UK conducted 6% of air strikes against ISIS

[Hangarshuffle]

Britain must play a greater role in fighting Islamic State in Iraq, say MPs | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/05/britain-greater-role-fighting-islamic-state-iraq-mps)


Pretty good even report by the Guardian defence journo, about the release of a report yesterday by the H of C Defence Select Committee. (4th February 2015)
The Guardians take is that the MPs are highly dis-satisfied with the UKs response, I think specifically in Iraq.
In a nutshell, I think they want more action (that's the military of course, not themselves..).against ISIS.
I cant find the report itself will try and post it up.
RAF contributed to 6% of something, whether this is bombs dropped, sorties or what I don't know.
But they were scathing, according to the Grad.
Words fail me (again). Will try and find the report.


Linky here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmdfence/690/69002.htm

[Avtur]

RAF contributed to 6% of something, whether this is bombs dropped, sorties or what I don't know.

The title of your post suggests its 6% of air strikes against ISIS, although you do say UK.

[Hangarshuffle]

Yes 6% of air strikes just reading it now, or speed reading it. Its actually pretty fair and straight talking report. All RAF Tornadoes, No 2 squadron, 8 aircraft etc.

[Hangarshuffle]

Just like Britain, I gave up with it.
My two pence take...I no longer know what to think. We have a very, very small military and are operating way beyond our level of planned or budgeted-for capability.
Our military is too small, and our strategy in the hands of a distant political elite who cant seem to connect with the British person in the street.
The lads on HMS Ocean told me about what its like to be operating these days like this, in the fag end of the Royal Navy's days, when they were operating off the coast of Libya (another debacle really) a few years back. By "like this" I mean in a totally half arsed way, and it sounded bloody horrible. You've heard the stories in your own outfits, former outfits.
Swiss style defence force maybe, and stay at home?

[hulahoop7]

6% in Iraq. Overall (including Syria) that percentage must become even smaller, particularly when you take into account the huge percentage of US strikes aimed at Kobani. My money is on something closer to 2%.:}

[NutLoose]

Money Talks In Battle To Destroy Islamic State (http://news.sky.com/story/1421947/money-talks-in-battle-to-destroy-islamic-state)

[MPN11]

Sadly, I agree with Hangarshuffle's perspective.

We don't have the toys, and we don't have the boys, any more. IMO 6% is a decent contribution - I look forward to the other Nations in the region making even that commitment unnecessary.

[Melchett01]

I saw a similar article in the Telegraph and my initial reactions weren't vastly dissimilar to Hangarshuffle's and MPN11's:

Rory Stewart bleating about Iraq? Hardly surprising given his previous role as Deputy Govenorate Coordinator in Maysan & Dhi Qar Provinces in 2004.

Politicians aren't satisfied with the military contribution to counter-ISIL ops? Last time I checked, the military did what they were told to do - by the politicians. They are the ones that decide what we do - or in the case of Syria don't do - where I suspect the huge number of US air strikes in Kobane and our lack if presence in Syria are skewing their thinking if not their figures. That and how many cabs carrying how much ironmongery??

To do more needs more equipment and spending. QED. It is the politicians that allocate resources and finances. We can only do what you provide us with the means to do.

And to answer a point raised in the Telegraph: of course our knowledge of Iraqi tribes is limited, we've spent 13 years in Afghanistan, the last few focused on Helmand, and before that, holed up in that dump that passes for Basrah, a Shi'a sanctuary vastly different from much of the rest if the country and a world away from Anbar, Ninewa, Salah ad Din and Diyala Provinces where the tribes are fighting ISIL.

If the Defence Select Committee are dissatisfied with the way things are playing out out here, they could do worse than look in the mirror and do a better job of holding the Government to account. Or even ensuring they stuck to NATO 2% targets. Or weren't screwed over by poorly written contracts that cost the earth and deliver little and take huge chunks out of an insufficient and dwindling budget.

Glass houses and stones Mr Stewart, glass houses and stones.

[Selatar]

Spot on melchett.

The RAF have little more left they can add. Let's not forget this is a sustain campaign ie no tea and medals and back for Christmas. As such what goes East must be largely sustainable. Hence 2, now 12 getting a temporary stay of execution. RJ, well, we have just one, no replacement-can't stay forever. Reapers and tornadoes fully committed. Tankers also when considering their other commitments. The single recently deployed AWACS can probably sustain. Typhoon doing UK,FI and now E Europe as well as going full speed on air to ground Certs.

Defence Select Committe can bleat all they want but there is nothing left in the tin for an air campaign of this nature and CAS knows it. :ugh:

[Heathrow Harry]

exactly - any HoC Committee will report that whatever it looks at

"needs more resources"

if they could get the Chancellor of the Exchequer in front of him and put him on the spot they might do some good but he'd just ignore them

There is no appetite to spend more on defence in the UK and a significant view that it can be cut further

These chickens will come home to roost one day :*:*

[ShotOne]

Are we reading the same report? For a government report it struck me as surprisingly concise and well-written. Throughout, it acknowledges our limitations both in terms of boys and toys and also public will. If it was scathing about anything it wasn't our armed forces but our strategic direction (or lack of) in forming policy against IS.

[Jimlad1]

Look at it in a slightly different way - we may have only done 6% of strikes, but when you consider how the campaign is being fought, it is as much about providing presence to support our allies on the ground through close air support.

If there is nothing to attack when our aircraft are in the air, then there's not much we can do about that. We could have 300 aircraft constantly over the skies, but if there isn't a credible target to engage, then they still wouldnt make a difference.

We are falling into the trap of focusing on one metric (namely % of strikes done) without asking what the circumstances are around it. As it happens, I'd much rather our pilots returned safely to base not having dropped randomly on Iraq, than engaging in wholesale slaughter without a credible target to attack.

[Engines]

Jimlad,

You say that 'We could have 300 aircraft constantly over the skies....'.

Not at the ranges the RAF are having to operate from, you couldn't. The best we can achieve by ourselves is a very limited time of 'CAS' over the target areas.

I'm not knocking the crews doing the missions - they are doing the best they can with what they have over the distances that they have to fly. But the brute fact is that IS are not being 'degraded' at anything like the rate the West hoped using tactical strike aircraft at long ranges. IS are losing people and kit, but to date their spread has hardly been checked, let alone reversed.

It's my view (and that's all it is) that IS have to be defeated on the ground. This will require a significant ground force, with very close 'close air support' - probably best provided by attack helicopters and artillery. And that will involve risks and losses. But this is a fight that secular Arab and Middle East nations have to win. If they don't, the West had better get it's collective mind around how to handle countries that oppose, despise and want to exterminate just about every cultural value and philosophy we've spent the last 500 years building.

Best Regards as ever to those carrying out the missions over a very hostile land,

Engines

[cokecan]

we must be very unlucky in the non-availability of targets that for the last 6 months everytime we turn up the baddies sod off...

80+ GR4's, we deploy a spectacular 10% of them and the pips start squeaking, and together this terrifying force manages around one whole strike a day while flying over a territory infested with IS, which in many places its in fixed positions in sustained combat with our 'allies'.

can i ask in the most delicate terms, what exactly the fcuk is the mighty RAF playing at?

[Selatar]

Cokecan,

The Air Force has not been 'mighty' for some time!

What you see is what you get in terms of both political appetite and what can be deployed on a long term campaign basis. A bit more could probably go, but it would be a one shot deal and break the force further.

As an example GW2 saw the Air Force deploy pretty much everything. It was unsustainable in most respects. The prior no fly zones (which this campaign bears many similarities) went on for 12 years. As such sqns rotated in and out. We have a loss less squadrons now.

[MSOCS]

80+ GR4's, we deploy a spectacular 10% of them and the pips start squeaking, and together this terrifying force manages around one whole strike a day while flying over a territory infested with IS, which in many places its in fixed positions in sustained combat with our 'allies'.

can i ask in the most delicate terms, what exactly the fcuk is the mighty RAF playing at?

You are clearly confused. The total number of Tornados in the RAF's inventory (which you've quoted) does not equal the number suitably modified and ready to deploy in times of operational need. Cokecan, I'll forgive the ignorance as you're clearly not a specialist in this area but, delicate or not, can I politely request that you don't besmirch the dedication and professionalism of those taking the fight to ISIL right now. You may feel it's not enough. You're entitled to that opinion but know this; the "might RAF" is doing something in this region and about as much as it can do given resources and the goodwill of its fine people.

[Lowe Flieger]

I sometimes find this sort of Select Committee auditing of government affairs a little disingenuous. On the one hand parliament slashes the funding that would make doing more achievable, whilst another part of it is critical that not enough is being done. Does such a committee therefore serve more to salve the conscience of those making the decisions than actually influence decision making? That said, I cannot shake the feeling that for a country that spends over £35bn each year on defence, the size of the forces we can field and the amount of equipment don't seem that much. Government spending seldom seems to be effective spending, and no political party has ever really got to grips with the matter of getting better value for money in defence - or any other area for that matter.

Regrettably, it is clear that our political masters see no votes in defence, as recently highlighted by The Telegraph. The recent BBC/Populous survey reported on the BBC (BBC News - NHS 'most important issue' suggests BBC/Populus poll (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30980022)) didn't even mention it as an also-ran in the ranking of public concerns they want to see reported and debated in the run up to the general election. Yet given that many ordinary folk in the UK are largely supportive of our troops, how has this come to pass? Unpopular wars have certainly not helped. There is probably a general lack of understanding of the level of commitment involved to maintain wide ranging defence capabilities at short readiness. Yet the public still expects them to be there when needed because they haven't really been paying attention to defence issues. When the call comes, capability is expected to be on tap. Perhaps an essential military strategy is to re-engage with the electorate? Right now the NHS, welfare, the economy, education, crime, immigration and all the other day to day pressures of living dominate the news, and it seems, voter concerns. Defence should be in there fighting for its share of attention. And not in Army or Navy or Air force terms either, but on a united front. From the outside, inter-service rivalry shows a serious issue in a very bad light. Some slick, professional, PR is required. I don't know if that exists in the military at all and if it does, is it in an all-services context? Is it even within the military remit to spend money in such a way? As I don't think we do learn from history, it will probably take something pretty horrible to happen for defence to get the attention it merits. Not that that is the way I want it happen of course.

A further observation: the current crop of political leaders of the all the main parties are a particularly weak bunch. Defence is so important to a sovereign state, that there just has to be a time when a strong leader tells the electorate how it is, even if it is not popular. It should be so important as to be independent of electoral analysis or whatever is trending on social media at the moment. It would be good to see defence receive ring-fenced status, as I believe it really is that important, and getting more so as the range of threats become ever broader.

But our finances are still in poor shape, and there will always be more things to spend money on that there is cash available, even in the good times. It's just a pity that the military component is being inexorably relegated down the pecking order and too few seem to be noticing.

LF

[papajuliet]

Because our forces always exhibit a "can do" attitude, the public, in their ignorance, still think we have substantial, well armed Army, Navy and Air Forces. It needs a prominent politician, backed by extensive media coverage,to make the public wake up to the parlous state our defence is in.
My personal experience is that those I talk to on the subject have absolutely no idea of the truth - they are shocked when I tell them of how little we now have.
Of course, it's in the politicians' interest to keep it hidden.

[Danny42C]

Many moons ago, I wrote on : "Expansion Station", built in the late thirties when the RAF was "expanded" to meet the threat of oncoming war. It was the last time the RAF ever had any money to spend on permanent buildings (as this only happens when the public and the politicians get really scared).

Nothing changes.

D.

[thing]

the public, in their ignorance, still think we have substantial, well armed Army, Navy and Air Forces.

I was talking about this to a friend who has been a builder all of his life and is about my age. He still thinks we have substantial armed forces. We were talking about the stength of the RAF and when I told him that the strength of the RAF wouldn't half fill Old Trafford and we only had seven squadrons of front line/strike aircraft he thought I was having a jape. When he realised I was serious he was genuinely shocked.

It's not ignorance, it's just lack of enlightened information. You may say that the information is out there but so is the information for the rate of MOT failures, fatal shark attacks or the latest findings from CERN. Unless you push it into people's faces it remains abstract on their part.

[ShotOne]

Let's just pause for a moment and explore the alternative universe we'd be in if the money fairy actually did pop by and triple our defence budget. What would all those extra squadrons and thousands of soldiers be doing right now?Would we now be embroiled in a bitter Middle-Eastern civil war-to-the-knife? We lament the public for being ignorant and I'll-informed. But it's abundantly clear that the public is not indifferent, rather is definitely opposed to such an adventure.

[Melchett01]

How many of the public do you think could even find Syria on an unmarked map? Not many I'd wager. And how many of the public actually understand the links between the UK and terrorist groups in the Middle East and Asia? Again, probably not many. So how can you be credibly opposed to something you have no real understanding of?

I suspect you're correct though, they are opposed rather than indifferent, because all they see is the financial costs of UK foreign policy at a time when their standards of living are under threat.

[VinRouge]

It's good to see Jordan using mk84 2000 pounder (much better effect than mk82 and no one running away afterwards) with no rediculously extravagant and expensive tax payer funded bomb guidance kit to more effectively eradicate the errant cavemen from Iraq and Syria. As long as it bakes a Big Bang, it sorts the target.

When was the last time the west had the balls to use this fit?

BBC News - Islamic State crisis: UAE sends F-16 squadron to Jordan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31202878)

Keep it up guys, 30 jet raids till the job is done.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Threat = Intent + Capability

There is no point spending money on capability if there is no intent to use it, and the latest generation of politicians do not have any intention of deploying effective forces, which includes the ROE to use said forces.
With the ROE and strategies adopted, the last two wars were always going to be lost.

One look at the 1920's/1930's will show you a worse situation now than then in terms of force effectiveness, and it took a direct war on the UK to change things then. I would imagine the current lot would quite happily concede most of the UK before things bothered the politicians. UKIP reckon they already have.

[RileyDove]

I am afraid that surgical strikes are not the answer! IS have Raqqa as a defacto capital - glancing blows are not going to make them change their minds
or stop the bloodshed! Looking at the destruction that has took months to achieve in Kobani -the answer is B.1 /B52 overwelming destruction at night.

[Toadstool]

RileyDove

as much as I am all for the complete destruction of ISIL in Ar Raqah, there are many civilians there too, all of whom have nowhere else to go.

We are carrying out this campaign to defeat and destroy ISIL in Ar Raqah, not kill every living human being in the areas under ISIL's control.

This air campaign has managed to halt the spread of ISIL. A continued campaign of surgical air strikes backed by SF on the ground and Iraqi security forces will start to have a detrimental effect on ISIL, their leadership and hopefully its recruitment. Killing every man, woman and child by carpet bombing towns and cities will have the opposite effect.

[VinRouge]

Leaflet drop and evacuate the city like the spams did in fallujah.

Then flatten it.

[LS-4]

Agree with Toadstool. Cause enough civilian losses and we may give Daesh something to capitalise on.

Tough measures might be a part of the solution, but I think it's important not to let their atrocities and propaganda drag us into a headless blood frenzy. Stay frosty and think ahead. Just my humble and not-so-informed opinion.

[Wokkafans]

There are unconfirmed reports on Syrian social media today that coalition forces have been dropping leaflets on Raqa asking residents to immediately evacuate the town.

[LS-4]

Hope they know what they're up to, in that case.

[RileyDove]

If we try and conduct an air campaign with very limited ground forces its always going to be a case where it takes a long time to degrade the enemy.
Ultimately we either decide to go in with ground forces and clear every building and bunker at massive risk or we make the city impossible to live in!
IS are relying on infrastructure to keep their campaign going -whether thats the road system - electricity -hospitals or fuel dumps.

IS understand our air campaign -they know where to hide -they know how to move about and survive . Unfortunately for the occupants of Raqqa -at some stage in the future it will very much resemble Kobani - its pretty much up to the political will if they wish to achieve that in a short or long period of time.

Much as the thought of a stick of bombs falling down on Raqqa from a B-52 horrifies - the alternative at present seems to be to allow IS to torture -crucify and push people to their deaths from buildings.

We might feel that our degree of sophistication with targeted weapons can
achieve victory - however what degree of horror can IS inflict whilst
we take pot shots at them!

[FODPlod]

I'm surprised this thread has gone so quiet. Is this article intended to be provocative and stir things up a bit?French Outfly RAF in IS Air Mission (http://forces.tv/19550047)


French warplanes are flying three times as many sorties against IS as their RAF counterparts.

Research conducted by Sky News found that since the arrival of France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the Gulf it has dramatically increased the number of missions being flown. With 36 carrier and land-based Rafale and Super Etendard jets involved in the fight against Islamic State, the French are flying being [sic] 12 and 15 sorties a day.

The RAF's eight Tornados are flying just two sorties a day in pairs out of their base at RAF Akrotiri. The UK's Voyager refuelling aircraft however are assisting the French effort when required.

The figures appear to contradict the Prime Minister David Cameron's claim that the UK is the main partner to the US in the air campaign, although the RAF has currently carried out four times as many strikes as the French airforce.

[Lonewolf_50]

although the RAF has currently carried out four times as many strikes as the French airforce. This may reflect the mix of aircraft that are deployed. With a full carrier air wing, wouldn't the French sortie count will include such things as an E-2, etc.
When it comes to actual strikes performed, sometimes the birds show up and the RoE can't be met so one takes the bombs home. :mad:

The willie waving is unfortunate. Everyone should show up with what your politicians let you bring, and do your best to contribute to the mission. FFS, the points scoring really, really doesn't matter. So long as some warheads get to some ISIS foreheads progress will be made.

This situation is a whole lot better than about ten years ago in some coalition ops I was working, where the French were so handcuffed by their own government's supplemental RoE that their missions were virtually unarmed recce with armed strike aircraft. Glad to see they've had their handcuffs removed. :ok:

Glad to see the RAF in the mix. It's a good thing.

[ORAC]

RAF deploying 2 Sentinel R1 to the region (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/03/27/uk-ramps-training-and-isr-effort-against-is/70493362/)...

[Biggus]

The cynic in me would say it's approaching SDSR time, and this deployment is part of the "save/maintain the Sentinel" campaign. Not dissimilar to the one (and only) deployment of the E-3D to the Afghan campaign just before the 2010 SDSR, pure co-incidence of course!

As for "the RAF has currently carried out four times as many strikes as the French airforce", that statistic is hardly likely to come under threat, when you consider that strike sorties from the CdG carrier will have been flown by the French Navy!! :ok:

[Just This Once...]

I seem to remember E-3Ds being one of the first types overhead AFG from 2001 onwards… but we digress.

[Bob Viking]

I know nobody here likes to talk about them but there are other strike aircraft lobbing lumps of metal onto IS heads. There just aren't any pilots in them.

This will contribute to the total number of strikes remember.

BV:O