Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The 'RAF are utterly, utterly useless' - 3 Para
Forest    9/22/2006 12:55:21 PM
The RAF are "utterly, utterly useless" in protecting troops on the ground in Afghanistan, a major with the main UK battle group said in a leaked e-mail. Major James Loden of 3 Para, based in the north of the southern province of Helmand, said more troops and helicopters were desperately needed. There had been "plenty of tears" following casualties in the intense fighting with the Taleban, he added. The MoD said the RAF played a "critical role" in supporting ground troops. The ministry confirmed the contents of the e-mail as accurate. The "tears" Maj Loden refers to were "not tears of exhaustion or frustration", a spokesman said. "This is a reflection of the fact these men are under daily attack and sadly there are often daily casualties." Describing Maj Loden's e-mail as "moving" and "humbling", the spokesman said it "reflects both how intense the fighting can occasionally be, and the enormous courage, dedication and skill of the British troops" in Helmand. Some were "working to the limits of endurance, but their morale is high and they are winning the fight", he added. Maj Loden's comments about the RAF "do not reflect the view of the vast majority of soldiers", the spokesman said. It had "performed brilliantly in defending coalition forces", he added. But Maj Loden's e-mail gives an example of the RAF's failure to provide air support. "... Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorous rockets that just missed our own compound so that we thought they were incoming RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], and then strafed our perimeter missing the enemy by 200 metres," it says. BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood said Maj Loden's comments reflected what officers were saying privately, but their tone and emphasis were at odds with the MoD's official statements. Other Parachute Regiment officers had told him they prefer to call in American A-10 Tankbusters for air support when under fire because of what they see as the RAF's ineffectiveness, he added. However, in a statement released by the MoD, 3 Para operations officer in Afghanistan Capt Matt Taylor said the RAF had "played a critical part in ensuring the security of the lads on the ground". 'Disturbing comments' "They could not have asked for better support during some very difficult times," he added. British spokesman in Southern Afghanistan Lt Col Dave Reynolds added the RAF was an "enormously effective", "invaluable" and "absolutely essential part of the operations in Afghanistan". Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey called on the government to "provide an urgent statement" in response to Maj Loden's "disturbing comments". His e-mail showed "the need for a reassessment of the full range of capabilities required to accomplish the Nato mission" in Afghanistan, Mr Harvey added. "As our troops face increasing violence, we need to see a clear and achievable strategy and an honest assessment of the challenges ahead." The e-mail, which has been sent to British Army head Sir Richard Dannatt, comes a day after another British commander in Afghanistan said the Army there was sustaining higher casualties than official figures suggested. Writing in the Fusiliers' newsletter, Major John Swift said some had argued many casualties had been treated in the field and, therefore, had been omitted from the official statistics for wounded in action. Casualty numbers were very significant and showed no signs of reducing, he added. Maj Swift also said political rather than military imperatives were driving the operation. He was referring to the Afghan government's demand for British troops to move to isolated fire bases in northern Helmand where they are now under siege by the Taleban.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
flamingknives       10/7/2006 12:06:54 PM
Well, I think that it's the same 27mm mauser cartridge used on the Tornado. However, using on the Typhoon would require specialist equipment and support for use with that airframe. This is not something that could be sunk into a joint programme or shared between countries. You still have to train your own guys, ship the ammo to where it is needed, track the ammo through the various life cycles of being flown, shipped, dropped, linked, unlinked, loaded and unloaded
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       10/7/2006 12:41:44 PM
Well for the trainning part, that is the portion that I am in no position to comment on.

But the fact that the Tornadoe uses it is even less of an excuse on cost not to have it. As there could be shared trainning facilites, maintenence procedures and storage facilites.

Once itemized, Nato or euro part no. logged, its up to the airforce logistics to take care of the rest and would be no less like any other inventroized ordinance, why infact it is a cased ammunition and shipping and logistics would be less of a hassel as compared to shipping a 500 pound, dumb or smart bomb that come in various sensitive and explosive components.

Main cost I would think, is the revision of the pilot weapns trainning schedules and curriculum. But hey its the United Kingdom, top 5 in military spending, it would really be penny pinching to quibble over this. I had initialy thought it was because the cannon and ammunition were german.

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/7/2006 1:33:36 PM
The training part is the really expensive part and it's not just the pilots - ground crew and armourers have to know their stuff too. I forget the exact amount, but the "saving" was in the tens of millions, which is not chicken-feed. Since the wonderful guided weapons were going to do it all for us (proved wrong on at least two occasions to date, this makes it three, at least as far as policy based on the misapprehension goes) there's no need for this expensive training etc.

I think that you'll find that most aircraft weaponry is IM (Insensitive Munition) so are safer to handle, but HE is inherently safer than propellant as it can't be set off as easily.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       10/8/2006 11:24:38 AM
I know a cannon is not going to drastically improve the close air support for the troopers as compared to a dedicated counter insurgency fighter bomber for troop support.

But do not the RAF tornado squadrons that are already operating the same cannon also undergo trainning for the same weapon, I am sure they too have to undergo the trainning and are weapons qualified to use it. Is it that the operating costs of the eurofighter is much higher than the tornado?

Also if Germany and Italy can have their cannon and shoot it, why can't the UK also do it? I am sure arranagements can be made for joint trainning.

In any case, the gun is going back on the plane, and hopefully UK typhoons will be spitting lead out. It's just an interesting trend that the war on terror both in Iraq and Afganistan have seen the importance of close in straffing runs for airsupport. Even the Apache gunships have revised their tactics to use their cannon as the main offensive punch. The hydra rockets, which in theory should complement the guns, are somehow not precise enough for most targets.

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/8/2006 11:37:46 AM
The operating cost of the Typhoon aren't necessarily more than the Tornado (theoretically, they ought to be lower), but a proportion of the costs will be platform-specific and UK-specific.

As far as UK Apaches go, they don't, AFAIK, use Hydras, instead favouring the Bristol Aerospace's (Canadian firm) CRV-7 rocket, which is broadly similar, but somewhat faster. Possibly the rockets are harder to aim at partially identified targets, while the cannon can be fired at angles off the flight path.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       10/8/2006 12:10:32 PM
Thanks for the replies, even though we may differ in opinions, your replies have been objective, factual, precise and to the point.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       10/8/2006 12:11:02 PM
I meant you Flamingknives
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/8/2006 2:37:32 PM
A pleasure, thank you.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       10/9/2006 1:19:59 AM

Well.... stupid flyboy gimps springs to mind.

 

 

And did you know, you cant say cant on the radio? I mean, why cant you say cant on the radio? How are you supposed to get through life without talking to someone, and sayin "you cant"?

 



Well, did you know that you also can't say "repeat" on the radio.  I say again, you can't say "repeat."  I say again.....say again, over.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       10/9/2006 10:34:39 AM
Yeah I know what "repeat" means to the artillery.
 
In my line, you need to say "cant", with an accent, see.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics