AP and the U.S. Department of Defense are reporting that an enemy attack on a British base in Afghanistan that killed two U.S. Marines (from Yuma) pretty much wiped out the Harrier capability stationed there.
For the loss of 14 dead attackers who didn't expect this to be anything other than a one-way mission and given the enemy's tactics, this is a good return on investment.
In what was described as a well rehearsed, well coordinated and well equipped attack, 15 enemy dressed as U.S. Army personnel destroyed 6 Harrier fighter jets--with two more being "significantly damaged"--3 refueling stations and damaged 6 aircraft hangers.
The term "hanger" are just the soft-skinned ones to protect from the elements.
The number of Harriers on an Afghanistan deployment can vary. Some deployments have been 10 aircraft. It is unknown what the total number of Harriers were on this deployment.
Basing aircraft in unpacified enemy territory always has this kind of risk. And, the more expensive the aircraft, the more bang-for-the-buck for an enemy using low-tech gear and good planning and tactics.
Previously, coalition forces in Afghanistan have suffered damaged and destroyed aircraft from enemy artillery attacks. In 2005 the UK lost one Harrier destroyed and one damaged due to a rocket attack at a base in Afghanistan. Conflicts where insurgents severely damaged opposing force's airfields include Vietnam and the recent Sri Lanka civil war.
The Marines, want to replace their harriers with the faulty, troubled and under-tested F-35.
The want for STOVL ability in a fighter jet has always been a must have for the USMC even though claims of its' over-all war-fighting benefit are dubious.
The F-35 program is in such trouble that the USMC expect to use their Harriers out to 2030.
The U.S. lead coalition has been unable to define a realistic reason that we should pay billions per year to prop up a corrupt government in a region that has no defensive value to the United States.
Afghanistan started out as a well run punitive mission and then turned toward the dark-side of stupidity by trying to nation-build a tribal culture.
With the full original reason of Operation:USELESS DIRT now realized--get Osama--coming home sooner rather than later is the smart play.
Even if defense contractors who make their money off of wasted U.S. tax-dollars in this dumb campaign continue to pressure Congress to stay the course for some future meaningless pull out date. Or, better yet, a continued effort forever.
With most of the surge troops gone in Afghanistan, protecting coalition bases--without more boots and a major infusion of loitering airpower and JTACS--will be difficult.
3 comments:
Perhaps evaluate an emergency contingency for replacement acquisition of operational Super Tucano aircraft to fill an austere-based, armed recon and light support capability? Begin training within 2-3 months with leased A-29 aircraft, on loan(?) and simulators? Option to lease/procure 6-8 additional existing operational aircraft for rushed interim service? At the very least, operational costs would likely be far cheaper and reliability higher.
Most successful enemy acion against U.S. aerial assets since December 20th, 1972 (where 8 B-52 were lost over Hanoi).
Even during the Vietnam war the NVA sappers never manages to destroy that many aircraft on the ground, and certainly never with so few men involved.
For the Marines that's the largest single-day loss of aerial assets since WW2.
Just to put it into perspective ...
The December bombing was the only thing that brought N. Vietnam to the peace tables and thus start a real end to the conflict.
Post a Comment