During the next division sized Taliban offensive, the Afghans will need C130s to transport additional ANSF to the fight from elsewhere in the country.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
I'm not sure where you're finding the requirement for heavy turboprop transports - the majority of insertions are done by heavy helos - cheaper to buy, arm and run
thats why there's a contract to refurb as many as they can
fixed wing transport is less of a priority than medium and heavy helos due to the terrain and facility issues
thats why there's a contract to refurb as many as they can
fixed wing transport is less of a priority than medium and heavy helos due to the terrain and facility issues
Hypothetical example: The Taliban (Al Qaeda + TTP + TNSM + LeT + JeM + LeJ/Sipah e Sahaba + IJU/IMU + Sirajuddin Haqqani (Miramshah Shura) + HiG + Peshawar Shura etc.) launch a 30,000 man offensive into Nuristan and manage to cut off 4 Afghan National Security Force brigades from all ground resupply. How would the Afghans be able to fly in for example a Corps of ANA + logistical support + hundreds of arty + hundreds of IFVs into Nuristan without C130s?
The reason for the ISF collapse in Northern Iraq, and the current defeat of many quality elite Peshmerga KRG forces is the shortage of sufficient fixed wing transportation aircraft. If the Iraqis had enough transportation aircraft, fuel, spares and ammunition; they would have been able to fly more than 50,000 troops into Ninevah province within days of the ISIS blitzkrieg offensive in addition to logistical support. Had that happened, the situation today would be massively better.
The combined strength of the Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban is over 100 K troops. Many Pakistanis estimate over 200 K. These forces could attempt a blitz into specific parts of Afghanistan similar to the ISIS blitz currently underway against Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Kurdistan.
This said, the Afghans could use a smaller transportation aircraft in addition to the C130 that they could use for smaller transportation loads. Do you think India (and to a lesser degree Russia) should buy the ANAF An-32s?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Your hypothetical example would seem to require a significant number of C-130s and IFVs would require C-130s and as you said, the ANAF does not have to resources to operate and maintain them let alone the funds to purchase them. Even if they did, how secure will the landing fields be in the area where this scenario will be occurring? As GF suggested, medium lift helicopters would make more sense given the terrain and would be cheaper than C-130 tactical lift. No airfields are required. As for the An-32s, probably a decent and affordable choice for the ANAF but given the situation in the Ukraine, could the Ukraine actually build and deliver them right now? Also, I can't see Russia being willing to pay for Ukrainian An-32s, India maybe.
Last edited:
If they can't keep the Hercs they've got flying and don't seem to find much use for them once they're in the air, then there really isn't much point in donating a few more examples to not be properly used, all at a cost to the US.
Get what they've got working first. Keep those maintained and demonstrate the requirement, if those two were satisfied then I could get behind it. Otherwise it's just a very expensive airfield decoration.
Get what they've got working first. Keep those maintained and demonstrate the requirement, if those two were satisfied then I could get behind it. Otherwise it's just a very expensive airfield decoration.
Not even the US lifts, let alone sustains, a Corps by air...
Much larger, richer and better equipped countries would be hard pressed to move a brigade with all it's bells and whistles by air.
The fight against the Taliban is won or lost on the ground supported by rotary air.
Not that some more theater transports wouldn't but it's not like it's as much a must have as other more important things. Some magical numbers of C-130s won't help ANA much.
Much larger, richer and better equipped countries would be hard pressed to move a brigade with all it's bells and whistles by air.
The fight against the Taliban is won or lost on the ground supported by rotary air.
Not that some more theater transports wouldn't but it's not like it's as much a must have as other more important things. Some magical numbers of C-130s won't help ANA much.
Plus moving said men, material, guns, ammunition etc from air bases to the appropriate areas requires significant amounts of rotary lift and ground transport in any case.
Seems like a waste of money better spent on trying to get Afghan ground forces some parity against the Insurgents. Judging how the Iraqis have faired with armoured vehicles and the whole pot, the Afghan ground forces need some serious investment.
Another cycle of rumours about US air strikes seems to be doing the rounds again.
Seems like a waste of money better spent on trying to get Afghan ground forces some parity against the Insurgents. Judging how the Iraqis have faired with armoured vehicles and the whole pot, the Afghan ground forces need some serious investment.
Another cycle of rumours about US air strikes seems to be doing the rounds again.
the concerned
Active Member
What gets me is that neither country has opted for the surplus US army Chinooks that are being made available.With regards to in country troop/supplies movement wouldn't these be ideal. Also couldn't these be made available quite quickly.
The Taliban realise that they can't go back to the pre-September 11th days. They also fully realise that although a large part of the population may be against the presence of foreign troops and may have some level of sympathy with the Taliban; that this doesn't mean that they will welcome the Talibs
going back to their old ways.
In one of his talks Ahmad Rashid mentioned that the Taliban has re-invented itself and amongst other things have issued orders for units to not attack schools, to go out of their way preventing girls from attending schools, enforcing the beard rule, etc, as this will turn the locals against the Talibs.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess it depends on what price they are being offered at. I recall how difficult it was to get 6 Chinooks in 2006 from the USAF. Afterwards Canada ordered 15 F models in 2011 and the surviving D models (4) are in storage in Arizona awaiting
a sale.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess we will find out how much they have changed soon enough. I suspect what they say now will be different when they gain power.
It's because they can't fix and fly them. 6 Chinooks may not sound like much but it would take years to train the crews and maintainers, unless they contract the fixing/flying but at that point it would be cheaper and more effective for the US to just provide a lift company.
Just wondering about some of the operational aspects of striking that deep into Iraq (US steps up air strikes in Iraq BBC News - Iraq conflict: US steps up air strikes on IS militants) by USN jets - I will assume that they are SHornets.
Assuming that the jets are operating from a carrier in the Gulf, does that mean that a mid-air refuelling over Iraq is necessary? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the SHornet and its performance, especially when flying armed.
Assuming that the jets are operating from a carrier in the Gulf, does that mean that a mid-air refuelling over Iraq is necessary? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the SHornet and its performance, especially when flying armed.
There are 12 F/A-18E's of VFA-31 (Tomcatters), 12 F/A-18F's of VFA-213 (Black Lions) ten F/A-18C's of VFA-15 (Valions) ten F/A-18C's of VFA-87 (Golden Warriors), five EA-6B Prowlers of VAQ-134 (Garadus), and four E-2C Hawkeyes of VAW-124 (Bear Aces), and four MH-60R's of HSM-70 ( Spartans). These are all being staged off the Nimitz class carrier the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77). She is with the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD-5), the amphibious dock landing ship USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44), the San Antonio class amphibious transport dock USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19), the Aegis Cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG-58), and three Burke-class guided missile Aegis destroyers, the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), the USS Roosevelt (DDG-80), and the USS O'Kane (DDG-77).
The surface combatants carry tomahawk cruise missiles, but given the missiles hefty price tag and difficulty using it against lightly defended mobile targets, I doubt we will see their use.
Apparently the USS Makin Island (LHD-8) is on route to join the George Bush's group to relieve the USS Bataan. This would add to available Marine forces if the Bataan's deployment gets extended.
The amphibious ships I mentioned carry elements of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit or MEU. The MEU consist of about 2,500 Marines equipped with MV-22's, a battalion landing team, and a combat logistics squadron, as well as standard Marine attack and transport helicopters.
The USS Carl Vinson's group is available for surge but it's being kept in San Diego and is still planned for only routine deployment. The US Navy, for hopefully obvious reasons, does not comment on the deployment locations of its submarine forces but you can be sure there is at least one SSN with the Bush's vicinity in the Persian Gulf.
Chances are they are staging other hornets off the Bush loaded with external fuel to serve as tankers, if needed. Its hard to say where and if they are doing tanker ops, but the Hornet does have a lower than average internal fuel capacity so typically they fly with external fuel tanks. This however increases drag on the aircraft, and takes up space that could be used for JDAM's or small diameter bombs.
The USAF is staging out of Al Udeid Air base in Qatar, although I only see references to AMC flights of C-17's and C-130's, nothing about tanker assets or ISR assets although an undisclosed location is apparently also in use, probably where the Air Force is basing MQ-9 Reapers and other ISR assets out of.
The US Army also has AH-64 Apache attack helicopters in country, but it seems like they are being kept as a QRF reserve force for the US Embassy in Baghdad.
Some are talking about possible mission creep, and how even a limited campaign could involve the use of about 15,000 personnel.
Hi Rimasta, thanks very much! So in essence, a Hornet, super or not, is rather likely to have needed at least an IFR to get to Irbil, assuming 2 external fuel tanks, 2 500lbs munitions plus AIM-9s or AIM-7s (or both, one on each wingtip? Recall seeing that somewhere before), set up CAP, persecute targets being fed to them and then hand off to the pair or flight of S/Hornets and then leave. Is that what's going on, or have I understood it wrongly?
Also, given that this is a strike mission, is it fair to say that it is most like F/A-18Fs that were involved rather than the single seaters?
What I'm really wondering about is support needed to set this up - I might be remembering this wrong, but have USN strike aircraft in general ever flown that far inland to conduct strike missions before?
So far media reports Navy strikefighters and drones carrying out preliminary strikes vs.ISIL. It would seem to be an ideal scenario to deploy the latest version of the Gorgon Stare system to provide persistent surveillance over city-sized tracts of land and identify targets for the shooters.
At the height of the Iraq war, the AF had a B-1 on 7X24 overwatch, capitalizing on its speed, endurance, Sniper targeting pod and massive ordnance load of PGMs (e.g. up to 74 X 500lb JDAMs) to provide a persistent firepower capability. A single B-1 orbiting over Irbil would be an awesome asset.
At the height of the Iraq war, the AF had a B-1 on 7X24 overwatch, capitalizing on its speed, endurance, Sniper targeting pod and massive ordnance load of PGMs (e.g. up to 74 X 500lb JDAMs) to provide a persistent firepower capability. A single B-1 orbiting over Irbil would be an awesome asset.
I don't see the Hornets carrying more than two AIM-9X sidewinders for self defense nor the need for a local combat air patrol, mainly because we have air supremacy and ISIS has nothing other than possible MANPADS to oppose us with. So using sorties for a CAP at least over Iraq would be extremely redundant. Over the carrier battle group yes, you don't want to leave a Nimitz class in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf without a CAP, just in case.
As far as I can tell, the US Navy hasn't launched much in the way of airstrikes in Northern Iraq before, either during Operation Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom. Its Carriers were deployed either in the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea. Now, during the post-war reconstruction phases, US carriers were in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean providing air support for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so perhaps in those cases they did make flights up north, but again details are sketchy. Can anyone help clarify this?
I checked to see if the Navy was involved in the Northern watch no fly-zones but again it's not easy to come by. Usually however the Navy did not mainly due to the distance, and the Air Force and coalition aircraft were already operating up north.
The Navy has admitted relying on strike aircraft like the hornets to gather ISR from their detailed targeting pods so yes I'd consider it very, very likely we are using the E/F models. You'd want that kind of precision, especially when trying to avoid civilians casualties while simultaneously trying to protect civilians from ISIS/ISIL/IS.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Today's Pentagon press briefings have announced that a total of 14-15 (depending of whose reporting you read) US airstrikes have taken place.
The strikes and 24hr air coverage has so far been provided by F-15Es, F-16s, F/A-18s and MQ-1s.
They have not released info on where the USAF a/c are being staged from due to "host nation sensitivity and operational security."
A few days ago it was reported that CENTCOM had approximately 80-90 USAF strike a/c in the region, plus tanker assets. Of course, these assets are also supporting operations in Afghanistan.
US and british forces have air-dropped more than 300 bundles of humanitarian aid to the Yazidi refugees.
Additionally, military arms are now being transferred to the Kurds by a US agency that "is not the Department of Defense".
The strikes and 24hr air coverage has so far been provided by F-15Es, F-16s, F/A-18s and MQ-1s.
They have not released info on where the USAF a/c are being staged from due to "host nation sensitivity and operational security."
A few days ago it was reported that CENTCOM had approximately 80-90 USAF strike a/c in the region, plus tanker assets. Of course, these assets are also supporting operations in Afghanistan.
US and british forces have air-dropped more than 300 bundles of humanitarian aid to the Yazidi refugees.
Additionally, military arms are now being transferred to the Kurds by a US agency that "is not the Department of Defense".
I know this wasn't the point of your post but thought I'd respond anyway in case you're curious - none of the F/A-18 variants (including the Super) can carry the AIM-7 or AIM-120 on their wingtip pylons, it's AIM-9 only. And I don't think there's still any variants of AIM-7 in use today. All Hornets however do have two fuselage hardpoints, one on either side of each air intake, which could be used to carry AIM-7 or AIM-120, as you can see in this photo:
If you've seen BVR missiles carried on wingtip pylons before, chances are you were looking at an F-16C rather than a Hornet variant. I've never understood why the wingtip pylon isn't used for BVR weapons but I assume it's due to some kind of difference in aerodynamic effects, like the alignment of the pylon relative to the length of the missile or something like that - but that is very much a guess on my part.