No that had not escaped my notice, but I would ask if this is a sensible division of resources. In Iraq, the enemy is an IED more often than not. CAS is not much use in that environment. Attacks on insurgent forces by GR4s don't seem to be reported that often do they? Uncle Sam has more than enough a/c in Iraq to cover the requirements there.
In Afghanistan we have a different situation with insurgents on the ground engaging land forces in firefights which are in turn attacked daily by coalition aircraft. Our small Harrier force is not enough to cope. We should leave Iraq to the Americans now and put the GR4s where they are most needed, even if it does mean living in a tent.
Sometimes Navaleye, I genuinely do wonder if you are, or ever were a member of HM Forces. You certainly seem VERY ignorant regarding the 2 theatres that's for sure.
I've spent a considerable time in Iraq with the Army and fast air and CAS is still very much needed, and regularly employed.
Yes they are very different in nature. As a general rule, Afghanistan is more 'kinetic' than Iraq. However, the GR4s have engaged in live CAS with our own, as well as coalition forces recently. In some cases, the nature of this CAS has arguably been more demanding than a typical Afghanistan engagement. However, they are not just there to provide CAS. The
GR4 also makes a significant contribution to coalition ISR andis one of the most (if not the most) sought after fast air recce asset in Iraq right now.
You constantly suggest the GR4s should be supporting 'our' forces, you constantly mention 'our' Harriers and that 'we' should 'leave Iraq to the US'. Do you not understand that these aircraft are part of a coalition that we've commited to? They are apportioned by coalition CAOCs and ASOCs. We still have 5000 troops in Iraq. Even when the Army have withdrawn from Iraq, we can expect fast air to still be required as part of operational and strategic overwatch.
Finally, 800/801 is NOT there to provide maritime strike. It's there to contribute to a JOINT capability. That Joint capability includes maritime strike and CAS. Right now, that Joint capability is needed providing CAS to troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Not on exercise off the coast of the US. the place where those Joint assets are best placed to provide that joint capability is in Afghanistan, not on a carrier.
WolvoWill,
The GR7s were initially commited to Afghanistan because of the austere nature of the deployment location. Harriers generally require less support than GR4s, and had the advantage of STOL.
Subsequently, the airfield has been improved so that conventional fast air could be supported. However, the two fleets are each well established at their respective locations.
The GR4 aircrew remain keen to get involved in Afghanistan, as were the Jag sqn prior to disbandment. However, I suspect it is just too difficult for PJHQ to conduct a complete swap of assets. It is envisaged that Typhoon (which has a much smaller support tail than the Tornado) will replace the GR9s from next year to give JFH a much needed rest from ops.
However, I suspect that here are also some significant other political reasons why the Harriers have been kept on ops when we are probably about to face further cuts accross the board.
Regards,
MM