Hot Mic

Omakase

Amazon Search
«  
  »

Little not enough air?

By lex, on September 24th, 2006

At least one British Army officer in Afghanistan appears to think so.

The R.A.F. have been utterly, utterly useless,

Share
September 24th, 2006 | Category: GWOT, Military

13 comments to Little not enough air?

  • Jim Howard
    September 24, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    I wonder if the RAF is still hung up on ultra-low level flying? They certainly were when I worked closely with them in the 88-91 timeframe.

    The USAF was moving pretty quickly to medium altitude tactics by the time I retired in 1994, maybe that’s why we might occasionally do a better job than our RAF friends.

  • guy
    September 24, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    “according to British news reports. RPG stands for rocket-propelled grenade.”

    Heh, I missed that period after ‘reports’ the first time I read that.

  • Skippy-san
    September 25, 2006 at 3:06 am

    Better question. Does the RAF have the same weapons as we do? Of course then again, I quite doubt that a Harrier bomb load stacks up against an A-10, or an F-15E, or a B-52………….

    As for the gender of the pilot? Its like a grenade waiting to be fallen on. I’ll take the high road thank youo very much.

    Bottom Line: You get what you pay for old chap. Bring back your F-4′s and then lets compare notes………………..or some Buccaneers.

  • badbob
    September 25, 2006 at 4:28 am

    re “same weps”

    Don’t think so re J-weps. Depends which version of Harrier. GR-9 maybe with it’s 1760. LGBs- yes:

    http://www.harrier.org.uk/technical/Harrier_GR9.htm

    B2

  • Snake Eater
    September 25, 2006 at 8:15 am

    Tech talk aside, that Harrier pilot, female or not, is a Dogs nightmare… Maj Loden is a very brave or very frustrated officer to have gone public with his comments. Could be the Brits are not as PC as our public relations ticket punchers. Best

    PS, I’m taking odds on Major Loden getting a friendly reception on his next visit to an RAF O’ Club.

  • Ima Fake
    September 25, 2006 at 8:53 am

    “A Dogs nightmare?”

  • Bomber Guy
    September 25, 2006 at 8:59 am

    I’m sure Lex will agree that CAS can be a dicey business, made even more so when all the terrain looks like the back side of the moon. Blue on blue engagements are nothing new, and any smugness we may feel would surely be erarased during a shared pint with any member of the Canadian forces who have been bombed/strafed by US aircraft several times during this conflict resulting in KIA’s.

    My point is that information of the type voiced by Maj Loden will be misused by the media as sensational headline material – nothing more. I would think that there are avenues within the uniformed services better suited to address this problem absent the headlines.

    BTW, in my opinion, the good Major in identifying the pilot as female suggests an agenda of his own. Mark 82′s don’t have genitalia, they just kill you, regardless of who drops them.

    As for female aircrew, ask the “snake-eaters” what they think of the “all-girl” F-14 crew who, in the not so distant past, strafed an enemy convoy sending a mess kit full of potential RPG/IED shooters to their final “rewards.”

  • SGT Jeff (USAR)
    September 25, 2006 at 9:01 am

    “A Dogs Something” seems to be a very British slang for “bad.”

    I’ve heard “A dogs breakfast” used to describe a situation that fits the definition of “adventure” – someone far away having a very bad time.

  • Zane
    September 25, 2006 at 9:44 am

    I would think the number of Canadians and US Marines killed by the USAF and its auxiliaries in recent years would have the major thinking carefully, because sometimes you get what you wish for. I know a “snake eater,” AF type, who rages at his service brethren because they’ve killed far more of his men just flying into obstacles like mountains, clearly marked on charts, than the enemy ever has. But when they weigh out murderous f***-ups in combat versus what air support gives them, the balance is still overwhelmingly in favor of having the air support and taking the risk of blue-on-blue, because in most cases when the aviators are called in, the snake eaters are facing a serious problem, pretty much a certain casualties versus possible casualties calculus. For all the major is justified in his complaint, he didn’t ask to cancel the air support.

  • Snake Eater
    September 25, 2006 at 10:11 am

    Bomber Guy, CAS is always a very “dicey business” and can take on nightmarish qualities especally when your the dog soldier/jarhead on the benefitting and or receiveing end. Best

    PS,”All girl” F-14/Harrier crews…no problem here, just don’t shoot me up on a CAS mission.

  • Ima Fake
    September 25, 2006 at 10:30 am

    A “dog’s breakfast” would be a buch of slop in a bowl. If a “dog’s nighmare” is when the legs are twiching, it does not seem too bad. Do dogs dream in color?

  • Snake Eater
    September 25, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    Zane, You are right…”…in most cases when the aviators are called in, the snake eaters are facing a serious problem…”…. mission compromised time to fight it out or run(esacpe and evade,as the manuals say). The presence of any friendly air asset, be it chopper or fast mover, is most welcome especially the slick(transport) choppers that will hopefully haul your woe-be-gone ass out of indian country. Best

  • badbob
    September 25, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    Agree w/Zane. Hard for me to tell what kind of CAS is being supported here. Close ground combat means different things. “Perimeter and compound” doesn’t sound like SOF were involved to me…

    CAS in a response role is different. Snakeaters shouldn’t need CAS except as cover for an exfil or a mission gone sour. In that case I would imagine you’d take what you get. So it all comes down to how good you can control the aircraft or describe the enemy disposition.

    Thats where knowing the capability of the CAS platform and what type weps deliver he/she has is paramount…A UK Harrier with iron bombs and Aden is all visual. Just like WWII…

    B2
eXTReMe Tracker

View My Stats