It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

E-mails damn RAF

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
E-mails written by a British Army Major serving in Afghanistan have condemned the RAF as "utterly, utterly useless". The message sent to Sky News and published by several newspapers on September 22 were sent by Major James Loden 33 Commander of A Company of the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, whose base at Sangin had been attacked 30 times in 34 days.

He said: "Twice I have had Harriers in support when combatants on the ground have been in heavy contact, on one occasion trying to break clean.
A female 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 and then strafed our perimeter missing the enemy by 700 feet. In contrast to the RAF, the USAF has been fantastic and I would take an A-10 over a Harrier any day."

Defence Secretary Des Browne has pointed out that British soldiers in the province were sometimes working to the limits of endurance.

I agree with the Defence Secretary and the Major will be investigated by officals to see if the E-mails breaches the Army's code of behaviour




posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
looking at the tone of the e-mail, "The FEMALE Harrier Pilot", it seems unneccessary that that fact should be included, to be honest and seems a bit sexist.

And taking one incident and blanket sweeping the whole RAF is a bit unprofessional if you ask me.

If the RAF was performing that badly, I would imagine alot more noise would be made.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I wonder who was flying the USAF A-10s? It has been my understanding that the RAF Harriers were not ment for close air support. I might be wrong.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I wonder who was flying the USAF A-10s? It has been my understanding that the RAF Harriers were not ment for close air support. I might be wrong.


RAF Harriers are meant for CAS, but on the whole, they perform well.

I think the Major was venting his frustration over one incident and, unfortunately, highlighted the fact the Pilot was female making him look like he was slandering women pilots.

As I said, this is only one incident. I am sure (and know) USAF pilots miss all the time, sometimes hitting their friends!



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I wonder who was flying the USAF A-10s? It has been my understanding that the RAF Harriers were not ment for close air support. I might be wrong.


apart from the fact that they were primerly designed for CAS for the RN
also because of the threat of run ways being blasted and so forth.

curious do you have a link to the story?

on a side note anyone watch the interview from british forces about american cowboys and how they are utter useless when it comes to CAS (friendly fire)



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I am sure (and know) USAF pilots miss all the time, sometimes hitting their friends!


"All the time"? I know what you meant, every one misses but I'd like to think we're a bit better than that!.



Originally posted by bodrul
on a side note anyone watch the interview from british forces about american cowboys and how they are utter useless when it comes to CAS (friendly fire)


Please, US involvement in FF incidents gets so much hype it's not even funny. On the whole consider the numerous successful ops we do with national and foreign forces all over the world that don't get mentioned.


Also, why should this Major be investigated? For hurting RAF pride?



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
One interesting little thing - 30 attacks in 34 days.

CAS has come from RAF harriers twice - not even 10% of the time they are under attack.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
this was in the news last easter wasn't it?



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I wonder who was flying the USAF A-10s? It has been my understanding that the RAF Harriers were not ment for close air support. I might be wrong.


apart from the fact that they were primerly designed for CAS for the RN
also because of the threat of run ways being blasted and so forth.

curious do you have a link to the story?

on a side note anyone watch the interview from british forces about american cowboys and how they are utter useless when it comes to CAS (friendly fire)



i thought the RN harriers were air defence fighters with limited air to ground attack it was the RAF harriers built for ground attack cas



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
You thought right my friend, indeed they were.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
tsk tsk..
Jaguar better anyday in my book


But the STOVL capabilities of the RAF Harrier would help in fwd deployment I suppose..

How do the weapon suites compare to that of the Jaguar?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
jaguars are good, but if your looking for an all round capable fighter, then IMO, i think the tornado is your best bet, but thats just my opinon. i like them both. if your looking for a decent all weather bomber, then yeah, the jaguar is better.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The Jaguar carried a 10,000lb payload at a max 1,056mph compared with the early Harriers 5,000lb weapon load at 740mph, 3,000lb for VTO. Current Harriers can carry a 9,000lb weapon load at a max speed of about 650mph or 5,000lb for VTO.

The reason modern Harriers are slower is because, although more powerful, they are more draggy with the large canopy, more bulged air intake and of course larger wing, which is optimised for subsonic manouverability over speed.

The RAF always considered the Jaguar underpowered (never something Harrier could be accused of), which was addressed with upgraded engines but never really cured, a proposal to refit the Jaguar with RB.199's and a new wing to give it 'F-16 capability' (a quote, not simply my opinion) was shelved in 1980.

Ironically, given its origin as a French design, RAF Jaguars were always superior to their French counterparts which never recieved upgraded engines and had more austere avionics from the start, this was mainly due to Dassault Breguet seeking to maximise the export potential of the Mirage F.1 over the Jaguar (full share over half share - easy to understand) and it why all export versions of the Jaguar were based on the UK model (and offered by BAe).



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
....this was mainly due to Dassault Breguet seeking to maximise the export potential of the Mirage F.1 over the Jaguar (full share over half share - easy to understand) and it why all export versions of the Jaguar were based on the UK model (and offered by BAe).


Yep.. and man did they aggressively market the Mirage F1!!

But I still wonder why the InAF chose the Jaguar over more Mirage 2000s..
IMHO the Mirage 2000 was a no brainer choice here for many reasons except price maybe...




top topics



 
0

log in

join