Aircraft needed in Afghanistan
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reds & Harriers
microlight AV8R,
Love the idea of sending the Reds - seriously think you're right, would be great PR etc and I suspect they would love it - contrary to popular belief, a lot of pilots hate doing it but it's a good career move.
They already have at least one kill to their credit - while testing the smoke at Dunsfold we managed to dye a local woman's entire washing bright green. Apparently it was just what she'd always wanted - at least I think that's what she said.
Snag is you'd have to remove the smoke pods & fit guns, I rather suspect despite the vaunted 'war role' they would need a fair bit of plumbing & wiring, for pylons, tanks, rocket pods etc...still not beyond the capabilities if the will is there.
The RAF is desperately short on Hawks, hence Boscome using Alpha's -( which went down like the proverbial cold bucket of...) .
Now here's a thought - how about putting a gun on the Harrier !!!
Yes, Navaleye, a gun like the seajet has, and GRwhatever number you like does not...
Saw the fiasco of the 25mm Aden, so the U.S. GAU-12 gatling as used by the marines would be the real answer, or buy off the shelf gun pods.
I'm damn sure we could manage more than 6 Harriers to help our guys -
Oik, if you're reading this, your efforts ( and predicament ) ARE appreciated, and not just by military types, Joe Public has more brains than Bliar would like to think.
Love the idea of sending the Reds - seriously think you're right, would be great PR etc and I suspect they would love it - contrary to popular belief, a lot of pilots hate doing it but it's a good career move.
They already have at least one kill to their credit - while testing the smoke at Dunsfold we managed to dye a local woman's entire washing bright green. Apparently it was just what she'd always wanted - at least I think that's what she said.
Snag is you'd have to remove the smoke pods & fit guns, I rather suspect despite the vaunted 'war role' they would need a fair bit of plumbing & wiring, for pylons, tanks, rocket pods etc...still not beyond the capabilities if the will is there.
The RAF is desperately short on Hawks, hence Boscome using Alpha's -( which went down like the proverbial cold bucket of...) .
Now here's a thought - how about putting a gun on the Harrier !!!
Yes, Navaleye, a gun like the seajet has, and GRwhatever number you like does not...
Saw the fiasco of the 25mm Aden, so the U.S. GAU-12 gatling as used by the marines would be the real answer, or buy off the shelf gun pods.
I'm damn sure we could manage more than 6 Harriers to help our guys -
Oik, if you're reading this, your efforts ( and predicament ) ARE appreciated, and not just by military types, Joe Public has more brains than Bliar would like to think.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chennai
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the earlier part of this thread there was lot of talk of using the Jaguar jet to increase the air cover. I was just wondering, what has happened to all the stinger missles supplied by USA to the mujahadeen during the soviet invasion? Are these manpads still in circulation?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jag
surely they could not have supplied them with Stinger, as we would have seen Russian aircraft being shot out of the skies all over the place. All the documentaries i saw were of them trying to use S7s with failing battery packs. If they have stinger (or will re-find/aquire them) our boys are in trouble.
surely they could not have supplied them with Stinger, as we would have seen Russian aircraft being shot out of the skies all over the place. All the documentaries i saw were of them trying to use S7s with failing battery packs. If they have stinger (or will re-find/aquire them) our boys are in trouble.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stinger
Tigs2,
I assume & hope that was tongue in cheek!
Even schoolboys know about the liberal hand-out of Stingers ( whose bright idea was that, & where is he now ?! ).
However I do remember seeing a quote from a Russian pilot, who reckoned they could counter it quite easily.
Snag is, the Russians had a lot of helo's & crew, & didn't mind much if they lost a few. In fact rather a lot.
Then again there was a mention of a Mujahadeen type saying " the only thing they have that scares me is their gunship helicopters".
Possibly also the way they were used, which I doubt was constrained by niceties such as ROE.
Remember the pics of Mig's colliding at displays & the pilots ejecting then walking calmly away? - so what, just another day...
Probably a different mind-set is required; with these bastards, as previously mentioned, they'll change sides at the drop of a hat, so it's all or nothing. Seeing as 'all' is unlikely, let's get our guys out.
I assume & hope that was tongue in cheek!
Even schoolboys know about the liberal hand-out of Stingers ( whose bright idea was that, & where is he now ?! ).
However I do remember seeing a quote from a Russian pilot, who reckoned they could counter it quite easily.
Snag is, the Russians had a lot of helo's & crew, & didn't mind much if they lost a few. In fact rather a lot.
Then again there was a mention of a Mujahadeen type saying " the only thing they have that scares me is their gunship helicopters".
Possibly also the way they were used, which I doubt was constrained by niceties such as ROE.
Remember the pics of Mig's colliding at displays & the pilots ejecting then walking calmly away? - so what, just another day...
Probably a different mind-set is required; with these bastards, as previously mentioned, they'll change sides at the drop of a hat, so it's all or nothing. Seeing as 'all' is unlikely, let's get our guys out.
Suspicion breeds confidence
MarkD, just thinking out loud. The Harrier team seem to me to be grossly over stretched. I thought the Jags had new more powerful engines and all new avionics at the last update. Strange question, but I'll ask it... if we can't use them where we most need them, what use are they?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doublezero
I am definitly sat down eating several large portions of humble pie chum. Back to school. I was definitly not aware that Uncle Sam handed out Stinger to them. Ah well every day is a school day, but i've got to be honest. Why didn't my Sqn Into ever tell me this in the briefings?? I definitly listened
I am definitly sat down eating several large portions of humble pie chum. Back to school. I was definitly not aware that Uncle Sam handed out Stinger to them. Ah well every day is a school day, but i've got to be honest. Why didn't my Sqn Into ever tell me this in the briefings?? I definitly listened
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero
Well i guess you cant know everything
Just done my homework. A useful link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
It would seem to suggest though with the number of Ruskies shot down and with the associated number of failures that they do not have many if any left (unless the 'other sources are reliable), Have the US made the accurate numbers of missiles the CIA gave them available ( a yes is as good as anything on this forum). Apologies for ignorance.
Tigs
p.s look under 'cost'?? Why did the swiss buy 2500 stinger at $126 000 dollars each?? (thought they were Neutral)??
Well i guess you cant know everything
Just done my homework. A useful link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_StingerIt would seem to suggest though with the number of Ruskies shot down and with the associated number of failures that they do not have many if any left (unless the 'other sources are reliable), Have the US made the accurate numbers of missiles the CIA gave them available ( a yes is as good as anything on this forum). Apologies for ignorance.
Tigs
p.s look under 'cost'?? Why did the swiss buy 2500 stinger at $126 000 dollars each?? (thought they were Neutral)??
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stinger
Tigs2,
I am not in your exhaulted position ( unfortunately for me, I actually mean it !)
but if I were in that situation I would disregard any figures about numbers of weapons ( stingers or anything else ) given out; what would be of more interest is how long do the things last, as you say re. SA-7 batterys etc.
It seems the RPG 7 etc is pretty deadly, having a shaped charge, if the aimer gets lucky - and that doesn't need any signature to grab on to except visual.
I have always thought, if the Tornado had been used in WW2 it would have been shot down in droves; can't countermeasure a bullet.
I am not in your exhaulted position ( unfortunately for me, I actually mean it !)
but if I were in that situation I would disregard any figures about numbers of weapons ( stingers or anything else ) given out; what would be of more interest is how long do the things last, as you say re. SA-7 batterys etc.
It seems the RPG 7 etc is pretty deadly, having a shaped charge, if the aimer gets lucky - and that doesn't need any signature to grab on to except visual.
I have always thought, if the Tornado had been used in WW2 it would have been shot down in droves; can't countermeasure a bullet.
Tigs,
Perhaps this article will be of some use to you. Stingers will certainly ruin your day. However of late it seems that RPG's have downed far more aircraft than Manpads.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...2-attack03.htm
Every neighbors son seems to have a launcher and a couple of dozen of projectiles for the things thus they can be very effective against helicopters.
Time fuzes....or volley fire or simply direct fire seem to be the favorite tactics.
Becoming predictable or picking an LZ within reach of the things without suppressive fires from Gunships, Arty, or CAS sets one up for a bad day.
Read the book "Roberts Ridge" by Malcolm McDonald to see how past disasters have occurred in Afghanistan. He tells a very vivid and detailed account of the fight that resulted in several downed Chinooks. That account makes you appreciate the kind of fight the troops are involved in.
For you Wokka crew....read the book and imagine yourself in the first aircraft hit by RPG's, machinegun, and AK fire at night and lose electrics and flight control hydraulics......and survive.
It is an amazing story of exemplry work by an aircrew.
Perhaps this article will be of some use to you. Stingers will certainly ruin your day. However of late it seems that RPG's have downed far more aircraft than Manpads.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...2-attack03.htm
Every neighbors son seems to have a launcher and a couple of dozen of projectiles for the things thus they can be very effective against helicopters.
Time fuzes....or volley fire or simply direct fire seem to be the favorite tactics.
Becoming predictable or picking an LZ within reach of the things without suppressive fires from Gunships, Arty, or CAS sets one up for a bad day.
Read the book "Roberts Ridge" by Malcolm McDonald to see how past disasters have occurred in Afghanistan. He tells a very vivid and detailed account of the fight that resulted in several downed Chinooks. That account makes you appreciate the kind of fight the troops are involved in.
For you Wokka crew....read the book and imagine yourself in the first aircraft hit by RPG's, machinegun, and AK fire at night and lose electrics and flight control hydraulics......and survive.
It is an amazing story of exemplry work by an aircrew.
Don't the US have any old A10 Thunderbolts in storage that we could lease? Or even something older but still capable like A4 Skyhawks? Or would bringing another aircraft type into the inventory be too complicated?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stingers & Thunderbolts
I love the idea of using A-10's, a great plane for the job, but we know it ain't gonna happen unless the U.S. should happen to bring their own.
If I was in Tigs2's position I would A; smartly walk round to alleged intel officer and give him customer feedback via fist/nose interface,
B, start reading up quickly on how the Russians learned how to counter Stingers; they managed it with some success; - and the baddies are resourceful - they can probably recharge batteries by a few clips connected to goats !
Seriously even things like nitrogen cooling are in everyone's reach now, if I was flying out there - especially in a 2 seater - I'd have the chap in the back primarily looking for RPG's, but with Stingers & similar Manpads firmly in mind.
They also no doubt have night vision, which while making life a bit more difficult doesn't mean they won't try it.
They might be nutters, but the unpleasant resourceful type.
" He is that most dangerous of animals, a clever sheep".
If I was in Tigs2's position I would A; smartly walk round to alleged intel officer and give him customer feedback via fist/nose interface,
B, start reading up quickly on how the Russians learned how to counter Stingers; they managed it with some success; - and the baddies are resourceful - they can probably recharge batteries by a few clips connected to goats !
Seriously even things like nitrogen cooling are in everyone's reach now, if I was flying out there - especially in a 2 seater - I'd have the chap in the back primarily looking for RPG's, but with Stingers & similar Manpads firmly in mind.
They also no doubt have night vision, which while making life a bit more difficult doesn't mean they won't try it.
They might be nutters, but the unpleasant resourceful type.
" He is that most dangerous of animals, a clever sheep".
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Shefford, Beds, UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paying for it
Having read the thread and the articles it merely confirms my opinion that the politicians will manipulate anything they are given to suit their rhetoric (dodgy dossier anyone?). I fail to believe that our seniors did not tell them of the risks of sending 3300 lightly armed troops into an area three times the size of Wales with minimum air cover and immobile artillery (due to air/road lift not lack of wheels!). However, sent they were and in the guano they have landed.
Some of the suggestions on here have been slightly off-piste though. Jaguars - have a look at the stats, Khandahar is the only airfield available, 3300amsl and +40-50c on an 8500ft runway . . . just not enough curvature there.
Hawks - excellent idea, but they're declared under the CFE treaty as 'training' and cannot be operationally deployed (tried to during Sierra Leone and told it would be too difficult to re-negotiate CFE!)
Tornado - not a chance. Airfield is ropey as hell (operating surfaces) and Tornado would act as a very effective FOD sweeper, but only once!
Air show princess (aka Typhoon). No, see Tornado and double the cost.
The only alternative (within the realms or reality i.e. not a new buy) is an increase in Harriers and AH. However, as neither are in plentiful supply (or working) we're kind of stuck with what we've got - 6 Harriers, 6 AH, 3300 troops to try to look after an area 3 times the size of Wales inhabited by people who have never been conquered, guarding a lifestyle that we are trying to destroy. All in all, not a recipe for success, but then again, you get what you’re willing to pay for. This and previous Governments aren’t willing to pay for it (tail to teeth, options for change, peace dividend ring any bells?) and no amount of running around now will rectify the situation in the short or medium term.
BTW, when you look at the numbers (as the treasury does) how can the Army be overstretched with an total of 106000, and only 12000 deployed, even on 6 month tours that means that each unit should only be deploying once every 3-4 years? RAF numbers similar: 44000 total, 3800 deployed.
Just before the spears turn me into the first human-sized model porcupine, I know what the issues are, and that the same people are deploying, and that there is critical overstretch in certain trades and functions, but the bean counters can only cope with simple numbers and they don’t let reality interfere with a good submission.
Some of the suggestions on here have been slightly off-piste though. Jaguars - have a look at the stats, Khandahar is the only airfield available, 3300amsl and +40-50c on an 8500ft runway . . . just not enough curvature there.
Hawks - excellent idea, but they're declared under the CFE treaty as 'training' and cannot be operationally deployed (tried to during Sierra Leone and told it would be too difficult to re-negotiate CFE!)
Tornado - not a chance. Airfield is ropey as hell (operating surfaces) and Tornado would act as a very effective FOD sweeper, but only once!
Air show princess (aka Typhoon). No, see Tornado and double the cost.
The only alternative (within the realms or reality i.e. not a new buy) is an increase in Harriers and AH. However, as neither are in plentiful supply (or working) we're kind of stuck with what we've got - 6 Harriers, 6 AH, 3300 troops to try to look after an area 3 times the size of Wales inhabited by people who have never been conquered, guarding a lifestyle that we are trying to destroy. All in all, not a recipe for success, but then again, you get what you’re willing to pay for. This and previous Governments aren’t willing to pay for it (tail to teeth, options for change, peace dividend ring any bells?) and no amount of running around now will rectify the situation in the short or medium term.
BTW, when you look at the numbers (as the treasury does) how can the Army be overstretched with an total of 106000, and only 12000 deployed, even on 6 month tours that means that each unit should only be deploying once every 3-4 years? RAF numbers similar: 44000 total, 3800 deployed.
Just before the spears turn me into the first human-sized model porcupine, I know what the issues are, and that the same people are deploying, and that there is critical overstretch in certain trades and functions, but the bean counters can only cope with simple numbers and they don’t let reality interfere with a good submission.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chennai
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not send the Tornado GR.4s, according to the RAF website, it is "latest version of the RAF's primary attack aircraft. Capable of supersonic speeds and flight at low-level, the aircraft is one of the most potent in the world today." If not, is it because the GR.4 is notsuited for the hot and high conditions in Afganistan?
Arizona has loads of A-4's, A-7's, A-10's, F-4's, stashed around the place in long term storage. What it would take to get them back into service and properly equipped for the task is another question. The A-4 Scooter would be a magic aircraft for CAS and probably second only to the A-10. Night CAS is completely different to that in the day time and thus I doubt the old birds would be as useful in that role.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Navaleye
I thought the Jags had new more powerful engines and all new avionics at the last update. Strange question, but I'll ask it... if we can't use them where we most need them, what use are they?
But then 5% of eff all is still eff all
As for what use are they, I've got a good idea .. . .
Let's fade the jet out of service !?!?!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Just in:
Des Browne: contributing an additional C-130 to Afghan ops, plus additional (unspecified) support helicopters. Some modest reserve call up in specialist trades.
PS: He's about the most boring Defense Secretary since John Nott.
PS: He's about the most boring Defense Secretary since John Nott.