Afghanistan Deployment
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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".
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".
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/A...ine+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? 
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/A...ine+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?
Last edited by Lyneham Lad; 1st Feb 2006 at 11:22.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to keep order in "The Empire"
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!!!)
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!!!)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not stop them by using 'Uncle Sam's Miracle prevent-Gro' more commonly known as AGENT ORANGE
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Credit
In a visit to RAF Odiham yesterday, Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram, praised SH and the Chinooks as Unsung Heroes.
As an ancient jungly, I recognise appreciation for the Helo Force across the Services as a rare commodity. Well Done (BZ) and go safely.
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.
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
Apaches face toughest test
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
Apaches face toughest test
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
UK’s first “hot and high” firings of the Apache’s AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, CRV-7 unguided rockets and cannon."
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
"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...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."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...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."
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
We may be better reading Beau Geste for some doctrine on fort living...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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”
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”
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The reality will be somewhat different as those who have worked in a multinational environment will remember.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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