RAF Harrier destroyed in Afghanistan
Thread Starter
RAF Harrier destroyed in Afghanistan
As reported here.
An RAF Harrier was destroyed and another has been damaged in a rocket attack in Afghanistan, it emerged yesterday.
The RAF has only six Harrier GR7A jets in Afghanistan
The jets were on the ground at a military airfield at Kandahar in the south of the country when they were damaged early on Friday morning.
First reports of the attack from the Ministry of Defence made no mention of the damage to the aircraft and failed to disclose that one of them had been destroyed.
The RAF has only six Harrier GR7A jets - each worth £20 million - in Afghanistan, all of them from No 3 (Fighter) Squadron based at RAF Cottesmore, Lincolnshire.
The aircraft have been based at Kandahar since September last year and have been widely used on reconnaissance missions and to help special forces in the hunt for members of the ousted Taliban regime.
The MoD confirmed last night that the jets had been damaged.
One aircraft is being repaired at the airfield and the other has been replaced by another fighter which flew out from Britain on Friday evening.
A spokesman denied that the MoD had tried to conceal the fact that the aircraft had been damaged.
The attacked marks a significant escalation in the security situation in Afghanistan.
Next April more than 3,500 British troops will be deployed into the south of Afghanistan to launch operations against drug barons.
For whatever reason, the MOD opted to play it down....see
here.
Good to hear that everyone is OK, but can't help thinking...
1. Why has the MOD tried to dismiss this incident?
2. Did the recent publicity regarding the RAF in Afghanistan help make them a target?
An RAF Harrier was destroyed and another has been damaged in a rocket attack in Afghanistan, it emerged yesterday.
The RAF has only six Harrier GR7A jets in Afghanistan
The jets were on the ground at a military airfield at Kandahar in the south of the country when they were damaged early on Friday morning.
First reports of the attack from the Ministry of Defence made no mention of the damage to the aircraft and failed to disclose that one of them had been destroyed.
The RAF has only six Harrier GR7A jets - each worth £20 million - in Afghanistan, all of them from No 3 (Fighter) Squadron based at RAF Cottesmore, Lincolnshire.
The aircraft have been based at Kandahar since September last year and have been widely used on reconnaissance missions and to help special forces in the hunt for members of the ousted Taliban regime.
The MoD confirmed last night that the jets had been damaged.
One aircraft is being repaired at the airfield and the other has been replaced by another fighter which flew out from Britain on Friday evening.
A spokesman denied that the MoD had tried to conceal the fact that the aircraft had been damaged.
The attacked marks a significant escalation in the security situation in Afghanistan.
Next April more than 3,500 British troops will be deployed into the south of Afghanistan to launch operations against drug barons.
For whatever reason, the MOD opted to play it down....see
here.
Good to hear that everyone is OK, but can't help thinking...
1. Why has the MOD tried to dismiss this incident?
2. Did the recent publicity regarding the RAF in Afghanistan help make them a target?
Has this actually been officially confirmed by the MoD, or is the Torygraph simply quoting near verbatim from a posting made on the Army means on Friday evening where a poster had heard that a GR7 had been written off?
The article contains no new information, and there are some suggestions on the Arrse site that the Torygraph has simply decided that Arrse represents an official MoD source....
The article contains no new information, and there are some suggestions on the Arrse site that the Torygraph has simply decided that Arrse represents an official MoD source....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The basic facts about the attack on Khandahar were on the official RAF website on Fri: http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/news_0510_03.html - this hardly smacks of a cover up. And who said the ac has been destroyed? It may be damaged but it will probably take the engineers a while to assess the damage - but if it is destroyed, isn't that why we have an attrition rate? Thankfully, though, no one was injured - keep up the good work!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Not necessarily true in this case but refusing to confirm or deny a loss is all part of operational security. The last thing you want to do is provide BDA to the enemy. Also if an attack was so successful that 30% of the force is 'wiped out' then that would be a clear signal for an attack where the odds on success have been dramatically improved.
Opsec has been the bane of modern media warfare. Can we cover up legitimately and repair a reverse before we read about it on CNN?
Opsec has been the bane of modern media warfare. Can we cover up legitimately and repair a reverse before we read about it on CNN?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operational theatre + combat loss = zip lip
Confirmation of an enemy's success could give that enemy a tactical and propaganda advantage.
Might I suggest that we are all very carefull not to divulge anything that is not already in the public domain.
Confirmation of an enemy's success could give that enemy a tactical and propaganda advantage.
Might I suggest that we are all very carefull not to divulge anything that is not already in the public domain.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside WEBF,
Have you heard any more jets flying over Devon recently that may be Sea Harriers? The Sea Jet thread looks like it could do with another bump
Have you heard any more jets flying over Devon recently that may be Sea Harriers? The Sea Jet thread looks like it could do with another bump
If this jet was damaged in a rocket attack, I suspect that BDA won't have been too big a problem for Al Qaeda, while numerous local employees, UN civilians, etc will have witnessed exactly how much effort goes into rectification of any damage. The only people being kept in the dark by a press clampdown would therefore be the British people, unless you think that Al Q will be anxiously waiting for the London Times for BDA.
There may be a theoretical Opsec dimension here (and Pontius's point about the need for secrecy until force levels are restored is entirely legitimate), but on balance, I think that the taxpayer has a right to know the kind of costs being imposed by this operation, and feel sure that knowledge of this incident will help ensure that the politicians don't penny-pinch when it comes to airfield defence and to protecting you chaps in the future. If this were to be covered up, there'd always be the temptation to cut corners.
I thought that the majority of PPRuNers had a more realistic appreciation of what drives whether or not the 'Gurning Ape' spends money on defence....
and looking good/bad heads the list.
There may be a theoretical Opsec dimension here (and Pontius's point about the need for secrecy until force levels are restored is entirely legitimate), but on balance, I think that the taxpayer has a right to know the kind of costs being imposed by this operation, and feel sure that knowledge of this incident will help ensure that the politicians don't penny-pinch when it comes to airfield defence and to protecting you chaps in the future. If this were to be covered up, there'd always be the temptation to cut corners.
I thought that the majority of PPRuNers had a more realistic appreciation of what drives whether or not the 'Gurning Ape' spends money on defence....
and looking good/bad heads the list.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Jackinoko,
Do you know the various timescales?
Ie time of attack, first news leak, first press enquiry, first MOD release etc?
Fastest time to replace an asset in Afghanistan would be a number of hours - not many - but any obscurantism is no doubt intentional.
It would probably take as long to get the message back to the MOD press officer that everything was ops normal as it took to replace the jet in the first place.
If everything occurred in the space of a Monday to Friday then there is no case for bitching. If the event occurred last month or the month before then there is a clear case for the House Defence Committee to ask questions.
Do you know the various timescales?
Ie time of attack, first news leak, first press enquiry, first MOD release etc?
Fastest time to replace an asset in Afghanistan would be a number of hours - not many - but any obscurantism is no doubt intentional.
It would probably take as long to get the message back to the MOD press officer that everything was ops normal as it took to replace the jet in the first place.
If everything occurred in the space of a Monday to Friday then there is no case for bitching. If the event occurred last month or the month before then there is a clear case for the House Defence Committee to ask questions.
