RAF "Utterly, Utterly, Useless" in Afghanistan
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it that you are no longer trying to find out if the USMC have a female pilot operating in Afg then? As far as I understand USMC were not in Afg on the dates mentioned. I doubt you have been to war, to question the Major's account because he could not tell the difference between strafe and rocket on the ground, from the comfort of your home is truly pathetic. The Harrier pilot explained the difficulty of Brit ROE, and the difficulty of flying the jet in very high workload situations. For me they are all bloody brave, doing an unbelievable job, in terrible conditions. I suggest you find some soldiers who have served in Afg, maybe that will help with your empathy. They have seen their colleagues blown to pieces, they have cut out dead colleagues from thin skinned Land Rovers, some have suffered malnutrition, V&D, sleep deprivation, nightmares. Where do you want me to stop?
He is the boss, if he wants to sound off at the RAF, well, I think he should be allowed to. Don't you?
He is the boss, if he wants to sound off at the RAF, well, I think he should be allowed to. Don't you?
Last edited by nigegilb; 26th Sep 2006 at 10:19.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said nigegilb!
Jacko just can't stand to have his jingoistic and anti-american delusions shattered, and will do ANYTHING to prevent these, even impugning the reputation of Major Loden, a man who's boots Jacko is not fit to lick.
Jacko just can't stand to have his jingoistic and anti-american delusions shattered, and will do ANYTHING to prevent these, even impugning the reputation of Major Loden, a man who's boots Jacko is not fit to lick.
Excellent emotive stuff, Nige.
While my desk may be more comfortable and a whole lot safer than the cockpit of your C-130 and while I do not dispute for one moment your greater understanding and experience of the psychology of fear and stress in action, I doubt that either of us have seen the inside of an infantryman's foxhole at close quarters, and to varying degrees must rely on what those of our friends who have been in action, in close combat, on the ground, tell us. And since I do have close friends and relatives who have been in action I don't need supercilious lectures from you to enable me to empathise with those doing the messy stuff out there, thanks.
While I admire your unquestioning support for your fellow serving officer, I'd say that his posession of a Queen's Commission does not make him infallible, as his e-mail has shown.
He's made some serious and extremely damaging accusations, and as a result of press coverage arising, the man in the street (believing, just as you seem to, that as a serving Para he must know what he's talking about) now 'knows' that the RAF in Afghanistan is "utterly, utterly useless." I don't regard that as being helpful or useful.
Moreover, that core accusation doesn't ring true, to me, since (joking about egos aside) I've always found the Harrier force to be an exceptionally high calibre bunch of blokes, with exceptional professional competence, even within the RAF (which I view as being a thoroughly professional organisation, albeit one that is sometimes hindered by lack of resources).
And again, I'm not looking for anyone to blame. I've simply read and re-read his muddled account, with its garbled references to RAF Harriers strafing and using WP, and haven't uncritically accepted it as 'gospel from the foxhole'. Instead I am looking at all alternative explanations and interpretations. It's clear that an RAF Harrier COULD NOT have strafed him, though it could have rocketed his position, or close to his position, though perhaps not with WP. He did seem to draw a distinction between strafe and rocketry however. You cannot simply accept what he said, and have to come up with an explanation/interpretation. Yours is that an RAF Harrier fired rockets, and that he is calling this strafe, and that an RAF Harrier did fire WP rockets.
But there are other explanations - that the aircraft he described didn't come anywhere close to hitting his position, or that the aircraft was not a Harrier at all, or wasn't an RAF Harrier.
In the aftermath of (say) a Hercules loss, you'd be enjoining people not to prejudge what had happened, and to keep an open mind, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do here.
And no, the Major is not "the boss", he's a serving officer who isn't free to shoot off his mouth however he sees fit, and who should follow proper procedure. As an experienced Para major, I'd expect him to demonstrate at least the degree of common sense, judgement and caution you'd expect from the rawest graduate from Sandhurst. Nor does the tough time he's having in Afghanistan entitle him to "sound off at the RAF," especially when he's making misleading and damaging accusations. And it's quite possible to judge him to be an unreliable witness, and to condemn his poor judgement in sending the e-mail, while simultaneously sympathising with the difficult, dirty, and dangerous job he's doing, and we can do so regardless of how incapable and inadequate we might be if we had to stand in his boots for five minutes.
While my desk may be more comfortable and a whole lot safer than the cockpit of your C-130 and while I do not dispute for one moment your greater understanding and experience of the psychology of fear and stress in action, I doubt that either of us have seen the inside of an infantryman's foxhole at close quarters, and to varying degrees must rely on what those of our friends who have been in action, in close combat, on the ground, tell us. And since I do have close friends and relatives who have been in action I don't need supercilious lectures from you to enable me to empathise with those doing the messy stuff out there, thanks.
While I admire your unquestioning support for your fellow serving officer, I'd say that his posession of a Queen's Commission does not make him infallible, as his e-mail has shown.
He's made some serious and extremely damaging accusations, and as a result of press coverage arising, the man in the street (believing, just as you seem to, that as a serving Para he must know what he's talking about) now 'knows' that the RAF in Afghanistan is "utterly, utterly useless." I don't regard that as being helpful or useful.
Moreover, that core accusation doesn't ring true, to me, since (joking about egos aside) I've always found the Harrier force to be an exceptionally high calibre bunch of blokes, with exceptional professional competence, even within the RAF (which I view as being a thoroughly professional organisation, albeit one that is sometimes hindered by lack of resources).
And again, I'm not looking for anyone to blame. I've simply read and re-read his muddled account, with its garbled references to RAF Harriers strafing and using WP, and haven't uncritically accepted it as 'gospel from the foxhole'. Instead I am looking at all alternative explanations and interpretations. It's clear that an RAF Harrier COULD NOT have strafed him, though it could have rocketed his position, or close to his position, though perhaps not with WP. He did seem to draw a distinction between strafe and rocketry however. You cannot simply accept what he said, and have to come up with an explanation/interpretation. Yours is that an RAF Harrier fired rockets, and that he is calling this strafe, and that an RAF Harrier did fire WP rockets.
But there are other explanations - that the aircraft he described didn't come anywhere close to hitting his position, or that the aircraft was not a Harrier at all, or wasn't an RAF Harrier.
In the aftermath of (say) a Hercules loss, you'd be enjoining people not to prejudge what had happened, and to keep an open mind, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do here.
And no, the Major is not "the boss", he's a serving officer who isn't free to shoot off his mouth however he sees fit, and who should follow proper procedure. As an experienced Para major, I'd expect him to demonstrate at least the degree of common sense, judgement and caution you'd expect from the rawest graduate from Sandhurst. Nor does the tough time he's having in Afghanistan entitle him to "sound off at the RAF," especially when he's making misleading and damaging accusations. And it's quite possible to judge him to be an unreliable witness, and to condemn his poor judgement in sending the e-mail, while simultaneously sympathising with the difficult, dirty, and dangerous job he's doing, and we can do so regardless of how incapable and inadequate we might be if we had to stand in his boots for five minutes.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
When you´re in a hole, stop digging.
Someone in the field let off some pressure by going over the top in a private email, it happens. There was no Blue-on-Blue, nobody died, there is no need for an investigation by anyone, especially the press.
This was a 10 minute piece on a slow day blown out of all proportion. The press and public aren´t interested any more. No rebuttal needed, and it would just be seen as sour grapes anyway.
Just let it die, and buy the Major a drink if you ever see him.
Someone in the field let off some pressure by going over the top in a private email, it happens. There was no Blue-on-Blue, nobody died, there is no need for an investigation by anyone, especially the press.
This was a 10 minute piece on a slow day blown out of all proportion. The press and public aren´t interested any more. No rebuttal needed, and it would just be seen as sour grapes anyway.
Just let it die, and buy the Major a drink if you ever see him.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
If you fancy a seat on the next C17 out to Candybar then I'm sure it could be arranged! The situation is desperate out there & the guys on the ground must be at the end of their teathers.
Cut thems some slack matey, the people he aimed the comments seem to be so, why can't you?
London Mil,
spot on mate. Those emails are probably the Major's only release valve in a situation that demands he is always focussed for his men. He is trying to keep them alive, that's all.
If you fancy a seat on the next C17 out to Candybar then I'm sure it could be arranged! The situation is desperate out there & the guys on the ground must be at the end of their teathers.
Cut thems some slack matey, the people he aimed the comments seem to be so, why can't you?
London Mil,
spot on mate. Those emails are probably the Major's only release valve in a situation that demands he is always focussed for his men. He is trying to keep them alive, that's all.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Jacko's getting a slagging for trying to check facts? Isn't that what we keep windging that journos don't do?
There are few enough RAF Harrier mates out there to confirm if there are any lady ones at Kandahar, if not the major picked on the wrong target.
There are few enough RAF Harrier mates out there to confirm if there are any lady ones at Kandahar, if not the major picked on the wrong target.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And since I do have close friends and relatives who have been in action"
All of what you know, based on second hand accounts. You're out of your league on this jacko. Better to withdraw and fight another day on issues that you have an area of expertise. There's a price of admission on some threads, at least some degree of been there, done that.
All of what you know, based on second hand accounts. You're out of your league on this jacko. Better to withdraw and fight another day on issues that you have an area of expertise. There's a price of admission on some threads, at least some degree of been there, done that.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the Big Smoke
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the article in the Times previously posted:
"General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of General Staff, and senior defence officials spent the weekend trying to counter more leaked messages describing chaos in Helmand province and talking of shortfalls in manpower and weaponry.
So far no disciplinary action has been taken, but General Dannatt called Major Loden’s criticism of the RAF irresponsible. He has ordered commanders to stop such remarks, as well as allegations that Downing Street is running the campaign rather than the military. Officials have been told to see if the e-mails breach the Army’s code of behaviour. "
It seems such a shame, yet sadly predictable, that when the deficiencies in manpower and weaponry are being publicly aired by those at the coalface, the hierachy's first response is to stop the leaks, its second is to look for people to disipline.
HOW ABOUT TRYING TO SORT OUT THE SITUATION AND TO GET THE BOYS AND GIRLS THE KIT THAT THEY NEED TO SURVIVE AND THEN TO WIN
Surely it can't be that difficult, or am I missing something obvious?
"General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of General Staff, and senior defence officials spent the weekend trying to counter more leaked messages describing chaos in Helmand province and talking of shortfalls in manpower and weaponry.
So far no disciplinary action has been taken, but General Dannatt called Major Loden’s criticism of the RAF irresponsible. He has ordered commanders to stop such remarks, as well as allegations that Downing Street is running the campaign rather than the military. Officials have been told to see if the e-mails breach the Army’s code of behaviour. "
It seems such a shame, yet sadly predictable, that when the deficiencies in manpower and weaponry are being publicly aired by those at the coalface, the hierachy's first response is to stop the leaks, its second is to look for people to disipline.
HOW ABOUT TRYING TO SORT OUT THE SITUATION AND TO GET THE BOYS AND GIRLS THE KIT THAT THEY NEED TO SURVIVE AND THEN TO WIN
Surely it can't be that difficult, or am I missing something obvious?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the headlines would have been more accurate and helpfull if they had read. The governments support for the troops is utterly, utterly useless.
The RAF may only be able to provide a weak and reasonably inaffective CAS in Afg but there is a reason for this and it can be found in the offices of No 11, No 10 and the MOD.
Unfortunatly Jonny Sun Reader now thinks that the RAF is useless. Looks like Tefal Tony will escape the backlash for the wars that he has managed to involve us in, and also the dreadfull state that he and his cabinett has left our forces in.
The RAF may only be able to provide a weak and reasonably inaffective CAS in Afg but there is a reason for this and it can be found in the offices of No 11, No 10 and the MOD.
Unfortunatly Jonny Sun Reader now thinks that the RAF is useless. Looks like Tefal Tony will escape the backlash for the wars that he has managed to involve us in, and also the dreadfull state that he and his cabinett has left our forces in.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the headlines would have been more accurate and helpfull if they had read. The governments support for the troops is utterly, utterly useless.
The RAF may only be able to provide a weak and reasonably inaffective CAS in Afg but there is a reason for this and it can be found in the offices of No 11, No 10 and the MOD.
Unfortunatly Jonny Sun Reader now thinks that the RAF is useless. Looks like Tefal Tony will escape the backlash for the wars that he has managed to involve us in, and also the dreadfull state that he and his cabinett has left our forces in.
The RAF may only be able to provide a weak and reasonably inaffective CAS in Afg but there is a reason for this and it can be found in the offices of No 11, No 10 and the MOD.
Unfortunatly Jonny Sun Reader now thinks that the RAF is useless. Looks like Tefal Tony will escape the backlash for the wars that he has managed to involve us in, and also the dreadfull state that he and his cabinett has left our forces in.
Tefal Tony should be welcomed with open safety catches when he does his farewell tour of the UK, which will no doubt include military photo opportunities.
Everything is still changing, we had the brief on "Realignment" this morning, another word for "job shaving" and "cost saving". I have spotted a small yacht out of my window, I suggest boarding it and renaming it "HMS This Is Now All We Have Left".....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmm, the future of CAS/BAI/COIN.
(Sorry, am I still allowed to say BAI or mention COIN at all?
)
Overhead the battlefield in daylight stealth is useless (Goodbye RAH-66 Comanche..). What you ideally need is two engines for survivability, two sets of eyeballs for SA and to work the radios, a good endurance to hold on the cab rank and a heavy and and comprehensive payload.
What will we be replacing the Harrier with? The F-35B. Stealthy, single engine, single pilot, limited load and no external tanks.
Great for first day of the war or sitting at 20K+ at night dropping 2 PGMs. But for the sort of support the guys on the ground will need in the present type of warfare?
People knock the Typhoon as being designed for the last war, but we are contractually tied into that. Isn´t the F-35B also designed for the last war? And we haven´t signed the contract for all of those yet.
What´s the unit cost of a SU-25MK Scorpion or a SU-39 Sniper?.....
(Sorry, am I still allowed to say BAI or mention COIN at all?
)Overhead the battlefield in daylight stealth is useless (Goodbye RAH-66 Comanche..). What you ideally need is two engines for survivability, two sets of eyeballs for SA and to work the radios, a good endurance to hold on the cab rank and a heavy and and comprehensive payload.
What will we be replacing the Harrier with? The F-35B. Stealthy, single engine, single pilot, limited load and no external tanks.
Great for first day of the war or sitting at 20K+ at night dropping 2 PGMs. But for the sort of support the guys on the ground will need in the present type of warfare?
People knock the Typhoon as being designed for the last war, but we are contractually tied into that. Isn´t the F-35B also designed for the last war? And we haven´t signed the contract for all of those yet.
What´s the unit cost of a SU-25MK Scorpion or a SU-39 Sniper?.....
Grandpa Aerotart
Why is it that the Defence Industry and the big bosses in the various services are always looking at more and more high tech solutions and yet the wars we end up fighting mostly don't need it?
The UK MOD are spending squillions on Typhoon, Nuc subs with ICBM and on etc when they have yet to actually fight an enemy that is significantly more technologically advanced than the Viet Cong/NVA.
An Army Officer is under DAILY ATTACK from a bunch of sandle wearing tribesmen with AK47/RPG and sod all else and all that is provided in the way of CAS is a lightweight jet with rocket pods.
I wonder what that Major would give for 3 squadrons of radial engined Skyraiders with their 8 .50 cal machine guns and the sundry tonnes of other CAS ordinance they were famous for carrying and delivering with spine chilling accuracy.
I am half joking of course...although a Skyraider would be better than a Harrier in this case...I bet the Major and his peers would actually be overjoyed.
You're fighting a desert version of the Viet Cong with cold war weapons...any wonder you are taking a kicking.
The US can be slated for much but they seem to always have the more or less right tool for the job and even when the tool aint quite perfect they make up for it by having lots of tools.
The UK/EU (Australia is no different) seem to always be planning and equiping for war against an incredible high tech foe when there just aint any high tech foes around. The high tech, pointy, stealthy things might be a shedload of fun but they rarely get used for their design purpose but more often are pressed into the breach because nothing better is available.
If I was the head occifer in charge of talking to Blair about such things I would be telling him to get on the phone to his mate and order up 5 squadrons of A10 or we pull out of Afghansitan and he can fight the Taleban himself.
The Major's primarly responsibility is to his men and mission...not to worry about the sensibilities of his senior officers or political leaders...and even less of the protocol of communications. His men are dying and he is involved in a pace of actual battle not seen since WW2.
I find it somewhat distastful to read page after page slating this chap when his leaders and their political masters need flogging.
The UK MOD are spending squillions on Typhoon, Nuc subs with ICBM and on etc when they have yet to actually fight an enemy that is significantly more technologically advanced than the Viet Cong/NVA.
An Army Officer is under DAILY ATTACK from a bunch of sandle wearing tribesmen with AK47/RPG and sod all else and all that is provided in the way of CAS is a lightweight jet with rocket pods.
I wonder what that Major would give for 3 squadrons of radial engined Skyraiders with their 8 .50 cal machine guns and the sundry tonnes of other CAS ordinance they were famous for carrying and delivering with spine chilling accuracy.
I am half joking of course...although a Skyraider would be better than a Harrier in this case...I bet the Major and his peers would actually be overjoyed.
You're fighting a desert version of the Viet Cong with cold war weapons...any wonder you are taking a kicking.
The US can be slated for much but they seem to always have the more or less right tool for the job and even when the tool aint quite perfect they make up for it by having lots of tools.
The UK/EU (Australia is no different) seem to always be planning and equiping for war against an incredible high tech foe when there just aint any high tech foes around. The high tech, pointy, stealthy things might be a shedload of fun but they rarely get used for their design purpose but more often are pressed into the breach because nothing better is available.
If I was the head occifer in charge of talking to Blair about such things I would be telling him to get on the phone to his mate and order up 5 squadrons of A10 or we pull out of Afghansitan and he can fight the Taleban himself.
The Major's primarly responsibility is to his men and mission...not to worry about the sensibilities of his senior officers or political leaders...and even less of the protocol of communications. His men are dying and he is involved in a pace of actual battle not seen since WW2.
I find it somewhat distastful to read page after page slating this chap when his leaders and their political masters need flogging.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
That clip was on Pprune before and got pulled. Just shows that once the genie is out of the bottle there is no way of putting the cork back.
The assumption in all this is that CAS is the only solution. In very simple terms (as I don’t profess to be knowledgeable on the subject), would it not be equally desirable for the soldier on the ground to have his capability enhanced? I believe the Army call this Rapid Area Effects. The rapid bit is being able to engage within a shorter time, perhaps through enhanced STA, and the area (to be targeted) can be bigger and further away than it is at the moment. The effect is brought about by, for example, better bursting munitions combined with a fire control system. I’d guess such an enhanced capability would hasten operational success while improving survivability.
Perhaps a capability gap has been allowed to develop – CAS diluted but enhanced RAE delayed? We’ve seen it happen before. Perhaps the good Major has witnessed such a system and is frustrated at not having it?
Perhaps a capability gap has been allowed to develop – CAS diluted but enhanced RAE delayed? We’ve seen it happen before. Perhaps the good Major has witnessed such a system and is frustrated at not having it?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Pure supposition about RAE, but, in this situation, no matter how good it is, in a small area you will use up what you have and need more. The only way you will get more is through resupply and most likely by air.
CAS cuts out the middle man.
That is not to say that more effective weapons would not be useful, and again, not suggesting that what they have is not useful but as stated earlier:
quality counts every time but is best in large numbers
CAS cuts out the middle man.
That is not to say that more effective weapons would not be useful, and again, not suggesting that what they have is not useful but as stated earlier:
quality counts every time but is best in large numbers
Journalism
I am currently reading 'My Trade' by Andrew Marr (Sp?). It details the rise of journalism from Victorian days to the present. I have just finished the chapter on 'What is News'. Interesting stuff as he states quite clearly
'People often confuse the News with fact. Hard News is defined as that which will get an instantaneous reaction and may even change our way of life. The death of Diana and the Twin Towers are prime examples of Hard News. Then there is Soft News, stuff you fill the pages with because you have to. The repeated claims of WMD in Iraq by variour politicians over a period of months is an example of Soft News. However, what people fail to comprehend is that the story is far more important than the detail or, indeed, the actual fact. The headline you choose has to compete with everything else on that Supermarket shelf. Therefore the objective is to capture the passer by and then reward them with a story that justifies that expense. If you stuck to plain facts and reported all things accurately, you would not sell any papers'.
You may not agree, you may even hate him but he does highlight the fact that Newspapers are actually only a business whose aim is to make money.
In the case of this Major, he has vented his spleen in an e-mail. It has been leaked and the press have jumped on it, embellished it and made it into a very big issue. It sells papers. As has been said, the story now is about killer dogs and will stay that way until something else crops up that can be 'spun' into an eye catching headline.
In fairness to the BBC, they interviewed the head of the Army and quickly moved on from the Majors e-mail to the broader issues of Casualty figures, lack of resources, overstretch etc etc. It was the General, not the interviewer, who failed to get the right message across.
And the Generals talk of possible disciplinary action against the Major further shows his unsuitability to hold his present office. IMHO of course.
'People often confuse the News with fact. Hard News is defined as that which will get an instantaneous reaction and may even change our way of life. The death of Diana and the Twin Towers are prime examples of Hard News. Then there is Soft News, stuff you fill the pages with because you have to. The repeated claims of WMD in Iraq by variour politicians over a period of months is an example of Soft News. However, what people fail to comprehend is that the story is far more important than the detail or, indeed, the actual fact. The headline you choose has to compete with everything else on that Supermarket shelf. Therefore the objective is to capture the passer by and then reward them with a story that justifies that expense. If you stuck to plain facts and reported all things accurately, you would not sell any papers'.
You may not agree, you may even hate him but he does highlight the fact that Newspapers are actually only a business whose aim is to make money.
In the case of this Major, he has vented his spleen in an e-mail. It has been leaked and the press have jumped on it, embellished it and made it into a very big issue. It sells papers. As has been said, the story now is about killer dogs and will stay that way until something else crops up that can be 'spun' into an eye catching headline.
In fairness to the BBC, they interviewed the head of the Army and quickly moved on from the Majors e-mail to the broader issues of Casualty figures, lack of resources, overstretch etc etc. It was the General, not the interviewer, who failed to get the right message across.
And the Generals talk of possible disciplinary action against the Major further shows his unsuitability to hold his present office. IMHO of course.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A-37 Dragonfly?
2 Engines, 2 sets of eyeballs, Max. of 3,000 lbs. including one GAU-2/A 7.62mm Gattling gun and additional gun pods, high-explosive bombs, fire bombs, rockets and/or missiles.
Can't be too expensive either, are there any left?
Or maybe use it as a base for a new, low tech, cheap version with better payload and power for today guerrila skirmishes?
Give it rough field capability and a bigger payload with some armour and it would be a nice poor mans A-10.
2 Engines, 2 sets of eyeballs, Max. of 3,000 lbs. including one GAU-2/A 7.62mm Gattling gun and additional gun pods, high-explosive bombs, fire bombs, rockets and/or missiles.
Can't be too expensive either, are there any left?
Or maybe use it as a base for a new, low tech, cheap version with better payload and power for today guerrila skirmishes?
Give it rough field capability and a bigger payload with some armour and it would be a nice poor mans A-10.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Great if you have 20 years to design and build in todays timescales. The advantage of the SU-25/39 is that it was designed exactly to fight the threat in Afghanistan and has had 30 years of experience put into upgrading it. And there is a carrier version, the SU-25UPB..... 