PrimateBoth Clark’s and Rodriguez’s comments relate to the immense frustration NATO commanders felt due to the fact that many dual-use and civilian targets were off limits; they are not an expression of their hands being tied when it came to military targets such as the AD network.
Maybe you’re right about this. I don’t know many details behind the trouble with the ground-based air defences. I guess the leaking of an operations plan and ATOs didn’t help much, though.
The other comments are also not helping you to make a point that relates to Russian operations over Georgia.
In fact, it isn’t entirely clear what point you are trying to make.
I realize I’ve been off-topic in this thread. My posts are probably of little value for the discussion about the war in Georgia. I feel I have something to add to the “parallel discussion” about Allied Force which is running in this thread. Some people seem to think that NATO’s failures during the campaign were all due to military inability or something. I don’t think this is entirely fair given the extra challenges faced during the operation.
PrimateI see there’s quite a contest “on behalf of” NATO’s Allied Force, which has apparently become the forum benchmark for NATO air power, and the war in Georgia.
It’s no secret that NATO experienced difficulties during the campaign. I’ve included some statements from the BBC documentary Moral Combat (transcript) which may help explain a thing or two. The quotes might be a bit out of context as I’ve tried to single out only a few which I feel are important. Read the transcript for more.
LT COL CESAR RODRIGUEZ
The first phase of the -the Kosovo operation, it’ll be looked at as a failure, because we did not
employ our assets in a swift and lethal fashion, so as to bring the enemy to – to sue for peace,
in an early fashion.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK
Once you begin to use force you should use it as decisively as possible as rapidly as possible
but that is based on some prior understandings.. those understandings weren’t there.
According to Gen. Clark (ret.), NATO’s operation security was compromised during the campaign.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK
Q. On that first night did the Yugoslav regime know the targets, that were going to be?A. I think they knew the categories of targets, and I think they understood exactly what we were coming out after the first night. A – in at least one proven case, the operations plan had been given to the Serb government by an officer assigned at NATO headquarters.
Q. How do you know that?
A. This officer basically confessed to this.
Q. How damaging was that?
A. Well I think it was it was one of the factors that helped the Serbs have greater confidence that they would know what NATO was going to do.
According to the BBC:
LITTLE
We’ve learned that an internal US air force investigation conducted after the war concluded that the Serbs were being passed the highly sensitive air tasking orders. Those orders list the targets to be hit, the flight paths and the timings. Clark ordered access to the air tasking orders to be restricted.
——
LT GENERAL MIKE SHORT
I don’t wish to be impertinent but I don’t think most of our civilian leadership generally understands air power and how it should be employed.
LT GENERAL MIKE SHORT
The Serbs dictated the pace of events, they dictated the battle rhythm. They came out to burn villages when they wanted to, they hid when the weather was good. His troops had dispersed. His Command and Control capability was out in the field or in tents or in the trees or wherever they needed to be.
LT GENERAL MIKE SHORT
Q: What impact did that strategy have on his ability to carry out ethnic cleansing?
A: I don’t think it impacted him at all. Clearly all the targets that we struck – at least in my mind, that we struck in Kosovo, he had evacuated long before.
As I’ve come to understand this, there was a lack of understanding between NATO political and military leaders as well as between different governments in the alliance. The armed forces simply weren’t allowed to wage the war the way the NATO military leadership wanted to from the beginning.
PrimateSorry to bring this thread further off-topic, but as I’ve come to understand things (and as told by other forum members), the air operations were under political restraints which did affect NATO’s efficiency. The air defence issue and the altitude restriction didn’t help either.
I forgot to mention the passing of information to the Serbs from someone within NATO during the campaign (was it the Air Tasking Order for several days?), few (?) NATO FACs on the ground in Kosovo to help locate, identify and attack Serb forces, the weather and probaby a number of other things.
I guess a number of these limitations, especially the weather, will be present during any offensive air operation. The way I see it now, a number of unfortunate factors came together and made it difficult for NATO to be effective during Allied Force. Tactical bombing of troops and vehicles in the field in the Balkans has apparently not been easy for NATO. Maybe the war in Bosnia showed this as well.
Again, sorry for being OT.
PrimateThe first thing an airline will do after an incident/accident is comb through their procedures and find everything that the crew didn’t follow, no matter how small or intentional or not. From that they build a case against the crew in an attempt to minimize the inevitable lawsuits. (don’t blame us, blame them). Only after that dust settles and the official findings are delivered will the operator be obligated to change their procedures to prevent such things from happening again.
Here in the States there is a rush of interest to prevent an accident like the Colgan Q400 crash which has roots in the fatigue issue. The Colgan company has issued their “blame the pilots” statements but it has fallen a bit on deaf ear as it’s clear they pushed the limits on what is legal vs. what is safe when it comes to the fatigue issue. Not that anyone has try to justify the actions/inactions of the crew, just that some operators don’t help the situation by pushing duty and flight time limits.
One would hope that, as you stated, the first reaction would be to right a wrong. Unfortunately with money hungry lawyers out there they circle the wagons and try to deflect the blame to the crew.
What a shame. I heard about the procedure of “company troubleshooting” from a person who has experience with airlines and flight training (mainly from Europe, I think). Maybe the procedure isn’t as common as I initially thought.
I know there is considerable focus on the subjects of Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Human Performance and Limitations (HPL) during flight training, at least in some European countries. Afterall, HPL is part of the current JAR-FCL (now EASA?) curriculum for ATPL-A.
I’ve heard that some airlines in Europe conduct some sort of CRM training for their crews. I don’t know if that comes from company initiatives or requirements or recommendations made by the aviation authorities, though.
PrimateAfter such a serious mistake, I would have expected sleepless nights for weeks or months!
I’m probably picking on a figure of speech here, but I think brain damage and then death occurs after some weeks without sleep.
The guys made a mistake for sure, we as humans will always make mistakes, this is undeniable. Theirs was a rather an big one. Why did these highly experienced indiviuals make these errors? EK has changed their procedures since, is that an admission of fault within their procedures, I would say absolutely it is. Perhaps the training was at fault, or should I say lack of it!!!
I’m under the impression that many airlines/operators first have a look at their own organisations after incidents happen. “Where did we go wrong to potentially cause this?” might be a question an operator should ask itself at an early point after something like this has happened.
If I may ask about your opinion, is/was EK an exception or do many operators today have the habit of acting out against their own crews rather than searching themselves? Are there any distinct global variations when it comes to organisation and culture (leadership!) within airlines?
PrimateYou realise off course that there was pretty heavy ground fighting going on??
Nato aircraft were unable (not from a lack of trying) to prevent Yugoslav ground units from completely removing the KLA from Kosovo.
To quote Sens: their effectivness was close to zero…..they were too busy bombing decoys, hay stacks and refugee columns
Sorry to bring this thread further off-topic, but as I’ve come to understand things (and as told by other forum members), the air operations were under political restraints which did affect NATO’s efficiency. The air defence issue and the altitude restriction didn’t help either.
Some of the interviews included in the BBC documentary Moral Combat shed some light on important problems experienced by NATO leaders, planners and aircrews during Allied Force.
PrimateAFAIK, the CAPS in the Cirrus SR-series aircraft has been used with both success and failure (involving fatalities) a number of times. It (or similar systems) might be an option for other aircraft types as well in the future, but one should be aware that it does not guarantee for survival. If possible, a forced landing is often preferrable.
Regarding aircraft colour-/contrast markings; how effective are they?
After what I’ve heard, orange colour stripes often used on white fiberglass gliders have not been reported as effective.
Primatehey primate
well i do hope it is a stellite but i can’t just take there word……..
north korea……….. no…………. never
regards
ken
According to what I’ve read so far, the launch vehicle might have carried a satellite during this particular launch. A concern is that the missile that was used for this launch can also be used for military purposes.
Primatehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7982874.stm
An unidentified South Korean official told Yonhap news agency that the rocket did appear to be carrying a satellite.
If it is confirmed, North Korea will see this as a major propaganda victory, says the BBC’s John Sudworth in Seoul.
But of more concern to Pyongyang’s neighbours is the potential military use of the launch vehicle, our correspondent says.
They believe the real aim of the launch was to test long-range missile technology; specifically the Taepodong-2.
PrimateShould have put her hands around her neck and done the World a favour
Speaking of netiquette..
PrimateShould have put her hands around her neck and done the World a favour
Speaking of netiquette..
PrimateThere seems to be a fair amount of speculation and some accusations in this thread. People are free to think and say almost whatever they want, of course, but I don’t see why some people have the need to come up with unfounded accusations.
Internal and external evaluations confirm that the F-35 is the only aircraft which meets the requirements set by Norway. RNoAF fighter pilots seem to be very pleased with the choice. I trust these people. Blame me as much as you want.
PrimateWe’ll just have to wait and see.
Regardless of the cost issue, the F-35 has turned out to be the best candidate for future service in the RNoAF.
PrimateNorway, Sweden: These countries have two things in common: they have a short borderline to Russia and their economic centers are hundreds of miles of the border (different than my hometown Hamburg, which was “two tank hours” from the border). The roads are limited, any attempt of an army to travel the whole way to Oslo or Stockholm with a tank will ultimately fail, without the need for AT helicopters.
For those armies the resource is space and the limited ability of the enemy to position his forces, as he is bound to the few roads. It is easier to take out the stretched supply lines than the tanks itself. A large force of tanks several hundred kilometers off the next supply base, only connected via few (easy to interdict) roads, quickly become a liability rather than an asset on the battlefield.
You’ve got some points here, but in Norway’s case you’d want to stop an enemy invasion force as early and as far north as possible.
PrimateObjection here! The changes in the Norwegian armed forces, esp the naval forces, only make sense with Russia and the polar region in mind. Otherwise they’d just need a coast guard and could fly air-policing F-16s for the next 50 years.
It’s no secret that Norway has significant interests in the northern areas and a need for military capabilities to maintain sovereignty.
Also, as a NATO member, Norway has its obligations and thus needs to keep its blade sharp. It’s not very mighty, though, but it seems it’ll do for some missions. However, an increased demand (e.g. future missions in Africa in addition to a continued presence in Afghanistan) may require more forces (and a bigger budget).
The threat of a Cold War-style invasion from the east would probably require a lot more if Norway were to stand its ground waiting for a (delayed?) NATO response.
Officially, the Norwegian Government does not consider Russia as a current military threat towards Norway, but AFAIK, the MoD has publicly acknowledged the possibility that things might happen in the future.
Sign In
