why no raf gunships
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the fighting a real war argument the British armed forces should be equipped from the 1970's-2000's soley for Northern Ireland.
But then we thought and planned long term in all govt departments as the civil service tried to look 15-20 years down the line for capital investments and returns not 1-5 year political cycle and the moving of the civil services cycles to meet political demands will stop effective long term planning and procurment.
sir Humphery in yes prime minister put it beautifuly "Politics is about surviving till Friday afternoon....diplomacy (And defence) is about surviving till the next centuary"
But then we thought and planned long term in all govt departments as the civil service tried to look 15-20 years down the line for capital investments and returns not 1-5 year political cycle and the moving of the civil services cycles to meet political demands will stop effective long term planning and procurment.
sir Humphery in yes prime minister put it beautifuly "Politics is about surviving till Friday afternoon....diplomacy (And defence) is about surviving till the next centuary"
Evalu8er, I am aware that money isn't really availble to buy squadrons of armed SH Black Hawks but it seems to me to be less unrealistic than recommendations to buy AC130s!
But if you lose the current war because you are too busy procurring for the next one......??
It is about balance, trying to do your best to give both "now" and the "future" the correct resources. The point some people are making, and how much you agree with them is entirely up to you, is that the war being fought "now" is not being given enough priority.
You can point out that part of the problem is the long lead times on procurement projects. You can disagree with the arguement about resources for the current conflicts, pointing to UOR projects, more UAVs, new Army vehicles offering better protection, 6 second hand Melins, etc. But some peoples personal experiences on the coal face in the Middle East make them believe the "now" is not being sufficently resourced.
Of course, to give sufficient resources to both present and future conflicts would require more money from the government, which we aren't going to get, so something will have to give somewhere. The question is what?:
It is about balance, trying to do your best to give both "now" and the "future" the correct resources. The point some people are making, and how much you agree with them is entirely up to you, is that the war being fought "now" is not being given enough priority.
You can point out that part of the problem is the long lead times on procurement projects. You can disagree with the arguement about resources for the current conflicts, pointing to UOR projects, more UAVs, new Army vehicles offering better protection, 6 second hand Melins, etc. But some peoples personal experiences on the coal face in the Middle East make them believe the "now" is not being sufficently resourced.
Of course, to give sufficient resources to both present and future conflicts would require more money from the government, which we aren't going to get, so something will have to give somewhere. The question is what?:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A10's are clearly the fast air weapon of choice by those on the ground in the Stan...
I'm regularly out here in the Stan and I can tell you that the A-10, useful as it is in many situations is by no means the 'air weapon of choice'. It often takes too long to get overhead because of it's slow transit speed, and in the recent poor weather it has been virtually useless. People who advocate the A-10 and Skyraider type solutions to Afghanistan air support need to bear those aspects in mind.
I also wish people would stop referring to Afghanistan as a COIN operation. Iraq is a COIN op. Insurgents do hit and run. Terry however stands and fights, often from established trench and defensive positions and fighting them is described by the grunts as more akin to conventional war fighting.
Fast jets may be expensive, but they get there quicker and have the sensors ad weapons to engage in poor weather. The FACs I spoke to all preferred RAF CAS and/or AAC AH.
AC-130 would be very useful but is simply too expensive.
Last edited by Boldface; 10th Feb 2008 at 10:56.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Chugalug, no I think we are in agreement on this one.
There was a time and a place for concentrating on fighters in that war but, in the Air Power article it suggests that they persisted too long without regard for the future.
Now you can argue that CAS persisted too long in safeguarding the future at the expense of the current.
However having got to where we are, with Tyhoo tranches one and two secure he has time to refocus on the current. Maybe history will show he was the master tactician after all.
maybe
There was a time and a place for concentrating on fighters in that war but, in the Air Power article it suggests that they persisted too long without regard for the future.
Now you can argue that CAS persisted too long in safeguarding the future at the expense of the current.
However having got to where we are, with Tyhoo tranches one and two secure he has time to refocus on the current. Maybe history will show he was the master tactician after all.
maybe
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Awaiting Redundancies
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boldface,
My comments are from personal experience working at the Died. In several TIC's during my many shifts the request came through as a preference for A10's and they were happy to wait ... even after they were offered Harriers which could have arrived sooner!
I was just as surprised as you clearly are, and attempted to educate the American individuals concerned, allbeit from afar, with some success.
Can't go into any more detail on this forum for obvious reasons.
My comments are from personal experience working at the Died. In several TIC's during my many shifts the request came through as a preference for A10's and they were happy to wait ... even after they were offered Harriers which could have arrived sooner!
I was just as surprised as you clearly are, and attempted to educate the American individuals concerned, allbeit from afar, with some success.
Can't go into any more detail on this forum for obvious reasons.
"I'm regularly out here in the Stan and I can tell you that the A-10, useful as it is in many situations is by no means the 'air weapon of choice'. It often takes too long to get overhead because of it's slow transit speed, and in the recent poor weather it has been virtually useless. People who advocate the A-10 and Skyraider type solutions to Afghanistan air support need to bear those aspects in mind".
But maybe the 2 seat Night / Adverse Weather version proposed in the late 80s would have had more utility - admitedly it wouldn't have altered the transit speed problem!
But maybe the 2 seat Night / Adverse Weather version proposed in the late 80s would have had more utility - admitedly it wouldn't have altered the transit speed problem!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But maybe the 2 seat Night / Adverse Weather version proposed in the late 80s would have had more utility - admitedly it wouldn't have altered the transit speed problem!
Regards,
MM
