News story: RAF Tornados second air strikes in Iraq

Following yesterday’s strikes on the ISIL terrorist organisation, Royal Air Force aircraft have seen further action overnight. Two Tornado GR4s from RAF Akrotiri, conducted an armed reconnaissance mission in support of Iraqi government forces west of Baghdad.

They were tasked to examine a location suspected of being used as an ISIL command and control position. At the scene they were able to identify ISIL activity and two vehicles, one of which was an armed pick up truck. Four Brimstone missiles were used to conduct a precision attack on the vehicles. Initial analysis indicates that the strikes were successful.

Continue reading...
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Cost of a Brimstone missile is apparently £500,000. So it's just cost £2 million to destroy two £20,000 pick up trucks.

I think I might have spotted a slight flaw in the reasoning...

Wordsmith
 
Cost of a Brimstone missile is apparently £500,000. So it's just cost £2 million to destroy two £20,000 pick up trucks.

I think I might have spotted a slight flaw in the reasoning...

Wordsmith

I was wondering that after I heard the news on the radio. Can we not just give the US the nod to load up their B-52's and work the area over, grid square by grid square? We can even join in with the Lancaster and the Vulcan.
 
I suprised we are using fast air and havent sent any Rotary wing over
 
The German TV news covered the event and even had "an expert" discuss the matter. Too bad the covering photo showed a Tiffie. Still Tiffie, Tornado both begin with T and both have two donks. What's the difference?
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
I was wondering that after I heard the news on the radio. Can we not just give the US the nod to load up their B-52's and work the area over, grid square by grid square? We can even join in with the Lancaster and the Vulcan.

John Paul Vann (killed in the Vietnam war) famously remarked that it was a political war and called for discretion in killing. In his view a knife was best because them you knew exactly who you had killed. Following that a rifle was best because you picked your target. The worst things to use were artillery and bombs because they were indiscriminate in what they killed.

John Paul Vann was obviously before the era of precision guided munitions, so you can now be discriminatory in who you kill with bombs. I'm just wondering if taking out two cheap pick-up trucks with four very expensive missiles is the most cost effective way of degrading ISIS. They can buy cheap pick up trucks a lot faster than we can replace half-million pound missiles.

Wordsmith
 
Cost of a Brimstone missile is apparently £500,000. So it's just cost £2 million to destroy two £20,000 pick up trucks.

I think I might have spotted a slight flaw in the reasoning...

Wordsmith

if you are correct [and i doubt the trucks are worth twenty grand],.. if that isn't a waste of taxpayers money i don't know what is ,...disgusting.
 
Cost of a Brimstone missile is apparently £500,000. So it's just cost £2 million to destroy two £20,000 pick up trucks.

I think I might have spotted a slight flaw in the reasoning...

Wordsmith

There in lies the rub, IS`s appetite for destruction will last far longer than the Wests and when we do eventually sack it and they haven't gone (oh we will declare victory a la Afghan) we just have a large bill to show for it.
I`m not saying not to strike them but realistically strikes without follow up on the ground or plenty of folk on ground actually directing strikes (lets not kid ourselves that there are enough SF to go around or that local fig11`s are up to task) then actually its just pissing taxpayers money in the wind.
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
if you are correct [and i doubt the trucks are worth twenty grand],.. if that isn't a waste of taxpayers money i don't know what is ,...disgusting.

That rather depends on who is sat in the wagon. Besides these missiles have a 'best before' and 'use by' date.
 
I wonder whether the coalition will have to commit funds to replace the hardware we sold to Iraq and are currently flat-packing?
Presumably the IA will need rebuilding again.
 
John Paul Vann (killed in the Vietnam war) famously remarked that it was a political war and called for discretion in killing. In his view a knife was best because them you knew exactly who you had killed. Following that a rifle was best because you picked your target. The worst things to use were artillery and bombs because they were indiscriminate in what they killed.

John Paul Vann was obviously before the era of precision guided munitions, so you can now be discriminatory in who you kill with bombs. I'm just wondering if taking out two cheap pick-up trucks with four very expensive missiles is the most cost effective way of degrading ISIS. They can buy cheap pick up trucks a lot faster than we can replace half-million pound missiles.

Wordsmith

Shortly before he died Vann was calling in B52 strikes within 100 yards of his position. You would want a fair degree of precision for that.

God knows what that did to your ears.

Your point about Toyotas v missiles is a good one. In many respects I think it is the basis of our anti-IS strategy. There was a lot of hot air last Friday, and over the weekend, about "what is our strategy?" And not much in terms of a reply.

I think our strategy is simply to go for maximum asymmetry and use the massive air power of the coalition countries involved to eliminate IS murderers.

If it takes £2M worth of missiles to kill 2/3 members of the 123rd Bumming & Beheading Division (IS) then so be it.

As a plan it works for me.
 

Duke_of_Kaos

War Hero
On the question of where to base rotary, the answer that springs to mind would be with the US CSAR element that arrived in a Sandy place on C5 & C17's, it begins with a K and is range of places over Iraq where jet jockeys may need to bail out.


Sent whilst the sand is out of the wifi.
 
John Paul Vann (killed in the Vietnam war) famously remarked that it was a political war and called for discretion in killing. In his view a knife was best because them you knew exactly who you had killed. Following that a rifle was best because you picked your target. The worst things to use were artillery and bombs because they were indiscriminate in what they killed.

John Paul Vann was obviously before the era of precision guided munitions, so you can now be discriminatory in who you kill with bombs. I'm just wondering if taking out two cheap pick-up trucks with four very expensive missiles is the most cost effective way of degrading ISIS. They can buy cheap pick up trucks a lot faster than we can replace half-million pound missiles.

Wordsmith


I'm very much of the view that IS must be cleansed from the earth, not stopped, not massively reduced in capability, they must be wiped out in every way possible. If I had a button next to me that could wipe out every extremist religious nut in the world, I would be mashing it into the table.

Wiping out IS should not only be done to remove these non human ars3holes from the planet, but it should be done in a way that spreads a strong message to any future retarded groups that think they can follow the IS doctrine.

Low yield atom bombs would be a nice and strong message, sent by the US, UK, Russia, China, France and India.

Those that wish to join civilization may do so, those that don't may leave.
 
I was under the impression that a few determined blokes stooging around deserts in trucks with mounted machine guns causing mayhem was a tactic developed by a certain British unit in the second world war. Stopping these nutters doing the same seems to be causing some concern among those of a bean counting mentality. Whats that about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing?
 
Top