RAF useless in Afghanistan

[XabbaRus]

Don't know if anyone ahs been following this but UK ground commanders and troops in Afghanistan are unhappy with the RAF syaing their CAS is essentially rubbish and they prefer to call in A-10s if needed. One Major (I think) even exclaimed that one Harrier pilot dropped phoshor bombs closer to his own troops than the Taleban.

Now this go me thinking. In the UK we like to pride ourself that are pilots are the best even without all the gadgets that our American counterparts have but obviously this isn't the case in this instance. I remember a similar assertion that in gulf war II (or III depending which way you look at it) for UK troops to call in air support they had to radio back to command who then tasked a patrolling Harrier flight to target. Troops couldn't get into direct contact with the overhead planes unlike US troops.

It led me to think if the doctrine that the RAF is designed for and flies to doesn't include CAS so much. It seems that the RAF is primarily a strike force for attacks on long range tactical targets ie airfields bridges etc for which the Tornado is used, then Harriers are used for spotted battlefield targets, eg bridges the enemy is using, prepositioned troop formations and tank units that are stationary or in transit.

They are not set up for and don't train to much for CAS in support of frontline troops who are in contact with the enemy and whose positions are fluid and not far from each other.

It is my opinion that the US airforce and Marine Air Corp practice this more regularly and for the US Marines a core part of their air doctrine. Hell they kept the A-10 as it is the best CAS COIN aircraft about.

Any comments?

On a side note Des Brown the Minister for Defence is reported to be send an extra Harrier to Afghanistan. Surely he meant to say one extra squadron. Seems that the UK government should up its defence spending to get mroe kit to the boys out there, speed up procurement of needed kit and cut a few other programmes of questionable use.

[scandium]

My thought is that the US has, if nothing else, far better aircraft than everyone else. The A-10 has no match in CAS... I mean, how many other aircraft can shred tanks with their cannon alone? None, the A-10 is unmatched in this realm; then the US has the F-15 for more conventional, precision ground pounding plus the (dated but still effective) F16 as well as the the stealth bomber... no other nation can touch them in sheer air power, in any role.

[CCIP]

You should remember, though, that beating down Taliban doesn't involve much tank-shredding. There is, however, a need for some heavy firepower regardless.

[bradclark1]

The russians have the SU-25 but it's not as good as the A-10.

[CB..]

perhaps they should start making the old WW2 Typhoon again...that was a deadly ground assault killer...be hard to shoot down with heat seeking missiles aswell...they could manufacture a hundred of those old prop driven aircraft out for the price of one harrier and as the taliban don't have any aircraft (AFAIK?) they'd be usefull as ground attack aircraft..weapon delivery etc etc etc:hmm: fill the skys with them....make it difficult for the taliban to move without being seen and attacked

[CCIP]

I do agree that prop aircraft could potentially be a good investment for the wars that we get nowadays.

Hell, look at AC-130. Ancient airframe, but she's sure come in handy in Afghanistan. :hmm:

[TteFAboB]

Restored Lancaster + good bombing computer = TaleBOOM!

Actually, here's something:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/emb312-pics.htm
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rv/FAV_Club_A_Alfonzo_Super_TUCANO_A29_Rev_1_18052005 .pdf

Need to figure if this puny little thing carries as much payload as the Harrier, or the WW2 Typhoon.

[Oberon]

Hell, you go one step further and take out the pilot and put in a computer, you have a UAV :D

But then again, I guess the cost of the computer would offset the advantages of a low-cost aircraft. UAVs ain't cheap.

[moose1am]

TALEBOOM!

Now that's funny!urity.org/military/world/brazil/emb312-pics.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/emb312-pics.htm)
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rv/FAV_Club_A_Alfonzo_Super_TUCANO_A29_Rev_1_18052005 .pdf
I am surprised that the US have not given Britan the technology to use gps guided bombs and the gps units for the ground troops. How hard could that be to put a gps unit and some guidance fins onto a british iron bomb?

The key to close air support is communications and giving the right coordinates to the bombs. Don't want to give the bombs your own map coordinates. Getting the numbers programmed into the bomb's guidance system is the key.

[Immacolata]

Funny you should mention that. I watched a few vietnam flicks lately. Can't remember their names, but one was with mel gibson and they were dug in at some hill fending off waves and waves of VC attacks. They used P51s for CAS I think. And I wondered on what purpose they were taken out of commission. They were agile, fast but still slow enough to actually see what they were about to hit before they hit it.

And as you mention, cheap! I am sure one could make some really powerful turboprops today, perhaps armor them slightly better. And you could have some good CAS for little money.

I guess the arms race made them obsolete. If the enemy has MACH 1.2 interceptors, you probably don't want to be caught up in the sky flying an ole' prop. That was the premises during the cold war. But in engagements like Afghanistan, even Iraq, props might be just what you need. A man, a few guns, and a means to project the power at low cost.

Just imagine the type of CAS the RAF could give their troops if they had 10 P51s. They can drop bombs, they can strafe the ground, they can hug the terrain and probably carry a bit of countermeassures for missiles as well, if that is even necessary. And for the price of 1 Harrier.

[The Noob]

Restored Lancaster + good bombing computer = TaleBOOM!

Actually, here's something:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/emb312-pics.htm
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rv/FAV_Club_A_Alfonzo_Super_TUCANO_A29_Rev_1_18052005 .pdf

Need to figure if this puny little thing carries as much payload as the Harrier, or the WW2 Typhoon.

Hey, that reminds me of that movie, "Iron Eagle 2", maybe 3. There they did the same! Old aircraft, modern computers. Were deadly in ground attack.

Now how about the...FW109...:lol:

[waste gate]

All A/C, military and civilian are a compromise between stability and controllability. The British Harrier tends toward the unstable, which makes it quite agile, and a good hair ball fighter. The A-10 is a more stable A/C and tends toward controllability making it a better air-to ground platform.

Concerning a propeller A/C being a better choice for air-to ground operations, yes, very stable, however, as anyone who’s been to an air show can attest you cannot hear the jet until its right on top of you. The element of surprise has a quality all its own.

[XabbaRus]

My point wasn't necessarily the type of aircraft available but the emphasis of CAS as a doctrinin the RAF. I think it is something that there should be more emphasis on.

As for GPS guided bombs, I wouldn't be surprised if we have them except they are in blighty at the moment.