9 Sqn - Fighting the war
Guest
Posts: n/a
9 Sqn - Fighting the war
I am moved to type
I have just finished watching the BBC2 docu 'Fighting the War'.
9 Sqn was on showing them preping for a raid over some tgt in Iraq using CBU's
I was appalled to see the crass treatment of these weapons by the crews involved. In particular an Aussie brethren displaying all the tact and enlightenment for which their nationality is famed.
CBU's were built and made for Ivan coming across the IGB (Look it up) in their droves. Not to be dropped at FL Nose Bleed against undefended tgt's.
My God - as the 9 sqn pilot said it may be exhilarating to go on a combat mission but where is the humility. You were not facing a Soviet Combined Army Group Air Defence, nor attacking a WarPac FOB defended by a regiment of AAA/SAM.
And I have to type this. THEY WERE DROPPED SHORT. You can hear the crew calling it out like some sort of PS2 Video game. And then the chap said, on return to base, "Int said there was no-one there”
My brother was in 3RRF in the last Gulf Conflict and I used to stick up for the RAF/USAF. But now ?
Discuss.
I have just finished watching the BBC2 docu 'Fighting the War'.
9 Sqn was on showing them preping for a raid over some tgt in Iraq using CBU's
I was appalled to see the crass treatment of these weapons by the crews involved. In particular an Aussie brethren displaying all the tact and enlightenment for which their nationality is famed.
CBU's were built and made for Ivan coming across the IGB (Look it up) in their droves. Not to be dropped at FL Nose Bleed against undefended tgt's.
My God - as the 9 sqn pilot said it may be exhilarating to go on a combat mission but where is the humility. You were not facing a Soviet Combined Army Group Air Defence, nor attacking a WarPac FOB defended by a regiment of AAA/SAM.
And I have to type this. THEY WERE DROPPED SHORT. You can hear the crew calling it out like some sort of PS2 Video game. And then the chap said, on return to base, "Int said there was no-one there”
My brother was in 3RRF in the last Gulf Conflict and I used to stick up for the RAF/USAF. But now ?
Discuss.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Scope - Not wanting to defend or critisize anyone [yet]. I must ask: do you know anything about RBL? If you don't then I rest my case. If you do - you may want to re-consider your knowledge of MODERN CBU weapons. -- regardless of what these lads may or may not have said or did.
.
.
Champagne anyone...?
Waste of Skin.
Well three cheers for the retrospectroscope. We can all look back now and pass judgement on these guys who, as far as they knew back then, were at the start of what might be a long protracted conflict, going off into combat against a potentially very dangerous enemy. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make either………
Whilst you may be appalled by cluster bombs I am appalled by your crass comments on people’s reactions in war, made from your warm fluffy pit somewhere nice and safe, weeks after the event. All the guys showed concern and had obviously thought about the weapons they were asked to deliver. None of them were a’whooping and a’hollering about going off to kill some Eye-Rack-Ees. If you ask me, none of them were particularly thrilled at going into combat over Iraq, maybe having witnessed the outcomes of some of the GR missions during GW1(?) They went off and did the job that was asked of them and did it coolly and professionally. They are clearly all intelligent people well aware of the effects of their actions - and they said as much on camera.
Yes it did seem that one or two of the weapons fell short. What reaction were you expecting? The crew to commit hari-kari on landing or to fall apart in floods of tears in the air? Or perhaps to get on with the job and deal with it later? They spent time orbitting the site to plot the fall of the bombs so that the bomblets could be dealt with later. Now, I'm only a pie-eating truckie but I'm fairly confident that orbitting a site you've just bombed, drawing pictures of it, is possibly a fairly risky procedure, yet the crew did it inspite of that. Did they have to? Er, no, probably not. Were they driven by their concerns about the weapons they had just dropped? Er, yes, probably.
As for the "video game" - you might perceive it as a PS2 game from your chintz sofa at No 42 Railway Cuttings but I’m fairly confident that they had a slightly more sphincter tightening outlook on it.
As for the bravado, what do you expect? They’ve just been into combat, for one of the blokes at least it was the first time! They were probably crapping themselves! I know I would be. If I then came back in one piece I’m hardly then going to make some great speech on the futility of war and of man’s inhumanity to man just to placate the odd bleeding heart back home. Get off your high horse.
Whilst I found the BBC2 documentary fascinating stuff, I and many others are perhaps intelligent enough to understand that a lot of the things said and done in it were said and done by people under extremely trying and stressful conditions (er, war in fact) and that they might not appear terribly PC after the event.
The danger of these “fly on the wall” documentaries is that there are always going to be some who are unable to comprehend that angle.
Your comments do the crews involved a great disservice......
PS. Best comment of the show was from the Sgt armourer tooling up the GR4 with the cluster bombs.
Something along the lines of “Well, Princess Diana didn’t like these things did she? Still, she’s dead now so it doesn’t matter”
PPS. Good use of TLAs and military-doctrine type phrases. Makes you look jolly clever.
Whilst you may be appalled by cluster bombs I am appalled by your crass comments on people’s reactions in war, made from your warm fluffy pit somewhere nice and safe, weeks after the event. All the guys showed concern and had obviously thought about the weapons they were asked to deliver. None of them were a’whooping and a’hollering about going off to kill some Eye-Rack-Ees. If you ask me, none of them were particularly thrilled at going into combat over Iraq, maybe having witnessed the outcomes of some of the GR missions during GW1(?) They went off and did the job that was asked of them and did it coolly and professionally. They are clearly all intelligent people well aware of the effects of their actions - and they said as much on camera.
Yes it did seem that one or two of the weapons fell short. What reaction were you expecting? The crew to commit hari-kari on landing or to fall apart in floods of tears in the air? Or perhaps to get on with the job and deal with it later? They spent time orbitting the site to plot the fall of the bombs so that the bomblets could be dealt with later. Now, I'm only a pie-eating truckie but I'm fairly confident that orbitting a site you've just bombed, drawing pictures of it, is possibly a fairly risky procedure, yet the crew did it inspite of that. Did they have to? Er, no, probably not. Were they driven by their concerns about the weapons they had just dropped? Er, yes, probably.
As for the "video game" - you might perceive it as a PS2 game from your chintz sofa at No 42 Railway Cuttings but I’m fairly confident that they had a slightly more sphincter tightening outlook on it.
As for the bravado, what do you expect? They’ve just been into combat, for one of the blokes at least it was the first time! They were probably crapping themselves! I know I would be. If I then came back in one piece I’m hardly then going to make some great speech on the futility of war and of man’s inhumanity to man just to placate the odd bleeding heart back home. Get off your high horse.
Whilst I found the BBC2 documentary fascinating stuff, I and many others are perhaps intelligent enough to understand that a lot of the things said and done in it were said and done by people under extremely trying and stressful conditions (er, war in fact) and that they might not appear terribly PC after the event.
The danger of these “fly on the wall” documentaries is that there are always going to be some who are unable to comprehend that angle.
Your comments do the crews involved a great disservice......
PS. Best comment of the show was from the Sgt armourer tooling up the GR4 with the cluster bombs.
Something along the lines of “Well, Princess Diana didn’t like these things did she? Still, she’s dead now so it doesn’t matter”
PPS. Good use of TLAs and military-doctrine type phrases. Makes you look jolly clever.
The armourer played well here, I have to say, though the wisdom of criticising St Di on a prog aimed at less pro-defence civilians may not have been that wise.
Derek W came over very well, punchy and professional yet thoughtful, while my liberal wife was (pleasantly) amazed at the desire of the Tornado crews 'not to have killed anyone'.
I thought that the reaction to the use of CBUs was extremely interesting. On camera, in front of journos, aircrew seemed 'lukewarm' enough for it to seem as though they weren't entirely happy about it.
As for the suggestion that there should have been more humility because the targets weren't 'as tough' as Cold War targets, there must have been concern that the Tornados were still facing the best AD system in the world, which had already shot down one of their number two days before. Patriot is deadly, whoever fires it. And the Iraqi AD system was easily capable of killing people, too.
Generally a bloody good advert for the humanity and professionalism of HM Flying Club, I thought.
Derek W came over very well, punchy and professional yet thoughtful, while my liberal wife was (pleasantly) amazed at the desire of the Tornado crews 'not to have killed anyone'.
I thought that the reaction to the use of CBUs was extremely interesting. On camera, in front of journos, aircrew seemed 'lukewarm' enough for it to seem as though they weren't entirely happy about it.
As for the suggestion that there should have been more humility because the targets weren't 'as tough' as Cold War targets, there must have been concern that the Tornados were still facing the best AD system in the world, which had already shot down one of their number two days before. Patriot is deadly, whoever fires it. And the Iraqi AD system was easily capable of killing people, too.
Generally a bloody good advert for the humanity and professionalism of HM Flying Club, I thought.
Jackonicko,
You make a good point. It was a IX Sqn crew that died as a result of the "friendly" SAM. No-one has the right to criticise those TV-featured crews from the comfort of their armchair and with 20/20 hindsight. Quite the reverse, in fact; they deserve our respect.
You make a good point. It was a IX Sqn crew that died as a result of the "friendly" SAM. No-one has the right to criticise those TV-featured crews from the comfort of their armchair and with 20/20 hindsight. Quite the reverse, in fact; they deserve our respect.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Dopey Scopey. In case you missed it, this was the same sqn that lost 2 aircrew 5 days earlier to an Air Defence Patriot battery. Didn't hear any inane, PS2 video game comments about that event.
I also watched the programme and the one the previous week that covered the tragic incident involving IX Sqn and the Patriot. OC IX deserves a medal and he also deserves to be promoted. He is what the RAF should be pushing out as PR. A person who leads from the front and is not afraid to show emotion or to criticise those who need criticising. I am not aircrew but this programme has proved to be good in nearly everything it portrays. Especially the Marine Colonel who called the Yanks 'Nobbers' and 'idiots. If you don't like what we do, bog off and let us get on with it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that IX Squadron (aircrew and groundcrew) came over extremely well with the mixture of self-deprecatory humour and irony that is so typical of the British services. My wife laughed herself silly at the junior pilot who had had a run of unserviceability and thought he was a "bit of a muppet" who had "contributed to the peace process. " They all came across as real, attractive human beings. Bravo!
My old dad, who I believe flew Harry Tates on IX in 1918, would have been proud of you.
My old dad, who I believe flew Harry Tates on IX in 1918, would have been proud of you.
Depends who your 'allies' are.......
If they're trigger-happy enough to shoot up friendly Warriors, bomb friendly Canadian forces without bothering with the rules of engagement or obtaining clearance, bomb friendly Kurdish forces, shoot down Iranian Airbuses, are unable to recognise Blackhawk helicopters.....or Chinooks, then yes, it is likely that if the Colonials with their gung-ho attitudes are involved then it's highly probable that 'things like that will happen in war'.
Ident before shoot!
Excellent quotes about that group of heavy-handed dimwitted USMC troops from the Royal Marine colonel on the TV programme!
If they're trigger-happy enough to shoot up friendly Warriors, bomb friendly Canadian forces without bothering with the rules of engagement or obtaining clearance, bomb friendly Kurdish forces, shoot down Iranian Airbuses, are unable to recognise Blackhawk helicopters.....or Chinooks, then yes, it is likely that if the Colonials with their gung-ho attitudes are involved then it's highly probable that 'things like that will happen in war'.
Ident before shoot!
Excellent quotes about that group of heavy-handed dimwitted USMC troops from the Royal Marine colonel on the TV programme!
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Jul 2003 at 15:41.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was deployed on TELIC and recall the fierce debate when the BL755s were being called into use. The comment that really stands out for me was from an artillery officer in the Army Liaison Cell of the CAOC who accused us (the RAF) of 'being prissy' about worrying about the CBU and the known percentage dud rate. Said officer's comments then outlined an artillery exchange that had taken place the day prior where one of HM's AS90 batteries had opened up on an Iraqi position, firing a number or bomblet rounds (I forget exactly which type). Whatever the actual number of round fired, the total number of bomblets dropped on the Iraqi position totalled over 9000 (with a similar dud percentage as the BL755). I can see his point....
The up and down of it is that if the weapon does the job, let's not get namby-pamby about it, use the thing and get the war over faster.
Cheers
CV
The up and down of it is that if the weapon does the job, let's not get namby-pamby about it, use the thing and get the war over faster.
Cheers
CV
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh right. Is that the sort of war that we win without hurting anyone then is it?
The sort of war where we put to one side the weapons that have been specifically designed to take out the type of target we are after i.e. armoured and manoevring fielded forces?
The sort of war where, despite the almost exclusive use of precision weaponry, we are vilified for using a cluster munition regardless of what is being thrown back in our direction?
Get real you muppet.
CV
The sort of war where we put to one side the weapons that have been specifically designed to take out the type of target we are after i.e. armoured and manoevring fielded forces?
The sort of war where, despite the almost exclusive use of precision weaponry, we are vilified for using a cluster munition regardless of what is being thrown back in our direction?
Get real you muppet.
CV
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,805
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is, O gobby one, that cluster bombs don't specifically take out 'armoured and manouvering field forces'. No-one is 'vilifying' the armed forces on the ground, they are criticising the political/top brass decision to use these weapons and the cute and indiscriminate way they continue to injure civilians and children after the war.
You don't like criticism, do you?
You don't like criticism, do you?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart - Nice one with some apt comments. Hats off to you mate
beagle- astute comments re friendly fire. You forgot the warrior that was dispatched by an A10. The RM Major referred to our coalition colleagues who bound a civilian whilst he was desparetly searching for his daughter was "BUNCH OF KNOBS". I thought he was being polite.
Taking a cynical point of view on this thread, the PC's will probably win through in the end. 2Para will be obliged to counsell the enemy , should they shoot at them, to try to understand their point of view
beagle- astute comments re friendly fire. You forgot the warrior that was dispatched by an A10. The RM Major referred to our coalition colleagues who bound a civilian whilst he was desparetly searching for his daughter was "BUNCH OF KNOBS". I thought he was being polite.
Taking a cynical point of view on this thread, the PC's will probably win through in the end. 2Para will be obliged to counsell the enemy , should they shoot at them, to try to understand their point of view
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue is not whether I like criticism or not - the issue is the desire to remove a perfectly useful and effective weapon from service.
Whilst not as accurate as a PGM, the BL755 is a good weapon and as has been pointed out, the crews make significant efforts to plot where they drop them. Yes, there is a known dud rate for the bomblets - approximately 3% and much reduced since the weapon's inception - but no weapon is 100% reliable 100% of the time. There will always be UXOs. The unfortunate thing is that cluster bomblets are small and can be picked up with the obvious results.
The cluster bomb remains a weapon of choice for use in the CAS role for its effectiveness against armour and soft skinned vehicles and for most of the last campaign many of our jets were tasked with supporting the land campaign. This means finding, fixing and engaging the enemy's fielded forces to effect a degree of attrition prior to our guys getting there, or whilst they are in contact. Whilst a lot of the vehicles were revetted and static, there were those that were on the move and engaged with US and UK ground forces. Yes, it would be nice to 'cleanly' take them out with an LGB (as the USAF did with the 500lb GBU-12) but this may not be an option for the larger Paveway series - anyone who knows better please comment.
We all want to minimise civilian and non-combatant casualties, but what gets my blood boiling is people who want to increase the risk to our own forces by precluding the use of weapons that might hurt somebody should they fail to detonate. I'd like to see you explain that to the squaddies on the front line who want the tank/APC/truck engaging them removed from the battlefield.
CV
Whilst not as accurate as a PGM, the BL755 is a good weapon and as has been pointed out, the crews make significant efforts to plot where they drop them. Yes, there is a known dud rate for the bomblets - approximately 3% and much reduced since the weapon's inception - but no weapon is 100% reliable 100% of the time. There will always be UXOs. The unfortunate thing is that cluster bomblets are small and can be picked up with the obvious results.
The cluster bomb remains a weapon of choice for use in the CAS role for its effectiveness against armour and soft skinned vehicles and for most of the last campaign many of our jets were tasked with supporting the land campaign. This means finding, fixing and engaging the enemy's fielded forces to effect a degree of attrition prior to our guys getting there, or whilst they are in contact. Whilst a lot of the vehicles were revetted and static, there were those that were on the move and engaged with US and UK ground forces. Yes, it would be nice to 'cleanly' take them out with an LGB (as the USAF did with the 500lb GBU-12) but this may not be an option for the larger Paveway series - anyone who knows better please comment.
We all want to minimise civilian and non-combatant casualties, but what gets my blood boiling is people who want to increase the risk to our own forces by precluding the use of weapons that might hurt somebody should they fail to detonate. I'd like to see you explain that to the squaddies on the front line who want the tank/APC/truck engaging them removed from the battlefield.
CV
Last edited by Chinese Vic; 8th Jul 2003 at 21:42.