RAF "Utterly, Utterly, Useless" in Afghanistan
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF's post really hit home with me, your spot on. This belief that we are still a powerfull force to be reconned with is a bit long in the tooth. I was astounded by the fact that sending 1 extra Harrier to Afganistan was newsworthy but when you consider that that is a good portion of what we have it just makes you weep and also worry about the people at the sharp end.
The only point I didnt agree with was that our forces arent as well trained. I know that my training was absolutley top class and the regular excersises and courses were of a very high caliber. I would have thought this was the same in the RAF and the Navy and Army.
I think that this whole issue of undermanning and not enough equipment will come to a head soon. Unfortunatley I think it will only come to the idiots in the cabinet's attention when we end up with a major incident which will not be the fault of the troops on the ground.
I still believe that the men and women in the UK forces are the most professional and highly trained in the world, as usual it's the standard and amount of equipment that has always been joked about, it is no longer possible to raise a grin though. High time that Blair, his cabinett, and the morons at the top of the MOD got the chop...and a few of these surplass upper rankers.
The only point I didnt agree with was that our forces arent as well trained. I know that my training was absolutley top class and the regular excersises and courses were of a very high caliber. I would have thought this was the same in the RAF and the Navy and Army.
I think that this whole issue of undermanning and not enough equipment will come to a head soon. Unfortunatley I think it will only come to the idiots in the cabinet's attention when we end up with a major incident which will not be the fault of the troops on the ground.
I still believe that the men and women in the UK forces are the most professional and highly trained in the world, as usual it's the standard and amount of equipment that has always been joked about, it is no longer possible to raise a grin though. High time that Blair, his cabinett, and the morons at the top of the MOD got the chop...and a few of these surplass upper rankers.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it the thinking behind not sending Tonkas to Kandahar was that the runway and supporting infrastructure wasn't up to the job. Now working on the assumption that the REs still have airfield construction units the problem could be fixed relatively quickly if the political will was there to spend some money. Someone trying to get the job done on the cheap?
Anyway, throw a few £££ at the problem, Army gets shed-loads more CAS, Harrier mates get the odd day off, Tonka crews get the chance to use up some airframe hours and fewer guys come back in pine boxes – any obvious problems with this plan?
Anyway, throw a few £££ at the problem, Army gets shed-loads more CAS, Harrier mates get the odd day off, Tonka crews get the chance to use up some airframe hours and fewer guys come back in pine boxes – any obvious problems with this plan?
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as for US aircraft, the Phantom omitted a gun, only to have one retrofitted via a pod when the enormity of the gaffe was realised. Just like guns had to be fitted into the later Lightnings after the stupidity of omitting them from the initial design had become obvious.
But then we Brits learn from our mistakes. Don't we?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major is correct in saying that the RAF are utterly, utterly useless at providing CAS to the ground troops. They are, and he is in a better position than most to know. But it is NOT the fault of the airmen deployed there. They simply do not possess the right tools for the job. We do not have an effective CAS aircraft or munitions. And whose fault is that?
Don't just blame the politicians. They are short term, amateur opportunists whose overarching priority is to get the cheapest possible solution to any problem. It is the professional heads of the major national organisations, Police, Education, NHS, Armed Services etc whose duty it is to resist unreasonable pressure and have the guts to say NO, we cannot do that unless you provide us with this, that and the other.
What the hell have the CDS and Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces been doing for the last 2 or 3 decades to have let us come to this disgraceful state? The answer is that they have been ensuring they get their knighthoods instead of safeguarding the best interests of the services and personnel for whom they are responsible. It was an Air Marshall who decided the Typhoon could operate without a gun. Another decided that C130s could operate without DAS and fire suppressant. A General decided the troops could go to war without adequate body armour. CDS agreed to deploy a reinforced infantry battalion to pacify southern Afghanistan. The list of compromises and fudges is endless, all have or will cost lives, all are a disgrace and noone is being held accountable.
We too are to blame by letting the barstewards get away with it. I am not proud of our famous "wilco" reputation. It too costs lives. When will the professionals find the moral courage to say "no". Good for the major for drawing attention to the squeaking of the pips.
Don't just blame the politicians. They are short term, amateur opportunists whose overarching priority is to get the cheapest possible solution to any problem. It is the professional heads of the major national organisations, Police, Education, NHS, Armed Services etc whose duty it is to resist unreasonable pressure and have the guts to say NO, we cannot do that unless you provide us with this, that and the other.
What the hell have the CDS and Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces been doing for the last 2 or 3 decades to have let us come to this disgraceful state? The answer is that they have been ensuring they get their knighthoods instead of safeguarding the best interests of the services and personnel for whom they are responsible. It was an Air Marshall who decided the Typhoon could operate without a gun. Another decided that C130s could operate without DAS and fire suppressant. A General decided the troops could go to war without adequate body armour. CDS agreed to deploy a reinforced infantry battalion to pacify southern Afghanistan. The list of compromises and fudges is endless, all have or will cost lives, all are a disgrace and noone is being held accountable.
We too are to blame by letting the barstewards get away with it. I am not proud of our famous "wilco" reputation. It too costs lives. When will the professionals find the moral courage to say "no". Good for the major for drawing attention to the squeaking of the pips.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm with light blue. They have done and continue to do the best they can with scant resources granted to them. I feel for the army, but its not the RAFs fault they are under equipped and supplied. We need 20 or 30 Harriers to do the job properly. Just my 2p
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me for saying this, but if an infantry major, commanding troops on the ground, in constant contact with the enemy, says that the support he's getting from the RAF is not good enough, THEN IT'S NOT FRIKKIN' GOOD ENOUGH!!!!!
So let's forget our jingoistic delusions about how the RAF are the 'best in the world', which is clearly, obviously, patently and blatantly bollix and would only ever be believed by the most naif CCF cadet, and work out why USAF is 'fantastic', why the RAF is "uttterly, utterly uselfess", and how we can get the RAF to be more like USAF, from the point of view of their 'customers', OK?
So let's forget our jingoistic delusions about how the RAF are the 'best in the world', which is clearly, obviously, patently and blatantly bollix and would only ever be believed by the most naif CCF cadet, and work out why USAF is 'fantastic', why the RAF is "uttterly, utterly uselfess", and how we can get the RAF to be more like USAF, from the point of view of their 'customers', OK?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance...
I trust your comment was meant 'bait' and not a true reflection of your cynicism?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The obvious answer, of course, is to cut the army budget so that the RAF can afford to equip properly. Get rid of all those pointless MBTs I say. And we could take some from the navy as well because they arent doing CAS in Afghanistan.
You cant fight the RAF for budget leaving them stretched then do nothing but complain about the poor quality AT/Helos/CAS. Ironic really.
What do you reckon?
You cant fight the RAF for budget leaving them stretched then do nothing but complain about the poor quality AT/Helos/CAS. Ironic really.
What do you reckon?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
says that the support he's getting from the RAF is not good enough, THEN IT'S NOT FRIKKIN' GOOD ENOUGH!!!!!
If the infallible Major was unhappy about the CAS he is getting generally, fine,
however, he misidentifies who's providing it by talking about strafing and rocketing runs - neither of which deployed RAF Harriers have been doing. Perhaps not surprising in the heat of contact but it has enabled a knee-jerk reaction from those that have missed this small point of detail - it's all the RAFs fault when it wasn't even them? You might as well blame the navy at the same time, chances are the ‘useless CAS’ came from another quarter
....so what if he gets a few facts skewed.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe if we (the UK) stopped propping up British Industry (albeit in name as the majority are actually owned abroad) and bought our tools from a proven company with assurance of proper and just back up with spares and ammunition we would not only save money but get the right tool for the right job.
Im fed up with the hearing the term "Fitted for" which means not fitted with!
IPT leads, financiars, MOD Whitehall, all need to stand up and say it like it is and not as the Government want to hear it!
Im fed up with the hearing the term "Fitted for" which means not fitted with!
IPT leads, financiars, MOD Whitehall, all need to stand up and say it like it is and not as the Government want to hear it!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple 01 missed point??
Crass juvenile 'Ford/Toyota' comments not required
I was thinking of asking Jackonicko (who is being very quiet on this thread) why it was that the media weren't bothering to comment about all this. But of course Otter's Pocket is completely correct. When society is morally bankrupt and thick as the smog inside the M25, what chance do we have of a story being seriously covered by the popular media about our defence capabilities and why we're having problems. It's not worth their effort researching it because the editors won't include it-won't sell! David Beckham's imminent conversion to Satanism following the bloody sacrifice of Victoria however, that will sell.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with you WWW?
Furthermore, why do the press insist on reporting deaths in Afghanistan since 2001? Lets see the figures since the current deployment as that might shock a few people.
Furthermore, why do the press insist on reporting deaths in Afghanistan since 2001? Lets see the figures since the current deployment as that might shock a few people.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crass juvenile 'Ford/Toyota' comments not required
You fly with Lufthansa, they lose your luggage, you complain in the Times about British Airway's inefficiencies, a third party defends the letter because the basic point (an airline has lost the luggage) is correct and complains that anyone who points out glaring factual errors in the first letter is failing to see the big picture!
Meanwhile the readership of the Times misses the 'big picture' bit, or that Lufthansa were at fault, but only remembers that BA are responsible for all the ills of the world
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not turn this into another 'which Service deserves the most funding at the expense of the others' thread!
From today's Telegraph:
'the Government has increased spending on quangos by more than £40 billion in just two years. That figure alone is more than the entire annual defence budget.'
Doubtless, the boys in Helmland will draw comfort that the 'British Potato Council' and 'Music and Dance Scheme Advisory Group' (you couldn't make this up!) are well funded.
From today's Telegraph:
'the Government has increased spending on quangos by more than £40 billion in just two years. That figure alone is more than the entire annual defence budget.'
Doubtless, the boys in Helmland will draw comfort that the 'British Potato Council' and 'Music and Dance Scheme Advisory Group' (you couldn't make this up!) are well funded.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unhappy with that? Here's an easier analogy
You fly with Lufthansa, they lose your luggage, you complain in the Times about British Airway's inefficiencies, a third party defends the letter because the basic point (an airline has lost the luggage) is correct and complains that anyone who points out glaring factual errors in the first letter is failing to see the big picture!
Meanwhile the readership of the Times misses the 'big picture' bit, or that Lufthansa were at fault, but only remembers that BA are responsible for all the ills of the world
You fly with Lufthansa, they lose your luggage, you complain in the Times about British Airway's inefficiencies, a third party defends the letter because the basic point (an airline has lost the luggage) is correct and complains that anyone who points out glaring factual errors in the first letter is failing to see the big picture!
Meanwhile the readership of the Times misses the 'big picture' bit, or that Lufthansa were at fault, but only remembers that BA are responsible for all the ills of the world
So Mr Maple....
I hope you never find yourself in the position these guys are in, calling for CAS and being asked 'certainly sir which service, just to be sure we get the 'FACTS' straight?'I'm sure your reply will be 'any bloody service just get it here'!!
End of rant...any more pls PM
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Meanwhile the good old Observer gleefully picks up on the bickering, but not the problem, and stoke the fires. Airmen hit back at army after 'useless in Afghanistan' claim
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the base challenges is that the US develop weapons sytems and then make them 'safe enough' to work with, the UK develop safe systems and then make them offensively capable (mostly). Limited by a multitude of factors including the risks to non-combatants, cost, treasury limits etc.
There is no need fo gold plated systems, but there is a strong need for a sytem which meets the demands of the end users. In a 'quality loop' of: right stuff, right place, right time. I include a quote from Lord Trenchard:
The development of air power in its broadest sense, and including the development of all means of combating missiles that travel through the air, whether fired or dropped, is the first essential to our survival in war.
— Viscount Hugh M. Trenchard, 1946
I was seeking his speech where he stated: "without weapons there is no need for an Air Force", but can't locate it at present.
Whilst a big test base in wiltshire I had the pleasure of testing items which would now be most usefull in all operational theatres, unfortunately most stopped by budget constraints.
We must all remember that electronic comms are not secure and especially e-mail can be forwarded with only a couple of clicks. If you don't want it published, don't type it.
There is no need fo gold plated systems, but there is a strong need for a sytem which meets the demands of the end users. In a 'quality loop' of: right stuff, right place, right time. I include a quote from Lord Trenchard:
The development of air power in its broadest sense, and including the development of all means of combating missiles that travel through the air, whether fired or dropped, is the first essential to our survival in war.
— Viscount Hugh M. Trenchard, 1946
I was seeking his speech where he stated: "without weapons there is no need for an Air Force", but can't locate it at present.
Whilst a big test base in wiltshire I had the pleasure of testing items which would now be most usefull in all operational theatres, unfortunately most stopped by budget constraints.
We must all remember that electronic comms are not secure and especially e-mail can be forwarded with only a couple of clicks. If you don't want it published, don't type it.