RAF "Utterly, Utterly, Useless" in Afghanistan
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another, more detailed account:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2134_1,00.html
The following occured 20th August:
“RAF Harriers overhead could not identify a target, but would have been too close anyway for bombs. Nonetheless, they fired a rocket that missed by about 700 metres. Thankfully by this stage two Apaches arrived.”
Here is the Centcom Air Power Summary of 21/8, detailing the previous day's missions:
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentc...20Aug%2006.mht
At no point does it mention USMC AV8Bs. It does, however, mention RAF GR7s in action in support of ground troops. In fact the daily air power summaries make no mention of USMC AV8B's AT ALL until about 10 days ago, presumably because they were not then in theatre.
Jackonicko - I am, of course, assuming that Maj. Loden can tell the difference between an A10 and a Harrier.
Maj Loden in today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...373727,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2134_1,00.html
The following occured 20th August:
“RAF Harriers overhead could not identify a target, but would have been too close anyway for bombs. Nonetheless, they fired a rocket that missed by about 700 metres. Thankfully by this stage two Apaches arrived.”
Here is the Centcom Air Power Summary of 21/8, detailing the previous day's missions:
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentc...20Aug%2006.mht
At no point does it mention USMC AV8Bs. It does, however, mention RAF GR7s in action in support of ground troops. In fact the daily air power summaries make no mention of USMC AV8B's AT ALL until about 10 days ago, presumably because they were not then in theatre.
Jackonicko - I am, of course, assuming that Maj. Loden can tell the difference between an A10 and a Harrier.
Maj Loden in today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...373727,00.html
Last edited by Lazer-Hound; 25th Sep 2006 at 00:32.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much duff gen on here.....
Chaps,
2 facts from someone who until recently held an RAF commision, still works with Harriers on a daily basis and knows a lot about them and their weapons:
- Maj Loden mis-identified the warhead type;
- The impact from a CRV-7 ripple firing can look similar to that from a strafe with HE bullets; have a look at Maple 01's 19:46 post.
AIUI the RAF does have at least one female Harrier Pilot.
My perspective on all of this is that Maj Loden was understandably frustrated, but everyone involved would have been doing their best in an upleasant and difficult situation, fighting a merciless, babaric and evil enemy. Mistakes happen sometimes in combat. Its just sad that his expression of frustration found its way in to the hands of the rabid, un-thinking, ill-informed idiots at Sky and the BBC. Words suitable for this forum cannot express what I think of their coverage of the British military in particular and all things military in general...
As for the British military on the ground and in the air in AFG, IMHO they deserve nothing but our admiration and support
I for one am glad that due to their collective and brave efforts, and despite the abominable lack of support they get from our sad excuse of a government, there are several 100 less Taliban alive than there would be otherwise.
2 facts from someone who until recently held an RAF commision, still works with Harriers on a daily basis and knows a lot about them and their weapons:
- Maj Loden mis-identified the warhead type;
- The impact from a CRV-7 ripple firing can look similar to that from a strafe with HE bullets; have a look at Maple 01's 19:46 post.
AIUI the RAF does have at least one female Harrier Pilot.
My perspective on all of this is that Maj Loden was understandably frustrated, but everyone involved would have been doing their best in an upleasant and difficult situation, fighting a merciless, babaric and evil enemy. Mistakes happen sometimes in combat. Its just sad that his expression of frustration found its way in to the hands of the rabid, un-thinking, ill-informed idiots at Sky and the BBC. Words suitable for this forum cannot express what I think of their coverage of the British military in particular and all things military in general...
As for the British military on the ground and in the air in AFG, IMHO they deserve nothing but our admiration and support
I for one am glad that due to their collective and brave efforts, and despite the abominable lack of support they get from our sad excuse of a government, there are several 100 less Taliban alive than there would be otherwise.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it will never happen because politics simply won't allow it (and perhaps even moreso, the attitudes at the top within the British military expressed so well by Norman Stanley Fletcher in his excellent post at 1602 on 23 Sept way back on page 4). But wouldn’t the simplest and most sensible solution to this problem be the RAF’s leasing (maybe even lend leasing?) a squadron of A10s from the US?
I think there are still quite a few airframes languishing at Davis Montham, which could be taken out of mothballs poste haste if required. If the political will existed (and I accept that that ‘if’ is the biggest word in the English language), I would also expect that the newly acquired assets could be on station in Afghanistan within months if not weeks, initially crewed and serviced by USAF personnel while RAF air and ground crews were trained up on the relatively simple airframe.
I would not imagine the average RAF fast jet pilot would need an overly long conversion onto the A10, so RAF pilots could be on the scene within a very short time to learn the operational ropes in situ from their USAF counterparts. (I am aware that I’ve blithely glossed over a veritable minefield with that simplistic statement!)
Commonality of spares, the ability to latch into the US logistics and ammunition system… the list goes on on the advantages of such a course of action. However, I know it’s unlikely ever to happen - but I suspect that both the troops on the ground and the unfortunate Harrier pilots flying at low level with no or minimal armour protecting both themselves and vital parts of their aircraft would be very pleased if it did.
Students of history are aware of what happened to three previous British expeditions to Afghanistan that were sent in without the correct and/or enough equipment and support. Some would say a disaster on the scale of the 1842 retreat from Kabul would never be allowed to happen again. (For those not familiar with the story, see (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Retreat-From-Kabul.htm ). 16,000 British soldiers went in and one – that’s ONE – , the doctor, returned, and only because the Afghans allowed him to so the British Raj would learn in detail what had befallen its Army of the Indus.)
The sad fact is that today, it wouldn’t take a defeat on that scale to tip the political balance in the UK, just one outpost of a hundred or even fewer men overrun and its men either captured or killed would have the tabloid press and the Tony Benns of this world slavering for withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal – and the long term result of that would be disastrous on a scale so far beyond that of 1842 it doesn’t bear thinking about.
Maybe it’s about time some uniformed person at the top explained these facts to some of the un-uniformed, unINformed people at the top just how high the stakes really are and swallowed their political pride and got the right kit for the men at the proverbial coal face.
I know many will not agree with me, but I believe every man and woman in the RAF should be thanking Major Loden – and maybe even the person who leaked his emails – from the bottom of their hearts for making this a public issue - but only if someone at the top acts on it rather than fobs it off, as they seem to have done so far. From ‘The Times’ article in the post above:
I think there are still quite a few airframes languishing at Davis Montham, which could be taken out of mothballs poste haste if required. If the political will existed (and I accept that that ‘if’ is the biggest word in the English language), I would also expect that the newly acquired assets could be on station in Afghanistan within months if not weeks, initially crewed and serviced by USAF personnel while RAF air and ground crews were trained up on the relatively simple airframe.
I would not imagine the average RAF fast jet pilot would need an overly long conversion onto the A10, so RAF pilots could be on the scene within a very short time to learn the operational ropes in situ from their USAF counterparts. (I am aware that I’ve blithely glossed over a veritable minefield with that simplistic statement!)
Commonality of spares, the ability to latch into the US logistics and ammunition system… the list goes on on the advantages of such a course of action. However, I know it’s unlikely ever to happen - but I suspect that both the troops on the ground and the unfortunate Harrier pilots flying at low level with no or minimal armour protecting both themselves and vital parts of their aircraft would be very pleased if it did.
Students of history are aware of what happened to three previous British expeditions to Afghanistan that were sent in without the correct and/or enough equipment and support. Some would say a disaster on the scale of the 1842 retreat from Kabul would never be allowed to happen again. (For those not familiar with the story, see (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Retreat-From-Kabul.htm ). 16,000 British soldiers went in and one – that’s ONE – , the doctor, returned, and only because the Afghans allowed him to so the British Raj would learn in detail what had befallen its Army of the Indus.)
The sad fact is that today, it wouldn’t take a defeat on that scale to tip the political balance in the UK, just one outpost of a hundred or even fewer men overrun and its men either captured or killed would have the tabloid press and the Tony Benns of this world slavering for withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal – and the long term result of that would be disastrous on a scale so far beyond that of 1842 it doesn’t bear thinking about.
Maybe it’s about time some uniformed person at the top explained these facts to some of the un-uniformed, unINformed people at the top just how high the stakes really are and swallowed their political pride and got the right kit for the men at the proverbial coal face.
I know many will not agree with me, but I believe every man and woman in the RAF should be thanking Major Loden – and maybe even the person who leaked his emails – from the bottom of their hearts for making this a public issue - but only if someone at the top acts on it rather than fobs it off, as they seem to have done so far. From ‘The Times’ article in the post above:
British military commanders will consider moves this week to stem the rush of damaging e-mails from frontline officers criticising the campaign.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good points there Wiley.
However I suspect that the Americans would be charging us for the next 60 years to pay back the A10s.
Although I have a sneaky suspicion that RileyDove et al would love to get their filthy mits on the A10, once they put their pint of Guinness down of course....
However I suspect that the Americans would be charging us for the next 60 years to pay back the A10s.
Although I have a sneaky suspicion that RileyDove et al would love to get their filthy mits on the A10, once they put their pint of Guinness down of course....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Benns of this world slavering for withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal – and the long term result of that would be disastrous on a scale so far beyond that of 1842 it doesn’t bear thinking about.
Come on then, what would be disastrous about pulling out? Never thought I would quote John Kerry, but "how do you tell the last man to go and die for a mistake?"
The General in situ has said the next 5/6 months are critical. If we have not started reconstruction in 6 months time we might as well forget it. We will have killed too many local Afghans/Muj by then. I don't buy any of this c**p about the end of the World being nigh if we fail. If it was that important don't you think NATO could have found 2500 more troops and a few more helicopters?
As long as we allow Afg to be a flourishing narco state, I doubt we can win at all.
Come on then, what would be disastrous about pulling out? Never thought I would quote John Kerry, but "how do you tell the last man to go and die for a mistake?"
The General in situ has said the next 5/6 months are critical. If we have not started reconstruction in 6 months time we might as well forget it. We will have killed too many local Afghans/Muj by then. I don't buy any of this c**p about the end of the World being nigh if we fail. If it was that important don't you think NATO could have found 2500 more troops and a few more helicopters?
As long as we allow Afg to be a flourishing narco state, I doubt we can win at all.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody ostriches!!!
British military commanders will consider moves this week to stem the rush of damaging e-mails from frontline officers criticising the campaign.
Moves considered....Ban ALL troops/officers with any REAL knowledge of front line ops from complaining and/or communicating such knowledge in any way, shape or form to any other humanoid.....Problem solved chaps.....Heads back in sand!!!
Moves considered....Ban ALL troops/officers with any REAL knowledge of front line ops from complaining and/or communicating such knowledge in any way, shape or form to any other humanoid.....Problem solved chaps.....Heads back in sand!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If our soldiers don't get the word out about conditions on the front line then who will? The General who does not know his own casualty figures? A British Commander in the field has requested reinforcements. He has stated clearly that his men are being killed because they do not have enough support. What exactly has our Prime Minister done about it? Nothing, he fiddles and tries to ignore the mounting casualties.
We should not ask our troops to fight without the proper support and equipment. I respect the Major, he is risking his life every day. I respect the Harrier force, they too are risking their skins to support troops on the ground. However I believe we are suffering for having "peace time" military leaders for too many years and a Govt that has singularly failed to properly fund its armed forces. If the Major had thought about it a little longer, he might have vented his spleen at more deserving targets.
We should not ask our troops to fight without the proper support and equipment. I respect the Major, he is risking his life every day. I respect the Harrier force, they too are risking their skins to support troops on the ground. However I believe we are suffering for having "peace time" military leaders for too many years and a Govt that has singularly failed to properly fund its armed forces. If the Major had thought about it a little longer, he might have vented his spleen at more deserving targets.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone at the pointy end of things, particularly the Harrier drivers, care to comment on Wiley's suggestion? Would the people in country prefer to fly the A10, which would seem to an admitted outsider, to be a lot more suitable for the Afghanistan theatre than the Harrier for what is essentially an anti personnel ground attack role.
I must admit though, that I can hear the UK greenies screaming blue bloody murder if any RAF A10 was equipped with depleted uranium rounds for its gatling gun. (I'm assuming they are only used against armour, which isn't too thick on the ground among the Taleban forces?)
I must admit though, that I can hear the UK greenies screaming blue bloody murder if any RAF A10 was equipped with depleted uranium rounds for its gatling gun. (I'm assuming they are only used against armour, which isn't too thick on the ground among the Taleban forces?)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldnt Puff the Magic Dragon be very welcome over there? If so then I'm sure that the BBMF Lanc could be modified to house 4-5 Gatlings firing out of the side. Might manage to carry a decent bombload as well.......although whether they could succesfully drop it within 100 meters of friendly's is another matter.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Support for the Military
Picking up Nigel's points at #131, I am spending a few days in the mighty military-industrial complex of Southern Virginia where, contrary to most of the UK, support for the US military could not be more obvious. Even CNN, no matter what else you may think of their reporting and editorial standards, starts the day by "honoring" a US service man or woman in one of the operational theatres of the world.
However, it is not blind support and one area where the US public have total visibility of the "cost" of the war is in the casualty figures - as shown in this link to the Dod website, is casualty figures:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
Compare these clear figures with the spin and obfuscation on the MOD web site for Iraqi casualties:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...Casualties.htm
Or Afghanistan
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...Casualties.htm
Did I miss it or are the UK VSI casualties still waiting for a personal visit and thanks from Mr Blair?
JB
However, it is not blind support and one area where the US public have total visibility of the "cost" of the war is in the casualty figures - as shown in this link to the Dod website, is casualty figures:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
Compare these clear figures with the spin and obfuscation on the MOD web site for Iraqi casualties:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...Casualties.htm
Or Afghanistan
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...Casualties.htm
Did I miss it or are the UK VSI casualties still waiting for a personal visit and thanks from Mr Blair?
JB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
You won´t get your hands on any A-10s, they are the only USAF aircraft which is capable of operating in such conditions, they only have 365 of them, and they have to make them last to 2028. I presume any spare airframes will be going into the upgrade programme.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac's right, they are cannibalising the frames lined up in the desert.
Anyone know how easy it would be to get hold of Herc gunships? I assume that is also a no go.
Maybe we should look at Russia for cheap but good helos and CAS aircraft. Let's face it they are probably designed for Afg in the first place!
Anyone know how easy it would be to get hold of Herc gunships? I assume that is also a no go.
Maybe we should look at Russia for cheap but good helos and CAS aircraft. Let's face it they are probably designed for Afg in the first place!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Hinds would probably do a damn good job seeing as they wouldnt have to dodge US supplied Stingers now. Or are the CIA still supporting the Taliban?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're going to swallow political pride completely, why not approach another country who has a 'cheap and cheerful' ground attack aircraft we KNOW to be very effective?
It's called a Pucara.
It's called a Pucara.
Anyone remember, a few years ago, the Pentagon wanted to bin the Warthog? (Too slow, too ugly, too low-tech, etc etc)? If memory serves, they were going to replace it with a ground attack F-16 - much prettier, yonks faster, and frighteningly high tech. Whatever happened to that? Could it have been that the Hog was the right aircraft all along?
I’ve dug out a post from someone called Brimstone on an Aviation Now forum in 2001. Nothing much seems to have changed
Re: Close Air Support - What's the best aircraft & who should fly it?
IMHO The A-10 would be the aircraft of choice for a number of reasons. Its conventional wing design makes it extremely maneuverable, it can turn on a dime. It has incredible loiter capability so it can be on station for longer periods of time. The maneuverability, high lift, and low speed capability enable it to fly close to the ground under radar coverage. The cockpit is surrounded by a 'bathtub' of titanium armor to protect the pilot from up to 23-mm arms fire. The landing gear do not retract into a conventional wheel well, they retract forward into a recess in the wing with the wheels still slightly exposed. This design enables the landing gear to extend (and lock) if the hydraulic system is rendered inoperable, enabling the pilot to still land the aircraft. The left and right vertical stabilizers are symmetrical in design enabling them to be interchangeable with one another in the event that one needs to be replaced in the field due to battle damage. The A-10 was designed so it could be successfully flown back to base (and land) with one vertical stabilizer AND one engine completely blown off the aircraft. The engines were designed to be located on the outside of the fuselage just for this reason. The horizontal and vertical stabilizers were placed just aft of the engines in order to shield the hot exhaust from heat seeking missiles (side and bottom coverage). The metallic skin and structure facilitates conventional repairs in the field (versus the high maintenance that composites and stealth coatings required). The aircraft can also operate from primitive or unpaved areas close to the front line. It can carry a variety of air to ground weapons. Its primary weapon is a seven barrel 30-mm gatling gun which delivers uranium depleted armor piercing shells capable of destroying tanks.
As far as who should fly the Close Air Support Mission:
CAS missions should be flown by the same military branches that have troops on the ground, i.e. the Army and Marines. CAS is unlike conventional attack and strike missions in that it is requested (and directed) by the troops on the ground. For this reason the channels of command that one must go through to get close air support should be as minimal as possible. The quickest channel of communication would be within the same branch.
If the Marines can fly such complex aircraft such as the F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier, they should have no problem adjusting to the A-10. Likewise, Army pilots flying the AH-64 Apache should be able to make the transition.
It would be interesting to hear what the USAF A-10 team would have to say about improvements and upgrades for the aircraft. I know that the pilots have a high regard for the aircraft and love flying it. The USAF said A-10 squadrons have the highest esprit de corps of any aircraft squadron in the USAF (interesting!).
My experience of working with the Hog guys at Bentwaters (I told you I was old) entirely supports that last point. They were great fun, v professional, and imbued with that very unAmerican quality of being able to laugh at themselves.
airsound
I’ve dug out a post from someone called Brimstone on an Aviation Now forum in 2001. Nothing much seems to have changed
Re: Close Air Support - What's the best aircraft & who should fly it?
IMHO The A-10 would be the aircraft of choice for a number of reasons. Its conventional wing design makes it extremely maneuverable, it can turn on a dime. It has incredible loiter capability so it can be on station for longer periods of time. The maneuverability, high lift, and low speed capability enable it to fly close to the ground under radar coverage. The cockpit is surrounded by a 'bathtub' of titanium armor to protect the pilot from up to 23-mm arms fire. The landing gear do not retract into a conventional wheel well, they retract forward into a recess in the wing with the wheels still slightly exposed. This design enables the landing gear to extend (and lock) if the hydraulic system is rendered inoperable, enabling the pilot to still land the aircraft. The left and right vertical stabilizers are symmetrical in design enabling them to be interchangeable with one another in the event that one needs to be replaced in the field due to battle damage. The A-10 was designed so it could be successfully flown back to base (and land) with one vertical stabilizer AND one engine completely blown off the aircraft. The engines were designed to be located on the outside of the fuselage just for this reason. The horizontal and vertical stabilizers were placed just aft of the engines in order to shield the hot exhaust from heat seeking missiles (side and bottom coverage). The metallic skin and structure facilitates conventional repairs in the field (versus the high maintenance that composites and stealth coatings required). The aircraft can also operate from primitive or unpaved areas close to the front line. It can carry a variety of air to ground weapons. Its primary weapon is a seven barrel 30-mm gatling gun which delivers uranium depleted armor piercing shells capable of destroying tanks.
As far as who should fly the Close Air Support Mission:
CAS missions should be flown by the same military branches that have troops on the ground, i.e. the Army and Marines. CAS is unlike conventional attack and strike missions in that it is requested (and directed) by the troops on the ground. For this reason the channels of command that one must go through to get close air support should be as minimal as possible. The quickest channel of communication would be within the same branch.
If the Marines can fly such complex aircraft such as the F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier, they should have no problem adjusting to the A-10. Likewise, Army pilots flying the AH-64 Apache should be able to make the transition.
It would be interesting to hear what the USAF A-10 team would have to say about improvements and upgrades for the aircraft. I know that the pilots have a high regard for the aircraft and love flying it. The USAF said A-10 squadrons have the highest esprit de corps of any aircraft squadron in the USAF (interesting!).
My experience of working with the Hog guys at Bentwaters (I told you I was old) entirely supports that last point. They were great fun, v professional, and imbued with that very unAmerican quality of being able to laugh at themselves.
airsound
Brick,
I do not hold "anti-US views", I just have a realistic appreciation of US weaknesses as well as their strengths, and I recognise that the USA does not always act in our best interests, while I'll admit that I do hold Bush and his administration in contempt. Criticising US policy in the Middle East, or unprofessional blue-on-blues, or the failures on JSF ITAR is not 'anti American', nor should you try to characterise it as such.
I am, however, fairly pro-RAF, since it was good enough to teach me to fly.
Nor is it AN anathema to me to consider that RAF pilots could have made a mistake (nor even that they might f*ck up in spades), I'm just not a Bri-hater who's eager to latch onto uninformed speculation in order to kick the RAF, and I am eager to consider all possible explanations - especially when the Major's story displayed obvious inconsistencies.
I do not hold "anti-US views", I just have a realistic appreciation of US weaknesses as well as their strengths, and I recognise that the USA does not always act in our best interests, while I'll admit that I do hold Bush and his administration in contempt. Criticising US policy in the Middle East, or unprofessional blue-on-blues, or the failures on JSF ITAR is not 'anti American', nor should you try to characterise it as such.
I am, however, fairly pro-RAF, since it was good enough to teach me to fly.
Nor is it AN anathema to me to consider that RAF pilots could have made a mistake (nor even that they might f*ck up in spades), I'm just not a Bri-hater who's eager to latch onto uninformed speculation in order to kick the RAF, and I am eager to consider all possible explanations - especially when the Major's story displayed obvious inconsistencies.