ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

Gunships are actually quite scary...

And as Husar say, better suited for the task in Afghanistan than any state-of-the-art jets.

Also, jets are only effective with a huge back-up, with advanced logistics and so on... Something Afghanistan lacks anyway.

Yeah, the gunships are probably the most ruthlessly effective weapons. Unfortunately in the event that the Taliban manage to get hold of one and learn to fly an Apache, say, without crashing it...

Also why any 2A arguments in the USA about revolutions against tyranny are so ridiculous and probably why any attempt to act on those arguments would yield a swift, fiery destruction of their proponents...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

They're not getting gunships, they're getting propeller-driven planes that look straight outta WW2.

---

Yes, and those propeller driven planes is exactly what Afghanistan need.

It's the perfect deterrent to low-tech ground assaults.

It has logistic issues that can cope with, well, Afghanistan...


Those propeller-driven gunships are about ten thousand procents more effective than a F-22 Raptor in the theatre it acts in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh, I see the problem. In US military lingo, a Gunship is specifically something like an Apache or a Hind. You're right, that's exactly why they're getting these propeller-driven planes. They're strong enough for counter insurgency ops, but not so strong or complicated that they'll mess it up too bad. They'll still mess it up, though.

---

Bolded part, well DOH... That's a given.

Search google images about "gunships" and you'll understand where I went wrong... In English English I believe a gunship is an aeroplane with a **** load of guns pointing outwards :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh, I see the problem. In US military lingo, a Gunship is specifically something like an Apache or a Hind. You're right, that's exactly why they're getting these propeller-driven planes. They're strong enough for counter insurgency ops, but not so strong or complicated that they'll mess it up too bad. They'll still mess it up, though.

---

UK version of gunship...

^ Looks vulnerable to MG fire.

The Iraqi army attempted to retake Tikrit, but was pushed back. The longer militants hold these areas, the more they will be able to push for negotiations. If they actually are interested in that kind of thing, that is.

All things that are not armored with significant amounts of armor are vulnerable to MG fire.

MG fire is more difficult to put on target based on the target's speed. Some aircraft are actually faster than MG bullets, making targeting a real challenge.

So yes, propeller-driven craft are more vulnerable to MG etc. fire than are fast flying jets and the like.

But you should also remember just how difficult it is to shoot ANY moving target, much less one going 400+kph.

Ground based MG rounds expended versus kills is quite a high number. Remember that these numbers are likely optimistic given reportage at the time.

In effect, yes you lose a bird every now and then, but ground based MG and small arms fire is not a serious deterrent to most aircraft and by themselves are not capable of stopping a multiple aircraft attack.

Not to forget that aiming at an airplane is relatively hard when the rockets of said airplane are exploding all around you.
Jets are usually not any/much more armored, just faster, which also makes it harder for the pilots to identify and then aim at the targets on the ground. If they have Stingers or Strelas/Iglas however, the Super Tucano may actually get into some trouble unless the structure around the engine doesn't get hot enough for an IR lock compared to a jet engine.

As for the gunship thing, the AC-130 is somewhat unique (both in having the gunship tag and its role and layout as a plane) and the google result surprises me a bit since I'm also used to a gunship being a (heavily) armed attack helicopter.

A modern jet fighter can attack from above the cloud deck and high altitudes with supreme precision - they can easily stay out effective reach of ground-based MG fire.

I was assuming that MG(s) onboard the A-29 was its main weapon; but I see now that they can carry missiles too, in which case they can be less vulnerable, depending on the distances they can launch them from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

All things that are not armored with significant amounts of armor are vulnerable to MG fire.

MG fire is more difficult to put on target based on the target's speed. Some aircraft are actually faster than MG bullets, making targeting a real challenge.

So yes, propeller-driven craft are more vulnerable to MG etc. fire than are fast flying jets and the like.

But you should also remember just how difficult it is to shoot ANY moving target, much less one going 400+kph.

Ground based MG rounds expended versus kills is quite a high number. Remember that these numbers are likely optimistic given reportage at the time.

In effect, yes you lose a bird every now and then, but ground based MG and small arms fire is not a serious deterrent to most aircraft and by themselves are not capable of stopping a multiple aircraft attack.

---

Surely if you're not worried about air superiority, the German Ju 87 is as good as it gets.

Anyone else find themselves thinking "flying gunboat" when considering the AC 130 can have a socking great artillery cannon sticking out the side of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Anyone else find themselves thinking "flying gunboat" when considering the AC 130 can have a socking great artillery cannon sticking out the side of it?

---

The downside is, if the said artillery fired, the recoil would rip the aircraft to pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

A modern jet fighter can attack from above the cloud deck and high altitudes with supreme precision - they can easily stay out effective reach of ground-based MG fire.

---

That's what the advertisements say.
If that also reflects the reality of COIN operations, why are the US developing new prop versions for COIN tasks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

I was assuming that MG(s) onboard the A-29 was its main weapon; but I see now that they can carry missiles too, in which case they can be less vulnerable, depending on the distances they can launch them from.

---

IN Vietnam the US already had Sparrows and didn't use cannons in all F-4 versions. Then the ROE demanded viasual ID of enemies and the entire range advantage went down the drain because they might have shot down a lot of friendlies otherwise. Even the F-22 has a gun now, probably because war isn't a serious of events that work out ideally in your favor. The A-10 also goes in close and employs a "machine gun", it was scheduled for retiremnt but was kept around longer because it was so very useful to have a plane that can go in close. The whole missiles from above thing works fine under certain circumstances but when your own patrol comes under fire or the enemies are well hidden, the pilots may just have to use their Mk.1 eyeballs for the engagement. Not to forget that some of those "precision" ammunitions may cost about as much as one of those little COIN aircraft per shot...

There are recoil systems for the recoil and the AC-130 is a big plane made of metal.

Anyway, I didn't mean the USA developed the A-29 but the A-67 that I linked earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Aircraft_A-67_Dragon

The manufacturer, US Aircraft Corp., is based in the USA according to their website: http://usaircraftcorp.com/contactus.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's what the advertisements say.
If that also reflects the reality of COIN operations, why are the US developing new prop versions for COIN tasks?

---

I wasn't saying that modern jet fighters are the best of the best against insurgents. It's that they can stay out of the effective range of most of the common insurgent weapons.

Those jets can still provide air supremacy. Even if they are not good at taking out insurgents one by one, they may make them wary of travelling openly in columns. They thus make the insurgents less efficient and can also help inspire hopelessness among them because of the invisible and lethal enemy they are faced with.

ISIS can transport their seized equipment openly because the hostile air forces active in the area have a limited presence behind ISIS lines. Unless you have huge numbers of them (which the Afghans won't), I don't think A-29s can give more than a limited presence (compared to e.g. F16s) - which of course is a hell lot better than no air presence at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

I wasn't saying that modern jet fighters are the best of the best against insurgents. It's that they can stay out of the effective range of most of the common insurgent weapons.

Those jets can still provide air supremacy. Even if they are not good at taking out insurgents one by one, they may make them wary of travelling openly in columns. They thus make the insurgents less efficient and can also help inspire hopelessness among them because of the invisible and lethal enemy they are faced with.

ISIS can transport their seized equipment openly because the hostile air forces active in the area have a limited presence behind ISIS lines. Unless you have huge numbers of them (which the Afghans won't), I don't think A-29s can give more than a limited presence (compared to e.g. F16s) - which of course is a hell lot better than no air presence at all.

---

I'm not sure why you are rating A-29s against the background of fighting ISIS. A-29s are sold to Afghanistan, not Iraq. AFAIK ISIS is not trying to conquer Afghanistan but Iraq.
And the whole invisible jets in the sky thing may work if your GDP is actually higher than the fuel costs of doing that as the almighty Cube already pointed out. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The bigger Drones do most of that stuff. If the Afghans sign any kind of security agreement at all, they'll get some drone coverage I would imagine.

---

For the time being, at least. Until you vote the next isolationist president into the offices of the white residence. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'm not sure why you are rating A-29s against the background of fighting ISIS. A-29s are sold to Afghanistan, not Iraq. AFAIK ISIS is not trying to conquer Afghanistan but Iraq.
And the whole invisible jets in the sky thing may work if your GDP is actually higher than the fuel costs of doing that as the almighty Cube already pointed out. :sweatdrop:

---

Just saying that if I had to choose between fighter jets and A-29s for counter-insurgency operations, I'd go for the fighter jets.

ISIS is an example from practice for the theory I wrote. This thread also happens to be about Iraq and ISIS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Just saying that if I had to choose between fighter jets and A-29s for counter-insurgency operations, I'd go for the fighter jets.

ISIS is an example from practice for the theory I wrote. This thread also happens to be about Iraq and ISIS.

---

You've missed out the other compelling argument which GC gave. Fuel and other logistical support. Without an unreasonable amount of outside aid, the Afghan state might be able to support a fleet of A-29s. It would likely not be able to support a fleet of jets. If props can do the job, an A-29 flying in the air is better than an F-22 rusting on the ground.

I wasn't arguing that Afghanistan should get fighter jets instead. The talk about fighter jets was a spin-off from my remark that the A-29 looked vulnerable to MG fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

ISIS is an example from practice for the theory I wrote. This thread also happens to be about Iraq and ISIS.

---

That's a sad excuse for being wrong on a tangential topic. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's a sad excuse for being wrong on a tangential topic. :no:

---

It's the happiest legit reason I've ever seen.


ISIS has declared a caliphate, and has also shown that they suffer from hubris:

Quote:

---

It also proclaimed the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph and "leader for Muslims everywhere".

---

Also, why this? Seems completely random:

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for the creation of an independent Kurdish state in response to gains made by Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

In a speech in Tel Aviv, he said the Kurds were "a nation of fighters and have proved political commitment and are worthy of independence".

---

Quote:

---

The international community, including neighbouring Turkey and the US, remain opposed to the breakup of Iraq.

---

Doofuses.

That makes sense. It would probably be wrong to assume that Netanyahu has even as much as a sympathetic mitochondrion in his body.

The reaction to the "caliphate" will be interesting.
It gives a material "thing" for extremist groups to use as a rallying point.
If the "caliphate" is snuffed by the US or its allies the loons will point to that as another manifestation of America's evil.

The whole thing could blow up all by itself; it is certainly not clear that anyone else is "on-board" with this will to power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Israel likes the partition idea because Kurdistan would be a secular nation and a natural ally against the more fundamentally islamic non-Kurdish states of the region. They also can't stand the fact that Maliki is so openly backed by Iran.

*And of course in my opinion, since I don't particularly care what Turkey thinks (a luxury Washington doesn't have, I guess), I also think the Partition is the only way to go. At least one halfway decent group will benefit then, at least.

---

Kurdistan will be an ethnic state - like Israel -it will be good for Kurds and bad for anyone living on "Kurdish" territory.

Although, in two generations time that may have resolved itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Kurdistan will be an ethnic state - like Israel -it will be good for Kurds and bad for anyone living on "Kurdish" territory.

---

Do you have any observations from their current semi-automous region in Iraq or statements from powerful or influential people in the region to back that up with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Do you have any observations from their current semi-automous region in Iraq or statements from powerful or influential people in the region to back that up with?

---

Comparison to modern Israel may have been a bit harsh, but the first thing the Kurds did in the current crisis was establish control over a city in the border regions after the Iraqi army fled.

Perhaps it would be better to say that a Kurdish state will be for Kurds, which means it will not be for Arabs, though they will probably be tolerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Comparison to modern Israel may have been a bit harsh, but the first thing the Kurds did in the current crisis was establish control over a city in the border regions after the Iraqi army fled.

Perhaps it would be better to say that a Kurdish state will be for Kurds, which means it will not be for Arabs, though they will probably be tolerated.

---

Can the Caliphate tolerate a Kurdish state that does not acknowledge the supremacy of the caliph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Comparison to modern Israel may have been a bit harsh, but the first thing the Kurds did in the current crisis was establish control over a city in the border regions after the Iraqi army fled.

Perhaps it would be better to say that a Kurdish state will be for Kurds, which means it will not be for Arabs, though they will probably be tolerated.

---

Supposedly, the Kurds regard Kirkuk as their real capital city. Some more background information on its seizure:

Quote:

---

Kirkuk city, which has a mixed population of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen, has long been a thorny issue in Iraqi politics.

Its special status as a disputed city was recognised in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi constitution, which called for the situation in the city to be "normalised" by:

• The return to the south of Arabs settled there by the deposed ruler
• The restoration of expelled Kurds
• A census
• A referendum on whether the province should join the Kurdistan autonomous region.

But that has never happened, and Kirkuk, as well as other disputed areas along the Arab-Kurdish ethnic fault line, have been flashpoints for friction between Kurdish forces and Iraqi government troops.

Now, the latter have melted away, leaving Kirkuk to fall into the hands of the Kurds like a ripe fruit.

---

Kurdistan would definitely solve a lot of problems in the area, but getting there would probably cause more.

Turkey will never go along with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Can the Caliphate tolerate a Kurdish state that does not acknowledge the supremacy of the caliph?

---

In a word?

No - it's like asking the medieval Pope to tolerate heretics.

It's unlikely this new Caliph will last all that long, anyway.

Who is he anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Supposedly, the Kurds regard Kirkuk as their real capital city. Some more background information on its seizure:

---

Yes, I read that article.

If Kurdistan becomes a reality there will be future wars with whatever emerges from the rest of Iraq. At current showing the Kurds are more likely to come out on top of that