CF-18's were to have been sent to Afghanistan but....

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
Nark
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2967
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: LA

Re: CF-18's were to have been sent to Afghanistan but....

Post by Nark »

Air support is part of any well planned mission.

Say that convoy does roll over an IED. Do you think we just drive the victims back to the nearest aid station? Or do you think we try to organize a medevac?

Where do you think that extra fire power comes from when the ground forces run into resistance?

Air power is very alive and well in this (these) war.

Guido, we as Marines, have been walking the streets since day one, getting "facetime". Perhaps your confusing what your seeing on CNN.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
User avatar
Guido
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Over there.

Re: CF-18's were to have been sent to Afghanistan but....

Post by Guido »

Nark wrote:Guido, we as Marines, have been walking the streets since day one, getting "facetime". Perhaps your confusing what your seeing on CNN.
Like I watch CNN... :lol: I was going to cite the article, but I didn't have time to hunt it down. It was from Wired Magazine (online) interviewing a general... Petraeus, maybe? Perhaps it only applied to the army, but it was talking about some of the changes in tactics they were making just before the "surge" was implemented. It was quite an interesting read... gave me a lot of hope for the mess over where you are. I'll see if I can't find it, I'm sure it would interest you.

edit

Here it is : http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... rentPage=1

/edit
---------- ADS -----------
 
EI-EIO
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 604
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:16 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Contact:

Re: CF-18's were to have been sent to Afghanistan but....

Post by EI-EIO »

As far as additional chopper support goes the emphasis has been on the Griffons when the armoured side showed how it can be done - get a nation with suitable spare equipment who's not really using it and lease/loan/buy it.

The British are solving part of their support helicopter gap by finally admitting their grounded Chinook HC3s are a bust and downgrading them to HC2s so they can actually be used, and by acquiring Merlin HC3As from Denmark (who didn't need them at the time).

As for not taking the -18s to Afstan, the US was pretty glad to have -18s in Alaska for a while when the F-15 fleet was grounded.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
GilletteNorth
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: throw a dart dead center of Saskatchewan

Re: CF-18's were to have been sent to Afghanistan but....

Post by GilletteNorth »

At an informal meeting of NATO defence ministers last fall in Noordwick, Holland, the shortage of helicopters was among the biggest issues. With members either unable or reluctant to deploy their aircraft, the alliance approved a scheme to rent civilian choppers for hauling cargo in Afghanistan.
I find this an interesting quirk of modern warfare. Can't afford proper military equipment (guess budgeting for $200,000 toilets is too much) and a government actually putting a 5-10 million? dollar helicopter in harms way is flaunting the odds, so get civvies to fight the wars instead. Guess capitalism wins the day for the free market to do the job the military should be doing LOL.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”