ISIL War in Iraq and Syria

[Holger Danske]

A-10 likewise are overrated. Majority of tank kills of both Iraq Wars were scored by other tanks because the angle of attack for aerial ordinance is not sufficient to achieve penetration. A-10s can certainly wreck technicals, but it won't make much a dent in the numbers.

No, because there were more M1 and M2's plowing through the Republican guard than there were A-10's available, even then it managed achieve one-third of the total sorties flown during Desert Storm, and destroyed several thousands of hard and soft targets including several hundreds of tanks.

It's a very stabile firing platform with a good and diverse payload, it has fine loiter time and excellent protection and durability. It's exactly the type needed to fight scrubs like IS. Sadly though the US Air force is too busy trying to kill it, and none of the US allies are smart enough to see an oppotunity to get an excellent aircraft for a preminum price.

[Principe Alessandro]

If we consider only the number of Iraqi tanks killed during the Gulf War the Bradley IFV then is the best tank killer, the fact is that all those Soviet era armors in service in the Middle East are easy prey to anything which has a decent punch, you have only to google some ATGM youtube video in Syria to realize the sad state of these tanks.

The A-10 is more than enough to laid waste on the ISIS' T-55 and T-62.

[Shambloc]

So the A-10 is not a tank killer, explain that to the Iraqi Army circa Gulf War:

http://theaviationist.com/2012/12/20/warthog-in-action/

[Mary The Quene]

Has actually anyone noticed that the outlawed ba'ath party in Iras also had declared war on ISIS?

I've only noticed it today http://english.shafaaq.com/index.php...es-war-on-isis

[conon394]

Arc lights were largely ineffective in Vietnam

Depends on what your metric and when and where.

ISIS does not a logistical network supported by China and the USSR so they cannot shrug off the loss of heavy equipment. Used against a besieging force but one that has no ability to strike back or is dug enough to survive or experience with the sort of attack involved I suggest they would be very effective. Even later an ISIS force stuck digging or dispersing in is not one attacking. Losing it heavy equipment and being forced back to light insurgent roll undermines it ability to claim itself as a state and puts its enemies on equal footing.

ISIS is exactly in the situation where Arclight was effective in Vietnam - used against a static force having massed its equipment. As far as I know B-52s delivered only stand off cruise missiles in Kosovo so the analogy is off. If you have a different source please do post.

plus, did you even think through the fact an arc light would pulverize Kobane and wreck YPG defensive positions?

Would they the US managed to avoid that at Khe Sanh or any other tactical use in Vietnam and that was close to 50 years ago, I will admit it would likely require very quite and careful insertion of CIA or Special forces types to mange the ground control and avoid pissing Turkey off.

Don't get me wrong I don't see a magic wand but a specific tool for a specific case. forcing ISIS to disperse is the key thus putting them back on same footing as rivals and giving the A-10 to get in action so along with drones we have sufficient loiter platforms to support 'friends'

[Pielstick]

Most A-10 armour kills in Desert Storm were using the AGM-65D.

[Treize]

Most A-10 armour kills in Desert Storm were using the AGM-65D.

I wonder if a light platform such as Gripen E or F-16C/E armed with light weapons such as Brimstone or SDB, paired with target detection by UAV's or high flying manned platforms or perhaps these same fast jets with recon pods and such would be a good method to perform CAS near friendly troops, for smaller countries that lack the money for all kinds of specialised platforms.

[Denny Crane!]

Are you guys touching yourselves when talking about all these military terms, seems like if you aren't you should be!

It is fair enough to say they scatter but surely the threat and use of air strikes even with some missing causes them severe problems no? I can't imagine not being able to set up heavy fortified positions a bonus.

[Treize]

Pierre Sprey, in his criticism of the F-35, already said "air interdiction" (i.e. "bombing") is pretty much a pointless exercise. The ISIS case only strengthens his argument.

[Holger Danske]

Most A-10 armour kills in Desert Storm were using the AGM-65D.

Naturally. Why risk yourself when you have a stand-off weapon with high kill properbilities? Doesn't really discredit the usefulness of the Gau-8. Imagine that weapon with a modern targetting computer for more accurate burst fire. Very much OP.

[UselessPoster]

The west have little options now its either full scale war or go home and accept defeat IMHO.

With the taliban joining ISIS now and assad supposedly mixing his relations with the wrong sides it seems the west would have to do a combined full scare war to eradicate ISIS and all their followers. What the west do not realize is that threats have already been made in the UK about bombings and more beadings and in the US a man was recently beheaded by a muslim jihad so the threats are real.

If the west do not sort this problem out soon they will have a few options left and one of them would certainly work.

[Pielstick]

I wonder if a light platform such as Gripen E or F-16C/E armed with light weapons such as Brimstone or SDB, paired with target detection by UAV's or high flying manned platforms or perhaps these same fast jets with recon pods and such would be a good method to perform CAS near friendly troops, for smaller countries that lack the money for all kinds of specialised platforms.

Tactical jets have had advanced targeting pods and precision weapons available for some years now, and what you describe has been pretty much routine in Afghanistan.

The problem is the cost.

A few days ago the UK TV news was carrying the headline that the RAF had destroyed its first IS target in Iraq. They showed the footage from the Tornado's targeting pod of a Toyota pickup truck being destroyed by a Brimstone missile. What they didn't mention was the Brimstone cost the UK MOD £175,000.

I'd bet that IS have a lot more beat up old Toyota pickup trucks than the RAF has Brimstone missiles.

I bet if you added up the bill for all the weapons expended against IS thus far it would make your eyes water.

Are you guys touching yourselves when talking about all these military terms, seems like if you aren't you should be!

It is fair enough to say they scatter but surely the threat and use of air strikes even with some missing causes them severe problems no? I can't imagine not being able to set up heavy fortified positions a bonus.

No Denny I only touch myself when I read your posts

Seriously though, by most accounts the Peshmerga are outgunned by IS, so if the latter are having to constantly keep one eye on the sky it might just give the Peshmerga the breathing space they need to turn the fight around. Might. Possibly. Maybe.

Pierre Sprey, in his criticism of the F-35, already said "air interdiction" (i.e. "bombing") is pretty much a pointless exercise. The ISIS case only strengthens his argument.

I'm really not a fan of Pierre Sprey. He trades on his links to the F-16 and A-10, and is apparently quite happy to let himself be introduced as the "designer" of these aircraft, when in reality he was a civilian analyst working for the Pentagon in the 1970's and had a hand in shaping the specifications these aircraft were designed and built to. He likes nothing more than making edgy or controversial statements about aerial warfare.

Like I said, I'm not a fan.

Naturally. Why risk yourself when you have a stand-off weapon with high kill properbilities? Doesn't really discredit the usefulness of the Gau-8. Imagine that weapon with a modern targetting computer for more accurate burst fire. Very much OP.

Well then the choice comes down to hitting the enemy with limited stocks of very expensive precision stand off weapons, or going in with cheaper and more plentiful weapons but quite probably losing several aircraft and pilots along the way.

One hopes the other side capitulates before we run out of the expensive good stuff..... and that the defence budget can cover the stock replenishment, otherwise the next war might actually have some tough targets that warrant the precision standoff weapons but we already used them all up last time round and didn't buy any new ones!

[Treize]

Tactical jets have had advanced targeting pods and precision weapons available for some years now, and what you describe has been pretty much routine in Afghanistan.

The problem is the cost.

A few days ago the UK TV news was carrying the headline that the RAF had destroyed its first IS target in Iraq. They showed the footage from the Tornado's targeting pod of a Toyota pickup truck being destroyed by a Brimstone missile. What they didn't mention was the Brimstone cost the UK MOD £175,000.

I'd bet that IS have a lot more beat up old Toyota pickup trucks than the RAF has Brimstone missiles.

I bet if you added up the bill for all the weapons expended against IS thus far it would make your eyes water.

Well yes, this is why I asked Adar a few days ago if the Swedish airforce still uses their ARAK rocket pods, but those are either scrapped or stored.

Also, if "prior" target selection a better way to keep planes in hot airspace for a minimum of time? Or would fast jets alone without prior surveillance stuff going on be just as efficient?
I do fear the SA-24 and SA-8 ISIS has. I am not too sure sending in planes like the Beechcraft Shadow/MC-12W would be wise? In any case, an MQ-9 can fly a little higher and would perhaps be better. But for more simple COIN tasks the manned platforms offer higher reliability, and availabilty at lower cost.

We ourselves operate Apache's. But I do think these would be extremely vulnerable. Second hand A-10's are not an option as we already own these helicopters.

I'm really not a fan of Pierre Sprey. He trades on his links to the F-16 and A-10, and is apparently quite happy to let himself be introduced as the "designer" of these aircraft, when in reality he was a civilian analyst working for the Pentagon in the 1970's and had a hand in shaping the specifications these aircraft were designed and built to. He likes nothing more than making edgy or controversial statements about aerial warfare.

Like I said, I'm not a fan.

He makes legitimate points, maybe a little hyperbole here and there. The point that you cannot win a war by "air interdiction" rings true still.

[TheBlackTower]

The title basically says these are Kurds from Kobani, who are helping the Islamic State "liberate," their city.

No the title say "Under the hits of the coalition, the fighters of the Islamic state, sings in their rest time" this is how Kurd in Arabic look like "أكراد" do you see it above ? .

[The Alcotroll]

A few days ago the UK TV news was carrying the headline that the RAF had destroyed its first IS target in Iraq. They showed the footage from the Tornado's targeting pod of a Toyota pickup truck being destroyed by a Brimstone missile.

You can imagine the mirth that incident has caused in Army circles. I've heard a rumour that some of the chaps based out in Cyprus even clubbed together and bought a used Hilux for a few hundred quid and had it delivered to Akrotiri...

Well then the choice comes down to hitting the enemy with limited stocks of very expensive precision stand off weapons, or going in with cheaper and more plentiful weapons but quite probably losing several aircraft and pilots along the way.

Call me a cynic, but I think the cost/benefit analysis was more about the financial cost of a few brimstones versus the political cost of sitting back and saying " 'em, it's not our problem."

[Holger Danske]

Well then the choice comes down to hitting the enemy with limited stocks of very expensive precision stand off weapons, or going in with cheaper and more plentiful weapons but quite probably losing several aircraft and pilots along the way.

That's in no way what I'm trying to say here. You should make good use of the full spectrum of your arsenal, that means both having extremely smart and expensive bombs/missiles, and have a big bruttish cannon if all else fails or isn't appropriate while being able to keep your distance or get in close and dirty. Right now there is a bias among generals for the overly expensive options both in terms of weapons and the platform that carries them. The A-10 platform is already capable of mixing the two, while modern fast jets (and the F-35) can't. Besides the A-10 can withstand punishment than no/few other airframes can even hope to match and it has lots of upgrade potential given that most of it's guts is still 70-80's technology. But it's too cheap, too slow, and too ugly for the Air Force generals.

[Mangalore]

...

A-10 likewise are overrated. Majority of tank kills of both Iraq Wars were scored by other tanks because the angle of attack for aerial ordinance is not sufficient to achieve penetration. A-10s can certainly wreck technicals, but it won't make much a dent in the numbers.

...

I call BS on that. All MBTs are weak in the top which is why a lot of tank busters like the Javelin actually do a top attack to do a tank kill. I would also dispute the claim of most tank kills by other tanks because most tanks and vehicles in second Gulf war were cut to pieces by aircraft and Apache helicoptres as they were routing. Coalition armoured columns hardly had any signicant tank battles because most targets got killed or ran away before they got there. There is just a handful. Impressive, but most stuff was done by artillery and aircraft not even needing A-10s as a dedicated ground attack aircraft. The second one might be a bit different as Iraqi tanks were used as gun emplacements in static positions so might be too camouflaged to be found by aircraft, however that does not detract from the fact that the US has been very good at tank killing by aircraft since ww2.

ISIS is hardly owning enough armor to soak up losses of an air campaign. Their main advantage is the difficulty of finding decent targets for an air strike. If you need 1 sortie per pickup truck results will be unimpressive.

[Pielstick]

Well yes, this is why I asked Adar a few days ago if the Swedish airforce still uses their ARAK rocket pods, but those are either scrapped or stored.

Also, if "prior" target selection a better way to keep planes in hot airspace for a minimum of time? Or would fast jets alone without prior surveillance stuff going on be just as efficient?
I do fear the SA-24 and SA-8 ISIS has. I am not too sure sending in planes like the Beechcraft Shadow/MC-12W would be wise? In any case, an MQ-9 can fly a little higher and would perhaps be better. But for more simple COIN tasks the manned platforms offer higher reliability, and availabilty at lower cost.

We ourselves operate Apache's. But I do think these would be extremely vulnerable. Second hand A-10's are not an option as we already own these helicopters.

For what it's worth, I remember reading that as late as 2006/2007 British Harriers in Afghanistan were flying two ship formations with a laser guided bomb, a CRV7 rocket pod, a 750lb dumb bomb, and a recce pod. They found this to be the most flexible combination of ordnance that would allow them to deal with the widest range of situations.

As I understand it the tactical jets operating over Syria and Iraq now are not actively searching for targets. They operate very much like they did in Afghanistan where they are "on call" and will respond to a target of opportunity or a request for assistance from friendly ground forces.

So yeah, stuff like various drones and the MC-12 are useful, but only with the caveat that the airspace isn't contested. I don't think IS have any high altitude air defence systems, but I know the Syrian government does....

I wouldn't be too concerned about SA-8s and SA-24s... as long as the aircraft remain at medium to high altitudes they're safe. If you wanted to start sending A-10s in for gun runs against IS then those SAM systems might come into play.

Apaches are much like the A-10 operating at low altitude in this context. Their undoubted efficacy has to be balanced against the very real possibility that operating at low altitude they are vulnerable to being shot down, and it would be a PR disaster if those nice men in IS got their hands on a live western air crew.

You can imagine the mirth that incident has caused in Army circles. I've heard a rumour that some of the chaps based out in Cyprus even clubbed together and bought a used Hilux for a few hundred quid and had it delivered to Akrotiri...

LOL. I can imagine the relative monetary values of the weapon used and the target were not lost on anybody, least of all the crabs.

Call me a cynic, but I think the cost/benefit analysis was more about the financial cost of a few brimstones versus the political cost of sitting back and saying " 'em, it's not our problem."

Besides, we mustn't draw attention to the fact we only have 18 front line Tornados in service in the entire RAF.....whereas in 1991 the RAF deployed nearly 60 Tornados just for Operation Granby

I also hope that at some point in the future we don't find ourselves going up against an opponent who really warrants shooting £175k missiles at them, only to find we don't have any left because we used them all blowing up Hiluxes in Iraq.

[Holger Danske]

Apaches are much like the A-10 operating at low altitude in this context. Their undoubted efficacy has to be balanced against the very real possibility that operating at low altitude they are vulnerable to being shot down, and it would be a PR disaster if those nice men in IS got their hands on a live western air crew.

Unlike the Apache though the Warthog can sustain substanial amount of damage and it's not like there isn't any effective counter-meassures against Manpads. Sure it would be a PR disaster, but then again if you want to fight IS with hyper-expensive warplanes using hyper-expensive munitions, then you aren't going to be making much of a difference in a ground war. And just imagine losing one of these multi-million dollar jets to malfunctions/accidents and then lose the pilot... You're putting them at risk no matter what you do.

[Condottiere 40K]

Pierre Sprey gives voice to a faction that believes aircraft platforms are becoming over complicated, and too much is being demanded from a single design family, I think he's partially correct.

Going after actual tanks, and possibly the APCs justifies the use of PGMs; so do attempts at decapitation. Going pickup hunting seems a job for a dedicated large calibre gun or unguided rockets.