Afghanistan Deployment

[tablet_eraser]

Following speculation in The Sun this morning, Dr Liam Fox (Shadow Defence Secretary) asked an Urgent Question in Parliament to John Reid: Could he confirm the details published in The Sun that 4,000 personnel will deploy to the Helmland province in April/May?

Reid stated that there were 3 criteria that would determine whether British forces would deploy:

1. That the British military configuration is sufficient to meet the task at hand.

2. That the economic aid to Afghanistan to provide alternative forms of agriculture and employment is sufficient.

3. That the NATO configuration around British forces satisfied him.

He said that although he was satisfied with the 2 first criteria, he was not yet satisfied by the latter criterion.

The Sun was right that an imminent decision was expected, but the speculation was no different to the speculation the same paper first published last year on August 22nd. As it happens, he intends to make a statement tomorrow (Thursday 25th), subject to approval from the House authorities, and following further consultation with the Cabinet. His intention is to make the statement as soon as possible after Cabinet consultation in order to avoid leaks.

His conclusion was that the media speculation "could be right, or it could be very, very wrong indeed."

Dr Reid also confirmed that he would be taking the RAF's overstretched air transport fleet into careful consideration before making any decision.

All of this is extremely important to thousands of servicemen and women and their families. Some of those servicemen and women's lives will be put in danger, supporting the NATO operation. One could ask, therefore, why about three quarters of the House's members vanished after PMQs? I wonder how many "honourable" members will be in the House to hear Reid's statement tomorrow...

[Lyneham Lad]

Dr Reid also confirmed that he would be taking the RAF's overstretched air transport fleet into careful consideration before making any decision.
To expand on this theme, there is an article on Flight Magazine's web site dated today:-
Afghan ops expansion to add strain on RAF transport aircraft
http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/01/25/Navigation/177/204299/Afghan+ops+expansion+to+add+strain+on+RAF+transport.html
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup is quoted as saying “Two [simultaneous] operations will put considerable stress on our air transport fleet,” he says, adding: “We can cover the operations, but it will be testing.” and he also wants to see an “early solution” to its delayed Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme. See the above link for the full article.

[MarkD]

2,000 Canadian Forces personnel are tasked to go, but we're starting to wonder over here if anyone else is showing up...

[FOMere2eternity]

If 'nothing has been decided' we better start packing then...:hmm:

[Compressorstall]

Has anybody said what the mission will be? The news is full of sending Apaches and paras, but there wasn't much hint of what the mission will be... And yes, I am fully aware of BEADWINDOW, but I just thought I'd ask and see if anyone actually knew...

[VP8]

Best start pulling the AN124's back from maintenance then:E

VEEPS

[tablet_eraser]

Compressorstall,

Dr Reid said in the House that the current role of the British forces in Afghanistan (about 850 personnel) is to support the US-led counter-terrorism mission. The possible deployment later this year is not part of that mission.

As part of the NATO-led ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) mission under the British Op FINGAL, the British forces would be responsible for conducting the full spectrum of PSOs: peacemaking in Helmland, peace enforcement elsewhere, and peacekeeping where necessary. Although the insurgency in Afghanistan is somewhat smaller than that in Iraq, Op FINGAL may become complicated by the attempts to rid Afghanistan of opium poppies as a primary industry. Given the amount of money lavished on local warlords by drugs barons, it is unlikely that they will give up without a fight. Helmland is the home of some of the most ruthless warlords and has been difficult to police adequately; hence the possible commitment of a large force of highly mobile forces to the area.

At the moment, Dr Reid will not cofirm the commitment of British troops to the mission, although Britain takes over the command of the NATO Rapid Reaction Force (NRF) from France in June. Many parts of HM Forces are already committed to NRF due to French shortfalls anyway. The reason Reid is reticent to confirm the details is that other NATO contingent forces have pulled away from the mission, considering it too risky. The next force outside Britain to make an announcement should be Holland, after extensive consultation in Parliament, some time next week.

It must be emphasised, lest anyone think that this is Britain supporting American aggression, that this is a NATO mission under NATO command, born under Article V (collective defence) after al-Qaeda's attacks on the USA.

All open source stuff.

[Compressorstall]

Thanks Tablet. I was just cautious that much was being made of the deployment of troops, but no mention of what they were really reauired to do. Interestingly, with just over 3000 going the traditional scale of things means that only 1 in 10 will be a bayonet, which doesn't give much capacity to go out and do Army stuff, despite the presence of the Attack Helicopters. If you look on the map, Helmand is a big place.

[pr00ne]

Just to add to tablet_erasers comprehensive post,

It is worth pointing out that the "around 3000" UK troops wil be part of an additional complement from NATO of around 6000, who will be augmenting an existing NATO force of 10,000 who have been in Afghanistan for some time, to make a total NATO commitment of 16,000.

The Dutch appear to be hesitating over the degree of overlap with the ongoing but entirely seperate US led force who are actively pursuing the resurgent Taliban in the more Northern parts of the country. They will be entirely seperate forces who will be kept apart conducting very different missions but able to "support" each other. I don't blame the Dutch for wanting that fully clarified before they extend their commitment. They have had ground forces, Apaches, SH and F-16's committed in theatre for some time, an additional 1200 Dutch troops is quite a lot for a small country.

[27mm]

Forgive my ignorance, but with the current manning strength and overstretch, doesn't this proposed Afghan deployment mean that a significant number of our troops will actually have to transfer from Iraq?

[sooms]

27mm-

Probably not, it will mean shorter turn round times between tours, leading to more pressure on famillies and less time for training, leave etc..

How we're going to get them there, supply them and get them home while maintaining the Iraq airlift which is already creaking badly is another matter. Presumably if 16AA Bde go it will involve AH and SH as well- seems like our C17's are going to be busy (busier).

Comments from the AT world perhaps??

[ORAC]

AW&ST - 23 Jan: The British Defence Ministry is seeking funds to bring forward its planned acquisition of another Boeing C-17 airlifter. The UK is purchasing the four aircraft it has leased. London had planned to buy a fifth aircraft early in the next decade, but the pentagon´s move to end production in 2008 is forcing the UK to consider an earlier acquisition.

[Compressorstall]

Surely one more C17 won't actually make that much differenec? Also, the procurement lead times mean that the stretched AT Fleet is going to have to bear the brunt of this without respite for some time. This deployment will also mean extra intra-theatre airlift as the distance will be too great for the Chinooks.
Interesting times, although the Apache drivers may get all the ammunition they want...

[BEagle]

Good to hear that the MoD is planning to spend its limited cash on something useful for once.

11 months now since AirTanker were identified as the preferred bidder for the FSTA programme. How much longer will the programme drag on before the RAF receives its long-overdue VC10/TriStar replacement?

If the right decision had been made 10 years ago before all the nonsense of the PFI absurdity, there would be a couple of dozen A310 MRTTs in service in the AT/AAR role by now....

Good luck to all those off to the North West Frontier - hope the UK does better than last time.

[Wycombe]

It has also been widely speculated that there will be a fairly significant Reservist element to this UK deployment (that's for the ones who are true part-timers that haven't already exceeded their call-up "quota" over the last few years ;) )

[airborne_artist]

Wycombe

TA have been there for some time:

From the Telegraph, 07/03/2004

The SAS, Britain's elite fighting unit, has been forced to call up part-time reservists to help in the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The decision was forced on British commanders because all available full-time members of the regiment are taking part in operations in Iraq.

full article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/07/wbin107.xml)

[tablet_eraser]

The Secretary of Defence, Dr John Reid, made a statement to Parliament on 26 Jan concerning the future deployment of British Forces to Afghanistan. The main points and key quotes are as follows:

The deployment will aim to support ISAF's Stage 3 expansion into Southern Afghanistan. This is a very difficult area; the Taleban and drugs traffickers are strong, the Government and security forces are weak. The current expansion of ISAF in the North and West, and Stage 3, are at the request of the democratically-elected Government of Afghanistan, and under the auspices of the UN.

Britain currently commands the Northern section of ISAF. Our responsibilities there will be handed over to German, Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian forces. In the West we will hand over to Italy and Spain who will lead ISAF there, with Lithuanian and American forces in support.

In the South, the US, Canada and Romania already have troops stationed, Estonia has pledged forces, the Danish Parliament is examining a proposal to send forces, I spoke to their minister this morning, and we are optimistic that the Dutch, whose minister I also spoke to this morning, will also deploy forces. In addition, Australia and New Zealand may also supply forces. This truly is, and will be, an international, multinational effort.

The US has offered to provide attack and support helicopters (AH and SH), and other nations are intending to supply fast jets and air transport.

We need that level of support, beacuse ISAF expansion under Stage 3 is no easy or small task. Southern Afghanistan is undeniably a more demanding area in which to operate than either the North or the West. The Taleban remain active, the authority of the Afghan Government and the reach of its security forces is still weak. The influence of the drug traffickers, by contrast, is strong. The ISAF, therefore, must be ready to meet these challenges. It will mean different forces. It may mean different tactics; not because we wish to wage war, that is not our aim.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) remain key to ISAF's mission to restore Afghanistan as a viable, reconstructed state.

Just as the threat is greater, so must be our williness to deter, and to defend ourselves against attack. The capabilities and experiences of our Armed Services ... makes us well placed to help ISAF both deter and defend itself.

HMG had previously announced the deployment of the HQ group of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRF) from May 06 to Feb 07, putting ISAF (via NATO) under the command of Gen Richards.

It will be supported by elements of the 1st Sigs Bde, including troops from 7 and 16 Sigs Regt and the ARRC Spt Bn. This alone means a commitment of over 1,000 troops towards the headquarters based in and around Kabul.

We are also preparing for a deployment to Southern Afghanistan. Next month, 39 Regt RE will deploy to Helmland Province to build an encampment for our main deployment. A coy from 42 Cdo RM will provide protection, and 3 CH47 Chinook SH from 18 (B) Sqn RAF will offer essential lift ability.

Between now and July, this constitutes an additional 850 personnel in preparation for the main deployment.

The main deployment will have at its heart a new British-led PRT at Helmland's capital. The PRT will be based on a triumvirate of the BritMil cdr along with officials from the FCO and DfID.

All of that is necessary to ensure that international terrorism never again has a base in Afghanistan.

Helping Afghanistan's anti-narcotics forces helps them and us at the same time, due to the fact that over 90% of the heroin used in the UK is derived from Afghan opium poppies. Helmland is the largest single source of opium in Afghanistan.

The PRT itself will be part of a larger British force providing security to Afghanistan. This force will be over 3,300-strong, and will come under the command of a new Multinational Bde South which will intially be under Canadian command. Command of the Bde will alternate between Canada and Britain.

The British Helmland Task Force will include:
Elements of HQ 16AAB and and airborne infantry battle-group based initially around 3Bn Para Regt.
8 Apache AH-47 from 9 Regt AAC.
4 Lynx SH from 9 Regt AAC.
6 Chinook SH from 27 Sqn.
Scimitar and Spartan armoured vehicles from the Household Cavalry Regt.
Battery of 105mm light guns from 7 (Para) Regt Royal Horse Artillery.
Desert Hawk UAVs from 32 Regt RA.
13 Air Assault Regt.
29 Regt RLC.
7 Bn REME.
16 Close Spt Med Regt.
4 RAF C130s.

The force should be fully operational by July.
The total number of all personnel deployed will number some 5,700 at the peak of the deployment, and should settle at around 4,700 personnel after the engineers and Harriers withdraw in July and June respectively. The forces will then comprise those required to command ISAF (300 troops in support and training roles), and the Helmland Task Force.

Reservists will act in support, most drawn from the Royal Rifle Volunteers of 4Bn Para Regt.

ISAF mission is focused on reconstruction, and resources will be supplied to make this possible. It will be a 3-year deployment, costing around £1bn over 5 years. Resources will be made available commencing this FY.

This deployment is manageable alonside other, wider commitments, including Iraq. It does not require drawdown in Iraq; that will be based, as we have said, entirely on the conditions in Iraq itself.

To begin with, the Multinational Force will come under the Coalition as a normal part of the handover. American and Canadian troops are already working in the South, and other ISAF contingent forces will need time to build up before the Coalition can hand over to ISAF.

All of this has but one aim; it is a secure, stable, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan, free from terrorism and terrorist domination. Hon Gentlemen and Ladies will be concerned about the risk and dangers of this deployment. Whatever the dangers, they are as nothing compared with the risk to our country of allowing Afghanistan to fall into the clutches of the Taleban and international terrorism.

[Daysleeper]

Tablet beat me to it.

Edited to add

Scimitar and Spartan armoured vehicles from the Household Cavalry.

Bye then Harry.

bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4646336.stm)

[Almost_done]

You missed one small part there, a 3 year comitment. Bye bye to all home time for the SH and roulemont Army units.

[Almost_done]

I have the whole announcement taped, please bear with me while I update my post. It will take another 20-odd minutes before I remove the "still being edited" caveat.


Sorry if I was being a bit quick off the mark :uhoh: doesn't normally happen :D

[SpinSpinSugar]

From the Scotsman.


Stretched RAF may use civilian aircraft for Afghan mission

JAMES KIRKUP
WESTMINSTER EDITOR

THE RAF will be put under such pressure by the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan that soldiers could be flown out to the mission on chartered civilian aircraft, it has emerged.

John Reid, the Defence Secretary, will today tell MPs about the deployment, which could see another 3,500 troops sent to Afghanistan as part of a NATO mission.

The Ministry of Defence yesterday confirmed that 3,000 troops from the 16th Air Assault Brigade had been training on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire this week "for a possible deployment to Afghanistan".

The mission is already beset by confusion. Britain and NATO partners argue about the precise role British forces will play in Afghanistan, as well as how many troops other countries will offer to the mission.

Now Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the head of the Royal Air Force, has publicly warned that supporting the Afghan deployment will put his fast-shrinking service under severe strain.

The RAF is losing more than 12,000 personnel and more than 100 aircraft as the government restructures the armed forces.

"Two [simultaneous] operations will put considerable stress on our air transport fleet," Sir Jock said.

"We can cover the operations, but it will be testing."

The problem facing RAF planners is the shortage of transport aircraft equipped with defensive aids systems and anti-missile countermeasures.

Hundreds of troops due to return from Iraq were effectively stranded for several days before Christmas due to the shortage of such planes in working order.

One option under consideration for the Afghan mission is said to be using commercial flights to ferry troops to relatively stable countries in the region such as Pakistan or Uzbekistan, before transferring them on to RAF planes equipped for the hazardous flight into southern Afghanistan. Once they have arrived in Helmand province, the British troops will embark on a mission that is still poorly defined.

British military planners see their principal responsibilities as helping reconstruct the shattered region, and in the process tackling local drug gangs who grow poppies for heroin, as well as any remnants of the former Taleban regime.

But other NATO members, particularly the US, are calling for the British forces to take on a counter-terrorism role, helping American special forces pursue members of al-Qaeda in the unstable Pakistani border area.

Last week, the Ministry of Defence accused Victoria Nuland, the US ambassador, of being "misleading" about the British mission after she suggested that UK forces would be hunting terrorists.

There are also questions about which countries will serve alongside Britain's forces. NATO expects the Netherlands to provide up to 1,200 troops, although that deployment is subject to a knife-edge vote in the Dutch parliament next week.

In the Commons yesterday, Dr Reid conceded that uncertainty over Britain's allies could prevent him from making a definitive announcement to MPs today.

"I am not satisfied... that we have a NATO configuration of military troops around us which satisfies me," he said.

[tablet_eraser]

All done now!

Re the Scotsman post... I think it was foolish of them to be so speculative prior to the statement made today. The mission has clearly been defined as reconstruction and redevelopment; whether forces can be seconded to the US-led war on terrorism from the NATO-led ISAF has yet to be seen, but that would constitute a departure from the mission at hand. Bearing in mind one of the key principles of war is selection and maintenance of the aim, that would be a foolhardy thing to do.

If security for Afghanistan means defeating terrorism within the area of deployment, however, that may fall within the TORs. The main thing here is that we'll have to wait and see what the exact TORs are.

Dr Reid HAS made a definitive statement. He did not say that this deployment might happen, he said that it WILL happen.

The mission in Helmland is NOT poorly-defined. The end state has been defined, and all other plans will, in the time-honoured and historically sound way, be set up to achieve the end state.

The Scotsman, along with other organs like the Independant do more damage than anything else to the morale and fighting effectiveness of British servicemen. Yes, we are beset by budget constraints, we face shortages of manpower and aircraft, we don't necessarily have the best kit in the world, but we are to a man the best fighting force in the world. How are we supposed to respond when newspapers peddle rumours of poor mission planning, ill-defined missions, lies, indecision, etc? How can we concentrate on the task at hand if all we receive from some of this country's supposedly best newspapers is a stream of invective, criticism, and unjustified complaints against the abilities of British commanders? Really, they should let us get on with our jobs and report the NEWS, as is their job, instead of the GOSSIP, which is what people buy the Sun and the Mirror for.

[mary_hinge]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-26T135526Z_01_L25754359_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AFGHAN-BRITAIN-TROOPS.xml
LONDON (Reuters) - The government announced 3,300 new troops as part of a major mission to southern Afghanistan on Thursday, without waiting for NATO allies who have so far failed to commit to sending forces.
The new deployment, announced in parliament by Defence Secretary John Reid, will take Britain's total force in Afghanistan to 5,700 after it assumes command of a NATO mission there in May.
The troops would take the NATO force into the dangerous south of the country for the first time. Until now, NATO has operated in the north and west, but the more volatile south has been patrolled by the United States outside NATO.
The announcement of the British mission to the south has been expected for months but has been held up as other European countries dragged their feet, notably the Netherlands, which has yet to confirm whether it will contribute 1,200 troops.
Reid said he had spoken to his Dutch and Danish counterparts earlier on Thursday. Previously he had said he would not announce the UK force until he was satisfied that allies would provide enough troops.
Asked if Britain would be left to fill a potential gap left by the Dutch or others, Reid said London would not commit more troops and expected NATO to provide the necessary numbers.
"Over and beyond the troop numbers I have mentioned, no, we are not going to plug any gaps for others," he told parliament.
Reid expressed confidence all NATO nations would decide to join the mission and said he hoped Britain's troop announcement would have a "catalyst" effect on other countries' decisions.
JULY OPERATIONAL DATE
He said he aimed for the new British mission to be operational by July, several months after Britain takes over command of the NATO peace force.
The team will include Apache attack helicopters as well as a "provincial reconstruction team" aiding the rebuilding of Afghanistan, under a Canadian commander reporting to the British commander in Kabul.
The government acknowledges that the mission to the south, where American troops have fought Taliban guerrillas, is more dangerous than the existing NATO mission. But as Washington's main ally, it wants other European countries to share the risk.
"The risks are nothing when compared to the dangers to our country of allowing Afghanistan to fall back into the clutches of the Taliban and international terrorism," Reid said.
The UK forces would not have a counter-terrorism role, which will still be handled by the U.S.-led coalition in the south, but would have enough muscle to respond "robustly" if attacked.
The 3,300 new troops are in addition to about 1,000 extra troops that Britain has promised for the headquarters in Kabul when it takes over NATO's ISAF Afghan peacekeeping mission, and about 1,000 in place already in the north.
Engineers will be sent to help build a base, and Reid said the total British force in Afghanistan would peak at about 5,700 and then stabilise at about 4,700.
They would form part of a NATO force that would expand to more than 18,000 troops countrywide, including about 9,000 in the south, Reid said.
The United States has about 18,000 troops in the south, but expects to reduce their numbers as NATO takes more responsibility for that part of the country.

[peoplespoet]

Oh Bugger ,:eek:
Boys just be safe...and give em 'Hells kitchen' if they want a fight. I heard a good man once say that "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 8". So it's on my command unleash hell..............or hellfire or whatever!

I hope that our lords and masters endure many sleepless nights to come hoping that their bluff to the ministry pays off!

Good Luck....and remember 'if it glows then it goes' ..........'those that are not running away are only well dicisplined'.......'a fight thats fair is badly planned, bug out if you don't have the advantage'.......better to evade, re-attack and win.....than fight the unknown and loose!


PP

[Compressorstall]

Tablet, you seem very excited by the news of the deployment. Does that mean you'll be going there as well?

[tablet_eraser]

Dunno. I'm on ERS for a unit that might deploy, and given the length of the deployment if they do go I'm sure I'll follow shortly afterwards.

My interest has more to do with the fact that I'm on watchkeeper's stand-down and have the time to spend watching BBC Parliament and honing my dubious journalistic skills!

[4Foxtrot]

Wot? No JFACHQ? All that NRF training for nothing...

[The Swinging Monkey]

The problem with this being a so-called NATO push, is just that - its NATO and frankly it simply don't work!
The 10 years we spent policing Bosnia and Kosova proved that. The Germans don't fly on this day, the Dutch on another day. Some will fly over this area, some won't, its a complete farce. I regret to say I spent some time flying NATO AWACS during GW1, and frankly, how we didn't lose a jet amazes me!I was scared on more than one occasion. Was I glad to get back home and onto the E-3D, at least you had people and crews you could rely on, even if they were a little inexperienced at first.
Good luck to all you boys and girls going out there, may God speed you all safely home quickly.
Kind regards
TSM
'Caruthers, time to raise a glass to our even more streched armed forces'

[Compressorstall]

NATO needs to cut its teeth, unfortunately this will be in a country that has given even superpowers a good shoeing.

[Arty]

Compressorstall:

''NATO needs to cut its teeth, unfortunately this will be in a country that has given even superpowers a good shoeing.''

Oh really? And which superpowers would that be then???

[MightyGem]

Us(not the US!), Russia to name two.

[SpinSpinSugar]

John Reid is on Radio Four in the next hour discussing this, before 9am on the Today Programme, if anyone's up and PPRuNeing at this early hour.

Cheers, SSS

[Compressorstall]

Arty, some reading for you on your long trips:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971170924/ref=pd_sim_b_3/102-2095473-9413713?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

[RayDarr]

Our Reserve Sqn was asked to provide volunteers for this deployment back as far as Oct 05. Several of our people have put up their hands to go, and will be off with the rest of the deployment in due course.

Perhaps I'm a little over sensitive about reservists, but I'm not sure if Wycombe was taking the p**s or not. Us weekend warriors have been busy for some years in all sorts of places doing all sorts of jobs that are considered necessary by the powers that be. I have been back in uniform a couple of times for extended periods, as have almost all of the guys and gals I know in reserves various country wide. I would not hide the fact that somes years back there was an element who considered the reserves to be a bit of a social club, but these have been removed (in the main) over the last few years, and the force is now much better trained, much fitter and keen to do the job.
I must say that I get a little annoyed at times with the attitude of people who should know better. Regulars are complaining about everything in sight, and saying how they want out as soon as poss. My people can walk whenever they like just by handing in their ID card and uniform, yet they turn up whenever they can and volunteer to give up the easy civi life to go to crap parts of the world and get shot at. Then they come back and often ask to do it again.
Our respective services are now so short, that they rely on reservists to fill everyday posts in order to get the day to day job done. Bit of a sad state of affairs in my view.
Good luck to all off this time both regular and reservist, keep yer 'eads down, and I wish you all safe return to your own lands in due course.
Ray

[FFP]

As a serving member Ray, I would say that I appreciate the role reservists play today. I weould go as far to say I admire them for what they do, as a regular it's what I get paid for and what I signed up to, and whilst the same is true to a certain extent for reservists, the contribution many of them make is beyond what certainly I would do in the same position.

Thought it was good of CAS to go public on the effect this would have on the AT fleet. "Testing" is certainly an apt word for the coming months......

[air pig]

Is this the sound of elastic stretching beyond limits I hear again !!!

[[email protected]]

The British Helmland Task Force will include:
Elements of HQ 16AAB and and airborne infantry battle-group based initially around 3Bn Para Regt.
8 Apache AH-47 from 9 Regt AAC.
4 Lynx SH from 9 Regt AAC.
6 Chinook SH from 27 Sqn.

We've got a brand new TOP SECRET weapon!!!!

Is that 8 tandem rotor attack helicopters I see there? Where have they been hiding this wondrous new invention???? Somebody seems to have done the right thing and issued it to the Army though, hurrah! :E

[Compressorstall]

Grunt, it would simply be reinventing the Go-Go bird:
http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/ach47a.htm

The RAF is quite good at operating things with weapons on too.

[Muff Coupling]

Let me get this right.

NATO coalition deploys to Afghanistan (not true if Australia nd NZ are involved, they used to or still are part of SEATO), so is it a UN Force?. This; overtretches UK completely (IRAQ, Bosnia still running) and US (ditto and trying to re-org into 35 Bde Structure), Dutch may or may not play. French and Germans certainly will not.

Hamas now ruling party in Palestine move against Isreal, Syria who have garaged and stored most of pre 2003 Iraqi hardware, come out in support. US jewish lobby cries foul and demands US intervention to assist, al la Yom Kippur. Iran send military aid and funds to Hamas. They who have blagged their way to developing a Gen 1 nuke, call the US bluff and warm it up. At the same time mass forces on the East Iraq border, near to UK TOR who have diddly squat left and are containing a corrupt new model Iraqi Army and police Force. USAF deployed to bomb Iran back to the stone age. Overstretch !

China who has slowly been building a reasonably well equipped and sizable force with a reach capability, notes all this, and makes good its long standing promise to repatriate Taiwan! US has a non-aggression pact with the former part of China and has to deploy all capital carriers, all Far East based forces and hold a theatre large scale operation to assist Taiwan.

N. Korea with its large standing army of under nourished conscripts, wacks a few long thong missiles into Seoul and crosses the border to raid all food retail outlets. US Forces in Korea assist...or answer B, already gone to Taiwan.

UK unable to bail out George W, with his hold win hold scenario, as Robert Mugabe starts land filling Zimbabwe with executed opponents, who are all British Commonwealth citizens and or passport holders. UK deploys the Army Cadet Force by Virgin Atlantic to conduct a policing action and repatriation mission.

Russian communists stage coup in Moscow in order to turn the Gas back on.

Meanwhile in the UK, the NHS which has the biggest budget since records began, refuses to fund Defence, as gay, one legged, single parent, ethically challenged, doley's scream to be protected from Ivan and French Farmers.

This sounds just great...could only be make believe...could it:eek:

[BEagle]

..at which point the Martians decided that enough was enough....

“Lffr ujf cmppez opjtf epxo, zpv mpu” ,they said to G Dubya, “..ps xf’mm sfbmmz hjwf zpv tpnfuijoh up uijol bcpvu!”

[Wycombe]

RayDarr,

As a former weekend warrior myself, I was certainly not taking the p**s, merely expressing admiration for those who will answer the call again, due to the ability of our Govt to commit ever-reducing resources further and further.

As a (sadly) ex-Reservist, it is heartening to see comments like those from FFP. Times have certainly changed since I first donned the light blue (and sometimes green) at weekends 20 years ago.

[highcirrus]

Does anyone know what happened to the 900 Stinger shoulder launched ground-to-air missiles, formerly gifted to the Mujaheddin (star pupil, Osama Bin Laden) by the CIA in 1986/7, during the ten year fight to repel the Soviets from Afghanistan and, further, does anyone know what would be the effectiveness against modern day Apache AH’s, of any unused Stingers, which might have been seized from Mujaheddin factions and held in storage by the Taleban, between then and now?

Also, why exactly is 16 AAB the correct organisation to select as part of a battle group for the mission plan of “reconstruction and redevelopment” of Afghanistan when it had, hitherto, always been supposed that the Brigade was the “tip of the spear” rather than a blunty garrisoning/engineering/social development outfit.

Does anyone also know if this “reconstruction and redevelopment” is the total brief to the assigned NATO forces and will theatre commanders therefore generate methodology for implementation of this ephemeral brief, ad hoc, depending on situations found on the ground, day-to-day, or is there a detailed plan of campaign to route out specifically identified figures and hold specific locations and ground areas? Or is there something we are not being told (again)?

Finally, can anyone further tell me how the reorganisation (downsizing) of British Army infantry regiments combined with on-track acquisition of the full tranche of Cold War conceived, Typhoon aircraft, is an effective counter to the clear and present danger posed by Al’Quaida/Taleban, especially in our latest adventure in foreign parts, prosecuting the “war on terror”?

Confused - highcirrus.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

You won't get anyone to tell you the effectiveness of a given weapon against a platform. Your best bet is to try and find an open source report on the web.

[SASless]

Open source documents will suggest the Stingers are not the problem....later issue Russian made Manpads are.

SA-7's and Stingers are old kit...time lifed batteries that may or may not have been replaced but reports seem to confirm sightings of improved versions Manpads in Afghanistan.

[dallas]

Seems like, for the most part, we got away with Iraq...so far.

Afghanistan is a different deal. They just want to be left alone, albeit to grow poppies; the problem arises when we try and stop them - what are we going to suggest, coffee? The much-admired British squaddie isn't going to be handing out sweets to kids, it appears he's going to be torching the family business.

With Iraq there was a need for change and many of the population agreed. It does appear we're going to Afghanistan with a blurry plan and it could turn desperately nasty in short order.

Nu Labour's arrogance might just have bought us all our own Vietnam.

[SASless]

All we have to do is look to our south and see how effective the anti-coca growing project has been in Central and South America. How many Billions of dollars and still the plantations produce the makings for cocaine. The Afghans are a much different breed of cat than the folks down south thus it will be a harder task yet.

[BEagle]

Haven't you got any of that Agent Orange stuff left over from Viet Nam?

[Compressorstall]

High Cirrus
Perhaps 16 AAB has been selected because they are the tip of the spear and they may be about to be thrown into the eye of the storm. The mission does not appear to be clearly defined (according to unnamed General in the Sunday Telegraph) and 16 AAB can cope with missions from fighting to handing out leaflets.
There are many valid viewpoints, but whatever happens it is those in uniform who have to make it all work.

[LateArmLive]

Let's not forget that we've had UK troops in Afghanistan for over 3 years now, we're just adding to the force we already have out there.

[highcirrus]

I’ve started a re-read of Ahmed Rashid’s definitive work Taliban now that Dubya has once again decided that the Dear Leader had better start pulling his weight in Afghanistan. The book is of especial interest as the back cover carries the message that “Tony Blair’s plans for post-Taliban (2002) Afghanistan are heavily influenced by this book”.

Unfortunately, his reading odyssey does not seem to have been overwhelmingly influential to his current thinking (if any), as the following important messages have apparently been overlooked in the rush to action:

“In the nineteenth century, fearful of an ever expanding Russian empire in Central Asia which might covet Afghanistan for a thrust against Britain’s Indian empire, the British made three separate attempts to conquer and hold Afghanistan until they realised that the intractable Afghans could be bought more easily than fought. The British offered cash subsidies, manipulated the tribal chiefs and managed to turn Afghanistan into a client state.”

“But for the Afghans the Soviet invasion (in 1979) was yet another attempt by outsiders to subdue them and replace their time-honoured religion and society with an alien ideology and social system.”

“Afghanistan has never been subdued by any conquering army since the early Aryan invasions, 6000 years ago. It’s rough, rugged, deserted and arid terrain has produced some of the best fighters the world has ever seen.”

Ahmed Rashid also points out that when the Taliban last imposed a ban on poppy (heroin) production, the street price of heroin in Europe increased tenfold, thus producing an overwhelming demand for the product, which no Afghan farmer, bereft of alternative crop markets, or no local warlord with “troops” to pay and influence to buy, could possibly ignore.

Perhaps it might therefore be worthwhile honing the negotiating, manipulation and bribing skills of the multi-talented 16 AAB (for which organisation I have the greatest respect), rather than have them chasing around an ancient killing ground, at the behest of a muddled, mendacious and politically bankrupt prime minister, shedding more of our blood and treasure, hoping, once again, to fly in the face of the obvious lessons of history. Plus ça change!

[Anotherpost75]

BBC Website, 27 Jan 06 Here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4654736.stm

Unease over Afghan duty
A site popular with soldiers has highlighted some unease at the prospect of UK troops being deployed to Afghanistan later this year.

Members of the unofficial but popular Army Rumour Service (ARRSE) website have been responding to the announcement an extra 3,300 British soldiers are being sent to help with Nato's International Security Assistance Force [Isaf] peace-keeping duties.

One user had a specific message for Defence Secretary John Reid.

"If I have to bull [polish] my boots and carry any mates off the back of a[n RAF] herc[ules] Mr Reid needs to know that I will hold him personally responsible," he writes.

"If it's me being carried then I will have left explicit instructions and half of my life insurance to someone who will avenge me."

Visiting some of the soldiers being sent to Afghanistan, at a training exercise in the UK on Friday, Mr Reid said their presence would allow aid workers to help opium growers develop alternative sources of income.

But Army Rumour Service members remain unconvinced.

"Wouldn't it be a damn sight easier and cheaper just to buy up the opium stocks?" one contributor wonders.

While another asks: "How much of the heroin on the streets of Marseilles, Lyons and Paris ALSO originates in Afghanistan and are France going to participate in this NATO op[eration]?"

Mr Reid said it was hoped other countries - including Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands would also send troops to strengthen the Isaf.

The deployment will cost £1bn over three years.

But another user tells Army Rumour Service that may not be enough.

"I hope someone has carefully planned the expenditure of this money and built in sufficient contingency for all eventualities - unlike other recent op[eration]s.

"A lot of people have known about this for sometime, I would therefore look dimly on any excuses given should it all go wrong."

The extra 3,300 troops, who will go mainly to the country's volatile Helmand area, will add to the 1,100 already in Afghanistan and 1,950 announced earlier.

The initial deployment will be 1,000 troops to the Headquarters Group of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, with the main deployment of 3,300 heading to the south, including a Provincial Construction team.

But for some critics the figures do not add up.

"How is the RAF going to transport and sustain such a large force at such a distance?" one asks the Army Rumour Service.

Another writes: "After all this effort and support, there is just one, (yes ONE), 'boots-on-the-ground' battle group actually going to 'provide a secure and stable environment' to a land area slightly larger than Wales!

OK, it's a pretty powerful BG [battle group], and maybe some others will join our party - but no mention yet who..."

Other are worried about the Army becoming over-stretched.

One Army Rumour Service user writes: "The [A]rmy are so short now. Are the TA going to do ceremonial duties?"

Mr Reid said the additional support would help prevent Afghanistan from "falling back into the clutches of the Taleban".

But some contributors are concerned about the possibility of any conflict escalating.

"Kabul as we all know has absolutely no control over the area, which in itself raises the possibility of good old border conflicts with Pakistan," one tells Army Rumour Service.

[Onan the Clumsy]

highcirrus So you're saying Afghanistan was to the British Empire as the Picts were to the Roman Empire.

[highcirrus]

Onan

There may indeed be a parallel of sorts. Just as the Picts were really too much trouble for the Romans to subjugate (law of diminishing returns), a wall to keep them out of the empire was the lateral solution of the day, just as cash subsidies and manipulation of the Afghan tribal chiefs were the lateral solutions for the British Empire, in the nineteenth century.

Perhaps lateral thinking is still required in this modern day?

[SASless]

One Army Rumour Service user writes: "The [A]rmy are so short now. Are the TA going to do ceremonial duties?"


OH Hell....we cannot let combat service get in the way of Ceremonial Duties...that just wouldn't do now would it? Afterall...one must have priorities....Troops on Parade certainly trumps Troops on Patrol.


You have to admit....that of all the excuses thrown out so far....that is pretty darn Lame!

[Anotherpost75]

SASless. I’m guessing that there was a fair amount of sarcasm intended in those words, reflecting the importance which the “brass” attaches to ceremonial. I would think that the intended message was that the manpower situation must be pretty strained if troops have to come off ceremonial and go on ops!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

You will have to forgive SaS as he's American........ irony, satire, sarcasm and of course history are not that nations strong points:p
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[jstars2]

As we seem to be on the eve of another big push (does this mean the war will be over by Christmas daddy?), I thought the following from the Spectator of 19th November 2005 might be interesting to those about to depart UK’s shores. To date, writer Anderson has had no response from any of the named parties.

CONDUCT UNBECOMING – Bruce Anderson.

Actions are being taken in the British people’s name which should make us feel appalled. The government’s behaviour towards the British army has been despicable.

In Northern Ireland, there are plans to give an amnesty to IRA terrorists who were never prosecuted because they went on the run. Though an unappealing prospect, that could be regarded as falling within the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. But someone saw a difficulty. What if evidence emerged which could lead to the prosecution of a British soldier, after all the terrorists had won immunity. A bizarre solution was found. It is proposed to re-examine thousands of killings which took place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, including the killings of terrorists by members of the security forces. The intention is that this will lead to a general amnesty. It would also establish a moral equivalence between the British army and the terrorists.

This has caused outrage throughout the army. When the Romans took prisoners, they made them pass under a yoke which normally harnessed beasts of burden. This was not painful, but it was humiliating. The British army feels that it is now being made to pass under the yoke. If the defence ministers were trying to sabotage recruitment and eradicate morale they could hardly have done better.

Yet there is worse. The ministers have not acted out of malice. They are merely guilty of naivety, incompetence and stupidity. They could not have done anything like as much damage without the help of the generals. Politically, this government is weak and growing weaker. If the generals had been prepared to push their disagreements to the point of resignation, the ministers would have collapsed like a wet meringue. But – and this is terrible – there is no evidence that the generals did disagree.

Man for man, the British army is now the best in the world. The principal reason for is the quality of training. But training is not just a matter of teaching techniques and instilling discipline. Training is about bonding and instilling an ethos. Both of those depend on the integrity of the chain of command and on leadership. However well drilled the modern private soldier may be, he is a thinking creature, not an automaton. He will not long follow men whom he does not respect. Those in authority over him win that respect by their confidence, their courage and their commitment to his welfare. That is the unspoken contract between the officer and his men: do what I tell you, and I will look after you as best I can.

That is the contract which the lawyers are now forcing the officers to dishonour. In his dealings with Tony Blair over the legality of the Iraq war, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, was so invertebrate that he would go on licking the Prime Minister’s boots even while his backside was being kicked. In his dealings with the army, the Attorney General has been consistent. He believes that the armed forces should be a free-fire zone for human rights, political correctness and international jurisdiction. As a result, dubious solicitors who used to chase ambulances now chase khaki. British soldiers in Iraq often come across the slug slime of shyster lawyers.

Senior officers are not seeking permission for their men to run amok. That would be the end of discipline. It is always impressed upon soldiers that they must fight within the Geneva Convention. When troops are in combat, every serious incident is investigated within the chain of command, and this is not a formality. Over the years plenty of soldiers have been prosecuted.

Chain-of-command justice has one advantage. As those conducting the investigations understand the context in which soldiers must operate, they can make informed judgments as to acceptable behaviour. That is not true of Lord Goldsmith and his minions. Yet over the past few years, the lawyers in London have succeeded in devaluing the chain of command.

Trooper Williams was cleared after an investigation by two colonels. That availed him nothing once the Crown Prosecution Service intervened. In court, the case against him collapsed. But a good soldier who had risked his life was rewarded with two years under the shadow of a murder charge. Other CPS-inspired cases have also folded, but not until the soldiers concerned had been punished with months of anxiety for the crime of serving their country.

As a result of this, one might have thought that the army would have asserted itself to restore the primacy of the chain of command. Not so: the Attorney General was able to rebut any such moves with the threat of the International Criminal Court. When Britain signed up to the ICC, there were assurances that British soldiers would never appear in front of it. It would only act in countries which refused to mount proper investigations of their own. But senior officers have now been warned that the ICC would not regard the chain of command as an adequate legal procedure. So methods which have been tried and tested over the decades would not prevent foreign lawyers from putting British soldiers on a par with Milosevic: more of the yoke.

The generals alone cannot solve the problem of the ICC. But one might expect some resistance. Instead, senior figures have made love to their employment as lawyers’ pimps. A brigadier working directly for General Sir Michael Jackson wrote as follows : ‘Do you have any evidence of officer misbehaviour in Iraq which I could use?’

The cold, callous tone of that missive could have come from some satirists’ version of the chateau –generals in the First World War. The satirists were writing fiction. That brigadier’s letter encouraged the prosecution of Colonel Jorge Mendonca, DSO, and outstanding soldier. A country which can treat Colonel Mendonca like this ought to be ashamed of itself. As for the brigadier, better men have shot themselves for worse reasons. Around Mike Jackson, however, they are beyond shame.

Mike Jackson: corruptio optimi pessima. Everything about the outward man inspires respect. He looks like a mensch: a fighting soldier, a soldier’s soldier, the last commander on earth to be seduced by the politicians. He has force of personality, reinforced by a hint of menace. If he had been willing to stand up to the politicians, they would never have dared to stand up to him.

But all his supposed strengths were a sham. It was said of the great Slim that he had the brains of a Field Marshal and the heart of a private soldier. Mike Jackson has the heart of a toy poodle. His career as Chief of the General Staff is a study in moral failure.

In combat zones, soldiers invariably ask one question of senior visitors: is the country behind them? They desperately want to hear a yes. But how can today’s soldiers believe that when the lawyers are allowed to run amok? Throughout the services, there are problems with recruitment and retention. Mr. Blair wants to use the army more and more. They way the ministers and generals are acting, there will be less and less to use. What happened to joined-up government?

What has happened to duty, honour, patriotism – to common decency? What has happened to this country when brave colonels are prosecuted while generals – full of rank and titles, wearing resplendent uniforms, by all appearances worthy successors to their illustrious forebears – fail in their most basic duty to the men under their command?

[The Gorilla]

The biggest problem as I see it, is going to be the sucking in effect. The guys in Helmland are going to have a very hard time and are most likely going to end up in some serious fire fights. The only way Reid is going to save face is to continually re-inforce the numbers that he has sent and I fear we could end up with many many thousands of troops out there over the next two to three years. Air cover assets will inevitably have to go into theatre very soon after ground ops start oh and just to cheer every one up this is a NATO led op!!

Jock Syrup had a chance to stop all this by saying enough is enough and sorry but we can't support this additional tasking. But in the true yes tradition of the Air Farce he didn't. Stirling stuff Sir and just how many months will you be doing out there?

:{

[The Helpful Stacker]

Jock Syrup had a chance to stop all this by saying enough is enough and sorry but we can't support this additional tasking. But in the true yes tradition of the Air Farce he didn't. Stirling stuff Sir and just how many months will you be doing out there?
:{

He's got a pension to consider you know? It wouldn't do to forget ones priorities for the sake of the troops.
:rolleyes:

[RayDarr]

Folks,
First, don't knock poor old Jock, remember he was a Plt Off once, so would have served his time doing crap stuff at the behest of some senior. Also, he has a comfortable life style to support, so he's as much entitled to his pension as the next man. Also remember, the polititians don't give a damn for Jock or anyone else, so what if he resigns, there are plenty more willing to climb the greasy pole. If Jock goes, compliant senior officers are a dime a dozen, just promote the next one and keep going till you get the answer you want.
Now as for fighting pointless wars with too little of the wrong kit that probably don't work anyway, this is not a new problem. I expect the Romans also complained in the same way. Who cares if half the force resigns in disgust, there is always a stream of star struck kids queueing up to sign on as a result of watching the Dead Sparrows, or seeing The Battle of Britain film on a Sunday afternoon. Even better in fact, as the kids don't know what they are letting themselves in for, and will do what they are asked willingly enough. No wonder war fighting is a young persons game, anyone with half a brain would avoid it like the plague.
Any poor soul who has been too close to real fighting and has seen what explosives can do to people would be only too pleased to spend the rest of his service doing cerimonial duties if it meant never going to war again, especially over some God forsaken hole like Afghanistan.
I don't blame the Air Marshals, and I feel sorry for the boys and girls off on this deployment. The people responsible as those we voted in to power last time. Just don't make the same mistake at the next election.

[Anotherpost75]

RayDarr
I'd say you are absolutely spot on. "The people responsible as those we voted in to power last time. Just don't make the same mistake at the next election." Please, everyone take note.

Meanwhile, all about to go out and "show that something is being done about Afghanistan" (T. Bliar, Lancaster House, 31 Jan 06), you know that the only people looking out for you are yourself, your family and your immediate mates - forget everyone else, especially any of the "new labour" lot. Good luck.

[air pig]

Scenario for the future.

RAF Regt Flt Lt to SAC Gunner - "Bring politicians we are going to advance".

SAC Gunner to RAF Regt Flt Lt - "What do we want those fecking useless cnuts for Sir."

RAF Regt Flight Lt to SAC Gunner - "Don't you want anything to shoot at Gunner".

[Lyneham Lad]

Interesting article in this week's Flight Magazine, which starts:-
With prospects for a follow-on US Air Force order for Boeing C-17 transports rapidly diminishing, the manufacturer has laid out a new strategy to obtain an at least partial reprieve for its heavy airlifter programme. The company’s supply chain will begin to shut down within the next 60 days.........
See http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/01/31/Navigation/181/204359/Boeing+tries+to+keep+C-17+line+alive.html
for full details.

Didn't I see a few references on PPrune to the RAF's need for more heavy lift capacity, especially given the forthcoming Afghan adventure? :( It's hardly likely that a UK order for another one or two would give Boeing a warm and fuzzy feeling.......... Antonovs anyone? :E

[RayDarr]

Let us remember our history chaps.
In the 1920's Trenchard insisted that the RAF could "police" the Empire cheaper than the Army could. When some local got brassed off and took a pot shot or two, or perhaps stole someone's sheep etc the RAF would fly over and drop leaflets saying that if the criminal didn't turn himself in we would bomb his village in 2 days time. If no response, we went back with a couple of DH9A' a Wapiti or two or a Vickers Vernon and bombed the crap out of the place. Result, peace in Iraq for 20 odd years at 10% cost of a military garrison.
Let's bring this up to date. Drive an unmanned recce thing over South Afghanistan, and find poppy fields. Drop leaflets explaining that if these are not destroyed, we will come and do the job with extreme predudice. Recce again in a few days, and if no change, go in and bomb the crap out of them from well above manpad level.
We might kill a few, but thats the way the cookie crumbles, and I'd rather kill them then let them kill us by letting the Army get close up and personal. I expect that once the local farmers understand that planting poppies is soon followed by napalm and large bombs which re plough his fields, destroy his buildings and kill anyone in the area, even they will get the hint and go over to oil seed rape or something. (They would get a good subsidy for the latter as well!!!)

[FOMere2eternity]

Somebody posted - I thought on this thread but I can't find it - why can't we just buy ALL the opium legitimately?

We could corner the market, sell some to pharmacy industrials, supply rehabilitation programmes for druggies for free and destroy the rest. We could even raise the buying price and have the Afghans produce less so we had less to police. It'd still need troops but in a defensive role, without causing the mujahadeen to rise against us because of loss of livelihood.

Just a thought...

[ZH875]

They do not want to grow food, so no need for the land to be able to grow food. They want to cultivate Opium, so why not stop them by using 'Uncle Sam's Miracle prevent-Gro' more commonly known as AGENT ORANGE. That will stop the Opium Trade in one relatively cheap easy lesson. Let something good come from the Vietnam war.

[air pig]

Heroin/Morhine when used in a medical context is a fantastic drug, in that it controls pain for the terminally ill, those having heart attacks and following surgery. By buying up the product at a fair price, and controling its growth, we may produce a good thing in this world.

Provide for those removed from the trade with support to grow their food for their famillies and even for export at guarenteed price onto the worlds markets to allow for an income.

Any drug barons or growers after this should receive the ultimate penalty for peddling a form of slow death to others.

This would be cost effective in the long term for the world.

[Onan the Clumsy]

why not stop them by using 'Uncle Sam's Miracle prevent-Gro' more commonly known as AGENT ORANGEPerhaps you would like to suit up and handle the stuff. :yuk:

And whilst you're about it, if you want to destroy an industry because of its affects on other countries, why not cast the net a little further?

Why not find where moronic soul destroying television programmes are made and exported from and bomb those places too. Or Fast Food HQ? That should be a target too.

Cigarettes anyone? Let's splash a little on the tobacco fields as well.

[Data-Lynx]

In a visit to RAF Odiham yesterday, Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram, praised SH and the Chinooks as Unsung Heroes (http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=932c01c8-d5a3-496f-a1cc-b28631aa391a). The RAF's Support Helicopter force, like the RAF Air Transport force, is in the very front line of all operational deployments but are too often the unsung heroes of our success. I fully appreciate how difficult their task is and I am immensely proud of their outstanding achievements and unswerving commitment; I wish them well and a safe return home.As an ancient jungly, I recognise appreciation for the Helo Force across the Services as a rare commodity. Well Done (BZ) and go safely.

[Lyneham Lad]

Not sure if others have seen the latest article in Flight magazine regarding the forthcoming deployment to Helmand province. It contains some interesting information on the lead-up to the deployment of the Apaches plus the scale of the accompanying Lynx, Hercs and Wokkas.
From the article - "supported in theatre by six Chinooks from the RAF’s 27 Sqn and six Lockheed Martin C-130 transports. To comprise around 430 personnel, the aviation unit will be headquartered in Kandahar, with a smaller command site to be established at Lashkar Gar in Helmand province." and:-
"Joint Helicopter Force Afghan*i*stan’s initial commitment will involve eight Apaches and 85 personnel from 9 Regiment’s 656 Sqn. Several of the aircraft will be deployed to a Gulf state next month by RAF Boeing C-17s or leased Antonov An-124s to participate in a two-week “confidence building” exercise that will include the UK’s first “hot and high” firings of the Apache’s AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, CRV-7 unguided rockets and cannon."
Might be a good idea (in not too late) to buy shares in the AN-124 leasing company :E
Apaches face toughest test (http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/02/07/Navigation/190/204478/Apaches+face+toughest+test.html)

[highcirrus]

So is there a clear Aim to be Maintained or what?

Helmand Province, Afghanistan, 1 Feb 2006, Toby Harnden, Chief Foreign Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

…… Whether the 2000 or so British troops who will be stationed in Helmand as part of Operation Herrick will be allowed to project strength is a moot point. The Blair government has been at great pains to emphasise that British troops will not be engaging in “search and destroy” missions. Instead, we have been told, our boys will be engaged in anti-drug operations, supporting the Afghan government and providing a reassuring presence for the law-abiding population who are sick of thuggery and intimidation.

On the ground, however, the mission is viewed somewhat differently. Colonel Gordon Messenger, who led 40 Commando into Basra during the Iraqi invasion and is now heading the 260 strong “Prelim Ops” team for Helmand, said that “intelligence-led operations” against the enemy would indeed be carried out, while Lt Col Henry Worsley, based in Lashkar Gar, insisted that anti-drugs operations were “not something you’ll see the military getting involved in at all, other than taking a grid reference and passing it on”. He added , “It’s much better all the effort goes into stopping farmers growing it in the first place than to eradicate it.”

In this, he is undoubtedly correct. But preventing large numbers of farmers from growing opium poppies, if it is ever achieved, is going to take decades. Corruption is so rife that most diplomats and aid workers – not to say Afghans – are convinced that it goes right up to Cabinet level. In the villages outside Helmand, I was told that the money given to community leaders to distribute as compensation for eradicated poppy crops was promptly pocketed …….

I get the horrible feeling that the Great Liar is, as usual, not giving out the real facts of the matter and that what looks like a very long term UK commitment that allows USA to pull out and wash its hands of the whole Afghan mess, will be costing the UK taxpayer a fortune for a considerable number of years. And for what?

[SASless]

UK’s first “hot and high” firings of the Apache’s AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, CRV-7 unguided rockets and cannon."

Talk about being combat ready upon arrival in a combat area.....I sure hope the bad guys understand this is really just an overseas training exercise and no harm is intended.:uhoh:

[airborne_artist]

"The Government's "disastrous" decision to go to "war" on two fronts has opened a rift between Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/nrift12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

"It is understood that Gen Richards is concerned that he does not have enough artillery and ground attack aircraft, nor sufficient Chinook transport helicopters."

"Patrick Mercer, the shadow defence minister and a former infantry commanding officer, said: "History has shown that going to war on two fronts always courts disaster. This was never the Government's intent but the operational planning is becoming a fiasco because of a lack of troops and kit."

[Compressorstall]

Is this really a war on 2 fronts anyway? We are hardly steaming in with the right numbers for war fighting. The 'enemy' is highly mobile and will fight if they feel like it, or stay at home sprinkling Baby Bio on the poppy crop if they don't. If you really think about it, the troops are going to live in a fort and pop out supported by an adequate number of helicopters for the numbers of troops deployed. If we were really going there to give the 'enemy' a good hiding, then we would be piling in with a lot more. At least we might find out if Apache works since being on ops will allow AHQHI to fire all his toys - are there many Hellfire targets there?
We may be better reading Beau Geste for some doctrine on fort living...

[Anotherpost75]

Max Hastings, Spectator, 4 February 2006.

What Germany or Spain or Italy calls its soldiers are, on the battlefield, men pretending to fulfil the functions of soldiers with no more conviction than the Royal Opera chorus dressed up in uniform for Act One of Carmen. The theme which today dominates European security policy – a fervent hope that if one’s own nation refrains from employing violence against other people, enemies will display matching forbearance – extends even in circumstances of a military deployment in a cause vital to Western credibility.

Mass matters and does not exist. The Dutch government is agonising about whether to commit a mere 1,100 men to Afghanistan. The total Nato force, if all undertakings are fulfilled, will amount to just 15,000 men. This is fewer than the number deployed by the British governments in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles, a far less daunting challenge. The Nato force, charged with extending stability from Kabul into outlying provinces presently controlled by warlords and their militias, will amount to about one European soldier for every 16 square miles of Afghan plain and mountain, or about 2,000 Afghan people per squaddie.

One of the words most abused by some British ministers and service chiefs to justify cuts in armed forces numbers is “capability”. They point out that a single infantry company today possesses the firepower of a battalion a few decades ago. This is valid, if one’s objective is to flatten a town or to blow a path through an enemy armoured division. In the circumstances of insurgency, however, it has been demonstrated again and again that what matters is numbers of boots on the ground. The more men with rifles you can deploy, the more sensitively you can operate. Stealth bombers and Challenger tanks are irrelevant. One hundred thousand men, 200,000, 300,000 would not be too many to accomplish what the West wants to do in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent, opium is the only major source of income, and most of the country is in the hands of warlords.

After the Nato reinforcement to 15,000 was announced last year, the Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared enthusiastically, “When the expansion takes place, it will mean Nato is operating in three quarters of Afghanistan”. This is an extreme example of gesture politics, or perhaps gesture strategy. It may be true that some Nato soldiers will be distantly visible in remote parts of the country. But it is ridiculous to suppose that, in such tiny numbers and under such nationally imposed constraints, they will be “operating” in any more meaningful sense than Scott’s party was “operating” in Antarctica, as it languished in a snowbound tent on the way back from the Pole. In Afghanistan, Nato cannot even work as a coherent entity, when each contingent has different ROE. German rules, for instance, forbid troops of other nationalities from riding German helicopters.

As Ollie used to say, “Looks like another fine f*ck-up in the making Stanley”

[Compressorstall]

Will people firstly find out what the mission is. This is not a war fighting deployment, it is not even the British mission to interdict the insurgents, but Max Hastings might be right that it is a 'gesture'. It is all to easy to criticise lack of numbers, lack of equipment, but the cynic in me thinks that this is an exercise in smugness where those that fund us are convinced that the lack of numbers will be made up for by the increased firepower and network enabled capability and that they can sit back and crow about how well it is all going with such a little force. Shame they won't be sitting in theatre finding out what life will actually be like.
The reality will be somewhat different as those who have worked in a multinational environment will remember.

[SASless]

Gee...only QHI's get to shoot weapons?

Maybe the Chinook fleet could have more aircraft if the -3 purchase had not been screwed up....and maybe if the Army came home from all these other wonderful places like the Falklands, Belize, and Gibraltar....more troops would be free to take on real important missions. If one is going to pretend to yet be a Colonial power...one ought to have the force strength necessary to hold onto that turf.

You are operating out of date aircraft, have sold off your Navy for razorblades, and piss money away in shabby run procurements for things like fighters with no gun....train in simulators without firing real ammunition...and when called upon to go out and do your country's bidding...cry and moan about it.

Your commanders must be too worried about their pensions and could care less about the service they head....or the fighting spirit of the British Military that it is so famous for...has been lost in the shuffle somehow.

What is it guys...bad commanders...bad decisions by those that buy your toys...or something else?

You have been given a job...get on with it. Demand what you need to accomplish your mission. Put the politicians on the spot...demand they provide what you need to do the job. Don't let yer bosses pull a Westmoreland on you. You see what happened to us during Vietnam when that happened.

[Jacks Down]

I like the bit about first 'hot and high' Hellfire firings. They're the first WAH firings period! Operationally ready?

[BEagle]

Well said, SASless!

:ok:

[HEDP]

Sasless,

OK I'll be the one to take the hook.

No, QHI's are not the only one's to fire the weapons, it'd kinda defeat the object of the capability!

Perhaps you would like to be the militaries advocate in the next round of budget talks, you write tough but whats the next move when the answer is simply, No!

I guess everyone would like everything but sometimes you just have to accept it ain't in the pot.

Nice sentiment though,

HEDP

[SASless]

It is kind of hard to argue a case for more money when you piss away the amount you have recently with flawed procurements....the Chinook being one of them.

At some point you have to admit you have a problem...point fingers...and shoot a few Admirals/Generals/Air Marshals (poetically speaking) and create some change. It is not the politicians alone who cause this situation....the uniformed mafia is at fault as well.

The Westmoreland example I used is based upon his visit to LBJ demanding more troops...to be told it was not politically possible. He had based his pitch upon the position only more casualties and deaths would occur with no real promise of success. When told to leg it....he put finger to cap and about faced.....knowing that his next job would be Chief of Staff...US Army...the number one soldier. Guys like me...expecting good leadership got piss poor commanding instead...we bled and died....he got his promotion.

Read his book... he spells out what happened way to clearly.

Are you headed that way with your military?

The leadership owes it to the service they represent to tell the unbridled truth to the politicians. The Pols don't like defeat either...it makes their approval numbers and re-electability prospects go down.

[Compressorstall]

SASless
That only works when you have politicians who want to listen to the people they regularly commit to operations. We are - fortunately - very good at coping, but that doesn't signpost where the problems are. Max Hastings is right about the 'gesture', and you could argue about the need to blood Apache. As for the poor procurement, well that is what happens when you try to do things on the cheap.

[Anotherpost75]

Compressorstall. I guess that Max Hastings goes along with your sentiments. His piece ends with:

Western Policy in Afghanistan is likely to fail, and fail in circumstances which reflect shame on almost everybody involved. The British government is trying to do “the right thing” and deserves a crumb of respect for that. But the enhanced Nato deployment represents an attempt to save a badly holed ship by dispatching a few hands with mess tins to bail on the waterline.

I doubt whether the British army will suffer a disaster in Afghanistan, because as usual it will be saved by the skills and courage of its officers and men. But I question whether it can accomplish anything of value either, on the terms whereby it is being committed.

[owe ver chute]

Jacks Down. You are ill informed if you think this will be the first UK Apache live firing.
Combat Ready! Not yet, you're correct. Give em a few more weeks!

I've looked on with envy at the training these boys are getting.

Good luck to everyone em.

[Jacks Down]

Very happy to be wrong under the circumstances!

JD

[L1A2 discharged]

"The Government's "disastrous" decision to go to "war" on two fronts has opened a rift between Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/nrift12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

"It is understood that Gen Richards is concerned that he does not have enough artillery and ground attack aircraft, nor sufficient Chinook transport helicopters."

"Patrick Mercer, the shadow defence minister and a former infantry commanding officer, said: "History has shown that going to war on two fronts always courts disaster. This was never the Government's intent but the operational planning is becoming a fiasco because of a lack of troops and kit."

Dont forget the next OP Fresco .... :mad:

[Compressorstall]

Did anyone see John Reid on BBC1 this morning - did he actually answer any questions? He seemed to avoid the whole issue of what the mission was in Afghanistan, waffling that it was something to do with ISAF...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/default.stm#

[BellEndBob]

Yes, I saw it. Nice to know there is no overstretch, cos that's what the Chiefs have told him and they always tell the truth. Backs up what that waste of space Jackson said on the same programme a few weeks back, when he declared that the normal 24 months between operations was only missed by a few and that all the soldiers are gagging to go back again.

Still, the good news is at least the Firemen got their own way (again).

I don't want a Union but we really do need a body to be able to sit next to these chimps and offer, at least, an opposing point of view from the rest of us in uniform.

[Compressorstall]

Or we need Chiefs who are prepared to tell the truth and stand up for what they believe in during their time in post, rather than on the day of retirement when their knighthood is in the bag...
Clarity of mission is going to be essential in this deployment.

[BellEndBob]

Interesting that Guthrie now seems to be one of the main critics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was he not a very political beast who now enjoys a Knighthood.

Chiefs who will buck the system, not in this day and age methinks.

[John Blakeley]

Found this snippet in the latest RAFA "Air Mail" - no mention as far as I can see in the MOD Press Releases of the time and certainly Reid was not questioned on how much of the British effort would have to be expended on protecting the home base during his interview this morning

On 15 October (presumably 2005), a rocket attack by terrorists on the RAF airfield at Kandahar in the south of Afghanistan destroyed one Harrier GR7A jet, and left a second Harrier damaged. The jets were part of a deployment of six Harriers from No 3 Sqn at RAF Cottesmore. One aircraft was being repaired on site with an additional jet being flown out as a replacement. The jets have been utilised on reconnaissance missions and to help Special Forces locate Taliban militants

Is it true that the British/NATO deployment will be relying on Dutch F16s for fixed wing air support, and that the Harriers will return to the UK as the rest of the main force deploys? Have the Dutch signed up to this?

[FormerFlake]

Surely one more C17 won't actually make that much difference?

Officially only 2 C17 are ever 'tasked' at one time, allowing for one to be on servicing and one to be a sort of standby/training ac. In reality, I have seen the tasking show 5 ac tasked in the past!! 99 Sqn never cease to amaze me in their work rate to keep all 4 birds fully servicable for so much of the time.

99 Sqn frequently work at mimimun turn around times to meet demand. If something goes wrong, this can get tricky. Even a 1 hour delay can sometimes result in it all going horribly wrong. Owing to various issues at RAF Carterton is normal for only 1 pax/cargo ac to take off/land per hour. So if an aircraft does not take of as planned it can effect the next flight, and so on. Then you must factor in issues such as slots at the destinations, crew duty etc. So a 1-2 delay can often lead to a trip being scrubbed. So when things get tight, considering what 99 Sqn already acheives, one more C17 could indeed help matters considerablly providing they do not over task it. This is of course thinking big picture in terms of STRAT capability. Whether or not 99 Sqn will get the additional manpower they (already) need is another question.

You may have also noticed that every time something goes wrong, they send a C17. The most recent open source example was the Russian submarine rescue, for which a 99 Sqn member got a Russian medal. There is no question that 90-95% of these short notice are justifiable. However, one C17 off doing something short notice like that is a C17 not flying important cargo into Iraq and Afghanistan. That tasking does not go away, they still have to do it too!! There may soon come a time when the C17 is just to busy to go off and save the day elsewhere? Just losing the 5-10% of the tasking that is complete an utter missuse (I can not go into details here, sorry) of a valuable asset may help until another C17 arrives.

PS - This is the way things were described to me by people in the loop a year or 2 ago. I sounds like something Sir Humphrey would say, but here goes.

"The 5 ac was supposed to enter service in Oct 2004. The 5th ac was then cancelled. The plan was adjusted so that 99 Sqn would get the 6th ac in 2006. That was then cancelled, so when 99 Sqn finally does get another C17, it will in fact be the 7th ac (ZZ 177 I assume (or ZZ 178 if you include the unofficial ZZ 175 that already exsists))."

[Mobile Muppet]

The tasking commitments of 99 Sqn and the high serviceability rate is a credit to the Sqn. It just goes to show what we can achieve with new, purpose built proven aircraft in our inventory. I've said it before and I'll say it again, bin half the A400M's and buy up as many C17's as we can before production stops.

[BEagle]

Just how 'short term' was this 'Short Term Strategic Airlifter' C-17 supposed to fill in for?

Ah - can just hear the MoD spin machine. "No, it meant an airlifter we could acquire in a short period of time, not one that we only planned to use for a short term....."

An excellent asset - a shame that most of the defence procurment budget is being pi$$ed away on the EuropHoon and 2 obsolete little grey boats when it should be spent on something which might prove useful such as a PR9 follow-on, conventionally acquired A330 MRTT etc etc.

Not a hope of that in the pointy-head fast jet-centric RAF.

[Mmmmnice]

fast jet-centric careful Beags, you're starting to sound like part of the Establishment!!

[BEagle]

Actually, it's a term coined by an excellent chum who is going to be CAS in about 8 years time.

[Compressorstall]

Beags

CAS in 8 years' time?? PMA can't tell me what I am likely to be doing next week. Is this the person who has the 'Career Plan' that the Officers' Career Booklet mentions but none of the Desk Officers know about?

A little off track for a moment, but I am just grateful PMA aren't directing Afghanistan. Someone is directing Afghanistan, aren't they??

Does anyone know what ISAF are supposed to do?

Hopefully the GR7s will be staying put.

[Wrathmonk]

... or perhaps the CAS of 2014 just happens to be the son of a retired VSO ....:)

[Compressorstall]

Looks like I've blown my chance then...

[Lyneham Lad]

Actually, it's a term coined by an excellent chum who is going to be CAS in about 8 years time.
But will there be anything left to be Chief of in eight years time........? :E

[Compressorstall]

So long as it's a Chief that John Reid likes to listen to. There won't be any overstretch then either, but we'll still be in Iraq, Afghanistan (looking for a mission) and probably Iran...

[FrogPrince]

How many stopovers are there between Brize and Pyongyang ??

[Compressorstall]

Depends if it's capped actuals or not...

[Mmmmnice]

Beags:
Speaking as one who will remain an indian to the end (never got the hang of sucking up to the right people) I hope you direct your well-placed chum to this forum so that he might get an idea of some of the feeling at the coal face - and act accordingly. No doubt he will be amongst the goofers who come for a look around when I next get sent to some hot,dusty shangi-la

[Compressorstall]

Can we hold Beags responsible if his chum suddenly forgets overstretch and becomes John Reid's next new best pal?

[RayDarr]

When yer wounded and left on Afganistans plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Roll to yer rifle and blow out yer brains
And go to yer god like a soldier
Kipling ( more or less)

Just thought I would put this in. No real reason. Keep safe out there.

[The Gorilla]

Bet your a cheerful soul to have around!!

:)

[Data-Lynx]

Ray. Kipling offered some wry observations in the rest of the poem for the Young British Soldier (http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poet=3109&poem=17789) sent to the East.

[RayDarr]

Data Lynx
My favourate poet, and yes I do know the rest of it.
Some of his other poems would be quite appropriate on other threads, but I'll try not to bore people too much

Oh it's Tommy This and Tommy that and Tommy wait outside
But it's special trains for Atkins when the Troop ships on the tide!

Things don't change do they.

[Compressorstall]

A cheery poem for those offf to Afghanistan; in summary:

Beware of the sun, your wife may sleep with someone else but don't shoot them, drink beer, love your rifle and don't forget to blow your brains out before the enemy get you...

Can't see that working for recruiting...

[Tourist]

"2 obsolete little grey boats "


Strangely Beagle, amongst your endless stories about Vulcan/Lightning/VC10/zzzz/Airborezzzz/Sopwith TSR2zzzzz/zzzzzzzzzzz, whinges about "RAF not what it was in my day" etc, I don't remember your stories regarding intimate knowledge of Strategic Carrier based Aviation.

I must have missed them.
Maybe I fell asleep again.
Fancy that.

Whats that?
You actually have no suitable background to justify your opinions?
You mean you have just been talking out your @rse?

Remind me just how many bombs the precious Vulcan managed to get on target in the FI?
And how many carrier based (RAF and RN) bombs hit theirs?

[RayDarr]

Tourist,
Silly boy.... It only needed one. Can you imagin the effect that 21 x 1000 lb HE bombs make when the aircraft dropping them has turned around to go home before they hit you, so you didn't hear it approach ... and you know they flew from several thousand miles away to do it... and they can do it again tomorrow.. and the next day, and the next. It dosent matter if the bombs hit the runway or not, they frightened the bejesus out of the poor sods, and they gave up all the quicker for it. That is the value of Air Power.

All part of the big team... RN/RAF/Army... all playing their part for overall victory.

Here endeth the lesson.

[BEagle]

I note that Pusser's Plymorphic Pratt is attempting to troll yet again...

Wanquerre!

[[email protected]]

.. and sinking to his level. You do yourself no favours.

[BEagle]

Unnecessary to use more expressive terminology than a simply understood single word which is adequately descriptive without further elaboration.

[The Gorilla]

Indeed Beagle you appear to becoming a very grumpy old man.
You are allowing them to get under your skin methinks!
:p

[Compressorstall]

I thought this thread was about Afghanistan anyway, we didn't use the Vulcan there...

[BEagle]

In the words of the prophet:

"Vous me confuse avec quelq'un qui donne une merde!"

:p

[Compressorstall]

Shame you left Beagle, there are too many who do get wound up for the slightest things

[Data-Lynx]

Hey Beags, the UK might be embedded but there are no damned frenchies here (http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/structure/structure_whoswho.htm#3), apart from MSF. For Ray, you were right about the Vulcan and, separately, an Atkins train (AT version) should have left this morning, snow permitting.

If you want a challenge, take a look at the NATO ISAF map (http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/graphics/e040628a.jpg) (wait a moment to be offered the blown-up version). Flying in Helmand ranges from crag and ravine to desert dust in a single sortie while the threat remains extremely challenging. Googling on 'afghan ambush' raises over 600K hits and the layered ambush on 3 Feb (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/03/content_4132396.htm) suggested that the unspeakable have lost non of their cunning or prowess since UK Cav' was mounted on horseback. We then add the complexity of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) and demands of Force Protection to the first operational deployment of AH with on-the-job training to be conducted in theatre. Perhaps we could leave the sniping to the locals in theatre as they are much better at it.

Helmand, We have a problem!

[SASless]

It dosent matter if the bombs hit the runway or not, they frightened the bejesus out of the poor sods, and they gave up all the quicker for it. That is the value of Air Power.

Typical Air Force bovine feces!

That is why we have laser designators, GPS nav'd bombs....and the rest.

It takes troops on the ground...with bayonets fixed to extended rifles...to control the battlefield. Air power plays a role but I would think reading the history of the Second World War would prove the folly of what you said in the quote. The Vulcans did not exactly carpet bomb the Oppos into the Stone Age in the FI now did they? More like a participation to say they showed up I would say. Talk to the Marines and Paras...and the rest of the folks on the ground before you brag about the Vulcan's "winning" the day.

[BEagle]

You're so right, SASless!

Unless you include nuking them back to the stone age, no matter what the air power protaganists might think, at the end of the day it's the 'grunt with the gun' who probably has to go in to finish things off.

Air power just makes that job less hassle.

[Biggus]

Yes, at the end of the day it takes troops to take, and hold ground. All other military arms, air or naval, are ultimately in support of this aim - which is why we cut back the number of troops at our peril, especially as we spend increasing amounts of time on 'policing' type actions!.

However, to win a ground war you need air superiority, as Rommel could have told you. Look at the WWII example of the Falaise (spelling?) gap. During the ground campaign in France, which saw some excellent tactics employed by the US Army, the Germans were unable to move by day, and had large numbers of their ground forces destroyed by Allied Air Power. That lesson has not yet been forgotten, and we would do so at our peril!!

[highcirrus]

BBC News, 28 Feb 2006

Fears over UK troops' readiness
The conflict in Iraq left a third of Britain's armed forces less prepared for action than they should have been, an influential group of MPs has warned.

The Public Accounts Committee found major operations in Iraq and elsewhere had produced "worrying signs of strain" in the military.

Troops had to "cannibalise" equipment from material left at home to keep units up to strength, the MPs said.

But defence minister Adam Ingram said he did not agree with the findings.

'Serious' weaknesses.

The PAC report said there were concerns that the priority placed on re-equipping the RAF and Army may have hit the Royal Navy's capabilities.

Over the year up until September 2005, around 30% of the UK's armed forces had "serious" or "critical" weaknesses to their peacetime readiness levels, the MPs said.

Edward Leigh, the committee's Conservative chairman, said: "This reflects the high levels of demands being put on them, and there are worrying signs of strain on equipment.

"I am particularly concerned about the potential impact on future operational capabilities of the fleet.

"The Ministry of Defence needs to make clear its plans for bringing the armed forces up to readiness."

'Long term effects'

Military forces are kept at varying levels of preparedness to respond to emerging operations, so they can deploy from anything between a few hours to several months.

But the committee warned that "continuing high levels of operational commitment" were leading to "significant strain on equipment support in particular areas, with long term effects".

During operations in Iraq, 44 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks - 22% of those not deployed to the conflict - were "cannibalised", the report said.

However, Mr Ingram insisted that the PAC report did not reflect the current state of British forces.

He argued that the conclusions were at odds with a positive National Audit Office report.

'Good plans'

"Recent operations prove we can deploy the right number of forces to achieve our objectives," he said.

"The National Audit Office was absolutely clear that the MoD has a good system for reporting the readiness of the armed forces and has a good understanding of the risks to readiness and good plans to mitigate them.

"The impact of current operations on the armed forces is judged by the chiefs of staff to be manageable and the armed forces as a whole remain ready for future operations."

Richard Bacon, a Liberal Democrat member of the committee, said 30% of the armed forces equated to 60,000 servicemen and women who were not at the right level of readiness.

"The Ministry of Defence must discharge its duty as to ensure British forces are properly trained and equipped to deploy," he said.

Cannibalisation of equipment "decreases the pool of available vehicles and equipment and increases the wear and tear they are subjected to, shortening their useful life", he added.

[Data-Lynx]

How could the minister agree with the findings when the SofS had announced this piece (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/JohnReidbritishTaskForceHasAVitalJobToDoInSouthernAfghanista n.htm) on Sunday.

The Helmand Task Force will comprise elements of the Headquarters of Colchester-based 16 Air Assault Brigade, and airborne infantry battlegroup. Based initially around the Third Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, it will incorporate a force of eight Apache Attack Helicopters, provided by 9 Regiment, Army Air Corps, the first time we have deployed this impressive new capability on an operation. 9 Regiment will also supply four Lynx Light Utility Helicopters while 27 Squadron, Royal Air Force, will provide a detachment of six Chinook Support Helicopters.

Other major units and capabilities include Scimitar and Spartan armoured vehicles from the Household Cavalry Regiment, a battery of 105mm Light Guns from 7th Parachute Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery, a battery of Desert Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicles from 32 Regiment, Royal Artillery, 13 Air Assault Regiment and 29 Regiment of the Royal Logistics Corps, 7 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and 16 Close Support Medical Regiment. We shall also deploy four additional Royal Air Force C-130 Hercules transport aircraft.

[GreenWings]

This hot off the MOD website:
28 Feb 06
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report into Military Readiness describes the MoD's system for defining measuring and reporting readiness as 'sophisticated'. The report was welcomed by Armed Forces Minister, the Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP.
However, Mr Ingram highlighted a number of areas in which the PAC report does not reflect the current UK Forces readiness situation.
"It would simply not be true to interpret the report to say that about a third of Britain's Armed Forces would struggle to deploy. At the moment no forces are reporting critical weaknesses," he said.
"No military in the world is designed to have 100 per cent of its forces at full readiness at any one time. As of last September 79 per cent of Forces were ready to deploy with no serious or critical weaknesses. Performance continues to improve and we confidently expect to exceed the target we have agreed with the Treasury of an annual average of 73 per cent by April 2008," he added.
"The Committee is right to highlight continuing likelihood that greatest operational demands will be made on the Army and some areas of the RAF and that we consequently focus efforts on those assets, but, as the committee recognises, this has not prevented the Royal Navy carrying out its operational tasks."
Last June the NAO praised the MoD for the good system it has in place which compares well with other countries' systems. The NAO noted that the system has the confidence of our military commanders, has proven itself on recent operations and is continuously improving.
"Recent operations prove we can deploy the right number of forces to achieve our objectives."
Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP.
Mr Ingram said:
"Given the overwhelmingly positive report into military readiness produced by the National Audit Office last June I find it somewhat surprising that the Public Accounts Committee can look at the same evidence and produce the report they have produced today.
"Recent operations prove we can deploy the right number of forces to achieve our objectives. In June the National Audit Office was absolutely clear that the MOD has a good system for reporting the readiness of the Armed Forces and has a good understanding of risks to readiness and good plans in place to mitigate them.
"The impact of current operations on the Armed Forces is judged by the Chiefs of Staff to be manageable and the Armed Forces as a whole remain ready for future operations."
Having 79 per cent of forces reporting no serious or critical weaknesses does not mean 21 per cent of UK forces would be unable to deploy. A serious weakness, as opposed to critical weakness, is one that would make delivering the force element concerned within the required time difficult but not impossible. The key to dealing with a serious weakness is identifying the weakness and addressing it.

[Data-Lynx]

Pakistan helicopters (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-06T072652Z_01_ISL291114_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-PAKISTAN.xml) hit militants on Afghan border around Miram Shah, about 200km SE of Kabul in North Waziristan, Pakistan. The army sent Cobra helicopter gunships (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4777254.stm) after pro-Taliban tribesmen occupied the government buildings on Saturday morning, forced shopkeepers to close down their businesses then traded mortar and gunfire with security forces.

Part of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/search/journey/tribal.html) across the border inside Pakistan, this province is inhabited by fiercely independent tribesmen, many of whom sympathize with the Taliban, their fellow ethnic Pashtuns. Meanwhile, the Presidents of both countries bicker about border control (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-afpak6mar06,1,4807456.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true).

The tribal region - roughly the size of the U.S. state of Vermont - belongs to Pakistan in name only. Pakistani police and courts have no jurisdiction, and, until recently, the central government in Islamabad never tried to assert control.
Stability across the Pakistan/Afghanistan border is yet another crucial element for UK Force protection so this action may be postive.

[16 blades]

Quote:
It dosent matter if the bombs hit the runway or not, they frightened the bejesus out of the poor sods, and they gave up all the quicker for it. That is the value of Air Power.


Typical Air Force bovine feces!

That is why we have laser designators, GPS nav'd bombs....and the rest.

It takes troops on the ground...with bayonets fixed to extended rifles...to control the battlefield. Air power plays a role but I would think reading the history of the Second World War would prove the folly of what you said in the quote. The Vulcans did not exactly carpet bomb the Oppos into the Stone Age in the FI now did they? More like a participation to say they showed up I would say. Talk to the Marines and Paras...and the rest of the folks on the ground before you brag about the Vulcan's "winning" the day.
You're so right, SASless!

Unless you include nuking them back to the stone age, no matter what the air power protaganists might think, at the end of the day it's the 'grunt with the gun' who probably has to go in to finish things off.

Air power just makes that job less hassle.

This misses the point entirely. Air power always fits into a larger pictuer, and in this case, the larger picture involved letting the Argies know we had the reach to bomb Buenos Aries if we so chose. This forced them to hold back many of their air assets for home defence, thus reducing the number of aircraft they could commit to attacking FI. I can think of fewer occasions where one single (conventional) bomb, dropped from one single aircraft, had such an impact on a campaign. 'Green' thinking can be so backward, sometimes....

And Air Power CAN be decisive - Milosovich surrendered over Kosovo before a single boot hit the ground there.

16B

[SASless]

16,

I find that a bit hard to accept.

The Argies could easily do a threat analysis and arrive at that conclusion but at the same time the simple math of bomb load times airframes would prove that threat to be akin to balloons on sticks. That is unless you lot were prepared to use Nukes. The Vulcan fleet did not provide a real threat against the mainland due to the lack of numbers and the inability for the RAF to provide fighter escort and Electronic Warfare support aircraft.

The only real benefit that would have occurred would have been psychological. The leaders of the Oppos would have been embarrassed but no critical damage would have resulted from a Vulcan raid on the mainland (assuming no nukes used). Plainly, the use of Nukes was not ever a choice....world opinion would have not allowed that.

The Vulcan was past its sell by date long before the Falklands and did not provide a valuable contribution no matter how you want to spin it.

[airborne_artist]

And following on from you, SASless, remember the effect of the sinking of the Belgrano - no Argentinian ship left port after she was sunk.

[SASless]

Comparing the sinking of the Belgrano to the Vulcan threat is definitely apples and oranges.

Unrestricted submarine warfare with modern sophisiticated subs against helpless surface vessels is a completely different of fish as compared to a Vulcan dropping some bombs on the Falklands. The Vulcan is much easier to defend against and did not have the strength of force that the Royal Navy submarine force did in that conflict.

Although the Waddington-based Vulcan B.2 bombers of 44, 50 and 101 Sqdns are due to retire from service, a number are fitted with extra ECM and readied for action. Four aircraft in total reach Ascension, the first two at the end of April to start a planned series of seven, single aircraft "Black Buck" missions against Stanley through to mid June. Conventional bombs are used on three occasions and Shrike anti-radar missiles on two, with one mission of each type being called off.

[Daede1]

SASless, hate to say it, but your wrong.
History proves it:
US bombed mainland Japan to prove that the war isnt just at arms length.
The UK ability to carry out bombing raids on Falklands demonstrated that not only could the islands be hit, but should we choose to, mainland argentina could be targeted also.

It is naive to assert that naval power is the be all and end all in terms of warfare.

I beleive that the american phraseology is 'force projection' - the intention was not to bomb the living cr@p out of the enemy positions, but merely to point out the fact that should we decide to get nasty, then we had the where-with-all to push them out of the way.

This should be viewed as a precursor to the american 'shock and awe' strategy - you are demonstrating to the opposition that you have overwhelming firepower at your finger tips, so they best just pack up and go home now.

[Archimedes]

16,
and did not provide a valuable contribution no matter how you want to spin it.

Not the view that Admiral Woodward takes (see the Institute for Contemporary British History 'Falklands Witness Seminar', pub. 2003 by SCSI)...

Admiral Leach (also at the seminar) expressed a similar view, although he isn't quoted in the publication.

The whole point of the Vulcan raid was that it had an effect (before the word 'effect' became a piece of jargon) that supported the overall effort.

Woodward rejects the notion usually put forward that the raid was merely the RAF trying to get in on the act, and the comments of the then-CAS (from the same source, and which Woodward endorsed) show clearly that the whole purpose was to provide support for the overall effort to retake the islands.

The point is that the Argenitines didn't do an analysis and withdrew assets out of range of the Falklands as a result of the raid. Obviously not war-winning, but not quite the utter waste of fuel a certain SHAR driver/author later suggested...

[SASless]

Daede,

Let me get this straight now...you are saying five single aircraft Vulcan sorties equals the "Shock and Awe" campaign during the latest war with Iraq....is that what you are saying? I dare say you way under-estimate the Argies if you think the Vulcan's intimidated them a bit. Four aircraft was it doing the missions and two of seven sorties were aborts? Pray tell what did the Vulcans actually destroy in their whole five sorties? Compare that to the Shock and Awe air campaign for a start and see what a trivial role the Vulcan played in the Falklands campaign.

Now I understand it is a hurtful time for the British military with all of the budget cuts and such, but dear fellow you really are confused in your thinking if you think the Vulcans posed any kind of real threat to the Argies.

If you care to check it....the Falkland Islands was as successful as it was for two simple reasons. The Royal Navy sticking with the ground forces and the Army and Marines ability to outfight the Argies.

Sea Power and Air Power are an essential part of the equation but are only two parts of the total force structure that leads to success.

Stategic bombing with conventional weapons has never won a war yet nor will it ever. Tactical application of airpower in support of ground action does.

Wars are won by the Squaddies toting rifles, riding in Tanks, and shooting artillery but ultimately it boils down to boots on the ground to seize and hold the enemy's land before you have victory in war.

Are you as well equipped and manned today as you were during the Falklands?

[16 blades]

If you care to check it....the Falkland Islands was as successful as it was for two simple reasons. The Royal Navy sticking with the ground forces and the Army and Marines ability to outfight the Argies.
The Royal Navy would have been blown out of the water had the Argies not been forced to retain AD assets at home due to the Vulcan raids. For a second time, THAT WAS THE POINT OF THEM. What military commander WOULDN'T ensure his homeland is adequately defended? Argie public opinion would have changed PRETTY RAPIDLY if even the occasional bomb started dropping on the mainland. And the Vulcans could have done it largely with impunity due to it's high altitude capability. Accuracy or actual damage would have been irrelevant. It was an operation to threaten a significant POLITICAL advantage, forcing a certain MILITARY strategy to be adopted - in this respect, it was a resounding success.

Stategic bombing with conventional weapons has never won a war yet nor will it ever.
Er...yes it has. Does your memory not stretch back as far as 1999? I repeat:
And Air Power CAN be decisive - Milosovich surrendered over Kosovo before a single boot hit the ground there.

Whilst I agree that:
Wars are won by the Squaddies toting rifles, riding in Tanks, and shooting artillery but ultimately it boils down to boots on the ground to seize and hold the enemy's land before you have victory in war.
This only applies if invasion is required to achieve your POLITICAL aims. It isn't always.

And how do you suppose those 'boots' get there? Military air power isn't just about fast jets.

Now, back to the thread topic: Let's discuss the relevance of The Royal Navy in current operations in Afghanistan (ie - Zero!).

16B

[Archimedes]

SASless - if the Argentines weren't slightly intimidated (i.e they didn't think there was a real threat) why did they withdraw aircraft to protect the capital against possible Vulcan raids. Intimidation/coercion takes many forms, and getting the opposition preparing for the worst falls into that.

In terms of 'Shock and Awe' (which arguably failed to impose either on the Iraqis), your point:

Pray tell what did the Vulcans actually destroy in their whole five sorties?

slightly misses the target, with respect - Shock and Awe does not necessarily involve physical destruction. Blackbuck could be said to have destroyed something - namely Argentine belief that the mainland was totally safe... And that thought did come as a shock to the junta.

Stategic bombing with conventional weapons has never won a war yet nor will it ever. Tactical application of airpower in support of ground action does.

If that's the case, why is Milosevic sitting in a cell in the Hague, while the Kosovars talk about independence?


Tactical targeting during ALLIED FORCE largely failed to have any effect on Milosevic's thinking, while attacking 'strategic' (in the broadest sense of the word) target sets worked, since it started loud squeals of protest from his supporters as their cash-cow disappeared in flames. Now of course, the targeting was sometimes bodged (Chinese embassy amongst a couple of others), and the diplomatic pressure from Russia was hugely significant - yet 'strategic' air attack was fundamental to success.

I agree with the premise that land power is invariably the arbiter, and that the role of air power is to faciliate success of the land component as rapidly as possible - but it can do that through the mechanism of sorties that appear to be nothing more than token old-fashioned 'strategic bombardment'. The Vulcan raid was, I would contend, the first signs of an air force fumbling towards the notion that the division between strategic and tactical could be blurred and that blowing the living daylights out of a target might not be the sole measure of success.

Blackbuck had relatively limited objectives, which were predominantly not destructive and the ops fulfilled them.

We can argue about the efficacy of the SEAD raids and the bombing attacks that didn't hit the runway (costs versus benefits) until the cows come home - but the key commanders of the time, from all three services thought that Blackbuck could have an effect that did not have destruction of the target as its prime aim - and they were not disappointed by the outcome.