RAF "Utterly, Utterly, Useless" in Afghanistan
 

Typical sky spin on the headlines

A leaked email states that the RAF is "Utterly, Utterly, Useless" in Afghanistan

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...543583,00.html

Well it would appear they are not infinitely well resourced at the moment due to:

Add your own reasons here:

Imagegear :confused:

Clearly true then if it is from an anomymous email.

Let's not get dragged into this.

Everyone out there is doing a great job. Whether or not we have enough assets to do the job we were sent to do is another matter.

Compare with this slightly less sensational report
 

in the Telegraph.

"Chinook helicopters were able to make sure the troops were regularly resupplied with ammunition but were unable to deliver enough food - a familiar complaint for British troops sent to front-line positions in Afghanistan."

"British Harriers sometimes flew so low over their positions on strafing runs that the soldiers mistook the sudden explosive roar of their engines 60 feet overhead for the explosion of incoming mortar rounds."

The trouble is that the meeja is unable to distinguish between the RAF (in this case) as an entity, and the people that are there. Lazy reporting means that it comes across that the RAF as we understand it (the people) are not a worthwhile addition to the forces in Stan. What they actually mean, but don't get across very well, is that with the current resources and constraints placed upon them, the RAF as an entity is not able to perform to it's full potential.

It's like us saying "SkyTV is ****e" - when what we mean is that in certain areas such as lazy-arsed journo stuff, they are placing themselves somewhere below the Stun. However, if we actually looked at the people doing their individual jobs and the constraints and party-lines that they are having to toe, individually they are doing OK.

We know that the meeja fail to get it right on many occasions, we know that your average techie working for the meeja is on top of his job, and we know that the face in front the camera would shag his own granny and film it if he thought it would get him an anchor position on the 10 o'clock, and his lords and masters would order him to do it to gain an extra 0.000005% of the viewing figures.

We also know that individuals in the Forces do the job they are proud to do, within the constraints imposed upon them by the Whitehall and Cabinet Office warriors, but it gets a bit annoying when the lazy reporting makes it seem like we don't.

Well if there aren't enough resources to deliver ammo AND food and I was being mortared/shot at, then know which one I would rather have (hint... NOT FOOD!).
A booty friend of mine has just returned from SF duties in Afghanistan and had nothing but praise for the Chinook and Harrier guys - it took me back somewhat as I was expecting a stream of verbal abuse and banter to the contrary! Make of that what you will, but I know which source I would rely on.

I doubt a Harrier boss would be awarded the DSO after 12 months and 103 missions there if the boys wern't doing a good job!:D (RAF News Sep 15)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.:ugh: I suppose they could lay off the CAS and leave the squaddies to their own devices.

As for the Chinooks, yes they are quite stretched over there but its better than nowt or trying to drive supplies in.

As has been mentioned, many of the rank and file infantry, booties etc have nothing but praise for RAF Chinnys and Harriers, as well as TWA's Apaches. I'd suggest that the author of the email is going all political himself, either in an anti-Government way or more likely anti-RAF.

Still does not disguise the fact that we seem to be able to put precious few resources into the front line yet we seem to have an endless supply of 1, 2 & 3 stars to 'administrate' it all.
The very same people who are telling the politicians that we are doing OK.:ugh:

And it takes the SoS to announce the deployment of A SINGLE AIRCRAFT to AFG. :sad:

It is good to see that the RAF are getting the support from our Army brethren on ARRSE as well:
http://www.arrse.com/cpgn2/index.php...t=47187#860083
Just goes to show "blood's thicker than water". (also goes to show how cr@p Sky News reporting is).

At times like this when people say such stupid things, you damn skippy the "Army Brethren" will support you. I deploy soon in AH and the true story should read anything but "Utterly, utterly*******.
Do you think they do it for a bite?:ugh:

Not fishing, just frustrated (forgiveable) or full of self-importance (need fragging).

And from AARSE:

I've read the e-mails, and understand that Chief of the Air Staff has done likewise - hence the crackdown. They need to be read in the context in which they were written, which is very much at the pointy, bloody end and thus they might appear parochial to some. The author is no idiot and these were personal e-mails which appear to have escaped their intended audience. I hope that another decent guy doesn't get hung out to dry for expressing a personal opinion while doing a damned difficult job.

If anyone gets hold of the originals, please DON'T post them on the net.
_________________

Utterly, Utterly, Useless
 

Just heard on the radio that the comments can be attributed to an Army Major somewhere in Helmand, saying that he would rather call in A-10's rather than the RAF.

Y_G

What one individual junior Army officer has to say about air support is interesting, but hardly conclusive. He's not a FAC, and some of his comments indicate a surprising and real lack of awareness about air support generally, and even specifically about CAS in Afghanistan.

If Sky are guilty of blowing anything out of proportion, I'd suggest that it's only because they repeat his slightly hysterical and inaccurate accusations.

If only they had people with real knowledge, perhaps they'd have been able to make a better stab at interpreting and contextualising what was undeniably a personal e-mail, not intended for this kind of distribution and discussion.

There is a story, I believe, but this ain't it.

And so if anyone wants to tell me how well things are working, then do so by PM!

Jacko, how about I leak you an email saying how great we all are and how we need a payrise and love journos - would you print that for me?

We could make it anon to make it sound more mysterious!

The BBC's take on the story is here:click.

Apparently:Just a thought, but (a) do we have WP heads for the CRV7 and (b) if strafing involves the use of a gun (which is, one assumes, what the Major means), how has an RAF Harrier pulled off this feat? :confused:

RAF utterly useless?
 

Considering that the writer of these e-mails in still in theatre, I'd like to see how he'll get back home and if his bags will make it back in one piece :E

Over to UKMAMS ;)

Yeller

if that's what that Major thinks, by all means he can have the A-10s if Canadians can call for Harriers instead, having lost one of ours to A-10 rounds three weeks ago.

well this comes on the back of another... "Captain Leo Docherty was so unhappy with operations in Helmand province he quit the British Army last month"

"Capt Docherty described the campaign as "grotesquely clumsy" and said the British were no different to US forces by bombing and strafing villages."

Two in Two months. Whilst some here (the ones whom have only ever seen one kind of theatre in their lives, the acting kind) seem keen to dismiss these guys, from experience I know to stick ones neck out is a brave thing to do, and commands some respect.

I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but implicitly vilifying these officers for having the guts to speak out, is to me incomprehensible.