Syria airstrikes conducted by UK military pilots

[HaveQuick2]

Details on the BBC website, after a FOIA request


Syria airstrikes conducted by UK military pilots - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33562420)


UK pilots embedded with coalition allies' forces have conducted airstrikes over Syria.
The nations include the US and Canada, who have taken part in strikes - but the British House of Commons voted in 2013 against military action in Syria.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said MPs' approval would be needed before any new UK action in Syria.
"When embedded, UK personnel are effectively operating as foreign troops," the Ministry of Defence said.

[Sandy Parts]

"Operating as foreign troops"? really? All the guys I know on exchange always had to get approval to operate outside of UK ROE, so someone must have authorised their actions within the MoD (and therefore, under Fallon's watch). Don't see an issue with it happening, just the way the minister seems to be trying to dodge the issue. Maybe the guys on exchange could ask for the host nations expenses as well as they are "foreign troops"? - UN pay anyone? :)

[ICM]

Indeed, this story came up on the Today programme in the past hour. If the present MOD view is that personnel 'embedded' operate as foreign troops, that is a considerable shift from, for example, the early 1970s view when those of us on Exchange with the USAF were not permitted to take any active part in operations in Vietnam. (And, for what it's worth, I later found that USAF personnel with the RAF were not supposed to go to Northern Ireland or Belize.)

[MrBernoulli]

US personnel weren't even supposed to be detached to the Falkland Islands, long after the war there. I was on one of our long-standing detachments down there in the late 1990s, along with a USAF exchange officer from our squadron. Nobody thought anything about it until there was a flurry of communications between Mount Pleasant Airfield and the UK. The US command hierarchy had got wind of our USAF chaps deployment and took a dim view of it - up until then even the USAF fellow didn't know he was not supposed to be that far south!

[TBM-Legend]

USAF exchange pilot in my day wrote a paper on operations that was then classified as AUSTEO [Australian Eyes Only] . He was made to leave the room when it was presented to the crowd"....

[Martin the Martian]

Was it (is it still?) the case that RAF pilots on exchange with the USAF were not permitted to undertake QRA duties with US-based air defence squadrons within NORAD? I read this somewhere and find it odd.

[ICM]

Comedy, indeed. I would pitch up on a Monday morning for the compulsory annual groundschool week and sit there as the Instructor reeled off his introductory words including "NOFORN." And on getting back from a trip, I was told I was scheduled next day for a briefing on a new procedure, duly went and heard it, to be told about a week later that it was supposed to be "NOFORN" and that my name would be removed from the list of attendees. But I was excused from doing "Nuclear Loading" as part of our annual refreshers!

Two years, two months and two weeks I would hate to have missed!

[Courtney Mil]

Same story again here. Compiled a brief for my USAF colleagues at their request. Arrived at Wing Briefing Room to be told by policeman that I couldn't go because the briefing was NOFORN. I explained that I was giving the brief to avail. After a long wait, Colonel came out to see where I was and explained the situation to the plod. "Sorry, Sir, it's SECRET NOFORN." Colonel had to do my brief.

Signing out for a RED FLAG sortie to be told I couldn't get airborne until 30 minutes after the start of the vul time because of NOFORN airspace in the ranges. I explained I was leading Blue Air. Same answer. Boss had the answer. "Can you do your first few check ins with an American accent?"

[Selatar]

OK I get that pressing the pickle button is a pretty strong sign you are involved in military ops. But let's put this in context. The air campaign for the theatre is run from a joint HQ full of Brits, many in key posts, air C2 is from a UK AWACS, UK RJ, sentinel, reaper and shadow are doing ISR and our tanker is giving out gas to other nations aircraft. All of this revealed by SoS yesterday. At times during airstrikes over Syria most of the voices over the RT will be British with just the strike aircraft chipping in. Much of the planning and execution will invoke Brits in the HQ and much of the int will be sourced and processed by Brits. Dropping the weapon represents the last 5% of the mission albeit a rather important 5%.

We are already in Syria ladies and gents. We shouldn't need a couple of exchange officers dropping a few GBUs to tell us that.

[HaveQuick2]

OK I get that pressing the pickle button is a pretty strong sign you are involved in military ops. But let's put this in context. The air campaign for the theatre is run from a joint HQ full of Brits, many in key posts, air C2 is from a UK AWACS, UK RJ, sentinel, reaper and shadow are doing ISR and our tanker is giving out gas to other nations aircraft. All of this revealed by SoS yesterday. At times during airstrikes over Syria most of the voices over the RT will be British with just the strike aircraft chipping in. Much of the planning and execution will invoke Brits in the HQ and much of the int will be sourced and processed by Brits. Dropping the weapon represents the last 5% of the mission albeit a rather important 5%.

We are already in Syria ladies and gents. We shouldn't need a couple of exchange officers dropping a few GBUs to tell us that.


Yes, but it is that last 5% that is the most politically explosive.

[Herod]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the vote in 2013 about strikes in Syria against the Assad regime, in support of the rebels? This action now is against Daesh, which is a totally different ballgame.

[Selatar]

Herod, you are correct. Not quite changing sides but not far off.

Many in 2013 had huge doubts about becoming the ISIS/AQ air component. MPs got it right for once IMHO.

[Pontius Navigator]

HaveQuick, it is after the 100% that the politicos worry about - e.g. Gary Powers

[FODPlod]

Thank goodness no one here complained about the US military personnel embedded with our forces prior to their country entering the Second World War:The American Who Helped Sink the Bismarck (http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-american-who-helped-sink-the-bismarck/)

Leonard B. Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_B._Smith)
Leonard B. "Tuck" Smith (October 29, 1915 Mayview, Missouri – May 16, 2006 Friday Harbor, Washington) was an American pilot who spotted the German battleship Bismarck prior to its being sunk by British naval and air forces. Smith was the first American to participate in a World War II naval victory and is sometimes considered the first American to be directly involved in World War II for his actions...

[Hangarshuffle]

Its the fact that by allowing UK aircrew to fight against forces in Syria MOD has flipped the finger-this action in this region was effectively forbidden by Parliament in 2013.
If MOD are acting against the wish of Parliament then its a big deal and we slowly move again towards something we shouldn't be.
If you have a commission and you are fighting ISIL over Syria regardless of the markings on your plane you are doing so against the wishes of Parliament.
Its a big deal.

[orca]

HS,

I don't believe that's right. I think parliament voted against state on state conflict with Syria and is more than happy fighting IS, as it happens limiting the area of ops for the considerable UK land based involvement to Iraq. A border that the enemy doesn't recognise incidentally.

I agree it's a big deal. It's a big deal because somebody somewhere must have done the staff work to ensure that our boys were legally protected and key allies supported in a fight against what is probably the greatest evil of our time. Somebody somewhere authorised it. BZ to anyone who had anything to do with enabling our boys and girls on exchange duties to get in the fight alongside coalition and UK assets - and most importantly, whoever the hell you guys down range and in harm's way are, Godspeed, good hunting.

[smujsmith]

Sounds like yet more bullsh1t from the Min of Def. I'm damn sure that U.S. Exchange personnel were forbidden by their government to take part in the Falklands campaign, I see no reason why the same shouldn't have been applied to "embedded" servicemen with US/Canadian forces, without seeking parliamentary approval. But then, like everything in parliament these days, breaking the law is simply a matter of "individual interpretation" ! I hope the lads on exchange perform well, and give a good impression of Britain to our allies, it's a shame that these ever willing servicemen are let down by the buffoons who serve in our parliament.

Smudge

[orca]

I don't think that there would be any requirement to seek parliamentary approval prior to committing any UK personel to an Op, embedded or otherwise. I realise that this has been an evolving SOP of late - but that doesn't change the fact (constitutional ninjas tighten me up if I'm wrong) that parliamentary approval isn't needed. Usually there's a debate, but there doesn't need to be a vote. The government can commit the military without recourse to parliament.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Sadly, the knee-jerk to all of this will, no doubt make our Exchange Officers' lives very complicated on both sides of the Ocean.
Fallon's shot himself in the foot with those comments - our guys over there operate under UK RoE and Conventions and so are not entirely under foreign control, last I heard.

[West Coast]

Isn't ROE particular to the op? If not involved in theatre, does the UK military have specific ROE established?

[BOING]

Just to show this work all ways.

During Gulf War 1 I was flying 47's for a US airline, the airline had a Civilian Reserve Air Force commitment.

A form letter was sent out asking for volunteers to fly the missions and one of the questions was "Are you a US citizen?". At that time I was not so I answered the question "No, but I would be pleased to help out".

Subsequently I made several flights but I suspect it was not my answer on the form that made a difference - I suspect no one even read the returned forms, they just grabbed the names.

.

[battlecruiser]

Well that did not last very long. Perhaps it is seen as suitable time to bury the 10% pay increase headlines by whoever on the inside gave Reprieve the nudge to put in the FOI request.

Anyway, "operating as foreign troops" as an exchange officer is not true nor is "the fact that the UK seems to have turned over its personnel to the US wholesale" as blindly guessed by Reprieve. A formal request for involvement is made by the host nation, UK approval is granted (or not) and specific ROE and legal guidelines are developed as required. Regardless of whether your own nation is already deployed in the theatre in question referral to the UK is always required before any operational deployment with your host nation.

Yes it is a big deal as the exchange officer is a member of the team in harms way not because of what Parliament think they voted against or not. The situation has changed since Parliament voted and the fight is now focused in the correct area. In fact, on reading this, I am not sure if Parliament really know if it should have been either:
Research Briefings - Parliamentary approval for military action (http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7166)

As usual there is a 'need to know' creep that achieves nothing but to make completing the mission more difficult and above all more dangerous for the personnel involved. Thanks.

On the exchange comedy note, NORAD QRA is strangely not an option. Requests to join in the fun have been made and no serious answer was ever received. Just the standard 'it has always been like that' which is also not true. My favourite was being told that whilst I could generate and act on Sniper footage in cockpit I was not allowed to watch it back in the debrief as the debrief facility was NOFORN. It now isn't.

[beardy]

It's a big deal because somebody somewhere must have done the staff work to ensure that our boys were legally protected and key allies supported in a fight against what is probably the greatest evil of our time.

MOD staff work, hmm, not the greatest track record there of late (especially in justifying procurement.) Great quote though joining an emotive statement with an optimistic supposition. Let's see 'the minister needs justification for an existing situation, one that will not embarrass us in front of the allies we need to help us fill gaps in our capability, find me someone who doesn't understand parliamentary democracy but needs to justify his job in a shrinking service. '

[glad rag]

Ah well, lets see how long ago was it our citizens were slaughtered on a beach?

The vote in parliament vetoed operations in support of those in opposition to the Assad regime, one which I strongly agreed with.

There are indeed some vipers very close to home.

[Hangarshuffle]

People are angry because Parliament weren't informed. Parliament wanted one thing to happen (non involvement) and voted accordingly-and find a little later that all their instructions weren't followed. For the civilian, its as simple as that.

[Archimedes]

People are angry because Parliament weren't informed. Parliament wanted one thing to happen (non involvement) and voted accordingly-and find a little later that all their instructions weren't followed. For the civilian, its as simple as that.

Parliament voted for attacks to be made on IS/Daesh; at the end of the vote (see the other thread) it was clear that Cameron reserved the right to conduct attacks on IS without seeking parliamentary authority to do so, through exercise of the royal prerogative.

Permitting British personnel to attack IS targets in Syria is covered by this; the 2013 parliament did not bind the PM to a position of not permitting attacks against IS in Syria; as glad rag notes, it prevented attacks on Assad's CW arsenal (it did not, in fact, vote against the attacks, since it was never invited to do so - a second vote would've been taken, but the failure of the first motion meant that there was never to be a vote authorising or disallowing attacks).

It's not simple - and while it may 'be as simple as that' it means that those who hold that view do not understand a critical aspect of how parliament works; which in turn means that they can't campaign for /persuade/pressurise their elected representatives to clarify or alter the position...

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

A simple question from a former fish head blunty; what's the SOP for US personnel on exchange to our Units? In 2000 down South, 1435 had an exchange US pilot. I'm pretty sure that Chuck stood QRAs with the rest of the lads. Had Johnny Gaucho sent something offensive our way, would he have been authorised to engage it?

I shan't ask about current SEEDCORN kipper crews.

[rh200]

People are angry because Parliament weren't informed. Parliament wanted one thing to happen (non involvement) and voted accordingly-and find a little later that all their instructions weren't followed. For the civilian, its as simple as that.

I think presuming the "people" and parliament being a on the same wavelength, and the parliament is doing what the people want is a funny thing.:p.

As for the people being angry, thats to demonstrated, and in any event, its a while till the next election.

[Courtney Mil]

UK will help destroy Islamic State, David Cameron tells US - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33584548)

[Lyneham Lad]

UK will help destroy Islamic State, David Cameron tells US - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33584548)

Well, if so let us hope that the wherewithal to do so for long enough to be effective is (magically) made available!

[Uncle Ginsters]

With all this chat of "people" and "Parliament", it's probably time that we all reviewed the actual motion tabled in the House:

Business Today: Chamber for Thursday 29 August 2013 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob130829.htm)

Note that it is specifically about the use/abuse of chemical weapons and an attempt to push the issue within the UNSC. Any vote on 'British involvement' would have been in the second motion which never happened.

The biggest issue at the time was that the press and opposition were allowed to rebrand this vote into one against military action in Syria; it was never that.

[beardy]

Subsequent exchanges in the House included this:


David Cameron was immediately challenged by the Labour leader Ed Miliband, to confirm that he would not bypass the will of the Commons by using his powers as prime minister to commit UK forces without a further vote. Mr Cameron told him, flatly, ‘I can give that assurance … It is very clear tonight that, while the house has not passed a motion, the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly.’ The vote had been forced by a backbench debate in the Commons on 11 July, which ended with a 114 to 1 vote approving a resolution requiring that ‘no lethal support should be provided to anti-government forces in Syria without the explicit prior consent of parliament’. So, when evidence emerged that sarin gas was being used by the Assad regime against the rebels in Syria, David Cameron recalled parliament.

Taken from:

http://theparliamentaryreview.co.uk/roty/commons-rejects.html

[Danny42C]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/564703-syria-airstrikes-conducted-uk-military-pilots-post9051518.html#post9051518)

Quote:

"UK will help destroy Islamic State, David Cameron tells US" - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33584548)

"Well, if so let us hope that the wherewithal to do so for long enough to be effective is (magically) made available!"

Whether we keep on giving the USAF and USN the (tiny) hand we've given so far, it still remains true that 'boots on the ground' will be needed to do any serious damage to ISIL. The only 'boots' available in sufficient number in those parts are in Assad's army. You are not obliged to like the allies you need (eg Stalin ?)

D.

[LeggyMountbatten]

the now Lord Richards was on the Marr programme this morning. I don't know if it is in this clip http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33584940 but his view is that if the objective is destruction of IS then effective boots on the ground will be needed, and may need to be a "western" alliance. No dribbling at the problem was a quote.

[Hangarshuffle]

The second motion never happened because they got the message that a majority in Britain didn't want further war-fighting. Pain in the arse that I am, I actually e-mailed my own MP and asked him to vote against any move towards further fighting. Like this below;


" that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons".


That bit above I just cut out of the motion.
Our military is now just too small to bring and effective change to anything.
Our Governments pre and post General elections are totally out of their depth.


Cameron could be leading us into another open-ended Middle East conflict | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/20/david-cameron-middle-east-conflict-air-strikes-syria-president-assad)


Anti ISIL strikes shore up Assad's regime - the regime we were trying to attack not long ago. Our policies aren't thought through and they aren't consistent.
The Govt. are stuffed full of rich thickie's and I am afraid at this level they are out of their experience and depth.

[Courtney Mil]

Hangarshuffle,

"our military" is not too small to add effective force to the coalition effort to combat a very real threat to the security of a large number of friendly nations. I'm sure the vast majority of Britons don't want "further war fighting", but I'm also sure they don't also want ISIL to continue to occupy yet more land, oppress and murder yet more people and recruit yet more stupid people.

So, what would you have the UK and other free nations (including those in the Middle East and farther afield) do about it. Vote UKIP and hope it goes away?

[Lonewolf_50]

Isn't ROE particular to the op? If not involved in theatre, does the UK military have specific ROE established? I have some personal experience with a coalition operation with differing RoE for differing nations. In fact, I just realized there were two such ops.

Sometimes, a nation's forces are provided with some interesting caveats. :mad:

[orca]

The only people out of their depth are those who assume that a 2013 vote to deny the PM state-on-state war with Syria is also a veto on 2015 ops against IS.

Military aviation is built upon the humble building block of 'not making stuff up'; I can't understand why anyone would choose to wilfully invent the myth that parliament voted against Air Ops against IS in Syria.

It did no such thing.

[West Coast]

I have some personal experience with a coalition operation with differing RoE for differing nations. In fact, I just realized there were two such ops.

Somalia. Us and just about everyone else had differing ROE.

[BEagle]

A good result by our French chums:

French Jets Wipe Out IS Training Camp In Syria (http://news.sky.com/story/1559717/french-jets-wipe-out-is-training-camp-in-syria)

A few more of the murdering, stone age scum wiped off the face of the earth!

:ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

Good on the French friends, glad to see they are able to contribute.