ZH876 taken out by IED

#2
A good indication how much of a grip we really have on the place if we can't secure our airfields. Or am I missing something? OPSEC
 
#3
ISTR the ac was landing on a 'desert strip' - and therefore one not particularly easy to secure.

I'm not particularly surprised at the possible cause of the loss.
 
#4
Dilfor said:
ISTR the ac was landing on a 'desert strip' - and therefore one not particularly easy to secure.

I'm not particularly surprised at the possible cause of the loss.
If a Herc was making a scheduled stop there, surely it would be thought to be as secure as possible? If it wasn't a routine stop, how did the insurgents know to plant the IED?; if it was, where was the secure perimeter?

Given Crab's aversion to bending their pretty planes, I can't imagine them agreeing to land without the expectation of a clear landing strip.
 
#5
smartascarrots said:
Dilfor said:
ISTR the ac was landing on a 'desert strip' - and therefore one not particularly easy to secure.

I'm not particularly surprised at the possible cause of the loss.
If a Herc was making a scheduled stop there, surely it would be thought to be as secure as possible? If it wasn't a routine stop, how did the insurgents know to plant the IED?; if it was, where was the secure perimeter?

Given Crab's aversion to bending their pretty planes, I can't imagine them agreeing to land without the expectation of a clear landing strip.

There are a limited number of airstrips which will, therefore, be used relatively frequently. Planting an almost speculative IED (and one well hidden - buried in the tarmac?) and maintaining overwatch & waiting for the next flight would not be impossible. Without straying into OPSEC territory, I don't think it is controversial to observe that a 'secure perimeter' in a desert airstrip situation is largely a temporary measure.
 
#13
Well, that finally answers the long-standing question of what exactly the RAF Regiment are for...

Made my night, that has :)
 
#15
Dilfor:
There are a limited number of airstrips which will, therefore, be used relatively frequently. Planting an almost speculative IED (and one well hidden - buried in the tarmac?) and maintaining overwatch & waiting for the next flight would not be impossible. Without straying into OPSEC territory, I don't think it is controversial to observe that a 'secure perimeter' in a desert airstrip situation is largely a temporary measure.
Many of these (infrequently used) airstrips are dirt runways and hence relatively easy to plant (and disguise) an IED on. Given the availability of IED components in this neck of the world, its not much of a logistic strain to plant one and then sit back and wait. If you know that the runway will be used once a week/once a month/whenever, you only need to have someone in place to arm/disarm for a relatively short time, especially if they can be warned off by someone under the flight path or indeed someone with 'inside information'/a local worker who has picked up on some careless talk. None of this is OPSEC territory either.

A question could be who did the runway clearance and when? Not 'was there a perimeter?'
 
#19
tamecrab said:
Maybe we just run at risk. You guys appear to take the occassional IED, probably for the same reasons.
The difference between losing a Snatch and a C130 is fecking astronimical though isn't it.

Last time I checked they carried lots of poeple and I doubt that a thin sheet of aluminum is going to stop anything, is it. Aircraft are force multipliers and hence should be looked after and secured a little better. That would involve an increase in manpower and so spending where as losing a big bird is cheap.
 
#20
bobath said:
tamecrab said:
Maybe we just run at risk. You guys appear to take the occassional IED, probably for the same reasons.
The difference between losing a Snatch and a C130 is fecking astronimical though isn't it.

Last time I checked they carried lots of poeple and I doubt that a thin sheet of aluminum is going to stop anything, is it. Aircraft are force multipliers and hence should be looked after and secured a little better. That would involve an increase in manpower and so spending where as losing a big bird is cheap.
bobath, I think you took the bait. Too often we read about the RAF being precious with their people and aircraft. They are precious because, in simple terms, a loss of an RAF asset is more likely to have a strategic effect.

As far as the RAF Regiment is concerned, some pen pusher made sure a while back that there was no/limited requirement to provide force protection. :shakefist:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top