Aircraft needed in Afghanistan
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not fishing but I find Browne's comment puzzling - makes it sound like a Treasury/MoD imposed pitch count. War by checkbook I guess.
"We have already increased the flying hours available for attack and support helicopters, as requested by commanders
"We have already increased the flying hours available for attack and support helicopters, as requested by commanders
Interesting to see that Strangely Browne said that 1 ACC are going out as well. All I can assume is that would be in a fairly basic air traffic role - no AF fighters to play with and what do they need an air picture for unless the Telly Tubbies have suddenly acquired an air capability. Empire building or is there a genuine use for them out there?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett1,
Having used 1ACC services on Fast Mover & our Opeval at St Mawgan last year, I think they will provide a great deal more than basic ATC for the CAS guys out there along with the rotary & multi guys.
They may not offer the level of service that the E3 FCs however, they do provide a very good back up & I'm sure the Harrier mates out there will appreciate them being in town as will the ground Cdrs.
Having used 1ACC services on Fast Mover & our Opeval at St Mawgan last year, I think they will provide a great deal more than basic ATC for the CAS guys out there along with the rotary & multi guys.
They may not offer the level of service that the E3 FCs however, they do provide a very good back up & I'm sure the Harrier mates out there will appreciate them being in town as will the ground Cdrs.
Tomstone,
I'm not saying that they won't do a good job, but not having used their services, I just can't see what sort of C2 function they can provide in an environment like AF where the only air of any substance is coalition other than coordination between various packages.
If we had lots of fixed wing with tanking and required the services of a Fighter Marshall, I could understand that, but couldn't tac ATC provide elements of control at a fraction of the cost of putting 1 ACC into theatre? Or am I just missing the point completely?
I'm not saying that they won't do a good job, but not having used their services, I just can't see what sort of C2 function they can provide in an environment like AF where the only air of any substance is coalition other than coordination between various packages.
If we had lots of fixed wing with tanking and required the services of a Fighter Marshall, I could understand that, but couldn't tac ATC provide elements of control at a fraction of the cost of putting 1 ACC into theatre? Or am I just missing the point completely?
Red On, Green On
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
From The Telegraph today:
"There is also an urgent need for more helicopters in Afghanistan, where Taliban ambushes have made travel by road perilous. MoD sources said they would "tease helicopters out of other places", which means taking machines from the Balkans, Northern Ireland or the Falklands."
Which means either that these deployments have spare assets that should not have been there in the first place, or as is more likely, that the deployments will be forced to run with the remaining assets being worked substantially above plan.
And we are being told it is "sustainable" What bollo
ks
"There is also an urgent need for more helicopters in Afghanistan, where Taliban ambushes have made travel by road perilous. MoD sources said they would "tease helicopters out of other places", which means taking machines from the Balkans, Northern Ireland or the Falklands."
Which means either that these deployments have spare assets that should not have been there in the first place, or as is more likely, that the deployments will be forced to run with the remaining assets being worked substantially above plan.
And we are being told it is "sustainable" What bollo
ks
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA - too right. 'We are currently breaking harmony guidelines, blah, but it is sustainable, blah...'
I thought the harmony guidelines told you what was sustainable. But then I might be talking out of my A e - perhaps I should be a politician!
As for the aircraft, let us see how well industry copes with the need to surge to provide additional spares and depth maintenance activity, let us see how long it takes before they bleat about not being able to do it and blame the poorly worded contract. A challenge to the contractors out there - get the aircraft out on time, get them back to the boys that need them because this government will press on regardless and leave the troops exposed if needs be...
We shall see how sustainable it is in 6 months time...
I thought the harmony guidelines told you what was sustainable. But then I might be talking out of my A
e - perhaps I should be a politician!As for the aircraft, let us see how well industry copes with the need to surge to provide additional spares and depth maintenance activity, let us see how long it takes before they bleat about not being able to do it and blame the poorly worded contract. A challenge to the contractors out there - get the aircraft out on time, get them back to the boys that need them because this government will press on regardless and leave the troops exposed if needs be...
We shall see how sustainable it is in 6 months time...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know anything about the Treasury limiting Harrier sorties in Afg?
"James Arbuthnot, the Conservative chairman of the defence select committee, said the troops were being deployed "on a shoestring" and protested at Treasury attempts to limit the expense of Harrier jets being used to support ground forces."
"James Arbuthnot, the Conservative chairman of the defence select committee, said the troops were being deployed "on a shoestring" and protested at Treasury attempts to limit the expense of Harrier jets being used to support ground forces."
The USMC has removed seven CH-53E's from long-term storage in Arizona and are refurbishing them to active service at a cost of Five Million USD each. New aircraft cost Twenty Seven Million USD. They had been in storage for ten years.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without going into too much detail, ALL flying is capped by Treasury on Operations. I understand that it sets an upper limit for the cost of the Op (it clearly cannot be open-ended without bankrupting the treas) and that costs are broken down by aircraft/combat unit/support type within that. Flying is very expensive, and normally expressed as a cost per flying hour. Each aircraft type will have its own smaller budget that can be expressed in terms of flying hours per month.
Sounds barking, but without it the IPTs (the people that have to pay for the spares and servicings at industry) would go broke paying for extra flying hours (hence extra spares and maintenance) that they could not claim back from the treasury Operation fund.
Sounds barking, but without it the IPTs (the people that have to pay for the spares and servicings at industry) would go broke paying for extra flying hours (hence extra spares and maintenance) that they could not claim back from the treasury Operation fund.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB, forget the c**p about the runway repairs at Kandahar, I understood the real reason for wanting to withdraw the Harrier in June was Treasury driven and entirely related to cost. HCDC worked hard to get that decision changed. The current plan is to withdraw the Harrier in March. I would imagine that is now getting looked at as well. Do you think the cap is affecting the ability of the Harrier force to provide CAS? If it is, this is a serious situation. Mr Arbuthnot is very careful with the way he chooses his words, I was rather taken aback by what he had to say about the Treasury.
Southbound,
The way I read your post....I can just hear this exchange between troops calling for CAS to get the Taliban off their backs.
"Delta 6 requesting an immediate air strike, enemy infantry and automatic weapons, grid XT12345678, am under intense fire and have seriously wounded needing medavac. Over"
"Delta 6, this is Southern Command, please stand by until next Monday. The new month starts then and we will then have sufficient hours in budget to respond. Out!"
The way I read your post....I can just hear this exchange between troops calling for CAS to get the Taliban off their backs.
"Delta 6 requesting an immediate air strike, enemy infantry and automatic weapons, grid XT12345678, am under intense fire and have seriously wounded needing medavac. Over"
"Delta 6, this is Southern Command, please stand by until next Monday. The new month starts then and we will then have sufficient hours in budget to respond. Out!"
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige - that is the real question - does the cap mean that an aircraft could be on the ground when support is needed. Suppose the answer to that lies with the theatre commanders - are they prepared to suspend operations that could possibly require air support because that aircraft is out of funding for the month? Unlikely IMO, but the real question is will the funding to be put in place to provide sufficient air cover for all the extra operations that will happen with another 900 troops. Can't say I know the answer, but that cover is going to be spread pretty thinly....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, is spot on. Moreover both Desperate Des and Blair have been telling us that World security would be put at risk if the Talibs were to take control of Afg. If that is the case, someone should tell the Scottish man at the Treasury. It would appear that the funding of a handful of Harriers is beyond them. Oh dear, what a mess.
SB I have only just written to HCDC, but it would appear that this is a pressing question. Telegraph has a story on it today. Telegraph are saying the Treasury wanted the deployment to be cost neutral! That is very different to what you are saying. Might be worth sitting back for a few days and watch the politicians argue. I am not reassured by the Chiefs of Staff. The good news is that several members of HCDC visited Afg last week. I would encourage the guys and girls on the frontline to tell it how it is, don't hold back.
link to Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixuknews.html
SB I have only just written to HCDC, but it would appear that this is a pressing question. Telegraph has a story on it today. Telegraph are saying the Treasury wanted the deployment to be cost neutral! That is very different to what you are saying. Might be worth sitting back for a few days and watch the politicians argue. I am not reassured by the Chiefs of Staff. The good news is that several members of HCDC visited Afg last week. I would encourage the guys and girls on the frontline to tell it how it is, don't hold back.
link to Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixuknews.html
Last edited by nigegilb; 11th Jul 2006 at 14:51.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth is a
Harrier deployment?????
Do the Treasury expect that the Harrier mates will have be running some kind of central Asian airmail service to pay for plinking the Taleban with PGMs?
Or will they be starting up a airtaxi service with a twin-seater?
Or perhaps offering to dig drainage ditches for the local farmers with Paveways?
Or are they now frantically looking for some sort of corporate sponsorship? "Operation Carry on up the Kyber - sponsored by Tescos Finest range"...
Between this and the report in the Sunday Times of Afghans being shown 'The Blue Planet' to convince them to stop being naughty, 'Carry on up the Kyber' seems to be not too far off.....
cost neutral
Do the Treasury expect that the Harrier mates will have be running some kind of central Asian airmail service to pay for plinking the Taleban with PGMs?
Or will they be starting up a airtaxi service with a twin-seater?
Or perhaps offering to dig drainage ditches for the local farmers with Paveways?
Or are they now frantically looking for some sort of corporate sponsorship? "Operation Carry on up the Kyber - sponsored by Tescos Finest range"...
Between this and the report in the Sunday Times of Afghans being shown 'The Blue Planet' to convince them to stop being naughty, 'Carry on up the Kyber' seems to be not too far off.....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the benefit of the more youthful ppruners a plot summary;
Carry On... Up the Khyber (1968) (Syd James)
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond looks after the British outpost near the Khybar pass. Protected by the kilted Third Foot and Mouth regiment, you would think they were safe. But the Khazi of Kalabar has other ideas. He wants all the British dead! But his troops fear the "skirted-devils"; they are rumoured not to wear anything underneath. Then one is caught with his pants on...
Carry On... Up the Khyber (1968) (Syd James)
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond looks after the British outpost near the Khybar pass. Protected by the kilted Third Foot and Mouth regiment, you would think they were safe. But the Khazi of Kalabar has other ideas. He wants all the British dead! But his troops fear the "skirted-devils"; they are rumoured not to wear anything underneath. Then one is caught with his pants on...
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS - no suggestion of that matey, but if the aircraft are U/S because the spares have been used up too early because the aircraft are being flown harder than the funding is provided for, then air support MAY be less available. As always, the boys will do what they can with what they have - I was just explaining the funding thing, which does limit the number of aircraft in theatre; hence the numbers of troops in contact one could support...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB has this cap got something to do with the fact that we only have a few Apaches in theatre?
HCDC Report:
Future cost of operations in Afghanistan
18. MoD has stated that the estimated cost of the UK’s deployments to Afghanistan will be £1 billion over the five years 2005–06 to 2009–10
.21 We asked for a breakdown of this cost by financial year and by purpose.
MoD responded as follows:
expenditure on operations varies depending on troop numbers, activities and force protection requirements. As a consequence, we cannot currently provide a breakdown of the estimate that is accurate in detail to the standards which we would normally place before Parliament.
22 We fully appreciate that the costs of operations are uncertain, but that is not a reason to deny Parliament any information at all. Telling Parliament that the costs of the deployment to Afghanistan is “around a billion” is just not good enough. This is a very large amount of public money, and the public deserve better information on how it is going to be spent. We will be pursuing this further in our inquiry into the UK deployment to Afghanistan.
HCDC Report:
Future cost of operations in Afghanistan
18. MoD has stated that the estimated cost of the UK’s deployments to Afghanistan will be £1 billion over the five years 2005–06 to 2009–10
.21 We asked for a breakdown of this cost by financial year and by purpose.
MoD responded as follows:
expenditure on operations varies depending on troop numbers, activities and force protection requirements. As a consequence, we cannot currently provide a breakdown of the estimate that is accurate in detail to the standards which we would normally place before Parliament.
22 We fully appreciate that the costs of operations are uncertain, but that is not a reason to deny Parliament any information at all. Telling Parliament that the costs of the deployment to Afghanistan is “around a billion” is just not good enough. This is a very large amount of public money, and the public deserve better information on how it is going to be spent. We will be pursuing this further in our inquiry into the UK deployment to Afghanistan.
Last edited by nigegilb; 11th Jul 2006 at 16:48.