Aircraft needed in Afghanistan
And how, precisely would the futile EuropHoon be used?
Close Air Support (or whatever the Waddington college-of-knowledge calls it these days) requires air-to-ground weaponry.
Such as a gun that works...
Or bombs, rockets etc? Most EuropHoon work seems to be air-to-air, so not much use in Afghanistan, one would think.
Suppose they could always scare the Taliban back beyond even their present mediaeval era by flying a few displays and screwing up as per last year's RIAT?
Even a few Sea Harriers might have helped - just as they did in 1982 though without any need for a carrier. But, of course, the idiot government threw them away.
Bliar and his lying cronies are simply not prepared to back their political aspirations and Bush bum-licking with adequate assets.
Next thing we'll hear is that they'll be sending Valley and Leeming Hawks out to do some air-to-sand work. Good job they've got lots of fatigue left.
Close Air Support (or whatever the Waddington college-of-knowledge calls it these days) requires air-to-ground weaponry.
Such as a gun that works...
Or bombs, rockets etc? Most EuropHoon work seems to be air-to-air, so not much use in Afghanistan, one would think.
Suppose they could always scare the Taliban back beyond even their present mediaeval era by flying a few displays and screwing up as per last year's RIAT?
Even a few Sea Harriers might have helped - just as they did in 1982 though without any need for a carrier. But, of course, the idiot government threw them away.
Bliar and his lying cronies are simply not prepared to back their political aspirations and Bush bum-licking with adequate assets.
Next thing we'll hear is that they'll be sending Valley and Leeming Hawks out to do some air-to-sand work. Good job they've got lots of fatigue left.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wrote to the Defence Committee in March and told them that I thought the Afghanistan Deployment had all the hallmarks of a badly thought through operation at a time of severe overstretch in the Armed Forces. Ingram reassured the Committee that it had been meticulously planned over many months. Well, it appears that General Richards is already asking for more men, rotary and fixed wing assets and he hasn't even taken control yet. You couldn't make it up..... This was the response from the Govt when asked about the situation deteriorating.
HCDC:
We are concerned that, should the security situation in the South prove worse than anticipated, the UK will be called on to provide additional forces. The UK has already committed significant numbers of troops and assets to ISAF stage 3. NATO should call on the military assets of other countries before approaching the UK for further contributions. (Paragraph 34)
MoD:
9. The UK has made a substantial commitment to Afghanistan, and we believe the force package we are sending is sufficient to match the threat as currently assessed. We keep the size and make-up of our commitment under constant review, and will adapt our planning if necessary.
10. Should a need for additional troops or equipment for the South arise, the UK will work with NATO and other Allies to identify the most effective and appropriate solution. We aim to ensure that NATO and other troop contributing nations take on their share of the burden, and work to encourage appropriate force contributions from our Allies through the NATO Force Generation process.
There is little doubt that force protection has not been thought through and that there simply aren't enough troops to do the job. Interestingly the US never had the intention of nation building in Afg. The time to have done it was just after the war, I believe we have left it too late. Standby for more British troops to be sent out there because the useless European nations are not prepared to pull their weight. Welcome to our very own Vietnam.
HCDC:
We are concerned that, should the security situation in the South prove worse than anticipated, the UK will be called on to provide additional forces. The UK has already committed significant numbers of troops and assets to ISAF stage 3. NATO should call on the military assets of other countries before approaching the UK for further contributions. (Paragraph 34)
MoD:
9. The UK has made a substantial commitment to Afghanistan, and we believe the force package we are sending is sufficient to match the threat as currently assessed. We keep the size and make-up of our commitment under constant review, and will adapt our planning if necessary.
10. Should a need for additional troops or equipment for the South arise, the UK will work with NATO and other Allies to identify the most effective and appropriate solution. We aim to ensure that NATO and other troop contributing nations take on their share of the burden, and work to encourage appropriate force contributions from our Allies through the NATO Force Generation process.
There is little doubt that force protection has not been thought through and that there simply aren't enough troops to do the job. Interestingly the US never had the intention of nation building in Afg. The time to have done it was just after the war, I believe we have left it too late. Standby for more British troops to be sent out there because the useless European nations are not prepared to pull their weight. Welcome to our very own Vietnam.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tigs2
Please forgive all spelling mistakes as i am on a thirteen hour flight back to blighty trying out the new 'on-board internet' with probably too many G+T's. But hes still a Git whatever.
Rant Over
Rant Over
Not on a service aircraft surely? Aplogies for calling you Shirley!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send in the Jags.
Everyone associated closely with the squadron knows they've had their shelf-life extended already and that they aren't actually being binned next year (although the motivation isn't based on concerns over capability - it's based on concerns over keeping pilots busy), so cut out the whispering and beaurocratic bull****, come clean about the revised bin date and use them for the reason they were built in the first bloody place.
Everyone associated closely with the squadron knows they've had their shelf-life extended already and that they aren't actually being binned next year (although the motivation isn't based on concerns over capability - it's based on concerns over keeping pilots busy), so cut out the whispering and beaurocratic bull****, come clean about the revised bin date and use them for the reason they were built in the first bloody place.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Sending more aircraft is analogous to trying to replace the tiles on the roof of a house whose foundations are disappearing into quicksand. The entire enterprise is fatally (literally for many of our colleagues) flawed, and the call for additional assets is indicative of the dawning realization that the mission is beyond repair before it even starts.
The multi-Government agency approach from the UK, coupled with International Committees on Pontification, are exactly the kind of "whose in charge here then?" approach that made Bosnia and the Balkans the stunning Military success it was.
It's much easier to kill the enemy if you know who they are, and they remain the enemy for the duration of the conflict. The combatants in Helmand are able to migrate from being Hostile Warlords/Taliban to Partisan Supporters of Democracy (with an Opium habit) at the stroke of a pen in Washington, an action that is slavishly followed in London of course.
In their desire to prevent public knowledge of the fact that all military action in Afghanistan since 2002 has been effectively nugatory, the US/UK Governments will continue to live the lie that; (1) when we withdraw, the Taliban will not simply take up where they left off, (2) We are not facilitating the growing and shipment of the world's supply of Heroin, we are controlling it.
So before we rush to send in more "assets", why don't we ask someone to give the poor bloody Military an objective that can be achieved, not one that is purely political in nature. Let's fix the foundations before we start on the roof.
The multi-Government agency approach from the UK, coupled with International Committees on Pontification, are exactly the kind of "whose in charge here then?" approach that made Bosnia and the Balkans the stunning Military success it was.
It's much easier to kill the enemy if you know who they are, and they remain the enemy for the duration of the conflict. The combatants in Helmand are able to migrate from being Hostile Warlords/Taliban to Partisan Supporters of Democracy (with an Opium habit) at the stroke of a pen in Washington, an action that is slavishly followed in London of course.
In their desire to prevent public knowledge of the fact that all military action in Afghanistan since 2002 has been effectively nugatory, the US/UK Governments will continue to live the lie that; (1) when we withdraw, the Taliban will not simply take up where they left off, (2) We are not facilitating the growing and shipment of the world's supply of Heroin, we are controlling it.
So before we rush to send in more "assets", why don't we ask someone to give the poor bloody Military an objective that can be achieved, not one that is purely political in nature. Let's fix the foundations before we start on the roof.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the hell were the Chiefs of Staff thinking about when they accepted this task? I have just read the piece in ST by Christina Lamb. I remember her being interviewed back in January. She predicted this was going to happen and she criticised the West for ignoring Afg for the past four years. We have sent our boys out there with a mission aim that has been lost before it even started. Blair, Reid, Browne and the Chiefs of Staff have displayed unbelievable naivity.
Very "interesting" article in the Sunday Times here.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we had enough CAS assets in theatre we could do what the Americans do - have airborne patrols capping to await the call. Then there would be none of the 'keep fighting until they become available' scenario.
We need to flood the area with ground and air assets if there is to be any hope of success in the mission [whatever that is].
Otherwise, we are going to pussyfoot around, picking off one or two taliban here and there at what cost?
We cannot continue to put assests on three theatres simultaneously. It's about time that the powers that be cut the cloth according to the available assets, rather than stretch our Forces to breaking point - which is the way we are heading, which will be at the expense of the men on the ground.
We need to flood the area with ground and air assets if there is to be any hope of success in the mission [whatever that is].
Otherwise, we are going to pussyfoot around, picking off one or two taliban here and there at what cost?
We cannot continue to put assests on three theatres simultaneously. It's about time that the powers that be cut the cloth according to the available assets, rather than stretch our Forces to breaking point - which is the way we are heading, which will be at the expense of the men on the ground.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FJJP
We cannot continue to put assests on three theatres simultaneously. It's about time that the powers that be cut the cloth according to the available assets, rather than stretch our Forces to breaking point - which is the way we are heading, which will be at the expense of the men on the ground.
HM Government won't listen and HM Forces can't say no, so we're on a collision course for a hiding. Stories such as "Have You Ever Used a Pistol?" show clearly we're not coping - CAS should have been instantaneous - and shows the very pinnacle of our forces are now suffering.
Independent review anyone?
Last edited by dallas; 2nd Jul 2006 at 14:33.
My how times have changed!
If we had enough CAS assets in theatre we could do what the Americans do - have airborne patrols capping to await the call. Then there would be none of the 'keep fighting until they become available' scenario.
Should we dig that thread up and begin to remind some of the posters of the true genius they spoke then?
It is a very lonely feeling being in need of some serious help and there is no help about. I have been there and done that.
We owe it to our troops on the ground to provide them with every resource they need....and do so in a most timely manner.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Beags has a very good point. CAS is proud of Typhoon and all the benefits it brings to British Industry. Fat lot of good it is for the paras on the ground in Afg. We are not equipped to fight these wars. The fastjet centric air force blunders on. Special Forces wanted Herc gunships in 2001. No problems with endurance and a howitzer down the back. It looks as though the so called "Top Brass" are having some heavy meetings this weekend. So they should, it is disgusting that these guys were denied air cover for so long. If it was not for some heavy pressure by HCDC, RAF Harriers would be home now, The Treasury, headed up Gordon Brown did not want to pay for the detachment any longer. The MoD initially decided that our guys didn't need that much air cover. 90 years ago we endured the tragedy of the Somme and the phrase lions led by donkeys was coined. I am starting to wonder the same about the decision makers at the highest level of the military.
Last edited by nigegilb; 2nd Jul 2006 at 16:11.
Well, the Sentinels will provide real time recce and the guys on the ground can call up on Link 16 ERV, their PPLIs being instantly linked to a cab rank of EuropHoons supported by A330K tankers with full-up DASS. The EuropHoons will then snap to the precise area and prosecute some serious air-to-sand with smart weaponry updated by over-the-air re-targetting.
Meanwhile a flight of A400Ms will insert some additional troops to clean up the Taleban.
Just don't tell Bliar or Des 'strangely' Brownie - they probably think the RAF already has that capability today.
Well, it should have by now, of course. And just think of the capabilities we had in 1976 compared with 2006.....
Meanwhile a flight of A400Ms will insert some additional troops to clean up the Taleban.
Just don't tell Bliar or Des 'strangely' Brownie - they probably think the RAF already has that capability today.
Well, it should have by now, of course. And just think of the capabilities we had in 1976 compared with 2006.....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Govt response to HCDC fifth report
HCDC:
We note MOD’s assurance that the total close air support package is robust and that the US commitment of close air support will remain following the withdrawal of US Forces from the Southern provinces. We will continue to monitor closely whether experience bears out MOD’s confidence about the continued availability of air assets to the UK deployment. (Paragraph 62)
MOD:
24. We believe that sufficient close air support is available to ISAF forces in the South, including the six Harrier GR7 aircraft based at Kandahar. We note the Committee’s intention to monitor this situation.
HCDC:
The availability of close air support providing sufficient mobility and fire power will be absolutely essential to the success of the Helmand deployment. We recommend, if no equivalent force can be provided by the NATO force generation process, that the Harrier GR7 squadron based at Kandahar should remain beyond June 2006 and for as long as necessary. (Paragraph 64)
MOD:
25. As the Committee will be aware, the Government decided, following requests from NATO and other Allies, to extend the Harrier GR7 detachment until March 2007. This is in addition to the eight F16s offered by the Netherlands, although these latter will continue to be based in Kabul while repair work at Kandahar Airfield continues.
HCDC:
We note MOD’s assurance that the total close air support package is robust and that the US commitment of close air support will remain following the withdrawal of US Forces from the Southern provinces. We will continue to monitor closely whether experience bears out MOD’s confidence about the continued availability of air assets to the UK deployment. (Paragraph 62)
MOD:
24. We believe that sufficient close air support is available to ISAF forces in the South, including the six Harrier GR7 aircraft based at Kandahar. We note the Committee’s intention to monitor this situation.
HCDC:
The availability of close air support providing sufficient mobility and fire power will be absolutely essential to the success of the Helmand deployment. We recommend, if no equivalent force can be provided by the NATO force generation process, that the Harrier GR7 squadron based at Kandahar should remain beyond June 2006 and for as long as necessary. (Paragraph 64)
MOD:
25. As the Committee will be aware, the Government decided, following requests from NATO and other Allies, to extend the Harrier GR7 detachment until March 2007. This is in addition to the eight F16s offered by the Netherlands, although these latter will continue to be based in Kabul while repair work at Kandahar Airfield continues.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinion of a humble taxpayer
I was aware of the deployment of 16 Airmobile long before it went 'public domain' and was immediately concerned when I heard the public story about reconstruction support. I was told by 'the troops' that they were being sent in to get the Taliban ! Ah yes, the fog of war! I recall wondering what the air support situation would be, then I remembered being told by 'anon' from Wattisham that the Apache was to be deployed 'next year' , that was at a BBQ last year. But the Apache fleet has its problems which I wont mention here as I'm unsure as to how much might be in the public domain.
So here we are and the ill-conceived mess is unravelling before our eyes. I think that our political masters have got too gung-ho and our forces 'can do' approach to every challenge may have finally found its limit. The top brass seem to be out of touch with reality and you chaps at the sharp end have my sympathy.
Perhaps we could make a start by selling the tranche 3 Euro-wot-nots at a bargain price and maybe invest in some affordable kit which could be effective in these 'frontier wars' ( I believe we called it the North West Frontier and patrolled it with the venerable Westland Wapiti).
So, here's what's needed...
Hercules: Proper protection 'nuf said on that.
Jaguar: Keep them as long as they work properly and they have a use.
Helicopters. Why don't we buy some basic support helicopters off the shelf
like the AB212 or similar? They seem to work well enough in
Brunei, Belize and Cyprus.
In theatre transport: Oh how we must miss the Andover. Modern equivelant?
(While we're at it, perhaps some decent wheeled armoured patrol vehicles for the squaddies and a radio system that works.)
Last but not least. My proposal for our 'Future Fighter'.... Single seat Hawks with radar etc would seem to be a robust aircraft which could be maintained easily in such exotic locations. Who knows, others might notice and decide to buy a few like they bought Hunters once before. Methinks the brass hats will be mortified at the thought, but if the opposition has no air assets who needs anything more exotic?
So there you have it. Please note the subtitle of this submission before flaming me
The bottom line is that I am angry to see that our people are being called on to undertake tasks without adequate equipment or numbers despite the rantings of HMG ministers saying that our slimmer armed forces would be better quipped as a result of the reductions in numbers. Perhaps Nigel sould find the ministers words on Hansard and hold El Presidente Bliar responsible for the debacle that has ensued.
Message ends.
Edit two corerect spellnig
AFTERTHOUGHT: The mind boggles at what the real aim of this mission is, any friendships gained with the natives should be considered transient at best... Those fellahs will change sides at the drop of a hat.
Perhaps we should take a strategic view? and (bearing in mind who's really in charge) take a look at a map. Look at the other country we are occupying with Uncle Sam then look at Afghanistan. Behold; look which country is between them!
So here we are and the ill-conceived mess is unravelling before our eyes. I think that our political masters have got too gung-ho and our forces 'can do' approach to every challenge may have finally found its limit. The top brass seem to be out of touch with reality and you chaps at the sharp end have my sympathy.
Perhaps we could make a start by selling the tranche 3 Euro-wot-nots at a bargain price and maybe invest in some affordable kit which could be effective in these 'frontier wars' ( I believe we called it the North West Frontier and patrolled it with the venerable Westland Wapiti).
So, here's what's needed...
Hercules: Proper protection 'nuf said on that.
Jaguar: Keep them as long as they work properly and they have a use.
Helicopters. Why don't we buy some basic support helicopters off the shelf
like the AB212 or similar? They seem to work well enough in
Brunei, Belize and Cyprus.
In theatre transport: Oh how we must miss the Andover. Modern equivelant?
(While we're at it, perhaps some decent wheeled armoured patrol vehicles for the squaddies and a radio system that works.)
Last but not least. My proposal for our 'Future Fighter'.... Single seat Hawks with radar etc would seem to be a robust aircraft which could be maintained easily in such exotic locations. Who knows, others might notice and decide to buy a few like they bought Hunters once before. Methinks the brass hats will be mortified at the thought, but if the opposition has no air assets who needs anything more exotic?
So there you have it. Please note the subtitle of this submission before flaming me
The bottom line is that I am angry to see that our people are being called on to undertake tasks without adequate equipment or numbers despite the rantings of HMG ministers saying that our slimmer armed forces would be better quipped as a result of the reductions in numbers. Perhaps Nigel sould find the ministers words on Hansard and hold El Presidente Bliar responsible for the debacle that has ensued.Message ends.
Edit two corerect spellnig
AFTERTHOUGHT: The mind boggles at what the real aim of this mission is, any friendships gained with the natives should be considered transient at best... Those fellahs will change sides at the drop of a hat.
Perhaps we should take a strategic view? and (bearing in mind who's really in charge) take a look at a map. Look at the other country we are occupying with Uncle Sam then look at Afghanistan. Behold; look which country is between them!
Last edited by microlight AV8R; 2nd Jul 2006 at 17:17.
An interesting view on the current deployment - even if it is from the Conservative opposition benches, but one with a damn site more credability than any of the current Noo Labour lovies:
Interesting thoughts about Tranche 3 there Microlight. As a non-Typhoon type, it looks like a cracking jet, but potentially not ideal for the sort of hostile field ops we are seeing in Afghanistan. As a non-Typhoon type, I would however, be interested in finding out the costs of Tranche 3, and how many Hawk 200s or even upgraded A-10s we could get for the same price. Simple platforms, easy to operate and probably much more suited to ops in Afghanistan against a determined and effective but not exactly technologically advanced enemy.
I'm guessing we could probably get at least 2, probably more OTS 200s / A-10s for the same price as a Typhoon. And can you imagine the uproar if you did send a Typhoon and a cheap as chips rocket takes it out on the pan as happened with the Harriers?
Patrick Mercer, Conservative security spokesman and a former infantry officer, told BBC Radio 4 the government had not committed enough combat force to the mission.
He said only 600 infantrymen and a battery of guns, with some helicopters, had been pledged to the region.
"When I was instructing at the staff college, if a student had presented me with this plan for Afghanistan, I would have failed him, and failed him comprehensively," he said.
He said only 600 infantrymen and a battery of guns, with some helicopters, had been pledged to the region.
"When I was instructing at the staff college, if a student had presented me with this plan for Afghanistan, I would have failed him, and failed him comprehensively," he said.
I'm guessing we could probably get at least 2, probably more OTS 200s / A-10s for the same price as a Typhoon. And can you imagine the uproar if you did send a Typhoon and a cheap as chips rocket takes it out on the pan as happened with the Harriers?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am on the case. I think MPs were misled about this deployment all along. You don't deploy 16 Air Assault to hand out lolipops to kids. Op Mountain Thrust was planned a long time back. I assume we were always going there to take part in this op and kill Talibs. The subsequent hearts and minds job is going to be a near impossibility. MPs were under the impression that this was a peace and reconstruction job. Nice one.