Agreed. But ultimately, we can't draw statistical conclusions from those figures.There are occasions like this but they are outnumbered by reference to specific targets (eg mortar position) and amounts of weapons (eg a Paveway)...
I didn't suggest Air could replace Land any more than I'd suggest the opposite. Likewise, while the regular British Army (other than AH) was only involved in ELLAMY in secondary tasks, I would never suggest that a 'Land Component' (however ragtag!) wasn't present....in support of ground forces not a replacement for...
But with respect, this sort of thing is why us Air and Maritime chaps sometimes get frustrated and perceive that Land only look at Joint ops through a Land prism!...ASW etc isn't what I was thinking of as asymmetric or OOTW, it was more like peace support. I was probably too loose in my phrasing...
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here @irlsgt. An individual 'target' can be serviced by one or 1000 weapons based on the number of Desired Point of Impacts (DPIs). Similarly, you may be surprised at some of the weapons being used.Update: air strikes against Daesh - News stories - GOV.UK
Wed 2 Nov
"Sniper and mortar positions" in fairness that could be a 1000 or 4
Thurs 3 Nov
Total of 6 targets
Fri 4 Nov
3 targets plus 2 positions
Sat 5 Nov
Sun 6 Nov
5 targets and an armoured vehicle
I would assume there is a lessons learnt process employed?Looking back at this thread, and also my own interactions with [not telling], I wonder if the real problem is lack of records and audibility? as an Engineer (well that is what the document from the University said....) with experience of things such as ISO9001 and AS9100 I am a great believer in 100% accountability
Does are system of Government (and governance within defence) achieve anywhere near this? Do checks and balances exist to mitigate against groupthink or the daft idea of politician x or officer y being adapted because he says so?.
There used to be a "lessons learned" process. There was a little bit of foot-shuffling when in 2004-5 or so, the "lessons learned" database from GRANBY was compared to that from TELIC and about 25% of the entries were effectively duplicated: problems seen in 1991 had recurred in 2003, suggesting that not a lot of learning was going on.I would assume there is a lessons learnt process employed?
People have to know it exists, be able to access it and read it