Friendly fire

[jdobbin]

Dutch Air Force has no F-18 aircraft. They fly the F-16.

Reference - Order of Battle - http://www.scramble.nl/nl.htm

You're correct. For some reason I thought the aircraft of theirs that crashed was an F-18 but it was an F-16.

Why is there no support for the F-18 in Afghanistan if the Dutch can fly F-16s?

[Borg]

Dutch Air Force has no F-18 aircraft. They fly the F-16.

Reference - Order of Battle - http://www.scramble.nl/nl.htm

You're correct. For some reason I thought the aircraft of theirs that crashed was an F-18 but it was an F-16.

Why is there no support for the F-18 in Afghanistan if the Dutch can fly F-16s?

I suppose I could be flippant and say the Dutch are more "operational" - and perhaps I could be right.

They have dedicated tanker support - we do not.

However they are a very small ground participant - so they brought their F-16's to the party.

Those boys are quite a capable crew.

We on the other hand fly old C-130 aircraft - that can tank - but we cannot fly supplies AND tank. So we do the ground work. I am not sure how we could use the Airbus for tanking either, as it is probably max'd out in people and cargo flying.

Additionally, despite the obvious recent parties and participating Hornets - we usually leave the fighters at home and bring our riflemen to the party.

So the NATO gang gets together and negotiates who brings what to the dance. The roles are divvied up and everyone gets on stage to do their part of the overall task at hand.

In all honesty I do not believe the feds can afford it. And I for sure know the Hornets can do the job - it is simply not part of their mandated role. Much to the chagrine of the drivers and maintainers who train and train and train.

All above comments are opinion only and I stand ready to be corrected.

Regards

Borg

[jdobbin]

I suppose I could be flippant and say the Dutch are more "operational" - and perhaps I could be right.

They have dedicated tanker support - we do not.

However they are a very small ground participant - so they brought their F-16's to the party.

Those boys are quite a capable crew.

We on the other hand fly old C-130 aircraft - that can tank - but we cannot fly supplies AND tank. So we do the ground work. I am not sure how we could use the Airbus for tanking either, as it is probably max'd out in people and cargo flying.

Additionally, despite the obvious recent parties and participating Hornets - we usually leave the fighters at home and bring our riflemen to the party.

So the NATO gang gets together and negotiates who brings what to the dance. The roles are divvied up and everyone gets on stage to do their part of the overall task at hand.

In all honesty I do not believe the feds can afford it. And I for sure know the Hornets can do the job - it is simply not part of their mandated role. Much to the chagrine of the drivers and maintainers who train and train and train.

All above comments are opinion only and I stand ready to be corrected.

They served in the Gulf and Kosovo with no tanker support. What was done then?

[Wilber]

They served in the Gulf and Kosovo with no tanker support. What was done then?

They were based in Italy I believe.

[Borg]

I suppose I could be flippant and say the Dutch are more "operational" - and perhaps I could be right.

They have dedicated tanker support - we do not.

However they are a very small ground participant - so they brought their F-16's to the party.

Those boys are quite a capable crew.

We on the other hand fly old C-130 aircraft - that can tank - but we cannot fly supplies AND tank. So we do the ground work. I am not sure how we could use the Airbus for tanking either, as it is probably max'd out in people and cargo flying.

Additionally, despite the obvious recent parties and participating Hornets - we usually leave the fighters at home and bring our riflemen to the party.

So the NATO gang gets together and negotiates who brings what to the dance. The roles are divvied up and everyone gets on stage to do their part of the overall task at hand.

In all honesty I do not believe the feds can afford it. And I for sure know the Hornets can do the job - it is simply not part of their mandated role. Much to the chagrine of the drivers and maintainers who train and train and train.

All above comments are opinion only and I stand ready to be corrected.

They served in the Gulf and Kosovo with no tanker support. What was done then?

These are the recent parties I was referring to.

There was a fair amount of tanker support in that part of the world. I believe the majority of tanker support was from the U.S. - you know, that country people love to hate.

They have a large number of 10's and 135's. The Canucks had to pay for this service - it was not free.

Be advised these are the only two missions since the Korean War that the Air Force provided top cover and ground attack - that I know of. They can send a lot more riflemen and spend a lot less money. As an aside I do not believe we have ever sent a tank squadron to battle since the Korean War - and yet we have them.

We simpy cannot move them. Yup they are old - but they are still reasonable capable. It is easy to ship a LAV - just as long as we can rent a foreign aircraft to move them. I am not truly certain they will fit in a Herc.

To move a squadron of fighters takes a pile of money and a pile of resources. That just does not exist in our rust bucket military. Just getting them and their spares and their techs across the pond takes enormous quantities of money and resources.

The Canuck military is physically unable to move itself anywhere without serious support from outside agencies. That support is very, very expensive.

One example - a few years back, returning supplies were held up in the middle of the Atlantic by a shipping company who were concerned the Canuck military would not pay the freight charges. The Navy threatened to board the ship and take it under tow - just to be sure we got our "stuff" back. Piracy by the Canucks?

It is a lot tougher out there than most folks realize. Manning shortages, equipment, infrastructure and so on. The military is short some several hundred military pilots. It is also losing tremendous numbers of techs to the civilian world.

If you know of anyone who is fit and under 50 there is a job waiting for them - all they have to do is apply. I have a friend who recently re-enrolled at the age of 51.

My recruiting source tells me they are well and truly desparate. They are now at the stage that they are desparately short of people who can train the new recruit. A new pilot can wait as long as 3-5 years to reach wings status. And then s/he has to go through operational training before being a qualified operational line pilot. A far cry from the 18 months of times gone by.

It will take years before the military is back on its' feet. And that will not likely happen if the Libs get back in. Historically they rape the military.

So, money, people, tankers, ships and more money - all necessary and all missing. That does not even touch the tip of the ice berg - but I am sure you get my drift.

Money, money, money - buys resources and capability.

Otherwise I do not have a more informed answer for you other than what I have already stated.

Over to you - it is late and I am pillow bound.

Borg

[Borg]

They served in the Gulf and Kosovo with no tanker support. What was done then?

They were based in Italy I believe.

Correct - Aviano

Borg

[geoffrey]

The Aussie's fly the F-18 as well.

[jbg]

Remember, the US is trying to supply air support for our troops because we let our military reach a state where we are incapable of doing it ourselves. I guess we will just have to wait and see what contributed to this latest tragedy.

Good point. I cannot imagine, though, that the US has any desire to kill Canadians. In fact, quite the contrary. We presumably kill as many of our own, proportionately, in friendly fire incidents as we do Canadians or Brits.

[Borg]

Geoffrey - FYI - to the best of my knowledge and compliments of http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18/

Hornet operators:

Australia (Royal Australian Air Force)

Canada (Canadian Armed Forces, Air Command)

Finland, Suomen Ilmavoimat (Finnish Air Force)

Kuwait, al-Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Kuwaitiya (Kuwaiti Air Force)

Malaysia, Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia (Royal Malaysian Air Force)

Spain, Ejército del Aire Española (Spanish Air Force)

Switzerland, Schweizer Luftwaffe (Swiss Air Force)

United States (US Marine Corps)

United States (US Navy)

United States (NASA)

Borg

[jdobbin]

It was Tories that sold the Chinooks that the Dutch are using now. They also bought patrol boats that are exactly for the the task of patrolling.

[Borg]

It was Tories that sold the Chinooks that the Dutch are using now. They also bought patrol boats that are exactly for the the task of patrolling.

Not truly sure what this has to do with friendly fire - or are you drawing upon my "Liberals" comments?

Borg

[M.Dancer]

The only reason there are no Canadian fighters in the sky is the lack of political will. Any excuses about "lack of support" is hogwash. If we wanted CF-18s there, we would put in place the necessary infrastructure to do so and we would ask pwermission use our allies resources until that time when we could be better disposed.

[M.Dancer]

We simpy cannot move them. Yup they are old - but they are still reasonable capable. It is easy to ship a LAV - just as long as we can rent a foreign aircraft to move them. I am not truly certain they will fit in a Herc.

LAVs are Hercules compatible and so are the M113s

[Charles Anthony]

My knowledge of military hardware is limited. All that I know is guns do not kill people; people kill people.

Back to friendly fire....

What if his gun was bigger than yours? [i am not too sure that sounds right.... ]

What if you were of a lower rank on the team and the trigger-happy moron was the captain?

I suppose my analogy was somewhat facetious,

Actually, no. I did not take your analogy as being facetious.

no one can really 'take away the guns' from the US. However, I would be very reluctant to serve anywhere near them.

I wonder why we do.

[Trial-and-Error]

What is the American record when it comes to pasting allied forces by mistake? A bit troubling, perhaps:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=am...earch&meta=

Ohmygawd, the idiocy on this board continues still. I've read the replies to your concern over "friendly" fire, most of which has obviously been written by sheeple.

Friendly fire is inevitable; if you're not in the service, then butt out; it's blah, blah, blah excuse. And we wonder why the U.S. empire continues to thrive (for now anyway) on its killing ways. Wonder no more. The "leadership" knows only too well the herd mentality (illustrated so well by the American apologists on this board). "Friendly" fire as many of you point out is here to stay. With that kind of attitude, of course it is.

How I wish I had the strength to try and educate some of you bozos but hey, you have access to the same information I do in libraries and on the net and yet you choose to spew forth the same drivel.

I come here from time to time to remind myself just how many sheeple are out there. Many of you, but by no means all, never fail to confirm your numbers.

That's it, folks. But try to clean up your act before I return in another several months. I mean it's only possible to take you in small doses.

By the way, i"friendly" fire should not even be an issue. War is fought by fools to shore up the rich. That's basically the bottom line. So, sheeple, send your sons and daughters to fight the good cause. They'll appreciate your lack of concern for them and for the children of the "enemy."

[Borg]

The only reason there are no Canadian fighters in the sky is the lack of political will. Any excuses about "lack of support" is hogwash. If we wanted CF-18s there, we would put in place the necessary infrastructure to do so and we would ask pwermission use our allies resources until that time when we could be better disposed.

To a certain extent - despite my writings - I agree with you.

Be that as it may, the military is broke and rusting badly. I am not so sure they could provide a sustained effort.

Borg

[Borg]

What is the American record when it comes to pasting allied forces by mistake? A bit troubling, perhaps:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=am...earch&meta=

Ohmygawd, the idiocy on this board continues still. I've read the replies to your concern over "friendly" fire, most of which has obviously been written by sheeple.

Interesting - I do not believe I have ever been called this before. I did not know I fit that category.

Thanks for enlightening me - I will do my best to repair that illusion.

In the end we should probably just kill them all - the middle east folks - and let the God of your choice sort it out.

Regards

Borg

[M.Dancer]

That our equipment is aging used to be true, but no so any more. Gone are the 50s era FNs, the vintage howitzers and motars and the stylish yet crappy ferrets....the equipment that is with our troops in Afghanistan is as state of the art as possible, and while the CF-18s are not what we could call new, they are perfectly adequat and relaible for the mission. It's not like the Taleban have SAM installations....

You might ask, why don't we have our (not yet vintage) Leopards there, our airforce flying support.....

And I will say it's because the gov't (pick a gov't, any CND gov't) doesn't want it to appear that we are at war.....

......I too, despite my writings, often agree, to a certain extent, with myself.....oh, and you as well.

[Wilber]

You might ask, why don't we have our (not yet vintage) Leopards there, our airforce flying support.....

You might ask how we would get them there. Until we get C-17's we won't have the capacity to move them by air so they would have to be moved by the Americans or trucked across either Pakistan or Iran.

[M.Dancer]

You might ask, why don't we have our (not yet vintage) Leopards there, our airforce flying support.....

You might ask how we would get them there. Until we get C-17's we won't have the capacity to move them by air so they would have to be moved by the Americans or trucked across either Pakistan or Iran.

Yeah that's the way it was done in 1944 and in 51....on a freighter and through Pakistan. Or we could lease a russian cargo plane....actually getting them there is the easy part....getting someone to order them there, now that will take work.

[Wilber]

You might ask, why don't we have our (not yet vintage) Leopards there, our airforce flying support.....

You might ask how we would get them there. Until we get C-17's we won't have the capacity to move them by air so they would have to be moved by the Americans or trucked across either Pakistan or Iran.

Yeah that's the way it was done in 1944 and in 51....on a freighter and through Pakistan. Or we could lease a russian cargo plane....actually getting them there is the easy part....getting someone to order them there, now that will take work.

We could do it if the Russians were willing to put their aircraft at risk by hauling someone elses military equipment into a war zone (I'm not so sure the Russians are that happy we are there in the first place) or if the Pakistanis were agreeable to Canadian tanks being transported accross their territory. I don't know if that is so.

[M.Dancer]

We could do it if the Russians were willing to put their aircraft at risk by hauling someone elses military equipment into a war zone (I'm not so sure the Russians are that happy we are there in the first place) or if the Pakistanis were agreeable to Canadian tanks being transported accross their territory. I don't know if that is so.

It wouldn't be a russian gov't plane....there are private carriers, Kapitalists, Da?

http://www.voldn.ru/eng/group/companies/profile/

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

You do your best to be careful, but it is an exceedingly dangerous business, humans are fallible, and casualties are inevitable.

I agree. However, if someone 'on my team' accidentally shot another teammate, we'd all feel sad, a bit of anger, etc. and move on. If that teammate did it on a daily basis, I'd take his gun away.

I think the last time was several years back, was it not? And I rather doubt it was the same teammate since those involved last time have retired.

[Argus]

Our CF-18s are old and poorly equipped for bombing. In fact, they didn't even come with the right systems for bombs. We had to special order a few when we participated in the Kosovo campaign, and as I recall we didn't have the right communications gear even then. I doubt the CAF trains much in bombing, and I doubt we even have much of a supply available. Besides which, the CF-18s are not anywhere near as capable in close-in ground support as the A10 warthogs. They are primarily a high level fighter.

CF-18s are all updated.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/04092006/2/nati...ce-ponders.html

That new story just came out yesterday about the updates being complete.

Not quite. The first phase of the uptdating has been completed - and none of those updates has anything to do with bombing. Also, if you read the story, the updates are to continue through 2010 - and they plan to replace them by 2017. I ask you - if the military really thinks these updates will make these aircraft so great, why are they planning on retiring them just 7 years later?

Besides, do you have any idea how much support they'd need? We'd have to ship hundreds of techs and support personnel, plus a huge assortment of spares, plus fuel. I don't know how we'd get them there or how they'd be maintained in the dust and heat of Afghanstan. And if you are unsatisfied with the accidents the Americans have - with all their tremendous experience - you really don't want to have Canadians overhead. We haven't dropped a bomb in anger in years.

I think maybe we'd be better off with some tanks.

[Borg]

Dear Argus,

You do your best to be careful, but it is an exceedingly dangerous business, humans are fallible, and casualties are inevitable.

I agree. However, if someone 'on my team' accidentally shot another teammate, we'd all feel sad, a bit of anger, etc. and move on. If that teammate did it on a daily basis, I'd take his gun away.

I think the last time was several years back, was it not? And I rather doubt it was the same teammate since those involved last time have retired.

Actually it has been less than a month since a Canadian shot a Canadian in Afghanistan.

Blue on blue.

Borg