Aircraft needed in Afghanistan
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OMQs
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawk TMk1 for the job
Never mind buying new Hawk 200 ac, who needs a radar/EW suite vs the taliban. A TMk1 with 120 30mm HE rounds, and 2x540/CBUs, combined with very quick reaction times, and perhaps most importantly at low cost!
Sounds like our troops out there need some more support, we should be prepared to use whatever we have to assist these brave soldiers....
Sounds like our troops out there need some more support, we should be prepared to use whatever we have to assist these brave soldiers....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
Your vision of future air power sounds as though it has come straight out of a doctrine paper!.
I have no dissagreement with the suggested use of airframes and technology....but what will happen if:
more than one battalion of troops requires support!!!
we are active in more than one theatre around the world!.
with an ever shrinking Army Navy and RAF the onus is on asymetric warfare, possibly in multiple locations at a cost that is agreeable to the Govt and taxpayer. Expensive and elaborate weapon systems do not provide that when fighting against your man in the mountains with an AK-47. Unless you are happy with a £100000 an man kill cost!.
With a bit more common and less thrusting we may one day get what we require to do the job and not what sounds good as a sound bite or doctrinal purity.
Your vision of future air power sounds as though it has come straight out of a doctrine paper!.
I have no dissagreement with the suggested use of airframes and technology....but what will happen if:
more than one battalion of troops requires support!!!
we are active in more than one theatre around the world!.
with an ever shrinking Army Navy and RAF the onus is on asymetric warfare, possibly in multiple locations at a cost that is agreeable to the Govt and taxpayer. Expensive and elaborate weapon systems do not provide that when fighting against your man in the mountains with an AK-47. Unless you are happy with a £100000 an man kill cost!.
With a bit more common and less thrusting we may one day get what we require to do the job and not what sounds good as a sound bite or doctrinal purity.
Now, now - that's quite enough of that consci' talk....
Asymmetric warfare does not buy your senior wheels their BWoS directorships....
Sell some more pointless EuropHoons to the Saudis - that's more like it!
Now cut along and polish your buttons, there's a good chap!
Asymmetric warfare does not buy your senior wheels their BWoS directorships....
Sell some more pointless EuropHoons to the Saudis - that's more like it!
Now cut along and polish your buttons, there's a good chap!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the point that we have bought into a warfighting deployment? This is when we realise that the government likes talking tough, but to fight war, you commit enough assets to ensure dominance of your enemy. The article in the Sunday Times today shows the quality of the troops deployed but it also shows the lack of support available to them. Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted...didn't a well-known Army guy say that?
Suspicion breeds confidence
I am very concerned about the situation in Helmand province. We do not have enough boots on the ground to be able to take the fight to enemy. The Paras need to be backed up by at least 5,000 combat troops, otherwise a cunning enemy will be able to inflict considerable damage upon them. Why do we only have six Harriers in theatre? Why only six Apache? That provides the capability to defend/prosecute just one contact point over any extended period. Something has to be done. I hate to say it but if we had not diluted our Harrier strength recently, then more would be possible.
Last edited by Navaleye; 3rd Jul 2006 at 00:22.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian Forces should be able to supply some Chinooks, ETA 2010 (the year not the time) - and we're only committed to 2009 anyway 
In the meantime there might be some 40 year old SKs if they're serious about that troop carrier refit
As for the RAF Jags - even if they ended up trashed by the opposition on the ground it would be a better end than the scrapper's torch you would think...
In the meantime there might be some 40 year old SKs if they're serious about that troop carrier refit
As for the RAF Jags - even if they ended up trashed by the opposition on the ground it would be a better end than the scrapper's torch you would think...
You do have to despair sometimes. Here we are in 2006 with still not an operational Eurofighter in service fighting an ancient war in Afghanistan that we can't win and don't have the kit for. What a shambles. The saddest part is that Joe Public have tuned out now, don't understand what the military are doing, don't care and don't think of the military as a public service like the NHS or Education.
For £5.1m each we could buy a very tidy couple of squadrons of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer...4_Super_Tucano that would cost the same as maybe two Typhoons. Now 6 of those on station prowling the skies of Helmand 24/7 available anywhere with 5 mins notice and elsewise tasked on a target of opportunity brief might be a real asset.
WWW
For £5.1m each we could buy a very tidy couple of squadrons of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer...4_Super_Tucano that would cost the same as maybe two Typhoons. Now 6 of those on station prowling the skies of Helmand 24/7 available anywhere with 5 mins notice and elsewise tasked on a target of opportunity brief might be a real asset.
WWW
Suspicion breeds confidence
More troops and and aircraft for Afghanistan according to Sky News, but it does not say which.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...530966,00.html
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...530966,00.html
Last edited by Navaleye; 3rd Jul 2006 at 09:18.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not according to the MOD via the BBC!
Edited because during the morning it went from a no to a maybe to only if they ask for it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5139644.stm
Edited because during the morning it went from a no to a maybe to only if they ask for it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5139644.stm
Last edited by The Gorilla; 3rd Jul 2006 at 13:09.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone with no military background I cant add much here, but as a somewhat-related comment I would like to wonder aloud why the US news media insist on referring to UK/Canadian, etc troops as "US led coalition foces"?
As an englishman living in George W.'s land of Fantasy and Wonder, it is somewhat annoying to hear my country's armed forces referred to only as "US led coalition forces".
As an englishman living in George W.'s land of Fantasy and Wonder, it is somewhat annoying to hear my country's armed forces referred to only as "US led coalition forces".
BBD,
At least things seem to be improving over time....used to be we considered you the enemy in our grand land. I guess since you learned you can't beat us...you decided to join us.
At least things seem to be improving over time....used to be we considered you the enemy in our grand land. I guess since you learned you can't beat us...you decided to join us.
We've got the same number of aircraft, but I completely agree with you about doing more tasks than before. But then again, who isn't these days?
Nurse.
As has been said before the Jag wouldn't get airborne out there.
Nurse.
As has been said before the Jag wouldn't get airborne out there.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second Hand SH from AMARC
Can't we pull some second hand, low hour UH-60's and CH-47's out of AMARC and return them to use for very little cost ?
HMG should be able to get a discount, being as we are the 'staunchest US coalition ally... deh, dah, deh, dah...'.
HMG should be able to get a discount, being as we are the 'staunchest US coalition ally... deh, dah, deh, dah...'.