View Full Version : Afghanistan CAS Question...
cokecan
29th Sep 2006, 10:05
can anyone - within the bounds of OPSEC - provide a reasoning as to why the RAF sent Harriers to Kandahar rather than Tornado GR4 to Bagram?
i know its closer to Helmand, but if one can only send 7 A/C because of contraints within the fleet, and those A/C are severely limited in terms of the warload they can carry, would a significantly larger Tornado deployment - albeit based further away - not be vastly more able to respond as and when required by the troops on the ground?
(i know Tornado isn't ideal, what we need is something armoured, slow and with a big gun and vast load carrying ability, but its all we have in greater numbers that the Harrier fleet)
London Mil
29th Sep 2006, 10:09
'cos they are equally busy dropping bombs somewhere else?
Wader2
29th Sep 2006, 10:15
Tornado does not have CRV7. They would have to operate under close control. With HE the closest distance to troops in contact would be 300-500 metres. Even with the gun 100-150 metres.
Now an aircraft that had bombs, rockets and a gun! And a rough field capability.
And before someone shouts beadwindow, this is open source.
Maple 01
29th Sep 2006, 10:21
Runway not suitable for Tonkas?
LeanMe
29th Sep 2006, 10:33
No 5* hotels available for the crews? :}
LateArmLive
29th Sep 2006, 10:38
Because they'd be u/s all the time? Imagine scrambling for a jet and crewing out of 3 before you got airborne. By the time you got to the fight it'd be over!
OCCWMF
29th Sep 2006, 10:52
Now an aircraft that had bombs, rockets and a gun! And a rough field capability.
Now where would you find one of those? Would need a longer runway though!
Wader2
29th Sep 2006, 10:55
Used the M6 once.
Kitbag
29th Sep 2006, 11:18
Think you'll find it was the M55:ok:
Roland Pulfrew
29th Sep 2006, 11:31
Used the M6 once.
Not at 6000' AMSL and +50 though!! You would need a runway all the way through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean:p
Kitbag
29th Sep 2006, 11:39
As RP says Not at 6000' AMSL and +50 though!!
But won't the temps prove a bit more favourable as winter approaches? give the Harriers a break from the commitment for a while as well, guess they could do with it.
What would the commit height be on a single engine recovery at AUW? :ooh:
OCCWMF
29th Sep 2006, 12:38
You're always committed to landing single-engine! Going up is not really an option.....:}
Seriously, the nozzle boys are doing a good job and the ac is an ideal platform for the theatre. Just needs a new pod and a gun!
Squirrel 41
29th Sep 2006, 12:43
Per my question on another (lost?) thread, can the GR7/9 airframe take the GAU-12 used by the AV-8Bs? If not, why not?
S41
WhiteOvies
29th Sep 2006, 12:56
S41
I don't believe it's possible. It's to do with integrating the system with everything else on the aircraft. Happy to be corrected though by an armourer type!
I recall being told that the guns on the GR5/7/9 etc were removed because the gun didn't actually work when fitted to the pod. Something to do with the gun jamming due to the pod design. Another example of rubbish procurement in the bad old days. It was never sorted out because it was deemed unneccessary by the airships. The GAU uses an attachment/pod which has a single gun with ammo in the other side rather than the two guns/two pods arrangement of the GR3/SHAR.
LateArmLive
29th Sep 2006, 13:08
By losing the gun :sad: we do gain the capability to mount the targeting pod on the old gun mounts, freeing up all the wing hardpoints for stores. So it's not all bad news. :)
whowhenwhy
29th Sep 2006, 14:35
Sorry, rubbish procurement in the bad old days? You make it sound like our procurement system has improved! Have they managed to stop Bowman disfiguring people yet? :ugh:
SRENNAPS
29th Sep 2006, 18:31
'cos they are equally busy dropping bombs somewhere else?
Wot? all 6 of them. Wot about the rest?
tonkabloke
29th Sep 2006, 19:53
Runway not suitable for Tonkas?
Does anyone have any photographs of said Tonka landing on motorway?:p
Squirrel 41
29th Sep 2006, 20:18
Surely it was the Jags on the M55?
movadinkampa747
29th Sep 2006, 20:23
This landed on a the M11 in 2002 killing one crewmember...........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38051000/jpg/_38051347_jetnow300.jpg
It was an L39 though.
Pontius Navigator
29th Sep 2006, 22:21
Surely it was the Jags on the M55?
Yes, Jaguar it was after the motorway was built but before it was open to the public.. It was only a matter of time before someone bit. :)
Squirrel 41
29th Sep 2006, 22:30
PN, hook line and sinker, I'm afriad... :\
V. impressive shot in some magazine years ago of Jag rotating off motorway with (IIRC) 4 x BL-755s and lots of dust!
S41
Semper Jump Jet
30th Sep 2006, 00:41
S41
I don't believe it's possible. It's to do with integrating the system with everything else on the aircraft. Happy to be corrected though by an armourer type!
WOvies-
S41 and I kicked this around a bit on another post, the GAU will bolt on to the jet, and I agree with you that the obstacle would be getting a way to control it, i.e. wiring and integrating it into the software. Doesn't seem like this would be too big of an obstacle, though.
Not as good as the 30 mil, but better than the Nil Mil.
TEEEJ
30th Sep 2006, 07:39
This landed on a the M11 in 2002 killing one crewmember...........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38051000/jpg/_38051347_jetnow300.jpg
It was an L39 though.
It didn't land on the M11. It failed to stop on the runway and careered onto the M11.
airborne_artist
30th Sep 2006, 07:53
It didn't land on the M11. It failed to stop on the runway and careered onto the M11.
A good mate of mine too. Did Selection with him in 1981. He pulled the black and yellow as the aircraft rattled, brakeless across the grass, and onto the M11. Seat needed 90 kts, and they had <90 by a margin. Ex- Hawk QFI in the rear got out unscathed after it had crossed the central reservation.
flipflopman RB199
1st Oct 2006, 00:00
WOvies-
S41 and I kicked this around a bit on another post, the GAU will bolt on to the jet, and I agree with you that the obstacle would be getting a way to control it, i.e. wiring and integrating it into the software. Doesn't seem like this would be too big of an obstacle, though.
Certainly possible to do. In a previous life on a certain OEU, I recall being part of a last minute extended deployment to the USA to integrate the Maverick onto the GR7 when Kosovo kicked off in the late 90's. :ok:
Regarding the question of the Jags single engine commit height at +40 degrees,
We had a Jag lunch an engine not long after take off at Nellis one warm July day. Min reheat (not PTR) was needed just to maintain the glideslope. As OCCWMF states, going up was not an option and straps were tightened and the Tower informed accordingly. :eek: :eek:
Flipflopman