Afghanistan Deployment
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only 2 fronts..
Originally Posted by 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...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
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/programme...m/default.stm#
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...m/default.stm#
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Clarity of mission is going to be essential in this deployment.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Chiefs who will buck the system, not in this day and age methinks.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attack on Kandahar Airfield
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely one more C17 won't actually make that much difference?
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))."
Last edited by FormerFlake; 19th Feb 2006 at 12:22.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Guess
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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$$ed away on the EuropHoon and 2 obsolete little grey boats when it should be spent on something which might prove useful such as a PR9 follow-on, conventionally acquired A330 MRTT etc etc.
Not a hope of that in the pointy-head fast jet-centric RAF.
Ah - can just hear the MoD spin machine. "No, it meant an airlifter we could acquire in a short period of time, not one that we only planned to use for a short term....."
An excellent asset - a shame that most of the defence procurment budget is being pi$$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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Originally Posted by BEagle
Actually, it's a term coined by an excellent chum who is going to be CAS in about 8 years time.
