Future Afghan air Ops?
 

So the political decision to withdraw most UK ground forces has been made (and saves a lot of political face). What will be the composition of the UK air element that, I guess, will slowly be announced over the next year or so to keep the lid on the situation after the Army have left? I suspect it will have a new name to show the old Op has finished. I suggest "Op Enduring Partnership". They had better get those new tankers moving!

OAP

Few (or no) Brits to move around so no need for AT and SH. No UK JTACs so no requirement for AH or FW. None of the above so no need for FP. NTISR and (limited/ occasional) CAS provided by a Reaper Det. Afghans told to buy Scan Eagles - UK footprint reduced to nil.

Shortly after that we have a parade. Shortly after that we have SDSR 2015. Shortly after that we either get made redundant or the lucky last 1000 standing get sent to sea on a carrier.

Simple really.

orca, I know that was tongue in cheek.

Air base security left to indigenous forces? Fast reaction indigenous ground troops only deployed by snatch Land Rover?

PN,

Only partially. I think from a coaliton perpsective we will collapse into UCAV ops and FW provided by the USN operating from the south. I think we will maintain a small amount of TACAIR for in theatre mobility and some SH but probably not the national badged assets - more likely those white Mi-17s (whoever they belonged to...). I don't see the need for UK FW and AH...and the more you leave in the pot the more you spend on guarding it...as you rightly pointed out in a previous post.

So the politicians' answer will be a lot less than you and I would feel comfortable with.

Oh - and we are going to get a parade and get made redundant - that bit was serious!;)

PN,

Air base security? If the article linked to below is to believed (and it's from a newspaper so it probably can't be!), the plan may be to fly sorties over Afghanistan from outside the country, thus making base security less of an issue...


RAF's Afghan operations could continue after withdrawal - Telegraph


orca - there be lot's of parades. Coming home parades, freedom of city parades, squadron closing parades, base closing parades..... and then you'll get made redundant! :ok:

I'm not sure that the Tornado is a fighter-bomber...but I am relatively convinced that if the Tonka crowd get to support Herrick from somewhere other than KAF....errr, Seeb, anyone?...that will be [[insert profanity here]].

Unless of course transits are your thing and you need the hours.

Best of luck chaps.

Hopefully the drone/UCAV/RPV team can look after it.

orca, the transits should be no problem, couple of tankers, a bit of SAR coverage. Reaction time might be a bit stretched but as long as 3-4 hours notice, and preferably 24 hrs, it should work.:\

Can imagine the headlines now if the Tornados are redeployed to the Gulf :E

Assuming that Iranian overflight won't be allowed, wouldn't a carrier off the coast of Pakistan halve the transit time to Afghanistan and reduce response times accordingly? The Americans and French have been doing this since the beginning of OUP so I guess they'd get first call.

It's a given that land-based tankers would be required in either case.

Well it has a radar with an air-to-air capability and can carry ASRAAM so....:)

So far then, it looks like big footprint TriStar and Tornado, based outside Afghan with small or non AAR capable stuff sweating it out still in theatre?

OAP

The 'meeja' have always been very averse to using the descriptor 'ground attack'.

I suspect we'll pull out, declare victory and leave them to themselves

why would we continue to support them at vast cost?

No, I would say 'all or nothing' - the small / non-AAR capable stuff would still need force protection if left in theatre, and there is an irreducible minimum number of boots on the ground needed to achieve that. If you are going to leave anything in theatre, e.g. the Reaper launch+recovery element, you might as well leave the Tornados there as well.

Conversely, if you want to get rid of the airfield force protection, you get everything out, including the small stuff.

I agree on the Force Protection piece to an extent, but there is a small chance we will be clever about this and reduce forces as a coalition - not just as UK defence plc.

Therefore, to me it is feasible that we could leave the drone launchers and landers in KAF but bring the FW, SH and Tac AT home whilst maintaining the correct FP stance with other coalition nations.

I am dubious as to whether a politician would buy the argument that whilst we have reduced boots on the ground by a half we still need all the air.

On the whole fighter-bomber thing...I am sure that the GR4 is a fighter-bomber, but then by the same token can I insist that my (boring, married, child locked, estate) vehicle - having a steering wheel and an accelerator is a racing car?

Take care twin seat muds ;). Eyes out, happy Christmas.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I happened to be in one of the coalition countries when they reached the tipping point and decided to pull all their 'at risk' forces out.

Who would you chose for airfield protection to give a secure base?

I think "fighter" part of "fighter-bomber" comes from the fact that the Tornado GR is a FJ rather than an air-air fighter, much like the Harrier (GR) always claimed to be a fighter (but strangely usually left the bomber bit off)! As opposed to, for example, a B-1 or Vulcan.

Imho basing Tornado outside Afghan would be crazy - the only people I can see thinking it is a good idea are the admirals who can then point out how much better it would be if we had a carrier!

Presumably the Reapers will have to stay, they might be able to operate from the UK but they can't fly them here.

Is it still a UOR? Presumably the RAF has a Plan B for when the "operational" bit ends?

PN

I would love to correct you for being wrong, but given that I don't know who you are, where you were at the time, which country we are talking about or what they did - I'm not sure I can!

Why not keep 3 Sqn RAF Regiment as the FP asset - they were excellent, and I doubt anyone ever said thanks for their efforts.

But I don't see why having them there would justify keeping the GR4s et al.

orca, I tried to send a PM but it wouldn't let me start typing in the box. The country I am thinking of pulled out its ground forces but left its air element.

What I was hinting at though was that good as the RAF Regt is, after all my daughter was in an Aux Regt, a sqn is simply too small to provide FP for a large airbase. Now I was taught that the outer perimeter should be sufficiently far out that the central core was outside the range of enemy ground forces - like Tobruck, Anzio, Dien Bien Phu etc.

Now I know that that security doesn't pertain at either UK base so with a run down in forces things will get better?

Concentration of Force, Economy of Effort!