Posted on Dec 4, 2015
COL Ted Mc
3.29K
6
6
1
1
0
From "IHS Jane's 360"

UK begins strikes against Islamic State in Syria

The United Kingdom began strikes against the Islamic State in Syria on 2 December, and is to double the size of its combat aircraft deployment to the region to support the strikes.

Six Royal Air Force (RAF) Eurofighter Typhoon multirole combat fighters are set to depart from RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland on 3 December as reinforcements to the UK's air power taking part in operation against Islamic State in the Middle East. Joining the Typhoons will be two Panavia Tornado GR4 strike aircraft from RAF Marham, which will reinforce eight RAF Tornado GR4 already at RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus.

The departure of the additional strike aircraft follows a vote in favour of the UK joining the air campaign against Islamic State in Syria late on the evening of 2 December.

Four Tornado aircraft set off from RAF Akrotiri for strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria within an hour of the parliamentary vote. According ...

EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Pretty good ground support staff to be able to get the aircraft bombed up and into the air within an hour of the vote, don't you think? (Or was someone actually planning for success and had the aircraft all ready to go ahead of time?)


http://www.janes.com/article/56421/uk-begins-strikes-against-islamic-state-in-syria?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_J360%204.12.15_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
Posted in these groups: Isis logo ISIS100 War on Terror
Avatar feed
Responses: 2
LTC Stephen F.
1
1
0
I am very thankful that the UK began to attack ISIS assets as soon as parliament OKed them to COL Ted Mc. I certainly hope the strikes against the ISIS oilfields will drain funding sources from them and take out as many ISIS technicians as possible for that matter.
(1)
Comment
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; I'm not sure that striking the oil fields directly is the most cost/effective way of cutting off the flow of the ISISites' oil. Considering the cost of the ordnance involved (and factoring in the state of the ISISites' air power/defence capacities), a horde of P-47s would be a much more cost/effective way of simply blowing everything that looks like a heavy transport truck away.

One "nice" thing about ground support aircraft like the P-47 is that you can actually see the rounds approaching you and that has a distinct morale suppressant effect.

PS - A P-47 would cost less than a "Rapier" and is re-useable.

PPS - I'm not sure how one of today's heat-seeking missiles would be at tracking an aircraft with a heat signature so much lower than that of the jet engines of today's aircraft, but I suspect that they would be much more easily fooled by thermal countermeasures.
(2)
Reply
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
LTC Stephen F.
>1 y
COL Ted Mc - striking their refining capabilities and distribution networks which include skilled personnel is much easier than targeting their blackmarket sale of stolen goods and especially safely attacking their slave sale trade networks
(1)
Reply
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; I agree that it is "easier" but that doesn't make it more cost/effective.

The "easiest" way of dealing with the situation would be to simply nuke the whole area where the ISISites are operating and accept the fact that they might be five or six million collateral casualties. That, however, isn't a very good idea if the US wants to retain the respect of the rest of the world.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Judy Leonard
0
0
0
It's about time these other countries are getting involved in the bombing after all the US has been bombing for months
(0)
Comment
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
Sgt Judy Leonard - Sergeant; Especially since the US is on the verge of running out of "bombs".
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close