Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Syria airstrikes conducted by UK military pilots

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Syria airstrikes conducted by UK military pilots

Old 17th Jul 2015, 06:16
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 51st State
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Syria airstrikes conducted by UK military pilots

Details on the BBC website, after a FOIA request


Syria airstrikes conducted by UK military pilots - BBC News


UK pilots embedded with coalition allies' forces have conducted airstrikes over Syria.
The nations include the US and Canada, who have taken part in strikes - but the British House of Commons voted in 2013 against military action in Syria.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said MPs' approval would be needed before any new UK action in Syria.
"When embedded, UK personnel are effectively operating as foreign troops," the Ministry of Defence said.
HaveQuick2 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 07:47
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: home for good
Posts: 494
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"Operating as foreign troops"? really? All the guys I know on exchange always had to get approval to operate outside of UK ROE, so someone must have authorised their actions within the MoD (and therefore, under Fallon's watch). Don't see an issue with it happening, just the way the minister seems to be trying to dodge the issue. Maybe the guys on exchange could ask for the host nations expenses as well as they are "foreign troops"? - UN pay anyone?
Sandy Parts is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 07:53
  #3 (permalink)  
ICM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bishops Stortford, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Indeed, this story came up on the Today programme in the past hour. If the present MOD view is that personnel 'embedded' operate as foreign troops, that is a considerable shift from, for example, the early 1970s view when those of us on Exchange with the USAF were not permitted to take any active part in operations in Vietnam. (And, for what it's worth, I later found that USAF personnel with the RAF were not supposed to go to Northern Ireland or Belize.)
ICM is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 08:07
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Long ago and far away ......
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
US personnel weren't even supposed to be detached to the Falkland Islands, long after the war there. I was on one of our long-standing detachments down there in the late 1990s, along with a USAF exchange officer from our squadron. Nobody thought anything about it until there was a flurry of communications between Mount Pleasant Airfield and the UK. The US command hierarchy had got wind of our USAF chaps deployment and took a dim view of it - up until then even the USAF fellow didn't know he was not supposed to be that far south!
MrBernoulli is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 08:42
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
USAF exchange pilot in my day wrote a paper on operations that was then classified as AUSTEO [Australian Eyes Only] . He was made to leave the room when it was presented to the crowd"....
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 09:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,231
Received 49 Likes on 18 Posts
Was it (is it still?) the case that RAF pilots on exchange with the USAF were not permitted to undertake QRA duties with US-based air defence squadrons within NORAD? I read this somewhere and find it odd.
Martin the Martian is online now  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 09:59
  #7 (permalink)  
ICM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bishops Stortford, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Comedy, indeed. I would pitch up on a Monday morning for the compulsory annual groundschool week and sit there as the Instructor reeled off his introductory words including "NOFORN." And on getting back from a trip, I was told I was scheduled next day for a briefing on a new procedure, duly went and heard it, to be told about a week later that it was supposed to be "NOFORN" and that my name would be removed from the list of attendees. But I was excused from doing "Nuclear Loading" as part of our annual refreshers!

Two years, two months and two weeks I would hate to have missed!
ICM is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 12:01
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Same story again here. Compiled a brief for my USAF colleagues at their request. Arrived at Wing Briefing Room to be told by policeman that I couldn't go because the briefing was NOFORN. I explained that I was giving the brief to avail. After a long wait, Colonel came out to see where I was and explained the situation to the plod. "Sorry, Sir, it's SECRET NOFORN." Colonel had to do my brief.

Signing out for a RED FLAG sortie to be told I couldn't get airborne until 30 minutes after the start of the vul time because of NOFORN airspace in the ranges. I explained I was leading Blue Air. Same answer. Boss had the answer. "Can you do your first few check ins with an American accent?"
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 12:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK I get that pressing the pickle button is a pretty strong sign you are involved in military ops. But let's put this in context. The air campaign for the theatre is run from a joint HQ full of Brits, many in key posts, air C2 is from a UK AWACS, UK RJ, sentinel, reaper and shadow are doing ISR and our tanker is giving out gas to other nations aircraft. All of this revealed by SoS yesterday. At times during airstrikes over Syria most of the voices over the RT will be British with just the strike aircraft chipping in. Much of the planning and execution will invoke Brits in the HQ and much of the int will be sourced and processed by Brits. Dropping the weapon represents the last 5% of the mission albeit a rather important 5%.

We are already in Syria ladies and gents. We shouldn't need a couple of exchange officers dropping a few GBUs to tell us that.
Selatar is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 13:01
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 51st State
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Selatar
OK I get that pressing the pickle button is a pretty strong sign you are involved in military ops. But let's put this in context. The air campaign for the theatre is run from a joint HQ full of Brits, many in key posts, air C2 is from a UK AWACS, UK RJ, sentinel, reaper and shadow are doing ISR and our tanker is giving out gas to other nations aircraft. All of this revealed by SoS yesterday. At times during airstrikes over Syria most of the voices over the RT will be British with just the strike aircraft chipping in. Much of the planning and execution will invoke Brits in the HQ and much of the int will be sourced and processed by Brits. Dropping the weapon represents the last 5% of the mission albeit a rather important 5%.

We are already in Syria ladies and gents. We shouldn't need a couple of exchange officers dropping a few GBUs to tell us that.

Yes, but it is that last 5% that is the most politically explosive.
HaveQuick2 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 13:07
  #11 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,131
Received 215 Likes on 62 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the vote in 2013 about strikes in Syria against the Assad regime, in support of the rebels? This action now is against Daesh, which is a totally different ballgame.
Herod is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 13:13
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Herod, you are correct. Not quite changing sides but not far off.

Many in 2013 had huge doubts about becoming the ISIS/AQ air component. MPs got it right for once IMHO.
Selatar is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 13:21
  #13 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
HaveQuick, it is after the 100% that the politicos worry about - e.g. Gary Powers
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 17:42
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank goodness no one here complained about the US military personnel embedded with our forces prior to their country entering the Second World War:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Leonard B. "Tuck" Smith (October 29, 1915 Mayview, Missouri – May 16, 2006 Friday Harbor, Washington) was an American pilot who spotted the German battleship Bismarck prior to its being sunk by British naval and air forces. Smith was the first American to participate in a World War II naval victory and is sometimes considered the first American to be directly involved in World War II for his actions...
FODPlod is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 18:01
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its the fact that by allowing UK aircrew to fight against forces in Syria MOD has flipped the finger-this action in this region was effectively forbidden by Parliament in 2013.
If MOD are acting against the wish of Parliament then its a big deal and we slowly move again towards something we shouldn't be.
If you have a commission and you are fighting ISIL over Syria regardless of the markings on your plane you are doing so against the wishes of Parliament.
Its a big deal.
Hangarshuffle is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 18:12
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HS,

I don't believe that's right. I think parliament voted against state on state conflict with Syria and is more than happy fighting IS, as it happens limiting the area of ops for the considerable UK land based involvement to Iraq. A border that the enemy doesn't recognise incidentally.

I agree it's a big deal. It's a big deal because somebody somewhere must have done the staff work to ensure that our boys were legally protected and key allies supported in a fight against what is probably the greatest evil of our time. Somebody somewhere authorised it. BZ to anyone who had anything to do with enabling our boys and girls on exchange duties to get in the fight alongside coalition and UK assets - and most importantly, whoever the hell you guys down range and in harm's way are, Godspeed, good hunting.
orca is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 19:30
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 70
Posts: 2,063
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sounds like yet more bullsh1t from the Min of Def. I'm damn sure that U.S. Exchange personnel were forbidden by their government to take part in the Falklands campaign, I see no reason why the same shouldn't have been applied to "embedded" servicemen with US/Canadian forces, without seeking parliamentary approval. But then, like everything in parliament these days, breaking the law is simply a matter of "individual interpretation" ! I hope the lads on exchange perform well, and give a good impression of Britain to our allies, it's a shame that these ever willing servicemen are let down by the buffoons who serve in our parliament.

Smudge
smujsmith is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 20:06
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think that there would be any requirement to seek parliamentary approval prior to committing any UK personel to an Op, embedded or otherwise. I realise that this has been an evolving SOP of late - but that doesn't change the fact (constitutional ninjas tighten me up if I'm wrong) that parliamentary approval isn't needed. Usually there's a debate, but there doesn't need to be a vote. The government can commit the military without recourse to parliament.
orca is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 20:54
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sadly, the knee-jerk to all of this will, no doubt make our Exchange Officers' lives very complicated on both sides of the Ocean.
Fallon's shot himself in the foot with those comments - our guys over there operate under UK RoE and Conventions and so are not entirely under foreign control, last I heard.
Uncle Ginsters is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 21:25
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
Isn't ROE particular to the op? If not involved in theatre, does the UK military have specific ROE established?
West Coast is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.