RAF "Utterly, Utterly, Useless" in Afghanistan
Wiley,
24 plus spares.....so you could deploy three of them?
Why not think realistically....124 of them and deploy them in blocks of 24 called Squadrons....you would have four operational squadrons and one for training and airshows. Hang on....you are right....it should be one deployable squadron and four for training and "ceremonial" duty.
24 plus spares.....so you could deploy three of them?
Why not think realistically....124 of them and deploy them in blocks of 24 called Squadrons....you would have four operational squadrons and one for training and airshows. Hang on....you are right....it should be one deployable squadron and four for training and "ceremonial" duty.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way back in 1972-3 in that other place, the accuracy of AC130's 105mm gun was the stuff of legend - the FAC could literally nominate which window in a building he wanted the shell in, and they could oblige. I think it would be a safe bet to say targeting has come a long way since then.
As for loiter time AND weapons load... you'd have to go a long way to beat a Herc. And the RAF already operates them.
As for loiter time AND weapons load... you'd have to go a long way to beat a Herc. And the RAF already operates them.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BL755-CRV7-Guns
To answer Flatus Veteranus, we do not have the BL755 anymore as it was assessed as too dangerous to life and limb. 
Someone else seemed to suggest that an aircraft was less vulnerable in a CRV7 profile than a guns attack. The profiles are near the same. The only difference is the rocket gets there slightly quicker.
Someone else seemed to suggest that an aircraft was less vulnerable in a CRV7 profile than a guns attack. The profiles are near the same. The only difference is the rocket gets there slightly quicker.
Guest
Posts: n/a
We disagree. From your record of posts, you display, on this forum anyway, what seems to me to be a marked distain for military things American. Mistakes/gaffes/goofs/buffoonery are all fair game and I have no issue with you on that.
Good on you also for generally defending the RAF, however, you usually are quick to mock US military mistakes and those who might either defend or at least mitigate said mistake. If the possibility exists for an RAF mistake, you don't seem to hold to the same standards. (And I am not joining in on this current tempest, I don't have enough info to form an opinion other than it would be great thing if the RAF had more assets.). "Latching on to uninformed speculation" seems to me exactly what you are doing in looking to pin the tail on anyone but the RAF CAS. Seeking info on USMC female pilots, the Dutch, etc does seem to be a little extreme, but then I'm not a journalist.
Good on ya for catching/correcting/educating on my mis-use of 'anathema.
Occasional disdain, for sure.
But you won't find me criticising the C-17, or the Super Hornet, and you'll find an overall positive impression if you ask about the F-117, B-2, B-52, or B-1B, and even the V-22.
The problem is that anything short of unqualified admiration of all things American seems to count as 'anti-US', and my admiration for US aircraft, programmes, capabilities and personnel is qualified.
We agree that the paucity of RAF assets in Afghanistan is pathetic, but I do not take the word of a para major as being evidence that the RAF is 'utterly, utterly useless' in 'stan.
But you won't find me criticising the C-17, or the Super Hornet, and you'll find an overall positive impression if you ask about the F-117, B-2, B-52, or B-1B, and even the V-22.
The problem is that anything short of unqualified admiration of all things American seems to count as 'anti-US', and my admiration for US aircraft, programmes, capabilities and personnel is qualified.
We agree that the paucity of RAF assets in Afghanistan is pathetic, but I do not take the word of a para major as being evidence that the RAF is 'utterly, utterly useless' in 'stan.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was fortunate enough to fly in to Afg senior blades who took the time to chat on the flight deck. They had seen the destructive accuracy of the C130 gunship. There is no doubt in my mind that the Spectre was the one they wanted. Loiter time, ammunition load and firepower married with superb accuracy + ability to operate from a safe country. Modern DAS's are very good. However, many people have said that we would never buy a Herc gunship because it is only good for one thing and would never be used for anything else. Have to say when I hear this argument I scratch my head. When was the last time an RAF fighter jock shot anything down? Beats me. Using this argument shall we cancel Typhoon tomorrow?
Guest
Posts: n/a
AC-130 H's and U's are way good CAS platforms, however, they are so specialized and thus expensive to own/operate that your money would probably be better spent on more conventional CAS platforms. Add in their vulnerability to SAMs (lost one in GW1 to a SA-7), and it really becomes something to think about before buying them.
That said, they are freakin' awesome!
Loved the BBMF Lanc outfitted with side guns idea listed above!
That said, they are freakin' awesome!
Loved the BBMF Lanc outfitted with side guns idea listed above!
"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"
Not in keeping with the expeditionary role the Marine Corps fancies. When you can operate an A10 off the boat the Marines might be interested.
Not in keeping with the expeditionary role the Marine Corps fancies. When you can operate an A10 off the boat the Marines might be interested.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko nic
I suggest you read the following post from a Harrier pilot. I also suggest you drop your rather pathetic quest to find a female American pilot to blame. You do your profession no favours.
"I've just spent a while reading this excellent thread, which has some very well thought out posts on it.
As a Harrier mate who has done more than one tour out there & who will be back out there again soon, I thought I'd offer my thoughts.
Firstly, nobody in the Harrier community has taken the Major's comments to heart. The Paras are up against it big time out there & the stress levels must be enormous to everyone on the ground & he can have all the slack he wants!
I suspect that he may be frustrated by our ROE. The no.1 rule is very simple and strictly adhered to: If we can't positively ID the location of friendlies AND the enemy, we do not drop any weapons.
This may seem a little anal and perhaps slows down our response time however, I'd rather delay dropping than kill any Brits. If the guys on the ground have a decent FAC, he will get a clear brief up to us & get our SA up to speed.
Another rule we always stick to is something nobody needs to be told to do: We will never leave the fight until the fuel situation dictates that we must RTB. It's hellish down there and we are always desperate to help out.
From the cockpit persective, please understand that it's a bloody busy place to be during CAS & the workload is very high. It's not always easy to spot the target and like I said earlier, that is essential if we are to be of any use to the guys on the ground.
PartTimePongo,
you mentioned the Jaguar. It's a superb platform however, it simply cannot operate hot & high with any sort of payload that will be of any use so, unfortunately, it won't be playing any part.
Any Paras out there... you doing a bloody amazing job in the sh*ttiest situation I have ever seen. The Royal Marines are going to have very big boots to fill."
I suggest you read the following post from a Harrier pilot. I also suggest you drop your rather pathetic quest to find a female American pilot to blame. You do your profession no favours.
"I've just spent a while reading this excellent thread, which has some very well thought out posts on it.
As a Harrier mate who has done more than one tour out there & who will be back out there again soon, I thought I'd offer my thoughts.
Firstly, nobody in the Harrier community has taken the Major's comments to heart. The Paras are up against it big time out there & the stress levels must be enormous to everyone on the ground & he can have all the slack he wants!
I suspect that he may be frustrated by our ROE. The no.1 rule is very simple and strictly adhered to: If we can't positively ID the location of friendlies AND the enemy, we do not drop any weapons.
This may seem a little anal and perhaps slows down our response time however, I'd rather delay dropping than kill any Brits. If the guys on the ground have a decent FAC, he will get a clear brief up to us & get our SA up to speed.
Another rule we always stick to is something nobody needs to be told to do: We will never leave the fight until the fuel situation dictates that we must RTB. It's hellish down there and we are always desperate to help out.
From the cockpit persective, please understand that it's a bloody busy place to be during CAS & the workload is very high. It's not always easy to spot the target and like I said earlier, that is essential if we are to be of any use to the guys on the ground.
PartTimePongo,
you mentioned the Jaguar. It's a superb platform however, it simply cannot operate hot & high with any sort of payload that will be of any use so, unfortunately, it won't be playing any part.
Any Paras out there... you doing a bloody amazing job in the sh*ttiest situation I have ever seen. The Royal Marines are going to have very big boots to fill."
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Couldn't the Hawk T1A be used in a pace like Afghanistan effectively? It has a gun, it can carry a small amount of stores under the wings, its relatively cheap to operate and we have a fair few of them.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we do not have the BL755 anymore as it was assessed as too dangerous to life and limb
(One can hear the sharp intake of breath from the huggyfluffs).
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Gainsy,
Have a look at this site, I may have mentioned the principle last year:
http://www.bristol.ca/Warheads.html
Like a shotgun cartridge, spent shot. Also no lead poisioning. Unfortunately that still worries the Green lobby. See http://www.miltoxproj.org/CM%20Fact%20Sheet.htm. With this site claiming that tungsten/nylon is carcinogenic: http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/2005/msg00165.html
Then our favourite arms manufacturer is in on the act:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/17092006/32...munitions.html
I know, lets use Indian Clubs with a wrist safety strap.
Have a look at this site, I may have mentioned the principle last year:
http://www.bristol.ca/Warheads.html
Like a shotgun cartridge, spent shot. Also no lead poisioning. Unfortunately that still worries the Green lobby. See http://www.miltoxproj.org/CM%20Fact%20Sheet.htm. With this site claiming that tungsten/nylon is carcinogenic: http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/2005/msg00165.html
Then our favourite arms manufacturer is in on the act:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/17092006/32...munitions.html
I know, lets use Indian Clubs with a wrist safety strap.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lampeter
Age: 63
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeeeeeee har!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAePIjvNPdI
That guy shat his pants, and he's on our side. Imagine what it does to the Taleban.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAePIjvNPdI
That guy shat his pants, and he's on our side. Imagine what it does to the Taleban.
Nigegilb,
Learn to read.
I have no 'quest' to find a US pilot to 'blame', I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the Major's account that are just one of many reasons why it's unreliable and why it's possibly unfair to label the RAF as being 'useless'.
Learn to read.
I have no 'quest' to find a US pilot to 'blame', I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the Major's account that are just one of many reasons why it's unreliable and why it's possibly unfair to label the RAF as being 'useless'.
