The Iraq thread 4

[scary 0]

My opinions are taken from an extremely well researched book that actually takes a critical look at the present composition and organisation of HM Forces. The author is also a veteran of the forces himself.

Page's book is about as well researched as the part of the map that says 'here be dragons'. The man is a bitter and twisted passed over former MCDO that has never been to sea on anything other that a minesweeper. He has no experience of frigates, destroyers or capital ships and a very limited view of RN operations, never mind land and air ops. He left on a low note after being told he would have to serve on larger vessels if he ever wanted promotion. After 11 years in the Andrew he was a Lieutenant and he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Ayers Rock because of it.

Quote[/b] ]He argues that the forces are not equipped to fight the types of wars we are fighting now.

What exactly is it the fighting forces don't have? Let's look at the blurb on the back of his book:

WHY are British Soldiers sent off to war to put their lives at risk, with some of the worst guns around?

What worst guns would they be? All of the British Armed Forces guns are amongst the most highly rated in the world, some are the most highly rated. And what the toss would a Clearance Diver Junior Officer know about guns anyway?

WHY are decisions being made by the MoD with an eye above all for the interests of British Aerospace?

The strategic importance of maintaining high tech defence manufacturing capability. The cost effectiveness when business taxes and employee taxes are taken into account. Keeping people off the dole queue. The fact that they can and do make some bloody good equipment.

There is a reason that the UK is the world's third largest defence manufacturer.

WHY are we still fighting yesterday's wars?

Err, what? Yesterday's Wars? Are we waiting for the 3rd Shock Army? Are we manning the trenches at Ypres? Are we giving the French yet another damn good thrashing?

No.

WHY is our tax money being wasted on useless, insanely expensive toys?

What useless, insanely expensive toys would they be then? There aren't many things in HM's trainset that haven't been used in the last 5 years.

Quote[/b] ]For example the Navy keeps ordering expensive and useless frigates.

The RN hasn't ordered a frigate since 1996. And I do seem to remember them being used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor since then, not to mention the evacuation of British Citizens from Lebanon and various other instance of humanitarian assistance. Far from useless.

Quote[/b] ]How are they supposed to help fight low intensity urban conflicts?

Force protection, guarding oil platforms in the Gulf, SIGINT, keeping the logistics route open, providing a safe HQ, emergency force extraction and they had a rather important part to play in the initial invasion. They also have to do all the things they did before the low intensity urban conflicts and be ready for all the things they may have to do in the future.

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention the fact they are useless for fighting subs.

Huh? The RN is the world leader in ASuW. The primary role of the RN in NATO is ASW and MW/MCM. All FFs are equiped with Sting Ray and have the best detection equipment available.

Quote[/b] ]I could cite a lot more examples.

Factually correct ones?

Quote[/b] ]There is a point in arguing over defence. It NEEDS to be under proper public scrutiny. Not the media type ie the Snatch Landrover.

Indeed there is, but not by using that book.

Quote[/b] ]I strongly suggest you buy Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the military by Lewis Page (www.lewispage.co.uk). It is a very recent book and it will open your eyes to how corrupt defence procurement is. If you care the slightest bit about the forces then you should buy it. After all, don't you want the Army to have the best chance of winning this war?

I would suggest he doesn't. If the paper was more absorbant he would possibly find it useful, but as it is the author has zero understanding of the tri-service environment and very little understanding of the single-service one. Junior diving Officers on minesweepers also tend not to have much involvement with the procurement process. In reality, British defence procurement, whilst certainly having problems, is the most open in the western world. If you want to see real procurement blundering, look at the US or France.

In essence, L,D & D amounts to 'British manufacturing is bad, buying American will solve all procurement woes.' He is under the impression that large scale procurement is akin to nipping to the shops for a new washing machine. It is an ill-informed rant that may make for good soundbites on Sky News, but offers no real substance or even anything new.

If you want some genuine insight, try Bill Kincaid's 'A Dinosaur in Whitehall' or 'Dancing With the Dinosaurs'.

I think the RAF is failing in one of its roles.  I believe it can no longer provide effective close air support.

Typhoon is being deployed for CAS in Afghanistan shortly, JSF are doing a dandy job right now. While the RAF may be Brylcream wearing crustaceans liable to throw a hissy fit if they're in anything less than a four star hotel, they are very good at CAS.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

thank you for giving such a well constructed post. I agree 100% absolutly with everything you say, and i stand corrected on the CAS RAF situation.

[-Snafu- 77]

My opinions are taken from an extremely well researched book that actually takes a critical look at the present composition and organisation of HM Forces. The author is also a veteran of the forces himself.

Page's book is about as well researched as the part of the map that says 'here be dragons'. The man is a bitter and twisted passed over former MCDO that has never been to sea on anything other that a minesweeper. He has no experience of frigates, destroyers or capital ships and a very limited view of RN operations, never mind land and air ops. He left on a low note after being told he would have to serve on larger vessels if he ever wanted promotion. After 11 years in the Andrew he was a Lieutenant and he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Ayers Rock because of it.

Quote[/b] ]He argues that the forces are not equipped to fight the types of wars we are fighting now.

What exactly is it the fighting forces don't have? Let's look at the blurb on the back of his book:

WHY are British Soldiers sent off to war to put their lives at risk, with some of the worst guns around?

What worst guns would they be? All of the British Armed Forces guns are amongst the most highly rated in the world, some are the most highly rated. And what the toss would a Clearance Diver Junior Officer know about guns anyway?

WHY are decisions being made by the MoD with an eye above all for the interests of British Aerospace?

The strategic importance of maintaining high tech defence manufacturing capability. The cost effectiveness when business taxes and employee taxes are taken into account. Keeping people off the dole queue. The fact that they can and do make some bloody good equipment.

There is a reason that the UK is the world's third largest defence manufacturer.

WHY are we still fighting yesterday's wars?

Err, what? Yesterday's Wars? Are we waiting for the 3rd Shock Army? Are we manning the trenches at Ypres? Are we giving the French yet another damn good thrashing?

No.

WHY is our tax money being wasted on useless, insanely expensive toys?

What useless, insanely expensive toys would they be then? There aren't many things in HM's trainset that haven't been used in the last 5 years.

Quote[/b] ]For example the Navy keeps ordering expensive and useless frigates.

The RN hasn't ordered a frigate since 1996. And I do seem to remember them being used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor since then, not to mention the evacuation of British Citizens from Lebanon and various other instance of humanitarian assistance. Far from useless.

Quote[/b] ]How are they supposed to help fight low intensity urban conflicts?

Force protection, guarding oil platforms in the Gulf, SIGINT, keeping the logistics route open, providing a safe HQ, emergency force extraction and they had a rather important part to play in the initial invasion. They also have to do all the things they did before the low intensity urban conflicts and be ready for all the things they may have to do in the future.

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention the fact they are useless for fighting subs.

Huh? The RN is the world leader in ASuW. The primary role of the RN in NATO is ASW and MW/MCM. All FFs are equiped with Sting Ray and have the best detection equipment available.

Quote[/b] ]I could cite a lot more examples.

Factually correct ones?

Quote[/b] ]There is a point in arguing over defence. It NEEDS to be under proper public scrutiny. Not the media type ie the Snatch Landrover.

Indeed there is, but not by using that book.

Quote[/b] ]I strongly suggest you buy Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the military by Lewis Page (www.lewispage.co.uk). It is a very recent book and it will open your eyes to how corrupt defence procurement is. If you care the slightest bit about the forces then you should buy it. After all, don't you want the Army to have the best chance of winning this war?

I would suggest he doesn't. If the paper was more absorbant he would possibly find it useful, but as it is the author has zero understanding of the tri-service environment and very little understanding of the single-service one. Junior diving Officers on minesweepers also tend not to have much involvement with the procurement process. In reality, British defence procurement, whilst certainly having problems, is the most open in the western world. If you want to see real procurement blundering, look at the US or France.

In essence, L,D & D amounts to 'British manufacturing is bad, buying American will solve all procurement woes.' He is under the impression that large scale procurement is akin to nipping to the shops for a new washing machine. It is an ill-informed rant that may make for good soundbites on Sky News, but offers no real substance or even anything new.

If you want some genuine insight, try Bill Kincaid's 'A Dinosaur in Whitehall' or 'Dancing With the Dinosaurs'.

I think the RAF is failing in one of its roles.  I believe it can no longer provide effective close air support.

Typhoon is being deployed for CAS in Afghanistan shortly, JSF are doing a dandy job right now. While the RAF may be Brylcream wearing crustaceans liable to throw a hissy fit if they're in anything less than a four star hotel, they are very good at CAS.

Right the guns. The L85 wasn't perfect when it came out. Lot's of problems were reported and it took 15 years for the next variant to be put in service.

I take it your talking about 'appropriate sovereignty' here. This is the governments excuse to keep feeding BAE huge amounts of cash. What they mean is to be able to fight without reliance on foriegn defence manufacturers. However the theory does not work in reality. We are still dependent on other countries for our aircraft etc. to operate. America could really stop us going to war if they wanted to. And if a lot of countries don't want us going to war then it is probable we shouldn't. Giving BAE money may give some jobs in the UK but not a lot. Most of BAE's business is now overseas anyway so it doesn't do much good. And last of all defence money is for defence. There is an entire other government dept. dedicated to employment.

Yesterday's wars. What he means by that is the MoD are still buying equipment for fighting a conventional war. Same goes for army organisation. What the hell do we need 100-200 eurofighters for? Do the terrorists have fighters of their own? No. That money should have went to buying helicopters or gorund attack jets. Not to mention that the eurofighter was incredibly expensive and very late. More money was forked out for a cas version. Remember when it had 2000 attached to it's name? The year 2000 has been and past and there was no eurofighter in service at that time. Oops, bet that was someone's career over.

Expensive toys. Eurofighter's in which quite a few are going to be mothballed - not enough pilots to fly all of them - even the RAF don't want all of the eurofighters that have been bought and then more money is needed from us to develop a CAS version, Anti-submarine Merlins that probably are not going to see much use and the frigates. Useless for fighting subs, vulnerable to aircraft and expensive. If you want to destroy a sub use another sub or an aircraft. Very cost effective methods.

But we don't need all these traditional ships that the navy loves. If you could show any examples of what action they were in in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor I would appreciate it. Something like HMS Ocean or an aircraft carrier would have been better for humanitarian assistance than a frigate.

The type 23 frigate only has the ability to find a quiet submereged submarine. To listen to the echoes the ship must be travelling slowly. The sound pulses from the sonar also give the ships position away to the sub bfore the ship can find the sub. So why did we keep buying the 23's in the 1990's? The frigates also have a anti-sub chopper on them which does the anti-sub job better than the 23 can. In 2006 six of the 23's are going to be fitted with sonar 2087 however it is questionable if these are going to do as their advertised - by spotting the sub before the sub can sink it. 2087 is costing about 30 million quid for each 23. Moreover the rest of them are going to be left with the old sonar. Why bother when helicopters and aircraft can do the job better?

Edit:

Actually, sod it, I give up. I've dragged this thread off topic now. Thanks for the recommended books Scary. I'll be ordering them once I get some pay.

[baddo 0]

Probably they want to be prepared for a bigger war. That's why they refuse to tailor their equipment only for conflicts such as the war in Iraq. Conflicts such as the one in Iraq are not threatening the safety of the UK. Well some trains and busses might blow up but that is small compared to what kind of attacks you will get if you get into a fight with some big European country.

It is a question of do you believe that wars such as WW II will break out again or not.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

and you can never tell. Small tentions that definatly still exist would suggest maybe.

[Daniel 0]

Fully agree with Baddo. While the current conflicts are serious, they would be dwarfed if two conventional forces clashed in the future. Iraq will blow over in time, the Middle East may well be in turmoil for some time to come. But high quality, expensive, conventional weapons systems such as CVF and Eurofighter will be essential if conventional war ever breaks out.

[scary 0]

Actually, sod it, I give up. I've dragged this thread off topic now. Thanks for the recommended books Scary. I'll be ordering them once I get some pay.

We do appear to be veering towards a discussion on the wider view of UK defence procurement so I will answer your points in the European Politics thread later.

The two books, whilst certainly not light reading, are very good. The author (linky for short bio) is very highly regarded and spent the best part of 20 years at the top end of procurement. He has also written a third, more recent book, 'Dinosaur in Permafrost' but I haven't got around to reading that one just yet.

thank you for giving such a well constructed post.  I agree 100% absolutly with everything you say, and i stand corrected on the CAS RAF situation.

Don't mention it, you'll make my head swell.

[Baff1 0]

Right the guns. The L85 wasn't perfect when it came out. Lot's of problems were reported and it took 15 years for the next variant to be put in service.

I take it your talking about 'appropriate sovereignty' here. This is the governments excuse to keep feeding BAE huge amounts of cash. What they mean is to be able to fight without reliance on foriegn defence manufacturers. However the theory does not work in reality. We are still dependent on other countries for our aircraft etc. to operate. America could really stop us going to war if they wanted to. And if a lot of countries don't want us going to war then it is probable we shouldn't. Giving BAE money may give some jobs in the UK but not a lot. Most of BAE's business is now overseas anyway so it doesn't do much good. And last of all defence money is for defence. There is an entire other government dept. dedicated to employment.

Rome wasn't built in a day and BAE is a highly profitable company.

Export orders for the Hawk, the Tornado and the Typhoon have paid for all the RAF's procurements of these aircrafts four times over.

BAE is privately funded and a highly successful international company.

Ther government doesn't give BAE money. BAE makes money. It gives the government money in the form of taxation.

BAE is one of Britains most profitable companies. Not to mention a world leader in technical excellence.

British naval procurements for the Iraq war have been in my eyes extremely weak. Shameful even.

The Persian Gulf is the most heavily mined area of sea in the world, and we have just mmothballed all our minesweepers and are attempting to sell them off. We also suffer from a shortage of shallow keeled vessels which was part of the problem which resulted in the capture of British Marines by Iran forces.

The larger vessel was not capable of keeping close to the boarding party due to the depth of the water.

With reagrds to the RAF and close air support, there is a definite hole in their equipment for this role. Primarily we have allowed the U.S. to provide this for us for too long.

The apache is going a long way to rectify this shortfall.

In my opinion cheap and cheerful aircraft such as the Pucara used by the Argentines would be a useful and cost effective assets.

Using interceptors for this role is cetainly better than nothing, and an improvement on what we have, but it it less than ideal and not necessarily the most cost effective or battle efficient solution. They fly too fast.

Some sort of converted C-130 wouldn't go amisss either.

[-Snafu- 77]

Right the guns. The L85 wasn't perfect when it came out. Lot's of problems were reported and it took 15 years for the next variant to be put in service.

I take it your talking about 'appropriate sovereignty' here. This is the governments excuse to keep feeding BAE huge amounts of cash. What they mean is to be able to fight without reliance on foriegn defence manufacturers. However the theory does not work in reality. We are still dependent on other countries for our aircraft etc. to operate. America could really stop us going to war if they wanted to. And if a lot of countries don't want us going to war then it is probable we shouldn't. Giving BAE money may give some jobs in the UK but not a lot. Most of BAE's business is now overseas anyway so it doesn't do much good. And last of all defence money is for defence. There is an entire other government dept. dedicated to employment.

Rome wasn't built in a day and BAE is a highly profitable company.

Export orders for the Hawk, the Tornado and the Typhoon have paid for all the RAF's procurements of these aircrafts four times over.

BAE is privately funded and a highly successful international company.

Ther government doesn't give BAE money. BAE makes money. It gives the government money in the form of taxation.

BAE is one of Britains most profitable companies. Not to mention a world leader in technical excellence.

British naval procurements for the Iraq war have been in my eyes extremely weak. Shameful even.

The Persian Gulf is the most heavily mined area of sea in the world, and we have just mmothballed all our minesweepers and are attempting to sell them off. We also suffer from a shortage of shallow keeled vessels which was part of the problem which resulted in the capture of British Marines by Iran forces.

The larger vessel was not capable of keeping close to the boarding party due to the depth of the water.

With reagrds to the RAF and close air support, there is a definite hole in their equipment for this role. Primarily we have allowed the U.S. to provide this for us for too long.

The apache is going a long way to rectify this shortfall.

In my opinion cheap and cheerful aircraft such as the Pucara used by the Argentines would be a useful and cost effective assets.

Using interceptors for this role is cetainly better than nothing, and an improvement on what we have, but it it less than ideal and not necessarily the most cost effective or battle efficient solution. They fly too fast.

Some sort of converted C-130 wouldn't go amisss either.

See European Thread.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Quote[/b] ]The apache is going a long way to rectify this shortfall

the Apache is already in active service in Afganistan and is operated by the British Army,  not the RAF, which every newspaper in Britain seems to forget.  Its doing a pretty good job,  including being used to ferry troops back from the front line in several emergency incidents.

Quote[/b] ]In my opinion cheap and cheerful aircraft such as the Pucara used by the Argentines would be a useful and cost effective assets

That aircraft would be a waste. If it was seen that there really was a hole to fill coversions of the BAE Hawk would be the best option.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Hawk variants up from the 60 series or so are more than capable to small-scale CAS.

Oh and BAe as a whole... they make i.e. Bradleys and most of South Africa's stuff nowadays.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]The apache is going a long way to rectify this shortfall

the Apache is already in active service in Afganistan and is operated by the British Army,  not the RAF, which every newspaper in Britain seems to forget.  Its doing a pretty good job,  including being used to ferry troops back from the front line in several emergency incidents.

Quote[/b] ]In my opinion cheap and cheerful aircraft such as the Pucara used by the Argentines would be a useful and cost effective assets

That aircraft would be a waste.  If it was seen that there really was a hole to fill coversions of the BAE Hawk would be the best option.

The Hawk is very expensive and very fast.

It needs long runways too.

You need something slow and durable. Preferably cheap. Something with a low stall speed that is already used all over the world,

The Hawk is a fast jet.

I can't see how converting a Hawk would be cheaper than buying a brand new twin engine domestic turbo prop.

With stock parts on the open market and minimum pilot training on an airframe that is tried and tested in all climates already. A Cessena 320 would be spot on.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i think you have lost the point of speed.  Its just as much a counter-measure as chaffs.  Even the Taliban could bring down a Cessna 320 with ease, nevermind if we had a full scale developed nations conflict.  And with a range of 2,520 km a relativly long runway (its dosnt need that big of a runway) is always going to be in easy reach.  Aircraft dont operate from aerodromes any more,  an international airport is always at hand.

For Aircraft with ground attack capabalities speed really is not important.  Attack runs are normally taken out in a vertical dive from high altitude, not flying over and dropping ordenance which most people are acustomed too from hollywood.  Aircraft with low stall speeds are all but redundant,  Look what happened to the Stuka,  its just not important in a time of guided weapons and close ground-air communication.  In most cases Aircraft no long need to look for targets, there dirceted to them.  In this day and age most aircraft wouldnt even fly if they werent being controlled by multiple computers.

Even the Hawk is really not needed at the moment,  there just is not a gap.  RAF air support is hitting its targets in Afganistan and Iraq, be under no illusion.  I saw a interesting documentary last night which shows just how acurate the air support is,  operating several hundred yards from British Troops and hitting its target on the second attempt.

[Necromancer- 0]

Air support bombers are going to be replaced by armed UAV's. Those are small airplanes controlled by ground base personel hundreds of miles away. They're cheap, because of it's relatively small size and there is no pilot on board controlling it thus reducing the amount of salary to be paid. Because of that you can build large scales of such planes, with minimum casualties.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

theres always a drawback, dont they have the problem that they have a pretty insignificant payload? i may be wrong.

[Necromancer- 0]

theres always a drawback,  dont they have the problem that they have a pretty insignificant payload?  i may be wrong.

Yes they do, because they are very small thus making them stealth to radar and the human eye. Every small aircraft can only carry a small payload. But if you make those UAV's bigger, then small payloads wouldn't be the problem anymore.

Imagine producing such UAV's at a large scale... You can dominate the air by swarming the battlefield without getting any friendly human casualties.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Well, it of course depends. Predator can carry at least few Hellfires, and RQ-4 Global Hawk has an internal payload of 3000 pounds in the newer versions. Then again the thing is quite big, at least the size of a WWII fighter...

[simba 0]

imo the problems of UAVs is rather that they can't fire unguided weapons, they seem to use hellfires wish isn't the best to kill a couple of irakis.

if they could carry rockets instead, they could engage much more targets.

[chops 111]

It seems security is improving in Iraq. From what I've read, it's a combination of backlash against the Al Qaeda, Zarqawi types on the part of the Iraqis and the surge in the number of US troops in Iraq. Refugees have started returning, things are looking up

BBC article

[quicksand 0]

So is there anyone who continues to share an interest in the Iraqi war on this forum?

-4,000 + US soldiers confirmed dead

-UK military admits gross human rights violations in prisoner handling cases

-Media blackout in the world,coverage has fallen to 3% of it's prior levels while most of the news that it is being reported comes from generals praising the surge is working and how Iraq is changing for the better.

Meanwhile some of the worst fighting since 2004 is taking place in Basra,Baghdad and southern cities with Mahdi rebels mounting fierce resistance.

-Sunni insurgents are taking a breather,they get payed by US forces to stop shooting at them and root out Al-Queda in Iraq, while at the same time they are welcoming back more moderate elemens the broke away because of queda.

This is probably the most nuanced and interesting conflict of our lifetime.There is the prospect of civil war,an unexpectedly fierce insurgency and long conflict,no unified front for the rebels;a plethora of conflicting interests,it is presently the most deadly conflagration in the world of which it's resolution will decide matters of global importance(how will USA choose to get involved in future conflicts;the state of Middle East etc).

I am starting to believe the Iraqi war is a black swan and there can be no accurate estimations made,simply too many variables,too many players.US generals can point me out as being right on this one for sure

Wel'll just have to wait and see,mere spectators at this unstoppable bloodshed set in motion by heinous,despicable and utterly criminal minds-the United States of America governing administration..

[sparks50 0]

I feel like the Iraq war is somewhat out-debated. Wake me up when US invades Venezuela, Ill figure out some arguments then

[Commando84 0]

lol yeah i dunno us is high tech but would they have enough troops and weapons and vehicles to take over a whole continent?

Like if they said "damn those Europeans, lets go and take them down!" would they have enough to invade?

[Baff1 0]

thank you for giving such a well constructed post.  I agree 100% absolutly with everything you say, and i stand corrected on the CAS RAF situation.

That was the only part of his excellent post I was unable to completely agree with.

The RAF is not good at close air support, and using an interceptor for that role isn't going to address the equipment shortfall.

The USAF is good at close air support and the RAF just muddles through with what it's got.

Fast jets are less than ideal for close air support. You need something slow. Sub sonic, with a low stall speed and weapon systems custom made for the job.

The Typhoon will never be a comparable airframe to the A10. It will always be an interceptor.

It might be able to get to 10,000 feet before you can say "fantastic", but it can't fly slow or make a second pass on a target as quickly

Flying fast means that the pilot has less time to aim his guns. He has less control and less time to make difficult targeting decisions.

Irrelevant in the case of the Typhoon of course since it doesn't even have any guns.

In fact currently none of the RAF's aircraft have guns fitted for CAS, which has been a major complaint of our ground forces in Afghanistan for some time.

@Trevor of Crete, the A10 flies at a comparable speed to the Cessna.

It is custom designed for close air support, and they didn't think it wise to make it supersonic although they had the technology. I'm not aware of a single A10 airframe that has been lost to enemy fire, not the Taliban or anybody else.

The Typhoon on the other hand is an interceptor it was custom designed for that purpose. It's built for speed and shooting down high altitude bombers. Sure, it can be used to attack targets on the ground, but it won't ever be very good at it. Neither will the Hawk.

No one has ever designed a fast jet for close air support. Never.

In Vietnam they abandoned jets for propellor driven aircraft for ground attack roles.

Speed is quite simply not what you want.

You want manouverability. The ability to turn in a tight circle without falling out of the sky.

RAF bombs may be hitting their targets but they are not flexible in the kinds of ordenance they can offer.

This is somewhat limiting as it means if the enemy is too close to a friendly, no air support can be given by the RAF. The USAF can engage targets within 100 metres of friendly forces using it's guns, while in the same circumstances the RAF just has to turn around and go home.

And that's why our soldiers prefer USAF support to RAF despite all the friendly fire incidents.

Because they have the gear and we don't.

[MehMan 0]

In Vietnam they abandoned jets for propellor driven aircraft for ground attack roles.

The A-1, AC-130, AC-47 and AC-119 worked along side jet airplanes. They didn't preform most of the missions or dropped the most bombs and they surely didn't replace jet airplanes. They supplemented them and to good effect. The problem with them is that their speed is both a blessing and a curse. But they surely didn't replace them at any given time. Most of the bombing missions in Vietnam were preformed in the north however.

I do agree that the A-10 is far better for CAS than anything the RAF has, that's logical because it was designed and taylored just for that.

[-Snafu- 77]

thank you for giving such a well constructed post.  I agree 100% absolutly with everything you say, and i stand corrected on the CAS RAF situation.

That was the only part of his excellent post I was unable to completely agree with.

The RAF is not good at close air support.

Assuming this is in response to Scary's post I am more inclined to side with his opinion given what he does for a living.

Unless you are in the same position?

Quote[/b] ]And that's why our soldiers prefer USAF support to RAF despite all the friendly fire incidents.

Because they have the gear and we don't.

The USAF does have a lot of aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan so I am guessing that is why a lot of CAS is done by them for UK soldiers on the ground. It's not like they have a choice.

-'HQ we would like some CAS please.'

-'Rodger dodger just let me get the menu for today. Tally ho, today we have USAF F-16's or RAF Tornado's.'

- I like the USAF. We will have that please.'

-'One F-16 coming up!'

Moreover it is not just USAF aircraft out there anyway. The 'Ross Kemp in Afghanistan' Documentary showed that they were getting support from Dutch aircraft as well.

Furthermore the same Documentary seemed to indicate that the soldiers were getting a lot of CAS from F-16's which is a fighter if I am not mistaken.

So I would say it has more to do with the fact that the USAF have a hell of a lot more planes.