Forum menu
Ability to use fast jets to hit small moving targets with minimum collateral. Better than the other options available to other contries.
I'd forgotten that the UK was the only country with an air force.
[img] 
?w=940&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=0b0378898cc15ca193c0e80d41092c41[/img]
No.
Ability to use fast jets to hit small moving targets with minimum collateral. Better than the other options available to other contries.
Specifically? As above, I'm not aware of any capability for that that others don't have.
Now if that was true, it would be a fair point but is it?
I assume one thing he is talking about the [url=
Missile[/url]
It seems like, just as with Iraq, when they vote yes (because they overwhelmingly will), our elected representatives will once again be solidly reflecting the will of their constituents, who are all itching to get stuck in
Senior J - you ask for alternatives.. How about instead of spending money on jets and bombs etc , we spend it on internal security? That way we ramp up our own protection and don't harm innocent people or potentially make the situation worse...I'm no expert though so just a personal opinion...
No.
I'm not unequivocally against it - I can imagine circumstances when it might be the best option but it's far from clear that's the case at the moment. In fact I'm not convinced that even the Gov't really know what they hope to achieve by it, it seems more like a knee-jerk reaction and the (apparent) need to be seen to be doing something about/against IS.
Also this:
There's enough people bombing the shit out of people over there whether they're ISIS or not.
I assume one thing he is talking about the Brimstone Missile
Yep, no one else has any air launched ground attack missiles.
How much does it cost to get a plane in the air and drop a bomb?
If I was Jeremy Corbyn I'd be offering full support, with one caveat:
The Govt. get 1 year, and if ISIL hasn't been destroyed utterly on the ground in Syria and it's capability to spread violent jihad else where in the world severely derailed, then Cameron resigns.
I mean if Cameron believes that air strikes will make such a difference it's a risk he'd be willing to take, right?
That sounds fine if you're in the playground. I don't think that even DC has claimed that this will fix things in a year.
What does it gain, especially in the long term?
Oil? The Tories are best buds with the O&G sector.
I vote No.
Based on past experience bombing the shit out of middle eastern countries seems to have actually been a contributing factor to extremism, so doing more of it seems to be a bit bloody stupid.
But on the other hand everyone likes a good war, it keeps the plebs occupied whilst the government screw them over.
No!
I don't see how flattening more of their country helps the Syrians. Killing more innocents (bombs are not able to discriminate no matter what the powers that be tell us) is only going to add fuel to a fire we have already stoked enough.
Perhaps if we hadn't set about arming the FSA,Iraqi army, Anti Gaddafi Libyans etc... then Daesh or IS or whoever they call themselves would not be in the position they are now.
no one else has any air launched ground attack missiles.
Of course they do, but not with the equivalent capability.
No.
Cameron talks about the Kurds and FSA providing ground troops without mentioning that they are being bombed, and therefore hampered, by the Turks and Russians.
We should not commit any more resources until all participants have a common goal and well thought out, realistic plan to follow.
This is just a knee jerk reaction to the Paris attacks.
Zippykona: Sky News back of the enveloped £1,000,000 per two-plane mission: http://news.sky.com/story/1342768/how-much-will-airstrikes-on-is-cost-taxpayer
Obviously it can cost a bit more than that to rebuild what was hit by the bomb.
Of course they do, but not with the equivalent capability.
What capability, specifically, do we have that the US, Russia, France etc don't?
That sounds fine if you're in the playground. I don't think that even DC has claimed that this will fix things in a year.
Yep, it is playground stuff isn't it?
The point isn't really the time-scale, the point is that Cameron wouldn't put his career on the success (or otherwise) of a bombing campaign in Syria, I mean the very idea is ridiculous isn't it? And yet here we are discussing the idea that we're about to throw bombs at a country for far from satisfactory reasons, which, apparently, isn't ridiculous
mcj78, was this the article you were thinking of?
senor j - MemberWe're ... damned if we don't.
how's that?
Either way ,alot of people get hurt...
@Edenvalley boy. i tend to agree with you tbh.
So I looked into Brimstone (via Wikipedia, natch 😉 ) and found this
In September 2014, Tornado GR4 strike aircraft of No. 2 Squadron RAF began flying armed sorties over Iraq in support of Operation Shader, the UK's contribution to the US-led Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. On September 30, the aircraft made their first airstrikes, engaging a heavy artillery position with a Paveway IV laser-guided bomb and an armed pickup truck with a Brimstone air-to-ground missile.[40] [b]Brimstone is the preferred weapon for these kinds of targets because it is the only air-launched low-fragmentation fire-and-forget weapon that is effective against moving targets that the allied inventory possesses[/b].[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)
which does suggest some merit to the point.
My question then is how critical is that capability to the general operation.
And I still vote No.
What could possibly go wrong?
[img] 
[/img]
[b]No[/b]
Bombing won't help the civilians, there is already a "lost generation", bombing will just add to the refugee crisis. As has been discovered in Iraq ISIS build tunnels under the towns giving them shelter and free access around the area effectively using the population as human shields.
And also what nickc says.
No. There are enough explosions in Syria already. Better to cut off funding to ISIS and to work hard through diplomatic channels particularly to influence Saudi Arabia
Better to cut off funding to ISIS
But that would mean having awkward conversations with the Saudis and we wouldn't want that now would we.
No
As mentioned there are enough people flying around bombing things as it is.
Why not take a different tack and concentrate on humanitarian avenues instead, maybe show the world that as a nation we don't think all Muslims are terrorists and vice versa (in an ideal world of course. I'm not sure how this would be best achieved right now)
Can we talk about specific weaponry a bit more.
Its massively sexy when middle aged fat blokes who work in IT start getting all frothy about explodey things
No. Utterly deranged.
The action of extremists who believe that bombing, invading and killing is the best way to spread 'British values'.
Ready yourself, binners...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34930502
So, can British forces make a difference?The PM argues that the particular capabilities of the RAF - the Raptor reconnaissance pods on its Tornado aircraft and their ability to deliver small but highly accurate Brimstone missiles - provide something that others don't have.
That, he says, is one of the reasons why Washington and Paris want the UK engaged. The RAF's equipment is well-suited to so-called dynamic targeting - i.e. where an aircraft overflies a selected area, locating targets for itself and then engaging them.The PM argues that the RAF's Tornado aircraft gives the UK an added capability
This particular "niche" capability is one that even the Americans don't have and combined with the Raptor pod, which is responsible for some 60% of the tactical intelligence gained over Iraq, it is a useful additional tool to have in the airpower toolkit.
However, there are only eight RAF Tornados currently based in Cyprus.
While there is talk that if strike operations are extended to Syria, a small number of additional jets may be deployed, Britain's air contribution remains relatively small, though nonetheless significant.
Oooh, Raptor! I've got all frothy now...
So in summary, it sounds like it'd help a bit but because it's only 8(ish) planes, it wouldn't really help all that much.
[i]Around £10 million of Brimstones from the RAF stock were sold to the Royal Saudi Air Force for use on their Tornados.[/i]
ah....
No, absolutely not.
Firstly because I'm not sure it will help and I like to be sure before I bomb people.
Second because I'm not even sure we know who we're bombing. ISIS are a very messy bunch and Syria is a very messy place. Hitting the right people will undoubtedly be a challenge, and that's assuming we know who the "right" people are.
Thirdly because, being selfish here, I think air strikes will lead to more terrorism in the UK and I simply don't want that.
Me and Corbyn share few political views but this is one of the few.
Its massively sexy when middle aged fat blokes who work in IT start getting all frothy about explodey things
😀
Glad I'm not the only person that finds the regular weaponry ****athons a bit strange.
NO.
Violence isn't the answer to this. If you cut the revenue and funding streams to Daesh then they will implode. This isn't our fight. The money spent on bombs and arms could be used to send humanitarian aid or house refugees. I'm so sick of military action being the first port of call globally.
Glad I'm not the only person that finds the regular weaponry ****athons a bit strange.
nope, not just you.
but but but
explosions in slo-mo!
Ins't it legitimate to look into DC's claims then? Even if that does mean a 'weaponry ****athon' 🙂
Hands up if you want air strikes.[img] 
[/img]
An improved Brimstone 2 was expected to enter service in October 2012, but problems with the new warhead from TDW[4] and the ROXEL rocket motor put back the planned date to November 2015.
From Wikipedia. So is it that Dave has these new awesomz missiles and wants to show other people how good they are?
Hands up if you want a weaponry ****athon 🙂
Ah, so it's a sales exercise, Makes sense now...
[img] 
[/img]
nope...regardless of whether I think its a good idea or not to drop bombs, theres enough folk already involved that our intervention would make next to no difference
Why do we as a nation always have to take the lead in getting involved, why not let others do it if it really must be done
IMO droppping bombs will only make us more of a terroist target, not that they really need an excuse. If I was the Pm i'd send out an ultimatum 'commit any terror acts on our soil and we'll join in, until then we won't'... at least that may make them think twice about attacking the uk.
Why do we as a nation always have to take the lead in getting involved
[s]Because it's our responsibility as a civilized country to show people the right way and to help those who are suffering by bombing the shit out of the bad people[/s]
Because it lets us feel like we're still part of the greatest empire in the world and important. And because we're scared of ISIS, etc and like kids in the playground, hitting back is the easiest, most obvious way to respond and make ourselves feel a bit better and prove that we're in control. For the short term at least.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/frankie-boyle-fallout-paris-psychopathic-autopilot ]if you’ve got a massive fight in, say, a pub car park, the best way of solving it is clearly standing well back and randomly lobbing in fireworks[/url]
Mr Boyle Nails it.
Ah, so it's a sales exercise,
They've already been used in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the vids are online, so not sure this stacks up.
They only got mentioned because people were querying whether Dave's claim of bringing something new to the party was true or not. And a guided missile with minimum collateral damage, fired under high rules of engagement is not the the same as a stack of 500lb bombs dropped from a mile high at an area target.
The strategy in Syria is to starve ISIS of funds, by in effect closing all the exits to export oil. I suspect this is where the RAF will be involved in going after trucks etc.
I do agree it would be far better if an actual strategy was outlined to the general public.