South Bound]

Jacko, how about I leak you an email saying how great we all are and how we need a payrise and love journos - would you print that for me?

We could make it anon to make it sound more mysterious!

[Archimedes]

The BBC's take on the story is here:click (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5371392.stm).

Apparently: Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorous rockets that just missed our own compound so that we thought they were incoming RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], and then strafed our perimeter missing the enemy by 200 metres

Just a thought, but (a) do we have WP heads for the CRV7 and (b) if strafing involves the use of a gun (which is, one assumes, what the Major means), how has an RAF Harrier pulled off this feat? :confused:

[Nibbled2DeathByDucks]

Considering that the writer of these e-mails in still in theatre, I'd like to see how he'll get back home and if his bags will make it back in one piece :E

Over to UKMAMS ;)

[MarkD]

Yeller

if that's what that Major thinks, by all means he can have the A-10s if Canadians can call for Harriers instead, having lost one of ours to A-10 rounds three weeks ago.

[flash8]

well this comes on the back of another... "Captain Leo Docherty was so unhappy with operations in Helmand province he quit the British Army last month"

"Capt Docherty described the campaign as "grotesquely clumsy" and said the British were no different to US forces by bombing and strafing villages."

Two in Two months. Whilst some here (the ones whom have only ever seen one kind of theatre in their lives, the acting kind) seem keen to dismiss these guys, from experience I know to stick ones neck out is a brave thing to do, and commands some respect.

I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but implicitly vilifying these officers for having the guts to speak out, is to me incomprehensible.

[London Mil]

flashy, there was a time when a Commissioned Officer considered the words on his/her Commissioning Scroll. The chap who leaked this needs to seriously look at his respssnibilities.

Personally, Queenie signed something that appears to retain it's relevence.

[rudekid]

Major Loden is no doubt under a lot of stress, but if he wants to let off steam (as we all do from time to time) he might want to do it in private, not by email! The last time I was in Afghanistan, we suffered many problems caused by Army interference in the light blue environment. Instead of moaning by email I kept it to slagging them off in the 12 x 12 with the boys!

Surely as a Major (and according to a report Company Commander) he isn't naive enough to think his comments wouldn't be reproduced and re-broadcast. If this was in a private email, it's grossly unfair to him to have it published in the public forum. If however, he's included them in a UPREP or SITREP, he has been a trifle hysterical and naive.

Does anybody else sense a bit of politics going on in the background at MOD? How does this get leaked, who leaks it and with what agenda?

Hope Task Force Butler keeps doing the job! Well done fellas!:ok:

[The Otter's Pocket]

What most people seem to forget in the media is that these e-mails are from somebody who is there in the thick of it.

Those comments about a single "junior officer" to me sound quite disparaging. If he is a Colonel, Major or 2Lt he has earned his commission and his integrity should not be questioned.
It is unfortunate that his e-mails have ended up in the media, however he is there and knows exactly what is happening in his area of responsibilty.

It is unfortunate that he feels let down by the RAF and I am sure if he was to meet the jocks of the local Sqn he would know exactly how serious and professional they take their job.

However I feel that he must be forgiven for his comments for two reasons,
The liason between the RAF and Army has been for years neglected and only recently have all ranks begun to understand the importance of the all arms battle.
Secondly, how often have posts been started by members of the RAF regarding the procurement and armament of a/c. The Harrier amongst other things is a Ground Support a/c. It doesn't have a gun and cannot straff, this is a great moral booster for the Toms especially when the jets cannot drop.
A possibility why he would rather have the A10.

It is great that the gloves are finally being allowed off and the ROE have been changed by the politicians and their sycophantic lackeys, to allow troops to take on the Taliban.

Give him a break, we all know it is a difficult job and his e-mails may have been picked and edited by the media.

[Jackonicko]

The person putting the "'One team. One fight." concept at risk is the good major, by describing his fellow professionals as "Utterly, Utterly, Useless". Especially when he does so on the basis of his impression of the Harrier's capabilities in strafe (they don't do strafe) and in delivering WP (they don't seem to have WP).

And this single junior officer isn't having his integrity questioned, nor his cojones. Just his judgement and his knowledge of air support.

[Wrathmonk]

What has this major done wrong? How many times have we, as aviators, slagged off ATC, our wingman, handbrake house etc for not doing there job. He is out there undertaking a fairly stressful job and has let off steam in a private e-mail, which I am assuming was to a so-called mate of his. This so-called mate has then circulated the private e-mail within his own circle of friends, without James' knowledge, and subsequently been leaked to the press.:mad: :mad: :mad:

I'm sure the first James knew about the 5hit hitting the fan was when it hit Sky News etc, and I suspect he had a no-coffee chat with his Boss (in between firefights, obviously!). He doesn't need his name up in lights at a time like this and I honestly believe that it was not his intent for his comments to hit the Press.

And yes I'm Air Force. I've also seen copy of the entire e-mail. Some of the context is missing in the edited highlights as are some of his other comments about his own Service (AAC) and the Coalition. I think one of his so-called mates of a mate has a personal agenda and damn the consequences for James. And no I didn't leak the e-mail (before you ask) and no I'm not going to publish anymore than is already in the printed media.

Give the guy a break - any witch hunt should be for the tw*t who leaked the memo. Once identified a swift 2 year OOA tour in Afghanistan as a FAC should be suitable "punishment"!

James - you need to get yourself a trip in the back of a Harrier when you're safely back in UK to see the picture from their side of the trigger. There was at least one person who spent the previous 12 months or so in the same purple sausage machine as you who may be able to help out!

And if you've got a beef trust in the chain of command. Didn't you learn anything last year!!! :E

[Radar Muppet]

Wrathmonk
Private email? I don't think so; more like an email from mil terminal, using mil bandwidth, to a mil eddress. Therefore, I suggest that the good major is now learning a hard lesson on the need to think before slagging on a non-private system.
I appreciate that he and his men are having a bad time of it but if he thinks that being factually wrong and slagging his sister service is going to make his job easier then I doubt he is the man for the Coy Cdr job.
As for the leaker - prepare to be a civie, asshole.
Sky News - well, would anyone have expected bottom-feeders to do anything different.
RM

[SRENNAPS]

I am not an air warfare specialist, but could somebody tell me why the latest Harrier GR7 cannot strafe???? It is suppose to be a Ground Attack Aircraft. Why was it not fitted with a bloody big gun that would scare the crap out of anybody on the ground that was on the receiving end of it? A big cannon strafing the battlefield will surly have a huge psychological effect on the enemy.

[PompeySailor]

I am not an air warfare specialist, but could somebody tell me why the latest Harrier GR7 cannot strafe???? It is suppose to be a Ground Attack Aircraft. Why was it not fitted with a bloody big gun that would scare the crap out of anybody on the ground that was on the receiving end of it? A big cannon strafing the battlefield will surly have a huge psychological effect on the enemy.

Link here for the background info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADEN_cannon

[SRENNAPS]

PompeySailor

Thanks for that. Very interesting.
Can I assume that our military experts in the MOD agreed that a cannon was not essential for a ground attack aircraft and therefore did not consider an alternative gun. I suppose they were able to produce some statistics that showed that cannons have been a complete waste of time in the history of air warfare. Maybe they still had their “only need a missile that can hit a target 100 miles away” head on.

[PompeySailor]

PompeySailor

Thanks for that. Very interesting.
Can I assume that our military experts in the MOD agreed that a cannon was not essential for a ground attack aircraft and therefore did not consider an alternative gun. I suppose they were able to produce some statistics that showed that cannons have been a complete waste of time in the history of air warfare. Maybe they still had their “only need a missile that can hit a target 100 miles away” head on.

More concerning is that this email episode needs to be seen as part of a much larger and more worrying picture. The Army are suffering from lack of basic equipment, or poor and malfunctioning equipment, specified by people who have never, and will never, need to use the stuff in the field. The RAF are suffering from cuts in manpower and equipment, the RN has a shrinking fleet and is about to be subjected to a review of dockyards. We have concerns about pay and conditions, the two main items of Service life that the upper echelons should never mess around with.

We have watched, from three different standpoints, the Armed Services of this country be reduced, misemployed, under-funded, and vilified by an ill-informed press and a public that doesn't really understand us. And I think that we are almost at the point where it is too late. We are not recruiting enough, we are not receiving enough funding, and we are being used in places, and for jobs, that we should not be used. Foot and Mouth, Fireman's Strikes, our medical staff being used as free labour on the training wards in Birmingham to cover up the Governmental failings in the NHS in that area.

The media are more concerned with seeing us as an easy story - we do things and go to places that journos are quick to tell us they go to as well - but we don't go on their wages, with their insurance policies, or their ability to put their hands up and say "I'm a journo, get me out of here." This story shows the lengths that they will go to to misreport a story to try and divide the Services - but if you look at ARRSE and on here, that has not happened. A common enemy has stuck it's head above the parapet, and no-one will turn down the chance to take a shot at a journo!

We need to be given a public voice which has the backbone to stand up and tell the journos to sod off - to take the parts of the emails which the media ignore and to hold them up for public scrutiny - the lack of funding, the lack of support, the constraints everything else that we have to deal with on a daily basis. When the GR7 pilot is on task, but he hasn't been paid that month, or he knows that the kit he flies is as good as it can be, but not as good as he would like it to be, or when the Tom on the front line is scared ****less because he doesn't know if he will be CMd or shot, their needs to be someone that really looks out for us - and the Chain of Command is now so intertwined with the political machinations in London, SW1 that it no longer serves that purpose.

[Wrathmonk]

Radar Muppet

I bow to your superior knowledge on the background to the e-mail. I only have copy of the cut and paste text (albeit that was circulated on a mil account).

However I still stand by my comment that I believe it was intended as a private e-mail and I firmly believe it was sent originally from a non-mil account to a non-mil account (even if it was over bandwidth provided by the Op Welfare package) - IMHO that makes it private. In a similar way are Blueys that are carried out to the Falkland Islands or to the Middle East by mil charter private or not?

He is entitled to his private views - you may or may not agree with them, nor the private method he chose to raise them. That still does not make what he says wrong. Sadly, I fear, were he to now raise them formally through post op reporting it would be dismissed as an attempt to get back in the Colonels good books!

Again, who here has not made critical comment of somebody elses performance? How much slagging off do we (and by that I mean aircrew) do of RAFP, movers, stackers, scope dopes, truckie navs smelling of wee, gwars etc etc. Have you never been OOA and set an e-mail home saying "so and so is a to55er". If James had said the RAFP are utterly utterly useless, barrier up, barrier down, which end of the chain are the brains, jobsworth gits etc there would have been pages of support for him.

The lesson he has actually learnt is to choose his friends wisely. Or perhaps we need to go back to the WW1 / WW2 era where all letters are checked by someone further up the food chain and censored accordingly. Remove all internet access that'll stop the whinging. Confiscate the mobile phones and hide the Blueys.:}

I find it interesting that over on that other site there is, overall, support for both him and the Harrier mates. I will agree though that the "whistle blower" may be sleeping with one eye open for a few months yet. Hopefully it will all blow over (though I'm not helping by keep bringing it to the top!):E

[SRENNAPS]

PompeySailor
I will have a beer and a chat with you anytime.
The problem is that we are taken for granted by our lords and masters. They are the ones that have taken advantage of the can do attitude of forces so they can suck up and make cutback after cutback whilst they appear to get the results. We are trying to fight a major war (on two fronts) with half a dozen aircraft & helicopters to support a large amount of troops who need more.
This is not a game anymore where just by flying the (political) British flag we achieve results. This is real and we need more both in terms of hardware and manpower if we are ever going to achieve this mission.
We (our lords and masters) have made this mistake so many times in the past – let’s not make it again. People on the ground in Afgan are trying to tell the higher lot - All is not right.

[possel]

I am not an air warfare specialist, but could somebody tell me why the latest Harrier GR7 cannot strafe???? It is suppose to be a Ground Attack Aircraft. Why was it not fitted with a bloody big gun that would scare the crap out of anybody on the ground that was on the receiving end of it? A big cannon strafing the battlefield will surly have a huge psychological effect on the enemy.

As a humble engineer who worked at Wittering a while back, I recall that the reason that the Harrier gun cannot be used is that they could not overcome the problems of links or empty cases damaging the tailplane.

However, it still needs the gun pods (or strakes) in order to help it hover...

[Sid South]

Sweet mother of all things holy.

What exactly does he expect to achieve? What exactly does he think the lads are doing right now? Surely he can't blame his own can he. Oh no, the FAC would never pass the wrong details. Does anyone actually think that the RAF are doing it on purpose? Why does the RAF have one of the most exceptional reputations in THE world? It beggars belief as to why such a damning email was released, by a 'mate' or whoever.

But what I like even less, is how the media have jumped on the bandwagon so much? Cheers everyone. Yes, you've got your headline grabber for the next day or so, and maybe earned a bonus, but what on earth will the guys and gals in light blue think?

Barstewards. Utter barstewards. I'm not going to say any more for the moment as its friday night and the bar has been open. Needless to say, the blood pressure is a few notches higher. From where I sit, the boys and girls, as ever, are doing a fantastic job. Its just a pity that someone somewhere feels the need to vent his spleen so publically. :ugh:

SS, red in the face

[Postman Plod]

Tell you what, it shouldn't be Sky getting all the grief, the state funded BBC are the ones trumpetting this anti-RAF rubbish out of context, and causing a damn sight more damage than the Sky article, which seems to be concentrating more on under-resourcing and under funding!

[RileyDove]

The Harriers had a large number of gun pods built for the Aden 25 but it was never a success. When there was a tried and tested American gun available it's beyond comprehension why they even tried! As for the Harrier - do you really want to be at low level firing a cannon when they can quite happily return fire at you! Far better to have an element of safety and use rockets and bombs.

[Unmissable]

What really Pi**es me off is :

1. Not that,the said Major may be disatisfied with the air support he gets, fair comment, but it is the fact he blames the RAF, its not their fault , it is the fault of government for not providing proper assets to do the job.

2. He obviously does not know the art of the possible (straffing without guns).

3. That the real gripe is, why has the press latched onto this story, when the slightest bit of informed comment would put it into context and make it not be worthy of comment.

4. Why has the BBC and Sky put it at the top of their bullitens, hour after hour, when anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see it is one pi88ed off (and uninformed) voice venting steam .

5. Will the editors for Sky and BBC please reply as to why this uninformed story gets priority over the truth?


For all the RAF guys out in AF, ignore it, you are all doing the biz and if one numpty in a thousand says different, listen to the other 999.

[Two's in]

Some points re the good Major:

There is no such thing as a private e-mail. Regardless of whether or not he was using a military bearer system, countless legal rulings have proven that once written and sent, it is fair game for the public domain. If it was intended to be private, it should have been delivered by the appropriate means as such. If you can't imagine the foreman of the jury reading out every e-mail you send, you shouldn't be sending them.

Annual performance appraisals, Mess nights, and conversations with the CO are all really, really good occasions to share your views with the leadership on how things are going, and hopefully get some feedback as to why. The way this e-mail has been exposed by the bottom-feeders is unfortunate, but wholly predictable, given the clumsiness and naiveté demonstrated here.

To have a pop at your colleagues is routine and expected, especially from those Army units where 'esprit de corps' is beaten into you from day one. But like all things, there is a limit to how far it should go. The further up the command chain you are, the less acceptable it is to level accusations of this nature at a service branch that it ultimately involved in providing protection to everybody in that Theatre.

He's not working for KBR organizing truck convoys and he's not there as a private citizen. He is a member of the British Armed Forces deployed on Operations, so he does not have the luxury of passing his opinion to all and sundry, intended or not, and he is certainly not the official MoD spokesman on the effectiveness of CAS Ops. When he is, he can comment.

There is some obvious support here for yet another service professional caught in a difficult position, but the situation is largely of his own making. You have never been at liberty to express the same individual freedoms as the rest of society when you are serving as an Officer in HM Forces, especially when you find yourself in some hell-hole, courtesy of political ineptitude and a lack of moral fibre by your leadership. If that's a problem for you, write the letter, and go.

[anotherchopride?!]

Flash8 - AGREED

Why is it that someone who speaks out against the disgraceful lack of resources currently afforded to our frontline gets attacked when, in fact, they should be commended.

I am sure that I am not alone in being frustrated by seeing the overstretch on the frontline. BUT, there is NO EXCUSE for it (the overstretch) - defend and praise units operating on the frontline as much as you want (and RIGHTLY SO), but they should NOT have to put up with the lack of resources made available due to treasury penny-pinching.... Nothing new here, I accept, but a point probably worth reiterating...

Nonetheless, people who suffer whilst working and living in an environment that sees the direct result of this lack of resources should have the right to draw this to the pubic's attention. If they don't, who will?

It saddens me that this is the state we are in, but, THIS IS THE STATE WE ARE IN....

More money, more personnel, more resources would be WELCOMED, but.......

[Samuel]

A small correction Jacko, but a Major, like a Squadron Leader and Lt Cmdr, is a senior officer!

[Semper Jump Jet]

The Harriers had a large number of gun pods built for the Aden 25 but it was never a success. When there was a tried and tested American gun available it's beyond comprehension why they even tried! As for the Harrier - do you really want to be at low level firing a cannon when they can quite happily return fire at you! Far better to have an element of safety and use rockets and bombs.

I agree. I must admit to being a little taken aback that the GR7 doesn't have gun! I was surprised at how often the GAU-12 has come in useful in my previous trips to the "land of not quite right". Good point that you're more exposed to enemy fire but a great piece of gear when you're working supression or worried about collateral damage. Anybody know if the GAU-12 will bolt on to the GR-7? We've got extra!

[The Otter's Pocket]

Generally as a Major he will have done JDSC or a similar course. HE isn't a numpty. It is unfortunate that people are polarised in its opinion of the Mjr.
In my opinion I am glad that he has the balls to speak out.

For too long people have been willing to take it up the aarse for the team. It is a shame that the media have dived on these e-mails.

However the plus side is that hopefully some senior officers and politicians will be shamed into acting.

For too long people would rather leave the service than stand up for what they believe in. We have equipment that isn't fit for purpose, too many tasks, poor supply chain, lack of funding...etc. Worst of all a procurement scheme that is utterly, utterly useless.

[London Mil]

As someone has previously hinted, the response on ARRSE is very balanced and mature. It would be interetsing to see, in the light of day, the context the comments were made under. Precisely, where is the RAF useless. It is only then that we can actually try and rectify any weaknesses.

As for the Leak - you don't deserve to wear a military uniform, of any colour.

[ORAC]

A little bit of PC censorship by the BBC I see......

Guardian: A female Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorus rockets that........

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5372768.stm): "... Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorus rockets......

[Cattivo]

Unfortunately, the more I work in the joint environment the less this type of comment surprises me. For me, its a typical (undeserved) swipe at the RAF from the Officer Corps of the British Army who seem to have an extremely low level of appreciation of any job outwith their own and over-inflated self-importance.

Having worked a great deal in this theatre alongside the other services I have a great deal of respect for what they are doing but why is it always the Army Officer who beats his fist on the table spouting an argument that shows a complete lack of understanding of the capabilities and modus operandi of op assets.

I know mud-slinging is not helpful but I'm just fed up of this type of comment.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

I am appalled that anyone could betray the confidence of another who is clearly under alot of stress. This is a clear example of the pen being mightier than the sword and a salutory lesson in be careful what you write to even your nearest and dearest. Par Example; I wrote a blogg to the family in my usual cynical manner only to have an aunt show it to a neighbour who was a retired very senior officer still working at Pma - who luckily had a sense of humour. I do not write to any one other than Mrs SLC now. I suggest said Major names and shames the distribution list of his original email until the culprit is found.

I guess his words were taken out of literal context and we (The RAF) have to accept that although we are working our nuts off to get what is needed in the the right place at the right time, we are reaping the years of underfunding, undermanning and poor precurement processes. The user units perception is reality (just ask any squaddy who has been through the appalling Deid Airhead for both HERRICK and TELIC). We have excellent people both on the ground and in the air BUT we do not have the numbers to maintain harmonisation guidelines and the numbers of aircraft to support troops in contact. The spares system just cant cope and we dont have suitable numbers of properly protected (DIRCM) AT to get it there anyway. Nothing new there then.:ugh:

In short we have been let down at the highest level and undoubtedly other families will suffer breavement because of ill though political directives and a CDS who is browbeaten at every turn by his political masters. I am proud to be British, but my idea of Britain is far removed from Tonys, I am proud to be in the military, but not the underfunded, taken for granted abused armed forces that I find myself in. Myself and Mrs SLC are walking in the next 18 months. I no longer believe that we are a properly funded and respected Force for Good.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

I doubt a Harrier boss would be awarded the DSO after 12 months and 103 missions there if the boys wern't doing a good job!:D (RAF News Sep 15)

Oldbeefer - alas your confidence is misplaced! I was in the RAF for many years and have seen a less flattering picture. I do not knock anyone who gets a gong but nor does it impress me one bit. Knowing what I now know, I would draw no conclusions whatsoever about what someone did or did not do in action from the fact they are sporting a posh medal. That is not to say anything about the individual himself - I do know who he is or what he has done and he may indeed be an extremely brave chap. What I do know is that you would unwise to draw too many conclusions from chests adorned with metalwork. To quote my old squadron boss from the Gulf War, "When this thing is over a whole pile of medals will be thrown up in the air, and when they fall down some will fall to the ground and some will land on people's chests". It transpired to be an extremely accurate view.

[Wayitup]

Again someone has the 'ball5' to speak up and highlight the under-funding, under-equipping and shambolic way the UK Armed Forces are, and have been treated for years, albeit via a 'mate'... End of the Cold War, Peace dividend, leaner meaner force, Senior Officers who have more political ambition than consideration for their men, CUTS, CUTS, CUTS, blah blah blah.....it's all bloody political nonsense. Those in positions of power, real power, generally speaking are so devoid of common sense and knowledge of front line operations they are 'military eunuchs'. Unfortunately we have Tony BLiar and his 'YES' men holding the purse strings and nothing will be done to improve the lot of our Armed Forces (except more 'Awareness training" maybe)......
Synical thought...Would B Liar and his cronies be singing the same tune if a certain E Bliar was out there in 'Hellmand' (sic)??
We send our troops in support of [American] troops into Iraq and Afghanistan to be killed, and Euan Blair gets special entry into Yale." SICK...VERY SICK

[NRDK]

RAF are not “utterly, utterly useless”
To prove it they will send ONE more Harrier to support the Battle against the Taliban & Al Qaeda.

WHAT PLANET ARE THE TOP BRASS AND POLITICALLY CORRECT ON

Obviously the rest of you didn’t send that letter to Des Browne asking for the RAF SAR to get those Helicopters & crews out there…?

What are all those other RAF Jets and Helo’s cruising about the UK country side doing whilst the soldiers abroad are engaged in mortal combat daily??

[Twopack]

What are all those other RAF Jets and Helo’s cruising about the UK country side doing whilst the soldiers abroad are engaged in mortal combat daily??


Yes and I saw some pongos walking down Aldershot high street the other day. Why aren't they out supporting their comrades in Afg?



Simpleton.

[LunchMonitor]

The RAF have been utterly utterly useless. In contrast USAF have been fantastic.


I know of a Canadian major who would disagree!
Having had 30+ men injured by a USAF A10, those nasty noisy harriers putting down munitions 200m away would be a luxury!

[solo73]

While I understand that there is a large amount of frustration with what has been said so far by both sides (Green and Lt Blue) I think we all need to focus on who is really at fault here:

SKY NEWS!! If one man wants to make a statement about what is his perception of HERRICK (i.e. a Coy AO) then I dont see a great problem with that. He should, however, get a trip in a GR4 or GR7 before he sounds off about A/C missing the tgt. He also needs a lesson or two about emails and the Freedom of Information act. I have ranted many a time in an email but made sure that someone else checks it; often altering it substantially to save embarrssment!

I have served for many years and have been involved in trying to co-ord FJ with NGS, Mors and Arty and never really appreciated how difficult it is for the A/C to ID the tgt when trying to avoid a. the ground and b. somebody trying to shoot it down. As with all things, mistakes do happen but there have been no recorded instances of Blue on Blue by the GR7 force, so we should be thankful.

Sky and all the other news bearing agencies need to be educated about the difficulties that all the services face when trying to sp Troops in Contact (TIC). The Service Chiefs need to mount a combined Info Ops strategy to ensure that the media understand the difficulties that Aircrew and TACPs undergo so that there is at least informed comment. Instead of some retired buffer giving his version of events (often years out of date) lets ensure that ours is the view thats heard and kill these type of stories off before they turn into this farce.

I am sure that the individual concerned has learnt a valuable lesson as a result of this and I sincerly hope he gets no more than a reminder about who has access to this type of info. He is under enormous pressure and everyone involved is feeling the pressure of a long period of intensive Ops.

Sky and the BBC should focus on the positives of HERRICK, not the negatives; everyone involved is working under tremendous pressures

[scanscanscan]

The recently published book.....Donkies, Lions and Dinasours..seemed to sum it all up....as the equipment is not fit for purpose.

[SASless]

Gongs in Combat Areas....flow from the top dear boy....and everyone has their hand out on the way down.

The lads in the thick of it get the least recognition because there is less rank present as you get closer to the fighting.

There are acts of great courage every day but very few get the honours they deserve. I always thought exemplry service was rewarded by promotion and gallantry was rewarded by the award of a medal. Perhaps I am wrong for every military seems to do it the other way around.

[NRDK]

Yes and I saw some pongos walking down Aldershot high street the other day. Why aren't they out supporting their comrades in Afg?


Probably been there already and/or waiting for some Crab aircraft to stop having a jolly abroad for duty free, so they can get out there and do the business. Although, without the air support their days could be numbered.:ugh:

[brickhistory]

I know of a Canadian major who would disagree!
Having had 30+ men injured by a USAF A10, those nasty noisy harriers putting down munitions 200m away would be a luxury!

Do you have the background to judge this? 200m be a world away for all the difference it makes to a gent who called for CAS?

Regarding the A-10 'blue on blue,' that absolutely is a tragedy. How many times has that situation NOT happened and the 'Hog delivered accurate CAS to troops in contact? But that's not fun to poke at is it?

[Two's in]

It did not take "balls" to speak out. As a serving officer he swore an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign and her Ministers. If he has a problem with those Ministers and their policy (as most of us do by the way) he resigns his commission and says anything he damn well likes (within the boundaries of the OSA). An oath of allegiance is not a "tick applicable section" choice. It demands unswerving loyalty and accountability. That's why as officers we are largely instruments of Government Defence policy. Anyone who does not grasp this basic concept is not fit to hold a commission, and again, comes back to a society that demands "rights", but has no clue about its "responsibilities". Read the small print on the scroll if you don't believe me.

[Lazer-Hound]

IMHO this thread is missing the point. There's far too much debate on whether this Major was right to put his views into emails and not nearly enough on why he should hold these views in the first place. The real question is, what are the RAF doing wrong to make him feel they are "utterly, utterly useless" and what are USAF doing right for him to feel they're "fantastic", and what should be changed to make him feel that the RAF are "fantastic" too.

This guy is on the ground, leading troops, in daily contact with the enemy. He's entitled to his opinions. The question is, how does the RAF change them?

[MaxReheat]

I've just read mine (no longer operational) and nowhere is there any mention of 'ministers' or politicians. The commission was granted to me by my Sovereign, not some amateur, flash-in-the-pan political desk jockey.

Wayitup - absolutely, spot on. Get Euan's backside in the frontline and let's see if BLiar would show as much bravado for his great project.

[Twopack]

Probably been there already and/or waiting for some Crab aircraft to stop having a jolly abroad for duty free, so they can get out there and do the business. Although, without the air support their days could be numbered.:ugh:


Try that fatuous argument with the families of the crew from 2 multi aircraft that we've lost recently while in support of the troops.



And then grow up.

[Flatus Veteranus]

The Harriers had a large number of gun pods built for the Aden 25 but it was never a success. When there was a tried and tested American gun available it's beyond comprehension why they even tried! As for the Harrier - do you really want to be at low level firing a cannon when they can quite happily return fire at you! Far better to have an element of safety and use rockets and bombs.

If your sentence "...As for the Harrier..." reflects current attitudes in the RAF CAS community, you can hardly blame the Army for preferring the A10s. IMHO the officer who approved the Harrier for the CAS role without a gun should be court-martialled, even if it involved recalling him from retirement.

Are cluster bombs still available, or have they been withdrawn at the behest of the bleeding hearts? If you believe Kippling, humanitarian concerns are scarce amongst the tribesmen/women in AFghanistan.

[Father Jack Hackett]

Probably been there already and/or waiting for some Crab aircraft to stop having a jolly abroad for duty free, so they can get out there and do the business. Although, without the air support their days could be numbered.:ugh:


Twopack is right, you are a simpleton. Ignoramus is another good one.

[Comp Charlie]

Probably been there already and/or waiting for some Crab aircraft to stop having a jolly abroad for duty free, so they can get out there and do the business. Although, without the air support their days could be numbered.:ugh:

First of all can I add my opinion that you are a total nob? Thanks.

Secondly, isn't it past your bedtime?

CC

[SAR Bloke]

Originally Posted by NRDK
Obviously the rest of you didn’t send that letter to Des Browne asking for the RAF SAR to get those Helicopters & crews out there…?

What are all those other RAF Jets and Helo’s cruising about the UK country side doing whilst the soldiers abroad are engaged in mortal combat daily??

Without wishing to side-track this thread or get drawn into an argument that has happened several times before, can I also add my opinion that you are an ignorant knob?:ugh:

[diginagain]

Ditto.

Pillock.

[Flatus Veteranus]

IMHO this thread is missing the point. There's far too much debate on whether this Major was right to put his views into emails and not nearly enough on why he should hold these views in the first place. The real question is, what are the RAF doing wrong to make him feel they are "utterly, utterly useless" and what are USAF doing right for him to feel they're "fantastic", and what should be changed to make him feel that the RAF are "fantastic" too.

This guy is on the ground, leading troops, in daily contact with the enemy. He's entitled to his opinions. The question is, how does the RAF change them?

I think you speak the truth, L-H. In fact a BBC reporter in Afghanistan said the Major's view of the RAF was widely expressed among army officers out there. I expect the lack of a gun may have something to do with it, and the gentleman who expressed the opinion in Post #37 on this thread that Harriers are better off without a gun (as it is safer to stay higher and lob in bombs and rockets) may have illustrated why the grunts prefer to call in A10s.

Can anyone say whether cluster bombs are still avilable? When I did AWC they were the weapon of choice in tight defensive situations. I suppose they have been withdrawn on humanitarian grounds - although, if you read Kippling, mercy is a scarce commodity amongst the tribesmen/women of Afghanistan.

Perhaps a joint commission of enquiry could sort out the facts from the bigotry and lance this boil before it festers. I must say the RAF's restraint so far has been exemplary (or are we to expect leaks of blistering light blue emails?)

[RileyDove]

Flatus - The Harrier GR.5 was designed for attacking Soviet tanks on the European plains. The gun whilst desirable for that role didn't really stop the game. The current situation in Afghanistan is very similar to events in Vietnam. Effectively lightly armed groups which can harrass our forces quite effectively and tie down large numbers of troops just to defend our positions.
Now by all means you can deploy weapons designed to destroy tanks but when the enemy is a matter of yards away it's not really sensible.
A gunpod could be added to the Harrier but you are still in the position of a pilot sat in a carbon fibre cockpit at low level - hardly desirable!
If we are going to engage in these ventures abroad it's really time we had a long and sensible look at what we operate.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

During my time in the RAF, there was an almost universal body of opinion which said, 'The Yanks are dorks and the Brits really know what they are doing'. I initially believed it, but as the years went by I felt more and more ill at ease about that view. I came to see that the big difference between the Britis and the Yanks is that the Brits often live in unreality about their mistakes and capabilities, whereas the Yanks are very open about them. Add into the melting pot a slightly superior attitude that can be found in British military circles when dealing with anything American, then you have a recipe for disaster.

In my own Service, we found Senior Officers who decided to remove cannons from both the new Harrier and the Eurofighter, despite the fact that nearly every American fast jet since the war has had them. What do the Americans know after all? Then who would have believed it - the Americans were right and we do need the capability to fire heavy calibre cannons onto targets in a war we never planned for. We now have the wrong aircraft with the wrong weaponry fighting in a war that no one ever believed would happen. Similarly, in the army, when all US infantrymen (in all their various guises) are issued with night vision devices, body armour, guns that work etc, the Brits who know so much more have not bothered to acquire enough of the right equipment and now find themselves stuffed. We are making all the same mistakes in Afghanistan the Russians did before us. A shortage of helicopters, food, weapons, ammunition, manpower and ideas is crippling us.

In short, there is a shameful arrogance about much of British military thinking that took me in for years. The Americans know nothing and can tell us nothing about weaponry and equipment and certainly know nothing about tactics. I suddenly woke up and saw just how good the Americans are - not perfect but very good nonetheless. I am under no illusion about American military failings as they make no attempt to hide when things go wrong. The facts are, however, that they are better briefed, better trained, better equipped and better supported than their British counterparts. I am British to the depths of my being but I am heartily sick of wooden-headed foolishness displayed by Senior Officers in all branches of the UK Armed Services when it comes to learning from the Americans. This foolishness and arrogance, which runs from top to bottom, has caused an ill-equipped and under-supported force to war in Afghanstan. This force may yet face a fourth great British disaster there if we are not very careful (get into your history books and read about the first three if you want a real fright).

I back our troops 100% and am willing them to stuff the Taleban. This is a war that we must fight and we simply must win. Talk of withdrawal here is only from people who have no grasp of the dangers posed by a resrugent Taleban to the world community. Let us have the humility to learn from the Americans who have much to teach us, and then let us get out there and win this war for future generations.

[HEDP]

So, the harrier has no gun! Are the CRV 7 warheads suitable for the task anyway? Feel free not to reply in public but if anyone would care to answer by PM, opsec permitting of course.

[Fox3Maddog]

Originally Posted by NRDK
"What are all those other RAF Jets and Helo’s cruising about the UK country side doing whilst the soldiers abroad are engaged in mortal combat daily??"

Can I add myself to the growing list of those who think that NRDK is not just a nob but a :mad: as well? In answer to his question, the rest of us are either training up the next lot to spend months away in Kandahar, or refreshing skills not used out there. Moron.:ugh:

[RileyDove]

Norman - the reality is that some American fighters have been gunless. Indeed during the Vietnam War some Phantoms missed out on kills because of the unreliability of their missiles and not having a cannon.
It's great to think that adding a gun to a Harrier would transform it but the truth is that it's extra weight and the Harrier is vunerable to ground fire.
Witness the losses in the Falklands War and low level in a hostile environment of is not where you want to be.

[Lazer-Hound]

Excellent post NSF. The British attitude basically boils down to post-imperial pen1s envy anyway and is quite pathetic when you think about it.

[brickhistory]

Norman - the reality is that some American fighters have been gunless. Indeed during the Vietnam War some Phantoms missed out on kills because of the unreliability of their missiles and not having a cannon.


EXACTLY! That's why we don't/won't build another without an internal gun. Missiles are great, but when it get's in close, whether air to air or air to ground, nothing beats a gun.

[FormerFlake]

NSF,

Their certainly is an arrogance amongst the British military, I have seen it first hand. Sadly this has lead to many deaths, and RAF aircraft flying in hot spots with little, or no DAS.

[Wayitup]

Nicely said my man....This farce causing the unnecessary deaths of British servicemen seemingly boils down to two things afflicting the 'top brass and our political masters' 1. Ostrich syndrome and 2. 'WW1 Okay chaps over the top mentality'.
Bloody glad I left.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[London Mil]

...and the American public actively support their military, baying for blood from their CinC when they see coffins draped with flags. Our public...........

[mutleyfour]

Lets be frank! The government have sold us all short by not supplying enough manpower or the necessary equipment to provide proper round the clock back up. We belong to an armed Forces that revolves around backing by the Americans whom without we really don't have much of a stick. How useful are those trident submarines for instance?

We are all guilty of moaning from time to time, goodness, the british Army thrives on it.

Whats gone on here is a moan that should be taken as a dig at the system rather than the Air Force, I for one would rather see an A10 coming over the horizon if I was in a platoon house than a Harrier with a stick of rockets.

However if travelling in a warrior during either Gulf War I would rather have seen an RAF Harrier than A10.

I don't blame anyone in the mob as we all of us get on as best we can with the kit given to us. I do dispair at the Government for giving us more and more work and less and less money to buy the right equipment.

[Two's in]

I don't think the British Military are guilty of arrogance as such, but they have developed a mentality of spending more time and effort figuring out how to overcome their own equipment and manning shortfalls, instead of doing the real job. If they want to bomb something, they have to consider how they achieve that using fewer assets that are not necessarily the right type of assets, exploiting the limitations of the logistics chain, and using the limited personnel in a manner where they all stay sharp and motivated. The Americans planning is X amount of Ordnance, this Grid Square, these platforms, that time, repeat as necessary, job done. Maybe over simplistic, but the Americans deal with the real operational issues, and are not distracted by figuring out how to make an underfunded and overstretched system work. Quantity has a quality all of its own. This is not only a failing of Government by the way, but a failure of Senior Military Leadership in accepting these treasury led initiatives that can be measured quite simply in extra body bags coming home.

[The Otter's Pocket]

Lets face it we have a society in the UK that is being pushed by the liberal tree hugging minority into being ashamed of or UK history and the part that the military has played in it.
There will never be adequate spending on equipment when the nation is more concerned in Ashley Cole holding out for £90,000 a week, when funding is being spent on stopping Irish Farmers and drug dealer from shooting each other, £100K is being spent on keeping Ian Huntley alive and prisoners get three hot meals a day.
We have a society that should hold its head in shame and a procurement system that is a disgusting waste of money.

Until the MoD hires some proper contract writers, they are going to continually get ripped off by companies and people are going to get rich at the expense of our lives.

Much of our equipment is poor and not upto the task, we are getting a bloody nose from $10 taliban with RPGs and a pair of sandles. To the public this is a world away, July 7th was not a wake-up call the government wanted, it has back-fired and people would rather be out of the middle east.

No wonder a Major in contact is disillusioned, the nation is as well (Those who have noticed that this war is going on), it is just a shame the media have picked up on "RAF Utte......".

I bet he is absolutely devistated by what is going on over this leaked e-mail.

[soddim]

I suspect that the only legitimate bitch from the army major is the effectiveness of CAS when he gets it. In that respect it is not surprising that he perceives a difference between the RAF and the USAF. You just have to look at the equipment procured for this role by the different schools of thought to understand how hard they found it to choose the right solution. The RAF chose a V/STOVL with high wing loading, bombs or rockets and slow rate of fire cannon (since abandoned), the USAF chose a straight wing jet with low wing loading, slow speed, titanium bathtub cockpit, bombs or rockets, high rate of fire gatling gun and most armies chose an attack helicopter. Those choices could hardly be more diverse.

I concur with Norman Stanley Fletcher that we do tend to treat US inventory items as ‘not invented here’. I know that when I returned from an exchange tour with first hand experience of our transatlantic cousins’ solutions to the Vietnam war and a whole arsenal of combat-validated tactics, the RAF just did not want to know. We didn’t even want to examine the lessons of the Falklands war – “It was a victory, you know. Let’s not dwell on the negatives”. Those who fail to learn the lessons from history are destined to make the same mistakes.

[Skunkerama]

NSF's post really hit home with me, your spot on. This belief that we are still a powerfull force to be reconned with is a bit long in the tooth. I was astounded by the fact that sending 1 extra Harrier to Afganistan was newsworthy but when you consider that that is a good portion of what we have it just makes you weep and also worry about the people at the sharp end.

The only point I didnt agree with was that our forces arent as well trained. I know that my training was absolutley top class and the regular excersises and courses were of a very high caliber. I would have thought this was the same in the RAF and the Navy and Army.

I think that this whole issue of undermanning and not enough equipment will come to a head soon. Unfortunatley I think it will only come to the idiots in the cabinet's attention when we end up with a major incident which will not be the fault of the troops on the ground.

I still believe that the men and women in the UK forces are the most professional and highly trained in the world, as usual it's the standard and amount of equipment that has always been joked about, it is no longer possible to raise a grin though. High time that Blair, his cabinett, and the morons at the top of the MOD got the chop...and a few of these surplass upper rankers.

[Maple 01]

As I understand it the thinking behind not sending Tonkas to Kandahar was that the runway and supporting infrastructure wasn't up to the job. Now working on the assumption that the REs still have airfield construction units the problem could be fixed relatively quickly if the political will was there to spend some money. Someone trying to get the job done on the cheap?

Anyway, throw a few £££ at the problem, Army gets shed-loads more CAS, Harrier mates get the odd day off, Tonka crews get the chance to use up some airframe hours and fewer guys come back in pine boxes – any obvious problems with this plan?

[movadinkampa747]

There will never be adequate spending on equipment when the nation is more concerned in Ashley Cole holding out for £90,000 a week,

Who on earth is Ashley Cole?

[Kluseau]

In my own Service, we found Senior Officers who decidde to remove cannons from both the new Harrier and the Eurofighter...

A pedant writes... actually, the Typhoon does have a cannon (it's necessary to keep the CofG in the right place). But no ammo will be procured for it...:ugh:

And as for US aircraft, the Phantom omitted a gun, only to have one retrofitted via a pod when the enormity of the gaffe was realised. Just like guns had to be fitted into the later Lightnings after the stupidity of omitting them from the initial design had become obvious.

But then we Brits learn from our mistakes. Don't we?:ugh:

[Clockwork Mouse]

The major is correct in saying that the RAF are utterly, utterly useless at providing CAS to the ground troops. They are, and he is in a better position than most to know. But it is NOT the fault of the airmen deployed there. They simply do not possess the right tools for the job. We do not have an effective CAS aircraft or munitions. And whose fault is that?

Don't just blame the politicians. They are short term, amateur opportunists whose overarching priority is to get the cheapest possible solution to any problem. It is the professional heads of the major national organisations, Police, Education, NHS, Armed Services etc whose duty it is to resist unreasonable pressure and have the guts to say NO, we cannot do that unless you provide us with this, that and the other.

What the hell have the CDS and Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces been doing for the last 2 or 3 decades to have let us come to this disgraceful state? The answer is that they have been ensuring they get their knighthoods instead of safeguarding the best interests of the services and personnel for whom they are responsible. It was an Air Marshall who decided the Typhoon could operate without a gun. Another decided that C130s could operate without DAS and fire suppressant. A General decided the troops could go to war without adequate body armour. CDS agreed to deploy a reinforced infantry battalion to pacify southern Afghanistan. The list of compromises and fudges is endless, all have or will cost lives, all are a disgrace and noone is being held accountable.

We too are to blame by letting the barstewards get away with it. I am not proud of our famous "wilco" reputation. It too costs lives. When will the professionals find the moral courage to say "no". Good for the major for drawing attention to the squeaking of the pips.

[Navaleye]

I'm with light blue. They have done and continue to do the best they can with scant resources granted to them. I feel for the army, but its not the RAFs fault they are under equipped and supplied. We need 20 or 30 Harriers to do the job properly. Just my 2p

[Lazer-Hound]

Excuse me for saying this, but if an infantry major, commanding troops on the ground, in constant contact with the enemy, says that the support he's getting from the RAF is not good enough, THEN IT'S NOT FRIKKIN' GOOD ENOUGH!!!!!:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

So let's forget our jingoistic delusions about how the RAF are the 'best in the world', which is clearly, obviously, patently and blatantly bollix and would only ever be believed by the most naif CCF cadet, and work out why USAF is 'fantastic', why the RAF is "uttterly, utterly uselfess", and how we can get the RAF to be more like USAF, from the point of view of their 'customers', OK?

[ORAC]

Quantity has a quality all of it's own.

[Wayitup]

Clockwork,
So one Maj describes RAF CAS as 'utterly useless' and we should take that as fact should we?
No but it should certainly be taken seriously and investigated...and bloody quickly. Who better to know if the CAS his troops rely on is crap....so what if he gets a few facts skewed. The point is he and his men are getting their arses shot to bits by a bunch of fanatical AK47 wielding tribesmen and our 'leaders' do sod all about it.
I trust your comment was meant 'bait' and not a true reflection of your cynicism?

[NoseGunner]

The obvious answer, of course, is to cut the army budget so that the RAF can afford to equip properly. Get rid of all those pointless MBTs I say. And we could take some from the navy as well because they arent doing CAS in Afghanistan.

You cant fight the RAF for budget leaving them stretched then do nothing but complain about the poor quality AT/Helos/CAS. Ironic really.

What do you reckon?

[Maple 01]

says that the support he's getting from the RAF is not good enough, THEN IT'S NOT FRIKKIN' GOOD ENOUGH!!!!!

And you got shot down on ARRSE expounding that view too!
If the infallible Major was unhappy about the CAS he is getting generally, fine,
however, he misidentifies who's providing it by talking about strafing and rocketing runs - neither of which deployed RAF Harriers have been doing. Perhaps not surprising in the heat of contact but it has enabled a knee-jerk reaction from those that have missed this small point of detail - it's all the RAFs fault when it wasn't even them? You might as well blame the navy at the same time, chances are the ‘useless CAS’ came from another quarter:ugh: :ugh:

....so what if he gets a few facts skewed.
errrr yes, 'hello, Ford customer services? I wish to complain about my Rav 4.....':ugh:

[mutleyfour]

Maybe if we (the UK) stopped propping up British Industry (albeit in name as the majority are actually owned abroad) and bought our tools from a proven company with assurance of proper and just back up with spares and ammunition we would not only save money but get the right tool for the right job.

Im fed up with the hearing the term "Fitted for" which means not fitted with!

IPT leads, financiars, MOD Whitehall, all need to stand up and say it like it is and not as the Government want to hear it!

[Wayitup]

errrr yes, 'hello, Ford customer services? I wish to complain about my Rav 4.....':ugh:
Maple old chap you seem to have misplaced the emphasis here....the point is that arses are getting shot off and our military are under funded, under equipped, managed by bloody 'yes minister' men and getting KILLED......CAS (who ever is providing it) is, in the opinion of this officer and that of many others, not good enough and something needs to be done. It's time to look past the 'slight' on the RAF. All, or most, on here know that the Military on the ground, and in the air is doing the best it can in the circumstances and with the equipment available to them.
Crass juvenile 'Ford/Toyota' comments not required :oh: :oh:

[whowhenwhy]

I was thinking of asking Jackonicko (who is being very quiet on this thread) why it was that the media weren't bothering to comment about all this. But of course Otter's Pocket is completely correct. When society is morally bankrupt and thick as the smog inside the M25, what chance do we have of a story being seriously covered by the popular media about our defence capabilities and why we're having problems. It's not worth their effort researching it because the editors won't include it-won't sell! David Beckham's imminent conversion to Satanism following the bloody sacrifice of Victoria however, that will sell.:E

[mutleyfour]

Agree with you WWW?

Furthermore, why do the press insist on reporting deaths in Afghanistan since 2001? Lets see the figures since the current deployment as that might shock a few people.

[Maple 01]

Crass juvenile 'Ford/Toyota' comments not required

Unhappy with that? Here's an easier analogy

You fly with Lufthansa, they lose your luggage, you complain in the Times about British Airway's inefficiencies, a third party defends the letter because the basic point (an airline has lost the luggage) is correct and complains that anyone who points out glaring factual errors in the first letter is failing to see the big picture!

Meanwhile the readership of the Times misses the 'big picture' bit, or that Lufthansa were at fault, but only remembers that BA are responsible for all the ills of the world

[Captain Kirk]

Let's not turn this into another 'which Service deserves the most funding at the expense of the others' thread!

From today's Telegraph:

'the Government has increased spending on quangos by more than £40 billion in just two years. That figure alone is more than the entire annual defence budget.'

Doubtless, the boys in Helmland will draw comfort that the 'British Potato Council' and 'Music and Dance Scheme Advisory Group' (you couldn't make this up!) are well funded.

[Wayitup]

Unhappy with that? Here's an easier analogy
You fly with Lufthansa, they lose your luggage, you complain in the Times about British Airway's inefficiencies, a third party defends the letter because the basic point (an airline has lost the luggage) is correct and complains that anyone who points out glaring factual errors in the first letter is failing to see the big picture!
Meanwhile the readership of the Times misses the 'big picture' bit, or that Lufthansa were at fault, but only remembers that BA are responsible for all the ills of the world
People are getting killed....a Major in there amongst the blood and bullets who has not slept or eaten 'properly' for weeks gets his a/c ident wrong, and you split hairs over who's CAS it is that is/is not effective. It matters not that this chap got the detail askew...what matters is he has (by a default leak of e mail) brought this apalling situation to the public fore, albeit for a minute amount of time. The RAF guys at the coalface know they are doing their best and are big enough, and man enough, not to villify a guy on the ground for getting his aircraft ident wrong. What matters is CAS and the whole military support structure for front line troops is poor because of pi55 poor senior leadership and a government who don't give a s4it.
So Mr Maple....:ugh: :ugh: I hope you never find yourself in the position these guys are in, calling for CAS and being asked 'certainly sir which service, just to be sure we get the 'FACTS' straight?'
I'm sure your reply will be 'any bloody service just get it here'!!
End of rant...any more pls PM

[ORAC]

Meanwhile the good old Observer gleefully picks up on the bickering, but not the problem, and stoke the fires. Airmen hit back at army after 'useless in Afghanistan' claim
(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1879861,00.html) :ouch:

[L1A2 discharged]

One of the base challenges is that the US develop weapons sytems and then make them 'safe enough' to work with, the UK develop safe systems and then make them offensively capable (mostly). Limited by a multitude of factors including the risks to non-combatants, cost, treasury limits etc.

There is no need fo gold plated systems, but there is a strong need for a sytem which meets the demands of the end users. In a 'quality loop' of: right stuff, right place, right time. I include a quote from Lord Trenchard:

The development of air power in its broadest sense, and including the development of all means of combating missiles that travel through the air, whether fired or dropped, is the first essential to our survival in war.

— Viscount Hugh M. Trenchard, 1946

I was seeking his speech where he stated: "without weapons there is no need for an Air Force", but can't locate it at present.

Whilst a big test base in wiltshire I had the pleasure of testing items which would now be most usefull in all operational theatres, unfortunately most stopped by budget constraints.

We must all remember that electronic comms are not secure and especially e-mail can be forwarded with only a couple of clicks. If you don't want it published, don't type it.

[mutleyfour]

There's no doubting that you Crabs are good at what you do, I just wish you had some better toys to play with!

[FormerFlake]

From today's Telegraph:

'the Government has increased spending on quangos by more than £40 billion in just two years. That figure alone is more than the entire annual defence budget.'


It takes two to quango:)

[whowhenwhy]

Yes I saw that. Unfortunately it was whilst eating a particularly crusty piece of bread over lunch which quickly got lodged in my throat after I'd bellowed my tirade at the paper. I don't know about swallowing bitter pills, but I do know something about especially jagged chucks of baguette. :suspect:

It's been a revelation actually this weekend getting the chance to read the papers and see how much the decent paper media are covering HM's finest at the moment. Between the story highlighted in a thread yesterday about the young deceased private's letter to his girlfriend, Afghanistan various, Iraq and young Beharry. That excerpt from his book alone was worth the cost of lugging the weight of the Torygraph back to the mansion.

[Comp Charlie]

There's no doubting that you Crabs are good at what you do, I just wish you had some better toys to play with!

Amen to that!

CC

[Wyler]

It's depressing, seriously depressing.

One more Harrier for Afghanistan and it is announced by the SoS.

Head of the Army (utterly, utterly unimpressive) gives a very poor interview on the BBC and admits he does not know the casualty numbers.

B list celeb gets rolled in a jet powered car and recieves 'hundreds' of floral arrangements and 'thousands' of cards and messages. Air Ambulance donations top £130,000 as a result (that is a good thing). Our servicemen and women who have been injured get shoved onto any old ward and are completely ignored by the media and the public.

We have just been told that all internal air travel now has to be signed off at Gp Capt level and overseas air travel by a 1 star.

Afghanistan is about 50 times bigger than Northern Ireland yet how many troops are in NI compared to Afghanistan?

I have heard many times the phrase that ' we need a different kind of leader in peacetime than we do in war time'. Boy, are we paying for that now.

We have seriously lost the plot.

[mutleyfour]

I agree wholeheartedly Wyler, the Lebanon saw round the clock coverage by every news team along with reams and reams of newspaper print. Alas it seems HM Forces are responsible for our own failings and therefore are not worthy of Air time etc.

Or is it that doing the governments work just isnt pc enough for the general public let alone the muslim communities! There was a debate a month or two ago about wearing uniform at airports...bugger that! In this climate your more likely to be spat on than clapped!

[Clockwork Mouse]

Maple 01 states that the Harriers deployed in Afghanistan to provide CAS to the ground troops have not been strafing or rocketing. If that is true, can someone please enlighten this ignorant pongo (me) as to how they are delivering the CAS? Flares?

[Lazer-Hound]

Can you 'strafe' with rockets? Could this be what the Major meant?

[Clockwork Mouse]

LH

I do not doubt it. So have the Harriers been using rockets?

[mutleyfour]

Personally I would have said that 30 odd rockets flying down the perimeter could class as a strafe!

[Maple 01]

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/harrier.html

Rocket pods close in? Rather you than me!

Still, I stand corrected, CRV-7 pods are available in theatre

the CRV-7 – with a 19-rocket pack capable of covering an area of around 200m (650ft)

Area attack weapon, not the kind of thing used in close. Unless anyone else knows different? Seem to remember talk of the 'beaten path' around this kind of weapon rather than 'one or two well aimed shots'

strafe (strf)
tr.v. strafed, straf•ing, strafes
To attack (ground troops, for example) with a machine gun or cannon from a low-flying aircraft.
n.
An attack of machine-gun or cannon fire from a low-flying aircraft.

[mutleyfour]

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/harrier.html
Rocket pods close in? Rather you than me!
Still, I stand corrected, CRV-7 pods are available in theatre
Area attack weapon, not the kind of thing used in close. Unless anyone else knows different? Seem to remember talk of the 'beaten path' around this kind of weapon rather than 'one or two well aimed shots'


Yes maple but to the man on the ground (Whom is under fire and thus usually taking cover) a flash of smoke from a harrier followed by 38 impacts could be seen as cannon fire!

[Archimedes]

The point about the CRV-7 rockets, I think, is more that they don't seem to fit the description in the e-mail, since the RAF doesn't have the WP heads that were a feature of Jamie Loden's comments. However, Black n' Yellar's post suggests that the USMC haven't used them either....

He may have meant strafe with rockets, but we can't be sure. And there's the problem. Until he's asked, we can't be sure, and he's probably not going to appear in print to clarify whether or not he misunderstood what 'strafe' means any time soon, I suspect. Who fired the rockets/strafed, though, seems to me to be rather pointless speculation.

It seems to me that there's a serious danger here, though, of this spiralling into 'it was the RAF'/ no it wasn't/ Was/Wasn't/etc/ad nauseum/please God make it stop' argument here. And the press will love that (as the Observer this morning shows).

I'd respectfully suggest that inter-service points scoring will risk obscuring the fact that the we debate, amongst other things, whether or not this incident means that we shouldn't start demanding why the government spends
£123 Billion on Quangos (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=RNXWF1RAXCRUPQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/09/24/nquango24.xml) (yes, that is BILLION) at a time when the armed forces are rather stretched, and whether or not it the money would be better spent elsewhere.

That might be more difficult for the press lurking here to make easy copy from than 'we hate the RAF/ Army doesn't understand air power' comments, or analysing Jamie Loden's comments based on an incomplete picture (and even the complete e-mails don't necessarily provide one).

Far more important, surely, that if the media are going to start basing stories on this thread they get not inter-service willy-waving, but reasoned debate about the wider issue of Afghanistan. At least that gives the media the chance to pick up the points and run with them, even if they choose not to.

Given that further exploration of the Treasury's treatment of defence issues might be embarrassing for Mr Strangely Broon, you'd have thought they might show more than a scintilla of interest in the subject for once - and that might , ultimately (optimist that I am) help those in near constant contact in Afghanistan get the kit and level of support that they deserve. [Sorry if that's turned into a slight rant]

[Lazer-Hound]

It seems both RAF and USMC Harriers are in Afghanistan now and the RAF ones are using rockets:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/09/mil-060922-afpn01.htm

It was rockets that the Major was initially complaining about:

[Referring to air support during a fight with the Taliban] Harrier couldn't identify and fired rockets that just missed Coy HQ compound. l Comd ... put in a snap ambush and slowed them up with a heavy rate of fire. ... no casualties, lots of ammo expended!

Does anyone know the date and area of this incident? We can probably find out who was in the air that day.

[Jackonicko]

LH,

Strafe means gunfire.

Harriers use CRV7 rockets - but not with WP warheads.

JN

[Lazer-Hound]

You really are quite desperate to pin this on USMC, aren't you Jacko? Has it occured to you that your interpretation of 'strafe' may differ from Major Loden's?

[Maple 01]

Far be it for me to defend a Jurno, even Jacko, who has at times been described as having gone 'native' :) ;) but where has he slagged off the USMC? I think the lady do protest too much........

You weren’t on the ATO that day were you?:) *

*Smilie in this situation is to indicate a joke

[Lazer-Hound]

Never said he slagged them off, but he's clearly trying to blame them for the incident in the Major's emails - see the USMC AV8B thread.

[brickhistory]

Jacko has always been upfront in his anti-US views and very pro-RAF (The two viewpoints do NOT have to be synonomous by the way). It is just anathema to him that a mistake (was it? Or did the CAS pilot(s) go in as close as they dared since everyone in theater is no doubt hyper-sensitive to another 'blue on blue'? Until that bit is known, perhaps the mud-slinging should be withheld?) could be a non-US one.

I don't know his professional work being on this side of the Atlantic, but he should know it shouldn't be difficult to track down the story. If it was US CAS, the PR types at CENTAF should be able to provide that info. Instead, his apparent efforts to prove it wasn't RAF Harriers involved seems to me, to miss the bigger picture.

To wit: SIX jets is the total CAS effort? And that commitment stretches the force? And sending a spare makes the news? YGBSM!

[Jackonicko]

No, I'm not. I'm just suggesting that the good major's opinion may (you understand the words may and might, Marc?) not be reliable.

He specifically moaned about a female RAF Harrier pilot's inaccuracy with 'strafe' and with WP rockets.

He seems to be claiming three things that would be impossible from an RAF Harrier at the time, but possible from a USMC AV-8B, a Dutch F-16, or who knows what else.

[Lazer-Hound]

Another, more detailed account:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2372134_1,00.html

The following occured 20th August:

“RAF Harriers overhead could not identify a target, but would have been too close anyway for bombs. Nonetheless, they fired a rocket that missed by about 700 metres. Thankfully by this stage two Apaches arrived.”

Here is the Centcom Air Power Summary of 21/8, detailing the previous day's missions:

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Air%20Component%20Data/Air%20Component%20Data%2021%20Aug%2006.mht

At no point does it mention USMC AV8Bs. It does, however, mention RAF GR7s in action in support of ground troops. In fact the daily air power summaries make no mention of USMC AV8B's AT ALL until about 10 days ago, presumably because they were not then in theatre.

Jackonicko - I am, of course, assuming that Maj. Loden can tell the difference between an A10 and a Harrier.

Maj Loden in today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2373727,00.html

[WeekendFlyer]

Chaps,

2 facts from someone who until recently held an RAF commision, still works with Harriers on a daily basis and knows a lot about them and their weapons:

- Maj Loden mis-identified the warhead type;

- The impact from a CRV-7 ripple firing can look similar to that from a strafe with HE bullets; have a look at Maple 01's 19:46 post.

AIUI the RAF does have at least one female Harrier Pilot.

My perspective on all of this is that Maj Loden was understandably frustrated, but everyone involved would have been doing their best in an upleasant and difficult situation, fighting a merciless, babaric and evil enemy. Mistakes happen sometimes in combat. Its just sad that his expression of frustration found its way in to the hands of the rabid, un-thinking, ill-informed idiots at Sky and the BBC. Words suitable for this forum cannot express what I think of their coverage of the British military in particular and all things military in general... :ugh: :mad:

As for the British military on the ground and in the air in AFG, IMHO they deserve nothing but our admiration and support :D :D

I for one am glad that due to their collective and brave efforts, and despite the abominable lack of support they get from our sad excuse of a government, there are several 100 less Taliban alive than there would be otherwise.

[Wiley]

I know it will never happen because politics simply won't allow it (and perhaps even moreso, the attitudes at the top within the British military expressed so well by Norman Stanley Fletcher in his excellent post at 1602 on 23 Sept way back on page 4). But wouldn’t the simplest and most sensible solution to this problem be the RAF’s leasing (maybe even lend leasing?) a squadron of A10s from the US?

I think there are still quite a few airframes languishing at Davis Montham, which could be taken out of mothballs poste haste if required. If the political will existed (and I accept that that ‘if’ is the biggest word in the English language), I would also expect that the newly acquired assets could be on station in Afghanistan within months if not weeks, initially crewed and serviced by USAF personnel while RAF air and ground crews were trained up on the relatively simple airframe.

I would not imagine the average RAF fast jet pilot would need an overly long conversion onto the A10, so RAF pilots could be on the scene within a very short time to learn the operational ropes in situ from their USAF counterparts. (I am aware that I’ve blithely glossed over a veritable minefield with that simplistic statement!)

Commonality of spares, the ability to latch into the US logistics and ammunition system… the list goes on on the advantages of such a course of action. However, I know it’s unlikely ever to happen - but I suspect that both the troops on the ground and the unfortunate Harrier pilots flying at low level with no or minimal armour protecting both themselves and vital parts of their aircraft would be very pleased if it did.

Students of history are aware of what happened to three previous British expeditions to Afghanistan that were sent in without the correct and/or enough equipment and support. Some would say a disaster on the scale of the 1842 retreat from Kabul would never be allowed to happen again. (For those not familiar with the story, see (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Retreat-From-Kabul.htm ). 16,000 British soldiers went in and one – that’s ONE – , the doctor, returned, and only because the Afghans allowed him to so the British Raj would learn in detail what had befallen its Army of the Indus.)

The sad fact is that today, it wouldn’t take a defeat on that scale to tip the political balance in the UK, just one outpost of a hundred or even fewer men overrun and its men either captured or killed would have the tabloid press and the Tony Benns of this world slavering for withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal – and the long term result of that would be disastrous on a scale so far beyond that of 1842 it doesn’t bear thinking about.

Maybe it’s about time some uniformed person at the top explained these facts to some of the un-uniformed, unINformed people at the top just how high the stakes really are and swallowed their political pride and got the right kit for the men at the proverbial coal face.

I know many will not agree with me, but I believe every man and woman in the RAF should be thanking Major Loden – and maybe even the person who leaked his emails – from the bottom of their hearts for making this a public issue - but only if someone at the top acts on it rather than fobs it off, as they seem to have done so far. From ‘The Times’ article in the post above:British military commanders will consider moves this week to stem the rush of damaging e-mails from frontline officers criticising the campaign.

[The Otter's Pocket]

Some good points there Wiley.
However I suspect that the Americans would be charging us for the next 60 years to pay back the A10s.

Although I have a sneaky suspicion that RileyDove et al would love to get their filthy mits on the A10, once they put their pint of Guinness down of course....:E

[nigegilb]

Tony Benns of this world slavering for withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal – and the long term result of that would be disastrous on a scale so far beyond that of 1842 it doesn’t bear thinking about.



Come on then, what would be disastrous about pulling out? Never thought I would quote John Kerry, but "how do you tell the last man to go and die for a mistake?"

The General in situ has said the next 5/6 months are critical. If we have not started reconstruction in 6 months time we might as well forget it. We will have killed too many local Afghans/Muj by then. I don't buy any of this c**p about the end of the World being nigh if we fail. If it was that important don't you think NATO could have found 2500 more troops and a few more helicopters?

As long as we allow Afg to be a flourishing narco state, I doubt we can win at all.

[Wayitup]

British military commanders will consider moves this week to stem the rush of damaging e-mails from frontline officers criticising the campaign.
Moves considered....Ban ALL troops/officers with any REAL knowledge of front line ops from complaining and/or communicating such knowledge in any way, shape or form to any other humanoid.....Problem solved chaps.....Heads back in sand!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[nigegilb]

If our soldiers don't get the word out about conditions on the front line then who will? The General who does not know his own casualty figures? A British Commander in the field has requested reinforcements. He has stated clearly that his men are being killed because they do not have enough support. What exactly has our Prime Minister done about it? Nothing, he fiddles and tries to ignore the mounting casualties.

We should not ask our troops to fight without the proper support and equipment. I respect the Major, he is risking his life every day. I respect the Harrier force, they too are risking their skins to support troops on the ground. However I believe we are suffering for having "peace time" military leaders for too many years and a Govt that has singularly failed to properly fund its armed forces. If the Major had thought about it a little longer, he might have vented his spleen at more deserving targets.

[MTOW]

Anyone at the pointy end of things, particularly the Harrier drivers, care to comment on Wiley's suggestion? Would the people in country prefer to fly the A10, which would seem to an admitted outsider, to be a lot more suitable for the Afghanistan theatre than the Harrier for what is essentially an anti personnel ground attack role.

I must admit though, that I can hear the UK greenies screaming blue bloody murder if any RAF A10 was equipped with depleted uranium rounds for its gatling gun. (I'm assuming they are only used against armour, which isn't too thick on the ground among the Taleban forces?)

[Skunkerama]

Wouldnt Puff the Magic Dragon be very welcome over there? If so then I'm sure that the BBMF Lanc could be modified to house 4-5 Gatlings firing out of the side. Might manage to carry a decent bombload as well.......although whether they could succesfully drop it within 100 meters of friendly's is another matter.

[John Blakeley]

Picking up Nigel's points at #131, I am spending a few days in the mighty military-industrial complex of Southern Virginia where, contrary to most of the UK, support for the US military could not be more obvious. Even CNN, no matter what else you may think of their reporting and editorial standards, starts the day by "honoring" a US service man or woman in one of the operational theatres of the world.

However, it is not blind support and one area where the US public have total visibility of the "cost" of the war is in the casualty figures - as shown in this link to the Dod website, is casualty figures:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Compare these clear figures with the spin and obfuscation on the MOD web site for Iraqi casualties:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishCasualties.htm

Or Afghanistan

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInAfghanistanBritishCasualties.htm

Did I miss it or are the UK VSI casualties still waiting for a personal visit and thanks from Mr Blair?

JB

[ORAC]

You won´t get your hands on any A-10s, they are the only USAF aircraft which is capable of operating in such conditions, they only have 365 of them, and they have to make them last to 2028. (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/08/30/Navigation/177/208722/Fairchild+A-10+Warthog+ground-attack+aircraft+to+get+new+wings+in+20-year+extended+life.html) I presume any spare airframes will be going into the upgrade programme.

[nigegilb]

Orac's right, they are cannibalising the frames lined up in the desert.

Anyone know how easy it would be to get hold of Herc gunships? I assume that is also a no go.

Maybe we should look at Russia for cheap but good helos and CAS aircraft. Let's face it they are probably designed for Afg in the first place!

[Skunkerama]

Yeah Hinds would probably do a damn good job seeing as they wouldnt have to dodge US supplied Stingers now. Or are the CIA still supporting the Taliban?

[MTOW]

If we're going to swallow political pride completely, why not approach another country who has a 'cheap and cheerful' ground attack aircraft we KNOW to be very effective?

It's called a Pucara.

[airsound]

Anyone remember, a few years ago, the Pentagon wanted to bin the Warthog? (Too slow, too ugly, too low-tech, etc etc)? If memory serves, they were going to replace it with a ground attack F-16 - much prettier, yonks faster, and frighteningly high tech. Whatever happened to that? Could it have been that the Hog was the right aircraft all along?

I’ve dug out a post from someone called Brimstone on an Aviation Now forum in 2001. Nothing much seems to have changed
Re: Close Air Support - What's the best aircraft & who should fly it?
IMHO The A-10 would be the aircraft of choice for a number of reasons. Its conventional wing design makes it extremely maneuverable, it can turn on a dime. It has incredible loiter capability so it can be on station for longer periods of time. The maneuverability, high lift, and low speed capability enable it to fly close to the ground under radar coverage. The cockpit is surrounded by a 'bathtub' of titanium armor to protect the pilot from up to 23-mm arms fire. The landing gear do not retract into a conventional wheel well, they retract forward into a recess in the wing with the wheels still slightly exposed. This design enables the landing gear to extend (and lock) if the hydraulic system is rendered inoperable, enabling the pilot to still land the aircraft. The left and right vertical stabilizers are symmetrical in design enabling them to be interchangeable with one another in the event that one needs to be replaced in the field due to battle damage. The A-10 was designed so it could be successfully flown back to base (and land) with one vertical stabilizer AND one engine completely blown off the aircraft. The engines were designed to be located on the outside of the fuselage just for this reason. The horizontal and vertical stabilizers were placed just aft of the engines in order to shield the hot exhaust from heat seeking missiles (side and bottom coverage). The metallic skin and structure facilitates conventional repairs in the field (versus the high maintenance that composites and stealth coatings required). The aircraft can also operate from primitive or unpaved areas close to the front line. It can carry a variety of air to ground weapons. Its primary weapon is a seven barrel 30-mm gatling gun which delivers uranium depleted armor piercing shells capable of destroying tanks.

As far as who should fly the Close Air Support Mission:
CAS missions should be flown by the same military branches that have troops on the ground, i.e. the Army and Marines. CAS is unlike conventional attack and strike missions in that it is requested (and directed) by the troops on the ground. For this reason the channels of command that one must go through to get close air support should be as minimal as possible. The quickest channel of communication would be within the same branch.

If the Marines can fly such complex aircraft such as the F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier, they should have no problem adjusting to the A-10. Likewise, Army pilots flying the AH-64 Apache should be able to make the transition.

It would be interesting to hear what the USAF A-10 team would have to say about improvements and upgrades for the aircraft. I know that the pilots have a high regard for the aircraft and love flying it. The USAF said A-10 squadrons have the highest esprit de corps of any aircraft squadron in the USAF (interesting!).

My experience of working with the Hog guys at Bentwaters (I told you I was old) entirely supports that last point. They were great fun, v professional, and imbued with that very unAmerican quality of being able to laugh at themselves.

airsound

[airborne_artist]

Skunk

I doubt you'd see AC-130 in AFG - too susceptible to hand-held SAM etc.

BBCi report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1602000.stm) and another (http://www.d-n-i.net/grossman/troops_in_fallujah.htm).

[Wiley]

So maybe in this era of Asymmetrical Warfare, it's time to crank up the A10 production line again - and maybe HMG could start the ball rolling by placing an order for 24+ spares.

[Jackonicko]

Brick,

I do not hold "anti-US views", I just have a realistic appreciation of US weaknesses as well as their strengths, and I recognise that the USA does not always act in our best interests, while I'll admit that I do hold Bush and his administration in contempt. Criticising US policy in the Middle East, or unprofessional blue-on-blues, or the failures on JSF ITAR is not 'anti American', nor should you try to characterise it as such.

I am, however, fairly pro-RAF, since it was good enough to teach me to fly.

Nor is it AN anathema to me to consider that RAF pilots could have made a mistake (nor even that they might f*ck up in spades), I'm just not a Bri-hater who's eager to latch onto uninformed speculation in order to kick the RAF, and I am eager to consider all possible explanations - especially when the Major's story displayed obvious inconsistencies.

[Radar Muppet]

AA

Uh huh. So all those AC-130s I saw lined up on an island airstrip in Oman at the end of 2001 were for a goodwill visit?

[cazatou]

Jackonicko,

I CONCUR

[SASless]

Wiley,

24 plus spares.....so you could deploy three of them?

Why not think realistically....124 of them and deploy them in blocks of 24 called Squadrons....you would have four operational squadrons and one for training and airshows. Hang on....you are right....it should be one deployable squadron and four for training and "ceremonial" duty.

[Wiley]

Way back in 1972-3 in that other place, the accuracy of AC130's 105mm gun was the stuff of legend - the FAC could literally nominate which window in a building he wanted the shell in, and they could oblige. I think it would be a safe bet to say targeting has come a long way since then.

As for loiter time AND weapons load... you'd have to go a long way to beat a Herc. And the RAF already operates them.

[Jackonicko]

What a shame they didn't press ahead with SABA (P1233).

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/WtMiller/3.jpg

Or the Rutan ARES

http://www.scaled.com/images/project-images/ares.jpg

[Wader2]

To answer Flatus Veteranus, we do not have the BL755 anymore as it was assessed as too dangerous to life and limb. :(

Someone else seemed to suggest that an aircraft was less vulnerable in a CRV7 profile than a guns attack. The profiles are near the same. The only difference is the rocket gets there slightly quicker.

[brickhistory]

Brick,
I do not hold "anti-US views", I just have a realistic appreciation of US weaknesses as well as their strengths....

.......I am eager to consider all possible explanations - especially when the Major's story displayed obvious inconsistencies.

jacko,

We disagree. From your record of posts, you display, on this forum anyway, what seems to me to be a marked distain for military things American. Mistakes/gaffes/goofs/buffoonery are all fair game and I have no issue with you on that.

Good on you also for generally defending the RAF, however, you usually are quick to mock US military mistakes and those who might either defend or at least mitigate said mistake. If the possibility exists for an RAF mistake, you don't seem to hold to the same standards. (And I am not joining in on this current tempest, I don't have enough info to form an opinion other than it would be great thing if the RAF had more assets.). "Latching on to uninformed speculation" seems to me exactly what you are doing in looking to pin the tail on anyone but the RAF CAS. Seeking info on USMC female pilots, the Dutch, etc does seem to be a little extreme, but then I'm not a journalist.

Good on ya for catching/correcting/educating on my mis-use of 'anathema.

[Jackonicko]

Occasional disdain, for sure.

But you won't find me criticising the C-17, or the Super Hornet, and you'll find an overall positive impression if you ask about the F-117, B-2, B-52, or B-1B, and even the V-22.

The problem is that anything short of unqualified admiration of all things American seems to count as 'anti-US', and my admiration for US aircraft, programmes, capabilities and personnel is qualified.

We agree that the paucity of RAF assets in Afghanistan is pathetic, but I do not take the word of a para major as being evidence that the RAF is 'utterly, utterly useless' in 'stan.

[nigegilb]

I was fortunate enough to fly in to Afg senior blades who took the time to chat on the flight deck. They had seen the destructive accuracy of the C130 gunship. There is no doubt in my mind that the Spectre was the one they wanted. Loiter time, ammunition load and firepower married with superb accuracy + ability to operate from a safe country. Modern DAS's are very good. However, many people have said that we would never buy a Herc gunship because it is only good for one thing and would never be used for anything else. Have to say when I hear this argument I scratch my head. When was the last time an RAF fighter jock shot anything down? Beats me. Using this argument shall we cancel Typhoon tomorrow?

[brickhistory]

AC-130 H's and U's are way good CAS platforms, however, they are so specialized and thus expensive to own/operate that your money would probably be better spent on more conventional CAS platforms. Add in their vulnerability to SAMs (lost one in GW1 to a SA-7), and it really becomes something to think about before buying them.

That said, they are freakin' awesome!


Loved the BBMF Lanc outfitted with side guns idea listed above! :ok:

[West Coast]

"If the Marines can fly such complex aircraft such as the F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier, they should have no problem adjusting to the A-10"

Not in keeping with the expeditionary role the Marine Corps fancies. When you can operate an A10 off the boat the Marines might be interested.

[nigegilb]

Jacko nic
I suggest you read the following post from a Harrier pilot. I also suggest you drop your rather pathetic quest to find a female American pilot to blame. You do your profession no favours.

"I've just spent a while reading this excellent thread, which has some very well thought out posts on it.

As a Harrier mate who has done more than one tour out there & who will be back out there again soon, I thought I'd offer my thoughts.

Firstly, nobody in the Harrier community has taken the Major's comments to heart. The Paras are up against it big time out there & the stress levels must be enormous to everyone on the ground & he can have all the slack he wants!

I suspect that he may be frustrated by our ROE. The no.1 rule is very simple and strictly adhered to: If we can't positively ID the location of friendlies AND the enemy, we do not drop any weapons.

This may seem a little anal and perhaps slows down our response time however, I'd rather delay dropping than kill any Brits. If the guys on the ground have a decent FAC, he will get a clear brief up to us & get our SA up to speed.

Another rule we always stick to is something nobody needs to be told to do: We will never leave the fight until the fuel situation dictates that we must RTB. It's hellish down there and we are always desperate to help out.

From the cockpit persective, please understand that it's a bloody busy place to be during CAS & the workload is very high. It's not always easy to spot the target and like I said earlier, that is essential if we are to be of any use to the guys on the ground.

PartTimePongo,

you mentioned the Jaguar. It's a superb platform however, it simply cannot operate hot & high with any sort of payload that will be of any use so, unfortunately, it won't be playing any part.

Any Paras out there... you doing a bloody amazing job in the sh*ttiest situation I have ever seen. The Royal Marines are going to have very big boots to fill."

[Flt Lt Spry]

Air-to-ground gunnery? Why not use the mighty F3?

I'm sure those guys would appreciate some Op experience?!

[pprnreader]

I hear many of the Royal Marines about to deploy have had the foresight to go to the shops and buy some anti-Taliban axes.

[ORAC]

Defence Industry Daily: The Major's Email: British Harrier Support in Afghanistan, Revisited (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/09/the-majors-email-british-harrier-support-in-afghanistan-revisited/index.php)

[The Helpful Stacker]

Couldn't the Hawk T1A be used in a pace like Afghanistan effectively? It has a gun, it can carry a small amount of stores under the wings, its relatively cheap to operate and we have a fair few of them.:confused:

[Gainesy]

we do not have the BL755 anymore as it was assessed as too dangerous to life and limb

Napalm then. Great for spread out/dug in peeps and no residue to injure after the war.

(One can hear the sharp intake of breath from the huggyfluffs).

[Pontius Navigator]

Gainsy,

Have a look at this site, I may have mentioned the principle last year:

http://www.bristol.ca/Warheads.html

Like a shotgun cartridge, spent shot. Also no lead poisioning. Unfortunately that still worries the Green lobby. See http://www.miltoxproj.org/CM%20Fact%20Sheet.htm. With this site claiming that tungsten/nylon is carcinogenic: http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/2005/msg00165.html

Then our favourite arms manufacturer is in on the act:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/17092006/323/environmentally-friendly-fire-bae-promoting-green-munitions.html

I know, lets use Indian Clubs with a wrist safety strap.

[lampeterexile]

Napalm then. Great for spread out/dug in peeps and no residue to injure after the war.
(One can hear the sharp intake of breath from the huggyfluffs).

:D :D :D

Could keep the huggies happy by dropping off some fire estinguishers for the poor oppressed Taleban.:)

[ORAC]

80 flechettes? Naahh, give em a few CBU-107s (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/cbu-107.htm).... :E

"The weapon holds 350 14-in. rods, 1,000 7-in. rods, and 2,400 2-in. rods"....

[Flt Lt Spry]

Yeeeeeee har!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAePIjvNPdI

That guy shat his pants, and he's on our side. Imagine what it does to the Taleban.

[Jackonicko]

Nigegilb,

Learn to read.

I have no 'quest' to find a US pilot to 'blame', I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the Major's account that are just one of many reasons why it's unreliable and why it's possibly unfair to label the RAF as being 'useless'.

[nigegilb]

I take it that you are no longer trying to find out if the USMC have a female pilot operating in Afg then? As far as I understand USMC were not in Afg on the dates mentioned. I doubt you have been to war, to question the Major's account because he could not tell the difference between strafe and rocket on the ground, from the comfort of your home is truly pathetic. The Harrier pilot explained the difficulty of Brit ROE, and the difficulty of flying the jet in very high workload situations. For me they are all bloody brave, doing an unbelievable job, in terrible conditions. I suggest you find some soldiers who have served in Afg, maybe that will help with your empathy. They have seen their colleagues blown to pieces, they have cut out dead colleagues from thin skinned Land Rovers, some have suffered malnutrition, V&D, sleep deprivation, nightmares. Where do you want me to stop?

He is the boss, if he wants to sound off at the RAF, well, I think he should be allowed to. Don't you?

[Lazer-Hound]

Well said nigegilb!:D :D :D

Jacko just can't stand to have his jingoistic and anti-american delusions shattered, and will do ANYTHING to prevent these, even impugning the reputation of Major Loden, a man who's boots Jacko is not fit to lick.

[Jackonicko]

Excellent emotive stuff, Nige.

While my desk may be more comfortable and a whole lot safer than the cockpit of your C-130 and while I do not dispute for one moment your greater understanding and experience of the psychology of fear and stress in action, I doubt that either of us have seen the inside of an infantryman's foxhole at close quarters, and to varying degrees must rely on what those of our friends who have been in action, in close combat, on the ground, tell us. And since I do have close friends and relatives who have been in action I don't need supercilious lectures from you to enable me to empathise with those doing the messy stuff out there, thanks.

While I admire your unquestioning support for your fellow serving officer, I'd say that his posession of a Queen's Commission does not make him infallible, as his e-mail has shown.

He's made some serious and extremely damaging accusations, and as a result of press coverage arising, the man in the street (believing, just as you seem to, that as a serving Para he must know what he's talking about) now 'knows' that the RAF in Afghanistan is "utterly, utterly useless." I don't regard that as being helpful or useful.

Moreover, that core accusation doesn't ring true, to me, since (joking about egos aside) I've always found the Harrier force to be an exceptionally high calibre bunch of blokes, with exceptional professional competence, even within the RAF (which I view as being a thoroughly professional organisation, albeit one that is sometimes hindered by lack of resources).

And again, I'm not looking for anyone to blame. I've simply read and re-read his muddled account, with its garbled references to RAF Harriers strafing and using WP, and haven't uncritically accepted it as 'gospel from the foxhole'. Instead I am looking at all alternative explanations and interpretations. It's clear that an RAF Harrier COULD NOT have strafed him, though it could have rocketed his position, or close to his position, though perhaps not with WP. He did seem to draw a distinction between strafe and rocketry however. You cannot simply accept what he said, and have to come up with an explanation/interpretation. Yours is that an RAF Harrier fired rockets, and that he is calling this strafe, and that an RAF Harrier did fire WP rockets.

But there are other explanations - that the aircraft he described didn't come anywhere close to hitting his position, or that the aircraft was not a Harrier at all, or wasn't an RAF Harrier.

In the aftermath of (say) a Hercules loss, you'd be enjoining people not to prejudge what had happened, and to keep an open mind, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do here.

And no, the Major is not "the boss", he's a serving officer who isn't free to shoot off his mouth however he sees fit, and who should follow proper procedure. As an experienced Para major, I'd expect him to demonstrate at least the degree of common sense, judgement and caution you'd expect from the rawest graduate from Sandhurst. Nor does the tough time he's having in Afghanistan entitle him to "sound off at the RAF," especially when he's making misleading and damaging accusations. And it's quite possible to judge him to be an unreliable witness, and to condemn his poor judgement in sending the e-mail, while simultaneously sympathising with the difficult, dirty, and dangerous job he's doing, and we can do so regardless of how incapable and inadequate we might be if we had to stand in his boots for five minutes.

[London Mil]

Jacko, cut the Major some slack. The person who needs to have his/her 'common sense' examined is the idiot who relaesed the e-mail to the press.

[ORAC]

When you´re in a hole, stop digging.

Someone in the field let off some pressure by going over the top in a private email, it happens. There was no Blue-on-Blue, nobody died, there is no need for an investigation by anyone, especially the press.

This was a 10 minute piece on a slow day blown out of all proportion. The press and public aren´t interested any more. No rebuttal needed, and it would just be seen as sour grapes anyway.

Just let it die, and buy the Major a drink if you ever see him.

[Tombstone]

Jacko,

If you fancy a seat on the next C17 out to Candybar then I'm sure it could be arranged! The situation is desperate out there & the guys on the ground must be at the end of their teathers.

Cut thems some slack matey, the people he aimed the comments seem to be so, why can't you?

London Mil,

spot on mate. Those emails are probably the Major's only release valve in a situation that demands he is always focussed for his men. He is trying to keep them alive, that's all.

[Maple 01]

So Jacko's getting a slagging for trying to check facts? Isn't that what we keep windging that journos don't do?

There are few enough RAF Harrier mates out there to confirm if there are any lady ones at Kandahar, if not the major picked on the wrong target.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I was thinking of asking Jackonicko (who is being very quiet on this thread) why it was that the media weren't bothering to comment about all this.

Interesting: when he's quiet, his thoughts are sought. When he gives them, he gets savaged. I'm amazed that this thread has clattered on so long after the Press/Media have lost interest. It does, perhaps, show that Ppruners are not your typical "attention span of a goldfish" Public.

[West Coast]

"And since I do have close friends and relatives who have been in action"

All of what you know, based on second hand accounts. You're out of your league on this jacko. Better to withdraw and fight another day on issues that you have an area of expertise. There's a price of admission on some threads, at least some degree of been there, done that.

[Chalkstripe]

From the article in the Times previously posted:
"General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of General Staff, and senior defence officials spent the weekend trying to counter more leaked messages describing chaos in Helmand province and talking of shortfalls in manpower and weaponry.
So far no disciplinary action has been taken, but General Dannatt called Major Loden’s criticism of the RAF irresponsible. He has ordered commanders to stop such remarks, as well as allegations that Downing Street is running the campaign rather than the military. Officials have been told to see if the e-mails breach the Army’s code of behaviour. "
It seems such a shame, yet sadly predictable, that when the deficiencies in manpower and weaponry are being publicly aired by those at the coalface, the hierachy's first response is to stop the leaks, its second is to look for people to disipline.
HOW ABOUT TRYING TO SORT OUT THE SITUATION AND TO GET THE BOYS AND GIRLS THE KIT THAT THEY NEED TO SURVIVE AND THEN TO WIN:ugh:
Surely it can't be that difficult, or am I missing something obvious?:confused:

[Skunkerama]

Perhaps the headlines would have been more accurate and helpfull if they had read. The governments support for the troops is utterly, utterly useless.

The RAF may only be able to provide a weak and reasonably inaffective CAS in Afg but there is a reason for this and it can be found in the offices of No 11, No 10 and the MOD.

Unfortunatly Jonny Sun Reader now thinks that the RAF is useless. Looks like Tefal Tony will escape the backlash for the wars that he has managed to involve us in, and also the dreadfull state that he and his cabinett has left our forces in.

[PompeySailor]

Perhaps the headlines would have been more accurate and helpfull if they had read. The governments support for the troops is utterly, utterly useless.

The RAF may only be able to provide a weak and reasonably inaffective CAS in Afg but there is a reason for this and it can be found in the offices of No 11, No 10 and the MOD.

Unfortunatly Jonny Sun Reader now thinks that the RAF is useless. Looks like Tefal Tony will escape the backlash for the wars that he has managed to involve us in, and also the dreadfull state that he and his cabinett has left our forces in.

Johnny Sun Reader is now campaigning for all "devil dogs" to be terminated with extreme prejudice, whilst failing to see the irony of the situation as they walk their own "devil dogs" around sink estates of the UK.

Tefal Tony should be welcomed with open safety catches when he does his farewell tour of the UK, which will no doubt include military photo opportunities.

Everything is still changing, we had the brief on "Realignment" this morning, another word for "job shaving" and "cost saving". I have spotted a small yacht out of my window, I suggest boarding it and renaming it "HMS This Is Now All We Have Left".....

[ORAC]

Hmm, the future of CAS/BAI/COIN.
(Sorry, am I still allowed to say BAI or mention COIN at all? :\ )

Overhead the battlefield in daylight stealth is useless (Goodbye RAH-66 Comanche..). What you ideally need is two engines for survivability, two sets of eyeballs for SA and to work the radios, a good endurance to hold on the cab rank and a heavy and and comprehensive payload.

What will we be replacing the Harrier with? The F-35B. Stealthy, single engine, single pilot, limited load and no external tanks.

Great for first day of the war or sitting at 20K+ at night dropping 2 PGMs. But for the sort of support the guys on the ground will need in the present type of warfare?

People knock the Typhoon as being designed for the last war, but we are contractually tied into that. Isn´t the F-35B also designed for the last war? And we haven´t signed the contract for all of those yet.

What´s the unit cost of a SU-25MK Scorpion or a SU-39 Sniper?.....

[Chimbu chuckles]

Why is it that the Defence Industry and the big bosses in the various services are always looking at more and more high tech solutions and yet the wars we end up fighting mostly don't need it?

The UK MOD are spending squillions on Typhoon, Nuc subs with ICBM and on etc when they have yet to actually fight an enemy that is significantly more technologically advanced than the Viet Cong/NVA.

An Army Officer is under DAILY ATTACK from a bunch of sandle wearing tribesmen with AK47/RPG and sod all else and all that is provided in the way of CAS is a lightweight jet with rocket pods.

I wonder what that Major would give for 3 squadrons of radial engined Skyraiders with their 8 .50 cal machine guns and the sundry tonnes of other CAS ordinance they were famous for carrying and delivering with spine chilling accuracy.

I am half joking of course...although a Skyraider would be better than a Harrier in this case...I bet the Major and his peers would actually be overjoyed.

You're fighting a desert version of the Viet Cong with cold war weapons...any wonder you are taking a kicking.

The US can be slated for much but they seem to always have the more or less right tool for the job and even when the tool aint quite perfect they make up for it by having lots of tools.

The UK/EU (Australia is no different) seem to always be planning and equiping for war against an incredible high tech foe when there just aint any high tech foes around. The high tech, pointy, stealthy things might be a shedload of fun but they rarely get used for their design purpose but more often are pressed into the breach because nothing better is available.

If I was the head occifer in charge of talking to Blair about such things I would be telling him to get on the phone to his mate and order up 5 squadrons of A10 or we pull out of Afghansitan and he can fight the Taleban himself.

The Major's primarly responsibility is to his men and mission...not to worry about the sensibilities of his senior officers or political leaders...and even less of the protocol of communications. His men are dying and he is involved in a pace of actual battle not seen since WW2.

I find it somewhat distastful to read page after page slating this chap when his leaders and their political masters need flogging.

[Pontius Navigator]

Yeeeeeee har!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAePIjvNPdI
That guy shat his pants, and he's on our side. Imagine what it does to the Taleban.

Interesting.

That clip was on Pprune before and got pulled. Just shows that once the genie is out of the bottle there is no way of putting the cork back.

[tucumseh]

The assumption in all this is that CAS is the only solution. In very simple terms (as I don’t profess to be knowledgeable on the subject), would it not be equally desirable for the soldier on the ground to have his capability enhanced? I believe the Army call this Rapid Area Effects. The rapid bit is being able to engage within a shorter time, perhaps through enhanced STA, and the area (to be targeted) can be bigger and further away than it is at the moment. The effect is brought about by, for example, better bursting munitions combined with a fire control system. I’d guess such an enhanced capability would hasten operational success while improving survivability.

Perhaps a capability gap has been allowed to develop – CAS diluted but enhanced RAE delayed? We’ve seen it happen before. Perhaps the good Major has witnessed such a system and is frustrated at not having it?

[Pontius Navigator]

Pure supposition about RAE, but, in this situation, no matter how good it is, in a small area you will use up what you have and need more. The only way you will get more is through resupply and most likely by air.

CAS cuts out the middle man.

That is not to say that more effective weapons would not be useful, and again, not suggesting that what they have is not useful but as stated earlier:

quality counts every time but is best in large numbers

[Wyler]

I am currently reading 'My Trade' by Andrew Marr (Sp?). It details the rise of journalism from Victorian days to the present. I have just finished the chapter on 'What is News'. Interesting stuff as he states quite clearly

'People often confuse the News with fact. Hard News is defined as that which will get an instantaneous reaction and may even change our way of life. The death of Diana and the Twin Towers are prime examples of Hard News. Then there is Soft News, stuff you fill the pages with because you have to. The repeated claims of WMD in Iraq by variour politicians over a period of months is an example of Soft News. However, what people fail to comprehend is that the story is far more important than the detail or, indeed, the actual fact. The headline you choose has to compete with everything else on that Supermarket shelf. Therefore the objective is to capture the passer by and then reward them with a story that justifies that expense. If you stuck to plain facts and reported all things accurately, you would not sell any papers'.

You may not agree, you may even hate him but he does highlight the fact that Newspapers are actually only a business whose aim is to make money.

In the case of this Major, he has vented his spleen in an e-mail. It has been leaked and the press have jumped on it, embellished it and made it into a very big issue. It sells papers. As has been said, the story now is about killer dogs and will stay that way until something else crops up that can be 'spun' into an eye catching headline.

In fairness to the BBC, they interviewed the head of the Army and quickly moved on from the Majors e-mail to the broader issues of Casualty figures, lack of resources, overstretch etc etc. It was the General, not the interviewer, who failed to get the right message across.

And the Generals talk of possible disciplinary action against the Major further shows his unsuitability to hold his present office. IMHO of course.

[Skunkerama]

A-37 Dragonfly?

2 Engines, 2 sets of eyeballs, Max. of 3,000 lbs. including one GAU-2/A 7.62mm Gattling gun and additional gun pods, high-explosive bombs, fire bombs, rockets and/or missiles.

Can't be too expensive either, are there any left?

Or maybe use it as a base for a new, low tech, cheap version with better payload and power for today guerrila skirmishes?

Give it rough field capability and a bigger payload with some armour and it would be a nice poor mans A-10.

[ORAC]

Great if you have 20 years to design and build in todays timescales. The advantage of the SU-25/39 is that it was designed exactly to fight the threat in Afghanistan and has had 30 years of experience put into upgrading it. And there is a carrier version, the SU-25UPB..... :E

[BigBusDriver]

Hello chaps-

I'm nought but a lowly civilian pilot whose only military experience is having an RAF careers officer explain that there was no way for me to fly one of Her Majesty's pointy things with my atrocious vision back in 1992. However, as a proud British expat and avid student of recent military history I read this forum frequently.

When I'm not out slogging from point A to point B, one of my hobbies is "What-If?" scale aircraft modelling. While this may come across as a bit of an infantile hobby (not least to my wife!), I'll post a model I built earlier this year just to see the response:

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d87/AeroplaneDriver/Guardian011.jpg


This is a Fokker F27, which in my little world is armed with a GAU-12, 2x25mm Bushmaster, and Bofors 40mm guns.

Now, while I realise that the F27 is getting a bit long in the tooth, my question is this: Is there a non-budgetary reason why a modern turboprop airliner such as the Fokker 50, Bombardier Q400, or ATR72 could not be converted to a small gunship that would be cheaper to procure and operate than an AC-130, yet capable or providing similar support in the kind of battles seen in Afghanistan?

All have decent speed and could probably loiter for a decent time. The Q400 also has reasonable short-field performance. As previously admitted, I have no military experience, and if this is just a childish pipe dream, feel free to tell me so.

Thanks for listening to a civilian who has the greatest admiration for the work HM Forces are trying to do over there!

[L1A2 discharged]

Nice idea. How about a skyvan with 4 x GAU19A pintle mounted. Lots of carrying for ammo, relatively inexpensive. Outrange AK47 etc etc. :oh:

[Tourist]

Just thought I'd bring this back to the top, because I enjoy reading the title so much!
Brings a smile to my face.:ok:

[airborne_artist]

The AC-130 is not being used in Iraq and AFG because of hand-held SAM, not because it is expensive to run/procure. Cheaper aircraft with a similar capability operating in a similar envelope will still be brought down.

[L J R]

Or an unmanned aircraft capable of firing Helfires, or GBU-12s, or Small Smart Bombs, or even JDAMs or EPWs. Lets make it capable of loitering for a day and make it stealthy and give it an engine that allows it to operate up to 50000'.

[Pontius Navigator]

Nice articles in the Sunday Torygraph today. GR7s mentioned including bombs dropped, sortie rates and alert status. Aircraft in AFG are 7 x GR7, Chinook, C130, Lynx and Apache.


Nice picture os a helicopter, not one of those above, in the background.:}

Don't you just love joined up editing. Good articles however.

[airsound]

The article Pont Nav refers to is at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/01/wafg101.xml

I have just fired off a brisk letter to the STel ed, text below:
Sir
In an otherwise fairly balanced article on air operations in Afghanistan, Tim Ripley and Gethin Chamberlain perpetuate a myth (RAF bombing campaign is fiercest since Iraq invasion, 1 October). They quote, without contradiction, Major Loden’s statement that "a female Harrier pilot ..... strafed our perimeter, missing the enemy by 200 yards". This cannot be true, since the Harrier GR-7 carries no gun, either internally or in an external pod.

I don't regularly see said paper, and will in any case be enjoying the fun at Duxford's last show of the season next Sunday, so if anyone sees this published, perhaps they could let me know?

airsound

[November4]

From the Mail on Sunday (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=407830&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5)

The performance of the Royal Air Force is also called into question by the ground troops. This follows the claim by Para Major James Loden last week that the RAF was 'utterly useless'.

Describing the failure to re-supply troops trapped in a compound in the war-torn village of Sangin, a Para NCO said: "A dz [>drop zone] was marked, under fire and at night. It was extremely obvious where it was. The Hercules came and totally ignored it.

"They dropped it straight into one of the Taliban strongholds about 100 metres from our camp. We heard a big cheer from the Taliban. It was a massive blow to us. We had been expecting it for two days. We were cheering when it came in. Then we watched it sail away into Taliban hands."

[Tourist]

Unless I am mistaken Ratty, his point was that another soldier is unimpressed with the service they are getting from the RAF in that they cannot hit a well marked dz.
Seemed self explanatory to me.
But then so do well marked dzs

[November4]

Ratty - my point is that I have no point to make - just thought that it might be of interest that it isn't just the CAS that was being moaned about.

But then if it is of no interest then I will delete it.

[mlc]

Telegraph:
Figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show that the RAF unleashed nearly 500 bombs (http://www.pprune.org/forums/Figures%20obtained%20by%20The%20Sunday%20Telegraph%20show%20 that%20the%20RAF%20unleashed%20nearly%20500%20bombs)

I think they've got their figures wrong as well

'500lbs'- they've dropped one bomb then!

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Cheap?

ATE Hind

http://avcom.co.za/phpBB2/files/aad008_181.jpg

http://avcom.co.za/phpBB2/files/aad024_808.jpg

Rooivalk/Redhawk

http://avcom.co.za/phpBB2/files/aad050_121.jpg

[BEagle]

Some cracking comments from Jeremy Clarkson in today's Sunday Times:

Ever since man discovered he had a penchant for war, there has been rivalry between the services. This is all to do with pride and tribalism and, generally speaking, it’s a good thing.

However, when a leaked e-mail from an army officer describes the RAF as “utterly, utterly useless”, you get the distinct impression that this is far beyond good-natured teasing.

You have visions of him lying in a ditch desperately calling for air support and hearing nothing over the radio but the sound of a Harrier’s starter motor whirring uselessly.

The problem, of course, has nothing to do with the people who fly or service the planes. And everything to do with those grinning buffoons in Westminster who’ve spent the past five years unable to see what’s going on due to the fact they’re all deep inside George Bush’s bottom.

You read about billions being shaved from the budget and squadrons being merged to cut costs and, frankly, it doesn’t mean anything at all. Not when you’ve just been startled out of your skin by a Tornado that has flown between your chimney pots at 4m knots.

However, I’ve done a bit of checking and it seems the RAF can field five strike attack squadrons that must share 60 Tornados. Then there are the offensive squadrons, which have 26 Harriers and some Jaguars, which may as well be Sopwith Camels. And that’s it.

In total, with the air defence Tornados, they have just 150 aeroplanes that can actually do fighting. The Luftwaffe has more than twice that. So do the cheese-eating surrender monkeys. In an air war we’d struggle to beat the Bubbles. Of course 150 fighting planes is fine when all we have to worry about are a handful of mad Irishmen, but since Mr Blair realised that his retirement fund relied on being popular in the land of the brave, we’re now fighting what seems like half the world.

It is an extraordinary scandal and what makes it just so shiversomely hideous is that Blair and Brown and all the other useless fools who preside over our wellbeing know full well they can get away with it.

Strip the NHS of funds and pretty soon you’ll have a bunch of nurses on television sobbing. Decimate the fire brigade and immediately the streets will be full of men in donkey jackets, standing round braziers. But the forces? You can squeeze their gonads until their eyes pop out and still they won’t moan.

When asked recently if the British Army could cope, its new top man General Sir Richard Dannatt replied: “Just”. He can’t come out and say: “Are you joking?” Because this is not the army way. Even though he’s waging war on two fronts using US helicopters that shoot themselves down and Sea Kings that have a top speed of four if it gets hotter than 57C — which it does in Iraq, a lot — he still has to stiffen his upper lip and tell the world that everything is tickety boo.

It’s not just the top brass, either. Back at home, quietly, soldiers may tell their loved ones that things are pretty bleak. But have you ever heard one say so publicly? Were they at the Trades Union Congress in their apple-green short-sleeved nylon shirts banging on the tables demanding more money and better equipment? No they weren’t. They were out there, far from the television cameras, in a ****-awful part of Afghanistan fighting with pointed sticks.

I do hope Blair can sleep easily at night knowing that his lecture tour pension fund is being paid for by the blood of a thousand British soldiers and airmen. And I hope, too, he realises that if the RAF really is “utterly, utterly useless”, it’s all his fault.

It makes you wonder how on earth a bona fide lunatic managed to achieve such a position of power and influence but, actually, lunacy these days is all around us. It sits in the editor’s chair at the Daily Mail. It runs the United States. And I found a shining example of it only the other day as I stopped in a petrol station to fuel an Audi Q7.

“Ooh,” said the man at the next pump, “I’ve just ordered one of those. It comes next week. What do you think?” I could have been kind. I could have made his day. But I wasn’t in the mood, so I told him straight: “It’s one of the three worst cars I’ve ever driven.”

Well, he was flabbergasted. But not as flabbergasted as me when he went on to say that he was buying the Audi as a replacement for his Aston Martin V8 Vantage, which had broken down.

I see. So you bought an Aston and you were “surprised” when it wasn’t quite as reliable as granite. That makes you mad. And now you’ve replaced it with something that could be nailed to the side of a cathedral to ward off evil spirits. That makes you a swivel-eyed loony.

I first encountered this gargoyle of a car earlier in the year as we were filming the Top Gear winter olympics, and though it felt pretty nasty I decided to withhold judgment, since doing a biathlon in a car isn’t terribly representative of how it might be used in, say, Driffield.

Well, I’ve now used it in London, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey and Hampshire and can reveal it’s no better in any of these places either. It’s far too big to fit comfortably on any road other than an American interstate, but inside it’s surprisingly cramped. Think of it as an Aga. As big as a post office van but stumped when presented with a Christmas turkey.
Certainly you get a lot more room in a cheaper and much better looking Volvo XC90. You get more of everything even in the new Ford S-Max.

And then there’s the question of “feel”. The Q7 feels just like a normal Audi. And that’s fine in a normal Audi. But it’s a big SUV and it should give off a sense that the Tonka toy exterior styling is in some way replicated on the inside, so that when your children fight and bite and kick, none of the fixtures and fittings will be damaged.

The Q7 really is “utterly, utterly useless” and I was all set to keep on kicking it until all the available space on these pages was used up. But then, lo and behold, I was presented with a car that is even worse. The Chrysler 300C diesel estate.

Worryingly, it looks rather good. There’s a huge radiator grille that puts you in mind of a Bentley Arnage, and the squared-off muscly body sits on tall tyres that hint at not only a great deal of power but a comfy, cosseting ride. A decent salesman could make a fairly good fist of whipping up your enthusiasm on the inside as well. The back seats fold down easily, the load opening at the back is cavernous, there’s a separate storage area under the boot floor away from muddy paws, and there’s lots of standard equipment.
For £27,275 this looks like the bargain of the century and a brief test drive will do little to dispel that notion. The diesel engine is so unclattery that I had to get out to check the badge. And despite the size it’s terribly easy to drive. The only thing that might put you off is the limited rear visibility, but apart from this you’d be hard pressed to find anything wrong. Don’t worry, though. I have. Lots.

You need to think of this car as one of those home-brand council house stereos that you find in department stores. It’s cheap, but it’s cheap for a reason, which becomes abundantly clear when you turn it on. It’s rubbish. So it goes with the 300C. Chrysler, which is owned by Mercedes these days, is at pains to point out that this car is not — as I’ve previously claimed — based on the old Mercedes E-class. They say they considered this idea but dismissed it.

Pity. Basing it on a well-proven car would have been a better idea than basing it on a crème brûlée. God, it’s a wallowy old hector. You have absolutely no sense that you’re connected to the road in any way. Imagine, somehow, fitting an engine to your duvet and you start to get the picture. Of course this might not bother you but the ride comfort will. Despite the wallow-matic suspension and the tall tyres, it crashes and jolts where a normal, proper European car glides and hangs on.

Then there’s the sat nav screen, which is so bright it’s like driving into a second world war searchlight, and the difficulty you’ll have while parking and the sheer ghastliness of the half-timbered steering wheel.

Yes, it’s cheap, but so’s the RAF these days. And that doesn’t work either.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I'm just a humble lowly duvet technician but this

"A dz [>drop zone] was marked, under fire and at night. It was extremely obvious where it was.

had the alarm bells sounding. Is it common procedure to expect a Herc to perform a nice, predictable approach to a DZ that is under fire? Would the quoted solider approach the said same DZ in a four ton truck in a nice straight line?

Yeah, flying fixed wing a/c must be p1!ss easy, so easy in fact that they don't let the RN or AAC play with proper fixed wing aircraft anymore on their own.

[nigegilb]

If I had gotten the airdrop to within 100 yards of the target on a climbing delivery under fire I would have been chuffed to f**k. Good effort to whoever did the drop. Maybe next time, the Army will not bow to political requests to place British troops in platoon houses, with no means of ordinary resupply, whose only purpose appears to act as target practice for local Muj/Talib.

I still don't blame the Army for the moaning, unfortunately it is they who are hitting the wrong targets....

[mutleyfour]

Yeah, flying fixed wing a/c must be p1!ss easy, so easy in fact that they don't let the RN or AAC play with proper fixed wing aircraft anymore on their own.


You said "P1ss easy!"

Do you gauge that on your 1000 hours on microsoft simulator?

Like all three services, you can only fly what's provided to fly in. Flying a Herc in such a volatile and inhospitable area whilst under fire must be extremely difficult. To expect the crew to drop onto a pinpoint location regardless of conditions is naive, but only to the uneducated. One thing that will transpire from all of this is a much better understanding of each of our strengths and weaknesses. Im sure that as soon as 3 Para have the chance to take stock of the past few months they will come to realise that all of the support given to them was given in as professional a manner as possible

Whats needed now is a tad of honesty by those in the high chairs at MOD. Tell it like it is, we have an Armed Forces that are still predomonantly armed for the Cold War and don't have the necessary equipment to fight a sustained campaign in one let alone two areas of low scale War.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mutley, did you mis-read THS's message? I think he was being sarcastic. I think he was saying that 100 yards was pretty damn good, just unfortunate that the margin for error was zero but that a straight in p!ss easy approach was not possible.

[TheInquisitor]

Just to educate those who ought to know better, within 50 metres of the IP on an airdrop is considered a 'bullseye'. Within 100m is good - on a permisive DZ! Airdropping is not an exact science.

If you want resupplying by air, then don't 'mark out' a DZ that's 100yds from an enemy position.

[mutleyfour]

Yes PN and my point is what does he know about the ability of the RN or the AAC to fly a fixed wing aircraft? I appreciate he may be sticking up for the Air Force but he really doesnt need to. We in the whole are aviators on these pages and thus don't need to bitch about each others service (banter is different).

I have backed the RAF on this thread and agree that you are performing as well as everyone else, often without the necessary equipment. What I am tired of is that a Para Major says something a little ill thought and the whole British Army gets the blame.

Come on guys, lets get together on this one, we all of us need to move forward and look at ways that this mess can be addressed. We have to better educate those on the ground as to what they can expect of us in real terms and not based on the usual Salisbury Plain exercise.

[Tourist]

Easy Ratty.
Merely trying to clarify Nov4's point, not making any statement of my own.
In fact I was thinking to myself that 100m sounds like not a bad attempt.

[Pontius Navigator]

We have to better educate those on the ground as to what they can expect of us in real terms and not based on the usual Salisbury Plain exercise.

Slight digression.

Training is an 'individual' event leading to operational proficiency. Individual in the sense that one unit works up.

Exercises are supposedly combined events with different units coming to together to evaluate and practise the events the trained for as individual units.

Operations are were you find out whether training and exercises counted.

Is there any real training between units before they get in to the exercise scenarios? Ie simple inter-service training - FAC on the ground - fixed wing on CAP? Not under exercise conditions but simply as a routine? Only jointery, except the odd Casex, that I have seen has been full blwn exercises.

[Wholigan]

Wow ratty ......... in my - albeit very humble - opinion, you would appear to have chosen an immensely apposite nickname matey! :E

[mutleyfour]

Thanks Pontious, I gather that you agree, a better means of education of our ability (Air) is required.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mutley, I agree, except for the (Air) bit. It needs two to tango.

I would like to see FAC of whatever flavour talking to Air of whatever flavour.

Dropping a bomb where Int told you is as simple as dialling in numbers (I quote) but dropping it where a guy on the ground wants, when he wants, now that is the interesting bit (I quote again).

We don't need to practise dropping bombs on Polish airfields (I quote again).

[mutleyfour]

Perhaps an effects of weapons phase should be added to the FAC course. It would help tremendously the FAC brief his unit components exactly what to expect.

This may already be in place but certainly wasnt when I attended the course.

[ORAC]

Paras almost retreated under Taliban assault (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/02/wtroops02.xml)

British forces in southern Afghanistan came within hours of retreating from a key base because they suffered a critical shortage of helicopters, the task force commander has disclosed.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph Brig Ed Butler said Taliban fire was so heavy and accurate at Musa Qala, a key forward base in northern Helmand, that Army helicopters faced a serious risk of being hit. He said the loss of such crucial equipment — together with the political impact of a large loss of life — meant he came close to ordering his soldiers to abandon the base. Brig Butler said he had warned his superiors early last month that the intensity of Taliban attacks was such that mounting air supply and casualty evacuation missions was likely to lead to the loss of Chinook helicopters.

The brigadier, who leaves his posting at the end of the week, said: "The strategic significance of losing Musa Qala would have been huge, but that was set against the likelihood of helicopters being lost. The political impact, particularly so soon after the loss of the Nimrod, was also going to be huge.".....

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I wonder if the opposing side reads the Telegraph? It must greatly simplify their BDA and future tactical planning.

[steamchicken]

I think there is a better and simpler answer than "Buy enter-yank-kit-here that turns out to be unavailable (A10) or unsuitable (AC130)" or "Quick! Let's save money by inventing a new plane!"
More Harriers. The design exists, the tooling exists, the SOPs and training process exist. Turn the tap back on. (and whilst we're at it, what about that radar?)

[Skunkerama]

Did the guys request air support? looks as if they did if an Apache turned up, whos Apache? Where were the Harriers? Is this the Sun making up stories?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006450334,,00.html

[airborne_artist]

NSF - we can't tell from the footage whether that AC-130 engagement was in darkness/daylight - the footage is in IR, so I'd suspect that it's a night-time action.

I understand that the AC-130 is only deployed at night in AFG. This article (http://www.d-n-i.net/grossman/troops_in_fallujah.htm) would seem to confirm this.

[brickhistory]

AC-130 H and U models fly at night per SOP. They are too vulnerable to MANPADS during daylight (nothing beadwindow related, all very open source stuff) as was proved in DESERT STORM when an H model with 13 guys went down due to an SA-7 after staying too long after sunrise.

[Anotherpost75]

Telegraph 03.10.06

Typhoon wins gun dogfight

The RAF has been forced into an embarrassing U-turn on its policy of not allowing pilots of the new Eurofighter Typhoon to fire their gun.

The service has decided to issue ammunition to future Typhoon squadrons and train pilots in using the fighter's single German-made 27mm Mauser cannon, reversing its cost-cutting edict.

The decision follows experience in Afghanistan showing that guns are still one of the most effective weapons when supporting ground troops.

In a scathing e-mail, a Parachute Regiment major commanding an isolated outpost described air support from RAF Harriers, which have no guns and rely on rockets, as "utterly, utterly useless".

He contrasted their performance with the support offered by US air force A10 aircraft, which are equipped with a 27mm (surely 30mm?) rotary cannon.

At a conference last week, Air Vice-Marshal David Walker, the officer commanding No 1 Group, which includes the Harrier and the newly-forming Typhoon squadrons, said he had decided to proceed with the Typhoon gun, buying ammunition, spares and maintenance equipment (a 2 star can do this in today's RAF??!!).

Seven years ago, the ministry decided to dispense with the gun on all but the first 55 of the 232 Typhoons planned for RAF service, in contrast to the other nations in the Eurofighter consortium, which kept it on all ordered aircraft.

The experts argued that Typhoon did not need anything as crude as a gun. The plan would have saved the taxpayer about £90 million.

But Typhoon is designed to such fine specifications that the loss of the gun created a weight imbalance and it was finally realised that the cheaper and easier option would be to fit a real cannon.

[mutleyfour]

Good to see that lessons learnt are being used to best effect. Of course none of this is guaranteed to get past the financiers I assume.