Use of Air Power in Afghanistan

[Big-E]

It'd also be hard to identify your target precisely though at that altitude I'd imagine.

I'd imagine one group of people looks much like another, even if you can tell that closely. Hard to successfully conduct "hearts and minds" if you drop on friendly's from that sort of altitude I'd reckon too...

Our pod cameras are more than adequate to see targets beneath us. It actually gives you an advantage at higher altitudes if your going to glide-drop the bomb as your camera has a better vantage point (as opposed to 10k).

Most of the time land forces are calling the shots so our id of the target has already been done for us. On the rare occasion a predator or observation isn't available we will take our high res camera and start making sure we know what we're hitting (as best we can).

In the case of CAS that I have flown all targets were IDed on arrival and we just went through the shoot list. Sometimes we had to update as new targets came and went but it wasn't a big deal.

 

[FutureTank]

In a briefing to the press in Washington on 13 December, Cordesman, declared: "To put it bluntly, we cannot afford to lose two wars." He was referring to the disaster the United States is already facing in Iraq. "I think that is the path that we are headed on without urgent action," he added.
http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php...=article&sid=6237&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Anthony Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS. He is also a national security analyst for ABC News. Professor Cordesman has formerly served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and as civilian assistant to the deputy secretary of defense.

 

[FutureTank]

Before you posted so impulsively you may have considered the other link I sent.

Also you may have considered why I selected that one small paragraph and not posted the whole article.

As for who considers whom a murderer...that is entirely in the perspective of the murdered

 

[andrei]

For those interested about meddling in muslim countries, I suggest watching a russian film (2005) called the 9th company. It is the story of a russian airborne company in Afghanistan. They too were sent there to liberate Afghanistan from terrorist and support the legitimate government. They too had to rely on afghan troops, the official army that was unreliable, always late, and trading with the ennemy. They too got shot by 14 years old boys. They soviet army did not have the equipment that the us is using today, UAV vehicles for reconnaissance, or other sophisticasted sensor. the soldiers did not have the body armor used today by the gis. but they had massive air support, massive artillery support, they were operating in far larger numbers, they had a strong training and morale. And body armor isnt much helpful when you get shot with an RPG. Sensors are not very usefull in caves. Villages were never pacified And the soviet commandos were told : nobody, ever has managed to occupy Afghanistan for a long period. And they lost. As will NATO. It is a question of time, patience and superior committment. Unless NATO is willing to fight a 100 years war with 200,000 troops committed there, they will loose. And withdraw.

 

[spectre]

Really the only problem I have with it is it vulnerabilty to shoulder fired weapons. Flying at 30k+ ensures your safety, A-10s stall out by that time.

You are not safe at 30,000 feet

 

[Waylander]

You are against MANPADS, AAA and small calibre.

 

[spectre]

You are against MANPADS, AAA and small calibre.

now pick your manpad an then subtract the height of the mountians they are sitting on you now became a target.

 

[Waylander]

I think you know what he ment.

 

[spectre]

I think you know what he ment.

What I am saying is that we were in the threat level because of the Mountains. That country has over 49% of its land above 6900 feet. Much of it is well above that. Most of the peaks on the eastern part are 12-24,000 feet. While we were flying, we were never "safe" from MANPADS

 

[Grand Danois]

What I am saying is that we were in the threat level because of the Mountains. That country has over 49% of its land above 6900 feet. Much of it is well above that. Most of the peaks on the eastern part are 12-24,000 feet. While we were flying, we were never "safe" from MANPADS

In real world terms, this means that no MANPAD missile will ever be launched against an aircraft at 30,000 feet.

Only the peaks in the NE are high enough. They are far away from where the real fighting is going on. Also, you are suggesting that Taliban would climb to 21,000 feet (!) to lay an ambush (extended surveillance at 21,000 feet!), with little chance of ever seeing an aircraft, not to mention succesfully shoot one down?

 

[spectre]

In real world terms, this means that no MANPAD missile will ever be launched against an aircraft at 30,000 feet.

Only the peaks in the NE are high enough. They are far away from where the real fighting is going on. Also, you are suggesting that Taliban would climb to 21,000 feet (!) to lay an ambush (extended surveillance at 21,000 feet!), with little chance of ever seeing an aircraft, not to mention succesfully shoot one down?

They sure did a hell of a job with the russians shooting from the peaks leading into Bagram.

They only need to be 13000 feet up..
SA-18s can fly higher then 17000 feet (they are lowballed at 3500m)
there is your 30,000 right there...

We were targeted at 23000 and the missile must have been defective because it missed lock and went over us at more then 3000 and was still going up.

This was a conversation about Afghanistan and my oint was, that most of afghanistan is at high altitudes...so just flying at 30,000 would not make you Default Safe.



you are right...they would not shoot from sea level to 30,000

 

[Waylander]

May I ask who "we" is?

 

[spectre]

May I ask who "we" is?

"We" would be my crew and myself.
Myself was the same on my 4 deployments and my crew was differient each time.


Who might you be?

 

[Waylander]

This question was not intended to sound disrespectfull.
Just wanted to hear if you are somebody who could give first hand infos which I think is always welcomed here.


My person is an ex Leopard II tanker so aviation is nothing I am very deep into outside some basic knowledge and most of the time I just stand by and look when aviation threads are discussed.

 

[spectre]

This question was not intended to sound disrespectfull.
Just wanted to hear if you are somebody who could give first hand infos which I think is always welcomed here.


My person is an ex Leopard II tanker so aviation is nothing I am very deep into outside some basic knowledge and most of the time I just stand by and look when aviation threads are discussed.

I my friend am an ex C-130H1(1999-2006)/AC-130H (1995-1999)Flight Engineer

No disrespect taken. There are a lot of people that come onto these things and spout off info they made up or heard somewhere....

I was just saying that just because you are at 30,000 does not mean that you are safe....unless you are at 30,000 AGL... but keeping to 30,000 AGL would be a bumpy ride over Afghanistan.

 

[Grand Danois]

They sure did a hell of a job with the russians shooting from the peaks leading into Bagram.

Yes the mujahedeen did. But aircraft on the approach or taking off from an airfield is a different target than a loitering Hornet.

They only need to be 13000 feet up..
SA-18s can fly higher then 17000 feet (they are lowballed at 3500m)
there is your 30,000 right there...

That 17,000 ft of altitude is of course at the expense of range, making the envelope smaller. Depends on what it is being aimed at. But that 17,000 ft number surprises me.

We were targeted at 23000 and the missile must have been defective because it missed lock and went over us at more then 3000 and was still going up.

This could indicate a ballistic trajectory wich gives max range or altitude, but not a very good probability to kill. The missile didn't use any energy for manoeuvre as it did not have lock (?).

This was a conversation about Afghanistan and my oint was, that most of afghanistan is at high altitudes...so just flying at 30,000 would not make you Default Safe.

you are right...they would not shoot from sea level to 30,000

Anyway, with a max altitude of 17,000 ft everywhere where the elevation is below 4,000 meters on this map would be safe at 30,000 ft.

 

[Tasman]

I my friend am an ex C-130H1(1999-2006)/AC-130H (1995-1999)Flight Engineer

That is useful knowledge as it encourages people like me, who have never been anywhere on active service, to take notice of examples you give. It gives real credibility to what you say. In the same way I take a lot of notice of what Waylander has to say about armoured warfare matters. I am now particularly interested in any comments you may make about the use of the AC130H in Afghanistan.

Cheers

 

[spectre]

Yes the mujahedeen did. But aircraft on the approach or taking off from an airfield is a different target than a loitering Hornet..

We did not have too many F/A-18s or F-16 loitering above us. Most of the time they would drop dumb bombs...low tech, low altitude. I am not saying they never used high altitude precision weapons. It just was not the norm.

Some of our missile indications came when we were at 21,000 feet. But we were really only about 6,000 off the ground...flying over villages. You are more then correct though. If you are an airliner at altitude...you are more then likely out of the threat range.

That 17,000 ft of altitude is of course at the expense of range, making the envelope smaller. Depends on what it is being aimed at. But that 17,000 ft number surprises me..

17,000 should not knock you off your rocker too far... they are capable weapons, in capable hands and they are getting better by the day (both the weapons and the shooters)

This could indicate a ballistic trajectory which gives max range or altitude, but not a very good probability to kill. The missile didn't use any energy for manoeuvre as it did not have lock (?).

We also might have defeated the threat

Anyway, with a max altitude of 17,000 ft everywhere where the elevation is below 4,000 meters on this map would be safe at 30,000 ft.

Thats a lot of flying around that white area above 4000m..you have to fly over that and so much of it is inhabited.



I am not saying you are wrong...about everything you said was right. The problem is, its not a perfect world and warplanes do fly into the middle of the threat environment.

 

[spectre]

That is useful knowledge as it encourages people like me, who have never been anywhere on active service, to take notice of examples you give. It gives real credibility to what you say. In the same way I take a lot of notice of what Waylander has to say about armoured warfare matters. I am now particularly interested in any comments you may make about the use of the AC130H in Afghanistan.

Cheers

All I will say is that they were indeed used in Afghanistan and they flew out of K2.
I was not flying them at that time and had already made my switch to the slicks.

I am not too comfortable giving too much info on the AC-130s. I hope you understand.

 

[Grand Danois]

We did not have too many F/A-18s or F-16 loitering above us. Most of the time they would drop dumb bombs...low tech, low altitude. I am not saying they never used high altitude precision weapons. It just was not the norm.

Hu-hum?

Thats a lot of flying around that white area above 4000m..you have to fly over that and so much of it is inhabited.

It's the other way around you are above the MANPADS envelope at 30,000 ft over the green areas up to 4 km. That's were most of the action is.

I am not saying you are wrong...about everything you said was right. The problem is, its not a perfect world and warplanes do fly into the middle of the threat environment.

Of course . This is a generalisation on what the trashfire envelope is constitutes.

Cheers