This article in the Telegraph from our old friend Con Coughlin caught my eye, it looked pretty promising until I started to read.

It starts with a similar thought to what I posted yesterday, that is Nick Harvey is obviously trying to defend forthcoming cuts as agility and adaptability, that one of the reason for our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan is not because have a lack of agility or adaptability but because we have a lack of numbers.

So far so good.

In fact it is very perceptive and normally I would say, bloody brilliant article there Mr Coughlin

But then it veers off into the same tired old drivel spouted by people who really should know better, about Typhoon or CVF.

This is what he said

Thus the RAF has spent billions of pounds on its new Typhoon Eurofighter, which is brilliant at intercepting any Russian aircraft that attempts to breach British airspace, but useless when it comes to Afghanistan, because the Taliban has no air force to intercept, and the Typhoon has no ground-attack capability.

What utter utter drivel

Not missing a chance to get a cheap dig in by calling it Typhoon Eurofighter he spectacularly misses the point that Typhoon is a brilliant swing role fighter that can guarantee air dominance and thus freedom of movement for ground or naval forces it can also provide excellent strike and close air support. it does this is a moire economic fashion than any aircraft the RAF has ever had. In fact, if you discuss this with anyone in the air land integration world (i.e. CAS teams) they will tell you that Typhoon is the best CAS aircraft they have ever worked with. The reason it is not in Afghanistan and another ‘Cold War Relic’ is, is because the Government decided to sell production slots of the Typhoon overseas, thus meaning there isn’t any spare to go to Afghanistan. Instead, another Euro project, the Tornado is providing valuable Close Air Support and ISR.

On the subject of CVF

The desire to project Britain’s military prowess across the world has led the Senior Service to dupe the Government into building two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers. But in their haste to steer the contracts through Whitehall, they overlooked vital details, such as making sure the landing deck can accommodate American fighter aircraft.

The decks have been built to accommodate the Joint Strike Fighter, the preferred option to fulfil the Joint Combat Aircraft requirement.  They haven’t overlooked anything and the JSF is made by a company called Lockheed Martin, American when I last looked and the JSF will be replacing a large number of ‘American fighter aircraft’

What he perhaps means is that it will not be equipped with cats and traps so it can accommodate certain types of American naval fighter aircraft but to characterise it as an oversight is patently absurd.

On the Army

Meanwhile, the Army has shown a marked reluctance to dispense with all the heavy armour – tanks, artillery etc – that it acquired during the Cold War, most of which is now mothballed in Germany

Some of that heavy armour is in fact in Afghanistan and proved pivotal in many recent conflicts from the Balkans to Iraq so one might have some sympathy with the Army for not wanting to get rid of something that has been used in many operations to such great effect.

I really do despair at the quality of journalism in this area, one doesn’t even need to be an expert but even the most basic level of research would allow an argument that as it’s heart, is spot on, become much more potent.

Instead, let’s just talk about Cold War Relics

Writing in the Telegraph today Con Coughlin makes a case for a strong navy, nothing wrong with that of course. We do need a strong navy but in justifying the central point he makes the following statements.

But, then, the fact that the Royal Navy can only get into the headlines these days by providing an emergency ferry service for fractious holidaymakers is indicative of just how little public attention is paid to it

By all accounts the holiday makers were far from fractious and had nothing but admiration for the way the Royal Navy and Royal Marines handled the situation. Whilst one can be forgiven a little cynicism (none more than me) about Gordon Brown showboating by sending the Royal Navy into the English Channel when the cross channel ferries were doing a good job with little fuss the movement of service personnel returning from Afghanistan is a good use of Royal Navy resources.

Indeed, its role in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has been so peripheral that many people might be surprised to discover that we still have a navy at all.

In fairness, it is not the Navy’s fault that the two major wars Britain has fought in the early 21st century have been in countries with little or no access to the sea.

As with the RAF, the Navy has been mainly reduced in Afghanistan to providing a support role for the movement of troops and equipment to and from the conflict zone. The only contribution of real note has come from the Royal Marines, who have fought heroically.

What the fcuk is he going on about. The RAF has supported operations in Afghanistan with everything from ISR, unmanned systems, transport inter and intra theatre,  vital close air support, force protection, air traffic control, logistics and dogs. Let’s not even go to the members of the RAF and RAF Regiment that have been killed or injured. As for the Royal navy, the Naval Strike Wing, provision of helicopters, support personnel, drivers, technicians, the initial Tomahawk attacks and of course sustainment via the sea bridge, without which the operation would grind to a halt. A recent MC winner was I believe a RN medic.

A quick look at the components of Task Force Helmand shows the tri service nature of the deployment.

As for Iraq, do the words Umm Qasr and the Al Faw peninsula mean anything to him.

Yet it must share some of the blame for its decline in the military rankings, given its less than impressive showing on those rare occasions when its expertise has been called upon

Although we might give the Andrew a bit of stick about iPods and running aground this is plain insulting.

Prior to the September 11 attacks, one of our most successful overseas interventions was in Sierra Leone. The aircraft carrier Illustrious made a crucial contribution: with its Harrier jets providing vital air cover for the Paras fighting on the ground. The carrier’s presence also allowed helicopters to fly troops and supplies to and from the combat zone

Mr Coughlin needs to read a bit of history, the Royal navy harrier force arrived on the scene 5 days after Lunghi Airport had been secured by 1 Para, who arrived via C130 flown by the RAF via Senegal. The Harriers did some training, a few shows of force and recce missions but were hardly instrumental in securing success. The coercive effect of the Sea Harriers might be argued as considerable but then was a show of precision and combat power from the 105mm Light Guns of 8 battery 29 Commando Royal Artillery.

Whilst the central theme of wanting a strong navy is fine the rest of the article I am afraid is complete dog toffee

]]> http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/04/msm-telegraph-23rd-april-2010/feed/ 3 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/02/msm-great-article-in-the-mail/ http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/02/msm-great-article-in-the-mail/#comments Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:07:19 +0000 Think Defence http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=2252 This is a fantastic article, excellent reporting and superb photography covering the work of the Medical Emergency Response Teams in Afghanistan.

Full credit must go to the journalist, Marco Di Lauro.

This is exactly the type of defence reporting we need more of

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1248526/The-flight-angels-saving-lives-Afghanistans-airborne-A-E.html

We can’t take any credit because the issue has been in the media for years, as Bird and Fortunes famous sketch so aptly demonstrated. The Liberal Democrats have obtained, in their own version of a scoop, information from the same place we did when our post of rank inflation hit the Internet, the DASA website.

Free and open to all.

Come on, the Times and Liberal Democrats….

Do keep up :D

The Daily Mail has a story today about the Afghanistan Operational Service Medal and how it has been awarded to civil servants operating in Camp bastion, the UK Forces Headquarters location in Helmand.

Completely misjudging the mood of the armed forces the Daily Mail launches into a condemnation of the award and uses the now common term, pen pushers.

Liam Fox, wisely decides to stay out of this one but the LibDem Defence spokesman, Willie Rennie chips in with this gem;

“It is quite offensive that civil servants should be regarded and rewarded the same as soldiers who are putting themselves in danger to fight the Taliban”

Camp Bastion has come under fire, that fire is indisciminate and many service personnel will never venture outside of Bastion either but they will get the OSM (Afghanistan)

Civil Servants may well be pushing pens and they may well not be, but it is certain that they will be under exactly the same risks and conditions of those service personnel also at Bastion.

There are more important things to be worrying about but whilst this does seem like a bit of a non story as the Armed Forces become increasingly civilianised perhaps a review might be in order.

Mr Drury, the journalist who wrote this piece might also like to have a read here or do some research on how many reporters have a South Atlantic Medal.

The mainstream media in years gone by would have had well researched and argued articles on military equipment and strategies. This kind of dumbed down sensationalised reporting that targets the MoD and hence the Government is doing no one any favours, least of all the armed forces