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.

"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? :)

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.)

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!

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"....

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.

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!

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?"

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.

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, 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.

HaveQuick, it is after the 100% that the politicos worry about - e.g. Gary Powers

Thank goodness no one here complained about the US military personnel embedded with our forces prior to their country entering the Second World War:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Isn't ROE particular to the op? If not involved in theatre, does the UK military have specific ROE established?