British Forces Deployment - Iraq

[Mark W. Tonner]

For anyone interested, here is a link to the MOD which gives the Order of Battle, so to say, for the British Forces deployed for operations against Iraq (Operation Telic):

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/forces.htm

Cheers

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

An outstanding resource which only serves to make Canadians burn with embarassment at the state of our armed forces...

Did you back up to their index page and find their hi-res maps of Iraq and the region?

[Mark W. Tonner]

Geoff;

Link to Hi-Res map of Iraq:

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/i...ps/iraq_hr.jpg

Excellent Map - good to follow the troop movements by.

I'll see if I can find a link to the U.S. Forces deployed.

Cheers

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

And here's the link to a hi-res map of the whole of the Middle East, just to put the geography of the region in perspective:

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/i...le_east_hr.jpg

Please note, those of you on dial-up -- both these maps are about 1.4 mb downloads, so beware. There are lo-res maps available on the site as well.

[Mark W. Tonner]

Heres the Link to the U.S. Department of Defence Website:
http://www.defenselink.mil/

Cheers

[Mark W. Tonner]

Here is a Link to the Australian Defence Force which gives the Order of Battle, so to say, for the Australian Forces deployed for operations against Iraq (Operation Falconer):

http://www.defence.gov.au/opfalconer/

Cheers

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Regrettably the first British casulaty of enemy action has been announced. The US has apologised for shooting down a Tornado and killing the two crew with a Patriot missile. On our local radio it was mentioned that Canadians were killed in Afghanistan by a US pilot and that that "Friendly Fire" incident has not been accepted as a consequence of war, compared with the UK where we have a different attitude it seems.

[R Mark Davies]

Hi David,

Good point, mate.

Unfortunately, 'Friendly Fire' is a sad fact of war from time immemorial. It only makes the news these days, because casualties caused by enemy action are generally relatively light (there had not been any prior to this incident, so it was BIG news) and in wars such as this (and the last Gulf War), it is generally only our own weapons systems that are capable of doing this kind of damage.

However, the subject of 'Friendly Fire' is perpetually brought up by the anti-US brigade as an example of our ally's disregard for human life and rules of engagement (the case of the two Warriors hit by the A-10 in the last war and the Black Hawk brought down by the F15 in Kurdistan being the best known, as well as the Canadian troops in Afghanistan).

Whereas, if the truth were realised; if we in the UK (and Canada) actually had Close Air Support aircraft and air defence systems worth a damn, then we wouldn't be relying on the US to do our Friendly Fire for us - we would most definitely be doing it ourselves!

Cheers,

Mark

[DaveCox]

David,
Re. Air defence Systems - remember at Farnborough a few years back - the Rapier2 system was the only one that detected the B2 stealth bomber so we do have a good ADS. If we had the Tornado2 air defence variant out there then we'd have a good fighter as well. The Harrier can't be written off yet either.
The main reason that we're served with these needs by the US is probably the same reason we used the Sherman in WW2 - not 'cos it's good but just 'cos there's lots of them.

The RAF have always proved that in combat they can operate within yards of our front-line troops with very few casualties - from Normandy ( Typhoons, Spitfires and even Lancasters) to the Falklands and Gulf1 ( Harriers).

When heckled by a US serviceman after Gulf1 as to the UK role in the desert Jim Davidson (great comedian) replied - We were there to give you w*****s something to aim at!

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Both my parents worked for EMI Defence at times, Dad for very many years. Apart from Searchwater he worked on Cymbelline which was an anti-mortar/artillery tracking and designation system, and the radar in Rapier. However the convoluted and lengthy processes by the MoD to tender and then award contracts used to really take its toll. Then, come the Falkands War, every stupid restriction was dropped instantly...my Dad worked 13 hour plus days and his tem adapted and designed the AEW Searchwater system to the Sea King airframe in absolutely record time. A team then went from Hayes to Yeovil and worked long hours to get the radar onto a movable pod that rotates downwards or upwards for landing. Those guys got special ties as a memento..very proud they are as well. Dad was in Heavy Rescue in the last War, and then 1946-48 in the RAMC mostly in the Mid-East where he saw the casulaties of Arab and Jewish warfare, and of course attacks on our men. Come the Falkands War every man on the team at Hayes felt it was there patriotic duty to work as many hours as possible, and Dad used to come home at 3 in the morning, have a few hours's kip and then go back to work, 7 days a week.

The answer is that there was the finest radar expertise in the world in the UK, and we exported better systems than the MoD contracted for. It takes times of crisis for the fetters on expenditure to come off and get those boffins working.

[R Mark Davies]

Hi Gents,

I agree that the RAF has a long history of Close Air Support - there was no-one in WW2 better at it - but that was largely due to the expertise and integration of the RAF's 'Tentacle' Air Liaison Officers, who were attached to each combat brigade. The combination of that with the outstanding Typhoon aircraft and experienced crews, made a formidable team. The USAF had just a capable aircraft in the Thunderbolt, but didn't have that same expertise on the ground.

The post-war NATO (or more specifically US/UK) Forward Air Control doctrine is derived directly from the RAF experience in WW2 - US FACs do things exactly the same as UK FACs. The RAF's Joint Forward Air Control Training & Standards Unit (JFACTSU) frequently trains USAF exchange personnel and vice versa. So to suggest that their CAS doctrine somehow leads to a higher incidence of Friendly Fire is most definitely false.

I agree that in the Harrier GR Mk7, the RAF (and the USMC, indeed!) has an outstanding CAS aircraft - there just ain't many of 'em (until this war though, the Harrier has had no ATGM - having only just received the Maverick)! However, in the examples used above, no UK or Canadian CAS aircraft were involved in the campaign - the aircraft were all US, because we were unable to provide this support. So, for people to blame the USA for casualties caused by CAS when we were asking the USA to do our job for us is a bit rich!

As to air defence, I agree that the Rapier is an outstanding piece of kit - the Darkfire radar (as well as the Searchwater radar used on the Nimrod & Sea King, as you come to mention it) is second to none. The Rapier is actually fitted with a HEAT warhead and is one of very few missiles designed to actually penetrate an aircraft, instead of peppering it with sharapnel (though it can do that as well).

However, the Rapier is a point-defence weapon (not as short-range as the Starstreak, but still short-range). It is not theatre defence. The RAF has not had a long-range theatre defence SAM since the Bloodhound - and the 'hound was VERY difficult to move! So again, when we go to war, the USA has to provide us with a capability that we simply do not have - if we did have it, I can assure you that we would have just as much likelihood of shooting our own side down as thy do! Indeed, as our Fighter Control and air defence doctrine is identical and we integrate so much, it is entirely likely that RAF Fighter Controllers were involved in the tragic shooting down of that GR4.

Cheers,

Mark

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Mark, don't forget that some bright spark at the MoD [we know whom it was as his name has been stated in the aviation press] decreed that the new Typhoon aka MRCA was to have the cannon deleted from a certain build point onwards because of costs concerns and those equipped or able to be equipped were to have no cannon installed. Now, that smacks of harking back to the late Fifties whereby missiles would replace piloted 'planes. Yes, missiles are all right but what happens when the missiles run out, misfire, won't operate, etc., or the pilot comes up against a helicopter, tank, truck, people, buildings, etc.? You need a cannon, and a rapid fire efficient one at that that won't eject casings straight into the air intake.

I also remember during the Falklands War that the much-vaunted Tigerfish torpedo was not used againt the Belgrano..the sub used good old fashioned WW2 design torps. A neighbour of mine worked on Tigerfish and they were always concerned that they might in practice decide after firing to return back and blow up the launching sub! Also, on ship in Carlos Bay/Water, small arms machine guns were apparently strapped to the ship's railings anfd made to fire verticaly so that when a Mirage or Skyhawk flew over it flew into a hail of small arms fire. Hardly hi-tech but it worked. I HAVE JUST REMEMBERED that a lo-tech anti-tank gun was fired by the Royal Marines at the Argentine Frigate and holed it. The Brits do have a history of using ingenious solutions when faced with no equipment designed for the job. Look at the second Boer War when naval cannon were manhandled across country.

A question I have is where are the Jaguar ground-attack 'planes that were used in the last Gulf War? Are the Aussie Hornets being used in the GA role?

[R Mark Davies]

Hi David,

Well the new Tornado GR4 still does have one cannon - the other has been deleted to make room for electronics kit (as it happens the Tornado GR1a (the recce version) had one removed anyway to make room for sideways-looking imaging radar - an amazing piece of kit that identified more Scuds during the last Gulf War than all the Spec forces and recce sattellites put together - and the Tornado F3 (the air defence version) has always had only the one cannon. You are right though - the bean-counters were going to delete the cannon for cost reasons!

It's still actually up in the air as to whether the new Typhoon FGA1 will have a cannon or not, by the way - bean-counters again! I'm told that the RAF/RN version of the Joint Strike Fighter will also be sans cannon - I don't know whether the USAF/USN version will have one (the F117A doesn't, after all).

Interesting you should mention the Falklands example - it was of course the Nott Review (a notorious outbreak of bean-counting) that restricted the fitments of Sea Wolf, Phalanx and Goalkeeper to RN ships, which would have greatly reduced the chances of successful Exocet attacks, thereby resulting directly in the deaths of dozens of sailors. I doubt Sir John Nott had a single decent night's sleep after the Falklands...

Yes, the RM sank a frigate with a Carl Gustav 84mm shoulder-fired recoilless rifle! They also nailed an Argentin Puma helicopter with one... and an LVTP-7 carrier.

As to the Jaguar GR3s, I couldn't say for certain, but I believe they are stuck in Turkey, where they have been for some years on No-Fly-Zone duties - I assume that they are still prevented from joining the campaign due to Turkish intransigence? I'm afraid I don't know much about the Aussie F18s - I know they're geared up for ground-attack, but I don't think they're on dedicated CAS duties.

Cheers,

Mark

PS Another little rant on bean-counting: the most notorious waste of money in the RAF at the moment is the continued development of the Airbus transport aircraft (A400M is it? I forget). Not only has the MoD committed itself to buying the damn thing, though it only exists on paper and 'Airfix' form, but it fails its primary design requirement, which was to be able to carry the Warrior IFV to areas where it would be needed for peacekeeping, etc in the New World Order. The Airbus carries your standard, factory-fresh Warrior, but the Army has added tons and tons of applique armour since then, which has increased the width, length and weight of the Warrior so much that the Airbus cannot accommodate it without completely redesigning a new aircraft! In the meantime, the RAF already has an aircraft - the Boeing C17 Globemaster - that it loves, is proven, is larger, faster, cheaper and basically better all-round than the Airbus 'paper aeroplane'. Yet, these are only on lease and will be handed back to the USAF once the Airbus arrives. It's all about British jobs and the Holy Grail of 'European Unity' - it has nothing at all to do with enabling the RAF to do its job better.

Right, I'll stop waffling now!

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

I see that the dreaded Patriot system has had a go at another but US 'plane this time!

Actually the latest thinking is that the MoD will actually purchase the Glob 111s that they have on lease and buy a load more outright. If you see the terms of the lease you will see that basically it would be better if they just stayed in their hangars and never get used. The amount of money being spent on lease payments is huge, but there is the option to buy and I think Boing-Boing-Boeing would love to sell them because that might pave the way for the sale of more Glob 111s to other countries, and then the cost price will come down, and then the bean-counters will sanction more for the USAF/USAFR/ANG in turn. The A300M should be sidelined and the US 'plane drafted in instead.

The question of the deletion of the cannon really is a hot and live wire, and as the correspondents to the various magazines have said, what happens when you want to shoot at a helicopter? Perhaps the pilot should take a pistol and shoot at it a la 1914? What about slow-moving fabric covered planes such as the AN-2, which have a low or no radar signature? This is what they came up against in Korea with Po-2s attacking at night.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
I see that the dreaded Patriot system has had a go at another but US 'plane this time!

Methinks they fine-tuned it a little too much after the last little fracas back in '91...

[R Mark Davies]

Well our wait is over - my best friend, a Tornado GR4 navigator in Kuwait has e-mailed, reporting that he's safe and well. However, other RAF families are still waiting for news. My family's thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mark

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Geoff, there are currently three systems it seems with the latest Patriot 3 aimed if you will excuse the pun as an anti-ballistic missile system. On the radio it was explained that the Patriot system scans every few minutes for incoming targets, especially as it was originally an anti-aircraft system. The problem has been that it still needs to be working with IFF codes and systems of several air fleets and it seems that once the system locks on there is no hope for the pilot because the darned missiles are so fast.

I remember that the Sea Wolf system was supposed to be so fast that it could intercept aircraft, missiles and even shells! Of course the MoD subsequently went for the Vulcan Phalanx system, and then Goalkeeper. The same capabilities have been attributed to both Gatling Gun systems. Sea Wolf did I believe knock out a Silkworm anti-ship missile once.

Finally, we have heard a lot about the destruction by Excocet missiles in the Falkands War, but I have been informed that it was the propellant in the missile and not the warhead that did the damage. Aluminium ships burn they found out.

A lady who works in the local supermarket has a son wo is in the RN based on a minesweeper. They had to locate the wrecks of the Sea Kings, which caused considerable distress. Apparently they are now pulled back from the line so to speak for R&R I suppose. The GRP "plastic" ships are made by Vosper Thorneycroft in Southampton, now moving to near Portsmouth.

[Mark W. Tonner]

Two Troopers of the Queen's Royal Lancers killed in friendly fire incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2886715.stm

[R Mark Davies]

Hi David,

The RN does actually use a great many Sea Wolf systems now - since the Falklands and it is an outstanding piece of kit, fitted to all major RN ships in conjunction with Phalanx and Goalkeeper. the old fit was to have it on an eight-shot turret, but they now mount Sea Wolf in vertical launch tubes, which means a much higher volume of fire if necessary.

The really scary one is the Starstreak High-Velocity Missile, which has, as its primary design specification, the ability to nail helicopter gunships on pop-up attacks - I've seen it operate and I believe it! The damn thing is so fast as to be absolutely invisible in flight - I saw them fire out to sea and there was just an enormous bang and instantly we saw the booster splashing into the sea over three miles out! Seriously fast!

Mark

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Yes, the loss of two more servicemen in an Unfriendly Fire Incident has been announced...a tank exchange at night.

Interesting news about Brit missiles...

Cheers!

David

[R Mark Davies]

Hi David,

Yeah, not much of an exchange - a Chally 2 versus a Scimitar poor sods. I understand the other two crew managed to bale out when it brewed up though, thank God. The QDGs lost a few Scimitars during the last war as I remember (I think this one wasn't QDGs, but 12th Royal Lancers, attached to 7th Armoured) - all due to .50 cals (both US and Iraqi).

Unfortunately, the Iraqis did purchase a very small number (about one company) of CVR(T)s during the early 1980s, which made the Americans very nervous in the presence of our recce forces.

Mark

PS Interestingly, this sale of CVR(T) to Iraq constitutes about the sum total of British arms sales to Iraq of things that actually go 'bang' in combat. The anti-war brigade go on and on (and on) about us having 'armed Iraq', and having 'created the problem', but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of so-called 'arms' sales actually constituted obsolete combat clothing, '58-Pattern Webbing, berets (lots!), military badges, compo rations (they're welcome to 'em) and other paraphernalia.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

...as against France!

[R Mark Davies]

Quite! Saddam still owes billions to France for all the Mirage F1s, AMX-10 APCs, naval hardware and nuclear technology they've bought from France over the years - you can see France's point: No Saddam=No pay-cheque!

Just found out that it was two Challengers after all - one was engaged in a stiff close-range firefight with Fedayeen armed with RPGs, when it engaged the other Challenger - one would assume that the visibility was absolutely dreadful and they were probably buttoned up.

Mark

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Cymbelline Mortar Locating Radar..this system has been around for yonks and was an EMI product. Basically the radar tracked mortars and I suppose shells, and then calculated the reverse trajectory and then relayed the co-ordinates to enable fire to be directed straight onto the targets. In the case of Basra it appears that the system tracked mortars being fired by the militia against the uprising. My mother was secretary to AVM Orton who was EMI's sales manager.

Quotation from Shakespeare's play Cymbelline -

"Laud we the gods;
And let not our crooked smoke climb to their nostrils
From our blest altars. Publish we this peace...
Let a Roman and a British ensign wave
Friendly together....
Ere bloody hands were wash'd, with such a peace."

I suppose one has to subsitute "Roman" with "United States", and "Caesar" with "George Walker Bush, Jr".

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball "serves to make Canadians burn with embarassment at the state of our armed forces"

Geoff;

Another little 'tid-bit' of embarassment perhaps, in relation to the state of our armed forces, heard earlier this evening that the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade has made a 'THOUSAND' man drop into northern Iraq.. I think we'd be lucky to muster maybe '500' active troopers overall, after combing through the whole of the land element of the armed forces.

Yes, a pretty sorry state of affairs indeed.

Link to story (CBC): http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/26/warwrap_030326

Cheers