UK conducted 6% of air strikes against ISIS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK conducted 6% of air strikes against ISIS
Britain must play a greater role in fighting Islamic State in Iraq, say MPs | World news | The Guardian
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.u.../690/69002.htm
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.u.../690/69002.htm
RAF contributed to 6% of something, whether this is bombs dropped, sorties or what I don't know.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gave up.
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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%.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
can i ask in the most delicate terms, what exactly the fcuk is the mighty RAF playing at?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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) 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
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) 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
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Nothing changes.
D.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the public, in their ignorance, still think we have substantial, well armed Army, Navy and Air Forces.
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.