Warbird Information Exchange

Randy if you feel like answering or it is not classified I would like to know tactics of F-15 Afghan missions? What's the ratio of bombing to recon, etc? Is there any fighter opposition, or much ground fire? What altitude and speed is bombing done from? Do targets have to be identified just visually or is it something like a GPS point? What percentage is smart vs conventional bombs? Thanks
As for the CNN report, I had not seen it. I don't think reports of Taliban violence are any surprise. I do wonder how good a "woman" a Taliban fighter makes, since they are not supposed to cut their beards. Also I wonder if the NATO propaganda was different when the US was supporting the same guys against the Soviets?

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Not going to touch that one. Lots of bad guys would love to know the same thing, so I'm not about to discuss it here!



Nearly everything the F-15E flew in terms of missions was Close Air Support. EVERYTHING supports a specific request from a ground unit for air support. There were also what we call "Non Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance" or NTISR, which is a fancy way of saying "armed recon".

There is no aerial opposition in Afghanistan. There are plenty of man-portable surface to air missiles over there, both of Soviet and US origin. There is heavy-machine-gun anti-aircraft fire, but only if you get down below about 5,000'. I've been shot at with AK-47s and RPGs when I was down low.

Bombs can be dropped from high and fast (30,000'+ and 500 knots) all the way down to 500'. The specific tactic depends on a lot of things, including what the target is and what is around the target.

Can't get into what is required to ID a target because that is classified, but let's just say that it is intensive and there are many, many steps to the process.

Every single bomb my squadron dropped in Afghanistan (over 900 of them) was a guided bomb, or "smart bomb". Some GPS guided, some laser guided...but each one sent to the target precisely and with tender loving care. The days of "carpet bombing" are long gone.



The report wasn't on Taliban violence...the report said that NATO was going to release video of Taliban dressing as women and using kids as human shields, taking advantage of the US's adherence to Laws of Armed Combat -- which is something I mentioned earlier in this thread or another (I don't remember) about how challenging it was to engage the enemy while avoiding civilian casualties.

BTW...when you're in a shooting battle, you generally don't have time to go lift the burqua and see if the guy is wearing a beard or not. Remember, this is how women look in Afghanistan:



Here's another report of some bad guys in Iraq trying to do the same thing by dressing as a woman:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 957163.ece

Randy,

What did you mean, again? Did they ever unground the -C fleet? I thought only the -Es were cleared to start flying again.

Thanks,

John

The report was about the fighter in the burka, however, just as I wrote was also about Taliban violence. Read down the text eleven paragraphs, and there is the part about the extent of their involvement and the "brutality of the Tailban"; their words, not mine.
As for your photo of the person in the burka; it sort of gives new meaning to the phrase "don't ask, don't tell" . You never know what is under there, might be Gary Austin dressed up ready to spray Imron on his new racer. That is a nice shade of blue. But it looks like you probably aren't meeting too many of the local girls in the neighborhood bar.
Your answer pretty well covers what I was asking by "tactics". What I meant were the points you mentioned, how they bomb. I knew it might be classified, but after all the bad guys know about the tactics since they are on the receiving end. I assumed there was no air opposition, and I am surprised to learn it is all smart bombs. One thing about these modern wars, it sure has gotten expensive to kill people in 3rd world countries, from a budget standpoint. The bad guys get a lot more bang for the buck or dinar or whatever they use.
As for the NATO propaganda; to me the Taliban are kind of like a pit bull. If the beast is at a construction site or factory, it is a security dog; but if the meth dealer down the street or Michael Vick owns it then it is a vicious attack dog. I can clearly remember pro Taliban reports on TV when they were freedom fighters against the Soviets, before they bit the US hand that fed them.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Note: The Taliban and the Mujahideen are NOT the same people.

Remember that part earlier where I posted that the Taliban exploit the fact that the Western World is largely ignorant about the specific politics of the region (like people who think we're fighting 'arabs' in Afghanistan')?

Actually Mujahadin and Taliban are sort of synonimous, sort of not. The Term Mujahadin means Muslim warrior or summat like taht. THey fought in Bosnia where they were considered the most brutal of the muslim fighters (I had to deal with their leavings in my first tour there and they were as awful as you could imagine and more). While locals allowed them to fight out of desperation, the local muslims hated them for their brutality and fanatical ways. They were not, however, Afghani, but rather the same crowd you see in Afghanistan or Iraq today: foreigners taking advantage of a disruption in normal governance to advance their own fundamentalist agenda.

The Mujahadin In Afghanistan were basically Afghani fighters funded by outside interests at first. Only later were they actually infiltrated by outsiders, such as Bin Laden. And from mix of outside powerblocks and internal (Afghani) power struggles rose the Taliban, whose real purpose (I think) was simply to take over the country from the various tribal groups who had run things before. Tha Bin Laden ended up Moving Al Quieda there was not really due to mujahadin but the Taliban.

I dunno if any of that makes sense, and I've been away from the INtelligence world for a while now, but that was basically the way it was presented to me. It kills me taht we were trying to zap his ass in Somolia in 93--I did countersniper for people he trained way back then. Congress just wouldn't let us get him, due to politics as usual.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Muddy, thanks for the clarification. So Randy, I may have been confusing the "ban" with the "deen"? I thought I had seen a report some time ago pretty much that one group morphed into the other. I don't know or really recall the details. Anyway keep your airspeed up and your head down. And if you see a 6'7" person in a dress and burka, it might be your main target! Then again it might just be Dennis Rodman. Finally, I think some Americans feel the Afghan war is more valid than Iraq, in any event virtually all of us hope you guys all get back safely.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK